1926-2008 72 to 85kg

I'm not a doctor but… 
Cycling injury, recovery and health issues.
Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.

1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:52 pm

Just read a news article that reported b/n 1926 to 2008, the average weight of Aust male increased from 72 to 85kg. Female increased from 59 to 71kg.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-heav ... 1puti.html
(7th paragraph)

How much of these increases are fat versus muscle bulk? The average is no longer slim 59 and 72kg couples. :roll:
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

by BNA » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Strawburger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:11 pm

it would be interesting to know how average heights have increased or decreased to compare with those weight gains.
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)
User avatar
Strawburger
 
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby im_no_pro » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:25 pm

Strawburger wrote:it would be interesting to know how average heights have increased or decreased to compare with those weight gains.


beat me to it...
master6 wrote: Moderators are like Club Handicappers; I often think they are wrong, but I dont want the job.
User avatar
im_no_pro
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Geelong

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:48 pm

^ Wot they said. BMI would've been better.

One thing bothers me though. Why use 1926 as a starting point? Surely most of the "gain" would have occurred since 1970? Using 1970 would certainly put it into a more modern context, considering that the article discusses the fuel economy of jet engines...
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:57 pm

BMI is utterly useless just saying. I know plenty of people with six packs and BMIs in the 30s.

I would say for guys it is more fashionable to be muscly now as opposed to ever 30 or 40 years ago.
Image
vander
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:35 am
Location: North Strathfield, NSW

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby ozdavo » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:05 pm

This article in the Australian, seems to use the same research, but gives more info, including associated average heights...
1926 - male - 174cm - 72kg
2008 - male - 178cm - 85kg

*note the article is from 2008, seems the SMH is short on new things to publish!
Always looking for new rides & ride partners in SE QLD area
User avatar
ozdavo
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Gold Coast (nth)

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:14 pm

vander wrote:BMI is utterly useless just saying.

Yeah. What would the World Health Organisation know??? :roll: :lol:
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:15 pm

I would also be somewhat interested to know how central tendency has changed. Observationally I would guess that it has decreased significantly which means that the situation is afr worse than simply indicating the an average or a median value does.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4937
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:44 pm

vander wrote:BMI is utterly useless just saying. I know plenty of people with six packs and BMIs in the 30s.

I would say for guys it is more fashionable to be muscly now as opposed to ever 30 or 40 years ago.


It is primarily a tool to be applied to populations rather than individuals despite the new-age application of it to personal health.

It is certainly not useless, it is just not perfect.

As a cautionary tale on stats however. A few years back the US media and other narrowly informed commentators decried an alarming increase in obesity rates in the US. They had noted an alarming increase in the number of people reported as being obese in a fairly short time. What they failed to understand is that the US had recently adopted a new benchmark for obesity, moving the target from 28% (from memory) to 25 in line with other countries. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4937
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:50 pm

I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme. According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg. My response to him was that's very nice doctor...can you please tell me what happens when I turn 11.

I was so curious as to why this was so far out I researched into where it came from and discovered it was derived in Belgium before my country of birth was discovered. Logically this leads to a thought process with the logical conclusion of how could something invented in Europe where the winters are harsh and the population largely lived on turnips apply to a modern country where foods are varied and plentiful and winters comparatively mild (meaning we are more active etc).

For the same reason comparing 1926 to 2008 is verging on ridiculous. There was a depression on, people were unemployed and many missed meals etc. So what has that got to do with 2008?
Image
dynamictiger
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: Victoria Park, WA

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:01 pm

BMI is only used because it is easy to do that is it. It tells you little information at all. Any person in any health profession that knows anything knows this. Seriously a tape measure around the waste is much better.
Image
vander
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:35 am
Location: North Strathfield, NSW

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Addictr3 » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:58 pm

sogood wrote:Just read a news article that reported b/n 1926 to 2008, the average weight of Aust male increased from 72 to 85kg. Female increased from 59 to 71kg.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-heav ... 1puti.html
(7th paragraph)

How much of these increases are fat versus muscle bulk? The average is no longer slim 59 and 72kg couples. :roll:


Doesnt surprise me. I was speaking to my uncle on the weekend about just this topic, he is 84. He was saying a lot more people rode bikes, walked et etc. Nowdays people will drive almost anywhere no matter the distance. Plus eating habits have changed a lot. How many families nowdays sit together for a meal at dinner, I dont know the stats but I would say half of what used to.

TV also would play a huge role too, look at how many ads there are on that damn box about food, usually crap too.

BMI is what it is, usually if you are overweight, no real point doing a BMI test, as you already know your overweight lol, thats my theory anyways. Bodybuilders are usually in the 30s, i'd say most Rugby players too.
If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough.
User avatar
Addictr3
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:26 pm
Location: Manly, Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:28 pm

dynamictiger wrote:According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg.

And you're questioning your doctor? There's a reason he/she has that title, you know. ;)

BMI isn't perfect, but the simple fact is that it works for 80% of the population. If you're not an athlete, then you should probably count yourself in that 80%.

If it wasn't relevant or applicable to the majority of the population, then why would doctors continue to use it?
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:33 pm

dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme...

Not really. BMI is used at the individual level in clinical practice all the time, and mostly correct. Fact is, the great majority of people aren't muscle builders. So it's a useful tool.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby simonn » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:38 pm

vander wrote:BMI is only used because it is easy to do that is it. It tells you little information at all. Any person in any health profession that knows anything knows this. Seriously a tape measure around the waste is much better.


The normal range for my height spans ~19kgs. Thats > 23% of my current body weight.
The overweight range for my height spans ~11kgs. Thats > 13% of my current body weight.

Quite a bit a margin of error, no?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:40 pm

rkelsen wrote:If it wasn't relevant or applicable to the majority of the population, then why would doctors continue to use it?

The clinical angle to note is that, hunky body builders and rugby players aren't associated with longevity. When they stop their routine in age, that bulk starts to turn into fat. In due course, they'll be in health troubles. For doctors, health objective for their patients is to be physiologically "fit enough", not to be a gold medal winner within the population.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:53 pm

sogood wrote:
dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme...

Not really. BMI is used at the individual level in clinical practice all the time, and mostly correct. Fact is, the great majority of people aren't muscle builders. So it's a useful tool.


My point exactly...I am built more like a rugby player or body builder than an overweight person. I was taller than my parents and heavier in primary school.
Image
dynamictiger
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: Victoria Park, WA

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby simonn » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:49 pm

dynamictiger wrote:For the same reason comparing 1926 to 2008 is verging on ridiculous. There was a depression on, people were unemployed and many missed meals etc. So what has that got to do with 2008?


Actually, 1926 was a boom time. The Great Depression started in 1929. Comparing 1926 to 2008 may end up being reasonably accurate given another couple of decades to look back on it.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 pm

rkelsen wrote:
dynamictiger wrote:According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg.

And you're questioning your doctor? There's a reason he/she has that title, you know. ;)

BMI isn't perfect, but the simple fact is that it works for 80% of the population. If you're not an athlete, then you should probably count yourself in that 80%.

If it wasn't relevant or applicable to the majority of the population, then why would doctors continue to use it?


Not at all. BMI is quite bad at detecting a level of health of a person. Even calipers arent very good as they measure subcutaneous fat which is only loosely linked to health problems. Visceral fat is the true indicator of future health problems and often subcutaneous and visceral fat levels are very different. This is where a tape measure can actually be quite handy especially if used with calipers. If my doctor baised everything on BMI I would be finding a new doctor. Doctors arent infallible and from what I hear from people doing medicine is they actually dont get enough training in a lot of things and exercise and nutrition are one of those things they just get the bare minimum in.
Image
vander
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:35 am
Location: North Strathfield, NSW

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby simonn » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:39 am

vander wrote:Not at all. BMI is quite bad at detecting a level of health of a person. Even calipers arent very good as they measure subcutaneous fat which is only loosely linked to health problems. Visceral fat is the true indicator of future health problems and often subcutaneous and visceral fat levels are very different. This is where a tape measure can actually be quite handy especially if used with calipers. If my doctor baised everything on BMI I would be finding a new doctor. Doctors arent infallible and from what I hear from people doing medicine is they actually dont get enough training in a lot of things and exercise and nutrition are one of those things they just get the bare minimum in.


While this is all true, am I more likely to have more or less visceral fat if I lose weight and therefore have a lower BMI?

If doctors struggle to measure visceral fat, how can I really do this at home? Even a dumbo like me can measure my height and weight and notice if I am out of breath I get walking or cycling and/or that I have a muffin top. I can do this everyday without needing an appointment. Sure, it is not as good as having a group of trained professionals on call, but I do not have that luxury. In summary, BMI is better than nothing as a pie gauge guestimator, I'd argue it is the best easy tool I have.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby wombatK » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:02 am

dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme. According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg. My response to him was that's very nice doctor...can you please tell me what happens when I turn 11.

Clinicians often find pateints rejecting their suggestion that they are overweight - and offering
all sorts of reasons why their BMI isn't to be relied upon.

If BMI is so laughable, please share with us what you think is credible. Later you suggest...
dynamictiger wrote:I am built more like a rugby player or body builder than an overweight person. I was taller than my parents and heavier in primary school.

So what is a credible method of measuring that you are built like a rugby player or
body builder ? How is a clinician going to measure that you were taller and heavier than your parents
in primary school ? BMI accounts for both terms quite well, but maybe you've got something
better and less easily denied by those who are difficult to persuade.

There is a strong correlation between the population statistics showing that average weights are increasing and the rising rates of diabetes, coronary disease etc.,. So there's every reason
to acknowledge it, and seek to address why we are getting overweight before the health system
collapses under the burden of treating too many of its consequences.

Cheers
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5358
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby skull » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:40 am

Actually BMI measure is good at what it is intended to do. It is to determine if you are overweight or underweight in relation to your height. Even if you are muscle and have a low body fat % if you are overweight to your height then the BMI measure will let you know this.
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1719
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Ozkaban » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:41 am

wombatK wrote:Clinicians often find pateints rejecting their suggestion that they are overweight - and offering
all sorts of reasons why their BMI isn't to be relied upon.


+1 on this.

As soon as someone mentions BMI, there are heaps of people who find individual examples as to why it doesn't work. If you are a body builder, or a rugby prop, then chances are you know a lot more about your body condition than most people. Most people who don't like BMI are those who ought to pay more attention to it. Sure it isn't 100%, and sure there are exceptions, but it is a good general rule and does apply to most people.

For what it's worth, I'm 184cm and 87kg, so BMI says I'm overweight. I don't like it, and I am and always have been a more solid build than others, but losing 3kg puts me in the normal range, and that's one of my goals (that keeps slipping :roll: ).

Cheers,
Dave
Ozkaban
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Ozkaban » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:20 am

Actually just had a thought. Farmers, et al. have spent the last however long trying to come up with ways of growing food (animals and crops) bigger and faster than before, and have succeeded admirably. Why are we now so surprised that it is having the same effect on people?
Ozkaban
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby toofat » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:51 pm

and chemists have spent the last 20 years making poor quality food look good and taste addictive
and marketers have spent the last 20 years convincing us that if we eat this junk food we will be cool, attractive and sucessful :roll:
Image
toofat
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:38 am
Location: East Victoria Park,Perth

Next

Return to Cycling Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers