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.

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Addictr3 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:27 pm

toofat wrote: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:


Pretty much the whole Codex Alimentarius theory..

Google it for more information..
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

by BNA » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:44 pm

BNA
 

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby toofat » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:44 pm

sounds alarming untill I read the SkepticProject views
my comment came from things like FAST Food Nation book in which old stored dubious quality potatoes had to be made tasty which was originally done by deep frying in lard, when this became unpalatable from a health perspective, the boffins were able to replicate the taste using chemicals
Image
toofat
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:38 am
Location: East Victoria Park,Perth

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby sogood » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:57 pm

Ozkaban wrote: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?

Are you suggesting that we are being grown to be fed to the starving Martians? :mrgreen:
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 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:41 pm

wombatK 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. 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


I do not envy the clnicians. Clearly the job when discussing BMI and so on must be very difficult. I noted in reading through this a poster mentioned he was 184cm and 89kg (I think) and this is considered overweight. This proves my argument of it's own and needs to be taken into account. The poster states he is solidly built. To this I respond, no you are not. I am solidly built and have been since I started to breath air. I was 1m tall before I was 3 years old and am currently 1.85m and horror of horrors I am a measly 114 kg. By this index I am so overweight as to be probably morbidly obese. Now if I put this in perspective and tell you my chest measurement relaxed is 124cm and my stomach measures about 109 cm you start to get a much better picture. Either I have a fat chest or something is going on that is not relevant to this statistic. For a clinician, let alone a doctor, on first meeting to suggest I am overweight due to some arbitary index is ridiculous. By the way I swim about 3 kilometres an hour three times a week.
Image
dynamictiger
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: Victoria Park, WA

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby speciallezed » Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:50 pm

BMI is a benchmark and probably applies to 95% of the population. There will always be those who are large but not fat and small but not anorexic.

My personal experience with BMI:
By the time I was 18 I was about 95KG, at 177cm tall I was obese on the BMI scale. I was always a stocky lad so poo pooed BMI, I never thought I could be 78KG and with in my “healthy BMI” weight range. Over the years I got up to 106KG probably pushing morbidly obese by that time and I decided to do something about my weight. Over the last 3 years with the help of my trusty bike I have lost 27KG and am with in sight of a “healthy BMI” for the first time in my adult life.

5 years ago if you asked me what I thought about the BMI scale I would have said it was total garbage. Now with at least another 5 or 6 KG to lose I believe it is a very good guideline for body weight.
Image
speciallezed
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:28 pm
Location: Jane Brook WA

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:58 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.

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?


Researchers do not just use the 25% currently favoured in Oz and many other countries. It is just a one-size-fits-all that is currently the focus of the popular media and, with them, us. Southern Italians may be just as well off with a higher BMI so some analysts would adjust for that.

I don't doubt that BMI is crude but it has the benefit of ease and cost. Every measure that anyone will come up with will be questionable as they are ALL a proxy for something else we are interested in. For example, the only perfect measure to predict the likely effect of current diet on levels of diabetes in the future will be to test everyone in twenty years time. Then we will never KNOW the future but by then the future has become the past and of no value to policy makers at this time. And, of course, even with, a better and costlier measuring stick that us only marginally better, analysts then still have to contend with other confounding variables. Sort of reduces the value of incrementally better measurement.

There is room to reconsider some of the things that we do use BMI as a proxy measure for. Waist to hip ratio is being used a lot now as an indicator of risk of coronary stress for example.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4942
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Bec26 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:13 am

From another thread . . .. http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=48397

rkelsen wrote:
doggatas wrote:The perception of body shape and appearance has become somewhat distorted.


Yes. And Augustus Gloop is your proof:

Image


Says it all I reckon!!

Cheers
Image
Bec26
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Abby » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:31 am

Just remember that BMI is just a useful tool, not a be all & end all.

Used properly, it's just an indicator to look at something further. For example - if you had a bunch of people who were wondering if they may need to lose weight, you could say - "if your BMI is above 25, you may be overweight"...

THEN, if used properly, when you see the individuals who are >25 BMI, you can go further. Some may come in who are clearly obese, and you can proceed 'normally'. Others may come in, who are body-builders, or elite athletes where a much more muscular build is required - then you say "well, clearly BMI isn't appropriate to you - let's talk about the unique needs of your sport/body".

The error that is made too often is "high BMI = obesity". More correctly, "high BMI = possible indicator of obesity" - a big difference between the two, but as always people are too black-&-white about things...

Cheers,
Abby
Abby
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:41 am

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby PawPaw » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:40 pm

"Obesity assessed by waist–hip ratio is a better predictor of Cardiovascular Disease and Coronary Heart Disease mortality than waist circumference, which, in turn, is a better predictor than BMI. The recognition of central obesity is clinically important, as lifestyle intervention is likely to provide significant health benefits."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_11_011203/wel10182_fm-1.html
User avatar
PawPaw
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:53 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby wombatK » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:56 pm

PawPaw wrote:"Obesity assessed by waist–hip ratio is a better predictor of Cardiovascular Disease and Coronary Heart Disease mortality than waist circumference, which, in turn, is a better predictor than BMI. The recognition of central obesity is clinically important, as lifestyle intervention is likely to provide significant health benefits."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_11_011203/wel10182_fm-1.html

Yes but the definition of measuring the waist and hips needs to meet a definition that isn't
easy to follow - especially for someone who would like to live in denial...
Waist circumference was measured around the narrowest point between ribs and hips when viewed from the front after exhaling. Hip circumference was measured at the point where the buttocks extended the maximum, when viewed from the side.

Particularly the "buttocks extended the maximum" was not my previous understanding of the hip measurement, and if
you have a fat backside you might not measure its maximum.

The measurement really needs an objective second person to "view" and measure the subject. Measuring your BMI is
much simpler.
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 KonaCommuter » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:11 pm

For a long time I was in denial about my weight. One day I caught my reflection in all it’s glory in a window :(
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby waramatt » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:25 pm

If I could only find a flux capacitor, a crazy doctor and a De Lorean, I could travel back to 1926 and slap a GPS unit on the average guy or gal. I could also install a video camera on the dining room table to see what they're eating, since most of their meals would be eaten with the rest of the family at said table.

Sure as eggs we'd find that they moved a lot more (of their own accord) and ate not only less, but better, and it would be mostly home cooked.

So in short they moved more, ate better and there was almost a total lack of labour saving devices like cars, washing machines, even electric can openers (we are tragic).

We're moving less and eating more than every generation before. Where's the surprise?
Image

Giant TCR Adv 0 Di2
SE Draft Lite SS
Felt Dispatch SS
Surly Cross Check CX
Fuji Nevada 3.0 MTB

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
H G Wells
User avatar
waramatt
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:52 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby hartleymartin » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:31 am

Ozkaban wrote:

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


I'm well and try stuffed at 188cm and 110kgs! I was 118kg at Christmas - just lost 8 kgs in about as many weeks too!

I've been looking into it and there is a growing use of the height to waist ratio being used as a more accurate measurement compared to BMI. Essentially, your waist should be about half your height (for men) - there are different ratios recommended depending on various factors such as age range, gender and ethnic background (eg Islanders can be larger and still be healthy, but Asians should be thinner) This leaves me in a real conundrum being 9/16 Asian, 1/4 East European and 3/16 West European!

Unfortunately, I don't think that we have waist measurement data from 1926 to make comparisons.
Last edited by hartleymartin on Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Martin Christopher Hartley

http://raleightwenty.webs.com - the top web resource for the Raleigh Twenty
http://madmartysblog.blogspot.com - my cycling adventures
User avatar
hartleymartin
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Old Toongabbie, NSW

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby hartleymartin » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:36 am

The article also talks alot about charging people according to their weight for airline flights. I can see this causing people to risk their health by rapid weight loss or dehyration in attempts to save money. It also hardly seems fair, considering that (although I admit to being a bit overweight) I am 188cm tall and 110kg, whilst my sister is about 160cm tall and a bit under half my weight. You'd be essentially penalising someone for being big and tall. This could later turn into a racism issue with islanders being typically much bigger people for example.

This wouldn't be too far off what used to happen in the early days of airline travel when you were charged according by you AND your luggage being weighed together. Perhaps this would act as an incentive to pack less?
Martin Christopher Hartley

http://raleightwenty.webs.com - the top web resource for the Raleigh Twenty
http://madmartysblog.blogspot.com - my cycling adventures
User avatar
hartleymartin
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Old Toongabbie, NSW

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby PawPaw » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:28 am

hartleymartin wrote:This wouldn't be too far off what used to happen in the early days of airline travel when you were charged according by you AND your luggage being weighed together. Perhaps this would act as an incentive to pack less?


It would be interesting to know what % fuel comprises of an airline's overheads. I doubt it would be more than 15%.
Interest on capital equipment, depreciation, costs for buildings and airport, ground and plane staff, and advertising, would not be sensitive to customer bodyweight.

The overweight and heavier races may complain about discrimination, but the rest could equally complain that they should not have to subsidize these people.
User avatar
PawPaw
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:53 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby dynamictiger » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:50 am

Shouldn't we go all out and charge by the cubic metre. Surely that is much fairer. After all some of us are very tall and would weigh less yet take up more room.

Then we could insist on seats that fit us too :P
Image
dynamictiger
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: Victoria Park, WA

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby rkelsen » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:17 pm

hartleymartin wrote:I'm well and try stuffed at 188cm and 110kgs! I was 118kg at Christmas - just lost 8 kgs in about as many weeks too!

I've been looking into it and there is a growing use of the height to waist ratio being used as a more accurate measurement compared to BMI.

Congrats on the weight loss to date. Keep it up.

Here's the thing about BMI: It is accurate for 80% of the population. If you're not an athlete, then it will be an accurate estimator of your body fat percentage.

People always try to dismiss it because it often yields an answer that they don't like, but the fact is that you are squarely within it's target market, HM.
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:04 pm

PawPaw wrote:
hartleymartin wrote:This wouldn't be too far off what used to happen in the early days of airline travel when you were charged according by you AND your luggage being weighed together. Perhaps this would act as an incentive to pack less?


It would be interesting to know what % fuel comprises of an airline's overheads. I doubt it would be more than 15%.
Interest on capital equipment, depreciation, costs for buildings and airport, ground and plane staff, and advertising, would not be sensitive to customer bodyweight.

The overweight and heavier races may complain about discrimination, but the rest could equally complain that they should not have to subsidize these people.

Fuel is not an overhead - it is a direct cost, just as is the cost of the pilot and flight crew is, the cost of the food and beverages and so forth. As soon as you acknowledge that airlines do not easily make a profit these days (which appears to be the case with proft being the exception toth e rule in recent years) then fuel cost is not to be dismissed lightly.

Cutting the starting fuel load is one way of reducing the rate of using fuel. I fear that we wil see more and more cases of flights becoming dangerously low on fuel as they approach destinations. As has been reported recently in the media.

AIRBORNE (Direct Cost)

According to International Civil Association Organization, the average direct operating (airborne) cost of a B 747-400 in the year 2000 was $6,761 per hour. That included $2,620 of fuel costs and $4,141 other costs (see 1). In 1999, the average direct operating (airborne) cost of a B 747-400 was $6,455 per hour, according to the statistics published by the Air transport Association of Canada (see 2). Still, another study by the Stanford University revealed that the airborne cost of a B 747-400 in the year 2000 was $22.58 per nautical mile (see 3).

I venture that since that time fuel costs have risen astronomically compared to other prices and if so then the proportuion of fuel to other in-air costs will have risen a lot though newer aircraft are supposed to be greatly more efficient than the technologically old 747s.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4942
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: 1926-2008 72 to 85kg

Postby Petee » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:14 pm

its because of two main reasons:

1. People are taller nowadays
2. People used to be more fit back then and had healthier food, there was no crap like maccers back then and people used to work more and move around more. Now most people are couch potatoes.
Petee
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Sydney

Previous

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