|
|
|
|
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 7:01:41 AM | | Average simply means taking all the weights of every man, adding them up, and dividing by the number of men. It doesn't mean anything as far as any individual is conserned. People frequently confuse the word "average" with the word "normal." We should worry more about whether we are normal than if we are average. Average weight for a man who is five foot tall would be quite different from mine, since I am six-and-a-half feet tall. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 7:05:52 AM |
I have to disagree we all know at what weight our bodies are the healthiest,but as we slowly gain weight througout the years our standards lower as we have age as a contributing factor(excuse) to account for our weight gain.How many people say I am good shape for my age or I am not bad for my age,when we start doing this we lose our incentive to get back to our healthiest weight. As I have stated in a different post about weight we all rationalize being overweight by saying "I am active" "I am fit" Etc...but what does that mean?The guy on here is a perfect example..he said he can run a 6 second 40 at his weight...but most guys that are in shape run it in under 5 seconds.I am not saying this is a conscious thing but ask yourselves how many times have you limited the things that you do based on your weight? Back on topic ..sorry about that...no one likes any type of labeling especially when it makes them realize something about themselves that is unsettling like obesity. Standards and charts aren't perfect they just give you a starting point, all of you know this but many of you are in the rationalization mind set...or the delusional..accept how you are and how people see you and you will be a lot happier...if you don't like how you are change it!
You have to disagree hmm?? Based on what? Are you a doctor? Do you know that at 150 lbs you have the proper balance of fat, *yes you infact do need fat to be healthy* muscle, bone mass, bone marrow, nutritional intake, lung capacity, heart condition, etc as compared to 160lb? The answer by the way is no you don't. Further even if YOU did someone else with exactly the same height at that weight would not.
The problem with people like you etourdi is that you have no idea what healthy actually means, what the body needs to do, as opposed to what you think or want it to do. Its not that other people are rationalizing its that you are. let me explain. It is true that someone said they can run a 6 second 40 at his weight and someone else that you determine is in shape runs it lets say for roundness at 4 seconds. What infact does the speed do to prove health? Nothing at all, however lets take that example to a different path If the person who could run the 6 second 40 and the person who runs the 4 second 40 are 190 and 130 respectively and both are lets say 5'8". Both are in a car accident and impact the steering wheel at 55 mph in the chest area. Which one is likely to suffer more damage? Research is saying and showing the lighter "fit" guy why?? because he lacks proper padding for lack of a better term. Further he'll heal slower because he doesn't have enough of his own internal resources.
We spent years believing the opposite because we the medical community were looking as you are at one set of observable criteria. Turned out we were looking at the wrong one. Thats how medical science works the problem is its harder to get people to turn around their thinking. Standards and charts aren't just not perfect they are currently completely flawed and are being reworked. But its a slow process you can't wake people up over night. For years people were told fatty foods were the problem they give you cholesteral. Use transfats like margerin. Guess what, it was wrong advice the research wasn't extended long enough and they didnt observe the correct criteria. *No I am not saying run off and gourge on fatty foods* However their link to heart disease turns out to be not as strong or perhaps even existant as was once thought.
Now if the medical community can't even establish this healthy weight measurement, or even be certain how to determine what healthy is short of actual pathology how in the world do you mr etourdi going to do it? To borrow from a song "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind"
,
YOU can't. So the real bottom line is if people want to change for themselves they should. If people aren't happy with themselves they should make the changes to be happy, however, people like you shouldn't be telling anyone anything to make them feel more or less of value or health because frankly they may very well be more healthy then you are even if you run a 2 second 40 | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:02:31 AM | Didnt post that to start an argument but since you responded..let me respond in kind.
Please read my post again...
I stated that we know at what weight we are healthiest as individuals, how we look,how we feel,blood pressure,heart rate etc..(unless we never go to the doctor)
to make them feel more or less of value or health People should not determine their value based on what other people say!
The statement I made about the 6 second 40 was to illustrate the mind set that we get into, not to demonstrate fitness/health.
If you read my post in its entirety then you should have been able to ascertain the points I was making.The Way We Think Determines At What Weight We Are Comfortable And Ideal Weight Is Specific To The Individual!
I base my opinions on the fact that I have been an athlete my entire life and still actively engage in Ultimate Fighting at 42 .I understand how the body works and how to make it exceed normal parameters.(For the record I am not at my ideal weight...lol)
Your post doesnt really address the points of my post, it is just the average tirade of an overweight person trying to berate someone who offers an opinion with which they disagree. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:41:53 AM |
Didnt post that to start an argument but since you responded..let me respond in kind.
Read my post and Comprehend...
I stated that we know at what weight we are healthiest as individuals, how we look,how we feel,blood pressure,heart rate etc..(unless we never go to the doctor)
The lack of comprehension isn't on my side but yours. The problem is you do not know at what what you are healthiest as individuals. Not in how you look or how you feel. Your blood pressure or your heart rate. You think you do, as an athlete you've trained to believe you do, the fact is you don't. Medical science CHANGES ergo what you think you know isn't in fact what you know. I realize this is a hard concept to grasp but do try.
Just as you say people look in a mirror and say ohh I'm not that out of shape, or I am fit, or etc they are doing that based on three factors. Their self perceptions, their understandings of what criteria to use, and what they are given as feed back by those around them. Self perceptions as you have said and are clearly discussed elsewhere are flawed. The criteria being used is WRONG and so even the understanding of it is going to be wrong. Finally the feedback by those around them is biased as well in most cases. So if all three factors are unreliable how do you "know at what weight you are healthiest as individuals?" The answer is you don't EVER. Every individual is different and the measurement of what is healthy has not been actually determined its a guessing game for the most part and only by regular medical checkups and self monitoring will you have even a remote idea, but even then its only when a pathology occurs that you will know if you are indeed healthy or not got it?
I base my opinions on the fact that I have been an athlete my entire life and still actively engage in Ultimate Fighting at 42 .I understand how the body works and how to make it exceed normal parameters.(For the record I am not at my ideal weight...lol)
Your post doesnt really address the points of my post, it is just the average tirade of an overweight person trying to berate someone who offers an opinion with which they disagree.
Now again here's the joke etourdi you base your opinions on the fact that you are an athlete, I base mine on being a medical professional. You don't have the ground to argue with me neighbor I and others see to your health, you don't see to ours. Further being an athlete as you point out means you seek to strain your body past healthy limits it does not infact mean you are hyper healthy but quite the opposite. You don't infact understand how the body works, you know how to avoid the bodies natural states and defenses to do something extraodinary and thats not the same thing. My posts do infact address your points and clearly refute them. Nor is it a tirade my weight over or under or even correct changes nothing of the facts that what your opinion is has been disproven. Now what can disagree thats why we keep growing, we explore and we test and we learn. Your belief has been the prevailing one, people disagree it was tested, it was measured,and it was found wanting and wrong. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:49:38 AM |
The guy on here is a perfect example..he said he can run a 6 second 40 at his weight(6 secs is still great for a big guy)...but most guys that are in shape run it in under 5 seconds.
Sorry but you're full of it with that statement. The fastest guy on the team ran a 4.97 time. Guys who are thin, active and in their prime were running low 5's. In college I used to run a 4.7 time, but my life involved lifting and football. My weight isn't what limits me, it's my injuries and my age. I need to lose weight, because I'm uncomfortable with it, not because I'm not healthy or able to be active.
Under 5 secs on the 40 yard dash doesn't happen unless you've been trained or are incredible fast. Some professional athletes in speed positions, run low to mid 4's. There's a lot of technique to cut time on the 40. Your average person is lucky to run a mid 6 sec time, your average "in shape" person is lucky to run a mid 5. Without training the proper techniques, of course.
6 secs for someone that's close to 300lbs is very very very good. Professionals in the NFL at 300lbs are exceptional if they break 5 secs. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 11:36:18 AM | Darkzen...If you read my post you will see that I said that was a good time...lol.I only used that as an example of our mindset as we age no insult intended.
"medical professional'' you thoughts on the subject are interesting but what it comes down to is a difference of opinions. You have shown no definitive proof that disproves any of my opinions therefore they are still valid.
You didn't even mention what your specialty is so how can we weigh your opinion in regards to weight and overall health. Isn't the saying in regards to medical advice to "always seek a second opinion"...lol | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 12:16:52 PM |
You have shown no definitive proof that disproves any of my opinions therefore they are still valid.
Actually I have shown definitive proof. First I've already expressed how the individual and this is well documented elsewhere so I don't need to provide it is unable to accurately assess the self. So that throws out your entire comment about "knowning" what is healthy.
I and others have shown that the various charts, tables, and guidelines are invalid an mostly have been withdrawn.
And I have elsewhere but if I had to could provide here that most recent research is showing that only the most extremes of obesity show increased morbidity but that those who are at "target weight" are also at increased morbitity when compared to the overweight. This is compiled by the CDC and the AMA and still more research is now being started.
So infact you have been definitively shown and proved here and elsewhere to not know what you are talking about. As for seeking a second opinion please do, until you can dispute productively the CDC AMA findings I suggest you take a break from preaching and instead learn what is healthy as opposed to what is athletic | |
|
| |
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 1:15:25 PM | LOL etordi, what a can of worms you opened for yourself. It pays to open up history before arguing with some people.
BMI scales are certainly not the be all and end all of weight and health and they were not intended to be used all by themselves. When the NIH first recommended the BMI table it also suggested waist-to-hip ratios (now being called waist circumference), and body fat percentages. These used together will give you a pretty good estimate of health.
BMI scales are only relatively accurate for Caucasians. A large percentage of Asians with BMIs of 23 and 24 are actually at risk for metabolic disease, and their "cut off" has been adjusted to 23. See:
Body mass index of 23 or more is a risk factor for hypertension and hyperlipidemia in Japanese workers. Kawada T, et al. Percept Mot Skills. 2007 Jun;104(3 Pt 1):733-8.
Out of the three indicators, body fat percentage is the most reliable indicator of good health. In the first place, athletes, especially male athletes, can put on quite a bit of lean body mass which would qualify them as overweight or obese were it not for their body composition. There are quite a few men on this site who are well over a BMI of 30, but look like they have body fat in the single digits (you'll recognize them, they're usually not wearing shirts). A higher BMI and low body fat (in the athlete or fit category) does not put you at additional risk of metabolic disease.
On the other hand, if you have a high BMI due to body fat, there is a high probability that you will get an obesity related condition eventually. Here's the reason:
Body fat contains hormones like insulin and leptin that help regulate food intake, but once you become fat and your body has an overabundance of these hormones the "extra" doesn't cross the blood brain barrier. This is a reason why obese people get comorbid diseases like diabetes, hypertension, lipid and heart disease.
That having been said, I've yet to meet a 400 pound or even 300 pound person who wasn't fat, and didn't have some obesity related conditions. In some young people diseases like diabetes or hypertension may not have caught up with them yet, but they will certainly have skeletal problems from carrying around that amount of weight without enough muscle to support it. The more body fat, and the less skeletal muscle the more problems that person will have.
FWIW, I'm a medical journalist who writes about metabolic disease and obesity.
 | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 1:49:30 PM |
Body fat contains hormones like insulin and leptin that help regulate food intake, but once you become fat and your body has an overabundance of these hormones the "extra" doesn't cross the blood brain barrier. This is a reason why obese people get comorbid diseases like diabetes, hypertension, lipid and heart disease.
Well Alexandria_girl's got most of it right, I'm assuming she's shaving corners of details in order to keep things understandable and interesting to those who are not in the medical and science fields. She's cheating a little bit because it turns out not all bodyfat is the same it has different composition and effects depending on where in the body it is. She's discussing and focusing on the really bad stuff. Specifically that type of bodyfat that gathers in the core area. Moving right along....
That having been said, I've yet to meet a 400 pound or even 300 pound person who wasn't fat, and didn't have some obesity related conditions
This is what we call an anecdote we need to specify at this point she is talking about her experience and hers alone. I have infact met 300 lb people who are not fat. However one that I have not met but you athletes might know is Jay Cutler Mr Olympia 2006 where he competed at 286 3% bodyfat and claimed offseason weight at 310. Just as an example of why you shouldn't bother with anecdotes.
As far as 300 to 400 lb people who were fat and didn't have obesity related conditions I know a number of those too. Now when you are talking about actually fully obese people and 400 and above even closer to 320 and above there I'll agree with you and so will the data from the CDC before 320 your pushing your own agenda a bit.
In some young people diseases like diabetes or hypertension may not have caught up with them yet, but they will certainly have skeletal problems from carrying around that amount of weight without enough muscle to support it. The more body fat, and the less skeletal muscle the more problems that person will have. and here is where we are a bit closer to being accurate and on topic.. IF you do not have the body frame and the musculature *fitness* to carry a large amount of weight you are going to have problems. The less actually fit you are the less healthy you will be, this applies to everyone under average over and obese. Which is why you should see and work with your doctor and not pay attention to athletes, medical journalists, journalists in general or anyone else even me. GO see your doctor and discuss it with them. If you are heathy your doctor says your are healthy and you are happy then JUST be you.
Other then all that hmmm yea etourdi take Alexandria's advice you don't want to have these kind of debates unprepared.:) | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 2:46:20 PM | ^ ^^ Actually, I have all of it right. I didn't think this was a proper forum for discussion of adiponectin, resistin, or the dozen of other adipocyte hormones that compose body fat. And yes omental body fat causes the most problems, one of the reasons being that it compresses organs and drives up blood pressure.
In addition to Jay Cutler there are a few line-backers and tackles that are in relatively good shape (although they do tend to be higher in body fat), and rarely some others. However, in the scheme of things 300 - 400 pound people are fat, usually very fat. I don't like to encourage people to go pat a huge stomach and kid themselves that their particular 300 pounds is muscle -- 9,999 out of 10,000 times it's not.
FWIW, this medical journalist goes to see her doctor once a year so that he can sit in awe of her stellar blood work, low body fat, and high lean body mass. Then I arm wrestle him for good measure and win. 
Etourdi, now you understand what I'm saying. There's argument for good purpose, and then argument just for argument's sake or for nitpicking's sake -- not to mention throwing in a personal snipe or two.
[even the Penguin's getting a headache] | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 3:56:46 PM | | Alexandria_gal.... I'm sure you've heard of a Gentelman by the name of Mr. Shaquille O'Neil ..AKA Shaq, Big Disel.... LOL 7'1 about 325 lbs... and I can gurantee his body fat percentage is in the single digets.. and I'm sure he can out run us both LOL | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 4:10:31 PM | Hero I should caution you Alexandria is if I recall one of the "reformed" a lady who was once large herself who found the "light" and lost the weight. Therefor she has very specific views on this subject. For the most part she does genuinely want to and try to help in the conversation, but she is after all involved in the pharmacutical side of things she wants people to work on losing weight.
She is not unfortunately as objective on the matters of what constitues a healthy weight which is more about what this is about. Hence her determination that noone heavier then 300lbs could be healthy, that they must be fat, or even the consideration that even someone 300lbs could be healthy. Medical professionals however are starting to have to review data that says exactly that. Which is what my point was about. We no longer currently have reliable data that 110-180 is actually the healthy average weights. While our charts still say things like that....review of more pertient data is saying that 200-300lbs might actually be healthier. This does NOT change issues about obesity and high levels of body fat anymore then it changes those at the opposite end. Extremely obese and extremely thin are NOT healthy. Its the rest of it that is under review. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 4:59:12 PM | See a doctor, stop watching useless facts on TV.
Not all bodies are the same. My body weight at 0% body fat would be in the 190-200 range and I am 5'10" tall. I weigh in at 225 right now and feel great. 12-14% body fat at any given day.
Your facts are off. Don't believe everything you see on TV. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 5:02:48 PM |
Darkzen...If you read my post you will see that I said that was a good time...lol.I only used that as an example of our mindset as we age no insult intended.
I read your post and understand your point. I think that comment is completely flawed and gave you examples as to why.
Most guys in shape do not run a sub par 5, in-fact, a very small percentage of people on the planet run a sub par 5. After spending months in the weight room and practicing 40 yard dash techniques, I ran a 4.7 and I was very much in shape. The NFL is a tiny representation of the US (let alone the world) and not even everyone in the NFL runs under a 5. Mind you this is a person that works out daily, learns the best techniques to run a good 40 time and it's their career. Let alone some average schmoe who stays active in his spare time.  | |
|
| |
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 5:57:12 PM | Alexandria_gal.... I'm sure you've heard of a Gentelman by the name of Mr. Shaquille O'Neil ..AKA Shaq, Big Disel.... LOL 7'1 about 325 lbs... and I can gurantee his body fat percentage is in the single digets.. and I'm sure he can out run us both LOL
No doubt, lol. But Shaquille O'Neil weighs so much because he is HUGE. That is not the norm. Statistically how many people are above 7' anyway? BMI charts don't even go beyond 6'8". However, I did a BMI on him through a BMI calculator, and O'Neil's BMI is 31.6 -- in other words he's the size of a body builder (or a Mack truck, whichever you prefer). If he was 6' tall instead of 7'1" the same BMI would be 225 lbs.
We no longer currently have reliable data that 110-180 is actually the healthy average weights. While our charts still say things like that....review of more pertient data is saying that 200-300lbs might actually be healthier.
Oh dear Lord. I don't think so. A 200 lb 5' tall woman? That's how tall I am. At my very heaviest 12 years ago, I weighed 210 pounds and I could barely move. If 200 lbs was the low end of a healthy weight, I'd be dead -- and most women would be very sick.
You couldn't possibly mean that. This has got to be a typo.
My personal determination has little to do with the goal of thinness above all, but health. My BMI is 23 (120 lbs), which is the upper edge of a "healthy BMI", but my body fat percentage is 19.5 (I just had it done last week) -- that's in the "fit" category for a woman. Although I now weigh 8-10 pounds more than I weighed in high school, I'm close to the same size because of weight training and pilates.
It's not beyond consideration that someone 300 lbs could be healthy, it's just that those people are few and far between.
There are also women who are below a BMI of 19, the low end of normal weight, who are also healthy. Those women are also few and far between.
[I want a double fudge sundae!] | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 5:57:44 PM | Average is a stupid term (average is boring and unrealistic)
Really...who is "average"? But I agree that men seem to be much more forgiving with their own weight (in general) than they do with women's. Beer Bellies are just gross...period. And since men have a much easier time keeping fat off than women do I do not understand how some can get so terribly obese. Not Healthy, not Attractive. Not long for this world... look around people...there aren't a lot of really old fat people...they don't live that long.
That said..I still don't know what "average" is. I've had boyfriends who were about 5'9" and weighed 140 to 170, and were in great shape..I've also had boyfriends who were 6' or over and weighed anywhere from 170 to 225 and were the right weight for their size. Depends on bone structure and how they carry it. I am the kind of gal who gains weight when I work out, so I'm actually healthier when I weigh more (5'4" usually about 115 lbs, when I am training I weigh closer to 125lbs...it's muscle mass) It's cardiovascular fitness that is a better indicator of health...though I do think men have to really look at the amount of cholesterol they eat...sometimes it actually makes me physically sick to see someone gorge on a diet of greasy processed meats, pizza and potatoes. I can FEEL my arteries hardening just thinking about it. Plus...skin smells better with less fats in the diet...really! Anyone who's puffing after a mild hike needs to consider diet and lifestyle. Especially us "older" folk. No one wants to be saddled with someone who's going to need a nursemaid in a few years.
I might piss off the heavier people here...but I'm a people watcher... most (not all) of the overweight people I see are either not moving very fast, if at all (car to the corner store) and/or are stuffing their faces constantly with high calorie, low nutrition food. I see it all the time... large people complaining about their weight while they have a chocolate bar in their hands, or a grocery cart full of "convenience" processed food -driving a huge SUV or minivan and using plastic bags....aaaarrrggh, get a backpack and try to walk once in a while. What pisses me off the most is they look at me and say things like..."oh, it must be so nice to be skinny" um..yes, it is, but I work hard for it. I am conscious of everything I put into my body...and I still love cheescake, once in a while. I work, have a kid and still make time to get at least SOME exercise (no gym, I hate gyms..I hate diets too)
Being in good shape also means more energy, better sleep, better moods, better sex, and better self-esteem. No, everyone can't be an athlete or a model, but everyone can take some pride and care in their physical health. It makes you SEXIER. It's proven!
and Guys..please do not make comments about the ladies if your belly overhangs your belt. Thanks!
 | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 6:02:17 PM | "Both are in a car accident and impact the steering wheel at 55 mph in the chest area. Which one is likely to suffer more damage? Research is saying and showing the lighter "fit" guy why?? because he lacks proper padding for lack of a better term. Further he'll heal slower because he doesn't have enough of his own internal resources."
sorry.....I can't resist!
That's what airbags are for!!!!!
 | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:23:23 PM | Way off topic......Darkzen, I used your statement as an example, not to criticize your time. Do a search of 40 yard dash times and you will see that under 5 seconds is not abnormal for a smaller "athlete" 6 secs is good for a larger "athlete".Your statements are indicative of the point I was trying to make, that is All.
<div class="quote">In college I used to run a 4.7 time, but my life involved lifting and football. My weight isn't what limits me, it's my injuries and my age
<div class="quote">What's funny is even being out of shape, old, having an ankle injury from last season and being close to 300lbs... I still ran a 6 sec flat 40yd dash.
Fireknight,Thank you...with your well thought out persuasive opinions you have proven the other point I was trying to make. Over weight people are very adept at rationalizing and justifying being overweight. An important thing to note is that your definition of healthy and my definition may not be exactly the same. I think when you say "healthy" you mean free of sickness.I mean free of sickness , operating at max capacity and having the best quality of life.Therefore we will never agree, until we first agree on the definition of "healthy".We will also disagree based on our level of fitness. Do you really think you can be objective when discussing the effects of excessive fat on the human body?
You still haven't stated what exactly your "medical professional" status entails,what is your specialty? I think this information is relevant based on your utilization of your status as a "Medical Professional" to validate your opinions. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 9:12:25 PM |
Oh dear Lord. I don't think so. A 200 lb 5' tall woman? That's how tall I am. At my very heaviest 12 years ago, I weighed 210 pounds and I could barely move. If 200 lbs was the low end of a healthy weight, I'd be dead -- and most women would be very sick.
You couldn't possibly mean that. This has got to be a typo.
This Alexandria is why I say you tend to miss the detail and focus on your own personal agendas I said... "We no longer currently have reliable data that 110-180 is actually the healthy average weights. While our charts still say things like that....review of more pertient data is saying that 200-300lbs might actually be healthier." Meaning since the average woman in the US is 5.4 and her target weight would be listed as 108-145 and the average man in the US is 5.9 and a target weight of 125-169 in the current charts. You fall outside of the averages making your 5' 200lb moot to the conversation. The entire discussion here is what is "average" and to a second degree what is healthy. Not what is specific. I am VERY clear that for specifics one must consult their doctor. Has anyone not gotten my point on that part?? ALWAYS check with your doctor. Moving right along with the point. Current research is showing that the overweight have LESS morbity then the targeted average weight. In other words as of right now being overweight may indeed be HEALTHIER then the given target weights. Are we clear here?? We are not talking the far sides of the spectrum. We are not talking about the 5' 210lb lass who could not move. We are talking 5'4 to 5'10 people who are above the targets but NOT in the morbidly obese catagory.
It's not beyond consideration that someone 300 lbs could be healthy, it's just that those people are few and far between. Oddly enough the evidence does not support your claim. It would be more accurate to say females 300lbs are rare and I would have to agree.. but for men its actually not few and far it seems.
Not long for this world... look around people...there aren't a lot of really old fat people...they don't live that long. This one is funny, actually they do, however once you get to the higher ends of age for many reasons people lose weight. Its kinda funny to think you wouldn't realize that. Its one of the arguements about the CDC studies they are complaing that the elderly were accounting for the greater morbidity at the lower end of the BMI scale.
As for the rest of your comments Ravenstar I typically refrain from personal issues but I'm afraid I need to say this to you. Learn compassion for others, and learn to look past your bias. I'll leave it at that. While I agree with you by the way that fried and heavy fat foods are bad, just to update you turns out the Cholesterol connection was wrong and the transfats are far worse hence the recent bans. The fats are however far more caloric and therefor horrible for other reasons but.. not the ones you mention.
Finally back to etourdi
Over weight people are very adept at rationalizing and justifying being overweight. First where did you see me rationalize or justify being overweight? I haven't said word one about why I or anyone else is overweight. What I have done is indicate that YOU have NO idea what is or is not overweight. What I have done is indicate medical science is no longer sure what is or is not the "proper" healthy weight by which to guide the discussion of what is overweight. What I have said is that until such time as either or both are resolved the only ones who should be having these discussions are the Individuals and their Doctors.
An important thing to note is that your definition of healthy and my definition may not be exactly the same. I think when you say "healthy" you mean free of sickness.I mean free of sickness , operating at max capacity and having the best quality of life. See here is where you again fall into a problem when I say healthy as well all medical professionals we are talking about Free of Sickness and best quality of life. Operating at max capacity is NOT healthy *laughs* by very definition. You are not supposed to redline an engine constantly, you are supposed to be able to when the need calls for it. The problem is etourdi you want things the way you want them for YOUR outlook. You don't care about the quality of life of people. If a person who is lets say 280 is happy with themself, can dance, can run, can sing, can do all the things they want to do, Who in the hell are you to tell them they need to be something else? or that they are unhealthy? If they can keep up with you and I know many who can, what makes YOU right? That answer of course is nothing and thats the point, its not me who is justifying or rationalizing but you. How would you feel etourdi or perhaps better to say how will you feel when people start doing the same thing to you because of your age?
We will also disagree based on our level of fitness,by the way how much do you weigh? Do you really think you can be objective when discussing the effects of excessive fat on the human body? Ohhh I love when people go for this one, its SOOO much fun. Do you really thing how much I weigh has anything to do with the facts? Can I be objective when discussing it?? Absolutely why? Because neighbor my mind isn't limited by personal bias. What I am now is not what I was, and it might not be what I will be in a few years. It is simply what I am now. I have no more or less attachment to it then you do your jeans. I deal in facts, I deal in reality worrying about my own aches and pains or such is not even a part of it. So yes I can.. and excessive fat is not the same as overweight thats the point. But let me give you this for the fun of it..
Lets play pretend.. Lets say I am 500 lbs, I have type 2 diabetes, I've lost my vision in one eye, and I need a cane to walk. Is that going to change anything if you have a heart attack in the street and I;m the only one there who knows CPR? No its not. Is that going to change the fact that Alexandria can after once being 210lbs now out arm wrestle her doctor and argue with me on 30 threads? No its not. Does it change anything at all in any of the conversation? No, but you seem to think it does, and why is that? The answer is saddly simple.. Because its different then you.
You still haven't stated what exactly your "medical professional" status entails,what is your specialty? I think this information is relevant based on your utilization of your status as a "Medical Professional" to validate your opinions.
Your right I haven't said what exactly my medical professional status entails and I'm not going to because its not relevant. I have used my status to validate my understanding of the material the facts I have presented validate themselves and their scources. Justifying for your ego isn't something I need to do just as I don't need to ask or care to for your athletic qualifiers. Perhaps if and when you provide anything medical to support your arguements other then your own understanding of BMI *or lack there of* I'll consider it. Suffice that I do not choose in the day of insanity and litigation to identify anything past.. I;m in the field :) and go see your doctor for details. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/21/2007 10:29:50 PM | To be honest, I'm less concerned about what an "Average" weight is for any height. People have different statures ... meaning that a very tall man could be big-boned or he could be small-boned ... bones weigh as well.
A very tall large-boned man who is not carrying excessive weight will look bony whereas a tall small-boned man who is not carrying excessive weight will simply look fragile. Obviously, the same goes for women.
My bottom line with men ... the beer guts do not appeal to me. The man boobs that generally accompany the beer guts also do not appeal to me. For certain ... if his boobs are bigger than mine ... his weight is not even close to "Average".
We can not depend on tables like the BMI to determine appropriate "healthy" weights. Those things are bogus. I'm 5'3" and if I tried to weigh what that BMI scale says is my "healthy" weight ... I'd look anorexic. The same goes for men who might try to follow that BMI scale.
In the past, I have mostly worked with geriatric patients and we actually prefer that they have a few extra pounds ... but we're not talking about "excessively" extra ... just a few. The reasoning behind that is that if they should get sick, it won't overly tax their health to lose a few pounds.
Geriatric folks who are thin to begin with can become seriously ill and underweight in a very short time if they lose their appetite and don't eat appropriately even for just a week. I treat my geriatric patients like little babies. Their bodies are fragile and sudden weight changes can be devastating for them. Even medications have to be specially formulated for geriatric patients. Their bodes are much more sensitive than say (for example) a middle-aged person the same size.
Not to forget ... carrying around extra weight certainly impacts your bones as well. How many of us know a very over-weight person who eventually has to have knee surgery or foot surgery ... even hip replacements. Our bones are not designed to carry all that extra weight around for very long. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/22/2007 5:14:41 AM |
You fall outside of the averages making your 5' 200lb moot to the conversation.
Interesting how arguments only suit you when they support your POV. There are a lot more 5' tall women than there are 300 pound bodybuilders with 5 percent body fat, or 325 lb., 7'1" NBA basketball players, with body fat in the single digits.
A review of data does NOT suggest that average body weights of 200-300 pounds would be better. Show me the literature if you're going to make assertions like that.
Current research is showing that the overweight have LESS morbity then the targeted average weight. In other words as of right now being overweight may indeed be HEALTHIER then the given target weights.
I've seen one study that shows overweight might do better in heart surgery. Outside of that, no.
The overweight have higher incidences of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, lipid disease, arthritis and skeltal injury. Skinny people rarely have those problems.
Lets say I am 500 lbs, I have type 2 diabetes, I've lost my vision in one eye, and I need a cane to walk. Is that going to change anything if you have a heart attack in the street and I;m the only one there who knows CPR? No its not.
Really? How would you even kneel down and give someone CPR if you weighed 500 lbs? People at this weight have very limited mobility, and are lucky if all they need is a cane to walk -- and let's not discuss what kind of condition Shaquille O'Neil would be in if he were 500 pounds (since we're talking about you).
Your right I haven't said what exactly my medical professional status entails and I'm not going to because its not relevant. I have used my status to validate my understanding of the material the facts I have presented validate themselves and their scources.
Actually, if you want to represent yourself as a medical professional as evidence that you are have background to discuss a subject, you DO need to specify. However, that being said, this is an internet forum and you could really be a dog catcher for NYC and I could be a sanitation engineer for the City of Alexandria. It's not like anyone's out there checking the credentials of either of us.
| |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/22/2007 5:58:21 AM | I am a little over the height mentioned, however, I don't consider myself in the "average"category. If you look around the world, people in this country are fat. Average is considered to be average in the test group.... if most people are fat... fat is average.
I am 6'4" and weigh 200.... in comparison to "average"... I am a bean pole. | |
|
| Do men just not know what really constitutes an average weight?
Posted: 9/22/2007 10:33:39 AM | | I'm 6'4". I weigh 220 lbs. The Army says my max weight should be 212 lbs. I constantly fail the armys weight standard, but pass he boy fat standard (having less boy fat). However, people have different frame sizes, I am built like a line backer, and my body is meant to carry more weight. So avg weight is alot of BS. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
