Pop makes you fat.

[Jack]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

How would you do that?

[hoofbeats]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

Exactly what I've always wondered. According to a standard weight chart, I'm extremely obese

Your weight really doesn't tell you much. A more accurate measure of how healthy you are is to find out your percent body fat, though it is more difficult to measure.

[Martin Milner]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

How would you do that?

I guess he'd have to stand there twice as long.

Even my doctor doesn't agree with the height/weight charts. I know what feels like a healthy weight for me, and though I'm overweight now and looking to lose a few pounds over the summer, I know I'd be very underweight if I was "on the line" on the chart. I dropped to 158 pounds a couple of years ago, and my ribs were protruding - and according to the chart I was still overweight.

Peeplj and others are right that it's not a simple formula, and metabolic rates vary, but Telegram Sam did mention that. I find when I'm feeling fitter, I burn up more calories even if not exercising, and can eat more and still lose weight.

One problem in today's society is the sedentary lifestyle that is forced on so many of us. In an office job it's hard not to be sitting still for at least 6-7 hours a day.

[Flyingcursor]

Paraphrase: standardized charts = idiotic

I couldn't agree more. I had a problem with this with my youngest daughter when she was a baby. She ate like a horse but didn't gain weight the way the charts said she should and the pedipods basically accused us of starving her. I still say hanging was too good for 'em.

[peeplj]

The current height / weight charts are based on studies done by insurance companies in the 1950's.

By the way, those same studies did show something interesting: when the original data was looked at, it was found that the highest levels of mortality weren't found at either end of the spectrum, among the very fat or the very thin: the highest levels of mortality were found among those whose weight changed suddenly in either direction.

Somehow this fact, which seems to me to be an extremely important thing to know, always gets omitted when you discuss these weight charts with physicians, although they are aware of it and will admit to it when pressed.

--James

[missy]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

How would you do that?

I don't know either Cran - but I want to be around him when he does!!!!

[Tyler]

honestly....and I know no one here wants to hear this....
beer makes you fatter than soda ever will........

I'm not one who does or doesn't want to hear it, but do you have any evidence for this (do you mean it literally for that matter)? Beer has about as many calories as soda, so I don't know why it would make one fatter. It was believed for a long time that beer had a preventive effect on cardiovascular disease because beer drinkers have a lower incidence of it than the populous as a whole. The lower incidence of heart disease was known long before the red wine fad hit, and is still accepted. I suspect that if beer drinkers as a whole were heavier, they wouldn't have a lower rate of heart disease. If you believe the epidemiologists, the likely explanation is that beer drinkers get more exercise than others, plus they tend to stress less. I dunno that you can really tease out which causes which, though.

To be honest, I was just going on personal experience. Back when I was a big beer drinker I had a much harder time keeping weight off (I avoided soda like the plague back then for athletic reasons, the carbonation, and whatnot, as I was playing ice hockey in college) than after (when I consequently became less uptight about soda).
::shrug::
I just thought there must be a reason they call it a "beer gut" instead of a "cola gut." (however if you read the wikipedia page on beer bellies it says there is no certifiable link between been consumption and beer bellies. It also says

Even heavier beers carry less energy per glass than sugared cola drinks

boy have I been hoodwinked! I gotta switch back to more beer!!!

[Tyler]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

How would you do that?

I don't know either Cran - but I want to be around him when he does!!!!

He could quite easily if he's related to Triplicate Girl, or if he knows Michael Keaton!

[Wanderer]

what gets me are the seemingly arbitrary height to weight charts. Who decides those things anyway? I saw one awhile back that said I should weigh around 195 lbs. Yeah, right! If I got that thin I would have to stand twice in the same spot to throw a shadow.

These things are total bunkum.

When I was in the Navy, I had 3% body fat (dangerously thin) and a 26 inch waist. I also worked out every day, and had a lot of mass in my legs from kung fu (I typically leg-pressed 370 lbs daily with each leg). I weighed 190 lbs, which pegged me at overweight on these stupid charts.

Once I got strep in the Navy, and went to the doc. The lt. there measured my height, took my blood pressure, and weighed me in. When he saw that I was close to 200 lbs, he eyeballed me up and down and just said "Where??"

I won't tell you what I told him

[Wombat]

It's the same argument that they use to justify punitive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Spelled out, I think it goes like this. People will use less of a product if it costs more. We are therefore discouraging unhealthy habits by forcing the price up on everything that is bad for you. ....The people who do this to us are our elected representatives. Why do we put up with it?

There's also the argument that the public health costs associated with unhealthy behavior need to be funded somehow, so why not let the users of unhealthy products bear some of the cost of that in the form of taxes? With alcohol and tobacco there are pretty clear links to disease, though there seems to be good level of alcohol use, which there isn't for tobacco.

Carol

That's quite right. I overlooked that.

Setting aside Walden's concerns, I wonder just how far we can tell where our taxes are going. That argument could only justify punitive taxes if they were clearly going into health care, and only health care, over and above what we would need if nobody smoked or consumed soft drinks or alcohol. Of course we can't really say where any particular dollar is going any more than we can introduce someone to the family with 2.5 kids.

I'm well aware of course that you are just drawing attention to the argument and not endorsing it. I certainly share Walden's concerns.

[GaryKelly]

honestly....and I know no one here wants to hear this....
beer makes you fatter than soda ever will........

I'm not one who does or doesn't want to hear it, but do you have any evidence for this (do you mean it literally for that matter)? Beer has about as many calories as soda, so I don't know why it would make one fatter. It was believed for a long time that beer had a preventive effect on cardiovascular disease because beer drinkers have a lower incidence of it than the populous as a whole. The lower incidence of heart disease was known long before the red wine fad hit, and is still accepted. I suspect that if beer drinkers as a whole were heavier, they wouldn't have a lower rate of heart disease. If you believe the epidemiologists, the likely explanation is that beer drinkers get more exercise than others, plus they tend to stress less. I dunno that you can really tease out which causes which, though.

To be honest, I was just going on personal experience. Back when I was a big beer drinker I had a much harder time keeping weight off (I avoided soda like the plague back then for athletic reasons, the carbonation, and whatnot, as I was playing ice hockey in college) than after (when I consequently became less uptight about soda).
::shrug::
I just thought there must be a reason they call it a "beer gut" instead of a "cola gut."

Certainly on this side of the pond there are those who'd think nothing of drinking 12 pints of beer in the space of a few hours of an evening. But very few of them, I suspect, would contemplate drinking 12 pints of orangeade or 7-Up.

So while beer may be as or less fattening than a 'soft drink', the quantities generally knocked back by an adult drinker are, I suggest, somewhat greater for beer than for fizzy pop. Which is of course why beer's taxed a lot more over here than soft drinks. Having said that, though, you'll likely pay more for a soft drink in a pub than for a beer, and certainly a lot more than you would if you bought the same soft drink in a supermarket or newsagent's.

[lilymaid]

I've never really understood the point of drinking carbonated sugar water, myself, in all honesty.

[Tyler]

I've never really understood the point of drinking carbonated sugar water, myself, in all honesty.

The carbonation makes it tickle, and the sugar water....


well, what more is ther to say?

SUGAR yum!

[chas]

The current height / weight charts are based on studies done by insurance companies in the 1950's.

By the way, those same studies did show something interesting: when the original data was looked at, it was found that the highest levels of mortality weren't found at either end of the spectrum, among the very fat or the very thin: the highest levels of mortality were found among those whose weight changed suddenly in either direction.

Somehow this fact, which seems to me to be an extremely important thing to know, always gets omitted when you discuss these weight charts with physicians, although they are aware of it and will admit to it when pressed.

Sometimes I wonder if "medical research" is an oxymoron (just kidding). AFAIK, the current body-mass index is based on an analysis of mortality data done about 15 years ago. The data may have been from 1950's actuarial data. So they find that life expectancy is related to the ratio of the square of your height to your weight. They claim that body type is irrelevant, sex is irrelevant, that this ratio is the only thing that matters. So they publish this table that has no scientific basis whatsoever. As James points out, they ignore the fact that sudden gains and losses are more important. Allen Iverson and Mia Hamm are overweight, Barry Bonds and Shaquille O'Neal are obese, according to the BMI. Virtually every skier and speed skater in the Olympics, too.

So a month or two ago, a new study comes along. NOW, it turns out that if your BMI is somewhat higher, you're actually better off! But this hasn't made the splash in the news. This could be because they're concerned that people will go on a binge or something. Could be that newspapers don't think it would make good news (I saw it in the Health section of the Washington Post; don't know that it ever made the front section); could be that they're concerned about losing diet-industry advertising.

The researchers speculate that the (erstwhile) slightly overweight may consist of people who had been more overweight who are leading healthier lifestyles, or people who had been dieting themselves down to the lower weight, but are getting better diets now.

[chas]

To be honest, I was just going on personal experience. Back when I was a big beer drinker I had a much harder time keeping weight off (I avoided soda like the plague back then for athletic reasons, the carbonation, and whatnot, as I was playing ice hockey in college) than after (when I consequently became less uptight about soda).
::shrug::
I just thought there must be a reason they call it a "beer gut" instead of a "cola gut." (however if you read the wikipedia page on beer bellies it says there is no certifiable link between been consumption and beer bellies. It also says

Even heavier beers carry less energy per glass than sugared cola drinks

boy have I been hoodwinked! I gotta switch back to more beer!!!

Curiously, the times when I've quit beer for extended periods, I've actually gained weight. I don't seem to eat any more, but I'm sure I must. Either that or all the 12-ounce curls really do represent a large expenditure of calories.

The latest factoid on beer guts: people with somewhat large bellies have a greater chance of surviving automobile accidents than thin people.