[quote]BrickHead wrote:
OK, X, we’ll just go along and say there’s nothing wrong with being overweight. [/quote]
In itself, there isn’t. Since someone could be OVERWEIGHT and 8% body fat, you can not claim that the “overweight” part is what is putting them at risk.
That is the very reason BMI does not work for populations that actually exercise regularly.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
OK, X, we’ll just go along and say there’s nothing wrong with being overweight. [/quote]
In itself, there isn’t. Since someone could be OVERWEIGHT and 8% body fat, you can not claim that the “overweight” part is what is putting them at risk.
That is the very reason BMI does not work for populations that actually exercise regularly.[/quote]
8% bodyfat isn’t overweight. I’m speaking about degree of fatness, as I was thinking we all are here.
Obesity is a term based on two different means too: BMI of 30 or above OR 25% more bodyfat.
And considering MOST people don’t give a rat’s ass about nutrition or fitness, nearly everyone with a BMI of 26 to 29 (overweight mark for non training individuals) IS overweight.
It is a risk factor because it puts one at risk for developing hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and other shit. Yes, one can have no other conditions besides overweight, but if YOU choose to be overweight, that’s fine with us. Many of us DON’T want to put ourselves at risk, exercise some damn discipline, and just simply don’t like the look or feel of overweight. You’re fine with it, and that’s your business.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
8% bodyfat isn’t overweight. I’m speaking about degree of fatness, as I was thinking we all are here. [/quote]
Then what you wrote before was wrong. Being overweight does not put you at risk of CANCER like you wrote.
That is why you can not use studies using BMI to discuss FATNESS.
BMI is useless in this discussion. We ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEDENTARY PEOPLE HERE.
[quote]And considering MOST people don’t give a rat’s ass about nutrition or fitness, nearly everyone with a BMI of 26 to 29 (overweight mark for non training individuals) IS overweight.
It is a risk factor because it puts one at risk for developing hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and other shit. Yes, one can have no other conditions besides overweight, but if YOU choose to be overweight, that’s fine with us. Many of us DON’T want to put ourselves at risk, exercise some damn discipline, and just simply don’t like the look or feel of overweight. You’re fine with it, and that’s your business. [/quote]
This makes no fucking sense. Someone is not at risk because they are “overweight” and someone is not at risk if they are NOT obese.
NO ONE IS TELLING ANYONE TO BECOME OBESE…SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
8% bodyfat isn’t overweight. I’m speaking about degree of fatness, as I was thinking we all are here. [/quote]
Then what you wrote before was wrong. Being overweight does not put you at risk of CANCER like you wrote.
That is why you can not use studies using BMI to discuss FATNESS.
BMI is useless in this discussion. We ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEDENTARY PEOPLE HERE.
[quote]And considering MOST people don’t give a rat’s ass about nutrition or fitness, nearly everyone with a BMI of 26 to 29 (overweight mark for non training individuals) IS overweight.
It is a risk factor because it puts one at risk for developing hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and other shit. Yes, one can have no other conditions besides overweight, but if YOU choose to be overweight, that’s fine with us. Many of us DON’T want to put ourselves at risk, exercise some damn discipline, and just simply don’t like the look or feel of overweight. You’re fine with it, and that’s your business. [/quote]
This makes no fucking sense. Someone is not at risk because they are “overweight” and someone is not at risk if they are NOT obese.
NO ONE IS TELLING ANYONE TO BECOME OBESE…SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Most of the people here are “overweight”.
[/quote]
I’ll use studies that deal with ordinary people because nearly all NON TRAINING individuals with a BMI of 26 ore more are fat.
Also, one need not use the BMI because there’s a much easier way to assess if someone’s carrying excess fat. It’s using one’s damn eyes: looking in the mirror and looking at other people. If someone looks fat, they ARE fat. How’s that for ya?
BMI means nothing to the training population. The fact that you keep using it is starting to make you look like you are really misinformed.
[quote]
Apparently you didn’t see the word OR in this quoted statement. [/quote]
Oh, I did…and I also know that BMI is useless in trained populations.
[quote]
Most here wouldn’t be considered overweight as per BMI because BMI is a WORTHLESS assessment for weight training individuals. [/quote]
What? Most WOULD BE CONSIDERED OVERWEIGHT BY BMI. That is why it is useless. WTF? You just wrote they wouldn’t be found overweight by BMI…which is about as wrong as you can get.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I’ll use studies that deal with ordinary people because nearly all NON TRAINING individuals with a BMI of 26 ore more are fat. [/quote]
WTF?
People really are reading what you are posting here and think you know what you are talking about?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also, one need not use the BMI because there’s a much easier way to assess if someone’s carrying excess fat. It’s using one’s damn eyes: looking in the mirror and looking at other people. If someone looks fat, they ARE fat. How’s that for ya?[/quote]
WTF?
It’s a good thing this isn’t what all of those studies on obesity settle on…because you have shown many times your “eye” is off. My health isn’t based on “your eye”.
Someone is not at risk of health problems because you personally don’t think they look good.
It depends on where that fat is located and the amount.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Apparently you’re not fucking reading the sentences in which BMI dosn’t apply to the training population! Are you selectively fucking blind?! [/quote]
No…I also read you write
…which is flat out wrong. more muscle means higher body weight, so yes, many here would be considered "overweight by BMI…not what YOU wrote.
We are discussing the training population. That is what the whole fucking discussion is about.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Can you please stop responding to X’s trolling in this thread.
It has been informative and insightful.
Lets keep that up.[/quote]
Can we make this happen please?
He is ruining yet another thread that contains lots of good discussion and information.
Lets not drown out the useful parts with his squabbling.