SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Bodhi]

Your impression is wrong. It's good for 95% of the population and only statistial outliers are the problem. But since it's a good rule of thumb for 95% of the population it's a very useful tool.

Only arguing to the extreme can (falsely) lead people to think BMI isn't statistically useful.

So:


For professional rugby players (not fat amateurs) absolutely. And many athletes. Women with disproportionately large boobs regardless of the rest of their weight are few and far between. These groups don't comprise 95% of the population.

It is a useful enough tool in 95% of cases for the French to use it to make laws on. But it's attacked from all sides by fat people because it's a source of annoyance that, objectively, it tells more than half of the population that they're fat - and they don't like it.

But, objectively, tough titties

How useful is the body mass index (BMI)? - Harvard Health Blog

As a single measure, BMI is clearly not a perfect measure of health. But it’s still a useful starting point for important conditions that become more likely when a person is overweight or obese. In my view, it’s a good idea to know your BMI. But it’s also important to recognize its limitations.

So as I said, it appears to have some limitations as far as healthy/unhealthy goes, as it doesn't really take into account what Body Mass is made up of, or any other factors making up a person's health. Probably why, in BMI terms, I am at the peak of physical perfection, but taking into account my love of a Marlboro and a Whopper, and my dodgy knees, that really isn't the case

 

[Scouse]

So as I said, it appears to have some limitations as far as healthy/unhealthy goes

It's a measure of healthy weight @Bodhi. Nothing more. It's not trying to be. I figured that you were at least taking the context of the conversation into account.

Topic here is BMI and legislation based on BMI. Therefore weight. - Body Mass.

Aside from that - the article shows it is an indicator of health. A useful indicator - as the article states:

Spoiler

So then, why does BMI matter?
In general, the higher your BMI, the higher the risk of developing a range of conditions linked with excess weight, including:

• diabetes
• arthritis
• liver disease
• several types of cancer (such as those of the breast, colon, and prostate)
• high blood pressure (hypertension)
• high cholesterol
• sleep apnea.

Current estimates suggest that up to 365,000 excess deaths due to obesity occur each year in the U.S. In addition, independent of any particular disease, people with high BMIs often report feeling better, both physically and psychologically, once they lose excess weight.

People who are the right weight are more likely to be healthier. As I've stated - considering this is all being discussed in the context of the French legislating against certain BMIs - on the basis that they're unhealthy and bad examples for their general population - then my original points stand.

 

[Moriath]

Healthier in body but might be miserable in mind. Health is more than just physical.

 

[Gwadien]

WTF? Can you go back and read what I wrote?

For a start - I've got no "agenda" - an ideological plan to what, be angry at fat people, what the hell do you imagine I want to achieve?

Second - what has that picture got to do with *anything* I posed. I've not mentioned anything about "attractive"? It's not about that - my post was, very clearly, about BMI. Body Mass Index is an objective measurement - not a subjective one. You know what objective vs subjective means don't you @Gwadien?

If we're going to outlaw "normative" images - i.e. images that give the impression that people should look like this - on the basis of an objective measurement - BMI - then we should be doing it on the full basis of that measurement. I.E. - outlaw images based on people both below and above BMI.

It's not about how you "feel" about it, it's not abut what you find attactive, it's about an objective measurement of a healthy human and advertising around that. If we're going to say "underweight = illegal" based on an objective measurement then we should also say "overweight = illegal" based on the same measurement - otherwise you give the impression that it's OK to be overweight when, objectively, it's not.


For the record - 6/10 - would bang. But it's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

I honestly worry for your pupils if you can't think objectively @Gwadien. It's hugely important for teachers ffs


Edit: Maybe 5.5/10. She could do with losing some weight*

*both subjectively (IMO) and objectively (according to science).

Since you have absolutely nothing to do with children or young adults, I refuse to engage you in this conversation.

 

[Raven]

Google Street View used to discover 'lost' cycle ways - BBC News good idea, I am fairly certain there are some round here, around some turn of the century housing areas.

 

[Scouse]

Since you have absolutely nothing to do with children or young adults, I refuse to engage you in this conversation.

You think any human on the planet has nothing to do with children or young adults? Wow!

Bit pathetic that you say you're a teacher but you won't enter into a debate. Even when it's not specifically about kids.

Just wow. I think that's one of the most pathetic stick-up-the-arse things I've ever seen written on FH or BW before it.

 

[Job]

Google Street View used to discover 'lost' cycle ways - BBC News good idea, I am fairly certain there are some round here, around some turn of the century housing areas.

 

[Job]

B&Q report huge rise in sales of faded red paint colour.

 

[Raven]

What are you trying to say?

 

[fettoken]

 

[Edmond]

What are you trying to say?

I still think he's trying to work out you post from earlier....... oh and its caulk btw

 

[Raven]

Meh, either or

Calk definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

 

[Gwadien]

You think any human on the planet has nothing to do with children or young adults? Wow!

Bit pathetic that you say you're a teacher but you won't enter into a debate. Even when it's not specifically about kids.

Just wow. I think that's one of the most pathetic stick-up-the-arse things I've ever seen written on FH or BW before it.

I refuse to debate with someone with an extremely entrenched position and refuses to properly understand both sides of the argument.

There is a problem with models being rolemodels, I think first of all you should have a look at what these models go through in order to achieve the 'perfect image' and then try and apply that to a 14 year old.

I've seen it, I had two friends who went from overweight to dangerously underweight.

The latter has a much worse effect on your mental health and brings much more complications than being a bit fat.

 

[old.user4556]

Boom! Supersonic Passenger Jet Coming by 2020

 

[DaGaffer]

Boom! Supersonic Passenger Jet Coming by 2020

Three years? No chance.

 

[old.user4556]

Three years? No chance.

Other sources reckon 2035.

 

[Job]

Concorde cost billions, even with all the knowledge, materials and data from the Concorde program, it would still take decades to make something as successful.
It was quite simply and incredible machine.

 

[Scouse]

I've seen it, I had two friends who went from overweight to dangerously underweight.

So, you can't be objective, is that it?

I'm not belittling anorexia. I'm absolutely fine with the legislation against models who are massively underweight for the very reasons you said. I'm also in agreement with the body image side of it having a disproportionately large effect on the anorexic side of the equation.

Fine. So far we're in agreement. Both of us think it's probably a good thing to prevent a "normative body image" being presented of unhealthily thin bodies.

Great. Well done France.


Unfortunately, because you're blinded by emotion, you're missing the bigger picture.

In France, anorexia cases are measured in the tens of thousands. Obesity and being overweight is measured in the tens of millions.

And maybe because you're so child-focussed it slips your mind that disablity, cancer, death by multiple diseases happens to the obese - the older than-kids obese who become amputees because their diabetic limbs can't function, the dysfunctional eaters who pass on their awful habits and painful lifestyle onto their children, severely curtailing their future health and happiness. The list of health issues associated with the morbidly obese reads like a fucking horror story. Because it is.

Add to that the terrible societal expense - health services becoming bankrupt because of this problem. Everyone suffering poorer healthcare because so much of our finite human resource is being squandered treating a problem that's gotten so out of hand that it's affecting most of the population to some extent. Dangerously so in france for 1 in 10 - in Britain?? A quarter.


So yah boo. Objectively obesity is a problem which causes very real suffering. Objectively the sheer size of the numbers involved mean it's the bigger problem overall. Obesity related disease is causing huge strain on western health services at the moment - and it's projected to get a lot worse.

So - I suggest that if we're going to legislate on "normative body image" - based on the objective measure of BMI then we should legislate both sides of the equation.

I.E. Models should be the correct weight. Not thin. Not fat. Just the correct weight.


I not only think that's a perfectly reasonable, defensible position to take (if we're going to legally dictate models must be physical role-models then they should actually be role-models) - I'm absolutely astounded by your reaction to the suggestion. Thought you'd be able to spot objective, reasonable, logic.

Meh

 

[Scouse]

Anyway - I don't really understand why they mothballed Concorde so quickly. They had a single big problem. Identified it. Why not fix the issue?

Was there something about the design that was inherently dangerous?

 

[Gwadien]

lol.

Plus Size models are usually at the 'proper' weight if you actually look at the classification, you're getting the wrong end of the stick.

The modelling industry is currently focused on dangerously underweight females, and the pressure is to target 'normal' weight people.

The media and the modelling industry has pre-emptively 'fat shamed' the models by calling them Plus Size models... The massively underweight 'normal' ones aren't called Minus Size models are they?

EDIT - Even BBCTHREE and Channel 4 create those 'freak people' generic documentary shows where they have the obese 'models' on it basically pointing and laughing at them.

I wouldn't say that there are many 'fat' rolemodels in society - which is essentially what this is about.

 

[Raven]

Nobody likes a fatty but nobody likes the ones that look like they might snap, either.

Edit. Except maybe that one out of resident evil.

 

[BloodOmen]

Boom! Supersonic Passenger Jet Coming by 2020

Assuming I ever get out the house again I can't say I'd want to see Ryan Air flights travelling that fast, their fucking lego planes will fall to pieces.

 

[Moriath]

Nobody likes a fatty but nobody likes the ones that look like they might snap, either.

Edit. Except maybe that one out of resident evil.

There are people out there that love fat women and feed them up to get fatter.

Stop making rediculous generalisations that are so obviously not true. Just say i dont like. And be done with it.

 

[Scouse]

lol.

Plus Size models are usually at the 'proper' weight if you actually look at the classification

Not actually. Some are, but there's a definite push for overweight or obese models on. It sells.

But again - who gives a fuck? The point I'm making is - if we're going to legislate on "normative images" because of health then it's idiotic to only do it for thin models when obesity is, objectively, the bigger killer.



Edit: I've kinda said all I'm going to say. The only reason I'm still posting on this subject is because I was properly shocked by your reaction.

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S72xLRnh1k

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Job]

The wifes friends sister was anorexic...she starved herself till her heart ran out of potassium, they got it going again, but she 90% brain damaged and just sits in a chair making odd noises.

 

[DaGaffer]

Anyway - I don't really understand why they mothballed Concorde so quickly. They had a single big problem. Identified it. Why not fix the issue?

Was there something about the design that was inherently dangerous?

Airframes were at the end of their service life; they'd been reducing flight frequency for years by the time of the French accident. It was doomed anyway.

 

[caLLous]

Stephen Fry blasphemy probe dropped after gardaí fail to find 'substantial number of outraged people' - Independent.ie

 

[georgie]

Anyway - I don't really understand why they mothballed Concorde so quickly. They had a single big problem. Identified it. Why not fix the issue?

Was there something about the design that was inherently dangerous?

Some interesting stuff here: