Tuesday, August 8, 2006

For Cryin Out Loud...

Now look here...in my personal opinion I think the mainstream media is skewed in the anti-President Bush category, which is what it is. But its not just that, I think the media really just hates success otherwise the first ten minutes of a newscast would celebrate life instead of the latest reason to move away from where you're at. Triumph does not equal headlines, unless its a 'Mission Accomplished' banner on a naval vessel, but this isn't a political post I promise.

Last week I posted about how fit the President is based on being a 60 year old man weighing 196 pounds with 16% body fat and a resting heart rate that makes an marathoner jealous. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that for his age group and position in the world, he is a really fit dude.

Now look at this excerpted article from ABCNEWS today. Can you believe this?

How Much Is Too Much: Is the President Too Chunky?

His Body Mass Index Puts Him in Overweight Territory, but What Does That Mean?

By FELICIA D. STOLER, ABC News Medical Unit

Aug. 7, 2006 — - Last week President Bush underwent his annual physical. It revealed he was in pretty good health, except for one thing. According to his body mass index, he's overweight.

His BMI was 26, putting him in the lower range of the overweight category. He weighs 196 pounds, meaning he has gained 5 pounds since last year and his percentage of body fat has increased to 16.8 percent, which is, overall, pretty good for a man who just turned 60. (To calculate your BMI, go here).

Still, the appropriate body weight range is 157 to 192 pounds for a 5-foot, 11-inch man. Is there cause for alarm? Should the president go on a diet?

Possibly, dietitians say.

"When you're 60 and your BMI is 26, it's a risk," says dietitian Cathy Nonas, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "As you get older, you are more prone to other ailments -- diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease. It is helpful to not add another BMI point each year."


I am not even going to get into the passive-aggressiveness of this piece, I want to deconstruct the process instead because I personally feel that the BMI index is a terrible mathmatical fitness assessment formula and should be done away with as a realiable source of fitness. However many (non-fitness) people like professors and physicians continue to force it as a reliable method.

The BMI index was created in around 1840!!! Don't you think that the physiological complexities and stressors on the human body have made some changes to our physical make up since then?

Give me a break!!!

8 comments:

Flatman said...

BMI is nothing but BS...

jp said...

BMI does not take into account body composition....so for most athletic people with some muscle mass, BMI is a worthless indictor.

Ultra Crackhead said...

The point of the article should have been clearer and left BMI out of it. 196 lbs. for a 5'11" man IS heavy. 16.8% bodyfat for a man is "average" (average American man is 15-20% bodyfat). Adding 5 lbs. in a year for no good reason is NOT OK. People should not think it's OK to put on weight just because they are getting older. I am guessing that 5 lbs. was NOT muscle he put on. They didn't state what his bodyfat was the prior year, but my guess it was less. So he got heavier and fatter. Using BMI to illustrate this is not the very best approach, though, but it is one way. At least the article quoted bodyfat %.

Bush is fit, true, but he could do better. He needs to stop the weight gain, and could probably do with losing more than the 5 lbs. he put on last year.

Too many people have become too comfortable with excess weight and fat. If anything, our bodies demand less energy intake since our lives are geared towards minimizing energy expenditure. Which is why you see so many people who have so much trouble reducing their weight regardless of their activity levels (even athletes!). There is a lot of overestimating calorie burn and underestimating calorie intake. So if anything, life insurance weight tables should be revised downward. What is considered a healthy weight varies based on a person's lifestyle, but in general, the less you do, the less you should weigh, which is counter to what most of us believe. It's just harder and requires more sacrifice to be small without a lot of exercise. But when you see people who live into their 90's and over, they are not fat people. They are generally quite small, and eat modestly.

I think that if actuarial tables were published that showed death rates by weight by age, then maybe people would wake up and realize that it's time to take action rather than waiting for the next "fat pill" to be developed. Or we are going to see our average life spans decreasing. What is the quality of life of a person who is on a drug cocktail to mitigate symptoms of lifestyle-induced disease? Not very good.

I hope Bush's doctor told him to lose some weight. At least the 5 lbs. he put on in the last year. And it would be nice if he said something to the American public about recognizing that it's not easy to stay slim and trim, but that he knows it's the right thing to do for his health.

Healthcare is expensive in this country and getting worse. I personally do not like getting zero break in my insurance rates because I try to stay healther than some others. Yet I realize the system isn't geared towards getting real with people--real meaning you can't just TELL someone to do something about their weight you have to give them TOOLS and MONITOR them, and all of that needs to be part of the healthcare system.

Sorry, I could go on and on.

Bush is a little bit fat. He has an opportunity to set an example.

Comm's said...

Interesting points Sheila. Bush did increase his bodyfat by 1% from 15 to 16. I think you're hitting into the grist of the problem that society has with the issue of weight and the lack of incentive from insurance companies (and pharmaceutical I might add) to lead a healthier life.

I agree that W is a cyldesdale but when also looking at a resting pulse of 46 and a heart rate of 110/68, I certainly disagree with the subtle context of the article that he is out of shape.

A few weeks ago he made an appearance on Larry King and spoke at length about his fitness regime and the importance of diet and exercise. That got zero press of course.

the Dread Pirate Rackham said...

Let me just state for the record I am a Bush dis-liker. He's the president which means I'm supposed to dislike him.

However. I agree completely - your point about BMI is very true. It is a bogus figure and meaningless without proper context.

Really, if the press is going to pick on him, do it for something real.

Comm's said...

Dread- I appreciate your Candor on your feelings about W.

You hit the nail right on the head, if your not a fan, go for the things that matter not this chicken crap stuff that has no bearing on whether a citizen should approve or disapprove of his positions.

Andy said...

My BMI is just over the the cusp into the "slightly overweight" territory based off of my age and weight. However, I am fairly muscular (although not ripped), and last I checked, my body fat percentage was around the 10-11 percent area, which is perfectly acceptable (although I would like to have it down in my old 7-8 percent range).

Yeah the BMI thing pretty much sucks. I think for the "average" person (yeah, define average for me) the BMI is just fine, but when you get to extremes with respect to athletes, the BMI is usually not correct.

Murtha...

Chris said...

People hate Bush just to hate Bush. I don't recall anyone harshly critiquing Bubba for being hefty.