BMI Outrage

[big_swede]

BMI is a joke when applied to athletes of any kind! Thanks for the free healthcare dear country =)

[jdmalm123]

'Aurora does offer to pay a portion of the costs involved with weight loss programs, but some employees are concerned the costs of keeping healthy may outweigh the savings.

"We feel as though aurora healthcare isn't concerned ultimately about their employees.. Maybe they're concerned about their own budget right now," said one employee.'

Staying healthy...

[bruteforce]

I like how my old man's company does it. They pay for your gym membership as long as you can prove you were there 3x a week.

[Tannhauser]

Lots of interesting issues tied up in this:

1) Is there a correlation between high BMI and early mortality?
2) Should insurance companies charge more for higher BMI?
3) Is there anything wrong with a comapny incentivising what they regard as healthy?

This is my 2cents, just opinion and not based on any research.

In the UK, young drivers face absolutely massive insurance premiums, and until recently young men paid loads more than young women. The reason was that statistically, more young men were involved in accidents.

It wasn't a moral judgement on them, it was a business calculation. I would imagine that insurance companies are simply doing the same for BMI. They rely on actuarial data that presumably show that those with significantly higher BMI don't live as long and are more likely to suffer from expensive diseases. SO it may be a bit of a blunt instrument, but unfortunately all the heavily muscled athletes are going to be tarred with the same brush as the giuys carrying lots of fat.

But this got me thinking whether a high BMI is all that healthy. Go on a long distance walk and you soon find out that the heart has to work hard servicing all that excess muscle, same as it does for fat. What are the long term effects of that?

With regard to the incentive at the company, it's not as if they're forcing people to lose weight. I bet most 'overweight' people at the company aren't carrying excess muscle, more likely they're flat-out fat. Is there a problem with a company giving a very small reward to behaviour that is likely to benefit many of them. They're not obliged to take the offer.

[Fazc]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into extremes here. Just because it's a point or two off for lifters doesn't mean it's useless altogether. You got guys walking around with 30-35 BMI and declaring "oh but it's useless for lifters". Well...

If we plug in 6 foot 2 inches and 235lbs, which incidentally was Schwarzennegger's competition bodyweight, then that puts him at 30. Now, sure that was competition weight BUT he was one of the most heavily muscled bodybuilders of our generation and juiced. So now you get a regular Joe Average lifter walking around at 30 BMI, saying "yeah it's crap. Arnie was 30 BMI you calling him fat? huh huh?". Well reality check please people.

They're fat and they know it. Now there's nothing wrong with being fat, if that makes you happy then crack on. But trying to pull the "it doesn't take into account my muscle mass" line, well it's just pure denial.

[bruteforce]

One issue I take with it is where do you draw the line. Next it will be cholesterol levels. Fine and dandy, but super low levels aren't healthy. Ok, we make that clear. But normal, healthy levels via medication don't lower the risk of heart problems from the resources I've read.

I'm fat. BMI of 37. I'm also a shit ton healthier than my co-workers who are in the BMI of 22 range. My blood work is better, I don't need hordes of pills each morning to face the day, my resting heart rate is better, and my beard is far more luxurious. It isn't the sentiment I disagree with, in fact, I applaud the idea of getting people in better health. It's the unintended consequences.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by bruteforce

One issue I take with it is where do you draw the line. Next it will be cholesterol levels. Fine and dandy, but super low levels aren't healthy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Brute. We don't have to talk in extremes. It doesn't have to be high cholesterol or super low levels of cholesterol. You give yourself as an example of a healthy 37, well I certainly believe you, but you're an anomaly then. Because there are going to be very few, honest to goodness, healthy people with a BMI that high. Comparing yourself to super unhealthy people waaaay over on the other spectrum just seems like a mad discussion to have! It's a politicians way of talking, we can't have a sensible debate like that!

Surely the debate, and ultimately the agreement, lies in sensible discussion of the middle ground?

[bruteforce]

Originally Posted by Fazc

This is exactly what I'm talking about Brute. We don't have to talk in extremes. It doesn't have to be high cholesterol or super low levels of cholesterol. You give yourself as an example of a healthy 37, well I certainly believe you, but you're an anomaly then. Because there are going to be very few, honest to goodness, healthy people with a BMI that high. Comparing yourself to super unhealthy people waaaay over on the other spectrum just seems like a mad discussion to have! It's a politicians way of talking, we can't have a sensible debate like that!

Surely the debate, and ultimately the agreement, lies in sensible discussion of the middle ground?

Pretty much. There's also no doubt in my mind that I would be healthier at a lighter weight. I'm sitting around 305 right now, and plan on getting under 275. But here is the problem. If I drop below 265, I look small and weak, and feel like ass.

Anyway, enough about me. I'm glad they are setting the bar at 30 and not 25, which would be ridiculous. I think they ought to set a minimum too, but that's just my fattie rage. The idea may be coming from the right place, and it would be too expensive to handle everyone case by case, so I can see the benefit. Not getting a good flow of thought here, but I'm back to the skinny people falling into the "healthy" range.

Phew. And now, I'm pretty well fine with it. Companies should be able to do what they want to protect their own interests. This should save them money, and I'm all for that.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by bruteforce

Anyway, enough about me. I'm glad they are setting the bar at 30 and not 25, which would be ridiculous.

I agree. At times like this I tend to think we (as in all of us lifters) are in the minority with the way we train and want to look. At around 200-220lbs I'm on the light side on this forum but amongst my co-workers I'm by far and away the largest guy there. So I tend to think it's one of things we have to take for granted seeing as we're not just fitness enthusiasts, but actually strength and mass lovers

Perhaps a more nuanced way of looking at things, such as the bodyfat level, may be a better form of looking at things. Perhaps to not penalise those who are naturally robust or those who work out moreso than the average gym rat.

[bamazav]

I don't know about you guys, but I kind of like being an anomaly.