IGX

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:23 pm**

The 2014 World Cup in Brazil is set to be the first to offer special seats for obese fans.

FIFA told The Associated Press that the seats will be offered to conform to Brazilian legislation, although international supporters will also be entitled to them.

The World Cup Bill in Brazil requires that at least 1 percent of seats in each stadium be made available for disabled people, a category that includes the obese, wheelchair users and those with impaired mobility.

To qualify for a ticket, people are required to submit a medical certificate that proves they have a body mass index of 30 or more, as recognized by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and World Health Organization.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 2014-worl/

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:35 pm**

From "Training of Weightlifter" by Roman.
pg 83
Optimal Heights for MSIC
52kg 145+/-3cm
56kg 149+/-3cm
60kg 155+/-2.5cm
67.5kg 160+/-2cm
75kg 164+/-2cm
82.5kg 168+/-2
90kg 171cm+171+/-2cm
100kg 174.5+/-2cm
110kg 177.5+/-2cm
110+kg 186+/-6cm

Note only little guys are in normal range. And Oly folks aren't huge by any measure.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:40 pm**

I'm sure there will be a lot of Olympic lifters in those seats.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:22 pm**

When Lance Armstrong won the worlds championships in Oslo, he would have been "overweight"

The BMI is a piece of shit. It's like ranking car reliability by correlating engine size and tire diameter.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:59 pm**

The BMI is a public health tool meant only to measure populations. It is of zero use in measuring individuals. I don't know whose bright idea it was to start applying it to individuals, and then starting to tell them they need to gain or lose weight based on the measurement.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:08 pm**

Pinky wrote:I'm sure there will be a lot of Olympic lifters in those seats.

Not just Olympic lifters.

10-1 she qualifies as obese by BMI standards

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-_Cnyk3u0[/youtube]

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:32 pm**

A letter? I have to bring a letter? Are the ticket takers blind or some shit?

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:50 pm**

Turdacious wrote:
Pinky wrote:I'm sure there will be a lot of Olympic lifters in those seats.
Not just Olympic lifters.

10-1 she qualifies as obese by BMI standards

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-_Cnyk3u0[/youtube]

Her too.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:51 pm**

Wii Fit keeps insisting that my ideal weight is 131lbs.

Even as an LW Oarsman putting in absurd mileage a week, with visible ribs, 12-inch arms and a staggering 95lb overhead press I tipped the scales at 159lbs.

Fuck.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:30 pm**

WildGorillaMan wrote:Wii Fit keeps insisting that my ideal weight is 131lbs.

Even as an LW Oarsman putting in absurd mileage a week, with visible ribs, 12-inch arms and a staggering 95lb overhead press I tipped the scales at 159lbs.

Fuck.

You were obese by crossfit standards.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:27 pm**

I shoulda run more than 13 miles at a stretch that is obviously.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:37 pm**

You unenlightened neanderthals need to change your ideals of beauty, this is clearly.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:45 am**

Blaidd Drwg wrote:When Lance Armstrong won the worlds championships in Oslo, he would have been "overweight"

The BMI is a piece of shit. It's like ranking car reliability by correlating engine size and tire diameter.

and still 35+ pounds from being in the obese category

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:12 am**

Terry B. wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:When Lance Armstrong won the worlds championships in Oslo, he would have been "overweight"

The BMI is a piece of shit. It's like ranking car reliability by correlating engine size and tire diameter.
and still 35+ pounds from being in the obese category

You mean like Walter Payton? Igor Vovchanchyn and Barry Sanders.
?

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:56 am**

Or some obese Olympians

Ihar Makarau (Belarus) Judo (90-100kg)
(Obese: 180cm, 100kg, athlete BMI=31)

Yuriy Bilonog (Ukraine) Shot put
(Obese: 200cm, 135kg, athlete BMI=34)

Khadjimourat Gatsalov (Russia) Wrestling (84-96kg)
(Overweight: 180cm, 96kg, athlete BMI=30)

Artur Taymazov (Uzebekistan) Wrestling (96-120kg)
(Obese: 189cm, 112kg, athlete BMI=31)

Or this fatty...Cameron Watson

Tracy & Matt Watson of North Andover were sent a “fat letter” from the State of Massachusetts warning them that their son, 94-pound 10-year-old Cameron Watson, was considered obese. The fit looking 4th grader recently won a Massachusetts state wrestling championship for his weight class by pinning his opponent in under 30 seconds. But according to the Department of Public Health (DPH) standards which mandates schools collect height and weight information to calculate body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of body fat, the star athlete is unhealthy.

DPH defends its practice of using BMI as a health indicator and found that 32.3 percent of Massachusetts children fall into the overweight or obese category. DPH representative Anne Roach said, "Helping children maintain a healthy weight may prevent serious illness later in life…BMI screenings are intended to raise parents' awareness about this issue." However some parents object to the agency’s practice and legislators have drafted a bill that will be voted on this spring preventing DPH from collecting the student data and issuing these letters. Cameron’s father, Matt Watson said, "I think there are problems with some children and childhood obesity but I think that's something you handle with your family and your physician…I don't think it should be the state telling the schools to test the children."

http://news.yahoo.com/video/fat-letter- ... 44135.html

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:20 am**

Again with these retards using BMI to measure individuals.
I'd like to find the person that took this population measurement and started applying it to individuals and punch them in the throat.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:32 am**

The BMI is fine for what it was meant to do.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:50 am**

Terry B. wrote:The BMI is fine for what it was meant to do.

You're right-- it's a great tool for oversimplification.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:19 am**

Turdacious wrote:
Terry B. wrote:The BMI is fine for what it was meant to do.
You're right-- it's a great tool for oversimplification.

It was designed for population studies, looking at large batches of numbers. Simplifying such data isn't a bad thing.

It wasn't designed for individual diagnosis. State that the average of the US BMI has been steadily rising over the past thirty years, and hear people start to yell about how some ripped bodybuilder would be classified as obese by the BMI. If an individual proves the point, you could more easily walk out and ID five fatties, all of whom would also be obese.

The World Cup Bill in Brazil requires that at least 1 percent of seats in each stadium be made available for disabled people, a category that includes the obese, wheelchair users and those with impaired mobility.

Nobody even said anything about obesity being classified as a disability in the country. If this idea took hold in the US, 85% of the parking lot in Wal-Mart would be reserved for people with the blue tags.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:21 am**

It was designed over 150 years ago and hasn't been appropriately updated.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:35 am**

Turdacious wrote:It was designed over 150 years ago and hasn't been appropriately updated.

Yes, the design is that old.

Have the numbers been updated? (I honestly don't know.) Of course, it could be argued that there is no need - people haven't evolved (sorry, Americans) that much in 150 years to require that sort of thing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:02 pm**

Terry B. wrote:
Turdacious wrote:It was designed over 150 years ago and hasn't been appropriately updated.
Yes, the design is that old.

Have the numbers been updated? (I honestly don't know.) Of course, it could be argued that there is no need - people haven't evolved (sorry, Americans) that much in 150 years to require that sort of thing.

Quality of food, quantity of food, and reliability of food and the food supply have all increased. Price of quality food relative to income has decreased. All pretty important factors IMO.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:26 pm**

Turdacious wrote: Quality of food, quantity of food, and reliability of food and the food supply have all increased. Price of quality food relative to income has decreased. All pretty important factors IMO.

And at the same time work has become less manually based and and people in general have become more sedentary. Up until the late 40's and 50's most Americans lived in small rural towns probably doing farm type work and factory jobs were more intense in manual labor. Add in all the shit cheap processed food and junk food and you set up a surplus of calories that will never be expended.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:27 pm**

..

The fact remains, despite being a tool developed for populations in the 1800's it it regularly used as a tool in assessing individuals decisions by primary care providers, insurance companies, employers etc.

In that sense, Yes. It is a totally shitty tool for what it is most often used for.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:26 pm**

Turdacious wrote:It was designed over 150 years ago and hasn't been appropriately updated.

What would an appropriate update look like?

IGX

Obesity-- the low bar

Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar

Re: Obesity-- the low bar