Re: Ideal Weight

Ignoramus7090 said:

FabulustRunner said:

Quoted message said:

He did not read my post,

Why? It's just boloney.

Quoted message said:

but, some people really are big boned
and some are not.

Boloney.

Quoted message said:

but big bonedness (frame size) is a measurable,
objective concept.

Measureable maybe, significent? No.

Insurance company Metropolitan Life thinks that big boned (large
frame) people's ideal weight should be more than small framed people's
weight. That's because their bones are heavier.

Life insurance companies are the leading abusers of BMI measurements, so it's
no surprise that they'd be behind this.

Quoted message said:

Having large, heavy bones is generally a good thing, as people get
older the heavier boned people get less bone fractures.

Could you post something to support the assertion that this is a major factor?
I would have thought it would be trumped by bone mineral density (which you
get from good diet and exercise). If what you were saying were true, old
runners (who are often "small boned"😉 would break their bones walking
downstairs, but this generally does not happen.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Life insurance companies are the leading abusers of BMI measurements, so it's
no surprise that they'd be behind this.

They are the leading abusers of just about everything!

"Ignoramus7090" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Life is multifactorial.

Huh? Huh? WTF does this mean? Huh?

Yunno, if Yankees ever had to *read* what they *write* they would go
completely insane. I think they all talk in Jabberwocky simply to convince
themselves they have a useful purpose in life, other than their stated aim
of 'world domination through the medium of a visit by the US Marines' or
'death by McDonalds'.

C'mon guys, give us a break. Stop f**king with the English language, would
ya?

"FabulustRunner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Life insurance companies are the leading abusers of BMI measurements, so

it's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no surprise that they'd be behind this.

They are the leading abusers of just about everything!

Well, they have abused me, but then I don't carry insurance of any sort -
other than motoring, which you have to in the UK.

Ignoramus7090 said:

Quoted message said:

Life insurance companies are the leading abusers of BMI
measurements, so it's no surprise that they'd be behind this.

Are you saying that these insurance companies are acting irrationally
when they price their life insurance policies based on the parameters
that they choose?

No.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that they are missing profits by not
choosing some better, and cost effective, health gauges instead of
body mass in relation to height and frame size?

Not really. There are advantages to choosing these parameters. For example,
they are easy and inexpensive to measure accurately. And they already have
mortality data to show an association between mortality and BMI. People with
high BMI and low body fat are rare, so addressing the distinction between BMI
and body fat increases the difficulty in taking measurements, and may not
substantially improve the fit of their model anyway.

Still, if you're a person with high BMI and low bodyfat, you're going to be
annoyed when the boneheads at the life insurance company price you as a "fat"
person.

Quoted message said:

Frame size is one of the factors, bone density is another factor. Life
is multifactorial. Race is yet another factor, unfortunately, there is
more to race than color of the skin.

http://www.grandtimes.com/articles/Osteoporsis_in_Men.html

That article doesn't count. They just mention "small frame" in passing, without
supporting it, but the article spends much more time talking about bone
*density*.

Quoted message said:

http://www.galter.nwu.edu/geriatrics/chapters/osteoporosis.cfm
``Risk Factors for Osteoporosis
Female sex
Caucasian or Asian race
Tall stature and/or small frame

Again, claiming it does not make it so. I was hoping for a study, not a
prevailing belief (not even a prevailing belief by experts).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Yunno, if Yankees ever had to *read* what they *write* they would go
completely insane.

How do you think we got republicans?

Quoted message said:

C'mon guys, give us a break. Stop f**king with the English language, would
ya?

We perfected it. Now walk-on.

Quoted message said:

Well, they have abused me,

So have half the men in europe.

Ignoramus7090 said:

Quoted message said:

People with high BMI and low body fat are rare, so addressing the
distinction between BMI and body fat increases the difficulty in
taking measurements, and may not substantially improve the fit of
their model anyway.

You make an implicit assumption that people with high BMI and low
bodyfat in fact have superior life expectancy compared to fat people
of the same BMI. I am not sure, not knowing enough, whether that is
true in fact.

It's true, and I've posted references before (the studies are on the
halls.md website somewhere)

Quoted message said:

No doubt, such a person would be upset. And some fat people are
healthier than others, and the healthier fat people would be also
upset by the insensitive insurance companies.

That would be an issue if fatness were the only measure that life insurance
companies used. But it isn't.

Quoted message said:

That's a good attitude. Much of what is said by experts is phoney baloney.
Wanting to check primary sources is always a good idea. Here goes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1531525

Well, not exactly primary but still a big improvement.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/