So, I'm running really behind schedule today, and I have to go to a meeting in a few minutes. So, today's post appears to be in reverse order, because the section below has basically no evidence to back it up. As always, the top section of DB is "fact", and the bottom section is my opinion. I wrote this off the top of my head on the subway, with the expectation that I'd find sources to back it up. It's mostly opinion, with some half-remembered tidbits from skimmed abstracts over the past few years. The only fact I can state with certainty is that I wasn't prepared today, and I'm running too late to correct it.
I do want to mention that the CDC (2009) does state that women have a slightly higher obesity rate than men (35.3% to 33.3%) but the difference does not seem nearly high enough to support the post I tried to write. Perhaps the most interesting part of today's post is the way my own prejudices are revealed.
In the United States, more women than men are classified as obese, despite a far higher rate of eating disorders among women. One explanation for this disparity is that the standard used to determine obesity may be unfair to women, setting a goal weight that is unachievable or even unhealthy. Others have suggested that the high rate of eating disorders actually worsens the "obesity epidemic" among women, as thousands of women use unhealthy diets for weight control, inevitably "bouncing" back to an above-healthy weight, and changing their metabolisms for the worse. As previously noted, there is evidence that men are more physically active than women at all stages of life. Increased physical activity, combined with fewer dramatic changes in eating patterns, may protect men from obesity to some extent, but the rate of obesity in both sexes continues to rise.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
BMI is inherently extremely flawed; unfortunately it's also very easy to use and even doctors fall into the trap of using it. If I use the BMI suggestions for my weight, I'd come out nearly anorexic (weight suggestion: 110-125lbs). Fortunately I have a good doctor who actually takes into account the fact that I work out (pinch test: "can't you relax a little?" "I am relaxed...") and gives me a much more reasonable range to be in (weight suggestion: 125lbs-137lbs). Yes, those two ranges don't really overlap.
kementari2
2009-04-09 03:23 pm UTC
I choose to reactionarily blame a good portion of the world's ills on high heels; this, too, could be related! ;P If you can't comfortably walk several miles a day, you're more likely to get fat.
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 03:40 pm UTC
I used to be quite good at walking in high heels. I did the gay pride march in 4" heels one year. But I see where you're coming from.
ukelele
2009-04-09 03:45 pm UTC
I've comfortably walked several miles in heels. Gotta pick the right heels, though.
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 03:47 pm UTC
I really need to write a post about the love/hate relationship with shoes. "Attitudes towards shoes" I could call it, with the normal level of inspiration I use for titles.
ukelele
2009-04-09 03:50 pm UTC
I find myself more interested in the perception of obesity when it comes to gender differences; it seems like men have a lot more leeway to get fat without social disapproval, and to display that (just look at a beach). (Maybe the metric is capturing that perception?)
I'm also interested in how perception and stigma change geographically; I feel fairly svelte and shapely in my hometown (in West Virginia), and kinda overweight and dumpy in the major metropolitan area where I now live. Same body! But in WV I actually am a lot thinner relative to the mean than I am in Boston, and in Boston there seems to be a lot more pressure to look attractive (body and fashion-wise) -- as well as a lot more apparent belief that it is possible to achieve this. (I don't know if there are gender differences that widen or narrow across those geographical differences, but I bet there are, and that would also interest me.)
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 03:57 pm UTC
I feel like we've talked about women and social-pressures-re:-weight a lot, but I suspect it bears repeating. I agree with you that there is definitely a geographic component to obesity-acceptance, but I also suspect this has socio-economic confounds. Educational attainment's link with obesity has been pretty substantially studied. I wonder what the higher rates of college attendance in women will do to obesity trends, if anything.
Here's an interesting map: percentage of population with Bachelor's degree or higher, by state: http://tinyurl.com/djq2bd
Given how broken the obesity metrics are, you have piqued my curiosity over whether there's a better "perception of obesity" metric...
ukelele
2009-04-09 03:53 pm UTC
(re: I really need to write a post about the love/hate relationship with shoes. )
I bet you can get some totally fun stuff there.
I once heard a fashion expert say something like, "What 27-year-old woman only owns two pairs of shoes?!?!" And...gosh, guilty? Does that really place me *so* far outside the mainstream of my sex? (OK, OK, I *am* outside the mainstream, but I also historically had enough problems finding shoes that fit me that I gave up.)
Then again, I recently found a store that regularly stocks my size, and I am so in love with the idea that I can actually try on shoes before I buy them that I do feel the urge to blow a ton of money on shoes once I get out of grad school. And I love the shoes I bought there with a fierce passion. (And they are totally fantastic shoes.) And I'm not sure I can imagine a guy having a similar reaction, except maybe about hiking shoes or other athletic gear...
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 04:01 pm UTC
Now I'm sorely tempted to count the number of DB posts using the word "shoes", and compare this to the number of comment threads using the word "shoes". I feel like that ratio has got to be at least 3:1.
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 04:02 pm UTC
And I'm not sure I can imagine a guy having a similar reaction, except maybe about hiking shoes or other athletic gear...
I can, but they're cowboy boots, and the guy in question is gay.
pants_of_doom
2009-04-09 04:33 pm UTC
I would only have to gain 15-20 lbs to be obese according to BMI standards (depending on how much I weigh currently, I don't know). I wear a medium or small in generics and have good bone density. "Optimal for my height" would probably put me in the hospital.
gender_euphoric
2009-04-09 04:57 pm UTC
Please don't fall into the fatphobic trap of directly correlating weight with health. they are separate things and should be considered and measured separately. I'm particularly looking at your phrase "above-healthy weight" where you mean "above average weight".
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 05:10 pm UTC
Thank you. That was a bit of intentional sh*t-stirring on my part, and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I have mixed feelings about fat-activism (like most activist groups, some of the rhetoric verges on the insane, IME), but I do think that the two concepts are often linked in non-useful and shaming ways.
[info]gender_euphoric
2009-04-09 05:38 pm UTC
like most activist groups, some of the rhetoric verges on the insane, IME that's a red herring and really a bit of a straw man, too.
this response is enough for me to know not to engage on this topic with you, so I thank you for that.
kementari2
2009-04-09 05:41 pm UTC
(re: I'm particularly looking at your phrase "above-healthy weight" where you mean "above average weight".)
Except that "above average weight" is much higher than "above healthy weight," since the average American adult is "overweight."
Maybe the best phrase is "above the average healthy weight," indicating that, while everyone's healthy weight differs (based on more factors than just sex /height/age), the category refers to what would be above the average healthy weight for that sex/height/age.
[info]kementari2
2009-04-09 05:49 pm UTC
(re: I really need to write a post about the love/hate relationship with shoes. ")
I kid, in part. I realize that my flat feet are slightly "special-needs," which makes wearing shoes that don't have arch support tiring and painful. I'd argue that extended, long-term wear of heels is unhealthy for anyone, but because it actively causes me pain even after a few hours, I definitely have more of a hate relationship with heels even though I agree they look cute and sexy.
So because I feel very strongly about it myself but can't really justify universalizing that, I exaggerate my cause to make it more humorous. :P
differenceblog.com
2009-04-09 05:53 pm UTC
(Re: this response is enough for me to know not to engage on this topic with you, so I thank you for that.)
I respect your decision not to engage in a conversation you don't think will be rewarding, so you don't have to reply to this. However, if you do feel like it, I'd be interested to know where I crossed the line. Which part of my privilege wasn't I checking?
[info]astrogeek01
2009-04-09 06:24 pm UTC
I'm sorry, I have to agree with [info]kementari2 here. I think the use of "above *healthy* weight" is a much better measure than "above *average*" weight since a healthy weight would be much more individually appropriate.
gender_euphoric
2009-04-09 06:30 pm UTC
I think the concept that there is a "healthy weight" that is quantifiable is ridiculous. at least "average" makes sense insofar as there are averages. and really, "obesity" is just about being above a number/percentage, so i don't see how that makes sense. once you question the flawed link regarding health / weight, it's pretty obvious it's just judging for an "above average" quality and not an indicator of health.
[info]astrogeek01
2009-04-09 06:40 pm UTC
Actually, obesity has significant issues, and is related to the content of fat you have vs. muscle. A person's "healthy" weight, as I noted in my first post, can be much higher if they have a lot of muscle vs. fat. That does NOT mean, however, that there aren't unhealthy weights. If I weighed this much and was not very active, it would be a big health risk for me.
mruriah
2009-04-09 06:50 pm UTC
Unfortunately, while what you say is true, it is not actually done that way in practice. I've been to the doctor while at a healthy fat:muscle ratio and been told I was grossly obese, versus being to the doctor with a high fat:low muscle ratio, but weighed much less, and was told I was healthy.
Weight is not a factor at all, unless taking a private plane where you need to know your weight for fuel usage.
[info]astrogeek01
2009-04-09 07:02 pm UTC
These are things that I agree with:
People who are overweight are generally not treated well.
Many doctors (see my first post on BMI and the use thereof) fall into the trap of using BMI which is not a good indicator, but is easy.
Doctors tell people to lose weight, when it might not be an issue (or might not be the main issue) just because they don't match the BMI scale.
This I do NOT agree with:
"Healthy weight is not quantifiable". A healthy weight IS quantifiable, if your doctor is doing it right and taking measurements of your fat vs. muscle, takes into account your age, and your body type, and other factors. A healthy weight is individual, time-specific, and related to how active you are. You can use it as a measure; it just can't be used all by itself as a measure.
"Obesity" is not an issue. Obesity IS an issue. There are documented detrimental health issues.
mruriah
2009-04-09 07:13 pm UTC
I agree that obesity is an issue. I've watched what it's done to people in my family and myself.
Maybe we should change the language because I still don't see you agreeing with me on anything.
The term "overweight" is outdated and wrong. Weight, in and of itself, has absolutely nothing to do with ones health in regards to being obese. When we get into a 5'9" female who weighs 90lbs, that's different, but is not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the "over" section of the spectrum. Body fat percentage is a health determinate. Let's say there's a female who weighs 210lbs at 5'6" and has a 12% body fat. That should be considered healthy, however, this female will be considered overweight because she is not within the government's weight range for her height. A male weighs 210lbs at 5'6" and has a 28% body fat. That should not be considered healthy, however, his weight is not so far out of range and, therefore, the doctors will tell him he's fine. Why?
It's the "weight" issue. Overweight has nothing to do with weight. And BMI is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen, so I agree with you there.
But I have never had a doctor take my body fat. I was in my weight range at one point in high school with a 42% body fat (didn't really know that was possible until then) and my doctor told me I was healthy. I mentioned my body fat and he said, "That's a load of sh*t. Body fat has nothing to do with anything." I have never had a doctor check my body fat, never wanted to, just told me my weight either need to go up, stay where it was, or go down.
You can do all the health equations of body fat and such without weight in the mix, so weight is not quantifiable.
[info]mruriah
2009-04-09 07:04 pm UTC
I used to think it had to do with women caring more of what they looked like, but having gone through my transition and being around men while being accepted as a man, I think the opposite is actually true. Men are constantly worrying about their weight without telling anyone but men, so, when you ask men, they always retort with something to the negative.
But then there's the metabolic differences between men and women.
But, remember, when we discuss weight, we don't really discuss anything as weight has nothing to do with health.
I would think it's important to note that since men have a tendency to have more muscle which is also denser, they are expected to weigh more, so a man who is 5'6" weighing in at 190lbs is acceptable when you only look at the figure of weight, versus a woman of the same height weighing the same amount. The man might have a body fat of 30% while the woman has a body fat of 10%, but the average doctor will tell the man he's healthy and the woman to lose weight.
I'm sure that if every doctor stopped using weight as a measure of obesity those percentages would change.
kementari2
2009-04-10 06:02 pm UTC
Too much weight (not just a poor muscle vs. fat ratio) can be a real health concern in itself for things like strain on the knees and feet.
But I agree that most of the problems casually attributed to too much weight are more accurately due to too much fat.
mruriah
2009-04-10 10:17 pm UTC
It can be a problem for knees and feet, along with hips and just about every other joint in the body, I agree. But so can the cardio done to keep one's weight down, along with the strength training. But when you have more weight, your body picks up the slack by building the muscles that support your knees and feet. So, really, how much difference is there between a 250 pound person putting strain on their joints, and a 150 pound person running several miles everyday and doing the appropriate strength training so many times a week?
Post a Comment