Same boat, different capacity

rogerbum":q9mrs2tb said:
The coast guard is just dealing with the reality of the fattening of America.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And when do you suppose the airlines will will start dealing with reality? Just how crazy is it that a 300 lb passenger pays the same as a 100 lb passenger? And to add insult to injury, if the 300 lb passenger checks a 49 lb bag (for a total weight of 349 pounds), he or she will pay less than a 100 lb passenger who checks a 51 lb bag (for a total weight of 151 lbs).

Apologies for the (mostly) off-topic rant.
 
Americans average weight is going up. about 10 lbs since the 70's, but why? because the average age is up 15 years since the 70's. No doubt that I weight more at 35 then i did at 23. here's to losing 30 bls this year.
 
starcrafttom":2x3mv3xr said:
Americans average weight is going up. about 10 lbs since the 70's, but why? because the average age is up 15 years since the 70's. No doubt that I weight more at 35 then i did at 23. here's to losing 30 bls this year.
Click to expand...

Tom - not true -
1) the increase in average weight between 2011 and 1970 in the US is 20+ lbs.
2) A little bit of that is due to Americans getting taller but nearly all of it is due to an increase in the mass to height ratio (BMI increasing).
3) The increase in weight is happening at all ages - see for example the chart here.
4) BMI currently is maxed out at the age of 55-64 and actually decreases with increasing age.

Why are we fatter? Pretty simple - bigger calorie intake and more sedentary lives. Between 1970 and 2000 the USDA estimates that the average daily caloric intake has increased by about 530 calories - from 2170 calories/day in 1970 to about 2700 calories/day in 2000. See this link for some info on this.

Being overweight puts one at increased risk for a whole host of diseases including cancer, heart problems and Alzheimers. Here's a link with some other information on obesity. One thing that people may find of interest are the statistics within about some of the economic costs of obesity and overweight - for example:

"For each obese beneficiary:

Medicare pays $1,723 more than it pays for normal-weight beneficiaries.
Medicaid pays $1,021 more than it pays for normal-weight beneficiaries.
Private insurers pay $1,140 more than they pay for normal-weight beneficiaries."
 
I had to bring aboard our new documentation for my First Night cruise. The ship I was running went from 525 passengers and crew max to 480. As referenced by several carriers in the article we're seldom sold to capacity so I don't expect any real impact.

The impact for ship resale will be relative. The ship you're trying to sell will carry fewer passengers but so will the ship you're trying to buy (like our home values/prices).
 
I am not knocking that our US population as a whole is much “larger/over weight” than in decades past. But, I do not agree with the measurements that are used to determine such “Health” factors. Do some research on the “Height/Weight” charts that are still currently being used and you will find they haven’t changed since their development. Most were developed during the depression. Hardly a time for determining nutritional health to height/weight ratios in this country!

Falls along the same lines as our “Food Pyramid” that have multiple high glycemic index foods listed or the necessity of “Cows Milk”. All economic decisions to move our country through hard economic times with only minimal true medical necessity reflected. Oh for sure, golden arches and other fast foods have contributed to our current state. But for a financially challenged family, it is cheaper to feed the family bologna sandwiches and fries than it is broccoli and quality baked fish.

BMI is a poor guaranteed indicator of obesity. It doesn’t factor in lean body mass. In fact, most athletes in track and field, at the Olympic level, would be considered obese at some level on the BMI chart. BMI is assuming that the ratio of lean mass to adipose mass is fixed.

It is very possible for a light weight couch potato, with minimal muscle mass, to have a low BMI. Yet, this same individual can be at a great risk of heart disease and diabetes due to inactivity and higher adipose ratio to weight.

The only way to find your muscle mass to adipose mass ratio (muscle to fat) is by using ‘Hydrostatic underwater weighing”. Anything else is just an educated SWAG!

Sorry to digress by continuing with the thread hijacking.
 
sweet pea":1e4ysmmd said:
I am not knocking that our US population as a whole is much “larger/over weight” than in decades past. But, I do not agree with the measurements that are used to determine such “Health” factors. Do some research on the “Height/Weight” charts that are still currently being used and you will find they haven’t changed since their development. Most were developed during the depression. Hardly a time for determining nutritional health to height/weight ratios in this country!

Falls along the same lines as our “Food Pyramid” that have multiple high glycemic index foods listed or the necessity of “Cows Milk”. All economic decisions to move our country through hard economic times with only minimal true medical necessity reflected. Oh for sure, golden arches and other fast foods have contributed to our current state. But for a financially challenged family, it is cheaper to feed the family bologna sandwiches and fries than it is broccoli and quality baked fish.

BMI is a poor guaranteed indicator of obesity. It doesn’t factor in lean body mass. In fact, most athletes in track and field, at the Olympic level, would be considered obese at some level on the BMI chart. BMI is assuming that the ratio of lean mass to adipose mass is fixed.

It is very possible for a light weight couch potato, with minimal muscle mass, to have a low BMI. Yet, this same individual can be at a great risk of heart disease and diabetes due to inactivity and higher adipose ratio to weight.

The only way to find your muscle mass to adipose mass ratio (muscle to fat) is by using ‘Hydrostatic underwater weighing”. Anything else is just an educated SWAG!

Sorry to digress by continuing with the thread hijacking.
Click to expand...

Actually very few Olympic athletes would be considered obese by BMI. Some would be considered overweight with BMI's of 26-30 (many of those are wrestlers, weight lifters, boxers etc but some sprinters, cyclists etc. would be considered overweight by BMI alone). However, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have very little lean muscle. BMI is an extremely strong correlate (not necessarily indicator) of bad health and increased health risk. In a recent study, the correlation coefficient between BMI and body fat percentage is 0.671 for athletes, and 0.813 for the controls from which the authors conclude "Our data show that BMI is not a valid measure for assessing or monitoring body composition in female elite athletes, and it should be used carefully in female non-athletes." A correlation coefficient of 1 indicates a perfect correlation between BMI and body fat percentage where as a .813 indicates that about 80% of the time the body fat percentage can be predicted from BMI. So for a given individual BMI may not be a good indicator of body fat percentage but averaged over a population it's not bad - not exactly a "scientific wild ass guess" IMHO but rather an estimate where the percentages are with you. In most science on obesity, BMI is used in such a way that it's averaged over a population of study subjects.

I agree with you on the food pyramid. Unfortunately, that's put out by the USDA and there's been a lot of pressure from the ag industry to push certain foods (like dairy in particular). If the American Dietetic Society put out the food pyramid, it would likely look differently.
 
STA71161.jpg

...make that "2 persons"
 
How many of us actually weigh what we put on board ??

Point being that in small boats we probably exceed the weight limit on numerous occasions and the WEIGHT is the limit, not the number of persons, dogs or beer kegs.

Being 155lbs (wet) I heartily agree with the airline example quoted and suggest they should offer an "underweight" rebate :twisted:

M
 
Excuse me while I pull out my soap box here --- Thanks.

BMI, as Roger says, is a very accurate indicator in the "average" population. And the American average is growing, mostly wider, but some taller too. BMI as a predictor for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (another consequence of obesity) BMI of 30 = 30% chance, BMI of 40 = 40% chance, BMI of 50 = 50% chance of OSA. and neck circumference is another predictor, female over 16.5" or males over 17.5 inches = 75% chance of positive for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Thanks much to the SAD or GAD (Standard American Diet or Great American Diet), the "gaining" of America.

As to the Air lines. If they are going to charge double for double weight, they may have to provide double wide, so not likely to see that anytime soon, I think.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
All I really was saying is, BMI is a tool, not an end all discussion on obesity. Just some FYI. My part time job is Charter Boat Operator. My full time job is a Respiratory Therapist. Prior to relocating back to my home state of MS (to be near the “Salt Life” again) I ran a Sleep Lab in Western NC. Many Doc’s were shocked (downright irate) when you told them their patient had no (zero) evidence of OSA even when the study was run by a RPSGT and read by a Board Certified MD in Sleep. Even though their BMI were out of “Normal” ranges.

That is really my point. Many get fixated on BMI alone. “Oh my gosh! His/her BMI is 42”! But it is never explored further. The patient is told they are obese due to their BMI. If explored a little further with Hydrostatic underwater weighing, some people (though admittedly very few) are in an acceptable body fat% yet burdened with the tag “Obese”.

Once again BMI is a very good front end tool. But not a tool to tag a person with an ICD 9 code of 278.00 (Obesity Unspecified) or any variation of 278.
 
Back
Top