# Are 33% of Americans really obese?



## iwantabbw (Aug 20, 2010)

I came back from my first trip to the USA a few weeks back. Yes, I did see some very fat people. And, yes, Americans were on average fatter than British people. But 33% is 1 in 3, and there was no way that I saw 1 in 3 Americans being obese.

So are 33% of Americans really obese, and if they are, where are these people and why did I not see them?


----------



## CastingPearls (Aug 20, 2010)

We don't all know each other. 

It's not like we keep a directory.

Although perhaps tagging us (microchips, ear-tags, radio collars) might be a worthy scientific endeavor. <pondering>


----------



## crayola box (Aug 20, 2010)

I think the statistical definition of obese and the visual some people associate with the word obese can sometimes be different and thats why you are feeling a disconnect. For example some women are technically obese at 150 lbs, but to the casual observer those same woman may not be what they think of when they think "obese"


----------



## iwantabbw (Aug 20, 2010)

crayola box said:


> I think the statistical definition of obese and the visual some people associate with the word obese can sometimes be different and thats why you are feeling a disconnect. For example some women are technically obese at 150 lbs, but to the casual observer those same woman may not be what they think of when they think "obese"



well, I am very thin, so to me, everyone looks bigger!

but I really did not see as many fat people as I expected. The stats say 33% obese, 34% overweight, so I would expect 2 in 3 Americans to just be fat. But I'd say that less than half the Americans I saw were fat, and less than 10% very fat people.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 20, 2010)

crayola box said:


> I think the statistical definition of obese and the visual some people associate with the word obese can sometimes be different and thats why you are feeling a disconnect. For example some women are technically obese at 150 lbs, but to the casual observer those same woman may not be what they think of when they think "obese"



This is basically what I was going to say.. I think especially in this community we have a skewed definition of what is considered fat and what isn't. My best friend is 5'6" 185 pounds and considered obese.. but I think of her as being a little chubby. So, you probably saw a lot of obese people.. just not people that you'd think of as being especially fat.


----------



## Webmaster (Aug 20, 2010)

Precisely; what statistics consider "obese" and what people consider obese are two entirely different things. 

An old friend of mine always used to report her weight as 199 pounds, though she was more like 300. When I asked her why she did that, she said that she hardly ever has a problem with anyone in real life due to her size and pretty much fits in, but if she told them she weighs 300 pounds, they'd think she was this gigantic monster. She said a lot of people apparently cannot imagine any woman weighing more than 200 pounds, and that's why she always wrote down 199.

One time I was on a TV talk show, I think it was Geraldo, and they had invited another couple who were friends of ours. The woman was 5'5" and 235 pounds, which apparently they thought was huge. When they actually saw her they were shocked because at that weight hardly anyone would have looked twice at her due to her size. She just perfectly blended in. They actually tried to think of ways to make her look fatter on stage.

There's a disconnect at what people think is fat, and what people actually weigh.


----------



## imfree (Aug 20, 2010)

Webmaster said:


> Precisely; what statistics consider "obese" and what people consider obese are two entirely different things....snipped.......
> 
> There's a disconnect at what people think is fat, and what people actually weigh.



I think the attempts of the medical community
and the pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring
obesity into treatable disease category by
incrementally lowering the weight levels at
which people are considered obese, has a lot
to do with that disconnect.


----------



## iwantabbw (Aug 20, 2010)

imfree said:


> I think the attempts of the medical community
> and the pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring
> obesity into treatable disease category by
> incrementally lowering the weight levels at
> ...



you might well be right there. I have always considered "obese" as being someone who has a really big stomach and has great difficulty walking etc. Well, that is what "obese" used to be about 10 years ago!


----------



## Jes (Aug 24, 2010)

Webmaster said:


> There's a disconnect at what people think is fat, and what people actually weigh.



True. I've read reviews of What's Eating Gilbert Grape in which the actress playing Mrs. Grape is referred to as weighing 300 lbs. HAHAHA 300lbs?? At first, I thought I was missing something, but then I realized that fatness is still, somehow, so on the fringes of things (even though most people are considered overweight now) that people truly have no sense of what a certain height and weight look like. 300 must've been 500 to some people. And, I suspect that women lie about weight often as well, so if I look 260 but I say 190, then people would expect 260 to look like 310!


----------



## bigmac (Aug 24, 2010)

Webmaster said:


> Precisely; what statistics consider "obese" and what people consider obese are two entirely different things.
> 
> An old friend of mine always used to report her weight as 199 pounds, though she was more like 300. When I asked her why she did that, she said that she hardly ever has a problem with anyone in real life due to her size and pretty much fit in, but if she told them she weighs 300 pounds, they'd think she was this gigantic monster. She said a lot of people apparently cannot imagine any woman weighing more than 200 pounds, and that's why she always wrote down 199.
> 
> ...



I like to call it peoples DMV weight. Thin people list a very exact weight (eg. 137lbs). Fat people round down. 200lbs means anything from about 220 to 350. 250lbs anything from about 290 to 400. 300lbs equals 400 plus (I've never seen anyone claim over 300).


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Aug 24, 2010)

I recall seeing a birthday card that read, "May the weight on your scales never exceed the weight on your driver's license."


----------



## Paquito (Aug 24, 2010)

The country sends all fat people away when foreigners are visiting so other countries don't catch on to how fat America really is. Instead of staying in tourist areas, check out places like the Dakotas or Wyoming. There, you will see most of us wandering around in the majestic wild hills of the Midwest.


----------



## Tad (Aug 24, 2010)

Let’s say I was visiting England. I go to London and explore mostly around Convent Gardens and The City, with some trips to the smarter shops. Then I go to Oxford and tour the university. Would I see a number of fat people anywhere near what the statistics say? Probably not!

Weights tend to be lower in heavily urban areas compared to in suburbs and rural areas. Weights tend to be lower where there are a lot of young people, like around universities. Weights tend to be lower in wealthier areas than in poorer ones.

So, if you walked around Manhattan, you’d have seen a lower percentage of fat people, most likely, than if you’d gone to a mall in suburban New Jersey, or if you’d gone to a &#8216;family dining’ restaurant in Chattanooga. 

Also, I don’t know how tall you are, but for the average male height of 5’10”, obese would start around 210 pounds (15 stone). For someone 5’5”, around average for younger women, it would start at about 180 pounds (just under 13 stone). For reference, a woman 5’5” and 180 pounds might wear a british size 16 (ETA: any brits feel free to correct me on that size estimate!)


----------



## Pefird (Aug 24, 2010)

I can't wait for it to be 51% obese. Then they're the "freaks!"


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 24, 2010)

Paquito said:


> The country sends all fat people away when foreigners are visiting so other countries don't catch on to how fat America really is. Instead of staying in tourist areas, check out places like the Dakotas or Wyoming. There, you will see most of us wandering around in the majestic wild hills of the Midwest.


 
It's a crying shame that we can't at least herd 'em all into a big box store when the furriners come a' callin'.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 24, 2010)

Living in Idaho, you'd think it's 3%. Almost nobody is overweight in mountain country.


----------



## RJI (Aug 25, 2010)

Where were you visiting? There will be areas with much higher levels of obesity due to economic and education levels that you probably didn't have on your must visit list. 
One of my sisters lives in a poor community and when I see my nieces classmates I think Wow over 50% of them are large but my other sister lives in a nice upscale area and her daughter and classmates are thin for the most part. I tend to blame this on the food that is available to lower income families and the effects these overly processed foods are having on them.


----------



## petunia805 (Aug 25, 2010)

Paquito said:


> The country sends all fat people away when foreigners are visiting so other countries don't catch on to how fat America really is. Instead of staying in tourist areas, check out places like the Dakotas or Wyoming. There, you will see most of us wandering around in the majestic wild hills of the Midwest.



This made me laugh. It reminded me of the very thin family of German Tourists who happened to be staying at the Tuscany during one of the Vegas bashes. I first noticed them by the pool...the looks of astonishment on their collective faces when they saw us all coming was absolutely priceless.


----------



## KittyKitten (Sep 1, 2010)

iwantabbw said:


> I came back from my first trip to the USA a few weeks back. Yes, I did see some very fat people. And, yes, Americans were on average fatter than British people. But 33% is 1 in 3, and there was no way that I saw 1 in 3 Americans being obese.
> 
> So are 33% of Americans really obese, and if they are, where are these people and why did I not see them?



Because the flawed BMI indicator is used and categorizes anyone over number 30 as 'obese' based on height and weight. Football players are obese, muscle men are obese. The BMI doesn't take into account bone or muscle density. I'm 5'7 220 lbs and I'm considered obese, but you would be surprised.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Sep 10, 2010)

Technically yes, as they fit the medical definition of obese, having a BMI which exceeds 30. But that represents an arbitrary number to some degree, in that a BMI of 31 (obese) does not necessarily represent a major break from a BMI of 29 (merely overweight). I wouldn't consider that to necessarily invalidate the definition of obesity, though. Apart from anything else, a BMI over 30 probably means you are at least fifty pounds over the "healthy weight" line. It would be naïve to dismiss the potential risks in my opinion. It also bears remembering that the great majority of Americans are not football players or body builders, no matter what they tell you over the internet.


----------



## Jay West Coast (Sep 11, 2010)

All the fat people were at my house earlier, that's why you didn't see many. You should have come over, man! We had a huge _food party_...


----------



## Jon Blaze (Sep 12, 2010)

kropotkin_fan said:


> Technically yes, as they fit the medical definition of obese, having a BMI which exceeds 30. But that represents an arbitrary number to some degree, in that a BMI of 31 (obese) does not necessarily represent a major break from a BMI of 29 (merely overweight). I wouldn't consider that to necessarily invalidate the definition of obesity, though. Apart from anything else, a BMI over 30 probably means you are at least fifty pounds over the "healthy weight" line. It would be naïve to dismiss the potential risks in my opinion. *It also bears remembering that the great majority of Americans are not football players or body builders, no matter what they tell you over the interne*t.



That doesn't mean the majority of Americans aren't active.


----------



## mszwebs (Sep 12, 2010)

bigmac said:


> I like to call it peoples DMV weight. Thin people list a very exact weight (eg. 137lbs). Fat people round down. 200lbs means anything from about 220 to 350. 250lbs anything from about 290 to 400. 300lbs equals 400 plus *(I've never seen anyone claim over 300)*.



I actually claim 375...though I'm somewhere between 420 and 450. But yeah...I feel as though if I put my actual weight on my ID, they'd question my ability to move, much less drive.



Jay West Coast said:


> All the fat people were at my house earlier, that's why you didn't see many. You should have come over, man! We had a huge _food party_...



lol This is not the week to tease about that. *pout lip*


----------



## MissStacie (Sep 12, 2010)

iwantabbw said:


> you might well be right there. I have always considered "obese" as being someone who has a really big stomach and has great difficulty walking etc. Well, that is what "obese" used to be about 10 years ago!




Ugh...doesn't anyone realize who this is? hehassuchadistortedviewoffatpeoplethathevisitsthestatestoseeifitstrue ???

And again, his "thoughts" as stated above show how dissillusioned he really is about people of size. My husband, considered obese at about 190-200lbs, has no difficulty walking...:doh:


----------



## CastingPearls (Sep 12, 2010)

MissStacie said:


> Ugh...doesn't anyone realize who this is? hehassuchadistortedviewoffatpeoplethathevisitsthestatestoseeifitstrue ???
> 
> And again, his "thoughts" as stated above show how dissillusioned he really is about people of size. My husband, considered obese at about 190-200lbs, has no difficulty walking...:doh:


Uh-huh. If you look you'll see he's on Timeout. He was figured out almost immediately. Trolls never seem to shake their tell-tale styles. It's like a really cheesy Halloween costume. Not fooling anyone.


----------



## KHayes666 (Sep 12, 2010)

CastingPearls said:


> Uh-huh. If you look you'll see he's on Timeout. He was figured out almost immediately. Trolls never seem to shake their tell-tale styles. It's like a really cheesy Halloween costume. Not fooling anyone.



lol most of the trolls end up looking like this everytime they let something slip. This is the best disguise they could come up with


----------



## BM the Lipophile (Sep 13, 2010)

imfree said:


> I think the attempts of the medical community and the pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring obesity into treatable disease category by incrementally lowering the weight levels at which people are considered obese, has a lot to do with that disconnect.


Ding! We have a winner.

Here's why:


happyface83 said:


> Because the flawed BMI indicator is used and categorizes anyone over number 30 as 'obese' based on height and weight. Football players are obese, muscle men are obese. The BMI doesn't take into account bone or muscle density. I'm 5'7 220 lbs and I'm considered obese, but you would be surprised.


The definition of "overweight" and "obese" are based on the flawed BMI that takes no account of age, gender, height or physique. Furthermore, the BMI uses arbitrary limits that have no basis in science. There is not one sound scientific study anywhere in existence that conclusively demonstrates why the "overweight" weight range has to be 25 to 29 and "obese" is 30 or more. 

The only scientific study that I have seen that establishes a lower limit for the "overweight" weight range chose 27.3 for women, 27.8 for men. But that wasn't good enough for the boardrooms of the diet and pharmaceutical industries, so they mandated a lower limit. In other words, these thresholds are arbitrary limits imposed by the weight-loss industry without any science whatsoever.

There isn't even a scientific study that conclusively demonstrates the soundness of the BMI methodology, in particular why it must be based on height raised to the power of precisely 2. The volume of mathematically similar solids increases as the cube of the length, not the square. This is why the BMI does not work well for people whose heights are not close to average. The best science uses a higher figure for the power, around 2.3. Yet we still use the flawed lower figure. Why? Again, so the diet and pharmaceutical industries can sell more products.

There is another disconnect that is never explained adequately. The standards of what constitutes "overweight" and "obese" are different for adults and children. For children, they compare the heights and weights of children against percentile charts and a child that has a high percentile is overweight. Such studies show that maybe 15% or 20% of children are overweight. Then the child turns 18, they are classed as an adult and they are measured against the adult standards. And BAM! Suddenly 50% of them are overweight. How can 30% of people who are not classed as overweight according to one standard be classed as overweight when measured against another? It's simple - the standards for adults sets the weight ranges way too low, particularly for men.

The most embarrassing part of this whole débacle is that these weight ranges are not very good at predicting health. Many studies show that the best health outcomes are found for people who lie in the "overweight" weight range. This isn't really surprising when you consider that Brad Pitt is "overweight" and George Clooney is "obese" according to the BMI. Furthermore, being overweight - as in having a bit of body fat - is protective against some diseases. 

Studies show, time and again, that a BMI range of about 20 to 32 (with some adjustments for gender) is the weight range that produces optimum health outcomes. These studies show quite clearly that being 5% underweight (BMI of 19 or so) is as dangerous to health as having a BMI of over 35. Yet our health policies are silent on this issue.

In many Western countries, these truths are ignored. Instead, health policies are dictated by hyped press releases coming from the diet and pharmaceutical industries, or originate in studies that are funded by these vested interests.

We have heard a lot about dodgy science behind anthropogenic climate change. Yet climate science is sounder than a lot of the science behind obesity research. When such studies as the Norwegian nurses study are buried in favour of studies that show an elevated risk of some disease for someone who is so enormously fat that they have difficulty walking, and then those same results are extrapolated without proof onto the population at large who are only "overweight" because the standard of what constitutes overweight is flawed, it is disturbing to find that our governments are swallowing this dodgy science whole without criticism, and then formulating policy based on it.

In other words, the whole "obesity epidemic" debate is a big confidence trick. We are being made to think we are all "overweight" when many of us are not, for no other reason than to create a market so the weight loss industry can sell more products.


----------



## JMNYC (Sep 13, 2010)

The other night I was surfing the web and an ad for weight watchers came up.

For the hell of it, I clicked on it and started answering questions on their questionnaire. Height and weight, in particular.

I am 5'8 and 175 lbs. I work out 5-6 days a week, since I was 18 years old.

The results said:

"You are OVERWEIGHT. Your ideal weight is between 129 pounds and 160 pounds."

129 pounds. That's what I weighed when I was 12.

It's a scam, man...they are trying to convince us all we're too fat so they can sell us diets, surgery (plastic) and such and so on...we're duped if we buy it!

Had a good laugh over it, though. I'd be a skeleton at 129 lbs.


----------



## CastingPearls (Sep 13, 2010)

Diet culture isn't really about health so much as it is about social control of the body.
And, by extension, specifically the female gender.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 13, 2010)

CastingPearls said:


> Diet culture isn't really about health so much as it is about social control of the body.
> And, by extension, specifically the female gender.



Well social control of one's body under the guise of health. 

What better why to do it, then to either frighten them with the idea of premature death, or to guilty trip people that they are a leech on the system, or both. 

How many so-called "obese" people fit this myth? I know I do not!


----------

