fat is back in style?

[Lavans]

Uh huh, that's why of all the life insurance I have sold, EVERYONE as short or shorter than the woman in the OP's photo is rated (charged more), and only once in my career has an otherwise healthy person been rated or denied coverage due to being underweight, and he was probably a bulimic.

If you want to know who is the most likely to die, ask and insurance company with over 100 years of mortality experience. Everything else is a fraud, anomaly, or the result of a flawed methodology.

#1 reason to be charged more for life insurance: Not enough vertical inches per pound, not a family history of cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. Why? #1 leads directly or indirectly to all of those.

It's time you did a bit of light reading m'friend.

Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ref=weekinreview

Two years ago, federal researchers found that overweight people had the lowest mortality rate of any weight group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/weekinreview/11kolata.html?_r=0

But for adults, being merely overweight — having a body mass index between 25 and 30
– might be okay. It doesn’t up the risk of dying from heart disease or cancer, and is actually associated with lower rates of death from emphysema, various infections and pneumonia.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/chubby-could-be/

Also, insurance companies are crooks, especially the ones revolving around healthcare. They charge and arm and a leg because they know they can get away with it. The negativity in this thread is proof enough of that.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

It's time you did a bit of light reading m'friend.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ref=weekinreview



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/weekinreview/11kolata.html?_r=0



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/chubby-could-be/

Also, insurance companies are crooks, especially the ones revolving around healthcare. They charge and arm and a leg because they know they can get away with it. The negativity in this thread is proof enough of that.

Thanks for the links. It's nice to see what quotes you selected and what quotes you omitted. It's also nice to know that know that your contention is based on something other than the girl pictured in the OP, who is by all these studies' definition, obese.

The conspiracy nut stuff at the bottom is priceless.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Shh. Obviously your company would rather hate fat people than make money. ^_^

Companies. Yeah, they have no competition, so they just charge an arm and a leg because they know they can get away with it. They hate fat people AND make money. Crooks if you ask me!

This section next is not directed at you. Just some thoughts.

Let me tell you what the sales margin is for an insurer on a term-life policy, it's negative. That's correct, every time an insurer sells you a life insurance policy, they are losing money on mortality. They only make a profit from investments. What a scam...

Since we're at it, there is no such thing as health insurance. Can anyone tell me what I mean by that?

 

[wirednuts]

Since we're at it, there is no such thing as health insurance. Can anyone tell me what I mean by that?

because health insurance companies are nothing more then scam artists on a scale so large they made themselves too big to fail.

the doctor tells them how much stuff will cost. they tell the customer a price 50% higher then that, and then they collect that money, hold it for awhile and make interest on it. then take 60% of the original amount the doctor told them and pay that back to the doctor, claiming overhead/middleman costs for the reason they cant pay the doctor in full.

now think about what i said, and you understand how they got so powerful and rich. when youre taking it both ways, there is a lot of dickin around you can do.

 

[Ronstang]

The one nice thing about being an old guy is the younger they are the fatter they can be....up to a point.

 

[Lavans]

It's also nice to know that know that your contention is based on something other than the girl pictured in the OP, who is by all these studies' definition, obese.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? She is most definitely not obese.

The model in the original post is a size 12, hardly plus size. Judging by her appearance and apparent height of 5"9, she is likely between 150-170lbs. If the latter, then her BMI is about 25, labeling her as overweight, and qualifying her for these statistics that federal researchers have conducted. If the former, then her BMI is 22, making her "normal" weight.

The conspiracy nut stuff at the bottom is priceless.

So by saying that insurance companies rip people off, it's automatically a conspiracy just because you don't agree with it? Way to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? She is most definitely not obese.

The model in the original post is a size 12, hardly plus size. Judging by her appearance and apparent height of 5"9, she is likely between 150-170lbs. If the latter, then her BMI is about 25, labeling her as overweight, and qualifying her for these statistics that federal researchers have conducted. If the former, then her BMI is 22, making her "normal" weight.



So by saying that insurance companies rip people off, it's automatically a conspiracy just because you don't agree with it? Way to have an intelligent conversation.

She's at least a buck eighty after she shits, and by the definition of the study you quoted, obese. My definition would be a little more lenient than that, but I'm going with your criteria.

No, that's just an outright lie. Conventional wisdom and insurance are mutually exclusive. The conspiracy part is your suggestion that the industry is somehow a scam, a conspiracy of insurers, because that's what it would take to make your idiotic opinion true.

People don't like insurance because it's a hedge against uncertainty, and when they win by not having anything bad happen to them, then they feel like they lost because they wasted all that money. If they lose, by having bad stuff happen to them, then they feel like no amount of money is enough. Either way they feel cheated, and of course we only hear from them, not the people who thought about it honestly and realised the benefit. Without insurance, there would be no business, no driving, no hospitals, no modern medicine, no loans, no banking, no mortgages. Insurance makes all that possible.

If you think that the status quo opinion of insurance on a nerd tech forum has any basis in reality you're fucked, but you just go on ahead and get in the sinking ship of fools with wirednuts up there. You're both smart guys, which is why I don't politely suffer your ignorance. If you were genuine retards, then you'd be excused. Nothing's worse than a nice mind filled with shitty ideas.

The very fact that there's a market and insurers go out of business, and most struggle, should be enough evidence of your own idiocy.

I only fucking brought it up to illustrate to you why your inane idea about being a healthy fatass is wrong, and now I have to explain why you're wrong about that too. You can selectively quote all the feel-good news stories about "scientific findings" until your blue in the face. These companies make or do not make money on knowing when large segments of the population will expire. I talk to doctors, nurses, underwriters, underwriters who are nurses, underwriters who are doctors, and actuaries every day. I'm pretty sure I'm right, because I know they're right. What do you do?

 

[Lavans]

She's at least a buck eighty after she shits, and by the definition of the study you quoted, obese. My definition would be a little more lenient than that, but I'm going with your criteria.

Where in any of those articles does it state that a person with a BMI of 25 is obese?

 

[Lithium381]

i'd do her..... not fat imo but then i like a bit more...

 

[Jeff7181]

Just because you're overweight doesn't mean you're unhealthy, it just means you're not physically fit.

I can't believe you're actually arguing that it's not unhealthy to be overweight. Insane.

 

[momeNt]

I can't believe you're actually arguing that it's not unhealthy to be overweight. Insane.

I'm guessing he is just saying that weight is not 100% correlative with health. Which of course it is not. If person A and person B are being compared by overall health, and the only factor you are looking at is body fat %, my guess is you are doing it wrong.

 

[nehalem256]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? She is most definitely not obese.

The model in the original post is a size 12, hardly plus size. Judging by her appearance and apparent height of 5"9, she is likely between 150-170lbs. If the latter, then her BMI is about 25, labeling her as overweight, and qualifying her for these statistics that federal researchers have conducted. If the former, then her BMI is 22, making her "normal" weight.

Even her self "estimated" weight is 170... do you really think a woman is estimating her weight to be higher than it is?

 

[momeNt]

Even her self "estimated" weight is 170... do you really think a woman is estimating her weight to be higher than it is?

My guess is she probably is overestimating because she realizes that most women can only hope to achieve her figure, so estimating it on the high end gives women a more realistic goal.

 

[randomrogue]

It always amazes me when someone looks at an overweight person and goes "They're big boned" or "They're not fat" or "She's tall".

Look, she's overweight. You can try to justify it all you want. Maybe she just finished eating a side of beef but she's still overweight. Nothing you say can change that.

 

[Lavans]

I'm guessing he is just saying that weight is not 100% correlative with health. Which of course it is not. If person A and person B are being compared by overall health, and the only factor you are looking at is body fat %, my guess is you are doing it wrong.

Exactly this.

 

[Jeff7181]

Exactly this.

Of course there's thousands of variables that contribute to a persons health. We're talking about weight. Being overweight is less healthy, all else being equal.

The point is we should not be teaching kids it's OK to be fat. It's not. They'll be better off if they're not overweight.

 

[Lavans]

Of course there's thousands of variables that contribute to a persons health. We're talking about weight. Being overweight is less healthy, all else being equal.

Recent health studies say otherwise, but it really depends on the fat distribution. More fat in the gut is bad and increases the risk of diabetes. Fat around the neck and chin could also obstruct breathing, especially when sleeping. Other than that, having a little extra fat in general has been proven to help people to fight off serious infections and does not increase heart related issues by any significant degree.

The point is we should not be teaching kids it's OK to be fat. It's not. They'll be better off if they're not overweight.

Its difficult, if not impossible, for a good number of people to not be "overweight". 190lbs at 6'0 is considered to be overweight. But it also depends on existing muscle too. When I was doing martial arts, I was 185lbs at 6'1, which is approximately 25.1 bmi, just barely overweight. But I was also able to max bench 225lbs and max leg press 845lbs, meaning that the bmi is an overestimate to my actual body fat. When I stopped doing martial arts, I gained about 13lbs, making me look much fatter than I actually was since the fat distribution mostly hit my abdomen and neck in addition to my already existing bulk.

Point in case, it's entirely possible for a person to look chubby but have far less body fat than what you're giving them credit for. A chubby person who has moderate a moderate muscle build is more likely to be healthy than a person with normal weight who doesn't work out. And again, even if said thick person doesn't do any sort of exercise, they're not automatically more prone to health complications just because they're 10-20lbs higher than what their target weight "should" be according to health critics.

 

[BeeBoop]

Recent health studies say otherwise, but it really depends on the fat distribution. More fat in the gut is bad and increases the risk of diabetes. Fat around the neck and chin could also obstruct breathing, especially when sleeping. Other than that, having a little extra fat in general has been proven to help people to fight off serious infections and does not increase heart related issues by any significant degree.

You are misinterpreting the results of the study. Link and quote below to probably the most important statement in said study. The reason people with a higher BMI are living longer is most likely due to drugs are multiple heart surgeries that occur in their lifetime but not their BMI.

However, a slight increase in lifespan doesn’t necessarily equate to an increased quality of life. Even being ‘just’ overweight can increase the chance of developing long-term health conditions, which while may not be fatal, can make life a lot less enjoyable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...2-overweight-people-live-longer-study-claims/

 

[Lavans]

You are misinterpreting the results of the study. Link and quote below to probably the most important statement in said study. The reason people with a higher BMI are living longer is most likely due to drugs are multiple heart surgeries that occur in their lifetime but not their BMI.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...2-overweight-people-live-longer-study-claims/

Which is well and fine, but is ultimately a grey area.

 

[shadow9d9]

I can't believe you're actually arguing that it's not unhealthy to be overweight. Insane.

This is the same person that argued that you can't know if his brother and father could lose weight because you haven't met them... and that you can't suggest how they could lose weight because you haven't personally seen their two sandwiches for lunch. He is an apologist looking to rationalize this.

 

[Jeff7181]

Recent health studies say otherwise, but it really depends on the fat distribution. More fat in the gut is bad and increases the risk of diabetes. Fat around the neck and chin could also obstruct breathing, especially when sleeping. Other than that, having a little extra fat in general has been proven to help people to fight off serious infections and does not increase heart related issues by any significant degree.



Its difficult, if not impossible, for a good number of people to not be "overweight". 190lbs at 6'0 is considered to be overweight. But it also depends on existing muscle too. When I was doing martial arts, I was 185lbs at 6'1, which is approximately 25.1 bmi, just barely overweight. But I was also able to max bench 225lbs and max leg press 845lbs, meaning that the bmi is an overestimate to my actual body fat. When I stopped doing martial arts, I gained about 13lbs, making me look much fatter than I actually was since the fat distribution mostly hit my abdomen and neck in addition to my already existing bulk.

Point in case, it's entirely possible for a person to look chubby but have far less body fat than what you're giving them credit for. A chubby person who has moderate a moderate muscle build is more likely to be healthy than a person with normal weight who doesn't work out. And again, even if said thick person doesn't do any sort of exercise, they're not automatically more prone to health complications just because they're 10-20lbs higher than what their target weight "should" be according to health critics.

I'm not talking about 190 vs. 185 pounds or a BMI of 24.9 vs. 25.1 or a body fat percentage of 18 vs. 17 %.

You can argue about fat distribution and fat types all you want. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people trying to convince others that it's OK for a 5 foot 4 inch woman to weigh 200 pounds and that she shouldn't give a second thought to have two pieces of chocolate covered cheese cake for dessert. Or the 6 foot tall, 380 pound man to have a bag of Doritos and a 2-liter of Mountain Dew for dinner.

Can't you just stop arguing tiny little bullshit details and concede that in general, with all else being equal, someone with 20% body fat is healthier than someone with 50% body fat?

 

[Lavans]

We're talking about people trying to convince others that it's OK for a 5 foot 4 inch woman to weigh 200 pounds and that she shouldn't give a second thought to have two pieces of chocolate covered cheese cake for dessert. Or the 6 foot tall, 380 pound man to have a bag of Doritos and a 2-liter of Mountain Dew for dinner.

That might be what you're talking about, but not what I'm talking about. Someone who's 5'4" @ 200lbs is considered to be obese.

Being overweight is neither good or bad, but being obese is most certainly bad.

What would really help here is 1) understanding the difference between being overweight and being obese and 2) comprehending that I'm arguing the health factors of being overweight, not obese.

 

[purbeast0]

That might be what you're talking about, but not what I'm talking about. Someone who's 5'4" @ 200lbs is considered obese with a BMI of 34.

Being overweight is neither good or bad, but being obese is most certainly bad.

What would really help here is if you understand the differences between being overweight and being obese.

what would really help is if you would stop being so dense.

being 180lbs and looking like the OP is not "healthy" for the most part. being 180lbs and looking like an olympic sprinter is healthy.

 

[Lavans]

what would really help is if you would stop being so dense.

being 180lbs and looking like the OP is not "healthy" for the most part. being 180lbs and looking like an olympic sprinter is healthy.

Actually, the only ones who are dense are the ones who are unwilling to be educated, much less educate themselves.

You can spout nonesense based off your own perspectives and beleifs all you want. I have my numbers and studies to fall back on.

 

[Jeff7181]

That might be what you're talking about, but not what I'm talking about. Someone who's 5'4" @ 200lbs is considered to be obese.

Being overweight is neither good or bad, but being obese is most certainly bad.

What would really help here is 1) understanding the difference between being overweight and being obese and 2) comprehending that I'm arguing the health factors of being overweight, not obese.

Then you're arguing with the wrong person. I'm not saying an extra 10 pounds is a death sentence. I'm saying at 6 feet tall and 230 pounds, I'm fat and unhealthy. It's not OK and nobody should claim it is.