Panzer_God said:
justnotcricket said:
It's a tricky question. I think part of it is how tricky it is to define what 'obese' is - take two people of the same height, age and gender, for example. One person may be perfectly healthy at 20 kg over the 'normal' weight (a term which is a slippery slope at best), while the other may be perfectly helathy at 20 kg under the 'normal' weight. There's a difference between being medically obese and being visually very 'fat'. You can be thin as a rail and yet have cholesterol that would kill a horse, or be visibly overweight and live to be 100 with nary a hint of diabetes or heart disease.
How's this, I can grab probably two inches of fat on my upper arms yet have a normal level of cholesterol, a slightly above-average BMI and my doctor said that pound-for-pound I'm the healthiest person my weight group that he's ever seen.
Good for you =) I think that's the point I was trying rather laboriously to make. Weight does not correlate linearly with health (which I think is what Labyrinth was saying earlier, anyway). The kind of fat that's damaging to your health isn't so much the 'chicken wing' arm much-feared by girls, or equally the extra padding around the hips, or guys' love handles or 'man-boobs'. It's the fat that accumulates in the omentum, around the organs and the fatty deposits that form plaques in the endothelium of your arteries and eventually clog them up. That's why you can look 'overweight' or perhaps better put 'untoned' and still be healthy as you like, and look entirely 'average', even skinny, and be on the verge of a coronary. Stop worrying about your dress-size, people. It's your blood cholesterol you should be worrying about, if anything.
(Besides, BMI is meaningless. It tells you that a rugby player is about to die from being morbidly obese, just because the muscle bulk makes them heavier than expected for their height.)