This was originally by Kate Harding, who has a captioned version here.
There's a link to her site at the photoset.
But not a link to the captioned version.
Aren't the pictures on flickr captioned?
Well, I'm certainly not going to go to this link until you all have sorted out whether it's the proper link that we should go to.
The one that gets me is the couple where the woman his normal, and her pretty buff boyfriend is "obese"
yeah, the whole bmi thing is really a red herring.
there are important public health issues related to obesity.
but the bmi measurement is so palpably inaccurate that it has
taken the spotlight off the real issues by becoming an issue itself.
i think it just needs to be replaced be a metric that is more reflective of real bodies, but has a comparably simple formula for calculation.
e.g., i'd think that dividing the hyperbolic cosine of the surface integral of your total skin area by a hamiltonian of the n-ary vectors of your digestive pathway should give a rough and ready guide to what really matters from the practical standpoint.
then just combine that with a real-to-categorical function that outputs the values "skeletor", "fatso", and "point and stare".
something like that.
Right now by BMI standards I'm overweight (BMI = 25.1). When I was the fittest I've been as a post-college adult (which was about three and a half years ago, not coincidentally just before the first kid landed in the house) I was right in the middle of the "Normal" range (BMI = 22.1). When I was an emaciated 20 year old undergraduate -- definitely not fit, just way too thin -- I was *still* in the "Normal" range (BMI = 19.7).
Yes, there's really no reason to ever need to measure someone's fattiness. You just need the indicators of health like blood-sugar levels and cholesterol levels, and factors like eating healthy and staying active.
There's an interesting causal issue here. Is obesity itself the cause of health problems, or does it just correlate with a whole bunch of things that cause health problems or are health problems, and thus serve as a useful indicator?
The problem is that it doesn't sound natural to say that there is a "sedentariness epidemic" or a "junk food epidemic" even if these things are themselves the direct causes we should be concerned with.
There's an interesting causal issue here. Is obesity itself the cause of health problems, or does it just correlate with a whole bunch of things that cause health problems or are health problems, and thus serve as a useful indicator?
It doesn't even serve as a useful indicator, across a population like this. Within one person's individual range, adiposity is a useful thumbnail. But there are plenty of people whose personal range from fit -> totally unhealthy is entirely within the skinny section, or entirely within the fat section, and their BMI is irrelevant to the health consequences of their lifestyle.
Is obesity itself the cause of health problems,
Fat cells themselves do not seem to cause problems. Fat even seems to be protective in certain fairly common conditions. (I forget which ones.)
These are good.
Are these girl scout cookies?
It doesn't even serve as a useful indicator, across a population like this.
Not from an individual diagnosis perspective, but a public health perspective. The fact that 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese indicates that we are eating more junk and walking less. This is a real public health problem, which can only be addressed by structural changes in society.
There are several women in these photos who are my height and 20-30 pounds heavier than I am, and they look much better than I would have expected. Though I'm not particularly worried about my weight, looking at these photos makes me think that my idea of how I look must be pretty off.
Which is to say, they're quite effective.
15---
"Fat even seems to be protective in certain fairly common conditions. (I forget which ones.)"
skinniness.
and memory loss.
Fat cells themselves do not seem to cause problems.
They release estrogen, elevated levels of which is associated with breast cancer and reduced libido. I think this is only relevant in men and postmenopausal women because the amount of estrogen they produce is not significant compared to the amount produced by ovaries of premenopausal women.
But yeah, they don't make you more prone to heart attacks or strokes or whatnot.
I feel a lot more sluggish when I've gained a few pounds, but that probably isn't because of the extra weight.
18--
most of the women in those photos weigh much less than i do,
and they look much better than i expected.
Is this felt? *feels fabric*
It is now!
DC Unfogged is a BMI project, isnt it?
Swimsuits optional.
23--
which leads me to wonder, how is the name of that uncommon grain spelt?
Swimsuits optional.
There was discussion about a swim.
The BMI just seems to get it wrong all the way around. It doesn't take into account body composition and frame size, which not only inaccurately labels some people as 'obese', but allows everyone who ends up a little overweight to comfort themselves by insisting that it's muscle mass.
And it has nothing to do with health. My BMI is around 22 now, but I was definitely in better shape by every other measure when my BMI was 23.
My BMI is around 22 now, but I was definitely in better shape by every other measure when my BMI was 23.
BMI doesn't say anything about health within bands, does it?
Also, looking at these pictures, I realize whatever my body image is, it's nowhere near reality. Because so far, when I've thought 'that girl looks like me', one has been 5'6'' and 200 pounds, and one was ten pounds lighter than I am.
So my reaction, that everybody I think is attractive is "overweight," and some are "obese," is the point?
Not sure I see the point -- the classifications are pretty much as I would have expected based on looking at the photos.
There is definitely something going on with weight, though, that may not be fully captured by BMI classifications. As I understand it, in the 19th / early 20th century, typical weights for adult males were around 160-170 pounds. It's far higher now.
As I understand it, in the 19th / early 20th century, typical weights for adult males were around 160-170 pounds. It's far higher now.
Adult males where? Higher now where?
Height has also increased among whatever people you're referring to, most likely.
28: No, but most people would probably say that losing ten pounds is better for someone of my height. (And the next 'band' starts at 24 or 25, which at my height, is not a very big pound difference.)
31: People are taller and better nourished, too.
"Fat cells themselves do not seem to cause problems."
Fat cell number doesn't cause problems. But the state of fat cells can affect health. Healthier people have fat cells which are less full already, so they can respond better to insulin and absorb nutrients out of the blood.
31: People are taller and better nourished, too.
Yep. In one of my classes I ask this pop quiz question on the first day:
To the nearest five inches, the average height of non-officer recruits to the British Royal Navy in 1800 was ___________.
You can safely go lower than 5'4", since i doubt the answer is 5'9". Let's say 5'2".
I might be low, but Cala is way high. That's only 6" shorter that people today.
"that people today" s/b "than American males on average today"
In a famine, fat people survive better, except that they're also more nutritious and better to eat. One fat 200-lb person has more food value than two skinny 100-pounders, and with only half the bad karma.
Put me in for 5'2" as well, w-d has convinced me with his "play the odds" logic.
But what if they're blocking a mineshaft?
40: I was going by suits of armor in the museum that look like they'd fit me. And figuring maybe nutrition had improved since medieval times. And then guessing ex recto.
I win!
Note that you probably can't use any of these people to stop runaway trolleys.
Is there a significant hight difference between the non-officers and the wealthier officers?
44: Holy crap, and they reckon that was accurate, and not artificially lowered by odd measurements or anything? That seems so much shorter than I've seen anywhere, even in places where malnutrition is (relatively) common for the modern day.
Also, Cala's thing about the medieval armor.
But wait, weren't these people eating an organic, low-fat diet? In Bleak House, Guppy takes whatsisface for a cheap lunch of lobster and lettuce. Also wasn't the inability of many WWI British recruits to carry a pack an impetus for nutrition research?
suits of armor in the museum
There's the class dimension, though. The 4'3" number is for "fourteen-year-old recruits for naval service via London's Marine Society" and represent "the healthier portion of the city's jobless poor." By contrast, entrants of the same age to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, drawn from the gentry and artistocracy, averaged about 5'1". At present in the U.S. the average 14 year old male is about 5'6" tall.
How much of that height average is about malnutrition (probably a lot) and how much is about people who were a lot taller/bigger/less metabolically efficient than that seriously just being *dead* because they couldn't survive with that level of malnutrition?
I can't find numbers right away, but I'm guessing height follows the same pattern as human lifespan. That is, it stays at basically the same low level from the agricultural revolution through the industrial revolution and then suddenly goes through the roof.
54: I think that's right. If food is scarce, it makes more sense to have a small body than a big one, and we know (from, e.g., the Dutch famine) that the body adapts really damn fast to its environment.
52: Ah, that explains a good part of it, as well. I didn't know they were taking on 14 year olds as the recruits. Admittedly, I should have been able to expect it, because it's not like secondary schools were around.
That also makes a big difference because modern diet and lifestyle has hastened the onset of puberty and major growth spurts, which I believe tend to happen around 13-14 for boys these days.
44 (again): What's the average age of these recruits? Are they boys or full-grown men?
weren't these people eating an organic, low-fat diet
Yes, but it consisted of a small variety of grains, perhaps even a single grain.
52: Wow, that's nearly a foot difference by economic class.
52: That 10" is also a damn impressive class difference. Sorta puts the modern day arguments about income inequality in a bit of perspective.
Poked around and found a number for 17yr olds in Marine Society records, similar time period. The average height then was around 5'3", and a little shorter for ones who'd had smallpox, maybe.
Wow, that's nearly a foot difference by economic class.
I'm very fond of that analogy in IQ discussions. Sure IQ is genetically influenced. So's height.
Wow, that's nearly a foot difference by economic class.
Hence "high and mighty", "look down one's nose at" etc etc.
57: Yeah, I'm not sure about this, but I have the impression that malnourished boys hit their full adult height later -- a kid who if properly fed would have been 6'0" by 14, might if malnourished be 5'0" at 14, and 5'6" at 20.
My grandfather, who grew up poor enough to be underfed in Ireland, is 5'8" on his immigration paperwork at 20, and died at 6'1".
the average height of the gun-decks was also appallingly low, tho.
so they may have gone out of their way to select a shorter navy population. people above 5' 6" or so would have knocked themselves out against the ceiling as soon as they entered action with an enemy vessel.
still being pissy about the weightlifter suggesting that bacon doesn't go with greens, sorry. Recruits from the city is different; Hogarth and Fielding are scary. Was the country as bad?
66: Well, my WWII era refugee German mother in law says that she and her sisters didn't hit puberty until they were like 15 or so, so that makes a lot of sense to me.
65: and "movin' on up" or "finally up in the big leagues"
I am just a normal shlub but back when I joined our gym they had a free health assessment that they gave. Not a simple BMI but a lets-poke-and-prod-you-and-sort-out-the-fat-from-the-lean affair. When it was said and done my optimal weight is 220. Which is a BMI 29, just on the cusp of obese but for me at that weight I have 10% fat, which is just about perfect for my sex and age.
I am nothing special, just a guy likely to be asked to help move furniture, but BMI in and of itself is really misleading.
Funny aside, when I was in grad school I had to get a physical and the doctor looked up my BMI and told me it was high and I should lose 20 pounds. Hello, I was a starving grad student with like 3% body fat, but "the chart says you are overweight." Later on I just realized that this doctor was just wacked, when I went and asked for a referral for a urologist to get myself fixed and he wouldn't give me one. Instead he gave me a lecture on how. "...one never knows, your wife and kids might get hit by a bus or you might get divorced and then what?"
Worst.bedside.manner.ever.
There was an awesome piece in... I think the New Yorker... about how Americans are shrinking compared to Europe in a reversal of the post-war situation. The average Dutch person is getting taller; the average American is getting shorter. Hurrah for junk food!
The Grauniad is probably not where I first read it, but still.
71: No. Worst.Bedside.Manner ever goes to the health center nurse who gave me the results of my (positive!) pregancy test. I'd filled out all the paperwork already about how long we had been "trying," had made very clear this was a planned child, etc. She delivered the results, and then very gravely asks, "So have you given any thought to what you want to do about this?"
Er, um, eat healthier? Take prenatal vitamins? Start a college savings plan maybe?!
I would like to retire the phrase "bedside manner." It implies that what doctors like ukko's lack is simply the inability to package their expert diagnoses well. In fact, doctors are messing up the whole human side of decision making, and since they have to make decisions in conjunction with a human being (their patient), the skill they lack is not some add-on or bit of packaging.
Mr. Rushworth in _Mansfield Park_ snarks on Mr. Crawford for being only 5'9". And of course Mr. Darcy and Miss Darcy are notably tall.
Gene Wolfe's books have a lot of height/caste correlation too.
Back on the veldt, women preferred tall men because tallness signified wealth and health.
77 And here I thought it was just because they could see them in the tall grass.
No, no, the tall grass is why women preferred hairy, manly men--camouflage makes for a better hunter/provider, you know.
79: Have we evolved to prefer the (relatively) hairless so that they don't clog up the shower drains with their sheddage?
The mean height of a white Union soldier aged 21-25 during the U.S. civil war was between 5'7 and 5'8. That's only about 2-3 inches shorter than the average height today. (White Americans in the 19th century were larger/healthier/better nourished than Europeans, but I doubt the difference could be more than a few inches). Their average BMI was about 23, which implies a weight of 150 pounds.
Height and weight really are strongly correlated with mortality -- in the 19th century data there's a strong association between being taller and heavier and longer life. That's probably partially due to the prevalence of chronic diseases that simultaneously reduced weight and health.
77 might have something to it.
OK, just for completeness:
white males aged 21-25 in Union army in 1863: average height 5'7.5", BMI 22.9
white males aged 21-25 in U.S. Army in 1988: average height 5'9.1", BMI 24.96 (weight about 170).
So about an inch and half taller, but 20 pounds heavier.
Numbers from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8843.
Now back to work.
80: Excellent hypothesis! This is probably 100% correct.
80: not yet, but keep at it for another 10,000 years or so and we'll see what happens
85--
look, that's just not the way evolution works, you unregenerate lamarckian.
if you want to affect the genetic trajectory, you have to *kill* the shower cloggers.
or at least castrate them before they breed.
white males aged 21-25 in U.S. Army in 1988: average height 5'9.1", BMI 24.96 (weight about 170).
Huh. I thought average height for men in the US these days was 5'10", and I would have guessed on no evidence that guys joining the military would run taller than average rather than the reverse.
I don't know why people get hung up on BMI; it's a simple statistic and says something about population averages. It either is or isnt' a correlate with various other things (disease risk etc) that also are population statistics. Using it as a tool for analysing individuals is only sensible in that context, but many people seem really attached to misreading or misapplying numbers like these.
LB: military service correlates with lower income families, which correlates with minorities. Overall this might correlate with a lower average hight, but I don't know.
86: Nah, its' fine if they just stay single and clog their own showers unproductively.
guys joining the military would run taller than average rather than the reverse.
Enlisted recruits come from disproportionally low-income families, and are at greater risk for malnutrition, so it's possible they're shorter than the national average.
Because there's a lot of social pressure and emotional weight around being fat in our society, and a number that purports to objectively determine who's overweight and who's obese is going to upset people, particularly when it's wrong for a large part of the population. If BMI were used as a way to analyze height/weight ratios population-wide, rather than sorting individuals into Normal/Overweight/Obese, it wouldn't make anyone cranky.
89, 91: The thing is, I don't think there's much of a height/social class correlation in the US these days, is there? And if there were, I might expect to see it at the very bottom end of the income scale, but the military doesn't draw from grinding poverty: more middle/lower-middle class.
I'm just curious about whether I'm wrong about average population height, or if the Army really is shorter than average.
92: that's a good point, the numbers are perfectly fine for what they are (and how useful they are is something that can be empirically approached) but the labels are stupid.
People direct their ire at the numbers, though, not the labels.
91: A question. Does a lack of height correspond with a lack of nutrition or poor nutrition? It could be said that the problem with being working class in the U.S. isn't primarily a lack of food, but that what food there is is junk. If height corresponds with caloric intake rather than whether the calories are any good, then it wouldn't be surprising if the American working class wasn't much shorter (though unhealthier in other ways.)
Here is another anecdote to add to your data. I run into quite a few military guys in my line of work and they do run a bit on the short side. Now that might be biased by to many interactions the Air Force guys, I usually talk to officers and in the Air Force that means ex-pilots who have to be a bit smaller to fit into the cockpit ex recto.
If height corresponds with caloric intake rather than whether the calories are any good, then it wouldn't be surprising if the American working class wasn't much shorter (though unhealthier in other ways.)
I think it does -- plenty of protein and fat as kid, short of really out-there obesity -- is AFAIK what makes you tall.
isn't the army disproportionatly minorities, who are probably shorter than average?
95: depends on what you mean by nutrition. pure calories are probably more important for people in 1800, but vitamins/minerals etc are probably more important now.
Also, i think childhood obesity can decrease height, since it raises estrogen which can cause bone growth plates to prematurely harden
isn't the army disproportionatly minorities, who are probably shorter than average?
For one thing, the quoted stat was for white people, wasn't it? For another, I'm not sure that 'minorities' are shorter than average. Recent immigrants, maybe, but I don't know if there are enough to pull the average height for 'minorities' generally down much.
What about immigrants or the children of immigrants? Specifically those from Latin America? I thought they were both shorter than average and disproportionately common in the military.
Maybe all the tall buff kids got football scholarships.
But still probably not reflected in a stat labelled "white men".
don't hipspanics who are dominican or a few other locals get put into 'white men' for demographic data?
and minorities, i'm not really talking about blacks, but my guess is taht most asians and hispanics are 1st or 2nd generation
95 - I've seen the claim that the important factor is health during childhood growth spurts. Access to health care and the resources to avoid unhealthy environments might be more important than (worse than average) nutrition.
Hispanics can certainly be white -- it's an ethnicity, not a race.
106: "Races" are ethnicities rather than races, too; it's not as if 'white' has some biologically valid meaning that 'latino' doesn't. But isn't 'white' in statistics more often than not 'non-latino white'?
The tallest of the 30 or so adults in my extended family is the Mexican-American in-law. What are the odds of that?
In my wife's Finnish/Irish/mutt family, I (the Asian-Am) am the tallest. You can call me Yao.
96: Ukko, I've heard that there is a specific height range that pilots can be. It had something to do with being able to reach the pedals, but not get your knees cut off if you ejected. Dunno if that's really true, but it makes for a good story.
I think some of these people are lying about their height or weight.
I'm 6' and once weighted 135lb, but that was when I was a narcottics addict. Now I'm slightly fat 195.
You mean they're claiming to be heavier than they actually are? Because that's psychologically unexpected, isn't it?
"Races" are ethnicities rather than races, too; it's not as if 'white' has some biologically valid meaning that 'latino' doesn't.
Exactly. I've been reading some 19th- and early 20th-century Canadian census data, and I find it interesting to see that the people we would now call "white" are listed as Irish, Scottish, French, English, etc. under the heading "Racial or Tribal Origin." Sort of a British empire thing, no doubt (how many of "our" Irish/Scots/etc have settled in Upper Canada and so on?). I suspect (but haven't bothered to check, so could be wrong) that the comparable categories on the US census forms would already be racialized along "colour" lines.
You'd be mistaken, sort of. Whiteness of a Different Color, which I've only skimmed and about which I've heard mixed things, gets into the messy categorization of European immigrants. Legally white, for naturalization purposes, but not quite white in the same way in other contexts.
I don't know what the actual census categories were, though. In Rollins v Alabama (1922) an appeals court wasn't sure if a Sicilian woman was white or not.
The categories seem to have been primarily racial, with country of origin added in 1880.
96: Was actually just having a conversation about just this second. Fighters subject the pilots to pretty high G loads, which tends to make the blood pool in the legs. In order to keep adequate blood pressure in the brain, your aortic valve needs to resist a pressure of (density of blood) * (vertical acceleration) * (distance from heart to brain). The taller you are, the harder this is. Ergo, short fighter pilots. Transport and helicopter pilots average much taller.
Also, one of the main points of BMI is that you can calculate it knowing your weight and height. Everyone knows that bodyfat percentage is much more useful of a metric, but getting everyone in the country to get an 11-point skin fold test just ain't gonna happen.
Oddly, the 1870 census seems to have recorded "persons born in Russia" only for Oregon, where the data reaches the county level.
118: The census is full of such oddities. Seriously, is there anything more interesting than the social construction of vital statistics?
Way to pick the worst possible counterexample. Give me a copy of The Politics of Numbers, but please god don't make me watch a whole baseball game.
118: That's pretty early. With the remnants of the fur trade and the acquisition of Alaska, there could have been enough Russians running around to seem significant. (God forbid that I'd actually go look for numbers before commenting.)