Will Everyone Become Overweight?

I think your mixing with semantics here. Is "normal" being used as an adjective or a noun? According to the Oxford American Dictionary, the adjective 'normal' = "conforming to a standard, usual, typical". It also says that when using the adjective to describe a person = "free from physical or mental disorders". The noun 'normal' refers to a person who "is physically or mentally healthy".

It may be that the standard size of a US human is now overweight. Is this normal (noun - healthy) - no. We all know that being overweight is physically unhealthy. That has been proven, hasn't it? I sure know I hate being overweight, I can't move comfortably, I am irritable and always tired and I ache all the time, my clothes don't fit and I look horrible - and that is why I am trying my darndest to get healthy again.

does that also mean that life expectancy will decrease in reaction to everyone being overweight?

I like Dawn's distinction here. When I was obese, I used to think in relative terms (i.e., I cannot be obese, because there are people waaaaaaay fatter than me) but in reality, I was obese, in terms of BMI. My understanding is that being "normal" in BMI terms means that you are not at increased risk of certain health problems because of your weight. I hope that overweight doesn't become "normal" because then most people will be at risk for heart problems, diabetes etc.

psychsarah said:
I like Dawn's distinction here. When I was obese, I used to think in relative terms (i.e., I cannot be obese, because there are people waaaaaaay fatter than me) but in reality, I was obese, in terms of BMI. My understanding is that being "normal" in BMI terms means that you are not at increased risk of certain health problems because of your weight[...]

Sarah,

As far as I know, the life expectancy of those with "overweight" BMIs is actually higher than those in the "normal" category. The BMI designations are terrible anyway and really don't correspond well to any medical reality and it's a shame that they have become the default way we talk about weight these days.

-Mike

Mike,

I agree that BMI has problems - especially with the extremes (athletes and low muscle mass people). But, it's simple to measure, it is objective, and for a large fraction of the population, it correlates with percent body fat. Why do you say it is "terrible"?

Studies, surveys and statistics are VERY nebulous. (Which is why politicians love them so much.) One must be careful when citing them and reading them. Scare tactics are common use by those with an agenda - which usually include people looking to obtain grants to continue their studies or work.

While I do notice MORE overweight people now than I did 10 years ago (my study is based on people I see at, say, an amusement park every year), that does not mean we are all destined to become overweight. It is the responsibility of each person to manage their lives, and that includes their weight and general health.

Quito,
Not sure about Mike, but personally I think BMI is flawed, but not terrible. As you stated, it's inaccurate for people with a lot of muscle mass or very little. I just wish people understood BMI a bit more so they could use it intelligently.

Gal

There is a slight danger in using these statistics to predict what the population will be like in 2015. Sure, more people may be overweight by then, but there will always be a subset of the population that does care about their health and will watch their weight to make sure that they do not become overweight.

I don't think we'll get a new standard of what is "normal", though. The media will still be showing us thin women and musclebound men to show us what a "normal" human body looks like. Because I know for a fact that if I compared myself to the rest of the people in the small city I live in in Wisconsin, I'd be considered anorexic compared to them. I think we'll just be seeing a lot more fat people; I don't think we'll ever consider fat=normal weight.

A few more things: Will this be an election issue?

And, the definitions of overweight (BMI>=25) and obese (BMI>=30) are arbitrary. They were chosen by people as being indicative of a health/weight problem.

Many experts argue that waist size is a better marker for poor health conditions.

The BMI is the worst indicator ever. I do agree that a majority of this country is overweight, but the BMI needs to not be used.

I go to the gym every day and am about 8% body fat and have chisled abs, according to my BMI I am morbidly obese. I hate that all these "studies" that use the BMI, it's a joke.

Okay, well, since my size won't change; if everyone else keeps gaining weight, will someone tell me when it gets to the point that I have a smoking hot body (in comparison to everyone else) so I can make my big screen debut?

;)

Yes - the clinical definitions of overweight and obese (and morbidly obese) are just points chosen for convenience, but they have to be, right? There's nothing that breaks or changes as weight goes up (except for, perhaps, chairs ^_^ my brother snapped one last week).

Rick, imagine if you got all of the people in your home town together who had your BMI. What percentage of them do you think have chisled abs?

The waist measurement metric is good for identifying visceral fat - and so has a better diagnostic role, but it's very coarse. I don't think that it would make a good metric for a study.

I don't think overweight will ever be classified as "normal." Yes, the "average" weight for Americans is overweight but it's not normal...according to BMI standards and such.
About BMI. My fiance's uncle has a BMI of 30, but he's very fit. He's a bodybuilder. However, like Quito pointed out, not many Americans with a BMI of 30 are bodybuilders. Most of them are obese.

Using the argument that "overweight" is becoming the new "normal", some in the fat acceptance movement want the criteria for "overweight", "obese" and "morbidly obese" moved upward.

This reminds me of a passage from Jon Stewart's "America:The Book". When disussing weight and obesity in America, Stewart and the the Daily Show team predict that,rather than change their lifestyles, Americans will decide its simply easier to change their standards of beauty. The accompanying picture shows the back of an,shall we say, obese-appearing woman with a caption that reads "in the future, you'll want to tap that".

Jim said:

A few more things: Will this be an election issue?

If they lower BMI again... they already made 17.5 healthy. I wouldn't put it past them to say over 22.5 is now "overweight".

They made a BMI of 17.5 healthy? Since when? I've always seen them touting anything under 18.5 as underweight. Lower than 17.5 is technically anorexic, isn't it?

The standards for an overweight (and possibly obese, but I'm not positive about that) did used to be higher. Until the late nineties, 27 (or maybe it was 28?) was the cutoff between "normal weight" and "overweight." Yes, there's a lot of changing habits and the resultant effects that has contributed to the rise in the number of overweight Americans, but a good number of people became "overweight" literally overnight without gaining a pound.

Considering that studies show that people with a BMI of 26-29 live longer than those who are "normal" or underweight, maybe a slight rise in the standards we use isn't such a bad idea.

And as for the validity of BMI? I do think it's a fairly bad statistic. It works well for statistical studies, since on the aggregate it's an accurate measure of whether someone is of a healthy weight, but in each individual there's a lot of room for error. If you're taking care of yourself, getting a better estimate of where your fitness is (waist size is an easy one) is part of the process. BMI is best for economic and public health studies, not weight management.

Entangled said:
Considering that studies show that people with a BMI of 26-29 live longer [...]

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003680.html

Public health initiatives can change personal behaviors. Look at smoking.

roachme said:
This reminds me of a passage from Jon Stewart's "America:The Book". When disussing weight and obesity in America, Stewart and the the Daily Show team predict that,rather than change their lifestyles, Americans will decide its simply easier to change their standards of beauty. The accompanying picture shows the back of an,shall we say, obese-appeari[...]

Standards of beauty and attractiveness (for both men and women) have changed frequently throughout history. Sit down with an art history book and you'll see these ideals fluctuate and change according to circumstances. So there's no reason to think that our current ideals are the "right" ones that will last forever.

Waist measurement is not a good way to track whether one has a healthy weight. It's a coarse diagnostic measure. Percent body fat is probably the best, but BMI has preditive value.

Thanks for the article, Dr.j! To others, here's a rule of thumb: Never accept the result of a single study. Science progresses by study and counterstudy, result and counterresult. Katherine Flegal's results may stand (which, according to her, are narrow and not what the press has made it out to be). But, the value in her work is in understanding why she found what she did.

I stand corrected, then. I thought I'd seen multiple studies with similar results, which is a lot more convincing than one. I do think that in some people being somewhere a bit above 25 isn't a serious issue. Really, it comes down to input, not output. If you're eating a diet based on vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, good fats, whole grains, very little processed food, getting excercise and your body gravitates towards a higher weight, you're probably fine. On the other hand, if you eat processed foods in small portions, drink tons of diet soda, smoke copiously, and keep your appetite down by not working out, you're probably less healthy.

But it's easier to judge people based on their looks and not their habits. If what you really care about your own health, watch the inputs. Not that it's not human to want to watch the output as well. I know I do, perhaps a little too much...

Entangled said:

I do think that in some people being somewhere a bit above 25 isn't a serious issue. Really, it comes down to input, not output. If you're eating a diet based on vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, good fats, whole grains, very little processed food, getting excercise and your body gravitates towards a higher weight, you're probably fine.

When I was in the process of losing weight, I had a physical done and I weighed something like 130, giving me a BMI of 23, which is perfectly normal. My doctor told me that I was at a good weight and if I wanted to slim down a bit more, I could. It helps me to be a little lighter for running, but I think no matter what you weigh, you have to pay attention to how your body's doing on the inside, not just how it looks on the outside. If you eat a lot of whole foods, fruits, veggies, and protein and get decent exercise, I think you'll pretty much stay at your optimum weight...if that happens to be on the high end of the scale, so be it. I know for me, when I avoid processed foods, it's very hard for me to gain weight. But if I add in a bunch of processed junk, I can gain weight with no problem.