The elephant in the healthcare room

[mirth]

49 of the 50 of the US states have obesity (BMI > 30) rates above 20% of the population. 6 of 50 states have obesity rates above 30%. The US breakdowns by race and changes from 1985 to now are even more overwhelming. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

 

Internationally, the US is in the top 10 of overweightness (BMI >= 25) http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html

 

Why do you think this over the top issue has not be identified as a matter of national concern if the US is indeed going to be crippled by healthcare costs [to which complications from bigness contribute]? I know the usual arguments ... BMI is simplified parameter and Michael Jordan in his heyday would've been considered overweight. To this I say, I can understand the exceptions but no way is 74% of the US even close to looking like MJ.

 

If bigness is a problem, why, of all reforms pertaining to healthcare, is there not focus and overhaul on this given things like diabetes and heart disease related to obesity? I am not talking about a nanny state that tells you beans are healthy, bacon is not, baked beans in cans are environmentally unfriendly, but nitrate-free bacon is better than Hormel brand. How about HHS/CDC initiatives or putting the Presidential Fitness Awards front and center to challenge everyone to do what you have to do to drop BMI under 30 over a course of ______ years. Eat less fatty foods if this floats your boat. Add exercise but keep eating whatever you are eating now. Or, employ the easiest strategy of all, which is just to eat less. Deal with occasional hunger.

 

What do you think about this? If you think there is no correlation between obesity and health, why not? Do you think there are other elephants in the healthcare reform room that no one is talking about?

Edited September 11, 2009 by mirth

[Melinda in VT]

Mirth, I don't know where you live, but I think these issues are being addressed.

 

My kids (in public school) hear about exercise and nutrition quite a bit. And the nurse and PE teacher regularly have columns in the weekly newsletter educating parents on health, nutrition, and exercise issues. There's a big push on walking or biking to school, etc.

 

The media has shows like Biggest Loser that address weight loss. And anyone who goes to a doctor regularly is probably going to hear gentle (or not so) reminders about healthy weight.

 

The trouble is, we have historically unprecedented access to food, and our bodies haven't evolved yet to deal with that.

 

I really think this not a matter of not knowing better.

[AuntieM]

What do you think about this?

 

 

I think you may have wanted to add a "no pun intended" tag to your post title :lol:

 

Honestly, I have to be careful not to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I have seen family members suffer from many complications of being overweight, yet their docs treat them for all the effects and seem blind to the cause. So, perhaps some mandatory call to lose weight would be good for them. And I do see that Medicare is overtaxed due to the individual's lack of personal responsibility.

 

But, on the other hand, I firmly believe that liberty trumps tyranny. I don't really want the government in my health care business. And I dare not point my finger at whose business it does belong in, aside from the worthy poor who do really need some help. It's just very difficult to know when the line between reasonable intervention and personal freedom is crossed. I'd have to choose to err on the side of freedom.

 

It's not like this information isn't readily available for those who seek it.

 

FWIW, I think there's an entire herd of elephants in the current legislation. We may not even call the same ones elephants, but they're there...

[BigMamaBird]

My dh's company has a healthy living program. If you sign up for the program, attend a yearly motivational seminar, provide proof of a yearly doctor visit and attend a private yearly goal setting/weigh in/measurement/bp etc. meeting, you get $500 off your insurance. You get the discount regardless of whether or not you pack on 15 lbs. a year, you just participate in the program. He also gets monthly e-mail or snail mail newsletters.

 

I don't see why we couldn't have a voluntary, educational program to guide people in making better lifestyle choices. You can't have a police state saying "You ate Ben & Jerry's!!!! No discount for you!!" But not everyone has WTM boards to hang out on and get the info and a small changes can make a big difference.

[Jane in NC]

My husband works for a corporation with a decent health insurance benefit. His company is now giving cash rewards for certain benchmark improvements: weight loss, blood pressure reduction, cholesterol number improvement, smoking cessation, all within the context of individually developed plans to improve the health of each employee.

 

Some have complained that this will lead to the nanny state. For my husband's company, it is a bottom line issue of keeping costs down.

[MomLovesClassics]

I think the overweight crisis is a bit complicated. You have companies making money on unhealthy products that contribute to people being overweight. People seem content with their unhealthy lifestyles, it becomes easy to take a pill for this and that, pick up processed unhealthy food from the store etc. drug companies are making profits off sick people. People in this country have gone through life style changes. There are changes with how our food is grown that is unhealthy that the government supports. It is almost like people are asleep and not aware of what healthy choices are anymore. You walk into a grocery store and food is so far from nature, you have aisle after aisle of processed food choices, frozen meals etc. then you have your produce genetically modified, and this goes on and on, there is little food fit to eat in the store yet people eat it anyway. You have the FDA giving these companies their blessing. Who is making profits from people being overweight and sick?

[Tabrett]

Honestly, exercise will not help you loose weight unless you are dieting too. My dh started running 3 miles 6xs a week and only looses weight if he diets. My dd (15) is in dance class (3xs a week) and doesn't loose weight unless she diets. Both are over 30% BMI. I don't think either eats too much. I think they have a genetic tendency to be over weight. I, on the other hand, would have to eat till I busted to get over 30% BMI. If my body would even allow me to get that heavy.

 

When my dd was 11, I took her to see the doc because of her weight. She basically told me to have her eat a more "colorful" menu. My dd already ate well and was in a dance performing company at the time. I just laughed on the was home at the wasted doc trip.

 

I think there is much more to having under a 30% BMI than just dieting and exercise. I'm not sure the government knows how to truly help people stay fit and trim. Many, many people must watch every. bite. they. put. into. their. mouth., which is an awful way to have to live.

 

Maybe its the chemicals sprayed on and put into our food, maybe it is the harmonies given to livestock or GE seeds. Maybe it is our body's natural defense against starvation and lean times that cause us to be over weight.

 

How would the HHS/CDC combat this?

[EKS]

If the government (and I'm talking about government in general, not just federal or state or local; it would need to be a unified effort) truly wanted to take on obesity as an issue, it would need to go beyond the eat less exercise more mantra. It would need to eliminate grain subsidies and require cities and towns to be walkable. Things like this.

[Lilymax]

I don't think I'm allowed to post links yet, but if you want to read an interesting blog about the topic of science, obesity, etc. Google "Junk Food Science Blog" and it's the first one that pops up.

 

I think there is far too little research into the genetics behind different body sizes and metabolic rates and how they influence the ease or difficulty with which different people can lose weight.

 

Lots of interesting links in the right sidebar of her blog.

[HRAAB]

My dh went to a cardiologist for a stress test (family history of heart disease) and the Dr. said obesity is the biggest problem we're facing today in this country. My dh doesn't look overweight, eats well, tries to find time to be active. Anyway, when he lost his job last April he dropped about 15 lbs. He was no longer tied to a desk for 10 hours every day. He was outside working in our garden and yard. He was walking more. He was just flat out active. Something he couldn't do at work. Our whole lifestyle is not conducive to healthy living. It's hard to fit it in when the average work week is 50+ hours at a desk.

 

Janet

[ma23peas]

I was about 20 pounds overweight when we took our family to England, especially in London I was probably the fattest person there!! My thinnest was when I was at college and walked 10 miles a day, it was nothing, we are too sedentary and especially with homeschooling it's hard to find that time...I am committed to having a healthy BMI and have to walk 3-6 miles a day...we were in a car accident 3 weeks ago and pretty shook up/sore etc. so I got out of the habit....I can see in just that time how much conditioning my body loses...

 

My ideal would be to make corporate suburban centers where you could walk/bike to everything but not have all the polution....guess I'll have to wait until I'm retired! :)

 

That being said, my grandmother is 95 and has been 50-100 pounds overweight since she was 50....I guess her farm living paid off those early years!!

 

Tara

[TravelingChris]

I have to take dd to PT two to three times a week so I get reading time and today one thing I read was about how exercise programs do not lead to weight loss. Now walking, gardening, etc, can lead to slight weight loss. But doing things like running, aerobic exercise, etc, generally leads to either no weight loss or often, weight gain. That is because strenous exercise leads to increase in appetite which is not satiety by eating a carrot stick. Also, the studies have shown that if you do something like running, you make up for it by moving a lot less in the rest of the day.

 

But then the studies cannot correlate any truly bad health outcomes with overweight. They can with obesity but not with overweight. In fact, most studies are finding that being somewhat overweight is healthier than being normal or underweight. This exercise myth is our next hormone replacement therapy fiasco. There is actually good correlation between the rise in exercise through special exercise regimens and the rise of average weight. It is simple, most people can't exercise enough to make up for increased appetite and it is in the human's nature to eat tasty food as a reward for strenuous activity. Tasty food tends to be high caloric.

 

The one health philosophy that does seem to be correlated with better health outcomes is moderation and continued mild to moderate activity. Losing weight is not correlated with better health outcomes which seems counterintuitive but I guess the strain of doing it and the unhappiness of it may counteract any so-called benefits.

 

I don't have a problem with incentives but you need to make sure you are giving incentives for true progress not mythological platitudes that don't help health outcomes. For example, an incentive to stop smoking makes sense and will save money. An incentive to get people screened for diabetes does not, though it does help the people but it doesn't help save money. Researchers have just finished a study wherein even in 20 years out, an insurance company spent more money by identifying type 2 diabetics and treating them early than by allowing those who are having symptoms or are naturally cautious to take the incentive themselves to get tested.

[hillfarm]

IMO, and for my situation, the best way to deal with obesity would be to offer both access and incentive. If more people had access to safe and appropriate nutrition and exercise programs that were affordable and if there were discounts on insurance or taxes for participants, I would really want to participate. The government would get many more takers by offering access and incentive (honey) rather than condemnation and obesity taxes (vinegar).

[justamouse]

If the country was going to do something about obesity, there would have to be addiction counseling attached.

 

I truly see this as you see an alcoholic-you can't have recovery unless THEY want to recover. So, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. *g*

[I talk to the trees]

Now THAT is brilliant. I could get very motivated by $500. :D

:iagree:That makes two of us!

 

-Robin

[angela in ohio]

Oh, that elephant. I was thinking of another one when I opened the post... the desire to live forever no matter how many pills it takes or how awful your quality of life is. That's the issue I'll be waiting to see discussed. ;)

 

About your elephant: I think once we remove incentives for resposible behavior, it will disappear. When everyone paid their own medical costs, there was an incentive to stay healthy. Now most people pay the same rates (or their employer does,) no matter how healthy or unhealthy the lifestyle they lead.

[Dirtroad]

If the government (and I'm talking about government in general, not just federal or state or local; it would need to be a unified effort) truly wanted to take on obesity as an issue, it would need to go beyond the eat less exercise more mantra. It would need to eliminate grain subsidies and require cities and towns to be walkable. Things like this.

 

You hit the nail on the head. All this is not about health but about revenue... just like smoking was the cash cow to lawyers and governments of the 90s... diet is goign to be the new potential cash cow. But... imagine... how much money can they make on the taxes and lawsuits.:001_huh: Just get enough people resenting overweight people like the resent smokers & you are own your way to a gold mine!

 

Fact is... people respond to different foods in different ways. Some people can't handle carbs very well & no matter how hard they try, they do not lose weight on low fat style diets. Calories don't mean much to many individuals. Some people must never eat meat to keep their weight down. With so much genetic variation... they will not solve this one anyway.

[HRAAB]

 

Fact is... people respond to different foods in different ways. Some people can't handle carbs very well & no matter how hard they try, they do not lose weight on low fat style diets. Calories don't mean much to many individuals. Some people must never eat meat to keep their weight down. With so much genetic variation... they will not solve this one anyway.

 

This is very true. However, I believe portion size is also a huge factor. Simply, we eat more than we use to, and are less active.

 

Janet

[Mrs Mungo]

If the government (and I'm talking about government in general, not just federal or state or local; it would need to be a unified effort) truly wanted to take on obesity as an issue, it would need to go beyond the eat less exercise more mantra. It would need to eliminate grain subsidies and require cities and towns to be walkable. Things like this.

 

I agree. People are always touting the US as more "fat" than our European counterparts but it is SO much easier to walk everywhere and obtain fresh produce in Europe!!

[Apiphobic]

Are you talking about Michael Pollan's article in The New York Times?

 

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it or not, but it's called "Big Food vs. Big Insurance."

 

I'm asking because your title reminded me of the line in the article: "The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care."

 

Yes, I think it's a very valid concern. Unfortunately, I don't think we're anywhere close to where we need to be to take on the mammoth measures needed to overhaul our system. There's no simple fix, but it sure would be nice if it were sooner rather than later.

 

I'm just hopeful that something good will come out of the current reform measures on the table. Baby steps, I guess.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Apiphobic

[justamouse]

Yes, I think it's a very valid concern. Unfortunately, I don't think we're anywhere close to where we need to be to take on the mammoth measures needed to overhaul our system. There's no simple fix, but it sure would be nice if it were sooner rather than later.

 

 

 

I can't even imagine that day. Really. I've read all his books, love Pollan, totally 100% agree. I really hope I'm wrong, but getting that done would take a lot of integrity within the system and I can't imagine unraveling the politics of it and fixing it.

 

Off to look up that article.

[Renee in NC]

I am obese and it is the most important thing to me right now (after housing :D) to take control of. I am much more active here in FL and once we move into our own home I hope that our diet will improve greatly. The dc and I are working towards the Physical Fitness Award through our co-op. We are also taking vitamins. The next step is to eliminate HFCS and eat large amounts of produce.

 

At this time, I have no health concerns, but I realize as I age this is likely to change.

[Karen in CO]

I agree. People are always touting the US as more "fat" than our European counterparts but it is SO much easier to walk everywhere and obtain fresh produce in Europe!!

 

My ds has had trouble maintaining a healthy weight since he went to Japan because he is 6'6". But also, the portions are significantly smaller; there is less fat in the food; he walks everywhere; he eats less meat; there is less access to junk food; it is considered rude to eat while you are doing something else so everybody sits down to eat; fresh fruits and vegetables are more readily available than we consider "convenience" foods.

 

 

If our country were serious about reducing obesity, we could actually do something about it and improve the quality of life for many in the process. We would need to trade those grain subsidies for small farm subsidies and encourage diversification of crops. Oh and small farms also mean more farm jobs, unemployement is inching near 10%. We do not grow or import enough fruit and vegetables for all of us to get our Five-a-Day? We would also need to rethink how we build our cities and suburbs. My city has over 100 miles of Urban trails plus access to millions of acres of open space, forest and other trails.

[Stacy in NJ]

What section of the Constitution deals with the weight of individual citizens? Another reason NOT to have national healthcare. :boxing_smiley::boxing_smiley:

 

Most of the folks I know who are overweight know they're overweight. They also are fully capable of educating themselves and their children about adequate nutrition.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Stacy in NJ
sp

[Stacy in NJ]

My husband works for a corporation with a decent health insurance benefit. His company is now giving cash rewards for certain benchmark improvements: weight loss, blood pressure reduction, cholesterol number improvement, smoking cessation, all within the context of individually developed plans to improve the health of each employee.

 

Some have complained that this will lead to the nanny state. For my husband's company, it is a bottom line issue of keeping costs down.

 

I don't see this as a nanny state issue. If it's a private corporation creating voluntary incentive plans, good for them, I say.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't see how you can make something bad out of making towns and cities more walkable/bike-able or cities/towns developing farmer's markets. Both of those are good for all sorts of reasons and have *nothing* to do with health care reform except that they would have a positive impact on a community's health.

[Jane in NC]

I don't see this as a nanny state issue. If it's a private corporation creating voluntary incentive plans, good for them, I say.

 

Trust me, smokers will always complain...

[Stacy in NJ]

I don't see how you can make something bad out of making towns and cities more walkable/bike-able or cities/towns developing farmer's markets. Both of those are good for all sorts of reasons and have *nothing* to do with health care reform except that they would have a positive impact on a community's health.

 

Whaaaa? Are you talking to me? Did I make something bad out of making cities more walkable?? Because I didn't comment on that particular issue.

 

How did your recent purchase go, by the way?

[Stacy in NJ]

Trust me, smokers will always complain...

 

My dh, formally US Army, likes to say when the troops are complaining that means they're happy. But, be very concerned when they stop their *itching, becasue that means trouble.

;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Whaaaa? Are you talking to me? Did I make something bad out of making cities more walkable?? Because I didn't comment on that particular issue.

 

Sorry, I view in linear mode, it has its failings. When someone doesn't direct their comments it's hard to tell where they go. ;)

 

How did your recent purchase go, by the way?

 

Recent purchase? Which one?

[lionfamily1999]

Isn't this bill just supposed to make insurance affordable for everyone?

 

What does that have to do with either forcing people to get medical care or to lead healthy lives?

 

I've noticed that the two get very intertwined, but I think it's important to make a distinction. Pass all the insurance stuff you want, but when it comes to health care, leave that in the hands of the individual. I don't say doctor, simply because, some people don't want to be patients. I think it stretches far beyond any reach the Constitution allows the government to have when you start including personal health and actual health care into the equation.

 

If the insurance companies want to put out something like what was mentioned by pps, incentives for example, that is fine. Asking the government to start monitering or legislating personal health, though... that's too far, imo.

[MomLovesClassics]

We do not grow or import enough fruit and vegetables for all of us to get our Five-a-Day?

 

If EVERYONE today were to give up processed and fast foods then only purchase and eat fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, meat that is without hormones & antiboitics, quality dairy, and whole grains there would most likely be a food shortage. Imagine that. There is not enough access to healthy food in this country, there is more access to unhealthy processed foods.

[mommaduck]

My comments are simple:

 

BMI is garbage. If my husband lost enough to fit the BMI, he'd have no meat on him and sickly. Less weight, underweight do NOT equal healthy.

 

"deal with occasional hunger"? Tell that to the diabetic, the anemic, the pregnant mother, and those with various other health problems that they have through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

 

If someone thinks that people should be punished or rewarded based on "decisions" over this super healthy food or that slightly less healthy food, you had best make darn sure that the healthy food costs less than the less healthy food. Sometimes the choice is a can of veggies for under a dollar vs several dollars for fresh...when you are on a tight budget, then you might have to make a decision that you wouldn't typically make.

 

Some people have genetic issues that "eating healthy" sometimes is worse than eating "normal".

[Joyful]

If the government (and I'm talking about government in general, not just federal or state or local; it would need to be a unified effort) truly wanted to take on obesity as an issue, it would need to go beyond the eat less exercise more mantra. It would need to eliminate grain subsidies and require cities and towns to be walkable. Things like this.

 

I'm thinking along that line too....

 

But just to be silly - not to mention draconian - ban fast food restaurants, snack foods, sugared drinks, TV, and personal motor vehicles. :D

[i.love.lucy]

This thread is making me mad and I want to have some witty remarks but it's late and I'm tired.

 

I don't know one single overweight person that is not KEENLY aware of their status and does not wish every.single.day. that it wasn't different and changeable, myself included. And all these overweight people, again myself included, have done just about everything they can to lose weight. Dropped tons of money on "diet programs", hours and hours in a gym or on the street trying to walk or run it off, giving in to the promises of dangerous medications, etc, etc.

 

The only way I seem to be about to lose any noticeable amount of weight is to stick to about 600-800 calories a day. For real. Have you ever done that for any period of time? It is not possible long term.

 

And yet, as one of the "obese", I have no health issues. No heart disease, excellent cholesterol, no diabetes, etc. My husband who is maybe 25 pounds overweight is on an antidepressant and a cholesterol med, is seen easily 4x a year more than me for allergies or his back or whatever.

 

Why then am I the drain on the health care system? Do you really think I need to hear that I should just stop going to McDonalds?

[Karen in CO]

What section of the Constitution deals with the weight of individual citizens? Another reason NOT to have national healthcare. :boxing_smiley::boxing_smiley:

 

Most of the folks I know who are overweight know they're overweight. They also are fully capable of educating themselves and their children about adequate nutrition.

It is not their business, but many of the things that are supported by Our tax money help to subsidize things that are bad for us - those crops could either not be subsidized or better crops and business could benefit. The local city councils and planning boards and county commissions and state budgets set aside money for parks, open space and public land - there could be more of it. Car companies actively lobbied to have our suburban areas built the way they currently are and worked against public transportation. The government could support the building of mass transit systems instead of investing in car companies, and encourage people to walk a couple of blocks to the train station instead of driving across town. The government sets regulations concerning the labeling of food - that could be improved to be more open - have you seen the sugary cereals that are now claiming to be healthy because they have whole grains? yes, they have whole grains, but there is more HFCS in them than corn.

 

So, yes. Our weight is not the concern of the government, but there are many things that they currently do that have contributed to the American weight problem and health problems in the US, and they need to take responsibility and make changes. We need to hold them accountable. Instead of just lobbying AGAINST health care; we, as citizens, should lobby FOR changes that will substantially impact people's health for the better.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Karen in CO

[Stacy in NJ]

So, yes. Our weight is not the concern of the governemnt, but there are many things that they currently do that have contributed to the American weight problem and health problems in the US, and they need to take responsibility and make changes. We need to hold them accountable. Instead of just lobbying AGAINST health care; we, as citiizens, should lobby FOR changes that will substanially impact people's health for the better.

 

What a great argument for limited government. I agree wholeheartedly with you comments about subsidizing farmers. We also dump billions of dollars every year into Amtrak. We should eliminate these types of supports; they distort the market and creat perverse incentives. I think local governments are quite capable of engaging in their own urban planning. Where light rail or monrails are workable solutions, that choice should be left entirely up to those locations to pursue those types of solutions minus the involvement of the federal government.

 

In New Jersey we have a newly built monorail system that runs from Newark to Hoboken to Newark Airport. It was a billion(s) dollar boondoggle. It will always need subsidies because there isn't enough consumer demand to support usage. Those subsides will come in part from the federal government. Tax payers in Iowa will fund an under used monorail system that was poorly designed and conceived.

[Cera]

I definitely see a correlation between obesity and health. I also know very, very few people who are obese and have truly tired to lose the weight as they inevitably insist they have (or who are as healthy as they claim to be when push comes to shove).

 

I am not one of those people who stays thin without any effort but I stay within 10 pounds of my body's ideal weight. It's hard but I do it for my health and for my kids (and I will admit a bit for vanity). It sucks to take the stairs instead of the escalator/elevator. It sucks to park at the far end of the parking lot, every. single. time. It sucks to bike the 7 miles to the beach towing two kids instead of hoping in the car. Adding another chore to the list every summer when I have to take care of our garden isn't my favorite by any means. I could go on and on. There are a lot more options in our society for healthy living than people want to acknowledge because they require significantly more time and effort.

[Dirtroad]

This is very true. However, I believe portion size is also a huge factor. Simply, we eat more than we use to, and are less active.

 

Janet

 

Truth. But how are you going to regulate this.... who is going to measure your food or your plate... did you get seconds? And who is to decide what is unhealthy? I know heavier people who are more active and athletic that thin people. DH youngest sister was thin as a rail but pitifully inactive & weak.

 

It is NOT my business what you are eating & if you get a donut today. This is really dangerous stuff here & we are meddling too much in our brother's business & not our own. You can't acurately manage this. It is just about money anyway... not saving... but taxation. It is a disguise for greed & control.

 

Besides.... think of all the healthcare savings that big brother will have if all the smokers & fat people DIE SOONER! It is actually cost savings right?

 

This is is more invasive than any KING would have had the time to do.... and it is all about arrogant people who know more & better how to live than you or I do. It is none of their "blankety blank" business.

[Dirtroad]

My comments are simple:

 

BMI is garbage. If my husband lost enough to fit the BMI, he'd have no meat on him and sickly. Less weight, underweight do NOT equal healthy.

 

"deal with occasional hunger"? Tell that to the diabetic, the anemic, the pregnant mother, and those with various other health problems that they have through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN..

 

 

Momma, I had a friend on a diet plan with a doctor. She had lost a bunch of weight & you could see bones in her joints. Super thin except for a small poochy belly (but 2 kids & 1 late miscarriage can change a body). Her doctor told her based on this kind of bad BMI style science that she needed to lose about 30 more pounds.....:001_huh:. She had no "meat" on her legs, her butt was gone, her arms bones and her jaw line looked anorexic... where the heck was it going to come from?

 

It was a crock!

[Renee in NC]

Momma, I had a friend on a diet plan with a doctor. She had lost a bunch of weight & you could see bones in her joints. Super thin except for a small poochy belly (but 2 kids & 1 late miscarriage can change a body). Her doctor told her based on this kind of bad BMI style science that she needed to lose about 30 more pounds.....:001_huh:. She had no "meat" on her legs, her butt was gone, her arms bones and her jaw line looked anorexic... where the heck was it going to come from?

 

It was a crock!

 

My 6yo was judged as "overweight" by a nutritionist based on BMI and she had never laid *eyes* on him! He is not overweight by any stretch of the imagination. His ped put him at 97th percentile for height and weight, but his BMI was 19, which at the time was considered "too high" based on his age!

 

When I brought him in the room she kind of faltered, but kept insisting that "based on the charts" he was overweight when it was very obvious that he was thin. He has a large frame (and a big head!:lol:)