That is a very typical response from the obese and is part of the problem. Rather than accept the medical definition and do something about it you would rather rewrite the definition of obese... 30 years ago almost nobody had a BMI over 30%.

I happen to be 6'4'' and weigh 240 pounds. According to the Fat Police, my BMI is almost 30%, yet I am not obese, I happen to be a big guy with a lot of muscle who exercises daily and can run 5k. According to the charts I should be 190 pounds, which is probably what the Fat Police want...more weakling, sissified males.

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Almost anyone can run 5k, that is only a couple of miles... If your BMI is approaching 30 then there is a lot more on your frame than muscle. I have been weight training my whole life and my BMI has never been greater than 25... Granted the gym is full of fat guys who tell themselves that it's all muscle.

Johnny that is certainly your choice to be a wussified, sissified, effeminate metrosexual.

Hey Johnny, tell that to my grandfather who is pushing 95 years old who has a similiar frame as me, he still drives to Florida and has a part time job!

@ H.E. Pennypacker. If you think that having a BMI > 30 is what makes you manly and macho that is fine-- there is nobody telling you that you can't be fat if you want to. They're just saying that it's not healthy. In Japan society actually admires that kind of largesse in their Sumo wrestlers... Perhaps you have come to the wrong country?

@ Taoist Crocodile - you may be right about the Pennypacker. I was thinking the same thing.

Glad to see that two skinny jean wearing metrosexuals have met on the Patch. Maybe Tao and Johnny should get a room?

@ Hennypacker, if your grandma is still alive at age 95 with a BMI > 30 then she's alive in spite of it, not because of it...

I thought you just said BMI should not apply to you because you're 240lbs of solid muscle... It's hard to believe that could be the case if your now saying you have a similar frame to your 95 yr old grandma.

@Pennypacker, It's amusing that you've taken to insulting the bodies of other people for their non-obesity... Ever hear the story of the fox and the grapes?

If you would just clean up your diet and pare down some of that excess baggage you would probably feel a lot better about yourself.

Johnny, it is my grandfather, not my grandmother. and yes, he is 6'4''ish and over 240 pounds.

Johnny Paycheck - "Almost anyone can run a 5K." Easy there Perseus.

I am 6'3" and 235 pounds. This makes me obese. In order to hit the middle of the BMI health range (21.7 BMI) I would need to lower my weight to 172 pounds. I weighed 172 as a junior in high school and my nick name was "stick boy". If this is the new government norm, I'll pass.

I agree Don. But the pansy skinny jean wearing liberal males think we are fat.

How is this any of your business? Are we going to have Fat Police running around the state now?

Anyone with a BMI over 30 is NOT fit. Yes it's true, millions of fat people despise the BMI measurement of obesity-- but they would despise any other measurement as well so long as it tells them that they are grossly overweight...

Johnny - "Anyone with a BMI over 30 is NOT fit." Tell that to an NFL defensive lineman..

@IMA Hippiee, since you mentioned it, offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL have a 52% greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population.
"Clearly the increased body size typical of these positions is contributing to this substantial risk"
"Players in the largest body size category, 64% of all linemen, had a 6 times greater risk of heart disease than other football players"

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/nflfactsheet.pdf

Johnny P - you said "Anyone with a BMI over 30 is NOT fit." Then you cited some statistical drivel from the CDC. Are these football players NOT fit?

@Ima Hippee, why do you consider information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) drivel? If they don't know what they're talking about then why don't you just do the opposite of whatever they recommend for a healthy life and see how that works out for you? Or perhaps you already are, in which case I'd be glad that the insurance company charges you more to account for what your self inflicted diseases are costing us.

Yes my opinion is that a man who weigh 300lbs+ is not healthy, even if they are strong enough to pummel someone and able to run for short distances. "Fit" to me would include being healthy enough to have an average or better life expectancy. The human heart and other organs have never evolved to deal with that kind of body mass for long or cope with the 4,000+ calorie per day diet that it takes to maintain it.

I think you can pretty much count on there being "Fat Police" in the future - in the form of those who determine health insurance costs (think insurance pools). It's already being done on a corporate level. If you've ever been encouraged (sometimes with the promise of a gift card) to participate in a company wide "health fair" where your blood pressure and weight are recorded and you're asked to fill out a questionnaire (either self-guided or via interview) and did so, you've already contributed to the policing effort.

BMI might be a fairer way of determining health insurance premiums than age. I'm a little tired of having my risk potential skewed by heart attacks waiting to happen like Pennypacker and his 'fit' 30.

I recently heard on tv that adding a glass of soda to your diet before bedtime will gift you an extra 24 lbs. in a year. However, it's the additives--lactose, high fructose corn syrup, etc., that render a once-healthy diet so inadequate today.

@Bren -

This is admittedly off topic, but I'm guessing that you're a Mary Fahl / October Project fan, yes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwY_8ix3lHo

I don't know what that is! But Bowie's costuming is, as always, perfect. ; )

Muscle can play a part in weight. I agree with Jay here over 30 pay more and have it go up as your BMI goes up. As someone who falls just above the 25 point at 6ft 190lb I agree.
There should also be a bit of a better test for the medical communitiy rather than a one size fits all combination.
Body type and amount of muscle should play into it. Not that I think the 5ft 4in 340lbs will be able to skew their numbers to fit to the under 30 range.

I guess the moderators didn't catch this troll account for deletion. I have a pretty good idea of who you are, and I want you to stop it right now.

All you're proving, troll, is that you have nothing in the way of intelligence to add to a discussion, just insults and imitating other people to say something stupid to embarrass them. Be a man and use one of your many other names to make your point.

Good point. If BMI is an issue in the procurement of health insurance, issues like promiscuity, drug/alcohol use should also be considered since they place people in a high risk catagory. Sandra Fluke and her lifestyle should be actuarially figured into the equation as well.

You sure seem to be obsessed with Sandra Fluke and know a lot about her lifestyle. Unless you've slept with her yourself, which I really doubt, you're pulling it out of thin air.

Heather if you are promiscuous like Sandra Fluke, can health insurance companies charge more due to your higher exposure of being exposed to many deadly STDs?

Pennypacker, Ummm... how would my insurance company know I was promiscuous? I really can't see someone from the company checking that out. Just like they take it on someone's word that they don't smoke. Medical records can record resting heart rate, BMI, body fat content, etc. If someone's occupation as a "call girl" put them more at risk, I suppose that could be a risk factor to include in pricing her payments per month. Although, that could be offset by her otherwise being in good shape. Just a thought.

Heather, they would know in the same manner as insurance companies and life insurance companies know whether you are a smoker. A simple underwriting questionnaire would suffice, plus prior medical records indicating health status. If you lied, these coverages would be lasered out, just as if you lied that you were a nonsmoker.

Pennypacker, just lose some weight and stop rationalizing. If your BMI is over 30 then you've been eating twice as much as everybody else and not healthy.

Johnny my BMI appears to be about 28 or so, so I am not obese or fat. Go ahead and continue to wear skinny jeans and eat your salad.

Pennypacker a man does not need to subside on salads... nor does he need 4,000+ calories per day either.

Yul Gibbons reincarnated?

So glad I'm out of school, but then again, back in my days at MFHS, Burger King was across the street, and I was there.

Michelle would be so upset with you! Drop and give me 20, write her an apology card, donate to her husband and enter to win dinner with Barrack. Airfare is on them

Actually Steve I'm sending them an anniversary card for their 20th instead, including one of those $1 McBucks evil people would hand out at trick-o-treat.

Include a coupon for Marlboro's, president would love you

Well I don't think health experts are to blame.

Why so many additives? To prolong storage time, because fillers extend actual product, increasing profit, etc.

Consider this: federal funds subsidize more "junk food" products than healthy ones: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Farm-Bill-Study-Junk-Food-Crops-Get-the-Bulk-of-Federal-Subsidies-163793956.html

Sugar additives, high fructose corn syrup, lactose, etc. And the fillers: soy, wheat gluten, etc. Sodium even in sweet foods. Sugar products in savory foods (e.g., McDonalds' sugared hamburger buns). The sugars and the salts cover the flavor of the soy, corn, wheat gluten, lactose, and chemical cocktails in so many prepared foods today. Additives such as preservatives, flavor enhancers, etc., add chemicals and calories to our bodies that people didn't have to deal with years back.

Better living through science: technological advances that enhance the appearance of foods, preserve, etc., are often at the expense of taste. Anyone peel an orange only to find 1/3" of rind and a tangerine-size piece of fruit inside? Better living through science. Large, elongated grapes? Same story. Genetically altered.

Today's grocery shopper has a much harder time balancing convenience and good health.

The fox in the chicken coop. Obama appointed former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for the FDA.

Mau/Bren:

You’re both correct - both the food industry and the government are to blame. Is it not ironic that the government artificially drives up the cost of domestic natural sugar with tariffs to protect the U.S. sugar industry, and thereafter subsidizes corn growers who fill the market void with low-cost sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)?

Is it not beyond coincidence that the lobbying/campaign spending of both the sugar and corn industries has drastically increased between 1990 and 2010, presumably to protect such tariffs and subsidies? And yes, Archer Daniels Midland is, predictably enough, a big supporter of sugar tariffs.

Thus, the government's involvement in the U.S.'s "obesity epidemic" is entirely circular - manipulating the free market of the U.S., with the effect of flooding the food industry with HFCS's, and thereafter promoting "food police" programs to control obesity.

The poll presented in the above article obviously needs more choices to be truly factual.

Over the past 40 years Monsanto and other big chemical companies have been creating GMO (genetically modified organism) seed for farmers. The food manufacturs are making a huge profit on the GMO wheat that is grown now. It has a high glycemic index, and high gluten content. Causing insulin spikes which is known to make us store fat in our bodies. Do your research. There is a cardologist in Milwaukee who wrote a book about it. Google "Wheat Belly" and see what you find. It's about profits for the big food manufacturers. Not health of our nation. There is no profit to be made if people start becoming healthy.

@patchreader 123 -

I'm surprised that you don't frequently comment on the legal stories, such as the recent decision by Judge Colas on provisions of Act 10 - especially considering your background ;-)

JRH:

I tend to read more than comment lately. The bi-partisan rhetoric of these boards has been repeated ad nauseam - the same arguments made by the same people.

Frankly, with all due respect, I don't see any point in participating in a discussion that will readily digress into political stone throwing and one-upsmanship. Sorry.

patchreader, I agree with your remark about comments on The Patch recently. I stopped commenting and reading most of the Journal Times comments because they were so partisan and angry. The Patch was better for awhile, but I've noticed a lot name-calling and snide remarks, but very little discussion. Pity. It's getting to the point I'm avoiding reading comments on here now because it's usually pointless.

@patchreader 123 -

Hoffa hears you! However, Hoffa suggests that the reason behind this lies primarily in the fact that we've basically been discussing the same issues for the last two years. The policy discussions can only be made so many times before you run out of original contributions, thus the partisan stone-throwing begins.

Personally, Hoffa would love to hear your thoughts as to Colas' recent decision on Act 10 from a professional standpoint, if you believe it will be upheld or overturned upon appeal, and why you reached the conclusion that you do. Geoff Tolley and Hoffa actually have a pretty good substantive discussion going over on the collective bargaining board here:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/breaking-act-10-determined-unconstitutional

Hoffa would love to see you join the legal discussion!

Agreed... measuring body fat percentage is far more accurate and fair than using BMI. And I certainly don't want that used if my insurance company decides to penalize people with higher BMIs. My measurements do not warrant a tag of overweight/obese, but BMI certainly does... so as an athlete with a more muscular build, I would be penalized.

Seriously, if you don't know what it is on the ingredient label you think your body knows how to digest it? If it's made in a lab then it needs a lab to digest. When you introduce an item into your body that it has no idea what it is your liver filters it, then stores it as fat. HFCS is a good example of this, it doesn't occur in nature, it was invented in 1978 as a sugar substitute. HFCS is in a lot of products such as bread, soda, ketchup and many many more - look for it. E-coli O157:H7 never existed on the planet until people started to feed cows somethings they are not evolved to digest - corn. Chickens are fed antibiotics and chemicals to get them to grow faster, when you grandparents had chicken for dinner it took 78 days for that bird to mature, now only 38 days to get to the same weight. Cows given hormones to produce milk at rates unnatural to that species - enough that the average factory milk cow lives about 4 years compared to the 25 years they should live. Cows are the worlds largest ocean predator - they consume about 90% of all small fish that are caught. These fish are ground up for feed for factory farm animals. Milk does a body good? Bunch of BS...second highest producers of milk in the world yet the hip fracture rate increases, osteoporosis increases and now you need a calcium tablet? Milk actually causes bone loss - power of ad campaigns - part of the "what you think" or rather "What they want you to think" Look up type 1 diabetes and milk.