Peter wrote:
Normal pasta is very fattening. As is white bread.
This is obviously in this generality not correct: Italy (Pasta) and France (White Bread) are amongst the lowest average BMI countries in Europe.
Pasta is actually quite healthy on many dimensions. White bread is more neutral. Both have in common that that they typically lead to a high short term increase in blood sugar levels that have unwanted consequences esp. if you have the habit of eating quite fast – because in that case a high insulin level kicks in after you are already finished with the meal and you are likely to become hungry again. If you take sufficient time for the meals, neither paste nor white bread is any bad.
Pasta is actually quite a good source of carbs – which should be about 40% of the calorie intake as lower carb diets increase the total cholesterol level in the blood that has worse effects than a higher BMI.
Peter wrote:
Or if you want to just carry extra weight, stick some bricks in a backpack
In order to replicate a BMI of 33, I’d have to carry a backpack with 12 or 13 standard bricks. Doesn’t sound good to me, especially that my current weight is the highest it’s ever been and I’m not super happy with that.
In the past I lost 20 lbs or so by the ‘revolutionary’ method of eating less. You’d be amazed how well it worked.
Peter wrote:
You can lose weight, effortlessly, and keep most of the gain (I mean the loss ) and it is by eating a plant based diet.
Well, if you consider rice a plant, it is one of the things which have in the past ruined several weeks of diet in one helping. Apart, neither do I look like a rabbit nor do I share its culinary preferences.
Peter wrote:
regardless of quality of life.
Quality of life depends on enjoying life too. Otherwise why bother.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Good news is: With that BMI rang you are pretty well in the Sweet Spot.
Pity is, EASA sees that differently. BMI30 is their hard limit for a Medical Class 1. BMI 35 for class 2. I’ve lost my class 1 because of this and with it my CPL when I converted to EASA FCL and I darn near lost my Class 2 as well. Right now however I am “safely” in the range in between.
Malibuflyer wrote:
There is pretty strong evidence, that (in both genders but for female even stronger than for male) despite cases of excessive weight (BMI>>40) weight loss is generally related to higher mortality rates.
This may well have to do with the fact that most people will try to loose weight fast and get it over with and in consequence revert to pretty unhealthy practices to do so.
Malibuflyer wrote:
most of them come down to the point that it is extremely difficult to maintain a calorie reduced but still healthy diet.
I think it is highly individual. One has to identify individually what makes one gain weight in particular. For me for instance the worst thing i can do is eat rice in any form, whereas I’ve lost weight going low carb (even without busting cholesterol limits which many low carb dieters do). Other people will react differently. Hence why quite a lot of diets are not working in general. Probably the easiest way to maintain a relatively healthy balance is to eat what you always did, only in much reduced quantities. If it includes a good balance then it should not be too bad.
Malibuflyer wrote:
If you take sufficient time for the meals, neither paste nor white bread is any bad.
Hence most probably why pasta does not create a lot of very obese Italians. They take their time.
Sad I know, but I still find myself amused by the story of the British man with a bmi of 28000.
As we discussed on the other thread, in my view if one person’s a little portly then it’s probably their responsibility. When most people in a society are obese then it’s time to make changes at a societal rather than an individual level. It wasn’t always so.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Pity is, EASA sees that differently. BMI30 is their hard limit for a Medical Class 1. BMI 35 for class 2. I’ve lost my class 1 because of this and with it my CPL when I converted to EASA FCL and I darn near lost my Class 2 as well. Right now however I am “safely” in the range in between.
Sorry, but that is not true. AMC of Part Med are very explicit about that.
For Class 1 they say (AMC1 MED.B.02):
Applicants with a Body Mass Index > 35 may be assessed as fit only if the excess weight is not likely to interfere with the safe exercise of the applicable licence(s) and a satisfactory cardiovascular risk review has been undertaken.
For Class 2 it is: (AMC2 MED.B.025)
Obese applicants may be assessed as fit only if the excess weight is not likely to interfere with the safe exercise of the applicable licence(s).
So the “limit” for Class 1 is 35 and not 30 plus it is not a hard limit but an assessment needs to be done including an explicit cardiovascular risk review.
For class 2 there is no limit defined at all (creating the the “interesting” situation that it is actually lower than for Class 1 because “obese” commonly refers to BMI>30) and your AME can assess you fit.
Practically (and this is how my AME is doing that): You get a class 2 independent of your weight if you are not impaired in movement and show satisfactory results on the exercise ECG (is this the right English term?). If you have a class 1 and a BMI above 35 your AME will likely send you to a cardiologist to do an echo cardiography.
I have no idea what morally acceptable ‘make changes at a societal level’ idea would reduce obesity in people who don’t have the discipline to control their own weight to a reasonable degree. Maybe billboards funded by taxes on food saying “eat less, too much food kills”? I will admit that tax money (advertising) plus social pressure has reduced smoking in the US to the point where it’s seemingly almost gone from my POV, at my employer of several thousand people I cannot think of a single smoker. So if a country can stomach the taxes taken and used for such a purpose maybe that would work, and at least it is not e.g. injecting chemicals into their bodies by force.
A less costly and maybe more compelling approach is for people to see and understand that being overweight gives them a substantial social disadvantage – it tends to send a message that the individual is incompetent. In a sea of fat people, somebody who isn’t fat will be selected first for almost anything except serious illness.
Silvaire wrote:
In order to replicate a BMI of 33, I’d have to carry a backpack with 12 or 13 standard bricks. Doesn’t sound good to me, especially that my current weight is the highest it’s ever been and I’m not super happy with that.In the past I lost 20 lbs or so by the ‘revolutionary’ method of eating less. You’d be amazed how well it worked.
I couldn’t agree more. People are over-complicating this, and society has also managed to shift perceptions to the point that a BMI around 30ish is ‘ok’.
Like @Silvaire I’m presently the heaviest I’ve ever been and looking to lose a kg or two. To have a BMI of 30 I’d need to gain 18-19kg and for 33 I’d need to gain 25kg. If either of those happened I’d consider my weight as posing an immediate risk to my health.
It’s calories in vs calories out – quite simple. Eat less, eat better, get some exercise. Those who say they “can’t lose weight no matter what they do” are 99% of the time lying to themselves – they just aren’t sorting out their diet or getting exercise, even if they convince themselves that they are. I used to work with someone like this who said they were “always dieting” and “could never lose weight”. My observation at the time (which I kept to myself) was that the only thing they were “always” doing was eating cake and crisps at their desk!
A less costly approach is for people to see and understand that being overweight gives them a substantial social disadvantage
It maybe less costly, but is it working?
A few possible measures:
Safe routes so kids can walk or cycle to school. If it’s morally acceptable for the government to build roads, it should be morally acceptable for the government to build pedestrian or cycling infrastructure.
Better school meals. If somebody needs treatment for a heart attack we throw thousands of pounds worth of treatment at them without even thinking about it. Why the reluctance to spend on measures likely to improve public health?
In terms of more coercive measures then I think there would be a lot of mileage in limiting portion sizes e.g. crisps or chocolate bars. I would ban 2 for 1 offers which I think encourage overconsumption.
If in the USA, you could ask whether it’s right for government subsidies to encourage the production of corn syrup, which has been linked to obesity and poor health. Would you make a moral case against subsidy reform?
I think none of those ideas would make any difference – they would be pissing in the wind. Education and social pressure are only measures I can imagine working.
I see a lot of emphasis on weight control education in my own interface with US healthcare, that and exercise, and it would be interesting to know if the insurance industry acting in their own interest has any role in promoting it.
