Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Deep Pencil - the musings of Morgan Bell

 
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it did it really make a sound? If i post a blog and nobody reads it was there really any point? You have entered the random thinking space of Morgan Bell . . . These are my musings . . . things about my life written off the top of my head . . . written in an informal disjointed style almost completely devoid of punctuation, this is where i flesh out writing ideas, discuss my life, and generally be self indulgent . . . it is also the bargain bin for articles which do not fit in with the film or arts themes of my other blogs . . . so have a wander around my mind, have a laugh, have a think, be nice, and humour me!

Hugh Jackman: fat bastard

January 20th 2009 17:32
We regularly see reports on the evening news tell us we are getting fatter. Australians are getting fatter. More Australians are more fat. We are the fattest people in the world. Or is that the USA? Either way, both of our counties sport a giant load of fatties . . . or so we are told.

The standard for measuring this supposed increasing "fatness" is the BMI (Body Mass Index). I have long been critical of the BMI. As a formula it simply does not make sense. The formula involves divided one number by the square of another creating a graph with a parabola shape.

Take the healthy weight range for a person 5'3" (1.6m), according to BMI you should be 46-64 kg. A person a whole foot taller, 6'3" (1.9m) should be 65-90 kg to be considered healthy by the BMI. I dont know, seems wrong to me.

Here are some male celebrities who are overweight or obese according to this scale:

OVERWEIGHT (25-29):

Ethan Hawke: 5'9": 172 lbs: 25
George W Bush: 5'11": 191 lbs: 26
Tom Cruise: 5'7": 170 lbs: 26
Matt Damon: 5'11": 187 lbs: 26
Vin Diesel: 6'2": 200 lbs: 26
Richard Gere: 5'11": 187 lbs: 26
Nick Lachey: 5'10": 180 lbs: 26
Hugh Jackman: 6'2": 210 lbs: 27

Hugh Jackman: they practically had to roll him out the house


Johnny Depp: 5'7": 190 lbs: 27
Will Smith: 6'2": 210 lbs: 27
Denzel Washington: 6'0": 199 lbs: 27
Billy Zane: 6'2": 210 lbs: 27
David Boreanaz: 6'2": 218 lbs: 28
Brad Pitt: 6'0": 203 lbs: 28
Nicolas Cage: 6'1": 210 lbs: 28
George Clooney: 5'11": 211 lbs: 29
Bruce Willis: 6'0": 200 lbs: 29
Keanu Reeves: 6'1": 223 lbs: 29
Dr. Phil McGraw: 6'4": 240 lbs: 29
Harrison Ford: 6'1": 218 lbs: 29
David Duchovny: 6'0": 212 lbs: 29
Brendan Fraser: 6'3": 234 lbs: 29

OBESE (30-40):

Matt LeBlanc: 5'11": 218 lbs: 30
Mike Tyson: 5'11 ½": fighting weight between 218-235: 30-32
Mel Gibson 5'9": 214 pounds: 32
The Rock (Dwayne Johnson): 6'5": 275 lbs: 33
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 6'2": 257 lbs: 33
Sylvester Stallone: 5'9": 228 lbs: 34

So are we getting fatter or just taller?

Taller people end up having a BMI that is uncharacteristically high compared to their actual body fat levels.

The anomaly is partially offset by the fact that many taller people are not just "scaled up" short people, but tend to have narrower frames in proportion to their height.





Wikipedia suggests that instead of squaring the body height (as the BMI does) or cubing the body height (as seems natural), it would be more appropriate to use an exponent of between 2.3 to 2.7.

Still sounds fishy to me. I think the exponential is the whole problem.

In 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health brought U.S. definitions into line with World Health Organization guidelines, lowering the normal/overweight cut-off from BMI 27.8 to BMI 25. This had the effect of redefining approximately 30 million Americans, previously "technically healthy" to "technically overweight". It also recommends lowering the normal/overweight threshold for South East Asian body types to around BMI 23, and expects further revisions to emerge from clinical studies of different body types.

BMI formula


So next time you see a negative news report talking about the obesity epidemic you may want to think "do they mean Mel Gibson obese? or just as tubby as Hugh Jackman?"





196
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Comments
57 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Jason King

January 20th 2009 18:45
I am sure I read somewhere the BMI was being dumped. Me obese - burn the bloody thing NOW!!!!!

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 20th 2009 18:48
hi Jason,
dumped hey?
it has to be one of the least accurate indicators they could refer to

Comment by Janet Collins

January 20th 2009 22:23
I dislike any type of formula for measuring weight. I prefer much simpler methods such as if you feel good you are the right weight or if my clothes start getting too tight then I really watch what I eat or doing more exercise or both.

It is much easier.

Comment by alt_ed

January 20th 2009 23:28
My BMI is 24.9 "healthy weight"! So suck'it to all you fatties!!!

Comment by Norm

January 20th 2009 23:41
Tom Cruise is overweight?
You didn't hear it from me.

I think if those on the list had lighter wallets...
They wouldn't need to carry matches as well.

Comment by Teresa Ralton

January 20th 2009 23:56
I agree, throw away the scales! Some people are just naturally heavier - and I don't mean fatter. When I was young I was obsessive about my weight (as many young women are) and using that height/weight ratio made me to obsess even more because I was always at the higher end even when I was quite slim. How you feel is everything. But I am curious, Morgan about why you have only used males here. Could you not find stats for the females?

Comment by Lilla

January 21st 2009 00:39
Morgan,

If THAT (Hugh here) is fat, then roll me in lard and double dip me!

BMI my slender french fry ...

Lilla ...

Comment by Kleonaptra

January 21st 2009 00:54
*big sigh*
Its disappionting isnt it. Things like BMI are invented because the majority of people have no idea how to look after themselves, so they are constantly trying to find an 'easy' way to scale it. Easy is impossible, as it is individual. I was very disappionted to see the ads on TV go on about waist circumference - it means NOTHING!!

I was a big girl, I didnt realize how big. I weighed between 85 and 95kg between the ages of 15 and 19 and I thought I would just never be smaller. I thought it was impossible. When I turned 21 I had to show the horses, which means running beside them in ankle deep sand. I was also sick of feeling tired. I owned no mirror, no scales at that time. I started getting up early to stretch and do a little aerobics - just a tiny bit, because I didnt want to scare myself off. I listened to my body, drank only water. I still ate maccas if I wanted it, just had less. My clothes started falling off. I went to a baby shower and saw all my school friends, and I was really offended by how they instantly thought I was taking drugs or anorexic - I didnt even know I looked different! My mum insisted I weigh myself, and I wasnt keen. I got up on the scales and I waited to see that old 85kgs click up.....Imagine my complete shock to see 62kgs!

I still do my stretches and aerobics, but Im focused on weights and strength training now. I actually want to BE heavier - its too easy for the horses to throw me around when Im at 60kgs, I need the weight to be there in muscle. Im about 68kgs now but Im aiming for 72 or 75kgs.

My point is that each individual needs to do it for themselves, start really, really slow, get to know your body, make unbreakable rules - like, exercise EVERY DAY NO EXCUSES until you get over the first hump (depending on how much fat being carried that target is between 5 and 10kgs) because once you start that, your whole body chemistry changes. You begin to crave water and salad, and get addicted to the exercise high. Then you naturally migrate towards healthier choices. As a fatty that became a fitness freak I feel confident enough to give out advice! But I cant stress enough that it is the individuals responsability to know their own body and work it out for themselves - no magazine or TV show is going to be able to do it!

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 04:06
Well Brendan Fraser IS a little tubby. haha.

I guess the problem with the BMI is that it really doesn't take into account the fact that muscle weighs more than fat. Hence the inclusion of Jackman on your list. I saw Australia the other day and boy does he have muscles.

I've been doing a lot of yoga and swimming this summer and although the scales tell me I have only lost three kilos, I have nonetheless gone from a size 12 to a size 10. And that's AUSTRALIAN SIZES to all you yanks. My BMI has gone from 23.9 to 22.8. Which is confusing since both are in the healthy weight range but I did feel pretty fat before. And I've completely lost any point I was trying to make.

But I will just repeat 22.8. In your face alt_ed!

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 06:05
Oh, I'm sorry Ruby -the fat mayonnaise, foetus eating, cum drinking- Soho.. But I'll take you're BMI of 22.8 and raise you to 19.2! HA IN YOUR FACE U FAT COW!!!

It turns out I had made an erroneous calculation converting my height from imperial to metric, thus my BMI calculation was a little, how does one put it... on the Ruby'esque side of things!

Alt_ed 177cm tall, 60kgs = THIN! WOOOHOOO!!! No tuck shop lady arms here fatties!

Comment by Mr Nice Guy

January 21st 2009 06:11
I used to be content - now I'm just confused?

Apparently I fit snggly between Johnny Depp and Nick Lachey - is that soooo bad?

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 06:12
Even Jessica Simpson wanted out of that sandwich MNG

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 06:33
Oh you smug bastard. Tuck shop lady arms? My biceps are CUT you jerk! I have definition! Remember what I said about muscle weighing more than fat?

177cm tall and only 60 kgs? Puny. Go lift a weight or two.

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 06:38
Ruby, haven't you learnt anything from your life as a tramp? Men don't want chicks with biceps, triceps adenoids or any other sort of masculine feature- and that's why Mr. Facebook isn't with you!

Puny? pfffft! I bet I'd look better in any of your clothes than you!! HA!

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 06:44
Oooh...that punch was waaaaaay below the belt.

But how do you know what sort of chicks men want?

Sad thing is you probably would look better than me in most of my clothes. except maybe my shiny red corset. how would it stay up?

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 06:47
Ruby, I've no desire to learn of the oddities beneath your belt- sorry, but yuk!

As for the corset, I'm sure I could manage... I am fairly resourceful =)

As for knowing what guys want... it's not rocket science! They want 'thin' bitche's that never say no, to anything!

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 06:51
touche. i'm going for a swim now. i'm aiming for 21.2.

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 06:52

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 07:29

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 09:29
My boobs were never that big.

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 09:31
So you're saying it's a true representation of your arse?

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 21st 2009 10:21
hi Janet,
good suggestions!
dress size is another fishy subject, so much variation!



hi Norm,
so obsessed with Tom Cruise! haha
good call about the wallets, although theyre probably not carrying around bars of gold bullion . . . or are they?



hi Teresa,
no i couldnt find any stats for women
(not surprisingly) only the severely under-weight actresses tend to advertise their stats
i couldnt think of any well-known tall women who werent models or actresses
i did find THIS story in the New York Times about how female athletes rarely disclose their weights



hi Lilla,
Hugh is so lean and fit, i just dont know in what universe he would be considered overweight!

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 21st 2009 10:37
hi Kleo,
thats a great story of hope for anyone who is unhappy with their size!
i think the BMI acts as a deterrant for people who really should be attempting to lose weight (ie: if it is affecting health, mood, or mobility) because it makes the goals unrealistic and unachievable
thanks for sharing your experiences



hi alt_ed,
i thought you weighed 50kg?
oh well dip under 56kg and you can achieve underweight . . . stick insect boy!



hi MNG,
that was very suggestive of you . . .
haha



hi Ruby,
you are so very petite!
i like how this post somehow deteriorated into "anorexia wars" between you and alt_ed! lol
but on the question of what men really want (perhaps you could write a film about that?) id have to say all men like to be mothered, fed, and picked up from the pub . . . it doesnt matter if you weigh 50kg or 200kg, you have to be prepared to adopt an adult child!

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 11:06
oh no i am definitely not petite and nowhere near anorexic. i have hips and an arse (no not THAT arse alt_ed) but overall i think i am pretty healthy.

yeah i am wondering if perhaps alt_ed and I are being a tad irresponsible. Just wondering though, are the numbers meant to be the same for both men and women? Don't men generally weigh more than women even when they are the same height?


Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 11:09
I would imagine women to weigh more Ruby... as the male physique is generally far more slender than women with their weird camel'esque humps!

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 11:10
BTW- Hugh may not be fat, but fuck he's hairy!!

Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 11:44
But men are more muscly and for the thrid time, muscle weighs more than fat. plus their physiques are generally wider/bigger. Thats why I don't think you would be able to do a similar post with women. Maybe if you used elite athletes but otherwise I think you would find most celebrity women would actually come in in the underweight range.
Even those we regard as curvy such as Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez.

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 12:54
Um Ruby, I've A LOT of female friends... funnily enough, most, or even ALL of them are WIDER than me!!!

Comment by Teresa Ralton

January 21st 2009 13:42
Hi Morgan
That was really surprising to read about the 'triad' suffered by female athletes. It's terrible.You just assume that they exercise so much that they won't have a problem. A statuesque woman who is also athletic obviously must weigh a lot. Big deal! It is easy to understand why they wouldn't want to reveal it. There was something in the paper a while ago about introducing compulsory weighing in schools. Guaranteed to make the kids obsess and compete!

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 21st 2009 14:09
if Beyonce is 5'6" and 148 lbs (as reported on some internet sites) her BMI is 24

i consider Beyonce to be quite slim

Jennifer Lopez is apparently 5'6" and 121 lbs, so her BMI is 20

J.Lo and Beyonce are little shorties though, i think the scale gets warped at 6 foot and over

THIS is a BBC article about some everyday Joes who were surprised to find they are classified as obese

The calculation is based on comparing a person's weight with their height and does not take into account sex or the proportion of body fat to muscle.

Some medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, say waist size is a more accurate measure, but the government has no plans to ditch the BMI.

THIS article talks about American footballers

A research letter published in JAMA (the journal of the American Medical Association) reported that 97 percent of players in the National Football League are technically overweight and more than 50 percent are obese. The NFL responded by calling the BMI "bogus," since it "doesn’t consider body muscle versus fat."

id love to calculate more womens BMIs but unfortunately there is really limited information


Comment by RubySoho

January 21st 2009 14:10
That's cause you're a puny bastard alt_ed. But I'm talking about averages. Surely you can't deny that the average man is bigger built than the average woman?

Comment by sam sall

January 21st 2009 20:58
yeh BMI is the most used by doctors to know about the person weight and to tell if this person at risk for weight related health risks

and this method was created to have result in a percentage value ..so it doesnt matter if you are a man or women and if your wieght mostly from fat or muscle.

Comment by Cibbuano

January 21st 2009 21:14
very interesting conclusion Morgan... yet another metric that we should discard...

boy, is Hugh Jackman fat! If only I was that fat!

Comment by alt_ed

January 21st 2009 23:01
Ruby, c'mon you have to admit that the average women is FUCKING FAT!

Comment by Kleonaptra

January 22nd 2009 01:18
Can I please jump in on the sillyness? I need a little levity...

Ruby, you are absolutely correct, men usually have a higher bone density compared to women, as well as more lean tissue per kilo which means more muscle per kilo, so men generally are heavier. A man should not use the scales as a rating for his fitness, he should use a slow, constant upgrade of weights as well as respiratory and pulse rate at rest and exercise.

The respiratory and pulse rate should be used to rate a womans fitness too, but it will always differ to a mans. Biologically, they are meant to exert themselves, we arent.

And thats another one to blame God for, guys. I got so upset when I found out about the lean tissue per kilo - it means a man can do a THIRD of the exercise a woman does, and have the exact same effect. That lean tissue just works constantly, burning fat and building muscle, even when the man is at rest. We have to work out immensely to gain the same amount. Its a theory into why girls shouldnt exercise with their partner - they will always feel inadequete!

And it should always be about FITNESS not about WEIGHT LOSS...URGH!! It drives me MAD!! What would ancient civilizations say about people deliberatly wanting to be skinny, it blows my mind. It should always be about optimum health, not "gee, I want to fit into a size 8.."

And did I just hear someone say guys dont like biceps on a girl? My man got with me when I was between 85 and 90kgs, when I got skinny (even my boobs shrunk) he was unhappy, said, "This is not the purchase I put a deposit on"

Since I do strength training now, (as well as fencing and pen building and horse training) My arms and thighs have bulged, even my calves look thick now from always wearing heavy work boots. My man loves it. Cant stop grabbing me. Oh, and when theres heavy lifting to do? "Do it yerself amazon! You're stronger than me now anyway!"

Comment by alt_ed

January 22nd 2009 02:26
Do it yerself amazon!

Yeah sorry, I mean heterosexual men... The rules vary slightly with tranny chasers.

Comment by RubySoho

January 22nd 2009 03:06
Hi Kleo,

thanks for the extra info, that's pretty much what i was getting at. personally speaking, i go less by the scales and more how i feel when i wear particular clothes (regardless of the size). and i agree about the fitness thing. i like seeing muscle definition in my arms and legs but that's not to say i'm going to enter any body building contests.


Comment by alt_ed

January 22nd 2009 10:40

Comment by RubySoho

January 22nd 2009 11:58
I like the second option.

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 22nd 2009 17:29
hi Sam Sall,
yeah i think it is particularly popular with doctors, fitness instructors, and health statisticians
thanks for the comment



hi Cibbuano,
i would love to see the BMI discarded
i think we have an obsession in our culture with blowing things out of proportion - its just not interesting unless its an "epidemic"
id trade for Hugh Jackmans body any day!



hi Anonymous,
thanks for that fascinating contribution



hi alt_ed,
i think we all know that faghags, lesbians, and female bogans (aka bushpigs) are not representative of the "average" female form . . . just as nancy boys are in a completely different data set to their straight counterparts



hi Ruby,
give him hell! haha
battle of the stick insects round 25 *ding ding*



hi Teresa and Kleo,
thanks for attempting to keep it semi-serious . . . if you happen to stumble upon any BMI stats for women id love to compare and contrast, but unfortunately its seems to be filed away under "secret womens business"

Comment by Anonymous

January 22nd 2009 17:46
Would u both give it a rest,look at yourselves.
just settle on it you are both attractive slim and gd fun people and grow up as trust me i am a lot younger than u 2 so grow up! Ruby is also very correct about those details alt_ed! so come this isnt an episode of bride wars so grow up!

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 22nd 2009 18:30
hi Anonymous,
Ruby and alt_ed are friends, their banter here should be interpretted with a sarcastic or cheeky tone . . . dont let it upset you!

Comment by Cheryl J

January 23rd 2009 00:55
The BMI is bloody ridiculous, there are so many variations on bone structure, muscle mass etc it's impossible to calculate based on height and weight alone. And boy do I agree with the differences in clothing sizes for women, they vary wildy. I can be a size 6 with one label and a 10 in others - ridiculous.

Alt-Ed, Hugh may be hairy but that's what makes him so damn sexy...pure testosterone and very masculine. Yummo!

Comment by RubySoho

January 23rd 2009 01:38
yeah we wuz jist jokn wit U n wit each otha so ree-lax n chill A-non.

Comment by Anonymous

January 23rd 2009 01:47
YR BORING!

Comment by Kleonaptra

January 23rd 2009 03:19
Alt_Ed
With all due respect for your attempt at levity.....

Kman would forgive you for that.

But If you dis my man again, I will break you in two. Ok? Go to town on me if you like. You know next to nothing about my guy. I did not find that funny. If it was an an attempt at humour, fine, now you know where I stand. If it was an outright attack, you also know where I stand.

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 23rd 2009 12:22
hi Cheryl,
bloody ridiculous . . . could not have said it better myself!
maybe i should do a little investigation into the standards for sizing clothing?
thanks for contributing to the discussion

Comment by alt_ed

January 24th 2009 00:21
Fuck-- All you wenches take this BMI thing pretty seriously eh?
But If you dis my man again, I will break you in two.
Geezz, chill out Amazon! You know, I have an amazonian woman of my own who'd not hesitate to take you on in... 'Battle of the Amazons!'

You know, there was a parade every year in Germany, during the Nazzi error where naked women would be put on show under the guise of being some mysterious Amazonian creatures- an art form in fact. You're not a Nazzi are you?

Comment by Kleonaptra

January 24th 2009 02:37
Alt_Ed....

Arent you gay? How did you catch a pet amazon?

Im always keen for battle man.....

Im not sure about the Nazi thing...Best not get in to it. Its 40 degrees out here dude, my brain has over heated. Chillin out is a thing of fantasy.

Comment by alt_ed

January 24th 2009 05:09
Right, so you're a Amazon Nazzi Homophobe... interesting mix.

Comment by alt_ed

January 24th 2009 05:17
trust me i am a lot younger than u 2 so grow up!
Um Hi Annon... if you're any younger than me then you really shouldn't be on the net without appropriate adult supervision-- so fuck off!

Comment by Linh

January 24th 2009 11:10
No way is Hugh Jackman fat. He'll be hosting the Oscars this year and the camera (allegedly) puts on ten pounds. That would make him seem even fatter.

There needs to be a better way to calculate healthy weight and obese/overweight/underweight.

Cheers!

Comment by Morgan Bell

January 24th 2009 12:15
hi Linh,
imagine how lean he must look in person!

Comment by fellow orbler

February 1st 2009 10:18
Morgan Bell, you are very insensitive and mean spirited!

Comment by Zat

February 27th 2009 00:50
Every heard of something called muscle, jackass? The thing that weights more than fat? Go run on the treadmill you homo

Comment by BlackLadsteak

May 26th 2009 21:31
Let's see...at 56-July 6,I'm 5'9'',212 lb.(two pounds ligh-
ter than Mel Gibson),and sport a 471/4'' Chest Normal
(fifty-inch Chest Expanded),40'' Waist and 181/2'' Biceps.
Regarded by a lot of local-Windsor,Ont.,Can.,my birthplace
and hometown-ladies as a life-size Brad doll(Brad was
Barbie's boyfriend Ken's handsome black buddy from
1970-'72,at which time Mattel Toys discontinued Brad),
do you dudes deem me a big boy or a fat slob?

Comment by Captain Alaric

March 23rd 2011 16:52
BMI is outdated and needs to go. Take two males who are both 6'1 and weigh 250lbs. One of them could be a fat, tubby waste of space and the other could be akin to John Cena. But BMI would class both of these guys as overweight, and as such, unhealthy. Really?

BMI is useless.

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
334 Posts dating from September 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Morgan Bell's Blogs

5658 Vote(s)
88 Comment(s)
62 Post(s)
12905 Vote(s)
839 Comment(s)
94 Post(s)
Moderated by Morgan Bell
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]