|
 Debunkers
 Oh woe is us!
 Johns Hopkins University guilty of junk?
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Johns Hopkins University guilty of junk? |
|
Casper Member |
posted 07-19-2007 10:05 AM
  
It makes it even worse that people associate the name of an institution with an argument from authority. 75 percent of Americans overweight by 2015
quote: Shouldn't a prestigious body be working to debunk, or at least greatly redefine something that is a flawed "standard medical definition"? Bah, we are all going to die and only grad students on dope can save us... IP: Logged |
|
Steve_V Member |
posted 07-19-2007 12:48 PM
It is even worse. The researchers assumed that the current trend would simply continue. I was listening to the radio this morning when they, briefly, interviewed one of the authors who said, as best I can recall, "We assumed the current trends continue into the future." ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Casper Member |
posted 07-19-2007 01:39 PM
It irks me because our school district is on this BMI bent. Supposedly they want to treat it as a no-pass-no-play checkpoint. That has the coach up in arms. However he has found a loophole in their proposal that allows him to oversee weight loss programs for the athletes, and if he can show some improvement the students will be allowed temporary waivers. In the feel-good tradition of damn yankees moving to North Texas they have insisted that anyone not cut out for a team sport be given the title of "trainer", which can range from partially handicapped students (and just plain non-athletic types) overseeing weight training, nutrition guidance or just being waterboys. That means that everyone enrolled in PE is an an "athlete", which is really a decent idea (given a good coaching staff). The other part of the loophole is that the coaching staff, being the most knowledgable about nutrition and sports sciences (the normal 5 year degree for such people including rehab specialists), are allowed to dictate the terms of the monitoring program and evaluate progress. Thus, his plan is anyone who can bench their own bodyweight and leg-lift twice that amount is exempt; those who cannot have a program with goals which will eiether cause them to lose weight or get stronger, moving them closer to the "intent" of the regulations (as he, a professional, gets to interpret them). Seeing as how my 14-year-old will be about 6'2" and 220-230 by the end of the first semester, and he can already lift more than that easily, I'm confident that he is on his way to a future filled with NCAA violations and scholarship perks IP: Logged |
|
Sprengtporten Member |
posted 07-21-2007 05:38 PM
quote: I'm 183cm tall and I'm 103 kg. I pump iron 4 times a week. You do the inventing. IP: Logged |
|
Casper Member |
posted 07-21-2007 07:12 PM
You are about my size. How does it feel to be considered obese?  IP: Logged |
|
SPQR Moderator |
posted 07-21-2007 09:28 PM
quote: Wait, it will take me a couple of hours to convert those measurements to a real system of weights and measures ... IP: Logged |
|
Casper Member |
posted 07-22-2007 02:17 PM
16 and a quarter stone and a third of a rod? IP: Logged |
|
Sprengtporten Member |
posted 07-24-2007 01:50 AM
quote: I excpect to be offended anytime soon. And then legal action takes place. It's a six-digit $ figure we talk of here. IP: Logged |
|
tralfaz Member |
posted 07-24-2007 09:37 AM
The BMI again... My life insurance policy is almost triple what my wife's is, mainly due to the BMI. (Being male doesn't help either.) I'm obese. It doesn't matter that I'd still be overweight at 0% body fat. The chart is just too darn easy to use. Why would schools and insurance companies abandon something that's so easy to use, even if it is useless? IP: Logged |
|
Casper Member |
posted 07-24-2007 04:47 PM
We live in the post-information age, which could rightly be called the pretty charts and graphs age. From what I've read, it is even worse for young people. Not only is it calculated the same way, but the breaks are based on percentiles. So if you used data from a place where the best fed were still starving, 5% of the children would fall into the obese category. Scary stuff when even I can see the obvious farce. IP: Logged |
|
LaneH Member |
posted 07-24-2007 05:59 PM
I find it funny - I'm 5'8" and 145-150 - riht on the cusp of obese - uhm, I don't think so. ------------------ IP: Logged |
All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | The Debunkers
Personal Safety
Notice: The discussions on this site may address
activities which are inherently dangerous and other
activities which could be dangerous if done improperly.
Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid.
The management of this board has no way of assuring that
any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe
practices. If you choose to follow any of the
"guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow
three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so
we can laugh at your stupidity. Copyright
Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If
you post it here, then you promise that you have the
right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless
this board and the staff which manages daily
operations.
The staff
reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit
if, in its judgment, your claim is not
reasonable.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c