If nothing else, being overweight makes the detection and treatment of cancers more difficult and dangerous. This may be in part because, as is often alleged, the medical establishment tends to always see weight as the problem when someone is overweight, and because overweight people are reluctant to go to the doctor because they feel ashamed, but there are practical reasons, as well: it has to be harder to detect a lump when there is a lot of fat, and all the medication is developed and tested on people of "average" weight: when they have to scale these things up for people on one extreme or the other of the bell curve, they are making an educated guess.

I have heard that a lot of the machines they use to detect problems don't work right when you are too fat, they were just not designed to be able to see through all that fat. And in many places the facilities don't have the "jumbo" sized machines for people to fit into, such as MRIs etc. Huge people can't always be cremated and can't fit into regular sized coffins. If you start researching any of this you will be shocked.

I just want to thank everyone for the comments here! Its been very interesting to me to read your take on these things.

Wanting to lose weight is not because you don't love yourself as you are, but you love yourself and want to live!

Drug addicts are people who need our love and support and fat people are just lazy and disgusting. It's a sterotype that is frightfully common (held even by many doctors).

I thought it was very interesting on a recent Dr. Phil episode (I rarely watch, but the topic was interesting) that Kelly Osborne was on talking aobut the fact that she got a lot more negative attention for being fat than for being a drug addict, and I think that says it all.


As for cancer, My aunt and uncle both died of cancer. My uncle of pancreatic cancer. They were the thinnest members of our family. They also ate sugar and salt like they were food groups.

No conclusions can be made from just two cases of cancer, but their lifestyle does make me wonder. They ate mostly junk food, they were very sedentary, and they lived in virtual darkness for decades. They kept the curtains closed because "sunlight fades the drapes."

However if cancer is tied to sugar/carbohydrate consumption (becaue carbohydrates become sugar in the body), and not directly to fat then a lot of people can be misled into thinking that they as long as they aren't overweight they can eat as muc of that crap as they want, or that losing weight is important, but how they lose the weight and what they eat isn't important.

I think that focusing on the scale number can be counterproductive. Because anything that doesn't seem to immediately and impressively result in weight loss isn't seen as important. Some people experience a small gain or slow-down of weight loss when they first start exercising. They can conclude that exercise is counterproductive or not important, because it doesn't necessarily translate to pounds lost on the scale (at least not for some time).

Also by concentrating on poundage, and BMI people can get a number in their head that makes no sense. My husband has a friend whose weight puts him in the obese category. This guy asked his doctor if he needed to lose weight and his doctor laughed, and told them that he could lose up to 10 lbs, if he wanted to, but more than that and he'd have too little fat on his body. (He did lost the 10 lbs, but he's still in the obese category. You should see this guy in shorts with his shirt off, he's all lean muscle. Any more muscle and you'd start to suspect steroids).

I have a friend who is my height (and I'd kill to have her body, espcially her arms, she looks great in sleeveless tops, no jiggle at all). She's not rail-thin, and could lose a few pounds (only in her hips), but constantly calling herself fat. I asked her why one day and she said, "Well, I weigh ____ lbs, what would you call that." My jaw dropped open and she had to convince me that yes, the weight was accurate and recent. I showed her pictures of myself at that weight to contrast the difference.

She's HEAVILY into sports, especially kickboxing, so BMI is probably a lously standard for her.


I knew this could be true, I had no idea until I met these two people how someone could seem overweight by the doctor's charts or BMI and be at not just a healthy weight, but an athletic weight.

That hubby's friend could be considered "obese" is a crime against nature.

BMI is SUCH a poor way of measuring whether someone is overweight or not. It is great for trends, which is how insurance people and scientists use it (and why it was developed). But it was never intended to be applied on a personal level, without some framework in place to explain how muscle can increase the weight number without meaning "fat".

According to BMI Johnny Depp, Will Smith, and George Clooney all come in as overweight. Tom Cruise came in as "obese" as did Arnold Schwartzenegger (when competing).

This is a really good blog post about the issue. BMI is NOT a good indicator of healthy weight, especially when you're looking at someone who has a good bunch of muscle.

Great points kaplod.

AMEN to that. Matt you have done an amazing job and people who try to minimize or negate that in some way are obviously insecure. Don't let em get you down.

Great blog post you linked! Thanks :)

The BMI is being used now in ways it was never intended. I'm a statistician (no lie) so that is my professional and learned opinion. :D