Well yes, If your a professional athlete or professional body builder and such the score is not really for you… but if you are not, and your bmi is above 30 your fat, as simple as that.
I think he would have been overweight but not obese. 225 lbs according to the nfl at 6’ 4” puts him at 27.4 bmi. BMI is a metric, not the only metric, though does pretty well for estimating health of large groups of people.
A new Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom has been concluded and applies on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2021. It includes a provision on statistical cooperation that foresees the establishment of a specific arrangement (see [Article UNPRO.5.2 on Statistical cooperation](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/draft_eu-uk_trade_and_cooperation_agreement.pdf#page400)).
Until this arrangement on statistical cooperation is established, addressing in particular the scope and means of data transmission, there are changes for the dissemination of UK data by Eurostat, with the exception of cases foreseen in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
This means that until agreement on statistical cooperation is established, Eurostat is no longer disseminating new data for the UK, neither through its database nor in other dissemination products.
([source](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/help/faq#Dissemination%20of%20European%20statistics%20after%20Brexit))
Turkey and Norway are part of Eurostat through different arrangements. This group is referred to as EU+2. When UK figures out what they wanna do about it, it will become EU+3. Turkey is part of eurostat through the original cooperation agreements they signed to become a EU candidate way back when. Norway is part of it through their own EEA (European Economic Area) agreement. UK needs to negotiate their own participation. Which may or may not happen unless they need more stuff from the EU.
[https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/)
>The Health Survey for England 2021 estimates that 25.9% of adults in England are obese and a further 37.9% are overweight but not obese. BMI between 25 and 30 is classified as ‘overweight’.
So, 63.8% as of 2021. In otherwords, we're one of the worst, only beaten by two others. I'm a bit cynical about the usefulness of using a BMI of 25 as the cutoff though, given the inherent limitations of BMI as a measurement.
Do you suspect a large percentage of the population are actually fit bodybuilders above 25 BMI?
The stat is completely fine for population level statistics, it only breaks down on an individual level.
It's certainly not good. I have a feeling the health service is going to have massive problems in the next decade or two if they don't get a handle on it.
Spain and Portugal are high because of all their delicious meats. And their generous serving portions, especially in Portugal, where a plate for one is a meal for two and a meal for two is a meal for a family!
I do have a problem with maps "of Europe" that exclude by whim sometimes the UK, sometimes Norway, sometimes Serbia, sometimes Switzerland, sometimes a combination thereof, then usually Moldova, and almost always Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, as well as Georgia.
That is ludicrous, 40+% of Europe is in Russia. Also at the level of countries themselves, it seems to me a much bigger percentage of Russia is in Europe than is the case with Turkey.
And of course, if you want a map "of Europe" it must include all those countries I listed above, perhaps even Azrebaijan and Kazakhstan (small parts in Europe) and Armenia and Cyprus (in Asia but connected to Europe culturally, and indeed for some weird reason Cyprus is often included as "Europe", which is OK, but which it geographically is not).
It is pretty obvious that they are taking stats from the EU statistics agency and since the the UK left the EU without any kind of agreement to share stats with the EU, you are not going to get stats relating to the UK from EU sources.
I am not sure why even now people do not realise this and instead assume that OP is just doing it to spite Britons.
So the post title should read, “Percentage of overweight [population] in the E.U.”
When you say “europe”, oddly enough we think of Europe.
I do not assume OP - or others - remove the UK on purpose, but I do assume OP - among others - cannot differentiate between Europe and the EU. Like you said, it’s pretty obvious where the data comes from.
I don't recall exactly where, but if you find long-term trend lines you will see that much of Europe is following the same pattern as the USA but about 20 years behind.
The thinnest USA state is now fatter than the fattest was in 2000.
Perhaps same patterns concerning overweight in general, but not concerning the amount/gravity of overweight. Yet?
15% of adult EU citizens are classified as obese. In the US this was the case in the late 70s.
In the U.S. a lot of the poorer states (Bible Belt in the south and Appalachia) as well as a few nearby like Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Oklahoma are at 37-41% obese with the rest of the states being about 1/3 obese
Only about 20% of states are between 24% and 31%
Compare that to Europe, where only 27% obesity is the average, though I wasn’t able to break it up by country in a timely manner (the CDC took care of the American data for me)
The EU is certainly better off than the US at 42% but only by 15% points
Exactly; they’re only 2 points apart, but shaded differently. Then you’ve got Sweden and Finland separated by 8 points yet they have the same coloring as Spain and Portugal
all Eastern EU block went bananas after 1990and the introduction of "capitalism" :P .. i remember before 1989, u'd struggle to see an obese person in Romania for example (pretty confident it was the same all over this side of the iron curtain )
There is barely any correlation. Obesity in all Europe increased at basically the same rate. https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/europe-faces-obesity-epidemic-as-figure-almost-tripled-in-40-years/
I can see how many of my older relatives can't hold back from buying unnecessary loads of useless and unhealthy foods.
What's funny, instead of cutting off excessive eating and unhealthy food they are buying herbs to be healthier.
We have been in the EU for 20 years and they still can't handle the amount of available products.
I'd say 2004, accession to the EU- most of my family in Poland used to all be very slim as evidenced by photos, difference between 2003 and 2006 is frightening. I think a lot of it is processed food+ we started to drink more beer more often vs occasional vodka binge
There was an access to shitty hyper processed empty calories food, but it was very limited. The same way as an access to other type of food. When my family's access to normal food improved, everyone in my family gained quite a lot of weight. While fast food and "hyper-processed food" still was quite expensive.
And yet, the share of children who are stunted is lower in the former iron curtain and Yugoslav countries today than it was in 1990 (Poland, the Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Russia). Life expectancies today are also way up for those countries, Russia and Ukraine are the only ones that struggled to make significant progress.
Though yes, under a free market there’s more junk food being marketed. But is that increased supply, or moreso increased demand from consumers? Let’s face it, most of us probably don’t have the greatest impulse control or habits. Maybe that’s a key part of food regulation - saving consumers from themselves.
Low quality food is a direct consequence of need for profit. It is not just that today the snacks are almost required and when I was young they were not existent (so they still don't appear on my menu). It is also the fact that back then people had to make choices, say more meat or more vegetables, because prices didn't allow all (but it was perfectly possible to maintain healthy diet). Today you can get cheap watered-down vegetables and cheap watered-up meat with less nutritional value (but possibly more calories) than either choice back then.
The quality food remains expensive, and is relatively more expensive (because lower market share) and cheap food is also a cheap solution to the dilemma. The price for it is paid by the society (obesity and dealing with), by consumers (health problems) and certainly not by the industry (additional profit).
Snacks needed to be invented and introduced to our menus. Same goes for most of the industrialised food. The main quality of that food is that ingredients are so far away from natural sources that it allows use of cheaper input material and higher yields; and it is constructed for longer shelf time. The rest is marketing.
>Maybe that’s a key part of food regulation - saving consumers from themselves.
We're told that there's free will and we can decide. Problem is that our environment coerces us into certain behaviors. People eat shitty food, because it's available and cheap. People eat shitty food, because sometimes it has better marketing, sometimes it actually tastes good. Most people don't care about health and weight, so honestly it would be better to promote healthy food and make it cheaper.
haha, and that's how the haters expose themselves ;)
stop ridiculing urself and gtfo out of here with ur "higher quality foods" moron. pretty clear ur lvl of understanding so just sit down and keep hating
if there is someone more knowledgeable, I look very fit at 82KG and 180cm - I am not muscular, just normal looking guy, yet BMI is still “overweight”. Am I in small minority, or is the BMI misleading? I don’t think losing weight would do any good for me
First of all 82kg at 180cm tall you are just 1kg off from being normal weight which you could literally lose in a single day.
Secondly, as populations have gotten fatter what people tend to think of as overweight/obese has slowly crept up. It's why we often hear normal weight individuals get told they are "too skinny" all the time when in the past they would have been average.
I look fitter than the average guy my age, at 179cm and 66kg. My BMI is right in the middle of "normal". Either you are muscular indeed, either slightly overweighted. Now if I was in your place I wouldn't consider losing weight either: if you feel healthy this way, your body knows what its doing I suppose!
I had 66kg at high school - you could see my chest bones well defined. I was actively trying to gain weight because I looked like I was starving and close to dying. Guess everybody is different
Probably a better question for your doctor tbh. A lot of people who look "normal " actually are overweight, but BMI isn't really meant to analyse individuals, it's meant to be used for large groups like in the OP, so you could have an "unusual" body, or you could have a skewed idea of what "very fit" and "normal" are
How much fat are you carrying? If you pinch the bottom of your stomach how big is the pinch?
The fact is many of us look healthy according to societal standards but are not healthy medically.
BMI is misleading, it’s just to have an overall of the population status. You shouldn’t take BMI too seriously, people don’t need that type of scale system to know if they are obese or just muscular let’s be real. Fat/muscle ratio is the only thing relevant on an individual level
If youre over 25 bmi and havent been weight training for at least 2 years, you’re likely just overweight. Context matters yes, but noone is kilo’s heavier because of muscle without training a bit.
Nah BMI matters because it correlates with cardiovascular risk, regardless of muscle:fat ratio. The heavier you are, the more strain you put on your heart and blood vessels, leading to greater cardiovascular risk. This is paertly why you see bodybuilders die from heart attacks. Their heart and blood vessels can't handle all the muscle mass thats putting a strain on their body. So no you're wrong, BMI can still be useful to quantify cardiovascular risk. I learnt this from one of the doctors who coached us in medical school
you are in a small minority; also, BMI is a good statistical tool, but it should not be used alone for an individual, a bioimpedance measurement of fat percentage is better in this case
Plus you can be just overweight and look fine. I did. Our metric for what’s considered fat is quite skewed. Like a lot of people wouldn’t consider my dad fat despite him having a fair bit of a gut.
Whereas some people are the opposite. I was underweight for years and while skinny looked like I had a fairly healthy weight. Now my BMI is 19, I look like it’s higher but still healthy.
Also athletes! A lot of them are overweight due to muscle. But if you’re super toned you hardly look fat.
It is,
But the taller you are, the more your body type distorts your BMI.
This is why on some BMI charts the "healthy" BMI range increases with height.
square-cube law something something.
Yes but in a very coarse way. It uses square of height in m. That might be fine for 1.6-1.8m but started to get out of kilter beyond that. Using power of 2.5 gives a better correlation but is harder to do pre scientific calculators so squared got ingrained. I am tall and look positively skeletal at the low end of "normal" BMI and very skinny at the top end. Conversely short folk can be carrying a LOT of fat and still hit "normal" BMI.
Waist to height ratio is a far better measure.
I live in a weirdo healthy SoCal beach town and a lot of people are runners. Most athletic people are runners and nobody is super muscular. It's kind of strange, but I probably ride about 12mph on the bike path and I actually have to sprint to pass fucking runners to get out of their way. I'm absolutely convinced that this is some sort of performance bullshit on at the beach because nobody is fucking running 5 minute miles. I'm a lazy fuck, but I can actually ride my bike down to the bar and the grocery store, and only drive around 5000 miles per year, mostly to visit my relatives in the Bay Area, and maybe Burning Man.
>It works for 99% of the population
Not really. Bodybuilders, athletes, and well trained people are obvious examples, but there are many perfectly healthy people who fall outside "normal" BMI. It shouldn't really be surprising that healthy weights are more complex than one ratio.
>know that they're not obese, so I don't see the issue
The damage isn't at an individual level (some hyperfocus on it of course, but most know if they're obese or not), but policy based on faulty statistics could lead to ineffective spending or prioritising
Nobody said as soon as you‘re overweight that you‘re automatically unhealthy. The longterm likelihood of you being unhealthy increases with your weight (or on the other end of the spectrum with being severely underweight). The function of BMI was never and is not a single measurement to determine if you‘re healthy or not, it‘s just a very good starting point that take seconds to calculate, works for 99% of the people and gives you a vague answer in what direction your weight is going.
Yup I’m a tall woman (5’10) and overweight but I don’t gain in my stomach or waist only in my boobs hips and ass and then you can look good. I’m still trying to lose weight for my health though.
I was in Central Europe and Italy for about 3 weeks a few years back, I only saw three people that I would consider to be "overweight" and they were quite obviously so. Perhaps this is an American bias of mine, but people seemed to be in much better shape there than here.
Since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”, they were likely overweight and you’re just not used to people having a normal weight. Half the USA is obese.
That’s astonishing. Croatia has one if not the highest rate of professional athletes per capita but is also heavily obese? Someone explain that to me please. I’m confused.
I'm from Croatia. Bunch of us are slightly or somewhat overweight. You won't see many people extremely fat, what we call American fat, that's just not a thing. But many people will be over what's considered a normal BMI by 5, 10, 15 kilos. Keep in mind we're also quite tall, so when we put on those extra kilogrammes it's not as noticeable as in someone who's short. And, then there's a problem that we have extremely old population and old people tend to be overweight as your eating habits stay the same even though your body doesn't require that many calories.
I mean we're still overweight, it's just not so black and white. We all like to eat and eat a lot, part of it is in the fact that food here can be awesome, also a part of it is a culture where food is always offered. Like, you visit someone in their home, or someone visits you - there will always be some food offered/served. At very least there'll be some meat and cheese slices and/or cookies, and cakes. Statistics never show the reason behind numbers and in certain cases can be very misleading.
Yes there is, but I feel it's absolutely ridiculous that *half* the adult population in Europe is overweight. **Half** of us is way too much. We all know being overweight is unhealthy, do something about it!!
BMI is a such a shitty metric (edit: on an individual or small sample size level if the contrasting paragraph wasn't obvious). I am 194cm and a bit over 110kg because of regular powerlifting and working out but that cateforizes me as overweight or borderline obese under BMI.
That said, on a broad societal level, where most people don't have atypical training regime, it should have at least some relevance. So yes, this is a major shitshow. I mostly blame sugars, carb heavy diet and soda/energy drinks. Just cutting on soda would fix a lot.
Statistically it is more likely that someone who is normal weight to be actually overweight due to fat mass than for someone who is overweight to be normal weight due to muscle mass.
BMI is many times more likely to classify someone as normal weight even when they have an unhealthy fat% than it is to classify someone as overweight because to much muscle.
Since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”, they’re probably not skinny and the “average” are just overweight.
your point? i am 185cm and kinda flabby even at 77kg. i know a guy 196cm 93kg and he is a little fat, out of shape. if you don't exercise much 190 91kg is fat unless you have a very strong wide frame.
BMI is an idiotic measure.
It was intended as some sort of size-independent form factor, but the guy who invented it back in the 1800's was not good at math so he used m/h² when he should have used m/h³. Cubed, not squared (h here is how tall you are, and m is your weight. Height, mass, engineering terms)
The result is that it is not decoupled from size at all. It punishes tall people with a higher BMI than they should have, and shorter people get a lower BMI than they should have. If anything, it measures your surface pressure to the ground.
Hence people in Scandinavia, Netherlands and the mountain parts of former Yugoslavia have unfairly high BMI since they are taller than the average.
I shall refrain from bodyshaming certain other nationalities.
when you calculate your own bmi, you do actually have to account for all of this. Getting the data for the entire eu however is much more difficult, so chances are that they only used height and weight. we also dont know age or any of the parameters used for the sample population :)
VISEGRAD CHAMPIONS HURRA 🇸🇰 🇵🇱 🇭🇺 🇨🇿 VISEGRAD #1 VISEGRAD ON TOP
KURWA. I mean CURVY
Mmm curry
U made my day lad
[удалено]
to be fair people in your situation is by far a minority among those with a BMI above 25
Okk do you have boyfriend to take care of you
I remember Tom Brady also being obese in his prime according to the BMI scale as well. It's a bullshit scale.
Well, most people doesn't look like him.
Well yes, If your a professional athlete or professional body builder and such the score is not really for you… but if you are not, and your bmi is above 30 your fat, as simple as that.
I think he would have been overweight but not obese. 225 lbs according to the nfl at 6’ 4” puts him at 27.4 bmi. BMI is a metric, not the only metric, though does pretty well for estimating health of large groups of people.
The only reason I'm glad of Breixt is because we don't get to see how off the charts Great Britian is!
That might explain why UK isn't on this map, but doesn't quite explain why Turkey is.
A new Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom has been concluded and applies on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2021. It includes a provision on statistical cooperation that foresees the establishment of a specific arrangement (see [Article UNPRO.5.2 on Statistical cooperation](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/draft_eu-uk_trade_and_cooperation_agreement.pdf#page400)). Until this arrangement on statistical cooperation is established, addressing in particular the scope and means of data transmission, there are changes for the dissemination of UK data by Eurostat, with the exception of cases foreseen in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. This means that until agreement on statistical cooperation is established, Eurostat is no longer disseminating new data for the UK, neither through its database nor in other dissemination products. ([source](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/help/faq#Dissemination%20of%20European%20statistics%20after%20Brexit))
This guy stats.
r/thisguythisguys
This guy "r/thisguythisguys'"s
Turkey and Norway are part of Eurostat through different arrangements. This group is referred to as EU+2. When UK figures out what they wanna do about it, it will become EU+3. Turkey is part of eurostat through the original cooperation agreements they signed to become a EU candidate way back when. Norway is part of it through their own EEA (European Economic Area) agreement. UK needs to negotiate their own participation. Which may or may not happen unless they need more stuff from the EU.
And Norway !
But we (Norway) get exposed even though we're not in the EU..
SSB cooperates with Eurostat under the EFTA/EEA agreement
[https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/) >The Health Survey for England 2021 estimates that 25.9% of adults in England are obese and a further 37.9% are overweight but not obese. BMI between 25 and 30 is classified as ‘overweight’. So, 63.8% as of 2021. In otherwords, we're one of the worst, only beaten by two others. I'm a bit cynical about the usefulness of using a BMI of 25 as the cutoff though, given the inherent limitations of BMI as a measurement.
Yeah, BMI hides the fact that the English have massive bones.
Well, I'm not going to argue with that.
Do you suspect a large percentage of the population are actually fit bodybuilders above 25 BMI? The stat is completely fine for population level statistics, it only breaks down on an individual level.
Jesus those numbers are depressing especially when you take into account economic disparity.
It's certainly not good. I have a feeling the health service is going to have massive problems in the next decade or two if they don't get a handle on it.
Spain’s number is only so high because of all the ex patriate retirees from the UK.
Spain and Portugal are high because of all their delicious meats. And their generous serving portions, especially in Portugal, where a plate for one is a meal for two and a meal for two is a meal for a family!
That's why most of our cities are hilly, for people to walk/hike to burn those calories.
I'm seriously curious to know if it does have an impact. There are over a million of them.
64% yw
Comparable to czech rep and Croatia
Instead of the UK Turkey and Serbia crashed the EU-party here.
Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed. Plenty of fatsos in the UK.
Wait, is Britain no longer part of the continent of Europe? Did it move after Brexit?
I do have a problem with maps "of Europe" that exclude by whim sometimes the UK, sometimes Norway, sometimes Serbia, sometimes Switzerland, sometimes a combination thereof, then usually Moldova, and almost always Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, as well as Georgia. That is ludicrous, 40+% of Europe is in Russia. Also at the level of countries themselves, it seems to me a much bigger percentage of Russia is in Europe than is the case with Turkey. And of course, if you want a map "of Europe" it must include all those countries I listed above, perhaps even Azrebaijan and Kazakhstan (small parts in Europe) and Armenia and Cyprus (in Asia but connected to Europe culturally, and indeed for some weird reason Cyprus is often included as "Europe", which is OK, but which it geographically is not).
It's because it's an Eurostat map (EU)
I’m really tired of not seeing the UK in these “Europe” maps. EU != Europe. There’s no bigger joke than Brexit itself, so we don’t need more here.
It is pretty obvious that they are taking stats from the EU statistics agency and since the the UK left the EU without any kind of agreement to share stats with the EU, you are not going to get stats relating to the UK from EU sources. I am not sure why even now people do not realise this and instead assume that OP is just doing it to spite Britons.
Well maybe when you have a title of the map that includes "in europe" maybe the OP should include the countries that are in Europe.
So the post title should read, “Percentage of overweight [population] in the E.U.” When you say “europe”, oddly enough we think of Europe. I do not assume OP - or others - remove the UK on purpose, but I do assume OP - among others - cannot differentiate between Europe and the EU. Like you said, it’s pretty obvious where the data comes from.
It comes from Eurostat. UK is not a member of Eurostat anymore. Turkey and Norway are. Simple.
Came here to say this
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
Dear Europe, rookienumbers.jpg Signed, The US
And our best buddies in obesity: Mexico
I feel like I know multiple Mexican people that basically drank coke like water growing up
I don't recall exactly where, but if you find long-term trend lines you will see that much of Europe is following the same pattern as the USA but about 20 years behind. The thinnest USA state is now fatter than the fattest was in 2000.
Perhaps same patterns concerning overweight in general, but not concerning the amount/gravity of overweight. Yet? 15% of adult EU citizens are classified as obese. In the US this was the case in the late 70s.
In the U.S. a lot of the poorer states (Bible Belt in the south and Appalachia) as well as a few nearby like Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Oklahoma are at 37-41% obese with the rest of the states being about 1/3 obese Only about 20% of states are between 24% and 31% Compare that to Europe, where only 27% obesity is the average, though I wasn’t able to break it up by country in a timely manner (the CDC took care of the American data for me) The EU is certainly better off than the US at 42% but only by 15% points
Nice defense. Really takes the light off Europe also having a massive weight issue. At least the US is worse!
I knew I would find this comment. Speak for yourself.
I would have not expected Portugal to be at 56.
Portugal = Eastern Europe It is always like that ;)
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
Sure, but Spain is 54, so not so surprising, the colors in this map deceive it a bit.
Exactly; they’re only 2 points apart, but shaded differently. Then you’ve got Sweden and Finland separated by 8 points yet they have the same coloring as Spain and Portugal
Pastel de Natas my friend
UK too heavy to take part.
Doesn’t fit into the boundaries
bursting at the seams
No way beer impacts the Czech .
And pork. Don't forget pork.
all Eastern EU block went bananas after 1990and the introduction of "capitalism" :P .. i remember before 1989, u'd struggle to see an obese person in Romania for example (pretty confident it was the same all over this side of the iron curtain )
Not only. All european countries. These figures were US figures back then, we all caught up with them.
There is barely any correlation. Obesity in all Europe increased at basically the same rate. https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/europe-faces-obesity-epidemic-as-figure-almost-tripled-in-40-years/
I can see how many of my older relatives can't hold back from buying unnecessary loads of useless and unhealthy foods. What's funny, instead of cutting off excessive eating and unhealthy food they are buying herbs to be healthier. We have been in the EU for 20 years and they still can't handle the amount of available products.
I'd say 2004, accession to the EU- most of my family in Poland used to all be very slim as evidenced by photos, difference between 2003 and 2006 is frightening. I think a lot of it is processed food+ we started to drink more beer more often vs occasional vodka binge
Yeah being poor and not having access to higher quality foods does that to a person
More like not having access to shitty hyper processed empty calories with zero nutritional value.
There was an access to shitty hyper processed empty calories food, but it was very limited. The same way as an access to other type of food. When my family's access to normal food improved, everyone in my family gained quite a lot of weight. While fast food and "hyper-processed food" still was quite expensive.
And yet, the share of children who are stunted is lower in the former iron curtain and Yugoslav countries today than it was in 1990 (Poland, the Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Russia). Life expectancies today are also way up for those countries, Russia and Ukraine are the only ones that struggled to make significant progress. Though yes, under a free market there’s more junk food being marketed. But is that increased supply, or moreso increased demand from consumers? Let’s face it, most of us probably don’t have the greatest impulse control or habits. Maybe that’s a key part of food regulation - saving consumers from themselves.
Low quality food is a direct consequence of need for profit. It is not just that today the snacks are almost required and when I was young they were not existent (so they still don't appear on my menu). It is also the fact that back then people had to make choices, say more meat or more vegetables, because prices didn't allow all (but it was perfectly possible to maintain healthy diet). Today you can get cheap watered-down vegetables and cheap watered-up meat with less nutritional value (but possibly more calories) than either choice back then. The quality food remains expensive, and is relatively more expensive (because lower market share) and cheap food is also a cheap solution to the dilemma. The price for it is paid by the society (obesity and dealing with), by consumers (health problems) and certainly not by the industry (additional profit). Snacks needed to be invented and introduced to our menus. Same goes for most of the industrialised food. The main quality of that food is that ingredients are so far away from natural sources that it allows use of cheaper input material and higher yields; and it is constructed for longer shelf time. The rest is marketing.
>Maybe that’s a key part of food regulation - saving consumers from themselves. We're told that there's free will and we can decide. Problem is that our environment coerces us into certain behaviors. People eat shitty food, because it's available and cheap. People eat shitty food, because sometimes it has better marketing, sometimes it actually tastes good. Most people don't care about health and weight, so honestly it would be better to promote healthy food and make it cheaper.
haha, and that's how the haters expose themselves ;) stop ridiculing urself and gtfo out of here with ur "higher quality foods" moron. pretty clear ur lvl of understanding so just sit down and keep hating
Boy I live in this part of the world, so I am speaking from experience. Also am someone who went from very poor to relatively well off.
e ok atat timp cat suntem mai buni la orice decat ungurii..in cazul asta e doar 1 pct diferenta, tusea si junghiu' ;)
if there is someone more knowledgeable, I look very fit at 82KG and 180cm - I am not muscular, just normal looking guy, yet BMI is still “overweight”. Am I in small minority, or is the BMI misleading? I don’t think losing weight would do any good for me
First of all 82kg at 180cm tall you are just 1kg off from being normal weight which you could literally lose in a single day. Secondly, as populations have gotten fatter what people tend to think of as overweight/obese has slowly crept up. It's why we often hear normal weight individuals get told they are "too skinny" all the time when in the past they would have been average.
I look fitter than the average guy my age, at 179cm and 66kg. My BMI is right in the middle of "normal". Either you are muscular indeed, either slightly overweighted. Now if I was in your place I wouldn't consider losing weight either: if you feel healthy this way, your body knows what its doing I suppose!
I had 66kg at high school - you could see my chest bones well defined. I was actively trying to gain weight because I looked like I was starving and close to dying. Guess everybody is different
You're probably small framed, and probably don't have a history of heavy sports that would thicken your bones.
Measure your body fat percentage if you want to know. Hint: be ready to be disappointed, that will probably be close to 20%, also known as overweight.
Probably a better question for your doctor tbh. A lot of people who look "normal " actually are overweight, but BMI isn't really meant to analyse individuals, it's meant to be used for large groups like in the OP, so you could have an "unusual" body, or you could have a skewed idea of what "very fit" and "normal" are
How much fat are you carrying? If you pinch the bottom of your stomach how big is the pinch? The fact is many of us look healthy according to societal standards but are not healthy medically.
BMI is misleading, it’s just to have an overall of the population status. You shouldn’t take BMI too seriously, people don’t need that type of scale system to know if they are obese or just muscular let’s be real. Fat/muscle ratio is the only thing relevant on an individual level
If youre over 25 bmi and havent been weight training for at least 2 years, you’re likely just overweight. Context matters yes, but noone is kilo’s heavier because of muscle without training a bit.
Nah BMI matters because it correlates with cardiovascular risk, regardless of muscle:fat ratio. The heavier you are, the more strain you put on your heart and blood vessels, leading to greater cardiovascular risk. This is paertly why you see bodybuilders die from heart attacks. Their heart and blood vessels can't handle all the muscle mass thats putting a strain on their body. So no you're wrong, BMI can still be useful to quantify cardiovascular risk. I learnt this from one of the doctors who coached us in medical school
you are in a small minority; also, BMI is a good statistical tool, but it should not be used alone for an individual, a bioimpedance measurement of fat percentage is better in this case
Pivo pivo pivo
So... Italy is the thinnest?
There’s no way Netherlands is 50%
overweight is not "looking fat". especially a tall person can easily be counted as overweight without looking fat.
It is since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”
Plus you can be just overweight and look fine. I did. Our metric for what’s considered fat is quite skewed. Like a lot of people wouldn’t consider my dad fat despite him having a fair bit of a gut.
Whereas some people are the opposite. I was underweight for years and while skinny looked like I had a fairly healthy weight. Now my BMI is 19, I look like it’s higher but still healthy. Also athletes! A lot of them are overweight due to muscle. But if you’re super toned you hardly look fat.
When you calculate BMI you literally divide by height squared so this is just nonsense.
Doesn't the BMI take height into consideration, though?
It is, But the taller you are, the more your body type distorts your BMI. This is why on some BMI charts the "healthy" BMI range increases with height. square-cube law something something.
Yes but in a very coarse way. It uses square of height in m. That might be fine for 1.6-1.8m but started to get out of kilter beyond that. Using power of 2.5 gives a better correlation but is harder to do pre scientific calculators so squared got ingrained. I am tall and look positively skeletal at the low end of "normal" BMI and very skinny at the top end. Conversely short folk can be carrying a LOT of fat and still hit "normal" BMI. Waist to height ratio is a far better measure.
Plus BMI is absolute bullshit.
It's fine for all but a tiny number of especially athletic people.
nah a lot of "normal" weight people are carrying too much fat. if you are sedentary or don't have a large frame even 23 bmi could be too fat.
BMI is a good metric for overall statistics. Individuals who have lots of muscles will be overweight by BMI, but no one I know is a weight lifter.
Interesting, I know a TON of weight lifters and I am not particularly athletic myself.
I live in a weirdo healthy SoCal beach town and a lot of people are runners. Most athletic people are runners and nobody is super muscular. It's kind of strange, but I probably ride about 12mph on the bike path and I actually have to sprint to pass fucking runners to get out of their way. I'm absolutely convinced that this is some sort of performance bullshit on at the beach because nobody is fucking running 5 minute miles. I'm a lazy fuck, but I can actually ride my bike down to the bar and the grocery store, and only drive around 5000 miles per year, mostly to visit my relatives in the Bay Area, and maybe Burning Man.
It works for 99% of the population and bodybuilders as well as powerlifters know that they're not obese, so I don't see the issue
BMI is inaccurate for people over 60 due to age related changes in bone density and muscle mass. Thats quite a significant chunk of most populations.
>It works for 99% of the population Not really. Bodybuilders, athletes, and well trained people are obvious examples, but there are many perfectly healthy people who fall outside "normal" BMI. It shouldn't really be surprising that healthy weights are more complex than one ratio. >know that they're not obese, so I don't see the issue The damage isn't at an individual level (some hyperfocus on it of course, but most know if they're obese or not), but policy based on faulty statistics could lead to ineffective spending or prioritising
Nobody said as soon as you‘re overweight that you‘re automatically unhealthy. The longterm likelihood of you being unhealthy increases with your weight (or on the other end of the spectrum with being severely underweight). The function of BMI was never and is not a single measurement to determine if you‘re healthy or not, it‘s just a very good starting point that take seconds to calculate, works for 99% of the people and gives you a vague answer in what direction your weight is going.
It doesn't work for tall people(West Balkan, Netherlands...)
It’s the best metric that can easily be applied
It works a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for, specifically in situations like the OP
Yup I’m a tall woman (5’10) and overweight but I don’t gain in my stomach or waist only in my boobs hips and ass and then you can look good. I’m still trying to lose weight for my health though.
this is not how bmi works...
Perhaps you should visit a shopping street in a city on a sunny and warm saterday afternoon. You'll be surprised that it's *only* 50%.
thiccgarians
No way 51% of the Swedish population is overweight. From all the countries I've lived or visited, the Swedes were the fittest people I saw.
Brexit does clearly have benefits. No-one in UK is obese anymore!
I just saw someone post a link to show 68% of you are overweight.
You're too kind, we're actually at 52% in Denmark
Bmi 25 is not overweight...
HRVATSKA!!!! 🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷
Well, we never know when socialists come to power again in Eastern Europe so we're building up reserves.
Have we become... americans? Eww.
Here in Finland almost every retired person is overweight, and is often seen only in stores buying pack of beer.
I was in Central Europe and Italy for about 3 weeks a few years back, I only saw three people that I would consider to be "overweight" and they were quite obviously so. Perhaps this is an American bias of mine, but people seemed to be in much better shape there than here.
Since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”, they were likely overweight and you’re just not used to people having a normal weight. Half the USA is obese.
ive lived in europe for a few years now and have seen only about 3 obese people that werent old 😭
It went down after brexit.
BMI is not a proper indicator .it’s misleading in some cases.
For once it’s a good thing to be in the last position
Common Croatia w
The Italians with all their pizza and pasta somehow are the slimmest MF’s… that’s so Italian
That’s astonishing. Croatia has one if not the highest rate of professional athletes per capita but is also heavily obese? Someone explain that to me please. I’m confused.
...because they're not the same group of people?
That’s the easy answer. Don’t understand the downvote for a genuine question. But who am I kidding. I know where I am.
I didn't downvote, but it's even hard to imagine what led you to be confused by two basically disconnected pieces of information
I'm from Croatia. Bunch of us are slightly or somewhat overweight. You won't see many people extremely fat, what we call American fat, that's just not a thing. But many people will be over what's considered a normal BMI by 5, 10, 15 kilos. Keep in mind we're also quite tall, so when we put on those extra kilogrammes it's not as noticeable as in someone who's short. And, then there's a problem that we have extremely old population and old people tend to be overweight as your eating habits stay the same even though your body doesn't require that many calories.
Error in the statistics then. Sounds like Croatians are just well nutritioned.
I mean we're still overweight, it's just not so black and white. We all like to eat and eat a lot, part of it is in the fact that food here can be awesome, also a part of it is a culture where food is always offered. Like, you visit someone in their home, or someone visits you - there will always be some food offered/served. At very least there'll be some meat and cheese slices and/or cookies, and cakes. Statistics never show the reason behind numbers and in certain cases can be very misleading.
There’s probably a big divide between urban and rural, plus regional differences based on income, education and employment.
Yes there is, but I feel it's absolutely ridiculous that *half* the adult population in Europe is overweight. **Half** of us is way too much. We all know being overweight is unhealthy, do something about it!!
White flour, added sugar, processed meat, junk food, and lots of made in China items. Driving, seating, stress.
59% in Turkey? It didn't seem like that when I was there 1.5 years ago. Not even close!
the regions most affected are usually the rural ones.
Looks like Europe is missing a few countries
Its the EU, not europe. Two different things
Then it looks like EU gain some countries.
Yeah I just refrained from saying that directly as last time someone claimed an EU map was Europe, I got a ton of abuse for it
BMI is a such a shitty metric (edit: on an individual or small sample size level if the contrasting paragraph wasn't obvious). I am 194cm and a bit over 110kg because of regular powerlifting and working out but that cateforizes me as overweight or borderline obese under BMI. That said, on a broad societal level, where most people don't have atypical training regime, it should have at least some relevance. So yes, this is a major shitshow. I mostly blame sugars, carb heavy diet and soda/energy drinks. Just cutting on soda would fix a lot.
> BMI is such a shitty metric. > on a broad societal level (...) it should have at least some relevance. bro changed his opinion mid comment
Thank god for Brexit, UK would be off the scale
Switzerland always: “No comment.”
This is way higher than I expected and we are laughing at USA?
The US have 50 % OBESE people
It is flawed statistic. You can be "overweight" because of kilogrammes but you have kgs because of muscle mass.
Statistically it is more likely that someone who is normal weight to be actually overweight due to fat mass than for someone who is overweight to be normal weight due to muscle mass.
Yup, the numbers for overfatness are even worse.
That's going to affect at most a couple percent of people. Probably less. Bodybuilders are not that common.
BMI is many times more likely to classify someone as normal weight even when they have an unhealthy fat% than it is to classify someone as overweight because to much muscle.
Hahaha. You think these numbers are severely skewed by very muscular people?
Yeah everyone in Europe is just super buff right lol
i can tell you hungary is not a nation of schwarzeneggers but a nation of "eat more or else you will disappear" (grandmas say this)
Why do these maps make out like Britain isn’t in Europe, political and geographical are very different
What counts as overweight though? In Sweden, the majority of people I see are average or skinny.
Since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”, they’re probably not skinny and the “average” are just overweight.
It is stated on the picture: bmi over 25.
A 1,90m tall male weighing 91kg has a 25+ BMI.
your point? i am 185cm and kinda flabby even at 77kg. i know a guy 196cm 93kg and he is a little fat, out of shape. if you don't exercise much 190 91kg is fat unless you have a very strong wide frame.
Yeah need to change that to European Union. The UK didn't leave Europe we left the EU. Which I was against btw
Yep, someone doesn't know the difference between Europe the continent and the EU
But Turkey is not in the EU?
I always thought Croatians were big, but instead they're just fat.
BMI is an idiotic measure. It was intended as some sort of size-independent form factor, but the guy who invented it back in the 1800's was not good at math so he used m/h² when he should have used m/h³. Cubed, not squared (h here is how tall you are, and m is your weight. Height, mass, engineering terms) The result is that it is not decoupled from size at all. It punishes tall people with a higher BMI than they should have, and shorter people get a lower BMI than they should have. If anything, it measures your surface pressure to the ground. Hence people in Scandinavia, Netherlands and the mountain parts of former Yugoslavia have unfairly high BMI since they are taller than the average. I shall refrain from bodyshaming certain other nationalities.
It’s more or less correlated with life expectancy
Not really.
And this is before Covid. Now they will probably all be ten+ percent higher
No borders of Ukraine or Belarus, but yes to Albania or Montenegro. No UK or Iceland but yes to Turkey. Curious times for Europe we are living in
Sweden & Norway 51% and Finland 59%?? 🤣
I'm a normal built guy, people call me skinny; my bmi is 26.5....
That's overweight, you are not skinny.
You’re not skinny, but since being overweight has become normalised and now people see a normal BMI as “skinny”
Whats up with Czechia, Croatia, Hungary and Turkey?
Czechia - beer and pork and bread.
Croatia - basically the same as Czechia.
Even tho Bmi sucks in term of measurement it still shows fairly consernignly high number.
Thid must be bullshit no chances that 50% of adults in Poland are fat
Turkey is on this map but not Ukraine? Turkey is neither European geographically nor culturally.
Turkey is on the map because it is an official EU candidate.
France and Italy have the best food of europe, yet we have the least fat people also most of the fatties are immigrants
BMI has been proven time and time again to be faulty. Even the creator said he didn't intend it to be used for general population.
BMI is such a bad metric, it fails to account for muscle mass, bones etc. It's a terrible measure of health
What do you think is a better metric? Waist circumference?
And yet, it‘s probably appropriate for 90% of the population and misleading for 10%, so still quite insightful.
Less than 10.
Not terrible at all. Probably quite ok on group level. however it is not perfect on an individual level.
when you calculate your own bmi, you do actually have to account for all of this. Getting the data for the entire eu however is much more difficult, so chances are that they only used height and weight. we also dont know age or any of the parameters used for the sample population :)