• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Students may not be allowed to graduate because they're fat

Status
Not open for further replies.
jason10mm said:
And you wonder why some of us want to keep the gov't OUT of health care.

Imagine when a BMI >30 keeps you from getting a drivers license, small business loan from the federally controlled banks, or that out of state vacation permit.

No, I don't wonder that because people always have the most insanely idiotic objections to it, like that one.

God damn, man. Could you be any more intellectually dishonest?
 
jason10mm said:
And you wonder why some of us want to keep the gov't OUT of health care.

Imagine when a BMI >30 keeps you from getting a drivers license, small business loan from the federally controlled banks, or that out of state vacation permit.

Well, it would suck for those for awhile but eventually it would get them back in shape. You're gonna be walking around losing weight if you can't drive.
 
jason10mm said:
And you wonder why some of us want to keep the gov't OUT of health care.

Imagine when a BMI >30 keeps you from getting a drivers license, small business loan from the federally controlled banks, or that out of state vacation permit.

Seriously. I live in a country that is harassed by the injustice of socialised medicine and every time I go for a piss, they measure my cock length and trajectory. If I'm at more than 30 degrees lean or 30% arousal, they hit it with a cane.
 
AstroLad said:
i love how whenever bmi is mentioned all we hear about is the millions and millions of buff people with 2% body fat who are so blatantly discriminated against. you'd think out of 100 people with bmis >30 like two of them were fat and the rest were phil baroni.

joelseph said:
Everyone on gaf is a short bodybuilder it would seem.

You don't have to have a BMI over 30 to realize that BMI is a poor indicator of health. Yes, there are a large number of people for which it is accurate. However, there are a large number of physically unfit people below the threshold as well.

I've no problem with a physical fitness class requirement, but using BMI to determine who takes it is a poor choice.
 
prodystopian said:
You don't have to have a BMI over 30 to realize that BMI is a poor indicator of health. Yes, there are a large number of people for which it is accurate. However, there are a large number of physically unfit people below the threshold as well.

I've no problem with a physical fitness class requirement, but using BMI to determine who takes it is a poor choice.

I would bet that after BMI 30, the percentage of folks who are unhealthy shoots up dramatically compared to twinks.
 
Sounds like a decent class for a requirement. It beats Art History and Social Issues of the 1900s, two of my requirements. Easy A.
 
jason10mm said:
And you wonder why some of us want to keep the gov't OUT of health care.

Imagine when a BMI >30 keeps you from getting a drivers license, small business loan from the federally controlled banks, or that out of state vacation permit.
Ignoring the intellectual dishonesty of this post, Lincoln University isn't government-run. It is state-related, which means it receives funds from the state but is an independently-run organization (basically, a subsidized private college).

You fail.
 
RiskyChris said:
I would bet that after BMI 30, the percentage of folks who are unhealthy shoots up dramatically compared to twinks.

What about those that are classified as underweight? They are as likely to be unhealthy as those classified as obese. Why don't they have to take the class?
 
1) I think its generally a good idea, but they should make EVERYONE take it.

2) BMI is shite...Im overweight according to it, I'm 5'11, 185lbs, with a 30inch waist...stupid f'ing metric.
 
prodystopian said:
What about those that are classified as underweight? They are as likely to be unhealthy as those classified as obese. Why don't they have to take the class?

I don't know shit about nutrition or health or anything, but wouldn't someone who's obese still be much unhealthier than someone who's underweight?

GodofWine said:
2) BMI is shite...Im overweight according to it, I'm 5'11, 185lbs, with a 30inch waist...stupid f'ing metric.

It's not a stupid fucking metric when it very closely correlates to how fat people are.
 
People are bitching about having to take a PASS/FAIL gym class for one semester? Hell I'd love to be able to get credit for THAT.

What about those that are classified as underweight? They are as likely to be unhealthy as those classified as obese. Why don't they have to take the class?

It's a lot easier to get the right amount of calories and nutrition to fix somebody up if they are underweight than long term weight loss for somebody who is obese.
 
Xeke said:
People are bitching about having to take a PASS/FAIL gym class for one semester? Hell I'd love to be able to get credit for THAT.

They're fat
emot-ssh.gif
 
RiskyChris said:
I don't know shit about nutrition or health or anything, but wouldn't someone who's obese still be much unhealthier than someone who's underweight?



It's not a stupid fucking metric when it very closely correlates to how fat people are.
Except it doesn't.

Xeke said:
People are bitching about having to take a PASS/FAIL gym class for one semester? Hell I'd love to be able to get credit for THAT.
I don't think they get credit for it.
 
idahoblue said:
So then it's not a good correlation...

It works as a good guide with one very obvious exception. It's not hard to figure out if you have a high BMI because of muscle or fat and if you know it's muscle then just disregard it.
 
RiskyChris said:
It does. For a populace there's a high correlation between obesity by BMI and being a fat fuck.

Methinks you're misunderestimating the definition of correlation!
:lol Okay, that made me laugh, but got data? And if you need to calibrate your indicator by looking to see if someone is fat, then there is not a very strong correlation between BMI and fatties, is there?

Xeke said:
It works as a good guide with one very obvious exception. It's not hard to figure out if you have a high BMI because of muscle or fat and if you know it's muscle then just disregard it.
Yeah, but the school isn't doing that!
 
idahoblue said:
:lol Okay, that made me laugh, but got data? And if you need to calibrate your indicator by looking to see if someone is fat, then there is not a very strong correlation between BMI and fatties, is there?

No, it just means that it's not 100% correlated.

Correlation_examples.png


If x is BMI and y is fat-fuckitude, then graph 2 (the .8) is probably pretty close to what our society is like.

I can't find data, but if 90+% of people above 30 BMI are lardasses, then that's a high degree of correlation.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Ignoring the intellectual dishonesty of this post, Lincoln University isn't government-run. It is state-related, which means it receives funds from the state but is an independently-run organization (basically, a subsidized private college).

You fail.

Your sarcasm shields are down, captain, dry wit torpedoes inbound!!

But seriously, do you really think a college that gets money from the state isn't beholden to the state for their actions? Perhaps you missed all the strong arm tactics the feds used on the states WRT highway dollars. SSDD

Merely extrapolate the actions of this college, who, in a misguided attempt to improve the health of their transient population, institute mandatory "training" and threaten to withhold an academic degree as the stick to force compliance. Why should the college care about the health of their students?

And then contemplate a gov't that not only has to pay for the health care of thier citizenry, but also holds all the carrots for the citizenry. Want a carrot? Then comply with our directives, aimed at reducing our costs. Heck, states are already penalizing folks they think are "too fat" with increased taxes on sugary products, and Obama wants to do the same on a national level. Make any sense? Only if you beleive the gov't is attempting to punish "bad" behavior, which is exactly what this college is doing.

But go ahead, plant that head firmly in the sand, hopefully that will keep you slim and off their radar :P
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
A 2005 study in America showed that overweight people actually had a lower death rate than normal weight people as defined by BMI.[17]

In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with normal BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).[18] In the intermediate range of BMI (25–29.9), BMI failed to discriminate between bodyfat percentage and lean mass. The study concluded that "the accuracy of BMI in diagnosing obesity is limited, particularly for individuals in the intermediate BMI ranges, in men and in the elderly... These results may help to explain the unexpected better survival in overweight/mild obese patients."[19] Patients who were underweight (BMI <20) or severely obese (BMI &#8805;35) did, however, show an increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

A study by Romero-Corral et al., using data representing noninstitutionalized civilians in the United States, found that BMI-defined obesity was present in 19.1% of men and 24.7% of women, but that obesity as measured by bodyfat percentage was present in 43.9% of men and 52.3% of women.[22]

It is a bad measure of health, and a bad measure of bodyfat. I'm off to drink beer and up my BMI!
 
RiskyChris said:
No, it just means that it's not 100% correlated.

Correlation_examples.png


If x is BMI and y is fat-fuckitude, then graph 2 (the .8) is probably pretty close to what our society is like.

I can't find data, but if 90+% of people above 30 BMI are lardasses, then that's a high degree of correlation.

So much of that graph is wrong, but for the purposes of explaining this it works just fine.
 
GodofWine said:
1) I think its generally a good idea, but they should make EVERYONE take it.

This.

We had to pass 2 PE classes to graduate in our university, and man, they were tough. But it was actually quite a good way to encourage people that otherwise wouldn't move at all (i.e. me) to do sports.

My friends did laugh at me because of the fact that we have mandatory PE classes in uni, but well, it was a lot of fun!
 
SmokyDave said:
I'd imagine it's probably some evolutionary imperative to avoid unhealthy mates and by extension, offspring.

I'm glad fat people are getting picked on, it means us smokers are getting 5 minutes peace.
BUT WHAT ABOUT FAT RIGHTS!?
 
Do they have a class that smokers are required to take before they graduate? I think a heavy smoker who is thin would probably be less healthy then one of these overweight students who are required to take this class. Why is only one group being targeted for a special class they have to take to graduate?
 
Vgamer said:
Do they have a class that smokers are required to take before they graduate? I think a heavy smoker who is thin would probably be less healthy then one of these overweight students who are required to take this class.

More people die from chronic diseases caused by overweight than by smoking repercussions.
 
Vgamer said:
Do they have a class that smokers are required to take before they graduate? I think a heavy smoker who is thin would probably be less healthy then one of these overweight students who are required to take this class. Why is only one group being targeted for a special class they have to take to graduate?

Smokers are sexy, that's why.
 
The shit of it is that these tubbers are forced to take a class they don't want to take instead of something that they feel is more appropriate to their career goals.

The opportunity cost (and the heavy handed bullshit) is what I have issue with.
 
Vgamer said:
Do they have a class that smokers are required to take before they graduate? I think a heavy smoker who is thin would probably be less healthy then one of these overweight students who are required to take this class. Why is only one group being targeted for a special class they have to take to graduate?

Probably because smokers would just say they don't smoke to get out of it. What are they going to do, X-ray their lungs? Fat people can't hide their rolls.
 
John Dunbar said:
Probably because smokers would just say they don't smoke to get out of it. What are they going to do, X-ray their lungs? Fat people can't hide their rolls.

Then why cant a fat person say they are on a diet?
 
RiskyChris said:
Because that's not the equivalent of a smoker saying he doesn't smoke?

Yea, you can't quit being fat for 2 weeks and go back to it.

Also, cigarettes should be banned, but there are commercials making them look bad on all the time, massive public displays saying they are evil... Imagine this being done on obesity, the Obesity Society would eat that up.
 
I like this.

I'm surprised they didn't foresee the questions about the accuracy of BMI as an indicator of overall health though. Why not do like the military and actually test their levels of physical fitness in order to discern who should take the class or not?
 
Dirtyshubb said:
GAF always makes me laugh, if someone starts making racial or sexist comments they are most likely banned there and than but if an overweight person is mocked its all fair game.

Keep it classy GAF.

You can't change your skin color or gender in a reasonably normal way. Most fat people can lose weight if they actually try.
 
WickedAngel said:
You can't change your skin color or gender in a reasonably normal way. Most fat people can lose weight if they actually try.

Well gaf seems to have hardons for people who underwent gender reassignment surgery, they also seem to have a hardon for Michael Jackson so...
 
XenoRaven said:
Why not do like the military and actually test their levels of physical fitness in order to discern who should take the class or not?
The military system isn't perfect either though. The AF, for instance, measures running, situps, pushups, and waist circumference. We've got some 6 ft+ personnel who just simply cannot get max points on the waist circumference because of how they're built (for males age 18-25, max is <32.5 inches). The new system that starts in January gives a little more leniency on the waist (max is 35 inches), but now if you fail one portion of the test you fail the whole thing.

Count Dookkake said:
Brings new meaning to weighted grades.
I was wondering when you'd come in. :lol
 
I think this is a step in the right direction. We need a way to slim down our next generations. I might be a bit biase though, I've been under 130 pounds for my whole life. (I'm underweight according to bmi.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom