Report: Obesity Costing Firms $45B a Year in Work Loss, Medical Costs
National News • April 10, 2008
The rate of obesity in the United States has doubled in the last 30 years, and those extra pounds weigh on companies' bottom lines, according to a new report from The Conference Board. Today, 34 ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: the obesity measurement doesn't make sense
Posted On: April 10, 2008, 3:33 pm CDT
Posted By: kevin
Comment:
I just checked the CDC's website for obesity trends and measurement tools. CDC's measure is Body Mass Index (BMI), which is what the Conference Board's report uses.
Problem is, the BMI's relationship between height and weight is linear, instead of cubic. Think about it: if you are 20% taller--say 72 inches vs 60 inches--you should be 20% wider and 20% deeper if you maintain your proportions. Since weight is roughly a function of volume (a cubic function), someone 1.2 times the height of another should be expected to be 1.72 times the weight of the smaller person. (1.72 = 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2) But the linear relationships of the BMI table do not align with this. As Americans have gotten taller, this linear-vs-exponential discrepancy throws more people into the "obese" category.
My conclusion: "granus cum salis."
Subject: the obesity measurement doesn't make sense
Problem is, the BMI's relationship between height and weight is linear, instead of cubic. Think about it: if you are 20% taller--say 72 inches vs 60 inches--you should be 20% wider and 20% deeper if you maintain your proportions. Since weight is roughly a function of volume (a cubic function), someone 1.2 times the height of another should be expected to be 1.72 times the weight of the smaller person. (1.72 = 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2) But the linear relationships of the BMI table do not align with this. As Americans have gotten taller, this linear-vs-exponential discrepancy throws more people into the "obese" category.
My conclusion: "granus cum salis."