Alabama Workers to Pay for Extra Pounds

Off Topic
21

[quote]tedro wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
I have no problem with a state allocating costs to people who cause them. However, they should also allocate the savings. As such, where is the discount for lean healthy people?

The difference between charging some more and giving others a discount is merely semantics. Even lean healthy people still likely want health insurance.[/quote]

I think you assume that the state is picking up the entire tab for the insurance. However, in some/most states, employees are paying a portion of their health care premiums. If an employee’s premiums are determined on the likelihood of their getting sick and filing a claim (which they should be), then fat people should pay more and lean healthy people should pay less. While such an approach would align costs and incentives, it is a pipe dream, as most governing bodies are extremely unlikely to give back money that they already have in hand.

22

[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
tedro wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
I have no problem with a state allocating costs to people who cause them. However, they should also allocate the savings. As such, where is the discount for lean healthy people?

The difference between charging some more and giving others a discount is merely semantics. Even lean healthy people still likely want health insurance.

I think you assume that the state is picking up the entire tab for the insurance. However, in some/most states, employees are paying a portion of their health care premiums. If an employee’s premiums are determined on the likelihood of their getting sick and filing a claim (which they should be), then fat people should pay more and lean healthy people should pay less. While such an approach would align costs and incentives, it is a pipe dream, as most governing bodies are extremely unlikely to give back money that they already have in hand.
[/quote]

The article said that the state does currently pay the entire premium.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
m0dd3r wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
Renton wrote:
I just hope they don’t use BMI to determine if the people there are overweight or not.

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing.

Well lucky for you guys the article answers your quandry.

FTA:

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

So, at least they’re not charging people in the ‘overweight’ category (BMI of 25 and over). For me, that means I’d have to get up to 273 lbs (I’m 6’2"). Still sucks if you’re that big and lean, but we all know that’s not the majority of the population.

Yeah not many lean people are over 35… but what’s next?

RI putting forth legislation that will have a cutoff at 30?? Then a much larger population of lean people would be fucked.

Mine is 39.5. I think using BMI for much of anything is retarded even if most couch potatoes do fall in line with it.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly.
I certainly don’t trust my doctor doing some as complex as gulp a caliper test though. There would have to be a more interrater reliabe test that’s used.

If there is legislation put out I’m investing in bod pods.

24

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
tedro wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
I have no problem with a state allocating costs to people who cause them. However, they should also allocate the savings. As such, where is the discount for lean healthy people?

The difference between charging some more and giving others a discount is merely semantics. Even lean healthy people still likely want health insurance.

It’s semantics sure, but it’s an incentive based idea as opposed to a punishment.

Language can be a powerful tool when shaping people’s views especially when it comes to running the risk of discrimination.

I don’t think it should be legislated though. The insurance companies themselves should give better health incentives.

Car insurance companies do it. My 18 year old sister who has been driving for 1.5 years is paying less than me (25 driving for almost 9.5 years) just because I’m male (with a perfect driving record). And that one I can’t control, I can control becoming fat.[/quote]

You are confusing group policies with individual policies. They do give health incentives if you apply for an individual policy. The problem is that legislature has dictated that our employers should provide us with our insurance, meaning we all must have group policies and we are grouped together with all of our coworkers, thus making it impossible for the insurance company to give individuals different incentives. Therefore it is left to the employer to give incentives (or disincentives) to being healthy (or not). This is exactly what we are now seeing with the Alabama State Government.

This also has nothing to do with the state legislating health. The fact that the State Government is the employer in this case is irrelevant. It is a policy put forth by the employer that applies to all employees, that is all that matters.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
m0dd3r wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
Renton wrote:
I just hope they don’t use BMI to determine if the people there are overweight or not.

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing.

Well lucky for you guys the article answers your quandry.

FTA:

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

So, at least they’re not charging people in the ‘overweight’ category (BMI of 25 and over). For me, that means I’d have to get up to 273 lbs (I’m 6’2"). Still sucks if you’re that big and lean, but we all know that’s not the majority of the population.

Yeah not many lean people are over 35… but what’s next?

RI putting forth legislation that will have a cutoff at 30?? Then a much larger population of lean people would be fucked.

Mine is 39.5. I think using BMI for much of anything is retarded even if most couch potatoes do fall in line with it.[/quote]

I think everybody here knows by now of the many pitfalls of BMI. However, it does tend to work very well for untrained females, and works ok for untrained males. The biggest problem with it is that it does not distinguish between the sexes, and gives males very little room to gain muscle mass.

Anyways, the argument over the methodology with which to use is secondary to the argument that this is a step in the right direction when it comes to group health insurance.

26

I use BMI to track progress while I gain height, albeit slowly.Becuase gaining 5 pound sdoesn’t mean much if you grew an inch.

Anyways, I’m so close to obese (swole?). It’s my new goal to go from my 28.1 BMI to a 30+ BMI.

I need to gain ~13 more pounds.

27

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.[/quote]

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age.

28

[quote]tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age. [/quote]

I assume you have some sort of legit reason for writing this that actually makes biological sense for someone who works out regularly?

29

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age.

I assume you have some sort of legit reason for writing this that actually makes biological sense for someone who works out regularly?[/quote]

Adolescents are still capable of producing new fat cells, as opposed to adults that merely increase the size of their fat cells when gaining fat (the exception being pregnant women, and any extreme weight gain, i.e. like that found in the morbidly obese).

As you know, fat cells never disappear, they only shrink. Excessive fat gain during youth is very difficult to lose as an adult. There is extensive research to back this up.

At 16, the free testosterone just isn’t there to cause massive muscle gains. While metabolism at that age is typically so high that a high calorie diet isn’t going to cause much weight gain, if one were to eat enough to gain significant weight, the muscle to fat ratio would be far from desirable given the starting point of a 16 year old.

According to his comments and profile, zep is aspiring to be 5’9" and over 200 lbs. You just don’t see 16 year olds hit those numbers at a healthy bodyfat percentage.

None of this even mentions the psychological aspects of a bulk. I’m sure some 16-year olds can handle it, and zep might be one. But for most, a bulk just means eat whatever you want when you want, and quickly becomes an excuse to eat junk.

30

[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age.

I assume you have some sort of legit reason for writing this that actually makes biological sense for someone who works out regularly?

Adolescents are still capable of producing new fat cells, as opposed to adults that merely increase the size of their fat cells when gaining fat (the exception being pregnant women, and any extreme weight gain, i.e. like that found in the morbidly obese).

As you know, fat cells never disappear, they only shrink. Excessive fat gain during youth is very difficult to lose as an adult. There is extensive research to back this up.

At 16, the free testosterone just isn’t there to cause massive muscle gains. While metabolism at that age is typically so high that a high calorie diet isn’t going to cause much weight gain, if one were to eat enough to gain significant weight, the muscle to fat ratio would be far from desirable given the starting point of a 16 year old.

According to his comments and profile, zep is aspiring to be 5’9" and over 200 lbs. You just don’t see 16 year olds hit those numbers at a healthy bodyfat percentage.

None of this even mentions the psychological aspects of a bulk. I’m sure some 16-year olds can handle it, and zep might be one. But for most, a bulk just means eat whatever you want when you want, and quickly becomes an excuse to eat junk.

[/quote]

It would also take an EXTREME fat gain for there to be an attempt by your body to create new fat cells rather than simply fill the ones it has, as in leading to adolescent obesity.

You are taking general knowledge and trying to form a specific application for all people.

Do the medical community a favor…and stop doing that. There was an author here who did the same in an article a few years ago. It was by far the worst one I have seen on this forum to date.

31

I’m in between 15-20% bodyfat right now, I don’t plan on getting fatter.

13 pounds isn’t very much in the scheme of things.

I have to diet down to 181 or lower come winter so, it’s not like I’m balloning up to 250+ pounds.

edit: I’ve already added 70 pounds to my untrained bodyweight, In a little less then two years.

32

Shit, my BMI is well past 25 and i’m not muscular or fat (around 12% BF and only 5 months training). I’ve always just carried a lot of weight on me and have weighed more than average for someone 6’1".

I would need to cut down to 2.8% BF to be at 24.9 on the BMI. I’ve trained for around 5 months of my entire life. Something isn’t right!

33

[quote]tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age. [/quote]

Keep in mind varying body types also screws up BMI - like I just wrote, i’d be at 24.9 on the BMI with 2.8% body fat - and I am NOT muscular. I just have a fairly big frame for my height.

Zep could be the same way and in that case going over 30 wouldn’t be extreme at all…heck, it’s actually my goal too (230lbs for me, i’m at 208ish), and I don’t think i’ll look super muscular or anything, I’m just hoping to actually look like a guy who works out.

34

[quote]nowakc wrote:
tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age.

Keep in mind varying body types also screws up BMI - like I just wrote, i’d be at 24.9 on the BMI with 2.8% body fat - and I am NOT muscular. I just have a fairly big frame for my height.

Zep could be the same way and in that case going over 30 wouldn’t be extreme at all…heck, it’s actually my goal too (230lbs for me, i’m at 208ish), and I don’t think i’ll look super muscular or anything, I’m just hoping to actually look like a guy who works out.[/quote]

Eh

I have 50" shoulders, 26.5" thighs, My deadlift is at 400. I’m still pretty small and weak. 200+ pounds won’t look like very much even on my 5’9" frame.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It would also take an EXTREME fat gain for there to be an attempt by your body to create new fat cells rather than simply fill the ones it has, as in leading to adolescent obesity.

You are taking general knowledge and trying to form a specific application for all people.

Do the medical community a favor…and stop doing that. There was an author here who did the same in an article a few years ago. It was by far the worst one I have seen on this forum to date.[/quote]

No, I’m only applying it to teenage males, and the fat gain necessary is not near as extreme as you seem to believe.

Forget biology, let’s just use some common sense and personal experience.

How many 5’9" 200 lb. 16-year olds have you seen that are at a healthy body fat level? Of those that do have a high body fat percentage, how many do you see shed it once they reach adulthood. Not too many, eh?

Of course there are exceptions to everything, but I sure wouldn’t want to see a 16-year old risking it to find out if they are an exception.

Second, let’s look at the flip side of bulking. Dieting. Zep just mentioned that he will also be dieting shortly.

Tell me, do you really think it is a good idea, during a period of his life when nutrition is more important than at any other time besides infanthood, that it is a good idea to put his body in a caloric defecit? I didn’t think so.

In addition to this, we also have the question of whether or not it is wise for a 16-year old to even be this specialized in a specific sport.

36

[quote]nowakc wrote:
tedro wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
quintruple post?

I win.

quintuple.

It’s a different topic entirely, but I’m not so sure you should be so eager to increase your BMI all the way to 30 at your age.

Keep in mind varying body types also screws up BMI - like I just wrote, i’d be at 24.9 on the BMI with 2.8% body fat - and I am NOT muscular. I just have a fairly big frame for my height.

Zep could be the same way and in that case going over 30 wouldn’t be extreme at all…heck, it’s actually my goal too (230lbs for me, i’m at 208ish), and I don’t think i’ll look super muscular or anything, I’m just hoping to actually look like a guy who works out.[/quote]

Nobody’s saying that BMI is a great tool. We all know of its problems.

BTW, how old are you?

The funny thing about this is, I have had the same goal for some time, that is hitting a BMI of 30 and being “obese”. I finally did it this past winter, but at the age of 24.

37

[quote]tedro wrote:

Forget biology, let’s just use some common sense and personal experience.

How many 5’9" 200 lb. 16-year olds have you seen that are at a healthy body fat level? [/quote]

I won’t forget biology and it doesn’t matter what most 16 year olds do. You don’t diagnose a patient based on averages. You diagnose them as an individual which means unless you have seen this kid standing in front of you, you are making some very large assumptions that no doctor would ever make from words on a screen.

[quote]

Of those that do have a high body fat percentage, how many do you see shed it once they reach adulthood. Not too many, eh? Of course there are exceptions to everything, but I sure wouldn’t want to see a 16-year old risking it to find out if they are an exception.[/quote]

You are relating what someone who trains regularly does to what some couch potato does?

Why would you do this?

[quote]
Second, let’s look at the flip side of bulking. Dieting. Zep just mentioned that he will also be dieting shortly.

Tell me, do you really think it is a good idea, during a period of his life when nutrition is more important than at any other time besides infanthood, that it is a good idea to put his body in a caloric defecit? I didn’t think so.

In addition to this, we also have the question of whether or not it is wise for a 16-year old to even be this specialized in a specific sport.[/quote]

That is a completely different topic and I already make large efforts to make it clear to most teenagers that dieting down drastically at that age is a mistake. How many times do I have to write it before people stop accusing me of not having mentioned it before.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I won’t forget biology and it doesn’t matter what most 16 year olds do. You don’t diagnose a patient based on averages. You diagnose them as an individual which means unless you have seen this kid standing in front of you, you are making some very large assumptions that no doctor would ever make from words on a screen.
[/quote]

I’m not diagnosing anything, and I’m not even trying to compare this to a doctor’s diagnosis. That has little to do with the topic. I simply said I don’t think it’s a good idea to aspire to gain that much weight at such a young age.

I also don’t think it’s a good idea to specialize in weightlifting as a teenager at the expense of other sports. This is all based on my personal experience and it just so happens that there is indeed some science to back it up.

No, I’m relating it to the high school athletes that I have personally coached in the weight room. We both know zep isn’t a couch potato, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is trying to gain a lot of weight at a young age, and is gaining a good chunk of fat in the process.

I’m not accusing you of anything, I honestly don’t even remember reading any posts where you have addressed this topic.

Knowing now that we agree that dieting is not a good idea at a young age, how do explain such an intense bulk to be a good idea, knowing that it IS going to lead to a substantial fat gain, while conceding that dieting should be put off for a number of years?

39

[quote]tedro wrote:

I’m not diagnosing anything, and I’m not even trying to compare this to a doctor’s diagnosis. That has little to do with the topic. I simply said I don’t think it’s a good idea to aspire to gain that much weight at such a young age.

I also don’t think it’s a good idea to specialize in weightlifting as a teenager at the expense of other sports. This is all based on my personal experience and it just so happens that there is indeed some science to back it up.[/quote]

Oh, so all of this falls under, “stuff I think I know about based on purely nonscientific personal observation with no biology/medical educational background”. OK.

Gotcha.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:

I’m not diagnosing anything, and I’m not even trying to compare this to a doctor’s diagnosis. That has little to do with the topic. I simply said I don’t think it’s a good idea to aspire to gain that much weight at such a young age.

I also don’t think it’s a good idea to specialize in weightlifting as a teenager at the expense of other sports. This is all based on my personal experience and it just so happens that there is indeed some science to back it up.

Oh, so all of this falls under, “stuff I think I know about based on purely nonscientific personal observation with no biology/medical educational background”. OK.

Gotcha.[/quote]

Isn’t that how the scientific method begins, observation? Now I could have conducted my own research after making such observations, or I could simply study the resources available, and lo and behold, there is scientific evidence to back up my observations, so at this point I am sticking to my conclusions.

To further this, there is nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence, and it must be considered. When science and anecdotal evidence don’t match up, something must be reinvestigated. Many times the anecdotes leave out important variables, many times the scientific theory needs revising.

Even other times, there are social and psychological factors that also must be examined. At this point, there is strong evidence suggesting excessive weight gain in adolescence leads to overweight adults, and my experiences don’t contradict this in any way. You have shown nothing to contradict any of this.