just brew it! wrote:Nit pick: Average life expectancy includes people who died young, so given that you've already made it to 44 your odds of making it past the average are better than 50%.
Point taken. It does not, however, detract from my point that no one ever likes to think of themselves as a statistic--or as being subject to them.
But most people don't live in a vacuum and can estimate an approximate life expectancy based on factors such as: How long did my parents and grandparents live? What is the burden chronic disease in my family (ie, Do I have family members that have succumbed to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimers, etc, and at what ages).
cjcerny wrote: paulWTAMU wrote:
The second problem is that people think that being "well-muscled" or "ripped" is okay as long as that is what causes them to be "overweight". Unfortunately, it isn't. While "ripped" is definitely preferrable to "fat", our joints (hips, knees, ankles, etc.) and our circulatory systems are only designed to typically handle so much mas
Only true at real extremes. Someone that regularly squats 800 lbs or something may have knee problems later yes. But you don't have to be that stout and ripped to hit obese on the BMI either. My kid brother is obese and he's not at all overweight--he's a roughneck nowadays, and weighs 260, is 6'1" with a 36" waist ad probably 10% body fat (40 hour weeks of physical labor). He's not huge to the point he's stressing his joints or anything. I mean yeah, someone like Bob Sapp may have health problems from his sheer size, but that's not all or even most of the muscular people that are obese on the BMI.
That's a little myopic. Why do 16 year old drivers pay more for car insurance? Why do smokers pay more for life insurance? Why is weight one of the metrics that health insurers use to determine your health insurance rates? Insurers don't sit around and make up rates. They have smart people who spend lots of time crunching data to determine who is more of a risk and who is less of a risk. It doesn't matter whether your 260 pounds is 100% muscle or not--in the absence of a full physical every so often, their stats are telling them that 260 pounds is going to cost them more in the long run and they want to pass that cost along to you.
It's not really that myopic at all. The reason (or at least the logic on which it is based) why insurance companies might charge higher premiums for 260 lbs people is 100% to do with health statistics which show that people over a certain weight, on average, have higher incidence of disease (which costs money to treat/manage). And while you might get a few body builders who, due to smaller stature to begin with, were more extreme at 260 lbs, or who achived that weight unhealthily (ie, overusing creatine, steroids, amphetamines, etc), over 99% of the 260 lb people who experience adverse health outcomes do so because of energy imbalance (eat unhealthily and/or are overweight/obese). So it is perfectly fair to say these higher premiums exists almost solely due to the link between being overweight and chronic disease.