h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When it comes to weight, it costs more to fly so yes, I think a form of weight tax isn't a bad idea.

However, I would have to stipulate that if they were going to bring anything like this in the first make seats wider with extra legroom. If I'm paying more, I at least want to be comfortable.

Whilst it costs more to take the train than it does to fly however -say between London and Edinburgh - often a *lot* more - then clearly the economic model used currently is way off kilter. Can we sort that out first - then I'll maybe (not) support this?

"first make seats wider with extra legroom"

Good idea. I'd put them at the back of the plane, too, nearest the toilets, as far away from first class as possible, and ideally behind a curtain. Anyone over a certain BMI could be required to sit in them, and unless the rest of the aircraft was full anyone who's a healthy size wouldn't be allowed in them. This idea just keeps getting better and better.

Wait, are we claiming the extra legroom is the preserve of the unhealthy?

Indeed - I thought this was purely about weight, nothing to do with BMI, obesity or perceived unhealthiness.

I think they've done the curtain thing already anyway

I'm 6'5" and a little under 16.5 stone. *Technically* I'm overweight, but you really wouldn't know it to look at me. Same with 603, he's taller than me but doesn't look overweight.

There's a difference between needing extra legroom and needing to lose a few pounds.

ThankYouVeryMuch

"*Technically* I'm overweight, but you really wouldn't know it to look at me."

Where do you get your mirrors from? Because I'd love one.

Here's a thing: it was the TV show "Gladiators" that first tipped me off to the weakness of BMI as a measure of "fatness". Going purely on BMI, "Shadow" out of off of Gladiators was (wait for it) SEVEN STONE overweight. I saw him in a service station on the M40 once. He's not the sort of bloke you shout "oi, fat bloke" at, for a number of reasons...

When you get down to it, BMI is a complete load of dingos kidneys.

Yes, it's roughly okay for average height people. But the further away you get from average the more ridiculous it gets. We've got a Wii at home, and according to that I should be 13 stone. At 6'5"? I'd be unhealthily thin!

Yes, ours wants me to be 11 stone. WTF? When I had a four-pack at 16 years of age (never managed the full six-pack) I think I was 13.5 stone.

My mother weighs more than 11 stone and is a perfectly normal size lady for her height - which is about 5 ft. 5- 5ft. 7" I think.

I'm currently about 16 stone and people are telling me I'm normal now - rather than the far git I was a year ago - though noone other than me has quite put it that way

>Yes, it's roughly okay for average height people.<

And average build people. I saw the stats on Mike Tyson once in the radio times - I'm about his width - come less boxing talent (and criminal tendencies I hope). It doesn't work if you're built like a brick-shed either.

Ye disbelievers of the BM Index, do not mock him for he shall come a calling and there will be much wailing and gnashing of dentures.

But haven't we just got used to people looking bigger? I agree that BMI may not take account of having lots of muscle rather than fat, but maybe that's not so healthy either.

When I lost a few pounds as a result of illness I felt that I looked a bit scraggy, but I was actually a very healthy weight. Now I've put a few more pounds back than I would like....

>I agree that BMI may not take account of having lots of muscle rather than fat, but maybe that's not so healthy either.<

You think we have a choice? I'm wide because I'm wide, not because I've done anything to make me wide.

I'm mostly wide because I like . But when I go down to a low BMI I look more like skeletor than my usual She-ra. I know which I prefer

I like the idea of having a 100kg allowance for me and my luggage. As long as you don't all mind me turning up in my undies...

I'm not a doctor, or a dietician. I'm therefore not qualified to comment on these things, and I suspect neither is anyone else.

But obviously I'm going to anyway. I just prefaced it that way to make sure nobody thought I was setting myself up as some sort of authority or pretending I thought I was in any way objectively correct.

So, all that said:

BMI isn't too bad as a method, but it doesn't take account of whether your body mass is made up of fat or muscle.

So the question becomes: is BMI on its own a useful indicator of health outcome? This is a question you can answer with research. Body fat percentage is measurable. It's perfectly possible to take a bunch of people with high BMI but diverse body fat percentages and track their health outcomes. If high BMI/low body fat is shown to be healthy, then you can simply factor in the BFP. If high BMI/low body fat is shown to be just as unhealthy as high BMI/high body fat (unlikely, I think, but hey, if you're going to assume then why bother doing the research?), then BMI stands, whether you like what it tells you or not.

I find it a bit irritating when people go "oh, that widely used and universally understood medical metric doesn't really work on MY body, because I'm too tall/short/wide/Welsh/whatever". It's right up there with "it's my glands" and "I'm big boned" on the list of excuses fooling nobody except yourself.

Yeah except its widely know to be boswelox even the government and medical establishment are backing off using BMI now.

Body fat percentage is a *much* better way of doing it and I'm quite happy to admit to being not so good on that front. Much better than I was a few months ago but still a little way to go.
However even if I did have a perfect body fat percentage my Wii would still put me in the overweight category. 11 stone is just massively unrealistic for me.
If you look a bit more deeply into BMI they do say that you can add 10% for being tall - add another 10% for being heavily built (aka wide shoulders etc - tick for me) and another 10% for being strongly muscled (also tick for me). So if I add 20% to that 11 stone that takes it up to about 13.5 stone which actually I'd agree with.

Of course you can also reduce accordingly too - some people are also declared underweight by BMI measurements too.