Diving, Fitness, Obesity and Personal Rights

[dmaziuk]

And you don't have a 'population' of diving instructors?

A "population" of diving instructors only makes sense in statistical studies done on diving instructors. In the context of a country-wide BMI: no, you don't.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

I went from a BMI of 36 (72" tall, 265) to a bmi of 26-27 (195) with a combo of diet and daily rigorous exercise for the past 5 years. According th "the chart" I am still "overweight." I tried to get down from 195 to 185. Even with my exercise I had to go to an 800 calorie per day diet to keep losing, and it was impossible. When I reached 189, I was exhausted and losing my muscle tone despite the exercise. It is not only not desirable, it is unhealthy for me to lose more weight. If I weighed 177, the highest in the BMI "normal" zone, I would look like a skeleton and have to, again, literally starve my body on a 500 calorie diet per day to ever reach that weight. I am not bulked up (I wanted lean muscle) and still have a little fat, but I am on the large frame side (44" chest and 36" waist). Everyone I know considers me "slim" or "in good shape" just based on my appearance. There is just no way that BMI chart could apply to me in particular. The fact that it could be used to disqualify someone from diving, or from making a living, is just mind-boggling.

 

[KenGordon]

Sure do. But I'm not a sensitive, delicate, sad little flower. The word has a meaning and it's applicable to anyone stupid enough to use BMI to judge individuals.

Usually it isn't the feelings of the person making the nasty comment people need to worry about. Whether you are a flower or sad is not important.

 

[Colliam7]

Incredibly stupid of them. BMI was meant to measure populations, not individuals. It's a horrible tool to measure individuals.

. . . it's applicable to anyone stupid enough to use BMI to judge individuals.

I have to wonder if you are barking at the wrong moon.

The actual issue is whether obesity, per se, should be used as a criterion for granting a work permit. BMI is merely an anthropometric measurement, used as a surrogate marker for obesity. Yes, it is a relevant index for populations. But, it is specifically used to compare INDIVIDUALS to POPULATIONS, to assess the INDIVIDUAL’S risk of disease. There is a robust body of clinical data that correlates various health outcomes with various markers such as BMI (and lean body weight, adjusted body weight, etc.). Put another way, BMI is a marker for obesity, and obesity is considered to be a statistically valid risk factor for various cardiovascular diseases. And, BMI is widely used - by many intelligent, educated, mentally competent individuals - in a variety of ways, to assess INDIVIDUALS, as they compare to populations. For example, BMI has been used as a basis for drug dosage calculation in INDIVIDUALS. Are there other measurements that are better surrogate markers for obesity, better indicators of risk of disease? Possibly. But, categorical statements about BMI, and those who may use them, are probably best avoided.

What you may wish to ‘express concern’ about is whether there is a legitimate basis for denying a work permit to someone who is obese. What objective evidence exists to indicate that an individual is unable to perform the duties of a scuba instructor, if they are obese?

 

[KenGordon]

Between 30 and 35 they can pass you if your waist is small enough (less than 37 inches), or give you a temporary certificate if not too wheezy. Maybe the NFL blokes can manage that?

Keep in mind that a working diver is responsible for the safety of others. They do not always get a choice about who they work with and so regulation is to ensure that they are all adequately fit and able to fulfill that responibility. Also you really don't want people doing jobs that might actually kill them, surely?

As for the 'I may fail but what about that scrawny bloke over there?'' argument, there is excercise testing too.

 

[DustyC]

I'm simply not concerned with someone that gets offended by simple words. I have no time for such people.

Usually it isn't the feelings of the person making the nasty comment people need to worry about. Whether you are a flower or sad is not important.

 

[Wookie]

BMI is a quick and dirty way to set a limit and decide if more invasive (read expensive) testing is needed. For instance, my BMI is almost 40. No one would argue that I am not obese, but I can run up and down ladders, I crossfit 3-5 days a week except when offshore, and I have always been "big boned". So I carry my weight well. However, at 40 the Coast Guard requires a bunch of really expensive testing to determine whether or not you should be driving people around on a boat for a living. I passed my stress test and Echo with flying colors, and my 52 year old heart had no discernible blockages, but it cost me $2500 to make that determination. For someone to use BMI as the final test to see whether you qualify for whatever activity is stupid, but to use BMI as a trigger to go on and get more invasive tests run makes perfect sense to me.

 

[DustyC]

Between 30 and 35 they can pass you if your waist is small enough (less than 37 inches), or give you a temporary certificate if not too wheezy. Maybe the NFL blokes can manage that?

Keep in mind that a working diver is responsible for the safety of others. They do not always get a choice about who they work with and so regulation is to ensure that they are all adequately fit and able to fulfill that responibility. Also you really don't want people doing jobs that might actually kill them, surely?

As for the 'I may fail but what about that scrawny bloke over there?'' argument, there is excercise testing too.

Or you can stop trying to suggest standards to push people out of the job, especially knowing that it's simply not going to happen. And I say that as someone that would pass under your numbers. You're just being silly at this point.

 

[Wookie]

I'm simply not concerned with someone that gets offended by simple words. I have no time for such people.

I fully get your point. Truly I do. People rarely get offended by simple words (when I spin the distributor on the 351 Cleveland in my 77 F-150 clockwise, I consider that I have retarded rather than advanced the timing). It's the manner in which you say them and the context in which you say them that is calculated to cause offense. You have used the word "retarded" simply to be offensive. You wanted someone to be offended and someone was. Everyone should be happy now.

 

[Dhboner]

I'm simply not concerned with someone that gets offended by simple words. I have no time for such people.

You don't really want me to start listing "simple words" that people will find offensive do you? If you have never experienced mental illness or delayed development in your family congratulations but there is a population who find THAT word every but as offensive as some more racially charged words.