Obama is almost fat?

So Obama is like one cheeseburger away from fat? That surprises me. As someone pretty seriously overweight, my fat-o-meter may be off, but I would have thought him somewhere on the skinny side of perfect. AL looking at the picture does nothing to change my assumption.

SO either I’m just very clueless(very possible), or BMI is more flawed than I had heard(also very possible)

Based on his height and current weight, he’d have to gain ~10lbs to be in the overweight category.

That aside, BMI is a poor indicator of what one’s proper weight should be since it doesn’t make allowances for muscle mass or bone density. My favorite example is Michael Jordan: in his playing days he once teetered on the verge of obesity while his waist size was 30". Link

I’m not surprised, in those shirtless pics of his, he has a bit of a gut. And he hasn’t been shirtless or in shorts for over a year (well at least photographed like that).

He most likely is like most men, storing his weight in his stomach.

I think most of us know the skinny dude who has a gut and looks like he’s in his 11th month of pregnancy :smiley:

That’s probably Mr Obama.

The BMI is an EXCELLENT indicator. I used to think it wasn’t when I wasn’t in shape. But it really is correct. It’s just so many people are out of shape they refuse to believe it.

For any man over 40, the ABSOLUTE WORST is to have a gut. If you’re between 5’4" and 6’4" and your waist is over 34" you’re already at risk for heart disease. And that’s 34" in dress pants not blue jeans :slight_smile:

This is NO WAY Jordan ever had a 30" waist. That’s an outright lie. Maybe when he was 10 years old. I am built excellent and I have a 32" waist and few men are smaller than me.

By outright lie I meant the claim he was 30" no offense to the poster who stated that. I’m sure what he stated was accurate, but I am disputing the claim that Jordan was ever 30"

:slight_smile:

lol, a 6’4" person should have a 32 inch waist? You’re nuts!

BMI IS an excellent indicator of your target weight, though. That article says Obama is not overweight, and it’s probably pretty close to accurate for how much he could gain before becoming overweight.

Same height as me :slight_smile: And we’re both left-handed.
Yep. Me an Barry are like that.

Even if he were technically overweight, I think there’s still some room between being overweight and before you start to actually look fat, especially for people who are tall. I imagine Barack probably has not had as much time to work out and play basketball as he used to have, and may be enjoying the benefit of the White House kitchen perhaps a tad more than he should.

What was the movie where Jeff Bridges played the POTUS? I can’t recall what it was, but I remember a scene in which he was telling somebody how he made a game of trying to stump the White House kitchen by making bizarre food requests, and always being able to more or less instantly get whatever he wanted. I think he ordered and got a shark sandwich as a demonstration. That would be a pretty easy service to get used to.

I don’t remember seeing it. But I do remember a POTUS challenging the kitchen like that. Anyway, Google was my friend.

The Contender, that was it. Thanks.

This is ridiculously ignorant. According to my height I should weigh 157. I haven’t weighed 157 since I was a sophomore in highschool and as an NCAA gymnast, I weighed 175 with body fat of 8%. Yes, when you were out of shape you were delusional, because you didn’t have any muscle at all.

Have to disagree, though it may be a difference of what we consider reliable. If we’re to say it’s a reasonably acceptable, quick indicator of a generally healthy weight range for people of moderate activity I agree. But, according to the NIH, BMI has limitations that I think are incredibly important in determining its absolute utility. That is, it overestimates body fat in the athletic and underestimates body fat in the elderly and overly sedentary.

Because of this I don’t think it is useful as a sole indicator of proper weight and in all cases must be used in conjunction with other tools: waist size, caliper pinch test and direct palpation (to see how jiggle the person is for lack of a better term).

As anecdotal support, I entered college at 6’1" and 175lbs which is a healthy weight, but I was Euro-flab (skinny with no muscle) and likely carrying an extra 20lbs or more of fat. After 4 years of being in the gym twice a day I graduated at 6’2" 185 with almost no body fat, but according to BMI I had crept closer overweight.

Edit: Yeah, that 30" measurement seems way off now that I think about it. But does anyone seriously think Michal Jordan was overweight in his prime?

This is so ignorant it barely even deserves a response.

You sound like the exercise/weightlifting equivalent of a reformed smoker: “After a few years of working out like a trojan, i look awesome, so anyone who doesn’t look as good as me is a lazy fatty who’s going to die of heart disease.”

Get over yourself.

BMI does not even remotely “work” for me.

Before the weight loss I was 6’ 1" and 308 pounds.

Right now I am 6’ 1" and 235 pounds.

I am a “big boy”, 19" neck, Size 14 shoes. Since BMI does not take frame into account it is HUGELY flawed.

I have always been told that BMI “standards” were set using folks that were at (or very near) the end of Military “Boot Camp”, this is nowhere near reality for most folks.

Unclviny

Clearly President Obama is not anywhere close to being fat, so the BMI is flawed - for him. And a ton of other people, including me. According to the charts I need to gain 12-15 lbs to be in the ‘normal, healthy’ range, even though I eat lots, have a normal body fat percentage for a woman, my reproductive system is in perfect order, and I am generally healthy as a horse. Body fat percentage is much more important than your total weight.

The BMI equation was based on Dutch soldiers serving in the 1800s. Yet another reason why it doesn’t work for most people - white soldiers in the 1800s (when nutrition sucked for most) between the ages of 18 and 32 are hardly typical of the human weight or body composition of the whole human race. We even use this stupid equation (adjusted) for children…

I’m a 24.0, borderline overweight. In high school I was ~22.5, on the high end of the normal range, had a 29" waist, played soccer for one of the best clubs in the country, had a “six pack,” and had around 5% body fat. According to the BMI I could lose 35 pounds and not be underweight. I’d have to lose significant muscle mass for that to be possible and I’m not muscular at all.

If it’s a good measure… I don’t know how to justify that. That means my body image is totally fucked. I have a 30-31" waist and wear size small shirts. I’m borderline overweight? I’d love to lost 10 lbs, but that’d still be on the upper end. I don’t see how that range of normal weights works for me at all.

Whether he’s over weight or not, he still smokes and his cholesterol is creeping up, so he isn’t as healthy as he could be.

Wow…kudos to his PR people. How they kept that secret so long is beyond me.

I was hard as woodpecker lips (English: very fit) when I got out of Basic Training. I had a 32 inch waist and was 5’6" 170#. The charts said I was a fatboi and that I needed to lose another 15#. If I were standing next to Obama I’d have made him look like Chuck Berry.

The charts today say “Get the harpoons!” when you reference my numbers. They’re probably right now, but their demonstrated inaccuracy 15 years ago discredits them. I’m just shooting for “Happy” now, weight be damned.

I think the BMI charts give you a weight range for the healthy (even optimal) functioning of your lights and vitals. I’m 6’1", and the charts say I should be between 147 and 187, with 167 being optimal. Well, it’s probably not gonna happen. I currently weigh 190, and I’ve been as low as 182 in the past few years. I kinda like being about where I am – because I’m not really heavy, and I look pretty good.

However, it’s a trade-off. There’s really no denying that my heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc., function better, more easily and with less stress the lighter I am. I have absolutely no doubt that if I got down to 170, I’d feel better than I do now. I’m OK with the way I look, and I like having just a little bit of heft, but seriously, I sometimes feel a little sluggish and out of sorts. I know my vital organs would be happier if I took off 20 pounds and went to 170. I’m utterly convinced of it. And in fact, I might even be stronger than I am now, despite the reduced heft.

Really, that’s what BMI gives you – an indication of the weight you need to be at so that the organs can do their job efficiently. Everyone always wants to confuse that goal with how they look, how big-boned they are, how much of an athlete they are, what waist they were at fifteen, etc. That’s not the point of BMI. BMI tells you, hit this weight for best efficiency and functioning of your vital organs – your athletic performance, your big-bonedness and your looks be damned. Do whatever you want with regard to all of that stuff, but if you’re concerned about the functioning of your system, hit this weight (or around it – the best BMI charts I’ve seen give a reasonable range). Geez, every time this subject comes up, I realize I really should try to get down to at least 175, if not 170.

BMI is a poor indicator of health on an individual level, but one of the reasons it is so widely used is because it is a cheap way to index the health of large populations in, say, large medical studies. Of course no one should base their health decisions on the BMI, but rather, as someone mentioned upthread, in conjunction with many other indicators of health. It is merely a convenient tool for the medical community to make a quick judgement about the health of a population.

Now, as to the OP’s content: Certainly Obama isn’t the most fit individual out there, but neither is he pushing the jambs of the doors or the width of the presidential tub. His health is only likely to deteriorate the longer he’s been in office, but as it stands he doesn’t currently appear to be in any danger