Let’s just wait and see how it all plays out when the deluge of BMI 40+ wannabe Scouts show up at the Jamboree gates with exemplery physicals and physician recommendations to complete the course, shall we? I’ll be interested to see the what, hundred or so kids who fit the bill hit the media circuit and demonstrate how well they can keep up with their peers and how much they enjoy the challenge. I can’t wait to be proven wrong.
If you don’t actually think that deferring to physician advice instead of using a hard BMI cutoff will make any difference in the outcome, then why do you feel compelled to argue so vehemently against it? Takes me right back to that “Should women be allowed to try out for special forces” thread.
Somebody needs to think of the awesome cannonballs that will be missed. 
As I’ve said what, 32 times? I have no problem with an organization limiting risk, especially when that risk is to kids who cannot be relied on to self-report illness or injury, and especially when those kids will be pitted against typically developing, physically active and competitive kids. I have no problem with hard cutoffs for ages of consent, either. Or drinking, smoking, or military service. I see no reason why an organization with a voluntary membership can’t decide to exclude kids with an addiction that will hinder the other member’s progress, or why they want to avoid the expense of making allowances for kids who can’t keep up or who are more likely the need medical intervention and special attention than typically developing members of the group.
Remember all the discussions of how bad obese kids hated gym class, how badly they were bullied, how badly they hated being forced to participate in physical activities, and change in front of other kids? Peer pressure’s a bitch, bullying hurts 4ever, etc. Where are those posters now? Are these the same people who are pushing for inclusion of a kid with BMI of 40+? Now why is that? I think the adults who are crying “discrimination” here have their own fat acceptance agenda that is not considerate of the kids involved at all, and I think that’s pretty disingenuous. I’d like to hear from an actual kid who fits the criteria, who is dismayed at being excluded, and who can demonstrate that he’s as physically fit, agile, and competitive as his peers in the Scouts. That is, one who isn’t being pushed by his parents to speak up. I’d also like to hear from an actual physician who is willing to submit a physical and approval letter for such a kid. So far all we’re hearing from is a fat acceptance movement willing to throw some chronically obese kid to the wolves in order to prove that fat is healthy and strong. Damn shame all that energy can’t be put into helping the same kids beat an addiction and support them in learning some better eating and exercise habits so he’s not sick for the rest of his life.
You should have led the charge with that on,** kayaker**. That’s the single most rational complaint against the BMI cutoff so far. Can’t dispute the loss there.
Yep. Claiming it’s a “dopamine deficiency” to blame doesn’t really cut it. People with ADHD are chronically deficient in dopamine and lots and lots of us don’t have horrible weight problems. More people with ADHD are obese than neurotypical people, but it’s still significantly less than half of them* which shouldn’t be the case if a lack of dopamine makes you helpless when it comes to curbing your food intake.
- The study referenced here says just over 41%
I agree, the Boy Scouts are legally entitled to do all sorts of things without having to offer any kind of valid justification. So what?
You seem awfully intent on projecting nefarious agendas onto people who don’t take your side in discussions. Although apparently this mode of discussion is very enjoyable to you, I must admit to feeling no small amount of frustration when my cites to medicine journal articles that dispute your vehement but factually incorrect declarations are met with deafening silence and requests for clarification on your position are met with not so much answers as repetitive, irrelevant diatribes about some argument you remember having with some other people on the internet at some indefinite point in the past and how those people were totally wrong and I bet they hate all the children and they probably want those poor children to die and you probably do too and what do I have to say about that, huh?
Well, you know, I’m not really sure that I do have anything to say about that. To be honest, I kind of don’t think it has very much to do with me or even really all that much to do with this particular topic.
Good luck.
Where on earth are you getting this “fat acceptance” BS? Why are you twisting what people are saying? I’m an advocate of allowing these scouts to attend, for these reasons, and I quote YOU:
This is an ideal event at which to do so. There could potentially be a good number of these kids in attendance, so it’s the perfect time to teach them, and they would have each other for support. They don’t have to go on fifty-mile hikes that are all uphill, or go rafting down waterfalls.
If the BSA is about teaching leadership, they could take the lead on this as an example.
I assume you are of a healthy weight? Could you be persuaded to share your personal experiences with weight and diet?
And/or lean tissue. Depending on a number of factors, the body could cannibalize lean tissue to the point of starvation while fat remains.
Actually, for all intents and purposes…not really. Certainly not in the sense that you mean. Almost no one has ever gone from obese to slim and stayed there permanently. It’s considered “success” if an obese person can take off about 10 pounds and keep off about 7 after 5 years. Wow.
Okay, how about the new "it’s hormones"reality instead?
Not a valid comparison.Smoking is neither natural nor necessary. I used to chain smoke, did so for 26 years. Haven’t had a cigarette in more than 13 years now and I don’t even want one. That can never be the true with food, which is crucial for survival and which the body will do everything in its power to get you to consume, especially if you’ve been starving it.
Hey, if you think it’s such a minor inconvenience to spend the rest of one’s life in a semi-starvation state (which, due to the changes in the body, is required to maintain the weight loss), maybe you should try it. Healthy, normal men living on 1,560 calories a day in Ancel Keyes famous starvation experiment:
In other words, “feeling a little more hungry than the next guy” leads to feeling a lot more hungry, a lot more food obsessed, a lot less in control, which leads to binging, and the starving makes changes in the body so that less food is required exactly when your body is screaming at you to consume much more food than you would normally, then you end up fatter, while actually needing less food than you ever did previously to maintain your weight and your body is continuing to tell you to eat, eat, eat, so then you do, and you gain, then you starve, then you eat, gain, starve, need less, eat more, gain more…
Yeah, that’s no sweat. Minor inconvenience.
Fighting ignorance is taking so much longer than we ever dreamed indeed…
I’m not interested in posting a fitness log, but I spent a good deal of my childhood overweight. As an undergraduate I took up lifting and running, and with proper diet management (not “dieting,” just eating sensibly) I built a decent body. After a permanent back injury left me unable to run or do much in the way of useful lifting I let myself go for more years than I’d like to admit. Chronic pain is very soul crushing, and I coped by overeating. Finally with proper PT and treatment I recovered to the point where I could run again, although I haven’t touched a bar in a long time. I do run at least 5k 3-5 times a week, and that combined with diet control has helped me to shed the pounds I packed on while I wasn’t healthy.
So no, I’m not some superfit ultramarathoner with single digit body fat. I’m not a juiced up powerlifter. I’m just a guy who did drop the unhealthy weight. Twice. I’m on the side of both the obese dopers and the 40 BMI boy scouts, but only to the extent that they are. Obesity is a terrible thing, and resignation means both a less pleasant life and less thereof.
So the counter argument is “fat guys feel hungry after losing weight?” I was a fat guy, and I feel hungry sometimes. It is absolutely a “minor inconvenience.” Humans need not be slaves to their various urges and drives; it’s one of the benefits of the contents of that oversized skull.
1560 calories a day isn’t starvation by any measure. Most people would have to be pretty active to lose weight at that intake level.
I wonder if there were dietary deficiencies involved in that study, missing vitamins or minerals.
It is absolutely a starvation level for those men that were in the study. Read up about it. Starvation occurs when you deprive the body of enough calories to maintain its weight. Dieting by a calorie deprivation is the very definition of starvation. It is through starvation that weight is lost. Which is why it is such a horrible way to lose weight when one is obese, it sets up a horrible cycle of permanent misery And over the long run near certain failure and obesity greater than one would’ve experienced without the dieting.
And if that were the way that most people who are trying to deal with obesity experienced food deprivation, a lot more people would be slim. But it is not the way it is experienced by others, And that is the core flaw in the thinking of people like yourself: “I know what your experience is, I just cope with it better than you do.” No, you do not know what others experience.
I think we’re getting into some heavy stuff, Doc. No one knows what anyone else experiences. Ever.
1560 calories a day is insane. No wonder those guys were ravenous. There is no reason to limit oneself so severely.
Yes, there is. That’s precisely the point. Follow the links. Read more research about it. The more you calorie deprive, the more calories you need to deprive, the more ravenous and food obsessed you become, the more you lose control, the easier you gain, the more you calorie deprive, the more miserable… And so on. The very act of restricting calories can create a compulsive eater where none existed before. Not only as a psychological reaction, but very much as a physical one. The very act of calorie restricting can create a morbidly obese person where only a chubby one existed before. It is a hideous feedback loop that is almost impossible for a normal human being to escape permanently, particularly by trying to spend your entire life white-knuckling it through not merely hunger, not simply cravings, but a genuine obsession with food over which you have no control because your body is driving it.
It is a good rule of thumb that the more obese a person is, the more calorie restriction dieting they have done in their lives, and the longer/more frequently they have done it. And it is the combination of a culture obsessed with physical perfection and a diet crammed with empty insulin-driving carbs that has created the crazy numbers of obese and morbidly obese people in this country, particularly among women and girls. The starving starts earlier and earlier, alternating with a diet of sugar and sugar analogs, thereby throwing a healthy, normal fat regulation system out of whack before the body has even finished growing. By the time they are 35, they weigh 300 pounds and they can maintain that weight on as little as 1500 calories a day. That’s a fact.
That’s another thing that people never think about: fat people are weight stable in the same way that thin people are, going for long periods of time at the same weight, even though it’s a very high weight. And they do not stuff themselves in order to maintain that weight, it takes far fewer calories than most people believe to sustain morbid obesity once it has been established, generally fewer than to maintain a normal weight in a never-fat-never-dieted body.
Stoid, do you ever stumble across research that demonstrates that a 2,000-2,500 calorie diet is more likely (albeit slower) to work than such severe restrictions? This isn’t my pet topic, so I’m not likely to do much digging unless you already have sites at the ready, but I don’t understand what leads seriously obese people to attempt to cut their calorie consumption so sharply. Is it the impulsive need for instant results? Because that’s foolish, and probably unhealthy.
Am I wrong to assume that if I start toting around an extra hundred pounds each day, I’m going to need a calorie boost to support that extra work? If the answer is yes, then how in the world would anyone assume that such severe calorie restriction is reasonable to support someone who is 100 pounds overweight? Why attempt such a radical change? Why not cut the consumption to somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand calories, and as the weight gradually falls off, continue to cut back gradually?
You don’t have to tell any of us, fit or fat, that crash diets are difficult to sustain. I wouldn’t expect to live comfortably on half the calories I eat each day, either, and I certainly wouldn’t attempt to get through a typical day on 1/3 the calories I’ve been eating. Why go to such extremes?
At the same time, you are the one telling me that I don’t know what it’s like to be hungry, I don’t practice calorie restrictions, etc.
Read my post again, read the cites. All calorie restriction is a form of starvation or it wouldnt work at all…how do you think cutting calories works to cause weight loss? You starve the body so it will use stores to exist.
Thus begins a cycle.
I don’t know what your experience is, how you feel, what you eat. 
Okay, so I experienced the same thing you did when I dieted and exercised to lose the weight I gained after pregnancy. I was accustomed to eating quite a bit more, and had to eat smaller portions and less fatty food, and definitely had to cut out the extra ice cream. So I was starving? Because every definition of starving I know refers to conditions in impoverished countries, third world, prisoners of war, lost hikers, etc. If food is available, I’m not starving. Please define it for me.