<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_29_1751257</id>
	<title>Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246305240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Findings of a new study show that underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight &mdash; but those who are only a little overweight  actually <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090623133523.htm">live longer than people of normal weight</a>. 'It's not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying, but it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage,' said one of the coauthors of the study. 'It may be that a few extra pounds actually protect older people as their health declines, but that doesn't mean that people in the normal weight range should try to put on a few pounds.' The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die. But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9. The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight. The authors controlled for factors such as age, sex, physical activity, and smoking. '<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html">Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was</a>,' said Dr. David H. Feeny, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research. 'Overweight was protective.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Findings of a new study show that underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight    but those who are only a little overweight actually live longer than people of normal weight .
'It 's not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying , but it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage, ' said one of the coauthors of the study .
'It may be that a few extra pounds actually protect older people as their health declines , but that does n't mean that people in the normal weight range should try to put on a few pounds .
' The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period .
The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die , and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die .
But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 .
The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight .
The authors controlled for factors such as age , sex , physical activity , and smoking .
'Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was, ' said Dr. David H. Feeny , a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research .
'Overweight was protective .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Findings of a new study show that underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight — but those who are only a little overweight  actually live longer than people of normal weight.
'It's not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying, but it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage,' said one of the coauthors of the study.
'It may be that a few extra pounds actually protect older people as their health declines, but that doesn't mean that people in the normal weight range should try to put on a few pounds.
' The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period.
The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.
But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9.
The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight.
The authors controlled for factors such as age, sex, physical activity, and smoking.
'Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was,' said Dr. David H. Feeny, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research.
'Overweight was protective.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</id>
	<title>Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246309080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then let me ask this. If slightly overweight seems to be healthy, then how was the "ideal" weight range determined?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then let me ask this .
If slightly overweight seems to be healthy , then how was the " ideal " weight range determined ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then let me ask this.
If slightly overweight seems to be healthy, then how was the "ideal" weight range determined?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519377</id>
	<title>More weight = safety cushion</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1246268520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It makes sense.  Anyone who has been sick or undergone serious stress knows that weight loss often comes along with that.  If you have "a few extra pounds" hanging around, then your body has some reserves to use when you get sick.  On the other hand, if you're already rail thin, your body is going to start digesting muscles and organs when it needs nutrients.  Doing that will just lead to further problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense .
Anyone who has been sick or undergone serious stress knows that weight loss often comes along with that .
If you have " a few extra pounds " hanging around , then your body has some reserves to use when you get sick .
On the other hand , if you 're already rail thin , your body is going to start digesting muscles and organs when it needs nutrients .
Doing that will just lead to further problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense.
Anyone who has been sick or undergone serious stress knows that weight loss often comes along with that.
If you have "a few extra pounds" hanging around, then your body has some reserves to use when you get sick.
On the other hand, if you're already rail thin, your body is going to start digesting muscles and organs when it needs nutrients.
Doing that will just lead to further problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519363</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246268460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BMI isn't for that, it's for statistical analysis. And in that context it does a pretty good job, the number of people miscategorized tends to balance out as a whole. The problem is that there's quite a few corner cases that do exist in real life. I'll never weigh what the BMI suggests without an eating disorder, if I get within about 10 lbs., on the high side I start to feel really sick.<br> <br>

And that's assuming that I'm not in a phase where I'm really hitting the weights. I can easily be 40-50lbs., over the recommended weight when I'm doing that without having much fat on me at all.<br> <br>

Body fat percentage, really and truy is the only way to go. And what's nice is that it's not that hard to get a decent measurement. The scales that do it, while largely inaccurate still tend to do a better job than the BMI, and the skindex equip isn't expensive, even if it is a pain to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is n't for that , it 's for statistical analysis .
And in that context it does a pretty good job , the number of people miscategorized tends to balance out as a whole .
The problem is that there 's quite a few corner cases that do exist in real life .
I 'll never weigh what the BMI suggests without an eating disorder , if I get within about 10 lbs. , on the high side I start to feel really sick .
And that 's assuming that I 'm not in a phase where I 'm really hitting the weights .
I can easily be 40-50lbs. , over the recommended weight when I 'm doing that without having much fat on me at all .
Body fat percentage , really and truy is the only way to go .
And what 's nice is that it 's not that hard to get a decent measurement .
The scales that do it , while largely inaccurate still tend to do a better job than the BMI , and the skindex equip is n't expensive , even if it is a pain to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI isn't for that, it's for statistical analysis.
And in that context it does a pretty good job, the number of people miscategorized tends to balance out as a whole.
The problem is that there's quite a few corner cases that do exist in real life.
I'll never weigh what the BMI suggests without an eating disorder, if I get within about 10 lbs., on the high side I start to feel really sick.
And that's assuming that I'm not in a phase where I'm really hitting the weights.
I can easily be 40-50lbs., over the recommended weight when I'm doing that without having much fat on me at all.
Body fat percentage, really and truy is the only way to go.
And what's nice is that it's not that hard to get a decent measurement.
The scales that do it, while largely inaccurate still tend to do a better job than the BMI, and the skindex equip isn't expensive, even if it is a pain to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519713</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.</p><p>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.</p><p>(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)</p></div><p>I've always thought that a quick glance at a persons body with the shirt off is the best rule of thumb. Light, but looking relatively fat -- Bad. Heavy but looking to be in shape -- Good.</p><p>But if you're looking for an [b]objective[/b] quick rule of thumb that can be made without the pationt removing any of his or her clothes, BMI has a lot going for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I was 10 pounds over my " ideal range " five years ago .
But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work .
After ending that , I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle .
So , I became " ideal weight " even though I was in worse shape physically .
Since then I have put on those 10 pounds ( mid-age metabolism slow down ) .
So according to the chart , I am in the same place I was five years ago.BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb , but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace .
( and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts ) I 've always thought that a quick glance at a persons body with the shirt off is the best rule of thumb .
Light , but looking relatively fat -- Bad .
Heavy but looking to be in shape -- Good.But if you 're looking for an [ b ] objective [ /b ] quick rule of thumb that can be made without the pationt removing any of his or her clothes , BMI has a lot going for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago.
But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work.
After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle.
So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically.
Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down).
So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)I've always thought that a quick glance at a persons body with the shirt off is the best rule of thumb.
Light, but looking relatively fat -- Bad.
Heavy but looking to be in shape -- Good.But if you're looking for an [b]objective[/b] quick rule of thumb that can be made without the pationt removing any of his or her clothes, BMI has a lot going for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467</id>
	<title>BMI is worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BMI is like judging the value of a diamond on carat weight only. Much more goes into it than that.</p><p>Take for example, me. According to the typical categories, at 6'2", my normal range is 144lbs - 195lbs. Now, I'd love for you to look at a 6'2" guy that weight 144 and tell me he's normal (implicitly healthy) in weight. I have cancer patients that weigh more than that. And plenty of in shape guys that are 6'2" weigh well over 195. Science light...go America (and, apparently Canada).</p><p>BMI Categories:</p><p>Underweight = 18.5<br>Normal weight = 18.5-24.9<br>Overweight = 25-29.9<br>Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is like judging the value of a diamond on carat weight only .
Much more goes into it than that.Take for example , me .
According to the typical categories , at 6'2 " , my normal range is 144lbs - 195lbs .
Now , I 'd love for you to look at a 6'2 " guy that weight 144 and tell me he 's normal ( implicitly healthy ) in weight .
I have cancer patients that weigh more than that .
And plenty of in shape guys that are 6'2 " weigh well over 195 .
Science light...go America ( and , apparently Canada ) .BMI Categories : Underweight = 18.5Normal weight = 18.5-24.9Overweight = 25-29.9Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is like judging the value of a diamond on carat weight only.
Much more goes into it than that.Take for example, me.
According to the typical categories, at 6'2", my normal range is 144lbs - 195lbs.
Now, I'd love for you to look at a 6'2" guy that weight 144 and tell me he's normal (implicitly healthy) in weight.
I have cancer patients that weigh more than that.
And plenty of in shape guys that are 6'2" weigh well over 195.
Science light...go America (and, apparently Canada).BMI Categories:Underweight = 18.5Normal weight = 18.5-24.9Overweight = 25-29.9Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522645</id>
	<title>Pro:</title>
	<author>sharkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246283760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am drought and famine resistant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am drought and famine resistant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am drought and famine resistant!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528799</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1246378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the whole point of the article is that it isn't good for statistical analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the whole point of the article is that it is n't good for statistical analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the whole point of the article is that it isn't good for statistical analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519479</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>kramulous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other thing to be careful about with these statistics is that Canada has a very good public health system.  One that far outranks just about every other western country on this blue marble.  That will surely shift the results to the right compared to other countries.</p><p>And yes, I am dirty about it.  My country *used* to have a superior public health care system.  That is until a prime minister thought it would be a good idea to follow the US.  There's the lingering shell but that'll be gone in a couple of years.</p><p>*sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other thing to be careful about with these statistics is that Canada has a very good public health system .
One that far outranks just about every other western country on this blue marble .
That will surely shift the results to the right compared to other countries.And yes , I am dirty about it .
My country * used * to have a superior public health care system .
That is until a prime minister thought it would be a good idea to follow the US .
There 's the lingering shell but that 'll be gone in a couple of years .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other thing to be careful about with these statistics is that Canada has a very good public health system.
One that far outranks just about every other western country on this blue marble.
That will surely shift the results to the right compared to other countries.And yes, I am dirty about it.
My country *used* to have a superior public health care system.
That is until a prime minister thought it would be a good idea to follow the US.
There's the lingering shell but that'll be gone in a couple of years.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595</id>
	<title>Results don't surprise me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246309080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like the definition of "over-weight" is based on appearance instead of health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like the definition of " over-weight " is based on appearance instead of health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like the definition of "over-weight" is based on appearance instead of health.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519055</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246267440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little extra blubber keeps the Canucks from freezing.  It's science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little extra blubber keeps the Canucks from freezing .
It 's science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little extra blubber keeps the Canucks from freezing.
It's science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524731</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a supermodel for a girlfriend, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a supermodel for a girlfriend , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a supermodel for a girlfriend, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28526435</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1246366500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>try to be <i>slightly</i> diabetic and cancerous too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>try to be slightly diabetic and cancerous too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try to be slightly diabetic and cancerous too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518923</id>
	<title>Study is nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The study defines over/underweight by the BMI, and not measuring the percentage of body fat.</p><p>That renders any findings moot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The study defines over/underweight by the BMI , and not measuring the percentage of body fat.That renders any findings moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study defines over/underweight by the BMI, and not measuring the percentage of body fat.That renders any findings moot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532269</id>
	<title>Wealth?</title>
	<author>booch</author>
	<datestamp>1246389300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they control for the economic situation of the subjects? The article does not say that they did. If not, I suspect that's most likely the underlying causation. Wealthier people live longer, because they have better access to higher quality medical treatment, as well as gym memberships, better food, etc. And I'm pretty sure that wealthy people tend to be a little heavier than average, due to the higher availability of food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they control for the economic situation of the subjects ?
The article does not say that they did .
If not , I suspect that 's most likely the underlying causation .
Wealthier people live longer , because they have better access to higher quality medical treatment , as well as gym memberships , better food , etc .
And I 'm pretty sure that wealthy people tend to be a little heavier than average , due to the higher availability of food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they control for the economic situation of the subjects?
The article does not say that they did.
If not, I suspect that's most likely the underlying causation.
Wealthier people live longer, because they have better access to higher quality medical treatment, as well as gym memberships, better food, etc.
And I'm pretty sure that wealthy people tend to be a little heavier than average, due to the higher availability of food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</id>
	<title>BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246308960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.

Just something to think about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle .
Just something to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.
Just something to think about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525847</id>
	<title>Re:BMI is worthless</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246359240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BMI is junk math. Film at 11.
<br> <br>
No seriously, it is. People are three dimensional and BMI is only 2D - it doesn't account for increase in 'thickness' as people get taller/shorter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is junk math .
Film at 11 .
No seriously , it is .
People are three dimensional and BMI is only 2D - it does n't account for increase in 'thickness ' as people get taller/shorter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is junk math.
Film at 11.
No seriously, it is.
People are three dimensional and BMI is only 2D - it doesn't account for increase in 'thickness' as people get taller/shorter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519165</id>
	<title>Are you sure they live longer....</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1246267800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or is it just that it takes longer for friends and family of the slightly overweight people to realize the fact they are still on the couch is not normal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or is it just that it takes longer for friends and family of the slightly overweight people to realize the fact they are still on the couch is not normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or is it just that it takes longer for friends and family of the slightly overweight people to realize the fact they are still on the couch is not normal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523465</id>
	<title>Re:BMI is worthless</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246289460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't care so much but BMI is actually used by insurance companies to determine coverage eligibility sometimes.  It is a horrible statistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't care so much but BMI is actually used by insurance companies to determine coverage eligibility sometimes .
It is a horrible statistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't care so much but BMI is actually used by insurance companies to determine coverage eligibility sometimes.
It is a horrible statistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519151</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1246267740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for do have easy to measure heuristics that are significantly more reasonable.</p><p>Even taking BMI and correcting it for waist size goes a long way into taking muscle mass into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for do have easy to measure heuristics that are significantly more reasonable.Even taking BMI and correcting it for waist size goes a long way into taking muscle mass into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for do have easy to measure heuristics that are significantly more reasonable.Even taking BMI and correcting it for waist size goes a long way into taking muscle mass into account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521527</id>
	<title>Sounds like we need a redefinition.</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1246277880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is the case, shouldn't "Slightly Overweight" be redefined to "Ideal weight" and "Ideal Weight" be slightly underweight?</p><p>Or do we consider dying early a side effect of being perfect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is the case , should n't " Slightly Overweight " be redefined to " Ideal weight " and " Ideal Weight " be slightly underweight ? Or do we consider dying early a side effect of being perfect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is the case, shouldn't "Slightly Overweight" be redefined to "Ideal weight" and "Ideal Weight" be slightly underweight?Or do we consider dying early a side effect of being perfect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521803</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1246279260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a noob question too. Wouldn't it be practical to think a "little overweight" should have been the healthiest group from the beginning?  Being a little overweight is an indicaton that you are getting more than enough nutrition, where as a skinny or "normal" weight person is getting just enough nutrition to maintain. While eating a larger quantity of food may not gauruntee you are getting all the nutrients you should be, I would assume that its more likely you are getting enough when compared to a person that eats only enough to get by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a noob question too .
Would n't it be practical to think a " little overweight " should have been the healthiest group from the beginning ?
Being a little overweight is an indicaton that you are getting more than enough nutrition , where as a skinny or " normal " weight person is getting just enough nutrition to maintain .
While eating a larger quantity of food may not gauruntee you are getting all the nutrients you should be , I would assume that its more likely you are getting enough when compared to a person that eats only enough to get by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a noob question too.
Wouldn't it be practical to think a "little overweight" should have been the healthiest group from the beginning?
Being a little overweight is an indicaton that you are getting more than enough nutrition, where as a skinny or "normal" weight person is getting just enough nutrition to maintain.
While eating a larger quantity of food may not gauruntee you are getting all the nutrients you should be, I would assume that its more likely you are getting enough when compared to a person that eats only enough to get by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519105</id>
	<title>I feel better</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1246267620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must say that I usually feel better when I'm 2 or 3 kilos over the maximum weight that I may have according to the BMI 'norm.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say that I usually feel better when I 'm 2 or 3 kilos over the maximum weight that I may have according to the BMI 'norm .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say that I usually feel better when I'm 2 or 3 kilos over the maximum weight that I may have according to the BMI 'norm.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28526307</id>
	<title>Based on BMI? hahaha</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BMI is a piece of garbage when it comes to scientific value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BMI is a piece of garbage when it comes to scientific value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BMI is a piece of garbage when it comes to scientific value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518725</id>
	<title>Optional?</title>
	<author>Omega Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1246266240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9."</p><p>Man, now that I know dying is optional, I'll have to start eating more...</p><p>Seriously, does anybody ever actually pay attention to how they phrase this stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 .
" Man , now that I know dying is optional , I 'll have to start eating more...Seriously , does anybody ever actually pay attention to how they phrase this stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9.
"Man, now that I know dying is optional, I'll have to start eating more...Seriously, does anybody ever actually pay attention to how they phrase this stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519209</id>
	<title>Re:No survivors</title>
	<author>DahGhostfacedFiddlah</author>
	<datestamp>1246267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That used to be true.  Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century.  100\% mortality rate.  But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.</p><p>If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.</p><p>At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That used to be true .
Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century .
100 \ % mortality rate .
But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates , we 've slowly been reducing that rate.If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980 , you 'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death , with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930 's , so it 's obvious that there have been significant improvements.At this rate , not only will those born after 2030 never die , but by 2080 , people will be living two , maybe even three lives at once , for eternity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That used to be true.
Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century.
100\% mortality rate.
But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522709</id>
	<title>Re:This is great news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246284180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell and you still complain!?<br>My wife wants me to lose my "extra inches" in ways involving gardening tools and pointy stuff in general!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell and you still complain !
? My wife wants me to lose my " extra inches " in ways involving gardening tools and pointy stuff in general !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell and you still complain!
?My wife wants me to lose my "extra inches" in ways involving gardening tools and pointy stuff in general!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519493</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246268880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course, the study took place in Canada. Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer. I'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation doesn't help as much.</i></p><p>Or it could be their health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the study took place in Canada .
Skinny , underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer .
I 'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation does n't help as much.Or it could be their health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the study took place in Canada.
Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.
I'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation doesn't help as much.Or it could be their health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519751</id>
	<title>The Magic of BMI reordering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1998, the NIH <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">changed the definition</a> [cnn.com] of what it meant to be overweight. It has since been changed -again- (note from the CNN article that a BMI of 26 was still considered 'normal' after this first change).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1998 , the NIH changed the definition [ cnn.com ] of what it meant to be overweight .
It has since been changed -again- ( note from the CNN article that a BMI of 26 was still considered 'normal ' after this first change ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1998, the NIH changed the definition [cnn.com] of what it meant to be overweight.
It has since been changed -again- (note from the CNN article that a BMI of 26 was still considered 'normal' after this first change).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519709</id>
	<title>BMI Is a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your BMI is over what it should be then you are overweight whether that mass consists of muscle or lard. Muscle is clearly preferable but a 16 stone muscle man will struggle at running a decent distance more than a regular 11 stone person and will put more strain on your heart than a tub of goo around your waist. So the BMI certainly doesn't fail for that scenario its still a good guide to adhere to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your BMI is over what it should be then you are overweight whether that mass consists of muscle or lard .
Muscle is clearly preferable but a 16 stone muscle man will struggle at running a decent distance more than a regular 11 stone person and will put more strain on your heart than a tub of goo around your waist .
So the BMI certainly does n't fail for that scenario its still a good guide to adhere to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your BMI is over what it should be then you are overweight whether that mass consists of muscle or lard.
Muscle is clearly preferable but a 16 stone muscle man will struggle at running a decent distance more than a regular 11 stone person and will put more strain on your heart than a tub of goo around your waist.
So the BMI certainly doesn't fail for that scenario its still a good guide to adhere to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520923</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246274700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. BMI is practically useless. I'd guesstimate that these 'overweight' people are just quite muscular. Not to blow my own trumpet but even according to BMI I'm overweight, but I'm not overfat. People shouldn't be classed as overweight and instead they should be classed as overfat if they're carrying some extra fat, but then that practically renders the term overweight obselete, a good thing in any case. I think it's just fat people would find overfat insulting so overweight is used to soften the blow but then its definition is vague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
BMI is practically useless .
I 'd guesstimate that these 'overweight ' people are just quite muscular .
Not to blow my own trumpet but even according to BMI I 'm overweight , but I 'm not overfat .
People should n't be classed as overweight and instead they should be classed as overfat if they 're carrying some extra fat , but then that practically renders the term overweight obselete , a good thing in any case .
I think it 's just fat people would find overfat insulting so overweight is used to soften the blow but then its definition is vague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
BMI is practically useless.
I'd guesstimate that these 'overweight' people are just quite muscular.
Not to blow my own trumpet but even according to BMI I'm overweight, but I'm not overfat.
People shouldn't be classed as overweight and instead they should be classed as overfat if they're carrying some extra fat, but then that practically renders the term overweight obselete, a good thing in any case.
I think it's just fat people would find overfat insulting so overweight is used to soften the blow but then its definition is vague.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518731</id>
	<title>Perhaps their BMI scales are off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen some of these scales (you are this tall and you weight this much, you have a bmi of xxx and you are this overweight.)  I'm sorry but for me to be at the BMI they suggest, I would have to shed all the muscle mass I have and become sickly thin.  Perhaps the "Normal weight" they classify is actually people who could stand to gain a few pounds.</p><p>To a lot of these charts, the sickly thin super models are of "Normal weight"..  Yet they die eariler than people with a few more pounds.. Hrmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen some of these scales ( you are this tall and you weight this much , you have a bmi of xxx and you are this overweight .
) I 'm sorry but for me to be at the BMI they suggest , I would have to shed all the muscle mass I have and become sickly thin .
Perhaps the " Normal weight " they classify is actually people who could stand to gain a few pounds.To a lot of these charts , the sickly thin super models are of " Normal weight " .. Yet they die eariler than people with a few more pounds.. Hrmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen some of these scales (you are this tall and you weight this much, you have a bmi of xxx and you are this overweight.
)  I'm sorry but for me to be at the BMI they suggest, I would have to shed all the muscle mass I have and become sickly thin.
Perhaps the "Normal weight" they classify is actually people who could stand to gain a few pounds.To a lot of these charts, the sickly thin super models are of "Normal weight"..  Yet they die eariler than people with a few more pounds.. Hrmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522637</id>
	<title>I know I'm asking for pigs to fly but...</title>
	<author>AaronParsons</author>
	<datestamp>1246283700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do you think that once, just once, an article could mention error bars?  Please?

This comic pretty much summarizes how much I trust articles like this:
<a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174" title="phdcomics.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174</a> [phdcomics.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>do you think that once , just once , an article could mention error bars ?
Please ? This comic pretty much summarizes how much I trust articles like this : http : //www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php ? comicid = 1174 [ phdcomics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you think that once, just once, an article could mention error bars?
Please?

This comic pretty much summarizes how much I trust articles like this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 [phdcomics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520773</id>
	<title>Flawed study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246273980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Studies like these are heavily flawed for several reasons.</p><p>1. This particular study is specifically aimed at an urban population of a cold temperate country.</p><p>2. Healthcare. Medical science is at the stage where you can stuff yourself to the size of a hippo and have a heart bypass, a stomach stapling and liposuction and undo enough of the damage to give yourself a few decades to live.</p><p>3. If you see yourself as trim and fit and healthy you would probably be a lot less receptive to the idea of seeing a doctor.</p><p>4. BMI is flawed. Plenty of healthy, perfectly well proportioned but very muscular people have BMIs in the slightly overweight range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies like these are heavily flawed for several reasons.1 .
This particular study is specifically aimed at an urban population of a cold temperate country.2 .
Healthcare. Medical science is at the stage where you can stuff yourself to the size of a hippo and have a heart bypass , a stomach stapling and liposuction and undo enough of the damage to give yourself a few decades to live.3 .
If you see yourself as trim and fit and healthy you would probably be a lot less receptive to the idea of seeing a doctor.4 .
BMI is flawed .
Plenty of healthy , perfectly well proportioned but very muscular people have BMIs in the slightly overweight range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies like these are heavily flawed for several reasons.1.
This particular study is specifically aimed at an urban population of a cold temperate country.2.
Healthcare. Medical science is at the stage where you can stuff yourself to the size of a hippo and have a heart bypass, a stomach stapling and liposuction and undo enough of the damage to give yourself a few decades to live.3.
If you see yourself as trim and fit and healthy you would probably be a lot less receptive to the idea of seeing a doctor.4.
BMI is flawed.
Plenty of healthy, perfectly well proportioned but very muscular people have BMIs in the slightly overweight range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524049</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent question.  It was originally based on insurance industry charts of men in England, years ago.</p><p>Most women were above that, "ideal," by nature's design. (perhaps that's one reason why women tend to be obsessed with dieting to become waif-like, despite the fact that it decreases their ability to produce healthy offspring.)</p><p>Many ethnic groups were also above that, "ideal," again, by nature's design.</p><p>People have been speaking up about this for many years.  Numerous studies have shown how this was plain silly.  Many otherwise intelligent scientists, ignored the real statistics, preferring to quote the "status quo" started in England, as they were victims of the same PR campaign of many companies who wanted to sell "diet" products.</p><p>Finally, people are getting a look at common sense.  Will it be enough to cause people to sell their diet company stock?  I hope so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent question .
It was originally based on insurance industry charts of men in England , years ago.Most women were above that , " ideal , " by nature 's design .
( perhaps that 's one reason why women tend to be obsessed with dieting to become waif-like , despite the fact that it decreases their ability to produce healthy offspring .
) Many ethnic groups were also above that , " ideal , " again , by nature 's design.People have been speaking up about this for many years .
Numerous studies have shown how this was plain silly .
Many otherwise intelligent scientists , ignored the real statistics , preferring to quote the " status quo " started in England , as they were victims of the same PR campaign of many companies who wanted to sell " diet " products.Finally , people are getting a look at common sense .
Will it be enough to cause people to sell their diet company stock ?
I hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent question.
It was originally based on insurance industry charts of men in England, years ago.Most women were above that, "ideal," by nature's design.
(perhaps that's one reason why women tend to be obsessed with dieting to become waif-like, despite the fact that it decreases their ability to produce healthy offspring.
)Many ethnic groups were also above that, "ideal," again, by nature's design.People have been speaking up about this for many years.
Numerous studies have shown how this was plain silly.
Many otherwise intelligent scientists, ignored the real statistics, preferring to quote the "status quo" started in England, as they were victims of the same PR campaign of many companies who wanted to sell "diet" products.Finally, people are getting a look at common sense.
Will it be enough to cause people to sell their diet company stock?
I hope so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519861</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>DCheesi</author>
	<datestamp>1246270080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.

Just something to think about.</p></div><p>I was thinking that too, until I noticed that they claimed to control for physical activity. So unless those people throwing off the curve are all genetic freaks who grow muscle sitting around on their couch, that shouldn't be it.




</p><p>Of course there's no way of knowing if they controlled for physical activitty *correctly* or adequately...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle .
Just something to think about.I was thinking that too , until I noticed that they claimed to control for physical activity .
So unless those people throwing off the curve are all genetic freaks who grow muscle sitting around on their couch , that should n't be it .
Of course there 's no way of knowing if they controlled for physical activitty * correctly * or adequately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.
Just something to think about.I was thinking that too, until I noticed that they claimed to control for physical activity.
So unless those people throwing off the curve are all genetic freaks who grow muscle sitting around on their couch, that shouldn't be it.
Of course there's no way of knowing if they controlled for physical activitty *correctly* or adequately...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519545</id>
	<title>Re:Muscle Weighs more than Fat</title>
	<author>wonderboss</author>
	<datestamp>1246269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs)</p></div><p>Nonsense.</p><p>According to BMI, Shaquile O'Neil is obese.  A lot of people who work-out rate
overweight or obese according to BMI. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage ( possible , I 'm sure , but very difficult without drugs ) Nonsense.According to BMI , Shaquile O'Neil is obese .
A lot of people who work-out rate overweight or obese according to BMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs)Nonsense.According to BMI, Shaquile O'Neil is obese.
A lot of people who work-out rate
overweight or obese according to BMI. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.</p><p>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.</p><p>(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I was 10 pounds over my " ideal range " five years ago .
But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work .
After ending that , I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle .
So , I became " ideal weight " even though I was in worse shape physically .
Since then I have put on those 10 pounds ( mid-age metabolism slow down ) .
So according to the chart , I am in the same place I was five years ago.BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb , but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace .
( and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago.
But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work.
After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle.
So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically.
Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down).
So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518765</id>
	<title>SLIGHTLY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's <b>slightly</b> overweight, fatties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's slightly overweight , fatties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's slightly overweight, fatties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518607</id>
	<title>This is great news...</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1246309140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I have an excuse to not lose those "extra pounds" my wife has been complaining about!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have an excuse to not lose those " extra pounds " my wife has been complaining about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have an excuse to not lose those "extra pounds" my wife has been complaining about!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519569</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1246269120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from the fact that even the summary says the study correct for physical activity, BMI is just weight normalized among height/gender. It may not be as good as body fat \%, but its a load better then just weight. That said, BMI is still a good measure of the fat for the population. Your average person does a light amount of exercise. I'd say, the very active people are outmatched by the sedentary people. Given BMI accounts for the average, the sedentary people, who have a high fat:muscle ratio compared to a normal person, probably make up for the very active people who have a high muscle:fat ratio. In other words, for every guy who has 5 lbs more muscle then a normal guy of the same weight, there is probably a guy who has 5 lbs less muscle then a guy of normal weight. It's also a hella lot harder to put muscle on then take it off...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the fact that even the summary says the study correct for physical activity , BMI is just weight normalized among height/gender .
It may not be as good as body fat \ % , but its a load better then just weight .
That said , BMI is still a good measure of the fat for the population .
Your average person does a light amount of exercise .
I 'd say , the very active people are outmatched by the sedentary people .
Given BMI accounts for the average , the sedentary people , who have a high fat : muscle ratio compared to a normal person , probably make up for the very active people who have a high muscle : fat ratio .
In other words , for every guy who has 5 lbs more muscle then a normal guy of the same weight , there is probably a guy who has 5 lbs less muscle then a guy of normal weight .
It 's also a hella lot harder to put muscle on then take it off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the fact that even the summary says the study correct for physical activity, BMI is just weight normalized among height/gender.
It may not be as good as body fat \%, but its a load better then just weight.
That said, BMI is still a good measure of the fat for the population.
Your average person does a light amount of exercise.
I'd say, the very active people are outmatched by the sedentary people.
Given BMI accounts for the average, the sedentary people, who have a high fat:muscle ratio compared to a normal person, probably make up for the very active people who have a high muscle:fat ratio.
In other words, for every guy who has 5 lbs more muscle then a normal guy of the same weight, there is probably a guy who has 5 lbs less muscle then a guy of normal weight.
It's also a hella lot harder to put muscle on then take it off...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520103</id>
	<title>Re:No survivors</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1246270920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would say everyone is 100\% likely to die.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself.  I plan on living forever.</p><p>So far, so good!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say everyone is 100 \ % likely to die.Speak for yourself .
I plan on living forever.So far , so good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say everyone is 100\% likely to die.Speak for yourself.
I plan on living forever.So far, so good!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519235</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Calithulu</author>
	<datestamp>1246268040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a really, really good point. BMI is meant to be used as a tool to measure populations, not to be used to measure individuals. Body fat percentage and muscle mass percentages are far better tools to use for yourself to determine if you have a healthy weight or not. Sadly, due to psychological hang-ups a lot of people can't just look into the mirror to make that determination.

However, since this study was done using statistics from a broad portion of the population it is quite likely that not everyone who was "overweight" according to their BMI was an athlete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a really , really good point .
BMI is meant to be used as a tool to measure populations , not to be used to measure individuals .
Body fat percentage and muscle mass percentages are far better tools to use for yourself to determine if you have a healthy weight or not .
Sadly , due to psychological hang-ups a lot of people ca n't just look into the mirror to make that determination .
However , since this study was done using statistics from a broad portion of the population it is quite likely that not everyone who was " overweight " according to their BMI was an athlete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a really, really good point.
BMI is meant to be used as a tool to measure populations, not to be used to measure individuals.
Body fat percentage and muscle mass percentages are far better tools to use for yourself to determine if you have a healthy weight or not.
Sadly, due to psychological hang-ups a lot of people can't just look into the mirror to make that determination.
However, since this study was done using statistics from a broad portion of the population it is quite likely that not everyone who was "overweight" according to their BMI was an athlete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522907</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246285740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like big butts + I cannot lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like big butts + I can not lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like big butts + I cannot lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246267440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.</p></div><p>This is a little contentious, since there are different ways of being "fit." For instance, many cyclists, even at the professional level, make pretty bad runners, and vice versa.
<br> <br>
Aren't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb , but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.This is a little contentious , since there are different ways of being " fit .
" For instance , many cyclists , even at the professional level , make pretty bad runners , and vice versa .
Are n't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.This is a little contentious, since there are different ways of being "fit.
" For instance, many cyclists, even at the professional level, make pretty bad runners, and vice versa.
Aren't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521347</id>
	<title>They call it...</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1246276980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Fat and Happy for a reason!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Fat and Happy for a reason !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Fat and Happy for a reason!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518627</id>
	<title>Lies lies and statistics?</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1246266000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on whether they factor in types of death, are 'ideal' weight people more likely to die while doing extreme sports?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on whether they factor in types of death , are 'ideal ' weight people more likely to die while doing extreme sports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on whether they factor in types of death, are 'ideal' weight people more likely to die while doing extreme sports?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520663</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1246273380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll forego using mod points on this thread to reply. I'll burn them off on some other topic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.</p></div><p>I qualify by BMI (29.5, just shy of "obese") and by personal assessment (yes, I do look feel fat in this body right now). I was forced into a more sedentary life style 20 years ago and for many years I was obese by any standard, but I've shed more than 20 lbs from my heaviest weight. I am now reasonably fit, bicycling over 100 miles per week and self-training to do century ride in a month or so. I also do flat water kayaking, which is a good complement to the biking.

</p><p> <a href="http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/" title="nhlbisupport.com">link to the NIH BMI Calculator</a> [nhlbisupport.com] used below.

</p><p>Here's the thing: my personal ideal body weight will give me a BMI of 27.0 at the weight where I felt best before the accident that changed a lot of things in my life. This is still "overweight" by accepted standards. But to get to the top of the "normal" BMI range at 25.0, I would have drop to my weight when I graduated from high school, when I was a skinny guy with all the muscle tone of a boiled noodle. My long term (5 - 10 year) goal is to drop another 20 lbs to a BMI of 27, but I would have to drop 33 lb to get down to a BMI of 25, and that would definitely be unhealthy.

</p><p>BMI can be sort of helpful to people of European and Asian descent in possibly refining their personal ideal self-image, but it isn't going to work so well with descendants of Native Americans, Polynesians, or Arctic peoples. But it isn't very accurate, and if it does not match up with a healthy person's ideal self-image, it should be ignored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll forego using mod points on this thread to reply .
I 'll burn them off on some other topic.It 's surprising that there 's not a single really overweight person commenting here , considering that 90 \ % of overweight ( by BMI ) are simply fat.I qualify by BMI ( 29.5 , just shy of " obese " ) and by personal assessment ( yes , I do look feel fat in this body right now ) .
I was forced into a more sedentary life style 20 years ago and for many years I was obese by any standard , but I 've shed more than 20 lbs from my heaviest weight .
I am now reasonably fit , bicycling over 100 miles per week and self-training to do century ride in a month or so .
I also do flat water kayaking , which is a good complement to the biking .
link to the NIH BMI Calculator [ nhlbisupport.com ] used below .
Here 's the thing : my personal ideal body weight will give me a BMI of 27.0 at the weight where I felt best before the accident that changed a lot of things in my life .
This is still " overweight " by accepted standards .
But to get to the top of the " normal " BMI range at 25.0 , I would have drop to my weight when I graduated from high school , when I was a skinny guy with all the muscle tone of a boiled noodle .
My long term ( 5 - 10 year ) goal is to drop another 20 lbs to a BMI of 27 , but I would have to drop 33 lb to get down to a BMI of 25 , and that would definitely be unhealthy .
BMI can be sort of helpful to people of European and Asian descent in possibly refining their personal ideal self-image , but it is n't going to work so well with descendants of Native Americans , Polynesians , or Arctic peoples .
But it is n't very accurate , and if it does not match up with a healthy person 's ideal self-image , it should be ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll forego using mod points on this thread to reply.
I'll burn them off on some other topic.It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.I qualify by BMI (29.5, just shy of "obese") and by personal assessment (yes, I do look feel fat in this body right now).
I was forced into a more sedentary life style 20 years ago and for many years I was obese by any standard, but I've shed more than 20 lbs from my heaviest weight.
I am now reasonably fit, bicycling over 100 miles per week and self-training to do century ride in a month or so.
I also do flat water kayaking, which is a good complement to the biking.
link to the NIH BMI Calculator [nhlbisupport.com] used below.
Here's the thing: my personal ideal body weight will give me a BMI of 27.0 at the weight where I felt best before the accident that changed a lot of things in my life.
This is still "overweight" by accepted standards.
But to get to the top of the "normal" BMI range at 25.0, I would have drop to my weight when I graduated from high school, when I was a skinny guy with all the muscle tone of a boiled noodle.
My long term (5 - 10 year) goal is to drop another 20 lbs to a BMI of 27, but I would have to drop 33 lb to get down to a BMI of 25, and that would definitely be unhealthy.
BMI can be sort of helpful to people of European and Asian descent in possibly refining their personal ideal self-image, but it isn't going to work so well with descendants of Native Americans, Polynesians, or Arctic peoples.
But it isn't very accurate, and if it does not match up with a healthy person's ideal self-image, it should be ignored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519923</id>
	<title>Re:Muscle Weighs more than Fat</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1246270320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am 6'0" tall. I weight just shy of 210 pounds. I work out 3 times a week. According the the BMI scale I am closer to severely obese (225lbs) than I am to a healthy weight (180lbs). Yet I am probably the most fit person on my development team. For me to get down to 180lbs, I would have to slash my diet, leave the gym, and spend a lot of time walking.</p><p>I'm not in as great of shape as I used to be, but just before I got out of the Marine Corps in 2001 I was in the 10\% body fat range and right on the verge of being "over weight" on the BMI.</p><p>At this point in my life, if I continue training, I'll probably shed a few more pounds of fat to get back down to the 10\% body fat range, but I've got some muscle to build up before I get back to a 6 minute mile. Which will leave me well into the over weight category.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 6'0 " tall .
I weight just shy of 210 pounds .
I work out 3 times a week .
According the the BMI scale I am closer to severely obese ( 225lbs ) than I am to a healthy weight ( 180lbs ) .
Yet I am probably the most fit person on my development team .
For me to get down to 180lbs , I would have to slash my diet , leave the gym , and spend a lot of time walking.I 'm not in as great of shape as I used to be , but just before I got out of the Marine Corps in 2001 I was in the 10 \ % body fat range and right on the verge of being " over weight " on the BMI.At this point in my life , if I continue training , I 'll probably shed a few more pounds of fat to get back down to the 10 \ % body fat range , but I 've got some muscle to build up before I get back to a 6 minute mile .
Which will leave me well into the over weight category.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am 6'0" tall.
I weight just shy of 210 pounds.
I work out 3 times a week.
According the the BMI scale I am closer to severely obese (225lbs) than I am to a healthy weight (180lbs).
Yet I am probably the most fit person on my development team.
For me to get down to 180lbs, I would have to slash my diet, leave the gym, and spend a lot of time walking.I'm not in as great of shape as I used to be, but just before I got out of the Marine Corps in 2001 I was in the 10\% body fat range and right on the verge of being "over weight" on the BMI.At this point in my life, if I continue training, I'll probably shed a few more pounds of fat to get back down to the 10\% body fat range, but I've got some muscle to build up before I get back to a 6 minute mile.
Which will leave me well into the over weight category.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520755</id>
	<title>you seen the REAL over weight conservative party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246273860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriously look how BIG them people are , tell me that's healthy.<br>I swear they all come form a fat factory and there eating all the food the rest of Canada doesn't get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously look how BIG them people are , tell me that 's healthy.I swear they all come form a fat factory and there eating all the food the rest of Canada does n't get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously look how BIG them people are , tell me that's healthy.I swear they all come form a fat factory and there eating all the food the rest of Canada doesn't get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519199</id>
	<title>More data needed</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1246267920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd <i>really</i> like to see the curves, and not just the conclusions on this study.
</p><p>This <a href="http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/hliving/BMIwords.html" title="ox.ac.uk">1999 study by Calle et al.</a> [ox.ac.uk] suggested that the optimum BMI is about 22-24.  The new study summary says people with BMI 25 to 29.9  are less likely to die than people with B.M.I. 18.5 to 24.9.

</p><p>The problem is that there's a huge difference between "18.5" (= way underweight) and  "24.9" (around the optimum).  That's just too large a data bin to be useful.  It's too large to be able to tell if the new data contradicts the old data, or not.
</p><p> <i>What does the mortality vs mass curve look like?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd really like to see the curves , and not just the conclusions on this study .
This 1999 study by Calle et al .
[ ox.ac.uk ] suggested that the optimum BMI is about 22-24 .
The new study summary says people with BMI 25 to 29.9 are less likely to die than people with B.M.I .
18.5 to 24.9 .
The problem is that there 's a huge difference between " 18.5 " ( = way underweight ) and " 24.9 " ( around the optimum ) .
That 's just too large a data bin to be useful .
It 's too large to be able to tell if the new data contradicts the old data , or not .
What does the mortality vs mass curve look like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd really like to see the curves, and not just the conclusions on this study.
This 1999 study by Calle et al.
[ox.ac.uk] suggested that the optimum BMI is about 22-24.
The new study summary says people with BMI 25 to 29.9  are less likely to die than people with B.M.I.
18.5 to 24.9.
The problem is that there's a huge difference between "18.5" (= way underweight) and  "24.9" (around the optimum).
That's just too large a data bin to be useful.
It's too large to be able to tell if the new data contradicts the old data, or not.
What does the mortality vs mass curve look like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521717</id>
	<title>Excellent!!!</title>
	<author>Old Sparky</author>
	<datestamp>1246278780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should live forever!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should live forever ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should live forever!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528993</id>
	<title>BMI sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BMI means nothing. Its completely outdated and is a calculation that isnt aware of body type of msucle to fat ratio. If you want a better measurement or health use Body/Fat ratio's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI means nothing .
Its completely outdated and is a calculation that isnt aware of body type of msucle to fat ratio .
If you want a better measurement or health use Body/Fat ratio 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI means nothing.
Its completely outdated and is a calculation that isnt aware of body type of msucle to fat ratio.
If you want a better measurement or health use Body/Fat ratio's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518829</id>
	<title>Real conflict for Govt. Busybodies...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1246266540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been working up to outlawing eating fattening foods-- you can see it in the research being funded and articles in the paper and magazines.</p><p>So now what?  Force you to eat if you are underweight (70\%??? Wow!)?</p><p>BMI is also a problem.  I'm 268-- 6'5".  My doc says I should be 235.</p><p>Problem is I have a six pack, visible veins sticking out on my arms and legs, and you can see individual muscle sections moving when I move.   So I'm fairly lean.<br>But my BMI is high.  I can lose weight- probably 25 pounds-- no one thinks I can make 235-- not even the doctor any more.  I'd have to burn off muscle to hit that weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been working up to outlawing eating fattening foods-- you can see it in the research being funded and articles in the paper and magazines.So now what ?
Force you to eat if you are underweight ( 70 \ % ? ? ?
Wow ! ) ? BMI is also a problem .
I 'm 268-- 6'5 " .
My doc says I should be 235.Problem is I have a six pack , visible veins sticking out on my arms and legs , and you can see individual muscle sections moving when I move .
So I 'm fairly lean.But my BMI is high .
I can lose weight- probably 25 pounds-- no one thinks I can make 235-- not even the doctor any more .
I 'd have to burn off muscle to hit that weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been working up to outlawing eating fattening foods-- you can see it in the research being funded and articles in the paper and magazines.So now what?
Force you to eat if you are underweight (70\%???
Wow!)?BMI is also a problem.
I'm 268-- 6'5".
My doc says I should be 235.Problem is I have a six pack, visible veins sticking out on my arms and legs, and you can see individual muscle sections moving when I move.
So I'm fairly lean.But my BMI is high.
I can lose weight- probably 25 pounds-- no one thinks I can make 235-- not even the doctor any more.
I'd have to burn off muscle to hit that weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519205</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>M0b1u5</author>
	<datestamp>1246267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would the researchers be surprised by this? Jesus, you don't need to be in medicine (I'm not, but I am interested, and my Dad's a doctor) to easily know that a few extra pounds are good for you.</p><p>When people get sick, their body often turns cannibalistic; consuming itself to try and heal. If you have no extra weight, then your body will start consuming muscle tissue, and all the associated problems that brings.</p><p>By having some fatty tissue in excess of the ideal BMI, you provide yourself a reservoir of energy which your body can use in the event of illness.</p><p>Certainly a "normal healthy" weight person who gets sick may end up quite frail after an illness, making it more likely they'll be injured, or suffer an infection subsequently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would the researchers be surprised by this ?
Jesus , you do n't need to be in medicine ( I 'm not , but I am interested , and my Dad 's a doctor ) to easily know that a few extra pounds are good for you.When people get sick , their body often turns cannibalistic ; consuming itself to try and heal .
If you have no extra weight , then your body will start consuming muscle tissue , and all the associated problems that brings.By having some fatty tissue in excess of the ideal BMI , you provide yourself a reservoir of energy which your body can use in the event of illness.Certainly a " normal healthy " weight person who gets sick may end up quite frail after an illness , making it more likely they 'll be injured , or suffer an infection subsequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would the researchers be surprised by this?
Jesus, you don't need to be in medicine (I'm not, but I am interested, and my Dad's a doctor) to easily know that a few extra pounds are good for you.When people get sick, their body often turns cannibalistic; consuming itself to try and heal.
If you have no extra weight, then your body will start consuming muscle tissue, and all the associated problems that brings.By having some fatty tissue in excess of the ideal BMI, you provide yourself a reservoir of energy which your body can use in the event of illness.Certainly a "normal healthy" weight person who gets sick may end up quite frail after an illness, making it more likely they'll be injured, or suffer an infection subsequently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519149</id>
	<title>1/3 of americans arent obese lardasses after all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246267740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of those feelgood reports that fat asses will flock to with their greasy chubby KFC laden hands.<br>So why dwelve on those 30\%+ tubs of goo that roam the countryside?<br>Things arent so bad. Really, its just bad BMI readings.</p><p>While BMI isnt perfect, this map gives you an idea of how fat the country has become in the past 20 years:<br>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/</p><p>THere is a big differences with having a little fat covering the ab muscles to those big fat mamas you see everywhere that look like theyre concealing  livestock under their clothes. But every John Popper (before surgery) fat ass is going to say that this applies to them. If you havent seen your genitals in a few years, it doenst apply to you.</p><p>Wine isnt dangerous for you and some studies even claim it is beneficial but I would never recommend an alcoholic have a glass a day, some people should stay away from it.<br>Just like junk food. Micheal Phelps can eat all the junk he wants, it doesnt mean the waddling penguins of this country should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those feelgood reports that fat asses will flock to with their greasy chubby KFC laden hands.So why dwelve on those 30 \ % + tubs of goo that roam the countryside ? Things arent so bad .
Really , its just bad BMI readings.While BMI isnt perfect , this map gives you an idea of how fat the country has become in the past 20 years : http : //www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/THere is a big differences with having a little fat covering the ab muscles to those big fat mamas you see everywhere that look like theyre concealing livestock under their clothes .
But every John Popper ( before surgery ) fat ass is going to say that this applies to them .
If you havent seen your genitals in a few years , it doenst apply to you.Wine isnt dangerous for you and some studies even claim it is beneficial but I would never recommend an alcoholic have a glass a day , some people should stay away from it.Just like junk food .
Micheal Phelps can eat all the junk he wants , it doesnt mean the waddling penguins of this country should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those feelgood reports that fat asses will flock to with their greasy chubby KFC laden hands.So why dwelve on those 30\%+ tubs of goo that roam the countryside?Things arent so bad.
Really, its just bad BMI readings.While BMI isnt perfect, this map gives you an idea of how fat the country has become in the past 20 years:http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/THere is a big differences with having a little fat covering the ab muscles to those big fat mamas you see everywhere that look like theyre concealing  livestock under their clothes.
But every John Popper (before surgery) fat ass is going to say that this applies to them.
If you havent seen your genitals in a few years, it doenst apply to you.Wine isnt dangerous for you and some studies even claim it is beneficial but I would never recommend an alcoholic have a glass a day, some people should stay away from it.Just like junk food.
Micheal Phelps can eat all the junk he wants, it doesnt mean the waddling penguins of this country should.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519445</id>
	<title>Control</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions that they "controlled" for physical activity.  Does that mean that they compared like for like?  Fat couch potatoes with skinny ones, fat joggers with skinny ones?  I'm not a statistician but it seems on the face of it there's a problem: Being overweight generally causes you to become less physically active, so comparing normal joggers to heavy joggers is comparing someone of high-normal fitness to an obese person who's extraordinarily fit (for their weight range).  The comparison may not be fair because that extraordinarily fit person could have good genes to begin with.</p><p>That aside, people who are skinny are sometimes skinny for health related reasons: cancer, AIDS, drugs.  Here it's not the fact that they're skinny which is the issue but their low weight is a symptom of health problems.  A more complex take on that would be a person who has lost weight because they were ordered to by their doctor.  They're diabetic or have high blood pressure.  So yes, they've lost weight and are healthier than before, but still less healthy than the slightly overweight person whose doctor didn't make them lose weight because they didn't have metabolic syndrome. Again, the low weight would not be a cause of illness, but an (indirect) effect.</p><p>Also, if it's true that you tend to gain weight every year you remain alive, then people who live a long time are more likely to be overweight.  Not because they're heavy but because they're still alive.  And people who die prematurely young are more likely to be skinny, not because they're malnourished, but because they simply didn't live long enough for a slow metabolism to pack on the pounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions that they " controlled " for physical activity .
Does that mean that they compared like for like ?
Fat couch potatoes with skinny ones , fat joggers with skinny ones ?
I 'm not a statistician but it seems on the face of it there 's a problem : Being overweight generally causes you to become less physically active , so comparing normal joggers to heavy joggers is comparing someone of high-normal fitness to an obese person who 's extraordinarily fit ( for their weight range ) .
The comparison may not be fair because that extraordinarily fit person could have good genes to begin with.That aside , people who are skinny are sometimes skinny for health related reasons : cancer , AIDS , drugs .
Here it 's not the fact that they 're skinny which is the issue but their low weight is a symptom of health problems .
A more complex take on that would be a person who has lost weight because they were ordered to by their doctor .
They 're diabetic or have high blood pressure .
So yes , they 've lost weight and are healthier than before , but still less healthy than the slightly overweight person whose doctor did n't make them lose weight because they did n't have metabolic syndrome .
Again , the low weight would not be a cause of illness , but an ( indirect ) effect.Also , if it 's true that you tend to gain weight every year you remain alive , then people who live a long time are more likely to be overweight .
Not because they 're heavy but because they 're still alive .
And people who die prematurely young are more likely to be skinny , not because they 're malnourished , but because they simply did n't live long enough for a slow metabolism to pack on the pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions that they "controlled" for physical activity.
Does that mean that they compared like for like?
Fat couch potatoes with skinny ones, fat joggers with skinny ones?
I'm not a statistician but it seems on the face of it there's a problem: Being overweight generally causes you to become less physically active, so comparing normal joggers to heavy joggers is comparing someone of high-normal fitness to an obese person who's extraordinarily fit (for their weight range).
The comparison may not be fair because that extraordinarily fit person could have good genes to begin with.That aside, people who are skinny are sometimes skinny for health related reasons: cancer, AIDS, drugs.
Here it's not the fact that they're skinny which is the issue but their low weight is a symptom of health problems.
A more complex take on that would be a person who has lost weight because they were ordered to by their doctor.
They're diabetic or have high blood pressure.
So yes, they've lost weight and are healthier than before, but still less healthy than the slightly overweight person whose doctor didn't make them lose weight because they didn't have metabolic syndrome.
Again, the low weight would not be a cause of illness, but an (indirect) effect.Also, if it's true that you tend to gain weight every year you remain alive, then people who live a long time are more likely to be overweight.
Not because they're heavy but because they're still alive.
And people who die prematurely young are more likely to be skinny, not because they're malnourished, but because they simply didn't live long enough for a slow metabolism to pack on the pounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519033</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Slightly Askew</author>
	<datestamp>1246267320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the best example I read of this was that Michael Jordan was considered obese according to his BMI number.  No surprise someone with his level of fitness would live longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the best example I read of this was that Michael Jordan was considered obese according to his BMI number .
No surprise someone with his level of fitness would live longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the best example I read of this was that Michael Jordan was considered obese according to his BMI number.
No surprise someone with his level of fitness would live longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28541085</id>
	<title>What else will "scientists" have been wrong about?</title>
	<author>Altreus</author>
	<datestamp>1246456740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single scare story so-called scientists and nutrition experts have come up with so far have proven to be bollocks.</p><p>I have proven this by ignoring them and I am still not dead.</p><p>Apparently we're only allowed 6g of salt a day. I have no idea how much salt I eat.</p><p>Apparently we're meant to drink 8 glasses of water a day. EXCEPT in fact we're supposed to *have* about 8 glasses of water a day, and most of it comes from food. So that means that people who have been drinking 8 glasses of water *and* eating every day are unhealthy. Otherwise, the amount of water above this should have no effect, right? Logically I mean. But it seems that people who drink more water than that pee a lot more, and people like me who don't drink much at all during the day should be ill or dead or something.</p><p>I'm not dead or ill.</p><p>I didn't stop ingesting sugar and I didn't stop drinking caffeine and I stopped drinking milk because that turned out to be bad for me as well, even though it's meant to be good for you.</p><p>Similarly, I have been ignoring all things that tell me what over or underweight is. I'm still alive and so is my wife. She is, apparently, 'morbidly obese', but she looks a perfectly normal shape to me. I am overweight, apparently, but I look quite thin.</p><p>And now! And now these bloody scientists have turned around and told us that "slightly overweight" is better for us than "normal weight"! By what measure, then, is "normal"? It's certainly not average, because most people I know are overweight, and, as a previous poster has said, even healthy people who go to the gym and bike every day are "overweight".</p><p>Perhaps those people who give false targets to people by printing pictures of photoshopped buff people in crappy magazines are in cahoots with the scientists, who have lowered the bar for 'normal' weight from 'healthy' to 'a bit too thin'.</p><p>Strikes me that if slightly overweight is healthier than normal weight than slightly overweight IS normal weight and normal weight is unhealthily thin.</p><p>Of course I am not going to believe any of my own logic here: it merely amuses me to point out logical inconsistencies when people are talking absolute bollocks. I'm sure there are dangerous levels of weight that can cause people to die prematurely but I am equally sure that there are many other factors involved that will shorten someone's life, such as how strong their heart is, how much shit they eat, and how often they get run over by buses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single scare story so-called scientists and nutrition experts have come up with so far have proven to be bollocks.I have proven this by ignoring them and I am still not dead.Apparently we 're only allowed 6g of salt a day .
I have no idea how much salt I eat.Apparently we 're meant to drink 8 glasses of water a day .
EXCEPT in fact we 're supposed to * have * about 8 glasses of water a day , and most of it comes from food .
So that means that people who have been drinking 8 glasses of water * and * eating every day are unhealthy .
Otherwise , the amount of water above this should have no effect , right ?
Logically I mean .
But it seems that people who drink more water than that pee a lot more , and people like me who do n't drink much at all during the day should be ill or dead or something.I 'm not dead or ill.I did n't stop ingesting sugar and I did n't stop drinking caffeine and I stopped drinking milk because that turned out to be bad for me as well , even though it 's meant to be good for you.Similarly , I have been ignoring all things that tell me what over or underweight is .
I 'm still alive and so is my wife .
She is , apparently , 'morbidly obese ' , but she looks a perfectly normal shape to me .
I am overweight , apparently , but I look quite thin.And now !
And now these bloody scientists have turned around and told us that " slightly overweight " is better for us than " normal weight " !
By what measure , then , is " normal " ?
It 's certainly not average , because most people I know are overweight , and , as a previous poster has said , even healthy people who go to the gym and bike every day are " overweight " .Perhaps those people who give false targets to people by printing pictures of photoshopped buff people in crappy magazines are in cahoots with the scientists , who have lowered the bar for 'normal ' weight from 'healthy ' to 'a bit too thin'.Strikes me that if slightly overweight is healthier than normal weight than slightly overweight IS normal weight and normal weight is unhealthily thin.Of course I am not going to believe any of my own logic here : it merely amuses me to point out logical inconsistencies when people are talking absolute bollocks .
I 'm sure there are dangerous levels of weight that can cause people to die prematurely but I am equally sure that there are many other factors involved that will shorten someone 's life , such as how strong their heart is , how much shit they eat , and how often they get run over by buses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single scare story so-called scientists and nutrition experts have come up with so far have proven to be bollocks.I have proven this by ignoring them and I am still not dead.Apparently we're only allowed 6g of salt a day.
I have no idea how much salt I eat.Apparently we're meant to drink 8 glasses of water a day.
EXCEPT in fact we're supposed to *have* about 8 glasses of water a day, and most of it comes from food.
So that means that people who have been drinking 8 glasses of water *and* eating every day are unhealthy.
Otherwise, the amount of water above this should have no effect, right?
Logically I mean.
But it seems that people who drink more water than that pee a lot more, and people like me who don't drink much at all during the day should be ill or dead or something.I'm not dead or ill.I didn't stop ingesting sugar and I didn't stop drinking caffeine and I stopped drinking milk because that turned out to be bad for me as well, even though it's meant to be good for you.Similarly, I have been ignoring all things that tell me what over or underweight is.
I'm still alive and so is my wife.
She is, apparently, 'morbidly obese', but she looks a perfectly normal shape to me.
I am overweight, apparently, but I look quite thin.And now!
And now these bloody scientists have turned around and told us that "slightly overweight" is better for us than "normal weight"!
By what measure, then, is "normal"?
It's certainly not average, because most people I know are overweight, and, as a previous poster has said, even healthy people who go to the gym and bike every day are "overweight".Perhaps those people who give false targets to people by printing pictures of photoshopped buff people in crappy magazines are in cahoots with the scientists, who have lowered the bar for 'normal' weight from 'healthy' to 'a bit too thin'.Strikes me that if slightly overweight is healthier than normal weight than slightly overweight IS normal weight and normal weight is unhealthily thin.Of course I am not going to believe any of my own logic here: it merely amuses me to point out logical inconsistencies when people are talking absolute bollocks.
I'm sure there are dangerous levels of weight that can cause people to die prematurely but I am equally sure that there are many other factors involved that will shorten someone's life, such as how strong their heart is, how much shit they eat, and how often they get run over by buses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28526679</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>rant64</author>
	<datestamp>1246368720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woops. Intended to mod insightful. Does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. have a CLI? I hate clicking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woops .
Intended to mod insightful .
Does / .
have a CLI ?
I hate clicking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woops.
Intended to mod insightful.
Does /.
have a CLI?
I hate clicking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519701</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe. Although a 6 foot male with a BMI of 30 would need to have 35 pounds of additional muscle that a 6 foot male with a BMI of 25 did not have, with the lighter guy weighing about 183 pounds.</p><p>Think about 35 pounds from the grocery store and whether you think a lot of fit people are walking around with that much extra meat strapped to their body.</p><p>(I say this as someone who thinks they are reasonably healthy with a BMI of 28, but that could also obviously lose 15 pounds)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
Although a 6 foot male with a BMI of 30 would need to have 35 pounds of additional muscle that a 6 foot male with a BMI of 25 did not have , with the lighter guy weighing about 183 pounds.Think about 35 pounds from the grocery store and whether you think a lot of fit people are walking around with that much extra meat strapped to their body .
( I say this as someone who thinks they are reasonably healthy with a BMI of 28 , but that could also obviously lose 15 pounds )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
Although a 6 foot male with a BMI of 30 would need to have 35 pounds of additional muscle that a 6 foot male with a BMI of 25 did not have, with the lighter guy weighing about 183 pounds.Think about 35 pounds from the grocery store and whether you think a lot of fit people are walking around with that much extra meat strapped to their body.
(I say this as someone who thinks they are reasonably healthy with a BMI of 28, but that could also obviously lose 15 pounds)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>BMI is a heuristic. If you follow it slavishly, you'll paint yourself into a corner case.<br> <br>
However, given the current Body Builder/All American Lardass ratio, and the fact that BMI's failure in high muscle scenarios isn't exactly a secret, I suspect we'll muddle through somehow. It is a pity that more precise measurements aren't cheaper to make.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is a heuristic .
If you follow it slavishly , you 'll paint yourself into a corner case .
However , given the current Body Builder/All American Lardass ratio , and the fact that BMI 's failure in high muscle scenarios is n't exactly a secret , I suspect we 'll muddle through somehow .
It is a pity that more precise measurements are n't cheaper to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is a heuristic.
If you follow it slavishly, you'll paint yourself into a corner case.
However, given the current Body Builder/All American Lardass ratio, and the fact that BMI's failure in high muscle scenarios isn't exactly a secret, I suspect we'll muddle through somehow.
It is a pity that more precise measurements aren't cheaper to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519469</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "ideal" BMI is decided by cultural fashion.</p><p>The right BMI in N.America &amp; Northern Europe is actually considered malnourished by a lot of other people.</p><p>A BMI of 20 is ill.  A BMI of 26 is not borderline anorexic.</p><p>I have a BMI of 36 and agree that loosing some weight would be a good thing.  Getting it down to 24.9 would not only be difficult, it would also be seriously stupid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " ideal " BMI is decided by cultural fashion.The right BMI in N.America &amp; Northern Europe is actually considered malnourished by a lot of other people.A BMI of 20 is ill. A BMI of 26 is not borderline anorexic.I have a BMI of 36 and agree that loosing some weight would be a good thing .
Getting it down to 24.9 would not only be difficult , it would also be seriously stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "ideal" BMI is decided by cultural fashion.The right BMI in N.America &amp; Northern Europe is actually considered malnourished by a lot of other people.A BMI of 20 is ill.  A BMI of 26 is not borderline anorexic.I have a BMI of 36 and agree that loosing some weight would be a good thing.
Getting it down to 24.9 would not only be difficult, it would also be seriously stupid!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518981</id>
	<title>The phrasing is a bit imprecise</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1246267140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I checked, 100\% of people die (Dick Clark excluded, of course), regardless of if you're underweight or overweight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , 100 \ % of people die ( Dick Clark excluded , of course ) , regardless of if you 're underweight or overweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, 100\% of people die (Dick Clark excluded, of course), regardless of if you're underweight or overweight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519455</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much a secret superhero.  I'm simply not fat by virtue of falling into the "98-pound weakling" stereotype... albeit at 140 pounds (and 6 feet tall).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much a secret superhero .
I 'm simply not fat by virtue of falling into the " 98-pound weakling " stereotype... albeit at 140 pounds ( and 6 feet tall ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much a secret superhero.
I'm simply not fat by virtue of falling into the "98-pound weakling" stereotype... albeit at 140 pounds (and 6 feet tall).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525101</id>
	<title>I could have got first post</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1246392720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I decided to get myself a four-cheese pizza first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I decided to get myself a four-cheese pizza first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I decided to get myself a four-cheese pizza first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519531</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246269000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how do you know which is which? The BMI is not meant to be used in the fashion that you're suggesting, percent body fat is. While percent body fat isn't the end all be all, it is a fair measure, and it does a pretty damn fine job of it too.<br> <br>

Unfortunately neither one does a good job of separating visceral fat from subcutaneous fat, and that's more important than being a bit chubby. I do carry a fair bit of fat, but very little of it is visceral, and I'm still within about 5lbs of what's ideal for a person of my build.<br> <br>

The BMI demanded weight of about 170 would definitely be detrimental to my health. BTW, last time I weighed myself I was roughly 189 and 5' 10.5, I don't feel well when I have gotten down under 180.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how do you know which is which ?
The BMI is not meant to be used in the fashion that you 're suggesting , percent body fat is .
While percent body fat is n't the end all be all , it is a fair measure , and it does a pretty damn fine job of it too .
Unfortunately neither one does a good job of separating visceral fat from subcutaneous fat , and that 's more important than being a bit chubby .
I do carry a fair bit of fat , but very little of it is visceral , and I 'm still within about 5lbs of what 's ideal for a person of my build .
The BMI demanded weight of about 170 would definitely be detrimental to my health .
BTW , last time I weighed myself I was roughly 189 and 5 ' 10.5 , I do n't feel well when I have gotten down under 180 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how do you know which is which?
The BMI is not meant to be used in the fashion that you're suggesting, percent body fat is.
While percent body fat isn't the end all be all, it is a fair measure, and it does a pretty damn fine job of it too.
Unfortunately neither one does a good job of separating visceral fat from subcutaneous fat, and that's more important than being a bit chubby.
I do carry a fair bit of fat, but very little of it is visceral, and I'm still within about 5lbs of what's ideal for a person of my build.
The BMI demanded weight of about 170 would definitely be detrimental to my health.
BTW, last time I weighed myself I was roughly 189 and 5' 10.5, I don't feel well when I have gotten down under 180.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525537</id>
	<title>There is hope yet</title>
	<author>WhyMeWorry</author>
	<datestamp>1246354740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary,<p><div class="quote"><p>The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.</p></div><p>Hey, I am ten pounds overweight. Does that mean that I have a chance to live forever?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary,The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die , and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.Hey , I am ten pounds overweight .
Does that mean that I have a chance to live forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary,The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.Hey, I am ten pounds overweight.
Does that mean that I have a chance to live forever?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518661</id>
	<title>First they came...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They came first for the smokers, And I didn&#226;(TM)t speak up because I wasn&#226;(TM)t a smoker;</p><p>And then they came for the under weight, And I didn&#226;(TM)t speak up because I wasn&#226;(TM)t under weight;</p><p>And then they came for the obese, And I didn&#226;(TM)t speak up because I wasn&#226;(TM)t obese;</p><p>And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They came first for the smokers , And I didn   ( TM ) t speak up because I wasn   ( TM ) t a smoker ; And then they came for the under weight , And I didn   ( TM ) t speak up because I wasn   ( TM ) t under weight ; And then they came for the obese , And I didn   ( TM ) t speak up because I wasn   ( TM ) t obese ; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They came first for the smokers, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a smoker;And then they came for the under weight, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t under weight;And then they came for the obese, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t obese;And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>matt4077</author>
	<datestamp>1246266840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure you're feeling really smart now, having repeated the endless slashdot correlation does not prove causation meme. It's so great that every 14 year old slashdotter seems to know more about statistics than scientists do.</p><p>You're even closer to your "best of slashdot" award by not even reading the summary, or not knowing what "corrected for physical activity" means. But beware: the hundreds of "BMI is stupid because I'm not fat/It's all muscle/my bones are heavy" commenters are on your heels. It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat. But maybe, just maybe, all the geeks here are secret superheros.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you 're feeling really smart now , having repeated the endless slashdot correlation does not prove causation meme .
It 's so great that every 14 year old slashdotter seems to know more about statistics than scientists do.You 're even closer to your " best of slashdot " award by not even reading the summary , or not knowing what " corrected for physical activity " means .
But beware : the hundreds of " BMI is stupid because I 'm not fat/It 's all muscle/my bones are heavy " commenters are on your heels .
It 's surprising that there 's not a single really overweight person commenting here , considering that 90 \ % of overweight ( by BMI ) are simply fat .
But maybe , just maybe , all the geeks here are secret superheros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you're feeling really smart now, having repeated the endless slashdot correlation does not prove causation meme.
It's so great that every 14 year old slashdotter seems to know more about statistics than scientists do.You're even closer to your "best of slashdot" award by not even reading the summary, or not knowing what "corrected for physical activity" means.
But beware: the hundreds of "BMI is stupid because I'm not fat/It's all muscle/my bones are heavy" commenters are on your heels.
It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.
But maybe, just maybe, all the geeks here are secret superheros.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522373</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1246282260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar studies have been done in the US and Norway (that I know of) with the same results.  Really all the wieght loss/life span studies should have shown this, but until recently they weren't separating people who are 30 pounds overwieght (and quite healthy) from people who are 100 pounds overweight.</p><p>Though I take exception to the idea that slightly overweight is healthier.  What we should really be doing is redefining what it means to be overweight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar studies have been done in the US and Norway ( that I know of ) with the same results .
Really all the wieght loss/life span studies should have shown this , but until recently they were n't separating people who are 30 pounds overwieght ( and quite healthy ) from people who are 100 pounds overweight.Though I take exception to the idea that slightly overweight is healthier .
What we should really be doing is redefining what it means to be overweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar studies have been done in the US and Norway (that I know of) with the same results.
Really all the wieght loss/life span studies should have shown this, but until recently they weren't separating people who are 30 pounds overwieght (and quite healthy) from people who are 100 pounds overweight.Though I take exception to the idea that slightly overweight is healthier.
What we should really be doing is redefining what it means to be overweight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519929</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair."  Would you be willing to fund a study to test this theory,  if so I would like to be the first volunteer since I am currently doing my best to an unfunded version of that particular study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as you had food , water , and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair .
" Would you be willing to fund a study to test this theory , if so I would like to be the first volunteer since I am currently doing my best to an unfunded version of that particular study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.
"  Would you be willing to fund a study to test this theory,  if so I would like to be the first volunteer since I am currently doing my best to an unfunded version of that particular study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518833</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. BMI is HORRIBLE for determining anything. It says nothing of composition.</p><p>Ever since I started lifting weights 10 years ago, I went from underweight to obese on the BMI scale..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
BMI is HORRIBLE for determining anything .
It says nothing of composition.Ever since I started lifting weights 10 years ago , I went from underweight to obese on the BMI scale. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
BMI is HORRIBLE for determining anything.
It says nothing of composition.Ever since I started lifting weights 10 years ago, I went from underweight to obese on the BMI scale..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521425</id>
	<title>Re:Results don't surprise me.</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1246277460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can be pretty sure that our sense of attractiveness is very keen on detecting evolutionary fitness. But once we're past our reproductive years it is probably off like much else that's evolution driven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can be pretty sure that our sense of attractiveness is very keen on detecting evolutionary fitness .
But once we 're past our reproductive years it is probably off like much else that 's evolution driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can be pretty sure that our sense of attractiveness is very keen on detecting evolutionary fitness.
But once we're past our reproductive years it is probably off like much else that's evolution driven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520917</id>
	<title>serious?</title>
	<author>gintoki</author>
	<datestamp>1246274700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>wow...i was not aware that upto 24.9 bmi meant normal weight. Im 22.3 and 12.4\% body fat and  i think i could do with losing 2-3 kilos so i dunno how it works out. I don't trust the BMI thing cuz its too inaccurate. One of my friends is tall and very muscular. Due to this his BMI works out to be 31 which would mean that he is obese. BMI really can't be used cuz it does not account for the percentage of fat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow...i was not aware that upto 24.9 bmi meant normal weight .
Im 22.3 and 12.4 \ % body fat and i think i could do with losing 2-3 kilos so i dunno how it works out .
I do n't trust the BMI thing cuz its too inaccurate .
One of my friends is tall and very muscular .
Due to this his BMI works out to be 31 which would mean that he is obese .
BMI really ca n't be used cuz it does not account for the percentage of fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow...i was not aware that upto 24.9 bmi meant normal weight.
Im 22.3 and 12.4\% body fat and  i think i could do with losing 2-3 kilos so i dunno how it works out.
I don't trust the BMI thing cuz its too inaccurate.
One of my friends is tall and very muscular.
Due to this his BMI works out to be 31 which would mean that he is obese.
BMI really can't be used cuz it does not account for the percentage of fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523135</id>
	<title>Re:They're asking the wrong questions, as usual.</title>
	<author>changedx</author>
	<datestamp>1246287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002."
<br>
<a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm" title="about.com" rel="nofollow">http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm</a> [about.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Meanwhile , the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002 , while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002 .
" http : //usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm [ about.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.
"

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm [about.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519231</id>
	<title>So many Faults</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1246267980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is extremely flawed using the BMI, I have played football most my life and now play Rugby. I work out every day so my BMI says I am obese when in reality I'm just muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat, that's a fact. I would love to see the doctors and scientists who did this study. I they probably are all overweight slobs. This is just another flawed perspective that is fattening America...it like a few years back when some doctor said that being fat was a disease. PUT THE FORK DOWN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is extremely flawed using the BMI , I have played football most my life and now play Rugby .
I work out every day so my BMI says I am obese when in reality I 'm just muscle .
Muscle weighs more than fat , that 's a fact .
I would love to see the doctors and scientists who did this study .
I they probably are all overweight slobs .
This is just another flawed perspective that is fattening America...it like a few years back when some doctor said that being fat was a disease .
PUT THE FORK DOWN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is extremely flawed using the BMI, I have played football most my life and now play Rugby.
I work out every day so my BMI says I am obese when in reality I'm just muscle.
Muscle weighs more than fat, that's a fact.
I would love to see the doctors and scientists who did this study.
I they probably are all overweight slobs.
This is just another flawed perspective that is fattening America...it like a few years back when some doctor said that being fat was a disease.
PUT THE FORK DOWN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518853</id>
	<title>Yeah, it's true</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246266600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who has been extremely underweight (body fat percentage down to 3.4\%),  50 pounds overweight, and also a track runner in good shape, I can agree with this.  Underweight is by FAR the worse: you feel absolutely horrible because your body doesn't have the nutrients you need to rebuild your body and keep it in good shape.  It took me years to completely recover from that.  There is nothing worse than waking up in the morning and feeling just as bad as when you went to bed because your body hasn't been able to repair itself in the night.<br> <br>
If you are the exact weight you need to be, then you need to have a very well balanced diet, that includes all the nutrients you need in the proper proportions.  Otherwise, obviously, you are going to be missing a few nutrients you <em>need</em>.<br> <br>
If you are a little overweight, it's not nearly as hard to have a balanced diet:  you can have a higher percentage of carbohydrates and lower percentage of protein in your diet and still be ok, because you are eating more than you need of both.  It is more flexible and easier, even if less attractive.<br> <br>
And don't forget to eat broccoli.  You're going to have to eat a lot of beef and wheat and other foods to make up for the nutrients you are not getting in green vegetables.  That can put you far overweight, especially as you age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has been extremely underweight ( body fat percentage down to 3.4 \ % ) , 50 pounds overweight , and also a track runner in good shape , I can agree with this .
Underweight is by FAR the worse : you feel absolutely horrible because your body does n't have the nutrients you need to rebuild your body and keep it in good shape .
It took me years to completely recover from that .
There is nothing worse than waking up in the morning and feeling just as bad as when you went to bed because your body has n't been able to repair itself in the night .
If you are the exact weight you need to be , then you need to have a very well balanced diet , that includes all the nutrients you need in the proper proportions .
Otherwise , obviously , you are going to be missing a few nutrients you need .
If you are a little overweight , it 's not nearly as hard to have a balanced diet : you can have a higher percentage of carbohydrates and lower percentage of protein in your diet and still be ok , because you are eating more than you need of both .
It is more flexible and easier , even if less attractive .
And do n't forget to eat broccoli .
You 're going to have to eat a lot of beef and wheat and other foods to make up for the nutrients you are not getting in green vegetables .
That can put you far overweight , especially as you age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has been extremely underweight (body fat percentage down to 3.4\%),  50 pounds overweight, and also a track runner in good shape, I can agree with this.
Underweight is by FAR the worse: you feel absolutely horrible because your body doesn't have the nutrients you need to rebuild your body and keep it in good shape.
It took me years to completely recover from that.
There is nothing worse than waking up in the morning and feeling just as bad as when you went to bed because your body hasn't been able to repair itself in the night.
If you are the exact weight you need to be, then you need to have a very well balanced diet, that includes all the nutrients you need in the proper proportions.
Otherwise, obviously, you are going to be missing a few nutrients you need.
If you are a little overweight, it's not nearly as hard to have a balanced diet:  you can have a higher percentage of carbohydrates and lower percentage of protein in your diet and still be ok, because you are eating more than you need of both.
It is more flexible and easier, even if less attractive.
And don't forget to eat broccoli.
You're going to have to eat a lot of beef and wheat and other foods to make up for the nutrients you are not getting in green vegetables.
That can put you far overweight, especially as you age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522791</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246284660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed.  A case study like this - if confirmed in other studies - seems to indicate that maybe instead of these people being "slightly overweight", the metric used to determine "overweight" is flawed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
A case study like this - if confirmed in other studies - seems to indicate that maybe instead of these people being " slightly overweight " , the metric used to determine " overweight " is flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
A case study like this - if confirmed in other studies - seems to indicate that maybe instead of these people being "slightly overweight", the metric used to determine "overweight" is flawed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525169</id>
	<title>Well, then!  I'm set for life!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246393500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I stop doing 80 situps every morning.  If I had only known!  What a waste of time!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I stop doing 80 situps every morning .
If I had only known !
What a waste of time !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I stop doing 80 situps every morning.
If I had only known!
What a waste of time!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518623</id>
	<title>On top of my head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246309140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possible explanation,</p><p>There are three kind of people, normal eaters, under eaters and over eaters. Left unchecked, the first will become dangerously underweight, the second will remain normal, the third will become obese. Being slightly overweight may mean that one has a tendency to over eat but is concerned enough with one's health that one overcomes it. Therefore, the slightly overweight people are just health-conscious would be obese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possible explanation,There are three kind of people , normal eaters , under eaters and over eaters .
Left unchecked , the first will become dangerously underweight , the second will remain normal , the third will become obese .
Being slightly overweight may mean that one has a tendency to over eat but is concerned enough with one 's health that one overcomes it .
Therefore , the slightly overweight people are just health-conscious would be obese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possible explanation,There are three kind of people, normal eaters, under eaters and over eaters.
Left unchecked, the first will become dangerously underweight, the second will remain normal, the third will become obese.
Being slightly overweight may mean that one has a tendency to over eat but is concerned enough with one's health that one overcomes it.
Therefore, the slightly overweight people are just health-conscious would be obese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519991</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'll not dispute the fact that there are indeed a lot of overweight individuals lying to themselves, you're dead wrong about the requirements for building significant muscle mass.</p><p>With rare exception, the person spending 3 hours in the gym "pumping iron" is probably hurting his chances of getting ripped. Building muscle is primarily about progressive overload, rest, and proper nutrition. Maximum muscle volume gains typical require at least 48 hours of recovery time (1 day off).</p><p>Hypertrophy requires breakdown and repair. This requires moderate to heavy (not max) weights on multiple sets until failure. This first step results in breakdown. The next step will take care of itself so long as you&#226;(TM)re eating enough lean protein, getting enough sleep and NOT hitting the gym every single day to lift.</p><p>Following a pattern like the one above, it&#226;(TM)s pretty easy (though months of spending 5+ hours a week at the gym may not quality as easy for most I suppose) for the typical male to get a BMI rating that conflicts significantly with the level of leanness indicated by his body fat percentage. While examples such as Arnold in his body building days are extreme (sub 5\% body fat but &#226;oeobese&#226; by BMI standards), they do show clear flaws with the metric. A local personal trainer can give individuals truly interested in being healthier better metrics and educate them with the proper means of reaching their personal fitness goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'll not dispute the fact that there are indeed a lot of overweight individuals lying to themselves , you 're dead wrong about the requirements for building significant muscle mass.With rare exception , the person spending 3 hours in the gym " pumping iron " is probably hurting his chances of getting ripped .
Building muscle is primarily about progressive overload , rest , and proper nutrition .
Maximum muscle volume gains typical require at least 48 hours of recovery time ( 1 day off ) .Hypertrophy requires breakdown and repair .
This requires moderate to heavy ( not max ) weights on multiple sets until failure .
This first step results in breakdown .
The next step will take care of itself so long as you   ( TM ) re eating enough lean protein , getting enough sleep and NOT hitting the gym every single day to lift.Following a pattern like the one above , it   ( TM ) s pretty easy ( though months of spending 5 + hours a week at the gym may not quality as easy for most I suppose ) for the typical male to get a BMI rating that conflicts significantly with the level of leanness indicated by his body fat percentage .
While examples such as Arnold in his body building days are extreme ( sub 5 \ % body fat but   oeobese   by BMI standards ) , they do show clear flaws with the metric .
A local personal trainer can give individuals truly interested in being healthier better metrics and educate them with the proper means of reaching their personal fitness goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'll not dispute the fact that there are indeed a lot of overweight individuals lying to themselves, you're dead wrong about the requirements for building significant muscle mass.With rare exception, the person spending 3 hours in the gym "pumping iron" is probably hurting his chances of getting ripped.
Building muscle is primarily about progressive overload, rest, and proper nutrition.
Maximum muscle volume gains typical require at least 48 hours of recovery time (1 day off).Hypertrophy requires breakdown and repair.
This requires moderate to heavy (not max) weights on multiple sets until failure.
This first step results in breakdown.
The next step will take care of itself so long as youâ(TM)re eating enough lean protein, getting enough sleep and NOT hitting the gym every single day to lift.Following a pattern like the one above, itâ(TM)s pretty easy (though months of spending 5+ hours a week at the gym may not quality as easy for most I suppose) for the typical male to get a BMI rating that conflicts significantly with the level of leanness indicated by his body fat percentage.
While examples such as Arnold in his body building days are extreme (sub 5\% body fat but âoeobeseâ by BMI standards), they do show clear flaws with the metric.
A local personal trainer can give individuals truly interested in being healthier better metrics and educate them with the proper means of reaching their personal fitness goals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523929</id>
	<title>BMI is useful, but waist size is better for you</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1246293840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every storey on obesity, we get this argument. What I have learned:</p><ul><li>BMI is extremely useful for statistics, as it is easily measured consistently, and correlates well to body-fat and health.</li><li>The ideal measure is percentage body fat, but that is difficult and expensive.</li><li>Waist size is a better measure of health risk, but not so easy to measure consistently, so less good for statistics.</li></ul><p>An individual evaluating his own health should measure his waist, and just look in the mirror.<br>On a weigh-loss program, monitor your waist, as its the internal abdominal (visceral) fat thats the big problem.</p><p>Yes, you can have a BMI of 30, and not be fat. If your waist is less than 94cm (37") for a man, then great. But its unlikely.<br>Lots of people are strong with good aerobic fitness, but still at risk of heart disease etc from too much body fat.</p><p>The Australian government has been doing a TV campain, and has a good website:<br><a href="http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Home" title="measureup.gov.au">http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Home</a> [measureup.gov.au]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_obesity#Diagnosis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_obesity#Diagnosis</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every storey on obesity , we get this argument .
What I have learned : BMI is extremely useful for statistics , as it is easily measured consistently , and correlates well to body-fat and health.The ideal measure is percentage body fat , but that is difficult and expensive.Waist size is a better measure of health risk , but not so easy to measure consistently , so less good for statistics.An individual evaluating his own health should measure his waist , and just look in the mirror.On a weigh-loss program , monitor your waist , as its the internal abdominal ( visceral ) fat thats the big problem.Yes , you can have a BMI of 30 , and not be fat .
If your waist is less than 94cm ( 37 " ) for a man , then great .
But its unlikely.Lots of people are strong with good aerobic fitness , but still at risk of heart disease etc from too much body fat.The Australian government has been doing a TV campain , and has a good website : http : //www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Home [ measureup.gov.au ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central \ _obesity # Diagnosis [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every storey on obesity, we get this argument.
What I have learned:BMI is extremely useful for statistics, as it is easily measured consistently, and correlates well to body-fat and health.The ideal measure is percentage body fat, but that is difficult and expensive.Waist size is a better measure of health risk, but not so easy to measure consistently, so less good for statistics.An individual evaluating his own health should measure his waist, and just look in the mirror.On a weigh-loss program, monitor your waist, as its the internal abdominal (visceral) fat thats the big problem.Yes, you can have a BMI of 30, and not be fat.
If your waist is less than 94cm (37") for a man, then great.
But its unlikely.Lots of people are strong with good aerobic fitness, but still at risk of heart disease etc from too much body fat.The Australian government has been doing a TV campain, and has a good website:http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Home [measureup.gov.au]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_obesity#Diagnosis [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713</id>
	<title>No survivors</title>
	<author>ReinisFMF</author>
	<datestamp>1246266180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say everyone is 100\% likely to die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say everyone is 100 \ % likely to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say everyone is 100\% likely to die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519347</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1246268400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.</p></div><p>So how bad is it if I got winded reading this article?  It's tough to keep my head from slumping some days.  Gravity is so inconvenient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb , but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.So how bad is it if I got winded reading this article ?
It 's tough to keep my head from slumping some days .
Gravity is so inconvenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.So how bad is it if I got winded reading this article?
It's tough to keep my head from slumping some days.
Gravity is so inconvenient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520293</id>
	<title>Ha! That's no news.</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246271700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe most people didn't know, but I knew that for a long time now. That additional 10 pounds in fat for an adult male add more health and protect from a lot of viruses. And older you get, the more the upper limit is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
I am overweight bordering on obese. The last time I was seriously ill was in 2002.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe most people did n't know , but I knew that for a long time now .
That additional 10 pounds in fat for an adult male add more health and protect from a lot of viruses .
And older you get , the more the upper limit is : ) I am overweight bordering on obese .
The last time I was seriously ill was in 2002 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe most people didn't know, but I knew that for a long time now.
That additional 10 pounds in fat for an adult male add more health and protect from a lot of viruses.
And older you get, the more the upper limit is :)
I am overweight bordering on obese.
The last time I was seriously ill was in 2002.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519753</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1246269720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crossfit type workouts can give a good measure of several metrics, but it isn't exactly easy to quantify.</p><p>I think what you refer to in your example is less a case of measuring fitness than it is measuring performance in some extremely specialized circumstances where the difference between first and last isn't all that much. Lance Armstrong wasn't a great runner despite being a great cyclist, but he is probably far better than most other non-runners. Just like Robbie McEwen can't match Armstrong in the Alps but would crush him in the last 100 meters of the flats.</p><p>When I was in the USMC we did a lot of 'fitness' stuff and everyone was more or less in pretty good shape. When I went to sniper school there were some physical requirements that were different and others that were under more scrutiny. That made obvious what were previously undetectable differences. Two guys could finish a run side by side but one of them would be so taxed he couldn't steady his rifle, despite both having first class PT scores. After I was discharged I worked more on strength than anything else and when I got back into competitive shooting I immediately noticed the difference. Hard to say which constitutes 'fitter', benching 325 or being able to march all day with a full pack and a 16 lb rifle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crossfit type workouts can give a good measure of several metrics , but it is n't exactly easy to quantify.I think what you refer to in your example is less a case of measuring fitness than it is measuring performance in some extremely specialized circumstances where the difference between first and last is n't all that much .
Lance Armstrong was n't a great runner despite being a great cyclist , but he is probably far better than most other non-runners .
Just like Robbie McEwen ca n't match Armstrong in the Alps but would crush him in the last 100 meters of the flats.When I was in the USMC we did a lot of 'fitness ' stuff and everyone was more or less in pretty good shape .
When I went to sniper school there were some physical requirements that were different and others that were under more scrutiny .
That made obvious what were previously undetectable differences .
Two guys could finish a run side by side but one of them would be so taxed he could n't steady his rifle , despite both having first class PT scores .
After I was discharged I worked more on strength than anything else and when I got back into competitive shooting I immediately noticed the difference .
Hard to say which constitutes 'fitter ' , benching 325 or being able to march all day with a full pack and a 16 lb rifle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crossfit type workouts can give a good measure of several metrics, but it isn't exactly easy to quantify.I think what you refer to in your example is less a case of measuring fitness than it is measuring performance in some extremely specialized circumstances where the difference between first and last isn't all that much.
Lance Armstrong wasn't a great runner despite being a great cyclist, but he is probably far better than most other non-runners.
Just like Robbie McEwen can't match Armstrong in the Alps but would crush him in the last 100 meters of the flats.When I was in the USMC we did a lot of 'fitness' stuff and everyone was more or less in pretty good shape.
When I went to sniper school there were some physical requirements that were different and others that were under more scrutiny.
That made obvious what were previously undetectable differences.
Two guys could finish a run side by side but one of them would be so taxed he couldn't steady his rifle, despite both having first class PT scores.
After I was discharged I worked more on strength than anything else and when I got back into competitive shooting I immediately noticed the difference.
Hard to say which constitutes 'fitter', benching 325 or being able to march all day with a full pack and a 16 lb rifle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519081</id>
	<title>Something else to think about.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246267560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.</p><p>Just something to think about.</p></div><p>That's true. I'm in that category but only 5 lbs and with my doctor's input. Meaning, My ideal weight shouldn't be over 151, and she thinks that I should be more like 156ish - being within the charts was a little too lean for me.</p><p>OTH, I can't tell you how many guys I know with big guts who say that these studies prove that there's nothing wrong with them.</p><p>A little knowledge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.Just something to think about.That 's true .
I 'm in that category but only 5 lbs and with my doctor 's input .
Meaning , My ideal weight should n't be over 151 , and she thinks that I should be more like 156ish - being within the charts was a little too lean for me.OTH , I ca n't tell you how many guys I know with big guts who say that these studies prove that there 's nothing wrong with them.A little knowledge .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.Just something to think about.That's true.
I'm in that category but only 5 lbs and with my doctor's input.
Meaning, My ideal weight shouldn't be over 151, and she thinks that I should be more like 156ish - being within the charts was a little too lean for me.OTH, I can't tell you how many guys I know with big guts who say that these studies prove that there's nothing wrong with them.A little knowledge ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520459</id>
	<title>Important notice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not slightly overweight. In fact, if you would lay down on the beach, Greenpeace would drag you back to sea. So get yourself a proper meal instead of three super sized hamburgers and start jogging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not slightly overweight .
In fact , if you would lay down on the beach , Greenpeace would drag you back to sea .
So get yourself a proper meal instead of three super sized hamburgers and start jogging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not slightly overweight.
In fact, if you would lay down on the beach, Greenpeace would drag you back to sea.
So get yourself a proper meal instead of three super sized hamburgers and start jogging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525071</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1246392240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle. Just something to think about.</p><p>I'm 290 pounds, and 6'6", with a touch over 20\% body fat. With 0\% body fat, I'd weigh 230 pounds, which would give me an "overweight" BMI of 26.6. <i>At 0\% body fat.</i></p><p>It's a hideously broken metric and needs to go. Body fat percentage should be the main standard for calculating obesity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle .
Just something to think about.I 'm 290 pounds , and 6'6 " , with a touch over 20 \ % body fat .
With 0 \ % body fat , I 'd weigh 230 pounds , which would give me an " overweight " BMI of 26.6 .
At 0 \ % body fat.It 's a hideously broken metric and needs to go .
Body fat percentage should be the main standard for calculating obesity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle.
Just something to think about.I'm 290 pounds, and 6'6", with a touch over 20\% body fat.
With 0\% body fat, I'd weigh 230 pounds, which would give me an "overweight" BMI of 26.6.
At 0\% body fat.It's a hideously broken metric and needs to go.
Body fat percentage should be the main standard for calculating obesity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519777</id>
	<title>Corelation and causation ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe wealthiest people are usually in the slightly overweight bracket. As welthiest people are also usually the healthiest for a variety of reasons not related to their BMI,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Just an idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe wealthiest people are usually in the slightly overweight bracket .
As welthiest people are also usually the healthiest for a variety of reasons not related to their BMI , ... Just an idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe wealthiest people are usually in the slightly overweight bracket.
As welthiest people are also usually the healthiest for a variety of reasons not related to their BMI, ... Just an idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519025</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246267260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Body fat calculators are free, and correlate body weight to body type significantly better than BMI does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Body fat calculators are free , and correlate body weight to body type significantly better than BMI does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Body fat calculators are free, and correlate body weight to body type significantly better than BMI does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520233</id>
	<title>is this empirical?</title>
	<author>yascha</author>
	<datestamp>1246271400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find this hard to believe.<br>
Go to an old folks home and you will see that almost all of the residents have slim builds.<br>
(Presumably because the other body types have died)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this hard to believe .
Go to an old folks home and you will see that almost all of the residents have slim builds .
( Presumably because the other body types have died )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this hard to believe.
Go to an old folks home and you will see that almost all of the residents have slim builds.
(Presumably because the other body types have died)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518907</id>
	<title>And misinterpreation ensues...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246266840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification. See, the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits (or lots of drinking), inactivity or a combination of both.
<br> <br>
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight. It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories. What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.
<br> <br>
Intuitively, I agree with the point made here. From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations. Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.
<br> <br>
Oh well. Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification .
See , the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits ( or lots of drinking ) , inactivity or a combination of both .
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI , which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight .
It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal , but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories .
What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat , which correlates much better to a person 's weight .
Intuitively , I agree with the point made here .
From the little that I know about nutrition , I 've read that having some extra weight ( apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat ) helps the body function much better in everyday situations .
Should this reach mass media , I 'm almost positive that this , amongst other things , will be the excuse for those that do n't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices .
Oh well .
Mental masturbation never fails to relieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification.
See, the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits (or lots of drinking), inactivity or a combination of both.
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight.
It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories.
What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.
Intuitively, I agree with the point made here.
From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations.
Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.
Oh well.
Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519307</id>
	<title>Usually it leads to a larger coffin!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246268280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being overweight most certainly leads to a larger coffin or urn for ashes! Or, you end up feeding mama bear and the whole family whereas a scrawny human might only feed mama with a taste for the kids.

<a href="http://www.rebalance.com/" title="rebalance.com">Rebalance</a> [rebalance.com] your weight the only safe and real way - by burning more calories each day than you consume!

Look at it this way, being overweight gives you a more spacious box to not exist in after you're dead. Kinda like more space to not stretch your legs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being overweight most certainly leads to a larger coffin or urn for ashes !
Or , you end up feeding mama bear and the whole family whereas a scrawny human might only feed mama with a taste for the kids .
Rebalance [ rebalance.com ] your weight the only safe and real way - by burning more calories each day than you consume !
Look at it this way , being overweight gives you a more spacious box to not exist in after you 're dead .
Kinda like more space to not stretch your legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being overweight most certainly leads to a larger coffin or urn for ashes!
Or, you end up feeding mama bear and the whole family whereas a scrawny human might only feed mama with a taste for the kids.
Rebalance [rebalance.com] your weight the only safe and real way - by burning more calories each day than you consume!
Look at it this way, being overweight gives you a more spacious box to not exist in after you're dead.
Kinda like more space to not stretch your legs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518917</id>
	<title>Be careful about BMI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm serious, be very careful with BMI. I'm 5'9" at 185 pounds which would give me a BMI of about 27 making me technically overweight. However, I am a runner and go to the gym twice a week and have 11\% body fat making me below average as far as fat percentage is concerned. BMI is not always a good indicator of being overweight...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm serious , be very careful with BMI .
I 'm 5'9 " at 185 pounds which would give me a BMI of about 27 making me technically overweight .
However , I am a runner and go to the gym twice a week and have 11 \ % body fat making me below average as far as fat percentage is concerned .
BMI is not always a good indicator of being overweight.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm serious, be very careful with BMI.
I'm 5'9" at 185 pounds which would give me a BMI of about 27 making me technically overweight.
However, I am a runner and go to the gym twice a week and have 11\% body fat making me below average as far as fat percentage is concerned.
BMI is not always a good indicator of being overweight...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520087</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>JebusIsLord</author>
	<datestamp>1246270860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a populational average, BMI is a valid indicator of body fat percentage because the edge cases should cancel out. For individuals it is not.</p><p>They could do a study specifically on body builders though, and compare the results with this study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a populational average , BMI is a valid indicator of body fat percentage because the edge cases should cancel out .
For individuals it is not.They could do a study specifically on body builders though , and compare the results with this study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a populational average, BMI is a valid indicator of body fat percentage because the edge cases should cancel out.
For individuals it is not.They could do a study specifically on body builders though, and compare the results with this study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520179</id>
	<title>Maybe we're wrong? Normal isn't "Normal"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246271220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the way it sounds, maybe our definition of "Normal" isn't normal, and is infact underweight? Maybe those "Slightly obese" are actually "normal" in the BMI index?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the way it sounds , maybe our definition of " Normal " is n't normal , and is infact underweight ?
Maybe those " Slightly obese " are actually " normal " in the BMI index ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the way it sounds, maybe our definition of "Normal" isn't normal, and is infact underweight?
Maybe those "Slightly obese" are actually "normal" in the BMI index?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519887</id>
	<title>It's because they don't move much</title>
	<author>rudib</author>
	<datestamp>1246270200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, not exercising and participating in (dangerous) sports activities won't get you many injuries, now will it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/waiting for an operation for a fractured clavicle, cycling accident, BMI ~21<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , not exercising and participating in ( dangerous ) sports activities wo n't get you many injuries , now will it ?
/waiting for an operation for a fractured clavicle , cycling accident , BMI ~ 21 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, not exercising and participating in (dangerous) sports activities won't get you many injuries, now will it?
/waiting for an operation for a fractured clavicle, cycling accident, BMI ~21 :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520003</id>
	<title>More evidence BMI needs to be phased out</title>
	<author>WebCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246270560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This study seems to be mis-reported.  It isn't that being a bit overweight reduces mortality slightly--it is that the definition of "overweight" based upon an arbitrary number calculated using an incorrect formula called BMI is incorrect.</p><p>If studies are showing that people who have lower mortality and/or better health overall are in the wrong classification, it is time to re-define the classifications at the least, or overhaul the entire methodology.</p><p>First of all, BMI is such a flawed measure of health that it is not only useless it borders on harmful.  The formula itself makes no sense physically--it is a ratio of mass to SQUARE of height.  The SQUARE?  That rougly correlates to an area...hence the formula only makes sense if people are rougly the shape of a sheet of paper!  A more reasonable approximation would have us use the CUBE of our height.   Better yet, use the power of 2.5 as body shape varies with height in a similar fashion.  Even better, the heght^2 factor should be modified to (waist circumference)* (height^2) as it is clinically demonstrated that carrying mass about the waist causes increased health problems.</p><p>There are also assumptions that are made that many people don't fit into, making all statistics based on BMI invalid and discredited:</p><p>* the BMI standards indicating 25 and up is overweight assume a sedentary lifestyle.  Those who work in labour-intensive jobs (construction, farm labour, etc) or do weight training are likely to skew upwards.  Likewise active people who run marathons, or do cardio-intensive activities might skew downwards and report underweight even though they are in very good health.</p><p>* Becasue of the flawed formula to calulate BMI subjects it only demonstrates significant validity within a narrow height range--perhaps between 1.65m to 2m in height.  As such, children cannot be measured against the standard BMI scale (charts are used instead but even those are flawed).  Very tall people are also found to be mis-classified.</p><p>* 25 is an arbitrary cut-off with no clinical evidence conclusively justifying the overweight label.  This study suggests the limit should be raised if BMI continues being used as an indicator.  It is bewildering, but some suggest the number should be LOWERED--but that is mostly suggested in Asia where people tend to be shorter than the range where the normal standard works and the standards need adjusting.</p><p>By BMI I am 4kg away from being "clinically obese" yet by percentage body fat I am just inside the "physically fit" category most of the time (I vary between 15 to 20 percent fat depending on method used to estimate and time of year, etc--fair bit higher than "athelete" but in a healthy range).  I am health conscious but no means exceptionally different in build from a great many people, especially those raised in rural Canada as I was.  The BMI does loosely correlate with health problems, but becasue of how severely flawed it is it is dangerous to put too much credence in it, yet disturbingly BMI is too often abused:</p><p>* governments base health policies on BMI--public money is spent to combat obeisity as defined using this incorrect methodology</p><p>* insurance companies and so on base premiums in part on BMI.  Being falsely classified as obese could be costly.</p><p>* people, especially women, are always under pressure to lower weight to meet what is oftentimes an unrealistic goal.  Instead of focusing on health, there is a fixation on achieving an arbitrary look or number.  The BMI is all the more damaging because unlike Cosmo which is all image and no substance, BMI is preceived as a clinical measurement that indicates health.  There may be many weight consious people fixated on BMI when...FOR THEM...it may not be adviseable to worry about being "under 25" and instead just focus on a healthy diet and level of physical activity.</p><p>My thought is, as joking posted elsewhere in this discussion, that BMI is perpetuated by an large by the weight-loss industry.  If focus was put on actual health indicators--or at</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This study seems to be mis-reported .
It is n't that being a bit overweight reduces mortality slightly--it is that the definition of " overweight " based upon an arbitrary number calculated using an incorrect formula called BMI is incorrect.If studies are showing that people who have lower mortality and/or better health overall are in the wrong classification , it is time to re-define the classifications at the least , or overhaul the entire methodology.First of all , BMI is such a flawed measure of health that it is not only useless it borders on harmful .
The formula itself makes no sense physically--it is a ratio of mass to SQUARE of height .
The SQUARE ?
That rougly correlates to an area...hence the formula only makes sense if people are rougly the shape of a sheet of paper !
A more reasonable approximation would have us use the CUBE of our height .
Better yet , use the power of 2.5 as body shape varies with height in a similar fashion .
Even better , the heght ^ 2 factor should be modified to ( waist circumference ) * ( height ^ 2 ) as it is clinically demonstrated that carrying mass about the waist causes increased health problems.There are also assumptions that are made that many people do n't fit into , making all statistics based on BMI invalid and discredited : * the BMI standards indicating 25 and up is overweight assume a sedentary lifestyle .
Those who work in labour-intensive jobs ( construction , farm labour , etc ) or do weight training are likely to skew upwards .
Likewise active people who run marathons , or do cardio-intensive activities might skew downwards and report underweight even though they are in very good health .
* Becasue of the flawed formula to calulate BMI subjects it only demonstrates significant validity within a narrow height range--perhaps between 1.65m to 2m in height .
As such , children can not be measured against the standard BMI scale ( charts are used instead but even those are flawed ) .
Very tall people are also found to be mis-classified .
* 25 is an arbitrary cut-off with no clinical evidence conclusively justifying the overweight label .
This study suggests the limit should be raised if BMI continues being used as an indicator .
It is bewildering , but some suggest the number should be LOWERED--but that is mostly suggested in Asia where people tend to be shorter than the range where the normal standard works and the standards need adjusting.By BMI I am 4kg away from being " clinically obese " yet by percentage body fat I am just inside the " physically fit " category most of the time ( I vary between 15 to 20 percent fat depending on method used to estimate and time of year , etc--fair bit higher than " athelete " but in a healthy range ) .
I am health conscious but no means exceptionally different in build from a great many people , especially those raised in rural Canada as I was .
The BMI does loosely correlate with health problems , but becasue of how severely flawed it is it is dangerous to put too much credence in it , yet disturbingly BMI is too often abused : * governments base health policies on BMI--public money is spent to combat obeisity as defined using this incorrect methodology * insurance companies and so on base premiums in part on BMI .
Being falsely classified as obese could be costly .
* people , especially women , are always under pressure to lower weight to meet what is oftentimes an unrealistic goal .
Instead of focusing on health , there is a fixation on achieving an arbitrary look or number .
The BMI is all the more damaging because unlike Cosmo which is all image and no substance , BMI is preceived as a clinical measurement that indicates health .
There may be many weight consious people fixated on BMI when...FOR THEM...it may not be adviseable to worry about being " under 25 " and instead just focus on a healthy diet and level of physical activity.My thought is , as joking posted elsewhere in this discussion , that BMI is perpetuated by an large by the weight-loss industry .
If focus was put on actual health indicators--or at</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study seems to be mis-reported.
It isn't that being a bit overweight reduces mortality slightly--it is that the definition of "overweight" based upon an arbitrary number calculated using an incorrect formula called BMI is incorrect.If studies are showing that people who have lower mortality and/or better health overall are in the wrong classification, it is time to re-define the classifications at the least, or overhaul the entire methodology.First of all, BMI is such a flawed measure of health that it is not only useless it borders on harmful.
The formula itself makes no sense physically--it is a ratio of mass to SQUARE of height.
The SQUARE?
That rougly correlates to an area...hence the formula only makes sense if people are rougly the shape of a sheet of paper!
A more reasonable approximation would have us use the CUBE of our height.
Better yet, use the power of 2.5 as body shape varies with height in a similar fashion.
Even better, the heght^2 factor should be modified to (waist circumference)* (height^2) as it is clinically demonstrated that carrying mass about the waist causes increased health problems.There are also assumptions that are made that many people don't fit into, making all statistics based on BMI invalid and discredited:* the BMI standards indicating 25 and up is overweight assume a sedentary lifestyle.
Those who work in labour-intensive jobs (construction, farm labour, etc) or do weight training are likely to skew upwards.
Likewise active people who run marathons, or do cardio-intensive activities might skew downwards and report underweight even though they are in very good health.
* Becasue of the flawed formula to calulate BMI subjects it only demonstrates significant validity within a narrow height range--perhaps between 1.65m to 2m in height.
As such, children cannot be measured against the standard BMI scale (charts are used instead but even those are flawed).
Very tall people are also found to be mis-classified.
* 25 is an arbitrary cut-off with no clinical evidence conclusively justifying the overweight label.
This study suggests the limit should be raised if BMI continues being used as an indicator.
It is bewildering, but some suggest the number should be LOWERED--but that is mostly suggested in Asia where people tend to be shorter than the range where the normal standard works and the standards need adjusting.By BMI I am 4kg away from being "clinically obese" yet by percentage body fat I am just inside the "physically fit" category most of the time (I vary between 15 to 20 percent fat depending on method used to estimate and time of year, etc--fair bit higher than "athelete" but in a healthy range).
I am health conscious but no means exceptionally different in build from a great many people, especially those raised in rural Canada as I was.
The BMI does loosely correlate with health problems, but becasue of how severely flawed it is it is dangerous to put too much credence in it, yet disturbingly BMI is too often abused:* governments base health policies on BMI--public money is spent to combat obeisity as defined using this incorrect methodology* insurance companies and so on base premiums in part on BMI.
Being falsely classified as obese could be costly.
* people, especially women, are always under pressure to lower weight to meet what is oftentimes an unrealistic goal.
Instead of focusing on health, there is a fixation on achieving an arbitrary look or number.
The BMI is all the more damaging because unlike Cosmo which is all image and no substance, BMI is preceived as a clinical measurement that indicates health.
There may be many weight consious people fixated on BMI when...FOR THEM...it may not be adviseable to worry about being "under 25" and instead just focus on a healthy diet and level of physical activity.My thought is, as joking posted elsewhere in this discussion, that BMI is perpetuated by an large by the weight-loss industry.
If focus was put on actual health indicators--or at</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28533085</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1246392420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to reply this is no one else did. To many studies these days seem to like to play that board game in OfficeSpace, you know "Jump to Conclusions". Cause and Causation are too different things, and just because two variables are interrelated doesn't mean your conclusions are valid in any way. Studies like this have to be looked at carefully to see how well they make their leaps of conclusion. From the summary (and we all know how those can be) it does not look very promising.</p><p>As many pointed out BMI is almost worthless. It is too simplistic a model, and while it takes an average, I think the variance is so high as to make it far from practical to use for this kind of study. I am 5'10" and 200lb, considered almost obese which is a joke. Nor would I qualify myself as a "body builder" or an "Athlete". I am a pretty active healthy guy though, that could possibly lose a few (5-10) pounds.</p><p>Anyway that all aside, the first think that came to my mind, is when are they weighing these people and for how long. That seems like more of an indicator than anything else. This would have to be a fairly long term study to make the kind of assumption that they are making, and somehow I doubt that is the case. I think a fairly safe assumption is that there is a increased percentage of people that would lose a significant amount of weight before death. Depending on how sick they are this may alter the data considerably. Also I think it is also fairly easy to say with some confidence that for the most part, that more old people die. Along that line of thinking, near the end of ones lifespan, it could be that people get frail and lose the weight they may have had when they were in their prime. Along with that, not everyone maintains the same amount of weigh throughout his or her lifetime, which could also lead to statistical inconsistencies. This would indeed have to be a very through and intensive study to even gain a kernel of truth that may be used to post some sort of conclusion. It seems more likely that they are making assumptions upon assumptions, and using aggregated statistics to prove whatever they feel like proving that day.</p><p>Standard Slashdot Disclaimer: Did not RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to reply this is no one else did .
To many studies these days seem to like to play that board game in OfficeSpace , you know " Jump to Conclusions " .
Cause and Causation are too different things , and just because two variables are interrelated does n't mean your conclusions are valid in any way .
Studies like this have to be looked at carefully to see how well they make their leaps of conclusion .
From the summary ( and we all know how those can be ) it does not look very promising.As many pointed out BMI is almost worthless .
It is too simplistic a model , and while it takes an average , I think the variance is so high as to make it far from practical to use for this kind of study .
I am 5'10 " and 200lb , considered almost obese which is a joke .
Nor would I qualify myself as a " body builder " or an " Athlete " .
I am a pretty active healthy guy though , that could possibly lose a few ( 5-10 ) pounds.Anyway that all aside , the first think that came to my mind , is when are they weighing these people and for how long .
That seems like more of an indicator than anything else .
This would have to be a fairly long term study to make the kind of assumption that they are making , and somehow I doubt that is the case .
I think a fairly safe assumption is that there is a increased percentage of people that would lose a significant amount of weight before death .
Depending on how sick they are this may alter the data considerably .
Also I think it is also fairly easy to say with some confidence that for the most part , that more old people die .
Along that line of thinking , near the end of ones lifespan , it could be that people get frail and lose the weight they may have had when they were in their prime .
Along with that , not everyone maintains the same amount of weigh throughout his or her lifetime , which could also lead to statistical inconsistencies .
This would indeed have to be a very through and intensive study to even gain a kernel of truth that may be used to post some sort of conclusion .
It seems more likely that they are making assumptions upon assumptions , and using aggregated statistics to prove whatever they feel like proving that day.Standard Slashdot Disclaimer : Did not RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to reply this is no one else did.
To many studies these days seem to like to play that board game in OfficeSpace, you know "Jump to Conclusions".
Cause and Causation are too different things, and just because two variables are interrelated doesn't mean your conclusions are valid in any way.
Studies like this have to be looked at carefully to see how well they make their leaps of conclusion.
From the summary (and we all know how those can be) it does not look very promising.As many pointed out BMI is almost worthless.
It is too simplistic a model, and while it takes an average, I think the variance is so high as to make it far from practical to use for this kind of study.
I am 5'10" and 200lb, considered almost obese which is a joke.
Nor would I qualify myself as a "body builder" or an "Athlete".
I am a pretty active healthy guy though, that could possibly lose a few (5-10) pounds.Anyway that all aside, the first think that came to my mind, is when are they weighing these people and for how long.
That seems like more of an indicator than anything else.
This would have to be a fairly long term study to make the kind of assumption that they are making, and somehow I doubt that is the case.
I think a fairly safe assumption is that there is a increased percentage of people that would lose a significant amount of weight before death.
Depending on how sick they are this may alter the data considerably.
Also I think it is also fairly easy to say with some confidence that for the most part, that more old people die.
Along that line of thinking, near the end of ones lifespan, it could be that people get frail and lose the weight they may have had when they were in their prime.
Along with that, not everyone maintains the same amount of weigh throughout his or her lifetime, which could also lead to statistical inconsistencies.
This would indeed have to be a very through and intensive study to even gain a kernel of truth that may be used to post some sort of conclusion.
It seems more likely that they are making assumptions upon assumptions, and using aggregated statistics to prove whatever they feel like proving that day.Standard Slashdot Disclaimer: Did not RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519805</id>
	<title>They're asking the wrong questions, as usual.</title>
	<author>taustin</author>
	<datestamp>1246269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken. And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. Which is medically dangerous quackery.</p><p>The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training. It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs. When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.</p><p>The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998. You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n. All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.</p><p>Because, dammit! those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When your research indicated that overweight people live longer , what it 's really telling you is that your definition of " overweight " is broken .
And BMI is , indeed , seriously broken , since it does not take in to account age , build , or even sex .
BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight .
Which is medically dangerous quackery.The BMI formula was created by a mathematician , not a doctor or someone with medical training .
It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs .
When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity ( ~ 27.5 ) was n't selling enough weight loss prescriptions , they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998 .
You 'll never see a news article that says " Americans used to average # # # pounds in weight , and now they average # # # + n pounds , or even that the average BMI used to be # # and is now # # + n .
All you 'll ever see is " there are more overweight americans , with no explanation of how this is determined.Because , dammit !
those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken.
And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex.
BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight.
Which is medically dangerous quackery.The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training.
It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs.
When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998.
You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n.
All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.Because, dammit!
those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519159</id>
	<title>I am immortal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246267800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pass me those cheetos (please).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pass me those cheetos ( please ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pass me those cheetos (please).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521371</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246277100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But maybe, just maybe, all the geeks here are secret superheros.</p></div></blockquote><p>SHHHHH! That is supposed to be a secret!<br> <br>-Rotundo the Corpulent</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But maybe , just maybe , all the geeks here are secret superheros.SHHHHH !
That is supposed to be a secret !
-Rotundo the Corpulent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But maybe, just maybe, all the geeks here are secret superheros.SHHHHH!
That is supposed to be a secret!
-Rotundo the Corpulent
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523433</id>
	<title>Re:Which one is it?</title>
	<author>pyro\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1246289220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CR has been proven in over 200 species of animals, including monkeys.  The final results from human subjects will not be in for decades, but the initial tests (biomarkers) are in line with what would be expected if it were to work with humans.

<p>The bottom line from the CR point of view, is that the American/Western diet is so nutritionally inadequate that it takes a relatively large amount of food/calories to provide the satisfactory level of nutrients that the body requires.  That is to say, if you had a number of diets all containing the same level of nutrients, but with just different caloric content, the one who eats a rather low amount of calories, and accordingly had a low BMI, would live the longest.  This is the idea behind the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron\_diet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">CRON diet</a> [wikipedia.org] (Calorie Restriction Optimal Nutrition) -- satisfying your nutritional needs while reducing calories by eliminating non-nutritious calories and consuming only nutrient-rich foods.

</p><p>I will not make the case for CRON here, the research speaks for itself, and there are many resources for pursuing it online.  Just adding the CR view on this type of study, similar versions of which have been reported in other times and places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CR has been proven in over 200 species of animals , including monkeys .
The final results from human subjects will not be in for decades , but the initial tests ( biomarkers ) are in line with what would be expected if it were to work with humans .
The bottom line from the CR point of view , is that the American/Western diet is so nutritionally inadequate that it takes a relatively large amount of food/calories to provide the satisfactory level of nutrients that the body requires .
That is to say , if you had a number of diets all containing the same level of nutrients , but with just different caloric content , the one who eats a rather low amount of calories , and accordingly had a low BMI , would live the longest .
This is the idea behind the CRON diet [ wikipedia.org ] ( Calorie Restriction Optimal Nutrition ) -- satisfying your nutritional needs while reducing calories by eliminating non-nutritious calories and consuming only nutrient-rich foods .
I will not make the case for CRON here , the research speaks for itself , and there are many resources for pursuing it online .
Just adding the CR view on this type of study , similar versions of which have been reported in other times and places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CR has been proven in over 200 species of animals, including monkeys.
The final results from human subjects will not be in for decades, but the initial tests (biomarkers) are in line with what would be expected if it were to work with humans.
The bottom line from the CR point of view, is that the American/Western diet is so nutritionally inadequate that it takes a relatively large amount of food/calories to provide the satisfactory level of nutrients that the body requires.
That is to say, if you had a number of diets all containing the same level of nutrients, but with just different caloric content, the one who eats a rather low amount of calories, and accordingly had a low BMI, would live the longest.
This is the idea behind the CRON diet [wikipedia.org] (Calorie Restriction Optimal Nutrition) -- satisfying your nutritional needs while reducing calories by eliminating non-nutritious calories and consuming only nutrient-rich foods.
I will not make the case for CRON here, the research speaks for itself, and there are many resources for pursuing it online.
Just adding the CR view on this type of study, similar versions of which have been reported in other times and places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520541</id>
	<title>BMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people use BMI?  It was developed in the 1800's by a guy who didn't know anything about health, not to mention there are numerous articles on how there are many better methods to classify people's health in respect to weight.  I can't believe that people would design a study based on a poor classification system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people use BMI ?
It was developed in the 1800 's by a guy who did n't know anything about health , not to mention there are numerous articles on how there are many better methods to classify people 's health in respect to weight .
I ca n't believe that people would design a study based on a poor classification system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people use BMI?
It was developed in the 1800's by a guy who didn't know anything about health, not to mention there are numerous articles on how there are many better methods to classify people's health in respect to weight.
I can't believe that people would design a study based on a poor classification system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520579</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1246272900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.</i></p><p>That's why God made poutine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skinny , underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.That 's why God made poutine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.That's why God made poutine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518935</id>
	<title>Poor perspective.</title>
	<author>Jason1729</author>
	<datestamp>1246266960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They" say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than "normal" weight.  Perhaps the reality is "they've" defined normal a little too low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They " say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than " normal " weight .
Perhaps the reality is " they 've " defined normal a little too low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They" say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than "normal" weight.
Perhaps the reality is "they've" defined normal a little too low.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532917</id>
	<title>Did they control for sick people?</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1246391640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they did, I didn't see it in the article. The problem is that sometimes the causation factor runs the other way - being unhealthy causes you to lose weight. If you have, say, AIDS, tuberculosis, or certain cancers, the disease both causes body wasting, and makes you die sooner. This can skew the statistics - yes, these people are skinny and died younger than they should have, but the skinniness didn't cause the early death - instead, both were caused by the underlying disease. It's possible that if you controlled for that, that underweight people wouldn't show such a tendency to die young.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did , I did n't see it in the article .
The problem is that sometimes the causation factor runs the other way - being unhealthy causes you to lose weight .
If you have , say , AIDS , tuberculosis , or certain cancers , the disease both causes body wasting , and makes you die sooner .
This can skew the statistics - yes , these people are skinny and died younger than they should have , but the skinniness did n't cause the early death - instead , both were caused by the underlying disease .
It 's possible that if you controlled for that , that underweight people would n't show such a tendency to die young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they did, I didn't see it in the article.
The problem is that sometimes the causation factor runs the other way - being unhealthy causes you to lose weight.
If you have, say, AIDS, tuberculosis, or certain cancers, the disease both causes body wasting, and makes you die sooner.
This can skew the statistics - yes, these people are skinny and died younger than they should have, but the skinniness didn't cause the early death - instead, both were caused by the underlying disease.
It's possible that if you controlled for that, that underweight people wouldn't show such a tendency to die young.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518629</id>
	<title>Perceptive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always ahead. Been doing that for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always ahead .
Been doing that for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always ahead.
Been doing that for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522653</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246283820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Overweight people are at lower risk of dying from mountain climbing because they don't expose themselves to all that extra<br>"motion" that could get them killed.  Their bodies are being more efficient by not moving around so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Overweight people are at lower risk of dying from mountain climbing because they do n't expose themselves to all that extra " motion " that could get them killed .
Their bodies are being more efficient by not moving around so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overweight people are at lower risk of dying from mountain climbing because they don't expose themselves to all that extra"motion" that could get them killed.
Their bodies are being more efficient by not moving around so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521797</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>TwinkieStix</author>
	<datestamp>1246279260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with you, but for a different reason.  There is more information about the study in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/health/26weight.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">New York Times</a> [nytimes.com], but even accounting for smoking and other behaviors, there is a chance that what people are doing to get thin may be unhealthy in general.  In this case, doing less of that and getting a little chubbier may be healthier than starving yourself instead of exercising little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with you , but for a different reason .
There is more information about the study in the New York Times [ nytimes.com ] , but even accounting for smoking and other behaviors , there is a chance that what people are doing to get thin may be unhealthy in general .
In this case , doing less of that and getting a little chubbier may be healthier than starving yourself instead of exercising little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with you, but for a different reason.
There is more information about the study in the New York Times [nytimes.com], but even accounting for smoking and other behaviors, there is a chance that what people are doing to get thin may be unhealthy in general.
In this case, doing less of that and getting a little chubbier may be healthier than starving yourself instead of exercising little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523377</id>
	<title>Maybe a few pounds overweight isn't overweight</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1246288620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems more likely to me that our metrics for healthy weight are wrong. If a few pounds more increases lifespan than a few pounds more is what we need our charts to read as healthy weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems more likely to me that our metrics for healthy weight are wrong .
If a few pounds more increases lifespan than a few pounds more is what we need our charts to read as healthy weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems more likely to me that our metrics for healthy weight are wrong.
If a few pounds more increases lifespan than a few pounds more is what we need our charts to read as healthy weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523453</id>
	<title>I Shouldn't Be Surprised</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1246289340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like even the folks who <i>wrote</i> TFA didn't read it. At the bottom, the link for "more information on weight" goes directly to a page about how to lose it. Okay, not directly: You have to choose your geographic region (I assume this is because of different levels of gravity at various altitudes and latitudes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like even the folks who wrote TFA did n't read it .
At the bottom , the link for " more information on weight " goes directly to a page about how to lose it .
Okay , not directly : You have to choose your geographic region ( I assume this is because of different levels of gravity at various altitudes and latitudes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like even the folks who wrote TFA didn't read it.
At the bottom, the link for "more information on weight" goes directly to a page about how to lose it.
Okay, not directly: You have to choose your geographic region (I assume this is because of different levels of gravity at various altitudes and latitudes).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519177</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246267860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ideal weight is pinned at Chuck Norris' weight.  Noob.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideal weight is pinned at Chuck Norris ' weight .
Noob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideal weight is pinned at Chuck Norris' weight.
Noob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521103</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246275600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  I went through that every time I'd go to the doctor's office.  They weigh me, measure my height, then the nurse shuffles in and without looking at me, starts to lecture me about overweight until I clear my throat and she looks at me.  At my highest, I'm at 15\% body fat (normal for me), at my lowest, 3\% (competition form).  Then she mumbles something about BMI isn't really accurate (duh) and shuffles out.</p><p>BMI is more than just a bad rule of thumb since it can produce not just inaccurate results but completely opposite results.  In Engineering we call that "disastrous".</p><p>The study should use measured body fat and aerobic fitness, at a minimum.</p><p>BMI is just plain stupid and should be discouraged.  What happens when companies use that to guide their decisions?  I get to sue for retirement money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I went through that every time I 'd go to the doctor 's office .
They weigh me , measure my height , then the nurse shuffles in and without looking at me , starts to lecture me about overweight until I clear my throat and she looks at me .
At my highest , I 'm at 15 \ % body fat ( normal for me ) , at my lowest , 3 \ % ( competition form ) .
Then she mumbles something about BMI is n't really accurate ( duh ) and shuffles out.BMI is more than just a bad rule of thumb since it can produce not just inaccurate results but completely opposite results .
In Engineering we call that " disastrous " .The study should use measured body fat and aerobic fitness , at a minimum.BMI is just plain stupid and should be discouraged .
What happens when companies use that to guide their decisions ?
I get to sue for retirement money : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I went through that every time I'd go to the doctor's office.
They weigh me, measure my height, then the nurse shuffles in and without looking at me, starts to lecture me about overweight until I clear my throat and she looks at me.
At my highest, I'm at 15\% body fat (normal for me), at my lowest, 3\% (competition form).
Then she mumbles something about BMI isn't really accurate (duh) and shuffles out.BMI is more than just a bad rule of thumb since it can produce not just inaccurate results but completely opposite results.
In Engineering we call that "disastrous".The study should use measured body fat and aerobic fitness, at a minimum.BMI is just plain stupid and should be discouraged.
What happens when companies use that to guide their decisions?
I get to sue for retirement money :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519653</id>
	<title>Stupid Interpretation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a stupid way to interpret the data... surely a more logical way to look at this would be to assume that how we are defining, "normal weight" is completely wrong and that "slightly overweight" is actually the correct, "normal weight".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a stupid way to interpret the data... surely a more logical way to look at this would be to assume that how we are defining , " normal weight " is completely wrong and that " slightly overweight " is actually the correct , " normal weight " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a stupid way to interpret the data... surely a more logical way to look at this would be to assume that how we are defining, "normal weight" is completely wrong and that "slightly overweight" is actually the correct, "normal weight".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520973</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is a Good Measure</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1246274940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit.  Let's see some references.  Next you'll be telling me that we should all be on low fat diets, because eating fat makes one fat.</p><p>Fat is better for running than muscle??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit .
Let 's see some references .
Next you 'll be telling me that we should all be on low fat diets , because eating fat makes one fat.Fat is better for running than muscle ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit.
Let's see some references.
Next you'll be telling me that we should all be on low fat diets, because eating fat makes one fat.Fat is better for running than muscle?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519241</id>
	<title>BMI is a bad measure.</title>
	<author>baldusi</author>
	<datestamp>1246268040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a big problem with the BMI. It's a quadratic aproximation to a cubic mesure. I.e. the body should be proportional to the cube of the height. But they approach by a square. I've seen that big people is always overweight according to BMI. I was training ice hockey four times per week, playing in two leagues, and I was in top condition. My actual weight was 96kg, but I was supposed to be 82kg according to the BMI.<br>I don't know why don't they use body fat percentage. May be because they don't want to invest in modern measuring technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big problem with the BMI .
It 's a quadratic aproximation to a cubic mesure .
I.e. the body should be proportional to the cube of the height .
But they approach by a square .
I 've seen that big people is always overweight according to BMI .
I was training ice hockey four times per week , playing in two leagues , and I was in top condition .
My actual weight was 96kg , but I was supposed to be 82kg according to the BMI.I do n't know why do n't they use body fat percentage .
May be because they do n't want to invest in modern measuring technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big problem with the BMI.
It's a quadratic aproximation to a cubic mesure.
I.e. the body should be proportional to the cube of the height.
But they approach by a square.
I've seen that big people is always overweight according to BMI.
I was training ice hockey four times per week, playing in two leagues, and I was in top condition.
My actual weight was 96kg, but I was supposed to be 82kg according to the BMI.I don't know why don't they use body fat percentage.
May be because they don't want to invest in modern measuring technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525869</id>
	<title>Percentages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given all these percentages there exists only one hard true fact - your 100\% likely to die...oh yes I forgot about the taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given all these percentages there exists only one hard true fact - your 100 \ % likely to die...oh yes I forgot about the taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given all these percentages there exists only one hard true fact - your 100\% likely to die...oh yes I forgot about the taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520503</id>
	<title>Population study?</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1246272540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that a huge danger of a population study like this is that they can't easily allow for things that *cause* people to be underweight.  For instance, many people with cancer will lose weight because of their disease (or because of chemo.)  So if you measure their weight, find it "below average" and then they die, it doesn't mean that the lower weight increased the death risk.  It means that the thing that killed them first caused weight loss.  That's going to make lower weight in general look riskier all the way up from underweight to overweight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that a huge danger of a population study like this is that they ca n't easily allow for things that * cause * people to be underweight .
For instance , many people with cancer will lose weight because of their disease ( or because of chemo .
) So if you measure their weight , find it " below average " and then they die , it does n't mean that the lower weight increased the death risk .
It means that the thing that killed them first caused weight loss .
That 's going to make lower weight in general look riskier all the way up from underweight to overweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that a huge danger of a population study like this is that they can't easily allow for things that *cause* people to be underweight.
For instance, many people with cancer will lose weight because of their disease (or because of chemo.
)  So if you measure their weight, find it "below average" and then they die, it doesn't mean that the lower weight increased the death risk.
It means that the thing that killed them first caused weight loss.
That's going to make lower weight in general look riskier all the way up from underweight to overweight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518807</id>
	<title>You know why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because slightly overweight people are happy. Puggy people can eat most foods and not feel overly guilty and at the same time enjoy not being overly criticized by society. I believe mental health and well being plays a much larger roll in overall health than what modern/western medicine believe it to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because slightly overweight people are happy .
Puggy people can eat most foods and not feel overly guilty and at the same time enjoy not being overly criticized by society .
I believe mental health and well being plays a much larger roll in overall health than what modern/western medicine believe it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because slightly overweight people are happy.
Puggy people can eat most foods and not feel overly guilty and at the same time enjoy not being overly criticized by society.
I believe mental health and well being plays a much larger roll in overall health than what modern/western medicine believe it to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518791</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ideal in this case means the least appalling to the opposite sex.

Duh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideal in this case means the least appalling to the opposite sex .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideal in this case means the least appalling to the opposite sex.
Duh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519251</id>
	<title>+1</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1246268100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BMI is completely inaccurate.  I'm been overweight according to BMI for the past 15 years, if I drop closer to the "normal" rating, people start asking if I'm sick or not eating enough.  If I was my "perfect BMI" weight, I'd be unhealthily scrawny.  As someone said above "bullshit measuring index."<br> <br>

If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time, you may as well throw BMI out the window.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is completely inaccurate .
I 'm been overweight according to BMI for the past 15 years , if I drop closer to the " normal " rating , people start asking if I 'm sick or not eating enough .
If I was my " perfect BMI " weight , I 'd be unhealthily scrawny .
As someone said above " bullshit measuring index .
" If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time , you may as well throw BMI out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is completely inaccurate.
I'm been overweight according to BMI for the past 15 years, if I drop closer to the "normal" rating, people start asking if I'm sick or not eating enough.
If I was my "perfect BMI" weight, I'd be unhealthily scrawny.
As someone said above "bullshit measuring index.
" 

If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time, you may as well throw BMI out the window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518873</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many good reasons to be skeptical of BMI (such as the fact that it basically ignores the fact that human bodies are, you know, three-dimensional) but I don't really think this is one of them.  Are there people who are "overweight" solely because they have lots of muscle?  Sure.  But there aren't really that many of them; most people have to work out two or three hours a day to get that kind of muscle.  There are a hell of a lot more people telling themselves, "I'm a <b>big guy</b>" (men) or "I'm <b>curvy</b>" (women) as a way of not acknowledging how out of shape they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many good reasons to be skeptical of BMI ( such as the fact that it basically ignores the fact that human bodies are , you know , three-dimensional ) but I do n't really think this is one of them .
Are there people who are " overweight " solely because they have lots of muscle ?
Sure. But there are n't really that many of them ; most people have to work out two or three hours a day to get that kind of muscle .
There are a hell of a lot more people telling themselves , " I 'm a big guy " ( men ) or " I 'm curvy " ( women ) as a way of not acknowledging how out of shape they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many good reasons to be skeptical of BMI (such as the fact that it basically ignores the fact that human bodies are, you know, three-dimensional) but I don't really think this is one of them.
Are there people who are "overweight" solely because they have lots of muscle?
Sure.  But there aren't really that many of them; most people have to work out two or three hours a day to get that kind of muscle.
There are a hell of a lot more people telling themselves, "I'm a big guy" (men) or "I'm curvy" (women) as a way of not acknowledging how out of shape they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532063</id>
	<title>Re:More likely to die.</title>
	<author>shrikel</author>
	<datestamp>1246388580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been estimated that 120 billion people have ever lived on the earth.  Since 6 billion of them are alive now,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Only 95\% of all humans EVER have died.  That means that just going by that statistic (and not its context), I have a 5\% chance of never dying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been estimated that 120 billion people have ever lived on the earth .
Since 6 billion of them are alive now , ...Only 95 \ % of all humans EVER have died .
That means that just going by that statistic ( and not its context ) , I have a 5 \ % chance of never dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been estimated that 120 billion people have ever lived on the earth.
Since 6 billion of them are alive now, ...Only 95\% of all humans EVER have died.
That means that just going by that statistic (and not its context), I have a 5\% chance of never dying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520617</id>
	<title>I feel a great disturbance</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1246273140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of hands are reaching for Big Macs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel a great disturbance in the force , as if millions of hands are reaching for Big Macs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of hands are reaching for Big Macs...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523109</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This study promotes laziness and neglects quality of life.  How can you compare being in peak physical condition and being able to climb to the top of Mount Everest or complete a 50 kilometer marathon in Death Valley and only living to the age of 60 to being slightly overweight spending the majority of your time in front of your computer playing video games and reading slashdot and living to 70?   One could argue that people who not overweight tend to make more risks and therefore do not live as long.  I hate studies based on corrlation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This study promotes laziness and neglects quality of life .
How can you compare being in peak physical condition and being able to climb to the top of Mount Everest or complete a 50 kilometer marathon in Death Valley and only living to the age of 60 to being slightly overweight spending the majority of your time in front of your computer playing video games and reading slashdot and living to 70 ?
One could argue that people who not overweight tend to make more risks and therefore do not live as long .
I hate studies based on corrlation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study promotes laziness and neglects quality of life.
How can you compare being in peak physical condition and being able to climb to the top of Mount Everest or complete a 50 kilometer marathon in Death Valley and only living to the age of 60 to being slightly overweight spending the majority of your time in front of your computer playing video games and reading slashdot and living to 70?
One could argue that people who not overweight tend to make more risks and therefore do not live as long.
I hate studies based on corrlation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518747</id>
	<title>Correlation Equals Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the 70\% knock for underweight counts deaths from starvation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the 70 \ % knock for underweight counts deaths from starvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the 70\% knock for underweight counts deaths from starvation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521377</id>
	<title>Re:more likely to die!</title>
	<author>Copperfield</author>
	<datestamp>1246277160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not exactly a new idea.</p><p>Generally it is understood that body fat is a bank for the body to help it through lean times. While in modern society there really isn't any such thing as a "lean time" unless you happen to be broke or lost in the woods, what is assumed is that having a moderate supply of fat stored will still help people through times of illness.</p><p>If you are sick and cant eat as much or as well during the period of illness, and you happen to be "overweight" your body has excess calories which it can feed on. This increases a person's survival ability. Thus a person with a bit of fat has some built in protection vs. someone with no fat... Well their bodies pretty much have to start feeding on muscle and organs as soon as they miss their first meal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not exactly a new idea.Generally it is understood that body fat is a bank for the body to help it through lean times .
While in modern society there really is n't any such thing as a " lean time " unless you happen to be broke or lost in the woods , what is assumed is that having a moderate supply of fat stored will still help people through times of illness.If you are sick and cant eat as much or as well during the period of illness , and you happen to be " overweight " your body has excess calories which it can feed on .
This increases a person 's survival ability .
Thus a person with a bit of fat has some built in protection vs. someone with no fat... Well their bodies pretty much have to start feeding on muscle and organs as soon as they miss their first meal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not exactly a new idea.Generally it is understood that body fat is a bank for the body to help it through lean times.
While in modern society there really isn't any such thing as a "lean time" unless you happen to be broke or lost in the woods, what is assumed is that having a moderate supply of fat stored will still help people through times of illness.If you are sick and cant eat as much or as well during the period of illness, and you happen to be "overweight" your body has excess calories which it can feed on.
This increases a person's survival ability.
Thus a person with a bit of fat has some built in protection vs. someone with no fat... Well their bodies pretty much have to start feeding on muscle and organs as soon as they miss their first meal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589</id>
	<title>Muscle Weighs more than Fat</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1246309080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BMI doesn't take into account fat vs muscle. It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs). Perhaps the effect they're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI does n't take into account fat vs muscle .
It 's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage ( possible , I 'm sure , but very difficult without drugs ) .
Perhaps the effect they 're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI doesn't take into account fat vs muscle.
It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs).
Perhaps the effect they're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521237</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authors controlled for physical activity.</p><p>It is right there in the summary.</p><p>(They may not have sufficiently controlled for it, but MY GOD - if it occurred to you in a few seconds, don't you think it occurred to a group of professional scientists who have spent several years on this study?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors controlled for physical activity.It is right there in the summary .
( They may not have sufficiently controlled for it , but MY GOD - if it occurred to you in a few seconds , do n't you think it occurred to a group of professional scientists who have spent several years on this study ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors controlled for physical activity.It is right there in the summary.
(They may not have sufficiently controlled for it, but MY GOD - if it occurred to you in a few seconds, don't you think it occurred to a group of professional scientists who have spent several years on this study?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528219</id>
	<title>Re:More likely to die.</title>
	<author>siriuskase</author>
	<datestamp>1246376400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not me.  I'm still here, in front of my computer, very much alive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not me .
I 'm still here , in front of my computer , very much alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not me.
I'm still here, in front of my computer, very much alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518883</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die"  did they also find the fountain of youth?  I'm pretty sure that humans have a 99.9999\% chance of dying taking into account the humans currently alive who still have a chance of finding that fountain of youth.  Its not the destination its the trip that truly matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die " did they also find the fountain of youth ?
I 'm pretty sure that humans have a 99.9999 \ % chance of dying taking into account the humans currently alive who still have a chance of finding that fountain of youth .
Its not the destination its the trip that truly matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die"  did they also find the fountain of youth?
I'm pretty sure that humans have a 99.9999\% chance of dying taking into account the humans currently alive who still have a chance of finding that fountain of youth.
Its not the destination its the trip that truly matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520809</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1246274160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.</i>
<br> <br>
Since you asked: I'm really overweight; BMI is bullshit. These two things are not related.
<br> <br>
The idea that body shape is irrelevant in determining "ideal" weight is somewhat bizarre.
<br> <br>
By the way, great job coming up with that 90\% figure - it's fun to make shit up, isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's surprising that there 's not a single really overweight person commenting here , considering that 90 \ % of overweight ( by BMI ) are simply fat .
Since you asked : I 'm really overweight ; BMI is bullshit .
These two things are not related .
The idea that body shape is irrelevant in determining " ideal " weight is somewhat bizarre .
By the way , great job coming up with that 90 \ % figure - it 's fun to make shit up , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90\% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.
Since you asked: I'm really overweight; BMI is bullshit.
These two things are not related.
The idea that body shape is irrelevant in determining "ideal" weight is somewhat bizarre.
By the way, great job coming up with that 90\% figure - it's fun to make shit up, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522465</id>
	<title>Maybe the definition of "overweight" is wrong</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1246282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean really, if some "extra" weight leads to longer life maybe it isn't extra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , if some " extra " weight leads to longer life maybe it is n't extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, if some "extra" weight leads to longer life maybe it isn't extra.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523219</id>
	<title>Article took physical activity into account</title>
	<author>Raul Acevedo</author>
	<datestamp>1246287780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The research took into account physical activity, as stated in both the Slashdot summary and the article itself.  This doesn't tell you exactly how much "high BMI due to muscle not fat" got taken into account, but it tells you it is at least partially, and probably significantly, taken into account since people with lots of muscle will usually also have a high level of physical activity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The research took into account physical activity , as stated in both the Slashdot summary and the article itself .
This does n't tell you exactly how much " high BMI due to muscle not fat " got taken into account , but it tells you it is at least partially , and probably significantly , taken into account since people with lots of muscle will usually also have a high level of physical activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The research took into account physical activity, as stated in both the Slashdot summary and the article itself.
This doesn't tell you exactly how much "high BMI due to muscle not fat" got taken into account, but it tells you it is at least partially, and probably significantly, taken into account since people with lots of muscle will usually also have a high level of physical activity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518663</id>
	<title>more likely to die!</title>
	<author>.orvp</author>
	<datestamp>1246266120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.</p></div><p>Wait... I'm confused... how is an underweight person 70 percent more likely to die than 100\% of people dying. This... does not add up!</p><p>Or perhaps it is better to be extremely obese so as to have a higher chance of being immortal than skinny people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die , and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.Wait... I 'm confused... how is an underweight person 70 percent more likely to die than 100 \ % of people dying .
This... does not add up ! Or perhaps it is better to be extremely obese so as to have a higher chance of being immortal than skinny people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.Wait... I'm confused... how is an underweight person 70 percent more likely to die than 100\% of people dying.
This... does not add up!Or perhaps it is better to be extremely obese so as to have a higher chance of being immortal than skinny people?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520361</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246271940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A professional cyclist would do very well on the "time to get winded running at a moderate pace test," even if he never runs. He'll have excellent cardiovascular health and overall muscle tone, which is what we're testing, even if the specific muscle groups that he uses for running aren't exceptional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A professional cyclist would do very well on the " time to get winded running at a moderate pace test , " even if he never runs .
He 'll have excellent cardiovascular health and overall muscle tone , which is what we 're testing , even if the specific muscle groups that he uses for running are n't exceptional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A professional cyclist would do very well on the "time to get winded running at a moderate pace test," even if he never runs.
He'll have excellent cardiovascular health and overall muscle tone, which is what we're testing, even if the specific muscle groups that he uses for running aren't exceptional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518913</id>
	<title>BMI should not be used</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BMI is worse than useless. BMI, or Body Mass Index, is essentially a glorified height-to-weight ratio. Sounds like exactly what needs to be measured, right? No. What if I told you I was 6'2" and 225 lbs? What do I look like? You have no idea. I could be pudgy and out of shape, or I could be muscular and ripped. Muscle adds bodyweight, just like fat. This means that BMI counts athletic people as overweight. Yes, it actually penalizes the people who are in the best shape. Now, I don't know to what degree this affects this particular study, but it's entirely possible that the individuals who are "slightly overweight" are actually just the individuals who exercise a little more than most and thus carry a little more muscle than average.</p><p>What's so frustrating is that everyone has known for years that BMI is not appropriate for, well, anything, and yet people continue to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI is worse than useless .
BMI , or Body Mass Index , is essentially a glorified height-to-weight ratio .
Sounds like exactly what needs to be measured , right ?
No. What if I told you I was 6'2 " and 225 lbs ?
What do I look like ?
You have no idea .
I could be pudgy and out of shape , or I could be muscular and ripped .
Muscle adds bodyweight , just like fat .
This means that BMI counts athletic people as overweight .
Yes , it actually penalizes the people who are in the best shape .
Now , I do n't know to what degree this affects this particular study , but it 's entirely possible that the individuals who are " slightly overweight " are actually just the individuals who exercise a little more than most and thus carry a little more muscle than average.What 's so frustrating is that everyone has known for years that BMI is not appropriate for , well , anything , and yet people continue to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI is worse than useless.
BMI, or Body Mass Index, is essentially a glorified height-to-weight ratio.
Sounds like exactly what needs to be measured, right?
No. What if I told you I was 6'2" and 225 lbs?
What do I look like?
You have no idea.
I could be pudgy and out of shape, or I could be muscular and ripped.
Muscle adds bodyweight, just like fat.
This means that BMI counts athletic people as overweight.
Yes, it actually penalizes the people who are in the best shape.
Now, I don't know to what degree this affects this particular study, but it's entirely possible that the individuals who are "slightly overweight" are actually just the individuals who exercise a little more than most and thus carry a little more muscle than average.What's so frustrating is that everyone has known for years that BMI is not appropriate for, well, anything, and yet people continue to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518763</id>
	<title>English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was, said Dr. David H. Feeny, a caveman, "Overweight was protective."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was , said Dr. David H. Feeny , a caveman , " Overweight was protective .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was, said Dr. David H. Feeny, a caveman, "Overweight was protective.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523953</id>
	<title>Re:BMI is worthless</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1246294080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a BMI of 17.6, I am 180cm tall and 57kg</p><p>I have a small frame, but can lift double my own weight at the gym (started going to gym specifically to gain weight, did not work). I also used to do medium distance running (6-10km).</p><p>I am now in the military, who also say I am underweight, but I pass all of their fitness tests just fine, and keep up with the other blokes. If I am unhealthy, then something is seroiusly wrong.</p><p>The BMI system while generally a good rule of thumb, is very flawed. Peoples body types vary significantly. Same thing on the opposite end of the scale with bodybuilders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a BMI of 17.6 , I am 180cm tall and 57kgI have a small frame , but can lift double my own weight at the gym ( started going to gym specifically to gain weight , did not work ) .
I also used to do medium distance running ( 6-10km ) .I am now in the military , who also say I am underweight , but I pass all of their fitness tests just fine , and keep up with the other blokes .
If I am unhealthy , then something is seroiusly wrong.The BMI system while generally a good rule of thumb , is very flawed .
Peoples body types vary significantly .
Same thing on the opposite end of the scale with bodybuilders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a BMI of 17.6, I am 180cm tall and 57kgI have a small frame, but can lift double my own weight at the gym (started going to gym specifically to gain weight, did not work).
I also used to do medium distance running (6-10km).I am now in the military, who also say I am underweight, but I pass all of their fitness tests just fine, and keep up with the other blokes.
If I am unhealthy, then something is seroiusly wrong.The BMI system while generally a good rule of thumb, is very flawed.
Peoples body types vary significantly.
Same thing on the opposite end of the scale with bodybuilders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520941</id>
	<title>Did they control for sickness? Alcohol studies...</title>
	<author>PatMcGee</author>
	<datestamp>1246274760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... showed a similar result, until they controlled for for that.<br> <br>

Teetotalers were on average somewhat more likely to die than people who had a few drinks each week. Sounds like the same thing. Until someone realized that there were two subgroups of teetotalers: lifetime teetotalers and former alcoholics. The former alcoholics had a history of drinking a lot, but currently drank nothing. When they split those two groups apart, the lifetime teetotalers were the healthiest group.<br> <br>

I'd bet that the same thing will eventually be found here. There are two subgroups within the normal weight group: those who have always been healthy as distinct from those who have 'normal' BMI because they have some other health problem that affected their weight</htmltext>
<tokenext>... showed a similar result , until they controlled for for that .
Teetotalers were on average somewhat more likely to die than people who had a few drinks each week .
Sounds like the same thing .
Until someone realized that there were two subgroups of teetotalers : lifetime teetotalers and former alcoholics .
The former alcoholics had a history of drinking a lot , but currently drank nothing .
When they split those two groups apart , the lifetime teetotalers were the healthiest group .
I 'd bet that the same thing will eventually be found here .
There are two subgroups within the normal weight group : those who have always been healthy as distinct from those who have 'normal ' BMI because they have some other health problem that affected their weight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... showed a similar result, until they controlled for for that.
Teetotalers were on average somewhat more likely to die than people who had a few drinks each week.
Sounds like the same thing.
Until someone realized that there were two subgroups of teetotalers: lifetime teetotalers and former alcoholics.
The former alcoholics had a history of drinking a lot, but currently drank nothing.
When they split those two groups apart, the lifetime teetotalers were the healthiest group.
I'd bet that the same thing will eventually be found here.
There are two subgroups within the normal weight group: those who have always been healthy as distinct from those who have 'normal' BMI because they have some other health problem that affected their weight</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522399</id>
	<title>Re:More likely to die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522227</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1246281480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its more likely that the slightly overweight are less likely to be involved in sports or other dangerous activities like sky diving or motor racing, or curding cad of which has claimed a fitter friend of mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its more likely that the slightly overweight are less likely to be involved in sports or other dangerous activities like sky diving or motor racing , or curding cad of which has claimed a fitter friend of mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its more likely that the slightly overweight are less likely to be involved in sports or other dangerous activities like sky diving or motor racing, or curding cad of which has claimed a fitter friend of mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518605</id>
	<title>Which one is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246309140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More calories or less?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie\_restriction" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie\_restriction</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More calories or less ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie \ _restriction [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More calories or less?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie\_restriction [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519659</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1246269420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know the feeling. When I started weight lifting I was 185lbs and now... I'm still 185lbs. However, the difference between before and after is night and day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the feeling .
When I started weight lifting I was 185lbs and now... I 'm still 185lbs .
However , the difference between before and after is night and day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the feeling.
When I started weight lifting I was 185lbs and now... I'm still 185lbs.
However, the difference between before and after is night and day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524831</id>
	<title>Cause and Effect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being severely underweight is usually a sign that you are sick, not that you are a lean mean fighting machine.  A correlation of underweight with high death rate proves<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... absolutely nothing about "healthy" weights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being severely underweight is usually a sign that you are sick , not that you are a lean mean fighting machine .
A correlation of underweight with high death rate proves ... absolutely nothing about " healthy " weights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being severely underweight is usually a sign that you are sick, not that you are a lean mean fighting machine.
A correlation of underweight with high death rate proves ... absolutely nothing about "healthy" weights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519893</id>
	<title>Re:BMI is a bad measure.</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246270200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know why don't they use body fat percentage. May be because they don't want to invest in modern measuring technology.</p></div><p>They use BMI because it's simple.  It takes effort to get a body fat percentage, either through calipers, electrical impetus, or submersion.  My body fat percentage is at 19\%, which at 41 is healthy, but I have a BMI of 30.1, so I'm obese. ???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why do n't they use body fat percentage .
May be because they do n't want to invest in modern measuring technology.They use BMI because it 's simple .
It takes effort to get a body fat percentage , either through calipers , electrical impetus , or submersion .
My body fat percentage is at 19 \ % , which at 41 is healthy , but I have a BMI of 30.1 , so I 'm obese .
? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why don't they use body fat percentage.
May be because they don't want to invest in modern measuring technology.They use BMI because it's simple.
It takes effort to get a body fat percentage, either through calipers, electrical impetus, or submersion.
My body fat percentage is at 19\%, which at 41 is healthy, but I have a BMI of 30.1, so I'm obese.
???
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518773</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no ideal weight range, only idea percentage of body fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no ideal weight range , only idea percentage of body fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no ideal weight range, only idea percentage of body fat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520815</id>
	<title>The authors controlled for factors such as ... sex</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1246274220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but the underweight-to-average people probably got far more sex with hotter people and had more fulfilling lives. They also escaped the worst illnesses of age. Weight is one of the last criterion people feel able to discriminate against. (Socio-economic factors are the other.) Unfortunately, while discrimination on other factors is falling, the discrimination on these are on the increase. (With obesity being cited in health insurance, global warming, etc)</p><p>The moment you start measuring life by longevity and not quality, you set yourself up for a disappointing life. There should be only three rules: 1) that your parents don't outlive you. 2) you live long enough for your kids (if any) to become adults 3) at any moment you should be happy with the life you lived if you were to die right then. This whole longevity thing doesn't make sense. You<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/will/ die sometime. Odds are you won't be able to when and the manner of your passing. So just enjoy live. Life is a terminal condition. Don't fear the inevitable, but prepare for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but the underweight-to-average people probably got far more sex with hotter people and had more fulfilling lives .
They also escaped the worst illnesses of age .
Weight is one of the last criterion people feel able to discriminate against .
( Socio-economic factors are the other .
) Unfortunately , while discrimination on other factors is falling , the discrimination on these are on the increase .
( With obesity being cited in health insurance , global warming , etc ) The moment you start measuring life by longevity and not quality , you set yourself up for a disappointing life .
There should be only three rules : 1 ) that your parents do n't outlive you .
2 ) you live long enough for your kids ( if any ) to become adults 3 ) at any moment you should be happy with the life you lived if you were to die right then .
This whole longevity thing does n't make sense .
You /will/ die sometime .
Odds are you wo n't be able to when and the manner of your passing .
So just enjoy live .
Life is a terminal condition .
Do n't fear the inevitable , but prepare for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but the underweight-to-average people probably got far more sex with hotter people and had more fulfilling lives.
They also escaped the worst illnesses of age.
Weight is one of the last criterion people feel able to discriminate against.
(Socio-economic factors are the other.
) Unfortunately, while discrimination on other factors is falling, the discrimination on these are on the increase.
(With obesity being cited in health insurance, global warming, etc)The moment you start measuring life by longevity and not quality, you set yourself up for a disappointing life.
There should be only three rules: 1) that your parents don't outlive you.
2) you live long enough for your kids (if any) to become adults 3) at any moment you should be happy with the life you lived if you were to die right then.
This whole longevity thing doesn't make sense.
You /will/ die sometime.
Odds are you won't be able to when and the manner of your passing.
So just enjoy live.
Life is a terminal condition.
Don't fear the inevitable, but prepare for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525913</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246359960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>] "... might be overweight - or they might have lots of muscle."
<br> <br>

Or they might just be taller/shorter than average.
<br> <br>
BMI only works if you're five foot nine. If you're outside of that 'range' it's junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>] " ... might be overweight - or they might have lots of muscle .
" Or they might just be taller/shorter than average .
BMI only works if you 're five foot nine .
If you 're outside of that 'range ' it 's junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>] "... might be overweight - or they might have lots of muscle.
"
 

Or they might just be taller/shorter than average.
BMI only works if you're five foot nine.
If you're outside of that 'range' it's junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520139</id>
	<title>I thought we already knew this</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1246271040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading a study like this something like 2 years ago.  I don't think this is a new idea at all.  As I recall, the conclusion of the one I read a while back was that people who are a little bit overweight tend to exercise more frequently than people who are at a normal weight in an effort to lose the extra weight, and the extra exercise gave them bonus health points.  Basically, by constantly wanting to lose that extra 10 lbs, you improve your cardiovascular health in a way that far outweighs the negative impacts of carrying an extra 10 lbs.</p><p>It makes sense to me that people who are obese don't see the same advantages, because I imagine there is very little interest or incentive in getting out to exercise when you have such a long road to fitness in front of you.  It also makes sense for obvious reasons that people who are naturally underweight or at a normal weight have less social pressure to get out and exercise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading a study like this something like 2 years ago .
I do n't think this is a new idea at all .
As I recall , the conclusion of the one I read a while back was that people who are a little bit overweight tend to exercise more frequently than people who are at a normal weight in an effort to lose the extra weight , and the extra exercise gave them bonus health points .
Basically , by constantly wanting to lose that extra 10 lbs , you improve your cardiovascular health in a way that far outweighs the negative impacts of carrying an extra 10 lbs.It makes sense to me that people who are obese do n't see the same advantages , because I imagine there is very little interest or incentive in getting out to exercise when you have such a long road to fitness in front of you .
It also makes sense for obvious reasons that people who are naturally underweight or at a normal weight have less social pressure to get out and exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading a study like this something like 2 years ago.
I don't think this is a new idea at all.
As I recall, the conclusion of the one I read a while back was that people who are a little bit overweight tend to exercise more frequently than people who are at a normal weight in an effort to lose the extra weight, and the extra exercise gave them bonus health points.
Basically, by constantly wanting to lose that extra 10 lbs, you improve your cardiovascular health in a way that far outweighs the negative impacts of carrying an extra 10 lbs.It makes sense to me that people who are obese don't see the same advantages, because I imagine there is very little interest or incentive in getting out to exercise when you have such a long road to fitness in front of you.
It also makes sense for obvious reasons that people who are naturally underweight or at a normal weight have less social pressure to get out and exercise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519993</id>
	<title>Re:But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246270560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know anything about Canada, but it seemed to me fellow patients that gained weight during chemo treatments did better than those that lost weight, once they started to get pretty thin they did not last too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know anything about Canada , but it seemed to me fellow patients that gained weight during chemo treatments did better than those that lost weight , once they started to get pretty thin they did not last too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know anything about Canada, but it seemed to me fellow patients that gained weight during chemo treatments did better than those that lost weight, once they started to get pretty thin they did not last too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519381</id>
	<title>Ha!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246268580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may live a little longer, fat ass, but you'd still be a fat ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may live a little longer , fat ass , but you 'd still be a fat ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may live a little longer, fat ass, but you'd still be a fat ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518879</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish they had analyzed body fat percentage, in addition to BMI. The two numbers together could yield much more specific information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish they had analyzed body fat percentage , in addition to BMI .
The two numbers together could yield much more specific information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish they had analyzed body fat percentage, in addition to BMI.
The two numbers together could yield much more specific information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518715</id>
	<title>BMI is a poor measurement tool for obesity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For example, I am 5'10" and typically weigh around 175 lbs. This gives me a BMI of 25.1 or slightly overweight.</p><p>But this is far from the case, as I'm an avid athlete (I've completed 4 marathons in less than 2 years), a healthy eater, and if you saw me you'd be hard-pressed to find where I carry any of this supposed extra weight, as I have a lean build and a low percentage of body fat, but a good deal of muscle.</p><p>I suspect this is the case with many of these so-called "slightly overweight" folks, they're actually in pretty good shape and have too much muscle which BMI does not account for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , I am 5'10 " and typically weigh around 175 lbs .
This gives me a BMI of 25.1 or slightly overweight.But this is far from the case , as I 'm an avid athlete ( I 've completed 4 marathons in less than 2 years ) , a healthy eater , and if you saw me you 'd be hard-pressed to find where I carry any of this supposed extra weight , as I have a lean build and a low percentage of body fat , but a good deal of muscle.I suspect this is the case with many of these so-called " slightly overweight " folks , they 're actually in pretty good shape and have too much muscle which BMI does not account for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, I am 5'10" and typically weigh around 175 lbs.
This gives me a BMI of 25.1 or slightly overweight.But this is far from the case, as I'm an avid athlete (I've completed 4 marathons in less than 2 years), a healthy eater, and if you saw me you'd be hard-pressed to find where I carry any of this supposed extra weight, as I have a lean build and a low percentage of body fat, but a good deal of muscle.I suspect this is the case with many of these so-called "slightly overweight" folks, they're actually in pretty good shape and have too much muscle which BMI does not account for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518639</id>
	<title>/.ers rejoice.</title>
	<author>grub</author>
	<datestamp>1246266000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Now if they come out with a study showing the radon gas in parents' basements make you live longer, we'll be an indestructable force!<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if they come out with a study showing the radon gas in parents ' basements make you live longer , we 'll be an indestructable force !
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if they come out with a study showing the radon gas in parents' basements make you live longer, we'll be an indestructable force!
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543</id>
	<title>But it's in CANADA</title>
	<author>gbulmash</author>
	<datestamp>1246308840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that makes me feel better about the batch of <a href="http://www.brainhandles.com/home-life/cooking-recipes/chocolate-cheese" title="brainhandles.com">chocolate cheese</a> [brainhandles.com] I whipped up this weekend and the fact that later in the week, I'm going to experiment with substituting it for ganache in a chocolate truffle recipe.<br> <br>

Of course, the study took place in Canada.  Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.  I'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation doesn't help as much.<br> <br>

Based on the study, I need to <a href="http://www.drop100pounds.com/" title="drop100pounds.com">lose 24 more pounds</a> [drop100pounds.com] to get my BMI into the 25-29.9 range that had the highest longevity and I'm currently in the same longevity range as normal weight people.  Woo hoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that makes me feel better about the batch of chocolate cheese [ brainhandles.com ] I whipped up this weekend and the fact that later in the week , I 'm going to experiment with substituting it for ganache in a chocolate truffle recipe .
Of course , the study took place in Canada .
Skinny , underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer .
I 'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation does n't help as much .
Based on the study , I need to lose 24 more pounds [ drop100pounds.com ] to get my BMI into the 25-29.9 range that had the highest longevity and I 'm currently in the same longevity range as normal weight people .
Woo hoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that makes me feel better about the batch of chocolate cheese [brainhandles.com] I whipped up this weekend and the fact that later in the week, I'm going to experiment with substituting it for ganache in a chocolate truffle recipe.
Of course, the study took place in Canada.
Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer.
I'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation doesn't help as much.
Based on the study, I need to lose 24 more pounds [drop100pounds.com] to get my BMI into the 25-29.9 range that had the highest longevity and I'm currently in the same longevity range as normal weight people.
Woo hoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755</id>
	<title>More likely to die.</title>
	<author>mtxf</author>
	<datestamp>1246269720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die</p></div></blockquote><p>That's nonsense.</p><p>Everyone dies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to dieThat 's nonsense.Everyone dies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to dieThat's nonsense.Everyone dies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1246267200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.</p></div><p>Yeah, if you like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedsore" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">bedsores</a> [wikipedia.org] on your ass!<br> <br>

There aren't enough details to decide but I could understand how being slightly overweight could be beneficial to women in particular. There's a reason why women like <a href="http://www.citizenarcane.com/files/2005/April/19/rubens\_three\_graces.jpg" title="citizenarcane.com" rel="nofollow">these</a> [citizenarcane.com] and <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Giorgione\_054.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikimedia.org] were considered the most attractive in antiquity. Chubby is coming back in style<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) <br> <br>

Even today many guys like me prefer chubby women - they're softer to cuddle with, they tend to have bigger and more plump breasts, they're curvature is accentuated and their plumpness makes them look "cuter", they're better-equipped to have healthy babies, and (in my experience) they have more orgasms. The homos out there are aware of the popularity of "bears".<br> <br>

I'm glad that the starving, anorexic "heroin-chic" fad is going out the door. One can be fit and comfortable without having to go hungry or be unattractively obese. Vanity, like eating, is unattractive in excess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you had food , water , and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.Yeah , if you like bedsores [ wikipedia.org ] on your ass !
There are n't enough details to decide but I could understand how being slightly overweight could be beneficial to women in particular .
There 's a reason why women like these [ citizenarcane.com ] and this [ wikimedia.org ] were considered the most attractive in antiquity .
Chubby is coming back in style ; ) Even today many guys like me prefer chubby women - they 're softer to cuddle with , they tend to have bigger and more plump breasts , they 're curvature is accentuated and their plumpness makes them look " cuter " , they 're better-equipped to have healthy babies , and ( in my experience ) they have more orgasms .
The homos out there are aware of the popularity of " bears " .
I 'm glad that the starving , anorexic " heroin-chic " fad is going out the door .
One can be fit and comfortable without having to go hungry or be unattractively obese .
Vanity , like eating , is unattractive in excess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.Yeah, if you like bedsores [wikipedia.org] on your ass!
There aren't enough details to decide but I could understand how being slightly overweight could be beneficial to women in particular.
There's a reason why women like these [citizenarcane.com] and this [wikimedia.org] were considered the most attractive in antiquity.
Chubby is coming back in style ;)  

Even today many guys like me prefer chubby women - they're softer to cuddle with, they tend to have bigger and more plump breasts, they're curvature is accentuated and their plumpness makes them look "cuter", they're better-equipped to have healthy babies, and (in my experience) they have more orgasms.
The homos out there are aware of the popularity of "bears".
I'm glad that the starving, anorexic "heroin-chic" fad is going out the door.
One can be fit and comfortable without having to go hungry or be unattractively obese.
Vanity, like eating, is unattractive in excess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519921</id>
	<title>More from Junk Food Science</title>
	<author>donberryman</author>
	<datestamp>1246270320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the middle-age spread had been proven to be not only normal, but beneficial.

Junk food science has a couple good articles on this study: <a href="http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html</a> [blogspot.com] and <a href="http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/paradoxes-compel-us-to-think-part-two.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/paradoxes-compel-us-to-think-part-two.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the middle-age spread had been proven to be not only normal , but beneficial .
Junk food science has a couple good articles on this study : http : //junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html [ blogspot.com ] and http : //junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/paradoxes-compel-us-to-think-part-two.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the middle-age spread had been proven to be not only normal, but beneficial.
Junk food science has a couple good articles on this study: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html [blogspot.com] and http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/paradoxes-compel-us-to-think-part-two.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519741</id>
	<title>Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1246269660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: "Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life"</p><p>. . . and most slashdotters recoiced!</p><p>Seriously though, I've been working out. Most people do not believe me but I'm 50 lbs overweight. I've tried atkins, I've tried restricted calorie diets, and so forth, all to no avail. I have adrenal gland problems (I have CAH so most of my fat is around the waist) and so I'm battling that, and usually wear sweaters in effort to hide the fat.</p><p>So, even though my schedule makes it very difficult, I joined a gym and now work out 3-4 days a week. I do 20 minutes to a half hour of cardio and then some weight training. I didn't do Curves because I think their method is stupid (rotate through machines - 10 minutes on $FOO machine, NEXT! 10 minutes on $bar machine, NEXT!) so I go to a really small gym with a fantastic personal trainer.  I haven't lost weight yet but have slimmed down quite a bit so I can only come to the conclusion that some of my hard-to-lose fat has been replaced by muscle.</p><p>Longer life or not, I do not want the extra weight. My goal is to get down to 10 lbs underweight like I was most of my life before my adrenal glands finally decided to go south.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : " Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life " .
. .
and most slashdotters recoiced ! Seriously though , I 've been working out .
Most people do not believe me but I 'm 50 lbs overweight .
I 've tried atkins , I 've tried restricted calorie diets , and so forth , all to no avail .
I have adrenal gland problems ( I have CAH so most of my fat is around the waist ) and so I 'm battling that , and usually wear sweaters in effort to hide the fat.So , even though my schedule makes it very difficult , I joined a gym and now work out 3-4 days a week .
I do 20 minutes to a half hour of cardio and then some weight training .
I did n't do Curves because I think their method is stupid ( rotate through machines - 10 minutes on $ FOO machine , NEXT !
10 minutes on $ bar machine , NEXT !
) so I go to a really small gym with a fantastic personal trainer .
I have n't lost weight yet but have slimmed down quite a bit so I can only come to the conclusion that some of my hard-to-lose fat has been replaced by muscle.Longer life or not , I do not want the extra weight .
My goal is to get down to 10 lbs underweight like I was most of my life before my adrenal glands finally decided to go south .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: "Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life".
. .
and most slashdotters recoiced!Seriously though, I've been working out.
Most people do not believe me but I'm 50 lbs overweight.
I've tried atkins, I've tried restricted calorie diets, and so forth, all to no avail.
I have adrenal gland problems (I have CAH so most of my fat is around the waist) and so I'm battling that, and usually wear sweaters in effort to hide the fat.So, even though my schedule makes it very difficult, I joined a gym and now work out 3-4 days a week.
I do 20 minutes to a half hour of cardio and then some weight training.
I didn't do Curves because I think their method is stupid (rotate through machines - 10 minutes on $FOO machine, NEXT!
10 minutes on $bar machine, NEXT!
) so I go to a really small gym with a fantastic personal trainer.
I haven't lost weight yet but have slimmed down quite a bit so I can only come to the conclusion that some of my hard-to-lose fat has been replaced by muscle.Longer life or not, I do not want the extra weight.
My goal is to get down to 10 lbs underweight like I was most of my life before my adrenal glands finally decided to go south.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521789</id>
	<title>Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246279200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you'll paint yourself into a corner case.</p></div></blockquote><p>Just as long as you don't nail yourself into ah coughin'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll paint yourself into a corner case.Just as long as you do n't nail yourself into ah coughin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll paint yourself into a corner case.Just as long as you don't nail yourself into ah coughin'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522109</id>
	<title>This type of finding has been caught before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These sorts of findings have been produced from historical studies as well, and in the past follow-ups have always shown that the reason for this discrepancy is that people tend to drop in weight as their health decays due to disease or chronic condition, often falling from the 'overweight/obese' slot into the ideal range as their condition progresses. Hitting the article and the original study, the author's seem to have failed to control for pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, autoimmune disease, or heart disease, despite the fact that these faults have been repeatedly highlighted in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These sorts of findings have been produced from historical studies as well , and in the past follow-ups have always shown that the reason for this discrepancy is that people tend to drop in weight as their health decays due to disease or chronic condition , often falling from the 'overweight/obese ' slot into the ideal range as their condition progresses .
Hitting the article and the original study , the author 's seem to have failed to control for pre-existing conditions such as diabetes , autoimmune disease , or heart disease , despite the fact that these faults have been repeatedly highlighted in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These sorts of findings have been produced from historical studies as well, and in the past follow-ups have always shown that the reason for this discrepancy is that people tend to drop in weight as their health decays due to disease or chronic condition, often falling from the 'overweight/obese' slot into the ideal range as their condition progresses.
Hitting the article and the original study, the author's seem to have failed to control for pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, autoimmune disease, or heart disease, despite the fact that these faults have been repeatedly highlighted in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28531663</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1246387200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BMI fails for tall/short people.  To have any sort of validity at all you have to throw out every man outside of about 5'4"-5'8" and every woman outside of 5'2"-5'6", then we'll talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BMI fails for tall/short people .
To have any sort of validity at all you have to throw out every man outside of about 5'4 " -5'8 " and every woman outside of 5'2 " -5'6 " , then we 'll talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BMI fails for tall/short people.
To have any sort of validity at all you have to throw out every man outside of about 5'4"-5'8" and every woman outside of 5'2"-5'6", then we'll talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520065</id>
	<title>Ummm</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1246270800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. This is old news.</p><p>2. They mean 20-30 lbs. overweight, not 100.  I.e. the peak of the longevity Bell curve is about 20-40 pounds more than the supposed medically desirable weight.  Then it goes back down again.</p><p>The guy giving the South Park kids a run for their money on WoW has a life expectancy significantly lower than the "normal" weight people, who are lower than the "overweight but not obese" people.</p><p>Cartman, however, remains doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This is old news.2 .
They mean 20-30 lbs .
overweight , not 100 .
I.e. the peak of the longevity Bell curve is about 20-40 pounds more than the supposed medically desirable weight .
Then it goes back down again.The guy giving the South Park kids a run for their money on WoW has a life expectancy significantly lower than the " normal " weight people , who are lower than the " overweight but not obese " people.Cartman , however , remains doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This is old news.2.
They mean 20-30 lbs.
overweight, not 100.
I.e. the peak of the longevity Bell curve is about 20-40 pounds more than the supposed medically desirable weight.
Then it goes back down again.The guy giving the South Park kids a run for their money on WoW has a life expectancy significantly lower than the "normal" weight people, who are lower than the "overweight but not obese" people.Cartman, however, remains doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577</id>
	<title>Correlation =/= Causation.</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1246309020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or it could be that people of normal weight were more inclined to be involved in activities that required you to get off your ass. I bet you're more likely to die if you leave your computer chair. As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it could be that people of normal weight were more inclined to be involved in activities that required you to get off your ass .
I bet you 're more likely to die if you leave your computer chair .
As long as you had food , water , and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it could be that people of normal weight were more inclined to be involved in activities that required you to get off your ass.
I bet you're more likely to die if you leave your computer chair.
As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519673</id>
	<title>What is overweight?</title>
	<author>LowlyWorm</author>
	<datestamp>1246269420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do we mean by overweight or underweight if what we mean is not the optimum weight for the greatest longevity? I have long suspected that what modern society regards as a the optimum weight  is not. This has changed throughout history. Look at the concept of beauty in ancient Rome or early Europe -- fat chicks.

Looked at in another way, the question  also plays into evolutionary biology. As hunter-gathers we would fatten in summer months in preparation for the Winter. Now that (for most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers and most of the world of which we are aware)  food is available at all times of year so there is far more obesity.  But I don&#226;(TM)t think anorexic models are the standard to which we should strive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do we mean by overweight or underweight if what we mean is not the optimum weight for the greatest longevity ?
I have long suspected that what modern society regards as a the optimum weight is not .
This has changed throughout history .
Look at the concept of beauty in ancient Rome or early Europe -- fat chicks .
Looked at in another way , the question also plays into evolutionary biology .
As hunter-gathers we would fatten in summer months in preparation for the Winter .
Now that ( for most / .
readers and most of the world of which we are aware ) food is available at all times of year so there is far more obesity .
But I don   ( TM ) t think anorexic models are the standard to which we should strive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do we mean by overweight or underweight if what we mean is not the optimum weight for the greatest longevity?
I have long suspected that what modern society regards as a the optimum weight  is not.
This has changed throughout history.
Look at the concept of beauty in ancient Rome or early Europe -- fat chicks.
Looked at in another way, the question  also plays into evolutionary biology.
As hunter-gathers we would fatten in summer months in preparation for the Winter.
Now that (for most /.
readers and most of the world of which we are aware)  food is available at all times of year so there is far more obesity.
But I donâ(TM)t think anorexic models are the standard to which we should strive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518999</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, noob question time</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1246267200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how it was determined, but I do know that my "ideal weight" (according to BMI) isn't my real ideal weight.  A few years back, I seriously worked hard to lose weight.  I went from 255 down to 173.  At my height (5' 11"), BMI says that my ideal weight is 133 - 178.5.  However, when I dropped below 180, people started telling me how I looked *too skinny.*  (The first time I've been called that ever in my life.)  Sure enough, my bones were showing way too much in my shoulders and face.  So I intentionally put some weight back on.  I determined that my ideal weight is about 185 - 190 so that's what I shoot for every time the pounds sneak back on*.  According to BMI, I'm overweight, but I feel that I'm perfect weight-wise when I'm in that range.</p><p>*Fighting my weight is going to be a lifelong battle.  I'm on the path to healthy eating, but old habits can sneak back into my life all too easily.  I just need to recognize when they're beginning to do so and nip the weight gain in the bud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how it was determined , but I do know that my " ideal weight " ( according to BMI ) is n't my real ideal weight .
A few years back , I seriously worked hard to lose weight .
I went from 255 down to 173 .
At my height ( 5 ' 11 " ) , BMI says that my ideal weight is 133 - 178.5 .
However , when I dropped below 180 , people started telling me how I looked * too skinny .
* ( The first time I 've been called that ever in my life .
) Sure enough , my bones were showing way too much in my shoulders and face .
So I intentionally put some weight back on .
I determined that my ideal weight is about 185 - 190 so that 's what I shoot for every time the pounds sneak back on * .
According to BMI , I 'm overweight , but I feel that I 'm perfect weight-wise when I 'm in that range .
* Fighting my weight is going to be a lifelong battle .
I 'm on the path to healthy eating , but old habits can sneak back into my life all too easily .
I just need to recognize when they 're beginning to do so and nip the weight gain in the bud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how it was determined, but I do know that my "ideal weight" (according to BMI) isn't my real ideal weight.
A few years back, I seriously worked hard to lose weight.
I went from 255 down to 173.
At my height (5' 11"), BMI says that my ideal weight is 133 - 178.5.
However, when I dropped below 180, people started telling me how I looked *too skinny.
*  (The first time I've been called that ever in my life.
)  Sure enough, my bones were showing way too much in my shoulders and face.
So I intentionally put some weight back on.
I determined that my ideal weight is about 185 - 190 so that's what I shoot for every time the pounds sneak back on*.
According to BMI, I'm overweight, but I feel that I'm perfect weight-wise when I'm in that range.
*Fighting my weight is going to be a lifelong battle.
I'm on the path to healthy eating, but old habits can sneak back into my life all too easily.
I just need to recognize when they're beginning to do so and nip the weight gain in the bud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519807</id>
	<title>That's overweight?</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we just define the term "normal weight" to mean "the one where you live the longest"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just define the term " normal weight " to mean " the one where you live the longest " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just define the term "normal weight" to mean "the one where you live the longest"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522161</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Dremth</author>
	<datestamp>1246281180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they just call slightly overweight normal then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just call slightly overweight normal then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just call slightly overweight normal then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28533085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28526679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28531663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_1751257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519065
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519363
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28525847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28526679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28524731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28533085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519531
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28531663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28520663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28521371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28523433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28519755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28528219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28532063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28522399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_1751257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_1751257.28518853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
