Lincoln U. introduces mandatory PE class for BMI > 30

[Lusankya]

Some universities in China require a certain level of Mandarin before students can graduate. If not, they have to take mandatory classes and resit the test until their level is adequate. Han Chinese do not have to worry about this requirement.

Is this discriminatory?

Well, obviously it is, but do you consider it to be unreasonable discrimination?

Again, apples to oranges. Physical and nutrtional edjucation, as well as exercise, provide tangible benefits for everyone who participate. Language is subjectionally beneficial.

真的吗？我认为，如果你是在中国的话，你一句话都听不懂。这真的是很麻烦的！再说如果有一个人要警告你一个地方太危险的话，你也听不懂，一致盲目的进去危险而伤害了。然而，你在跟同事或朋友玩儿是，一定要用一样的语言，否则不能跟他们交流。人们的文化是由于语言才发展的。怎么能说语言的用无非是主观的吗？

如果你能看得懂汉语的话，你就不要看下面的翻译。
Spoiler

Really? I think that if you went to China, you wouldn't be able to understand a word anyone said, which would be terribly inconvenient. Moreover, if somebody wanted to warn you that somewhere was dangerous, you still wouldn't be able to understand, and you might walk blindly into danger and be injured. Furthermore, you must speak in a common tongue with your friends and coworkers, otherwise you will be unable to communicate with them. Human culture only managed to develop because of language. How can you say that language is only subjectively beneficial.

Also, if you could read Chinese, you wouldn't have had to read this translation.

[Broomstick]

One: Healthy lifestyles require more then maintaining a healthy weight. You can be at a low BMI yet still be unhealthy. Learning new techniques in this is beneficial.

The requirement, dumbass, is to get your BMI under 30. That's it.

And exercise, another regular component of PE classes, is beneficial to everyone who can safely physically participate.

Exercise appropriate to someone with a BMI of 30 is NOT going to do jackshit for me. I climb 40 foot ladders and haul 80 lb sacks of concrete for a living. A typical someone with a BMI of 30 who tried that would fucking die. The sort of exercise required to make any improvement at all in my fitness level is physically impossible for the obese to do. Forcing me into a class at that level will do fucking nothing to improve my health. If it cuts into my exercise time it might, in fact, be detrimental. It's like asking someone with 4 years of Calculus to take remedial algebra. It's a stupid, pointless waste of time and resources. I'm sorry you're butthurt that some people actually know how to be healthy and some don't but that's reality.

Also, weight/BMI is not the only criteria to what makes one "healthy", which is part of the point I've been trying to make.

The requirement is NOT that students "be healthy", it's that they have a BMI under 30. Why are you conflating extraneous things with the stated goal of this program? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you need remedial reading or remedial thinking?

Except as I stated above, comparing one to the other doesn't work.

You're example is bullshit and you are wrong.

You haven't even posted a syllabus for this course we are discussing, until you do you don't have any idea even what sort of exercise, if any, is discussed. Does this class focus on just diet? YOU are the ones making claims that this would benefit EVERYONE rather than a narrowly focused group, therefore YOU need to support that position with FACTS.

[AMT]

Really? I think that if you went to China, you wouldn't be able to understand a word anyone said, which would be terribly inconvenient. Moreover, if somebody wanted to warn you that somewhere was dangerous, you still wouldn't be able to understand, and you might walk blindly into danger and be injured. Furthermore, you must speak in a common tongue with your friends and coworkers, otherwise you will be unable to communicate with them. Human culture only managed to develop because of language. How can you say that language is only subjectively beneficial.

Also, if you could read Chinese, you wouldn't have had to read this translation.

It's subjectively beneficial due to the fact that I would only benefit if I went to China. Perhaps a better term is situationally beneficial.

The requirement, dumbass, is to get your BMI under 30. That's it.

Which is it's a very narrow viewpoint that completely ignores other unhealthy aspects of lifestyle choices, and is thus discriminatory in a way that can and should be corrected.

Exercise appropriate to someone with a BMI of 30 is NOT going to do jackshit for me. I climb 40 foot ladders and haul 80 lb sacks of concrete for a living. A typical someone with a BMI of 30 who tried that would fucking die. The sort of exercise required to make any improvement at all in my fitness level is physically impossible for the obese to do. Forcing me into a class at that level will do fucking nothing to improve my health. If it cuts into my exercise time it might, in fact, be detrimental. It's like asking someone with 4 years of Calculus to take remedial algebra. It's a stupid, pointless waste of time and resources. I'm sorry you're butthurt that some people actually know how to be healthy and some don't but that's reality.

So believing that everyone can benefit from a class that gives healthy lifestyle tips and exercise is being butthurt about people who are already physically fit?

The requirement is NOT that students "be healthy", it's that they have a BMI under 30. Why are you conflating extraneous things with the stated goal of this program? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you need remedial reading or remedial thinking?

Please explain why they want people to have a BMI under 30 except to attempt to improve the health of those students?

Perhaps they only have a certain size graduation gown and wants to make sure everyone can fit in them...?

[Broomstick]

The requirement, dumbass, is to get your BMI under 30. That's it.

Which is it's a very narrow viewpoint that completely ignores other unhealthy aspects of lifestyle choices, and is thus discriminatory in a way that can and should be corrected.

The obese are unhealthy in a manner that can and should be corrected.

I actually went and looked at the university website. they ARE addressing other health issues, a simple fact you yourself could determine if you could just be bothered to look.

Is it discriminatory to flunk out a student who gets failing grades in academics? Is it discriminatory to revoke an athletic scholarship if the student can't be bothered to attend practice?

The school gave these kids three years to address this problem. Those that have failed do do this now have a remedial course to help them meet this goal. You've got your head up your ass that this is somehow unfair and it's not. Being obese is not something beyond human control. It's like saying it's discriminatory to insist on bodily hygiene.

Exercise appropriate to someone with a BMI of 30 is NOT going to do jackshit for me. I climb 40 foot ladders and haul 80 lb sacks of concrete for a living. A typical someone with a BMI of 30 who tried that would fucking die. The sort of exercise required to make any improvement at all in my fitness level is physically impossible for the obese to do. Forcing me into a class at that level will do fucking nothing to improve my health. If it cuts into my exercise time it might, in fact, be detrimental. It's like asking someone with 4 years of Calculus to take remedial algebra. It's a stupid, pointless waste of time and resources. I'm sorry you're butthurt that some people actually know how to be healthy and some don't but that's reality.

So believing that everyone can benefit from a class that gives healthy lifestyle tips and exercise is being butthurt about people who are already physically fit?

Frankly, I think you're just fucking stupid about the whole issue. A class appropriate for someone who is obese is NOT appropriate for me and vice versa. Maybe you're just fucking ignorant on the subject yourself.

The requirement is NOT that students "be healthy", it's that they have a BMI under 30. Why are you conflating extraneous things with the stated goal of this program? Do you have a comprehension problem? Do you need remedial reading or remedial thinking?

Please explain why they want people to have a BMI under 30 except to attempt to improve the health of those students?

It's a fucking school requirement, dumbass.

Having a BMI over 30 is an easily visible marker for making poor choices and being at high risk of poor health. It's also much easier to correct than, say, diabetes or intrinsic high blood pressure or a lot of other health issues. You're arguing against making even a minimal effort to educate young people on a serious health issue. How fucking jackass stupid ARE you?

[AMT]

Fine. As apparently it's considered stupid to think that a class that according to the university website "teaches students nutritional and healthy lifestyle choices" which only forces fat people while not forcing unhealthy people, I concede all points, since I really am tired of trying to point out the inherent bias of such a class and why that specific bias is bad.

[Lusankya]

It's subjectively beneficial due to the fact that I would only benefit if I went to China. Perhaps a better term is situationally beneficial.

HINT: People graduating from American universities are graduating in an English language environment. People graduating in China are graduating in a Chinese language environment. The language requirement is objectively beneficial, given the situation.

Which is it's a very narrow viewpoint that completely ignores other unhealthy aspects of lifestyle choices, and is thus discriminatory in a way that can and should be corrected.

Which other unhealthy lifestyle choices can be measured in the same way that obesity can?

So believing that everyone can benefit from a class that gives healthy lifestyle tips and exercise is being butthurt about people who are already physically fit?

Obese people have so little grasp of the basic concepts of a healthy lifestyle that the tips that need to be given to them (e.g. try to drink less than 2L of Coke a day, take a walk to the park to feed the ducks once in a while) are so basic that it would be an insult to people who are already fit. Do you have any idea how little you have to look after yourself to become obese? If we were grading it the way we were looking after academic standards, it would be the equivalent of getting your homework assignment and instead of making an effort and writing something mediocre, deciding that the best thing to do would be to piss on it, soak it in menstrual blood, wipe your arse with it and then hand it into the teacher all scrunched up in a ball with a note saying "Fuck you" tied around it. Nobody with even a modicum of fitness would benefit from a health class aimed at the obese.

[Themightytom]

Which is it's a very narrow viewpoint that completely ignores other unhealthy aspects of lifestyle choices, and is thus discriminatory in a way that can and should be corrected.

Which other unhealthy lifestyle choices can be measured in the same way that obesity can?

I think he is clumsily trying to say that this class seems fixated purely on dropping weight down based on eligibility criteria and the activities listed are phsyical exercise, not what you would expect from say a weight watchers class, where nutrition and health care covered.

Its the argument that Tiana lawson makes actually, that everyone should be required to take the class, not just obesity. As the school responds, however, there are not enough resources to do that. The school also describes the class as water aerobis tai bo and aquatic dance, which suggests it is entirely focused on exercise, when obviously diet and nutrition are important factors in preventing obesity too.

Now that i have defended him though i have to say i disagree. Exercise is hard work. Too bad, its neccesary to do ahrd work sometimes. Nowadays gyms make it REDCIULOUSLY comfortable in the US working out, you can peddle away on a bike watching TV listening to your ipod, or even iff you're really coordianted, updating your facebook. The baseline requirement however is you ahve to MOVE. The exercises lsited here are EASY, I've done them all. The water based ones are very low impact. Obese people might shun them because they ahve to show off their body, thats where the stigma comes in. Well if you don't face the problem you don't solve it.

Obese people have so little grasp of the basic concepts of a healthy lifestyle that the tips that need to be given to them (e.g. try to drink less than 2L of Coke a day, take a walk to the park to feed the ducks once in a while) are so basic that it would be an insult to people who are already fit. Do you have any idea how little you have to look after yourself to become obese? If we were grading it the way we were looking after academic standards, it would be the equivalent of getting your homework assignment and instead of making an effort and writing something mediocre, deciding that the best thing to do would be to piss on it, soak it in menstrual blood, wipe your arse with it and then hand it into the teacher all scrunched up in a ball with a note saying "Fuck you" tied around it. Nobody with even a modicum of fitness would benefit from a health class aimed at the obese.

I'm not sure that is fair to say, I know at least five girls who are 200+ and eat only a tiny salad every day. I have no idea what glandular condition they ahve or whatever, but in terms of nutrition they know their shit, and they do step aerobics, walk on their breaks, and they have very athletic jobs, ie: working in shipping and recieving, working in a barn, one of them is a kung fu instructor she teaches highly aerobic movements three hours a night four nights a week. Not all obese people are created equal, but the people i dscribed would probably breeze through the classes described without shedding a pound. The difference is they wouldn't complain about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Likewise, if a student wishes to be exempt from a physical fitness requirement, they should have to provide positive proof that they are fit, not merely a lack of proof that they are not fit. They should have to jog a mile, lift a noticeable percentage of their body weight, do some sit-ups, or otherwise demonstrate that they satisfy the minimum physical requirement the way I had to show that I satisfied the minimum math requirement. But they don't; all they have to prove is that they have a small waistline.

You are overlooking the fact that physical exercise is useful in improving health in the overwhelming majority of a typical population of overweight people (the few with metabolic diseases and the like will be exempted, I suppose), while it isn't necessarily a good a idea for every other risk factor.

Then I should be able to establish that it would be unsafe for me to exercise, as an alternative to establishing that I don't need to. I should not get a free ride on the "get some exercise" graduation requirement purely because I happen not to trigger a single specific condition that shows I would benefit from exercise. Not when there are other such conditions.

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese. If colleges can require classes in remedial math, science, history, language, etc. why not remedial health?

Sure they can. But if I don't require remedial history, I should have to demonstrate that I don't need it by passing some positive criterion ("can define and roughly outline the 1500-1960 Age of Imperialism" or some such), not merely by not triggering a single negative criterion ("does not know who Christopher Columbus was." Not knowing who Columbus was may prove you need remedial history, but knowing doesn't prove that you don't).

I would expect strongly that there are people with a BMI below 30 who would benefit from exercise or other health education as much as the people with a BMI above 30. Maybe not for the same reasons, but they still would. My complaint in this area is not that there should not be a health requirement at the university, or a remedial health requirement for especially unhealthy students. It is that merely checking "are you fat?" is not a good enough test to find out who to give remedial health education to, especially if there is no general health education requirement already in place. At my university there WAS a general health education requirement; you had to take two Phys Ed courses to graduate. I don't resent that at all.

But if they're going to give people with a BMI above 30 a "get some exercise, fatty" course, they should also look for people with anomalously low BMIs or signs of vitamin deficiencies (this can happen even in a modern culture if you have a bad enough diet) and give them a course on human dietary needs. They should give smokers a course (or at least a seminar) on the effects of lung cancer. And so on. They should apply the principle of mens sana in corpore sano consistently, across the board. Even though the fat students who need exercise are the most obvious breakdown of the "corpore sano" aspect, and probably the most common one, they are far from the only one.
_______

If I had gone for, say, a history degree, I might well have not been required to take any math courses. I would know enough math to be tolerably educated in the subject by the standards of a liberal arts degree, after all.

Bullshit. Even if you test out of the minimum/required math courses in a non-math degree you still have to take math (at least in the US). I know this from experience. I "tested out" of math (even with my poor abilities), English, and a couple other things when getting my degree and yet I still had to take a minimum number of courses in those subjects.

Broomstick, I see two possibilities here. One is that I am misremembering my own university's requirements, which is possible. Since I went for a degree that forced me to take additional math whether I already knew all the math needed for the general graduation requirements or not, I didn't experience the liberal arts track at my own university. Therefore, I could be mistaken. I will check later, since I still have the booklet outlining graduation requirements buried in a big mess of papers.

The other possibility is that you are falsely assuming that your knowledge of your own specific graduation requirements applies generally to an entire country, across hundreds of universities.

I do not know off the top of my head which is true. However, I am not consciously bullshitting you, either way. Again, my university HAD a general physical education requirement for the fit and unfit alike, just as yours had a general math requirement for the numerate and innumerate alike. My point is that you should not get a free exemption from a requirement for remedial education simply by failing to show one indicator, or even a set of closely related indicators, that are a sign of ONE reason you might need the remedy. Not when there are other ways you could easily fail the same test. Some people still smoke, for one.

I would be far more friendly to the idea of a general health education requirement than a remedial one, unless the university is prepared to do thorough fitness testing of all its students to identify all the major reasons they might need remedial health education. Note that a general requirement doesn't mean everyone will take the same class- a person in good shape might take a class involving more strenuous exercise than a giant walking ball of lard, just as someone who took calculus in high school will take more advanced math classes than someone who barely made it past high school algebra.
_______

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

Yes. But since this is far from the only way you might be unfit, a more thorough test is required. Otherwise, people unfit in ONE way are being treated far more harshly than people who are equally unfit in OTHER ways (say, so stupid about not eating their vegetables that they're in the early stages of scurvy, or who smoke several packs of cigarettes a day). That bugs me.
_______

it seems much easier to AVOID getting obese than to recover from it.

It is, because you have to override your own shitty habits every day for months. It's not easy, and not everyone has enough willpower to do it. If you're not going to take every obese person and lock them in a room on a starvation diet until they slim down, you're going to find obese people who just will not stop being obese, empirically speaking. Cutting back to a "normal" living style will not work for some of these people, both because their idea of "normal" is semi-permanently warped (larger "normal" meals, less "normal" physical activity), and because they have to do things that are actively unpleasant to burn off the pounds they've already got. And keep doing them, often for hours a day, for months. Some people can make themselves do it. Others can't.

It's like smoking. Some smokers will not quit, empirically speaking, and will eventually die of their habit, because quitting smoking is difficult enough for them that the promise of extra years of life and health isn't worth it to them.* You can despise those people as weak-willed if you like, but they make up a fairly large chunk of the human willpower distribution, so I'm not sure whether you can do so justly.

*EDIT: Of course, with smoking the disparity is even greater, because it requires effectively zero self-control to avoid picking up the first cigarette and considerable self-control to avoid picking up the ten thousandth. Abstaining from the first scoop of ice cream, by contrast, takes at least a small amount of control... but still much less than the ten thousandth.

[Broomstick]

I'm not sure that is fair to say, I know at least five girls who are 200+ and eat only a tiny salad every day. I have no idea what glandular condition they ahve or whatever, but in terms of nutrition they know their shit, and they do step aerobics, walk on their breaks, and they have very athletic jobs, ie: working in shipping and recieving, working in a barn, one of them is a kung fu instructor she teaches highly aerobic movements three hours a night four nights a week. Not all obese people are created equal, but the people i dscribed would probably breeze through the classes described without shedding a pound. The difference is they wouldn't complain about it.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for even a moderately active person to maintain 200+ pounds on only a "tiny salad every day". Even with a "glandular condition". What they are doing is binging when people can't see them eat. They don't even need to binge every day, but sure as shit if the only thing they eat in public is a "tiny salad" they're sucking down the calories elsewhere. In fact, it's a very typical pattern seen in bulimia. You just don't have the joy of being in the public bathroom stall next to one of these salad eaters as they are sticking their fingers down their throats to purge whatever food they've just stuffed themselves with in secret, but I have.

Gladular conditions don't permit you to violate physical laws.

Then I should be able to establish that it would be unsafe for me to exercise, as an alternative to establishing that I don't need to. I should not get a free ride on the "get some exercise" graduation requirement purely because I happen not to trigger a single specific condition that shows I would benefit from exercise. Not when there are other such conditions.

The requirement under question is that you have a BMI under 30. There are, indiputably, other graduation requirements for this school. You are focusing on just one.

Now, do any of those other requirements capture other aspects of fitness? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else here - has anyone even bothered to look this up?

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese. If colleges can require classes in remedial math, science, history, language, etc. why not remedial health?

Sure they can. But if I don't require remedial history, I should have to demonstrate that I don't need it by passing some positive criterion ("can define and roughly outline the 1500-1960 Age of Imperialism" or some such), not merely by not triggering a single negative criterion ("does not know who Christopher Columbus was." Not knowing who Columbus was may prove you need remedial history, but knowing doesn't prove that you don't).

I would expect strongly that there are people with a BMI below 30 who would benefit from exercise or other health education as much as the people with a BMI above 30. Maybe not for the same reasons, but they still would. My complaint in this area is not that there should not be a health requirement at the university, or a remedial health requirement for especially unhealthy students. It is that merely checking "are you fat?" is not a good enough test to find out who to give remedial health education to, especially if there is no general health education requirement already in place. At my university there WAS a general health education requirement; you had to take two Phys Ed courses to graduate. I don't resent that at all.

But if they're going to give people with a BMI above 30 a "get some exercise, fatty" course, they should also look for people with anomalously low BMIs or signs of vitamin deficiencies (this can happen even in a modern culture if you have a bad enough diet) and give them a course on human dietary needs. They should give smokers a course (or at least a seminar) on the effects of lung cancer. And so on. They should apply the principle of mens sana in corpore sano consistently, across the board. Even though the fat students who need exercise are the most obvious breakdown of the "corpore sano" aspect, and probably the most common one, they are far from the only one.

Did anyone even BOTHER to read my prior post where I said I had actually looked on the school's website. Just under the diet/meal plan are alone there was additional information on nutrition, special diets for medical needs, and the means to actually contact a nutritionist? This is NOT just about "get the fatties to exercise". The school clearly gives a damn about those other aspects of health, which you would know if you bothered to look rather than blow hot air in a forum thread.

Bullshit. Even if you test out of the minimum/required math courses in a non-math degree you still have to take math (at least in the US). I know this from experience. I "tested out" of math (even with my poor abilities), English, and a couple other things when getting my degree and yet I still had to take a minimum number of courses in those subjects.

Broomstick, I see two possibilities here. One is that I am misremembering my own university's requirements, which is possible. Since I went for a degree that forced me to take additional math whether I already knew all the math needed for the general graduation requirements or not, I didn't experience the liberal arts track at my own university. Therefore, I could be mistaken. I will check later, since I still have the booklet outlining graduation requirements buried in a big mess of papers.

The other possibility is that you are falsely assuming that your knowledge of your own specific graduation requirements applies generally to an entire country, across hundreds of universities.

Point number one - MY DEGREE IS NOT IN "LIBERAL ARTS". It is in FINE arts, which is a separate and distinct cateogory. By confusing the two you sound as moronic as someone equating mechanical engineering with organic chemistry. It is NOT about "self discovery" or making someone "well rounded", it's about giving them the necessary skills to be a professional artist, including business courses that would never be seen in a liberal arts track. The graduation requirements were not based on a grade point average (though you obviously had to pass your classes) but on producing a body of work to be exhibited.

Point number two - my statement was NOT based on just one school, the one I went to. This was a requirement at every college I applied to, a total of five in all (School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Rhode Island School of Design, Center for Creative Studies in Detoit, Univerisity of Michigan Fine Arts, and Parsons in New York City). So while things may have changed over time it was certainly not an anamoly of a single school or a single region of the country. Which is why I was aghast at your statement. But maybe educational standards have changed in the 25+ years since I was a freshman.

I realize that some of you are laboring under the assumption that I am some sort of eloquent, high-functiong moron because I didn't go into engineering, science, or math but I had to work for my degree just as anyone else does, and arguably harder than some. My talents and strengths are different than yours, they are not inherently inferior.

Again, my university HAD a general physical education requirement for the fit and unfit alike, just as yours had a general math requirement for the numerate and innumerate alike. My point is that you should not get a free exemption from a requirement for remedial education simply by failing to show one indicator, or even a set of closely related indicators, that are a sign of ONE reason you might need the remedy. Not when there are other ways you could easily fail the same test. Some people still smoke, for one.

I have no quarrel with a requirement for physical education for a degree. Indeed, I think it a shame that my school did not require one - on the other hand, considerable time and effort was dedicated to educating the students on using hazardous chemicals, proper protection, safe use of power tools. I am pretty sure your school did not need to go over the proper way to mix blueprint emulsion - if you screw it up you get hydrogen cyanide which is Very Bad For You - or how to handle molten metal. Mine did. Well, they had reasons for making safe handling of hazardous things a priority. Perhaps Lincoln University has determined that obesity is the number 1 health problem of their students and have decided to address that most heavily. Or maybe not - I have no idea how they arrived at their decision.

I would be far more friendly to the idea of a general health education requirement than a remedial one, unless the university is prepared to do thorough fitness testing of all its students to identify all the major reasons they might need remedial health education. Note that a general requirement doesn't mean everyone will take the same class- a person in good shape might take a class involving more strenuous exercise than a giant walking ball of lard, just as someone who took calculus in high school will take more advanced math classes than someone who barely made it past high school algebra.

I am totally in favor of that. However, the article is talking about just the remedial class, not the school's health and physical education as a whole. It's like saying that if a school does have ESL classes they're only singling out the foreign students... even if the school has a department of English Literature and a requirement for language courses. NO ONE here has posted comprehensive requirements for this school - I don't know either way if they have a general physical education requirement or not, but unlike the rest of the folks here I am not making an assumption about that.

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

Yes. But since this is far from the only way you might be unfit, a more thorough test is required. Otherwise, people unfit in ONE way are being treated far more harshly than people who are equally unfit in OTHER ways (say, so stupid about not eating their vegetables that they're in the early stages of scurvy, or who smoke several packs of cigarettes a day). That bugs me.

Again, have you even attempted to determine anything else about this school? Do they offer a smoking cessation program or not? Do they have a phys ed requirement beyond the BMI score thing or not? What sort of health services are available to the students? It is a historically black college, do they have programs/seminars discussing health issues that ethnic group is prone to? What sort of general health facilities does the average student have access to? Until you investigate these questions you don't have enough facts to make a rational judgment about this school.

It's like smoking. Some smokers will not quit, empirically speaking, and will eventually die of their habit, because quitting smoking is difficult enough for them that the promise of extra years of life and health isn't worth it to them.* You can despise those people as weak-willed if you like, but they make up a fairly large chunk of the human willpower distribution, so I'm not sure whether you can do so justly.

You know, some people will NEVER get to Calculus... but they should still be encouraged to try. Not every one can quit smoking but they should still be educated about it and offered help. Likewise, not all of these students will successfully drop below a BMI of 30 and maintain it long term, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be educated and offered help. If all that happens is that from here on out they maintain their weight rather than continuing to get bigger and bigger that is a victory of sorts, just as getting a smoker to cut back from two packs a day to one is an improvement. I long ago gave up on the idea of making people perfect, however, I am still a strong advocate of improvement.

[Melchior]

Then I should be able to establish that it would be unsafe for me to exercise, as an alternative to establishing that I don't need to. I should not get a free ride on the "get some exercise" graduation requirement purely because I happen not to trigger a single specific condition that shows I would benefit from exercise. Not when there are other such conditions.

From a public health prospective, given the prevalence of obesity, simply using funds to target obesity is probably more cost effective than setting up a elaborate parallel check-up system to determine with great precision who needs to exercise more. I find the idea that a university should concern itself with such things rather bizarre, but I live in a country with a universal public healthcare system.

[Stark]

I'm not sure that is fair to say, I know at least five girls who are 200+ and eat only a tiny salad every day. I have no idea what glandular condition they ahve or whatever, but in terms of nutrition they know their shit, and they do step aerobics, walk on their breaks, and they have very athletic jobs, ie: working in shipping and recieving, working in a barn, one of them is a kung fu instructor she teaches highly aerobic movements three hours a night four nights a week. Not all obese people are created equal, but the people i dscribed would probably breeze through the classes described without shedding a pound. The difference is they wouldn't complain about it.

First of all I don't believe you; nobody eating a 'tiny salad' a day (probably less than 200 calories) is going to be 90 kilos. Sorry. Turns out overweight people are ashamed and would rather lie about their diet than change their lifestyle? I'd love to see someone who spends hours a day being physical (like a kung-fu instructor) be considered 'obese'; turns out muscle is heavy.

It's also irrelevant to this situation. If you went to the university with a medical certificate they'd let you off. If you sat in a lab for a week eating a 'tiny salad' a day and stayed 200lbs, they'd be fine with that. This is clearly aimed at the 99% of obese people who DON'T have a medical condition and who are just lazy, unhealthy and stupid.

[Broomstick]

Then I should be able to establish that it would be unsafe for me to exercise, as an alternative to establishing that I don't need to. I should not get a free ride on the "get some exercise" graduation requirement purely because I happen not to trigger a single specific condition that shows I would benefit from exercise. Not when there are other such conditions.

From a public health prospective, given the prevalence of obesity, simply using funds to target obesity is probably more cost effective than setting up a elaborate parallel check-up system to determine with great precision who needs to exercise more. I find the idea that a university should concern itself with such things rather bizarre, but I live in a country with a universal public healthcare system.

Keep in mind, too, that this college is historically "black" and there student body is still predominantly of African descent. In the US that demographic is hit particularly hard not only by obesity but also the health problems linked to it - high blood pressure, diabetes, and so forth. The trustees may see it not only as a good general policy but also as part of their historical mission to benefit that ethnic group. Of course, this requirement would apply equally to any students of European, Asian, or Native ancestry as well, and they do have such, but the majority of their student body is particularly vulnerable to some of the adverse effects of obesity.

[Simon_Jester]

Then I should be able to establish that it would be unsafe for me to exercise, as an alternative to establishing that I don't need to. I should not get a free ride on the "get some exercise" graduation requirement purely because I happen not to trigger a single specific condition that shows I would benefit from exercise. Not when there are other such conditions.

The requirement under question is that you have a BMI under 30. There are, indiputably, other graduation requirements for this school. You are focusing on just one.

Now, do any of those other requirements capture other aspects of fitness? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else here - has anyone even bothered to look this up?

I'm trying to find a comprehensive list of graduation requirements on the Lincoln University website right now, without much luck... wait, here goes.

This appears to be a general bulletin or catalog addressed to all students, though it's book length so I'm not entirely sure what to call it. It contains the graduation requirements on pages 61-65 of the PDF file. the school's general requirements are:
-A "First Year Experience" course that I gather amounts to a sort of extended orientation,
-An "African American Experience" course, classed as a social science course,
-Two 100 or 200-level social science courses,
-Two 200-level humanities and one literature course,
-Apparently a ~100-level English composition course; which one depends on your placement test score,
-Two 100-level science courses, one with an associated lab,
-At least one math course,
-Two consecutive language courses or "CSC" courses; I infer without proof that CSC is their abbreviation for computer science.
-And, of course, the health requirement. All students must take "Dimensions of Wellness," HPR-101; students who fail the BMI placement test or an unspecified cardiovascular fitness test must also take "Fitness Walking/Conditioning," HPR-103.

HPR 101 is described in the catalog as "Health related topics studied in this course include health-related fitness, nutrition and weight control, stress management, drug and alcohol abuse, and human sexuality/STDs. Opportunities are provided to assess, develop, and implement individualized health-related programs."

HPR 103 is described in the catalog as "Students will be provided the opportunity to improve their health-related fitness: cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, body composition, and flexibility. Exercise interventions will include: walking, cycling, aerobics, kickboxing, yoga, and strength training. Additionally, students will record and monitor their nutrition for purposes of maintaining an optimal diet. Self-assessment on the aforementioned fitness components will enable students to maintain healthy lifestyles after the course."

In addition, I found information specific to the health requirement in this minute, apparently dated to November 3rd of this year, where Announcement A describes the ways to pass the health requirement:

The HPR 103 requirement can be satisfied/completed by doing any one of the following ways:
(a) Test out (earned a BMI of less than 30)
(b) Pass the “old” HPR 102: Lifetime Sports class
(c) Pass HPR 103: Fitness for Life
(d) Pass an approved “physical activity course” at another college (must be transferred to LU)
________

The particularly relevant information here that I should have checked before writing my previous post is the existence of a general health education requirement in the form of HPR 101. In the context of that general requirement, the remedial weight loss course makes more sense, because students do NOT, as I had previously falsely assumed, get a free pass...

However, the existence of information on health for students, or a list of phone numbers to call, or even a website full of data, would not prove very much one way or the other. While these things are handy resources for students to have should they desire them, they are not requirements. I cannot expect students to learn math at my university just because I have several textbooks' worth of information on math attached to the university website; I cannot expect health to be any different as a subject...

Did anyone even BOTHER to read my prior post where I said I had actually looked on the school's website. Just under the diet/meal plan are alone there was additional information on nutrition, special diets for medical needs, and the means to actually contact a nutritionist? This is NOT just about "get the fatties to exercise". The school clearly gives a damn about those other aspects of health, which you would know if you bothered to look rather than blow hot air in a forum thread.

...Thus, while you proved that the school "clearly gives a damn about those other aspects of health," in the sense of having information about them available to students, you did not prove that students whose health was poor in ways other than being massively overweight were treated comparably to students whose health was poor because they were massively overweight.

Again, my objection is not to overweight students having to take extra exercise courses. It is only to the notion of targeting only overweight students, and not students who are just as obviously unhealthy in other ways. Smoking comes to mind, since it can be checked relatively easily.

=======

Broomstick, I see two possibilities here. One is that I am misremembering my own university's requirements, which is possible. Since I went for a degree that forced me to take additional math whether I already knew all the math needed for the general graduation requirements or not, I didn't experience the liberal arts track at my own university. Therefore, I could be mistaken. I will check later, since I still have the booklet outlining graduation requirements buried in a big mess of papers.

The other possibility is that you are falsely assuming that your knowledge of your own specific graduation requirements applies generally to an entire country, across hundreds of universities.

Point number one - MY DEGREE IS NOT IN "LIBERAL ARTS". It is in FINE arts, which is a separate and distinct cateogory. By confusing the two you sound as moronic...

Point number two - my statement was NOT based on just one school, the one I went to. This was a requirement at every college I applied to...So while things may have changed over time it was certainly not an anamoly of a single school or a single region of the country. Which is why I was aghast at your statement. But maybe educational standards have changed in the 25+ years since I was a freshman...

I realize that some of you are laboring under the assumption that I am some sort of eloquent, high-functiong moron because I didn't go into engineering, science, or math but I had to work for my degree just as anyone else does, and arguably harder than some. My talents and strengths are different than yours, they are not inherently inferior.

Broomstick, some questions:
-Did I actually say your degree was in the liberal arts?
-If so, how?
-Does the place where I supposedly said so lend itself to alternate, less insulting interpretations?
-Out of the group you were addressing with this post, which "some of you" are laboring under the assumption that you are "some sort of eloquent, high-functioning moron?"
-Does this "some of you" demonstrably include me?
-If so, how do you know it does?
-Is there any evidence that I had any idea what your undergraduate major was in?
-Is there any compelling reason to believe that if I did, I would choose to make this known in the form of a crude and foolish slur against an entire category of majors?

Anyway, I have not yet had the opportunity to check my own graduation requirements. I know there were programs that required no more math than I could have gotten out of on placement tests, but I do not know if those programs would have let me get out of the entire math requirement on placement tests.

If they would not have, then I chose a bad example.

======

I am totally in favor of that. However, the article is talking about just the remedial class, not the school's health and physical education as a whole. It's like saying that if a school does have ESL classes they're only singling out the foreign students... even if the school has a department of English Literature and a requirement for language courses. NO ONE here has posted comprehensive requirements for this school - I don't know either way if they have a general physical education requirement or not, but unlike the rest of the folks here I am not making an assumption about that.

Well, now I just did, and they do, and I feel like a minor-league imbecile for arguing on the basis of the assumption that they did not. Though I think they probably should have an exercise requirement for all students; HPR 101 sounds like a classroom course, not an exercise room course.
__________

It's like smoking. Some smokers will not quit, empirically speaking, and will eventually die of their habit, because quitting smoking is difficult enough for them that the promise of extra years of life and health isn't worth it to them.* You can despise those people as weak-willed if you like, but they make up a fairly large chunk of the human willpower distribution, so I'm not sure whether you can do so justly.

You know, some people will NEVER get to Calculus... but they should still be encouraged to try. Not every one can quit smoking but they should still be educated about it and offered help. Likewise, not all of these students will successfully drop below a BMI of 30 and maintain it long term, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be educated and offered help. If all that happens is that from here on out they maintain their weight rather than continuing to get bigger and bigger that is a victory of sorts, just as getting a smoker to cut back from two packs a day to one is an improvement. I long ago gave up on the idea of making people perfect, however, I am still a strong advocate of improvement.

Please try to understand that I was replying specifically to Themightytom's speculation about it being is easier to avoid obesity than to recover from it, by confirming that yes, it IS difficult to recover from obesity. Much as it is difficult to quit smoking, difficult enough that some people just can not seem to do it, because they can't force themselves to fight their own habits that effectively.

You are much more qualified to comment on how difficult it is to avoid obesity than I am, as are a number of other posters here, so I may have overstated my case by implying that recovering from obesity is not merely hard but harder than avoiding it.

At no point did I claim that people should not try to overcome obesity, or that others should not encourage them to do so by whatever reasonable means come to hand.

[Akhlut]

I would also think that there would be a suit regarding it being applied retroactively to past calendar years. Though I dont think the tuition claim will hold weight. Lots of classes, even required ones, had fees. Hell when I was an undergrad just about every lab class I took had a fee to pay for equipment.

I'd expect a suit based simply more on its selective nature than anything else. If they want people to maintain a level of exercise? Okay. Then apply it as a mandatory class to everyone. Not just people with a high BMI.

My college had a requirement for phys ed that everyone had to get something like 2 credits for in order to graduate, but, the thing is, everyone had to get those credits, and it's never been an issue. I don't see what's so difficult about just applying the damn phys ed requirements to everyone.

[Civil War Man]

I'd expect a suit based simply more on its selective nature than anything else. If they want people to maintain a level of exercise? Okay. Then apply it as a mandatory class to everyone. Not just people with a high BMI.

My college had a requirement for phys ed that everyone had to get something like 2 credits for in order to graduate, but, the thing is, everyone had to get those credits, and it's never been an issue. I don't see what's so difficult about just applying the damn phys ed requirements to everyone.

My college also had a blanket requirement, but it was a pretty bad joke. You had shit like bowling being counted under the PE requirement.

The high BMI requirement for the class is a bit of an oversimplification, but there does need to be some way for people who do not need a remedial health and fitness class to test out. However, what should a fitness test for this purpose include in order to make it representative? Cardio stress tests? Timed endurance runs/obstacle courses? How would you test a student's nutrition, for example?

[Simon_Jester]

Cardio stress tests might be good, as might timed runs. Obstacle courses not so much, because many of them involve upper body strength and that would tend to discriminate against healthy women.

You can get a little information about nutrition readily enough; someone who is obviously anorexic, or obviously bulimic (their reported diet does not match their observed weight, as Broomstick described), for instance. For more subtle stuff like long-term vitamin or mineral nutrition problems, you'd be harder pressed; at that point it probably does make more sense to just have a unit on it in the universal health education requirement.

A more detailed approach to student health would take a noticeable staff, but for a university that really cares about corpore sano, checking in on the physical health of the student body in a little more depth at least once or twice in a four year period is... well, I don't think it's unmanageable. Moreover, many universities already have a health center meant to keep up with the student body's prescriptions and campus infections (like the current swine flu outbreaks), so the institutional framework to do checkup/physicals is in place.

[Broomstick]

-Did I actually say your degree was in the liberal arts?
-If so, how?

See highlighted:

Broomstick, I see two possibilities here. One is that I am misremembering my own university's requirements, which is possible. Since I went for a degree that forced me to take additional math whether I already knew all the math needed for the general graduation requirements or not, I didn't experience the liberal arts track at my own university.

Again, the "liberal arts" and the "fine arts" are not the same thing. This seems to be a common form of ignorance on this forum. Perhaps I erroneously assumed you, Simon, did not know the difference and in that case a kneejerk assumption without actual evidence was wrong. However, in the spirit of educating all who may be reading this let define the two areas of study:

Liberal Arts - derieved from the Latin liber, meaning free, in classical times they were held to be the education appropriate for a free man, as opposed to a slave. In Roman times this was often defined as the study of grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. In Medieval times they were grammer, rhetoric, logic, geometry, arthimetic, music, and astronomy. Modern liberal arts are usually literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.

Fine Arts - the "fine" here denotes purity of pursuit rather than quality of the work produced. In the past, fine arts were usually considered painting, sculpture, architecture and engraving. These days, it encompasses both the visual and the performing arts. It can also encompass what used to be considered crafts and even writing in certain contexts.

Thus - music or art history would belong in a liberal arts curriculum whereas learning to perform music or make art with the intent of becoming a professional artist or musician would be in a fine or performing arts curriculum. There can still be echos of the old apprentice/master system even in the context of modern colleges. For example, as part of my education I was in an apprentice program to a professional artist who's projects required assistants. Assisting this person not only in the production of her artwork but also dealing with maintaining a studio space, record keeping, dealing with galleries and shows, and shipping artwork to such places was part of my education.

-Out of the group you were addressing with this post, which "some of you" are laboring under the assumption that you are "some sort of eloquent, high-functioning moron?"

I've encountered that attitude before. Admittedly, this forum is slanted heavily towards the mathmatical/engineering/scientific crowd, but the assumption by certain immature students that only their field of study is worthwhile is insulting and distasteful. That wasn't really directed at you and I should have made it clearer that I was pissing and moaning about a general frustration in regards to SD.net rather than at you personally.

You are much more qualified to comment on how difficult it is to avoid obesity than I am, as are a number of other posters here, so I may have overstated my case by implying that recovering from obesity is not merely hard but harder than avoiding it.

No, I didn't think you overstated it - it IS much harder to recover from obesity than to avoid it in the first place. It requires the self-discipline to deprieve oneself of something that is not only pleasurable but that we are hard-wired to seek out. On top of that, there are some medical conditions that make it even harder to lose weight than the average person. My sister with the thyroid problem excercises like a maniac - 90 mile bike rides are a common occurance for her - but she understands that that is what she needs to do in order to keep control of her situation. One must also be careful about weight loss. For example, poor dieting technique can trigger bulemia. Not everyone needs the same approach. I know a truck driver who took 80 pounds off with Jenny Craig and has kept it off for 10 years now - for him, the pre-packaged portions and balanced meals that he could heat up in his truck did the trick, because when he was tired from being on the road all day it was too easy to grab junk he didn't need to cook off a truckstop shelf or order something in a diner - now, instead, he grabs the next assigned meal from the refrigerator in his truck and eats that instead. I know someone else who had simliar success with weight watchers using their point system - but then she had the self-discipline to actually stick with the program. Interesting thing is that BOTH those programs allow for occassional indulgences, nothing is ever forbidden forever. People need the feast days and treats, the problem is all too many people have them every day which is not good.

Really, one of the best success stories in long-term weight loss is Richard Simmons. Yes, he's often mocked, but the man took off over 120 pounds, nearly half his body weight, and has kept it off for decades. His approach emphasizes healthy eating, portion control, and exercise. You've got to have all three to make it work. Laugh at him if you want, he actually does know the secret. He'll also tell you it's hard work

[ThomasP]

People with a BMI over 30 are not "overweight", they are OBESE. You're not talking about someone just a couple pounds/kilos over the ideal but who are obese.

On the other hand, having a BMI of over 30 is pretty strong evidence that you are unfit, have deplorable eating habits, and don't exercise. If your BMI is that high as far as I'm concerned your unfit until proven otherwise.

The only way to have a small waist and a BMI even near 30 is to have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger during his Mr. Universe days. Again, these are not people just a little overweight.

This is more what a BMI of 30 looks like:

Is it possible to have a BMI of 30 and yet be fit? Yes. It is possible - but you would have to be a kick-ass athlete of rock-hard muscle. Such a person will look more like the 25's up there than the 30's. As long as there is a means to screen out the super-athletes with the high BMI's this doesn't strike me as outrageous.

I hate to nitpick, because I do agree with the general theme of the argument, but you are drastically overstating the relevance of a BMI ~30 as it relates to obesity.

It's not at all difficult for an active weight-training person to easily push the low 30s of a BMI score and not look remotely like the obese women you linked. The simple reason is that BMI doesn't discriminate between lean tissue and fat mass, and that's a very important distinction when discussing both physical fitness and health risk.

Someone at an average height of say 173-178 cm would only need to be 90-100kg to be considered "obese" (BMI >= 30), and that's frankly not uncommon amongst the weight-trained population. They may not be winning any bodybuilding contests at that body fat level, but they won't be remotely "obese" in the sense of "looking like a really fat person".

Just so you don't have to take my word for it, researchers are noting the limitations of BMI scores and using other indices:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12831945

In general I agree the argument holds; for largely-sedentary people, BMI will be fairly accurate. But it is wholly inadequate as a predictor of anything once you start adding exercise to the equation.

[Mayabird]

Dude, that's why the college also had that waist measurement rule in combination with the BMI-over-30 rule. As has been mentioned several times. Why the hell are you people nitpicking at incredibly rare exceptions to the rule, when the rule is aimed at the vast majority who are fucking fatasses who did not magically all get some glandular disease in the past couple decades when proportion of hambeasts to non-hambeasts got incredibly skewed?

[Simon_Jester]

-Did I actually say your degree was in the liberal arts?
-If so, how?

... Perhaps I erroneously assumed you, Simon, did not know the difference and in that case a kneejerk assumption without actual evidence was wrong.

Thank you.

When I originally brought up the idea of university degree programs that required no math beyond what I got out of high school, I was talking about the liberal arts track at my university, specifically. Similar claims would have applied to the fine arts at my university, but I wasn't talking or thinking about those majors. I was not talking about the fine arts OR liberal arts track at yours.

I knew nothing about what university you attended, or what you studied there, nor was either of those things relevant to my argument. Thus, it struck me as a great surprise to see it argued that I was somehow aiming a backhanded slur at you (or at anyone) simply because I stated the fact that I did not enter a liberal arts program.

Frankly, for a while I suspected that I was somehow hallucinating, and that despite my own reading of my own statement I had in fact written "I did not attend the liberal arts track at your university" or some such... which I could remotely imagine having been taken as such a slur.

While I was aware of the distinction between the fine and liberal arts, I was not as keenly sensitive to the difference as you appear to be. Since I never pursued either while you pursued one, this is probably not a surprise.

But I'm definitely glad that's over, anyway. It was never my intent to butt heads with you that hard.
_______

Thus - music or art history would belong in a liberal arts curriculum whereas learning to perform music or make art with the intent of becoming a professional artist or musician would be in a fine or performing arts curriculum. There can still be echos of the old apprentice/master system even in the context of modern colleges. For example, as part of my education I was in an apprentice program to a professional artist who's projects required assistants. Assisting this person not only in the production of her artwork but also dealing with maintaining a studio space, record keeping, dealing with galleries and shows, and shipping artwork to such places was part of my education.

Some such echoes can also be found in the sciences; the thesis advisor/advisee relationship isn't quite like that, but it can get close at times.

[Broomstick]

I hate to nitpick, because I do agree with the general theme of the argument, but you are drastically overstating the relevance of a BMI ~30 as it relates to obesity.

It's not at all difficult for an active weight-training person to easily push the low 30s of a BMI score and not look remotely like the obese women you linked. The simple reason is that BMI doesn't discriminate between lean tissue and fat mass, and that's a very important distinction when discussing both physical fitness and health risk.

Someone at an average height of say 173-178 cm would only need to be 90-100kg to be considered "obese" (BMI >= 30), and that's frankly not uncommon amongst the weight-trained population. They may not be winning any bodybuilding contests at that body fat level, but they won't be remotely "obese" in the sense of "looking like a really fat person".

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, in the OP, it is mentioned that students with a BMI of 30 or more also have their waist measured. It's a pretty quick-and-dirty means to eliminate the superfit from the obese.

Distinguishing between the fit weight-lifter with a high BMI and the obese is not that difficult even with the old Eyeball Mark I.

[ThomasP]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, in the OP, it is mentioned that students with a BMI of 30 or more also have their waist measured. It's a pretty quick-and-dirty means to eliminate the superfit from the obese.

Distinguishing between the fit weight-lifter with a high BMI and the obese is not that difficult even with the old Eyeball Mark I.

None of the people I'm speaking of are going to have an excessive waist measurement, either. The entire point of what I said was that you can't just blanketly assume that BMI ~30 equates to obesity, and the point about the waist measurement doesn't alter that.

Again, I don't disagree with the general premise that a sedentary person with a >30 BMI will likely be fat, but it's not always going to be the case that someone in the low 30s is going to be a health risk or even "visually obese". So I guess we're in agreement; I just wanted to point out that BMI=30 isn't automatically talking about a giant fat fuck.

[Simon_Jester]

Which everyone involved already knew quite well, including whoever put this test together by checking it against the waistline.

If you want my advice, just let it go. Consider everyone informed.