* BMI: A wholly inadequate tool for obesity, as any tool that suggests you "get healthier" when you lop off a limb must be. In fact, the originator of the metric cautioned specifically against its use on an individual level, but only to use it to compare populations of otherwise-heterogeneous people.
It is in use medically mostly because most MDs are too lazy to bother with skinfold and/or circumference tests in a case where patient compliance is low regardless.
When the numbers change, almost daily, as to what is obese and what isn’t, it’s hard to tell, really. A few people I know have been told they are obese, but if they came even 20lbs close to the “recommended” wight, they’d practically be dead. Found a simple tool for height/weight and it tells me I’d need to be between 135 and 168, with 152 being ideal for my height. I can’t see me being close to that without major surgery(stomach stapling, liposuction, etc). And who knows what complications might arise from dropping my weight in half(either diet-exercise or surgery)
@keith
I agree absolutely that going to a larger tire size would be extremely beneficial. I have had great succes doing it many 4wd and even Corollas. Unfortunately, as far as Subaru Outbacks are concerned, they are pretty maxed out in the fitment department. Being independently sprung, any clearance is valuable and with a obese person, an oversize tire could easily bottom out on the well or component in a turn or on a bump. I was passed by an Outback last week who’s ground clearance dwindled to 4 inches or less with the load it was carrying…and there was no 400 lb ER in the back…
Overall though, great advice !
@missleman
I will vote for you in a heart beat if you decide to run for office on that stance alone !!! Think of it. From car talk to Senator on the back of anti ethanol platform…all the people who have small motors or cars will consider you. You are a shoe in.
Les Schwab requires that I rotate my tires every 5000-6000 miles for warranty. If I should only rotate my tires 4x for the lifetime of the tire, would 50,000 miles tires be better than 70,000? As I mentioned earlier, I only got 40,000 out of my AS. They want to sell me P225/55R-17 95T Eclipse , which I have now or 225/55R-17XL 101V Granada HP AS. They’re giving me 30% off and there’s about $150 difference. Is there much difference in the tires?
I also need a hub assembly on the right rear. I think that’s due to normal wear and tear. I have about 156,000 miles on my car. I don’t want to offend my passenger, but I want him to be safe. He’s a great person and stuck working/commuting with me also.
Thanks again, I really appreciate the advice and this has been very helpful.
I remember back when I was swinging wrenches a person came in who was grossly overwieght driving a Mercury Bobcat. The car had a permanate lean to the left. I’m not trying to be mean but this person wore the springs out.
The 95T means the tire has a load rating of 95 and a speed rating of T. The 101V has a higher load rating, 101 and a higher speed rating V. The T is adequate for normal driving speeds up to 118 mph, the V rating is good for up to 149 mph.
The 101 would be helpful but you don’t need the V rating, but since the tire comes with it, it will be OK, but I’m afraid it will wear out faster.
Remember that because you have an extra 400 pounds in your vehicle, You will have 400# of extra momentum that will be instanteously transfered back unto that mass on impacts. The bolts holding the seat belts may hold as may the seatbelt but the sheet metal the bolts are attached to, may rip apart.
So the 101V is a higher performance, less expensive tire that wears out faster? Interesting. I would’ve thought that higher performance tires would cost more. It’s fairly flat around here but we do get extreme weather and road conditions. Most of my driving is on open roads going around 65 mph, very little stop and start driving. I just need a good work horse set of tires and will be sure to keep the air pressure up high.
Thanks again for the good advice. I just wanted to know if the info from Les Schwab was correct. They had seen it before, but with the front left tire. They had a morbidly obese woman who went through the front left tire 3 times faster than the others. That’s how the whole weight topic came up. Prior to being told I needed 2 new sets of tires, weight distribution was completely off my radar. Safety too. This is my 3rd Subaru.
The problems @wearingthin is running into is just the tip of the iceberg. I willing bet that this morbidly obese person is a high consumer of high fructose corn syrup and aspartame. All of us should be concerned with fixing the problem before instead of after in dealing with @wearingthins dilemma. It is not the over weight persons problem alone as theses poor souls are the victims of misinformation initially and chemical induced dependency later.
Here is a sample of how and why this epidemic is spread without our control and why we shouldn’t be in the blame game with the obese. It’s everyone’s problem as this well directed post illustrates. Speak out against crap like this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/11427658 then read http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html
@longprime brings out a valid point where everyone is put at risk all the way down the chain starting with manufacturers of artificial foods. Morbidity is a strong but appropriate term to discribe this situation. We are all in danger of falling victim like @wearingthin physically or financially, even as a passenger or friend.
@dagosa
Did I say something about sweetners?
I was into food processing when I was younger, We were taught that manufactured fructose was identical to honey and fruit sugar. And even sugar turned into fructose and glucose with acid and time or when metabolized.
I think in the early 70’s when USA started to subsidized cane sugar and then sugar processors (Cuba effect) that we processors were forced to move to manufactured fructose and corn syrup…
Although morbid obesity can cause uneven tire wear, so can other issues, like if you have a slow leak in one tire. A slow leak might make a tire overheat and deteriorate faster than the rest.
I remember when I was a kid in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the camp where I could go for a couple weeks every summer had a couple morbidly obese counselors, and their old junker cars always leaned to the left because the driver’s side suspension took more of a beating than the other side.
In any case, I’m not sure what you can do with this information. Do you ask your passenger to contribute to tire cost? I wouldn’t want to have that conversation.
When you get a new motorhome, the owner’s manual recommends you load it up with your gear, fill the tanks, and get it aligned before your first trip, so you might consider putting some weight in your front passenger seat before getting your alignment checked and adjusted.
@longprime
I believe You brought out the possible effects of an obese person and their effects during impact on things like seat belts. Maybe I assumed wrong but I thought you might be indicating a possible safety hazzard. I apologize if I was wrong… I then made the link of your safety hazzard to the responsibility that the manufacturers of artificial foods have…not you I made it in light too of the other posts who put the onus for wearingthins problem, myself included, on where it really belongs…the food industry. It is my contention, not yours or any other post.
What you were taught about high fructose corn syrup when you were younger is not what is accepted today. Unless you are less then 25 years old ;=)) just google high fructose corn syrup vs natural sugar and it’s affects on weight gain. The higher concentration of sugar in this form dramatically changes the tolerance for it making it much more habit forming …we .didn’t think that way…way back when you and I were being educated. All sugars in high concentrations are “poisonous” ( cause harm) and just saying it is like natural but increasing it’s dosage in no way absolve the food industry from responsibility it has in obesity. Early studies were financed by the food industry…we are just getting to the real facts. You can’t eat enough fruit with it’s sugar to come close to that found in processed foods today !!!
! Now, if you and I went to Prineton now, we might feel that even if the caloric intake is the same as table sugar, you WILL HAVE GREATER weight gain with HFCS. Very informative study if you read all…
The industry knows it, while others, you and I don’t…that is one of the biggest reason imho, why people are obese…they are misinformed. When they are…it is too late. They are addicted often !!! Just like tobacco, firarms and asbestos industry, making money on pain and suffering and death with OUR colusion and their full knowledge…
@dagosa
Yes you can get too much fruit sugar (fructose) by eating fruits and honey. We had a peach orchard and a cherry orchard next door. I regularly ate pounds and pounds of imperfect peaches because they were too ripe for market or blemished. Cherries - a pound is about my limit with the goal of finding the sweetess and most perfect cherry.
@longprime
I agree, of course you can…hence my comment that all sugars can be bad for the system if you eat too much. But, there is no way you can each as much sugar from HFCS in the processed foods …by eating fruit because HFCS is added to so many foods, the average consumer who does not avoid processed foods gets much more sugar from it then you could possibly eating natural unprocessed foods and a good helping of fruit…Your example asside, the average person does not eat that much fruit. But if he did, it would still be better off because…
with fruit you get nutrients and roughage which slows the absorption of the sugar, decreasing it’s adverse affects…processed foods with HFCS contain little or no roughage and often little or no nutrients The body with a high intake of processed foods with HFCS is often nutrient starved causing people who eat them, to be continuously hungry. That is their misinformation…l
. Plus, did you read the Princeton study that said HFCS cause greater obesity then the SAME caloric count as ordinary sugar ? An d it 's not just a slight difference in weight gain. Over and over, HFCS has shown to be a significant health problem. It’s a problem that the food industry is aware of the same as the cigarette industry was when it artificailly increased nicotine levels and arsenic in cigarettes to promote addiction.
With 80% of our healthcare cost oing toward preventable deseases, the biggest being obesity related diabetes…lit’s really a. “dah” moment. Like maybe, just maybe cigarettes are the biggest cause of lung cancer ( and many other ailments) took a while for people to come on board…like the tobacco industry bent on killing people for profit…this is NO different.
I know you guys are tired of me sprouting this stuff, but healthcare cost are so high, that budgets have to be cut everywhere including healthcare, because of the direct effects of aspremtane and HFCS…Slowly , those of you who disagree, like the affects of cigarettes may come on board over the years…
Talk to knowledgable healthcare people, dietitians, doctors and caregivers when you have the chance.
There is literature out there showing that artificial sweeteners are as bad as regular sugar. They don’t have the calories, but they cause a spike and crash in your blood sugar and make you crave/eat more. All in all defeating the purpose they were intended for.
We have been an “almost” soda and sugar/sweetener free family for 2+ years and it is just fine.
"All defeating the purpose they were intended ? " congrats… @galant
Making you crave more IS their purpose. They (the food industry) hire some pretty bright people whose job it is to make profits, regardless of your and my long term health. Now because people like you get it, the food industry is partitioning the FDA to drop the requirement that aspartame be required indicated on labels of some foods…, like milk products. They want to start kids early.
We raised our kids, soda free and the grandchildren, thankfully are as well. Keep up the good work . One family at a time.