High body mass index is not a barrier to physical activity: Analysis of international rugby players' anthropometric data

Recent data indicate that levels of overweight and obesity are increasing at an alarming rate throughout the world. At a population level (and commonly to assess individual health risk), the prevalence of overweight and obesity is calculated using cut-offs of the Body Mass Index (BMI) derived from height and weight. Similarly, the BMI is also used to classify individuals and to provide a notional indication of potential health risk. It is likely that epidemiologic surveys that are reliant on BMI as a measure of adiposity will overestimate the number of individuals in the overweight (and slightly obese) categories. This tendency to misclassify individuals may be more pronounced in athletic populations or groups in which the proportion of more active individuals is higher. This differential is most pronounced in sports where it is advantageous to have a high BMI (but not necessarily high fatness). To illustrate this point we calculated the BMIs of international professional rugby players from the four teams involved in the semi-finals of the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) cut-offs for BMI, approximately 65% of the players were classified as overweight and approximately 25% as obese. These findings demonstrate that a high BMI is commonplace (and a potentially desirable attribute for sport performance) in professional rugby players. An unanswered question is what proportion of the wider population, classified as overweight (or obese) according to the BMI, is misclassified according to both fatness and health risk? It is evident that being overweight should not be an obstacle to a physically active lifestyle. Similarly, a reliance on BMI alone may misclassify a number of individuals who might otherwise have been automatically considered fat and/or unfit.

Subtropical subdivisions : toward a lot-rating methodology for subtropical climates

What role can climatically appropriate subdivision design play in decreasing the use of energy required to cool premises by maximising access to natural ventilation? How can this design be achieved? The subdivision design stage is critical to urban and suburban sustainability outcomes, as significant changes after development are constrained by the configuration of the subdivision, and then by the construction of the dwellings. Existing Australian lot rating methodologies for energy efficiency, such as that by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA), focus on reducing heating needs by increasing solar access, a key need in Australia’s temperate zone. A recent CRC CI project, Sustainable Subdivisions: Energy (Miller and Ambrose 2005) examined these guidelines to see if they could be adapted for use in subtropical South East Queensland (SEQ). Correlating the lot ratings with dwelling ratings, the project found that the SEDA guidelines would need to be modified for use to make allowance for natural ventilation. In SEQ, solar access for heating is less important than access to natural ventilation, and there is a need to reduce energy used to cool dwellings. In Queensland, the incidence of residential air-conditioning was predicted to reach 50 per cent by the end of 2005 (Mickel 2004). The CRC-CI, Sustainable Subdivisions: Ventilation Project (CRC-CI, in progress), aims to verify and quantify the role natural ventilation has in cooling residences in subtropical climates and develop a lot rating methodology for SEQ. This paper reviews results from an industry workshop that explored the current attitudes and methodologies used by a range of professionals involved in subdivision design and development in SEQ. Analysis of the workshop reveals that a key challenge for sustainability is that land development in subtropical SEQ is commonly a separate process from house design and siting. Finally, the paper highlights some of the issues that regulators and industry face in adopting a lot rating methodology for subdivisions offering improved ventilation access, including continuing disagreement between professionals over the desirability of rating tools.