Thank you for comment with some impressive nitpicking that "highly intelligent" should be "relatively intelligent". Also very impressive how you make an argument in your comment that these animals barely rank alongside human children, and back it up with an example of how these animals *outperform* children.

BTW, did you know that Chimpanzees can perform basic arithmetic much *faster* than pretty much *any* human, child or adult? Does that mean we barely measure up to chimpanzees?

There are numerous examples of highly advanced behaviours in Orcas, e.g. hunting strategies that require significant forward planning and close co-operation to pull off. E.g. washing seals off ice floes by swimming in tight formation to create a large bow wave. They also have complex social structures and behaviours, as with other dolphins and most whales generally. Mothers have been seen to teach calves hunting skills, e.g. pods that beach-hunt mothers have been seen "instructing" calves on how to do it, even pushing them toward the beach. This is clear evidence of culture - a very high-order behaviour. There is also strong evidence that Orcas have languages, differing significantly between different groupings.

In "Blackfish" it was reported that a pod of Orcas, that had had calves taken before, adopted a strategy to try foil the hunters. They split up with one group of adults swimming down one sound, breaching regularly to attract the attention of the hunters and divert them; while another group of mothers swam quietly with the calves down another sound (unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft). That story, if true, shows incredibly advanced planning, problem solving and organisational abilities.

You could go on and on. There is, to my understanding, *ample* evidence that these are *highly* intelligent animals, and are used to living very social and inter-dependent lives. On the latter social aspect, their needs potentially may even be much greater than ours.

Orcas are much, much, much, more intelligent than wolves.

Oh, and you seemed to describe Farah Fawcett in her day as "severely underweight" and potentially (you didn't clear up whether or not you intended it) Lee Majors as "skinny" :). I really do think there is a strong possibility that you've allowed the norms of the current overweight & obese society you live in to skew your perception. ;)

Again, as per others, while BMI is definitely a heuristic rather than a precise diagnostic, if however you're near "obese" on the BMI scale then, *unless* you're one of an astonishingly rare number of people who are incredibly muscular and lean, you almost certainly are carrying extra weight that you probably shouldn't be. :)

You havn't posted any facts though that I'm aware of, other than your interpretations. Indeed, you've already shown to me that your perception of "not overweight" is skewed, given the photo links you posted - one of whom (the pool guy) clearly is carrying extra weight. :)

You previously qualified your body fat percentage as being in the lean range for "your age". I'm not as convinced as you are that it is normal to put on 1 kg per annum with age - other than for a definition of "normal" that is tied in to the increase in excess-weight and obesity in the west. Though, I agree with you that it gets harder and harder with age to avoid putting on that weight, but in my case it's more down to increased time pressure making it harder to regularly do exercise, plus the fact that with age socialising revolves ever more around plentiful food. ;)

Also, if you've been fat in the past, but lost most of the weight again, those fat cells are largely still there. They may be mostly empty, but they're sitting there waiting. Next time you eat too much, your body no longer has to go to the *expense* of making fat cells, the fat cells are there, ready to store the excess lipids. That makes it much easier to put on weight, and much more difficult not to.

I'm very, very sceptical that you could be on the verge of "obese" yet be "lean" by any definition (other than ones normalised to a predominantly overweight and obese population). As others you'd have noted, you'd have to be *incredibly* muscled for this to be true. So... I still suspect there's a good chance there's an element of will-full self-delusion here. ;)

Farah Fawcett looks a healthy weight to me, and again my memory is they were held up as athletic girls. Googling around suggests she was 1.69 metres and somewhere between 55 to 60 kg, which'd make her a BMI of between 19¼ and 21 - in the healthy range.

I'm wondering if you're one of these of people who's in denial about being overweight? :)

Err, 70s hulk.

Well, none of the people in my old family photos were Hollywood pinups. So, I'm not sure how that's relevant. :)

Further, are you saying all the people in those photos are dreadfully underweight, or just the first photo? If just the first photo, well the angels in Charlie's angels weren't at all overweight, granted, but neither were they malnourished waifs either. They were considered to be fairly athletic builds for young woman at the time as far as I remember. Indeed, it's in more recent times that the female ideal has shifted more to the 'malnourished' look, I think. That first photo - they all look like healthy, very normal weight young women to me!

Given you also said "hunks", and linked to that series of photos: are you trying to say that Lee Majors (the guy in the suit with the 3 angels) is skinny and underweight? He was considered a beefy action man then!

Actually, that's another thing, steroid abuse in sports has shifted the ideal male shape far from normality. I remember in the 80s rugby players and male action movie stars (e.g. Kirk Douglas, Lee Majors, etc) could be beefy but still were always within the bounds of normality (other than a few actors who came from the body building scene). Today, many rugby players and action stars look like they'd put the original 80s Incredible Hulk to shame. Steroid abuse however is not at all healthy!

Anyway, all this is irrelevant. I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about day to day photos of normal people and comparing those from decades past to today. Try it for yourself and I'm *sure* you'll notice the same thing - there is ample statistical evidence for population wide weight gain after all!

I don't think my parents were going for that look. Also, this was in Europe. Also, they didn't look thinner than in the 50s / 60s.

The first one is the pumpkin woman - I covered her already: Photo is distant, front on, fully clothed, wearing stripes so hard to judge her shape. However, she certainly doesn't look skinny.

The 2nd photo looks like a professionally shot photo, very likely for a magazine. Indeed, you can see writing in the bottom left corner, as if from a catalogue. It's suspicious that this photo is in there. If this photo hasn't been retouched, well it's certainly been shot to show this woman in the best possible light. Further, again, she's wearing stripes and its front on - making it hard to tell.

The 4th: He's got a slightly baggy shirt on, so hard to be sure, but from the way it goes in at his belt, he may well have a very slight paunch - which would be very consistent with 'overweight', no?

The 5th: He's about my height, and he's definitely heavier set than I am - you can see some spare subcutaneous fat between his neck and jawline.

I am right on the line between normal and overweight, FWIW. My face and neck and shoulders probably look like I'm not carrying much fat. However, I still have a slight spare tyre around my midriff. Further, under the skin is not the only place fat accumulates. It also accumulates around the organs. People can look relatively thin if judged just on the upper body or legs or skin, but still be overweight because of visceral fat.

I think the problem perhaps is that people have become accustomed to overweight being "normal". However, it wasn't. If I look through old photos, from my grandparents times when my parents when kids, in the 50s and 60s, to when I was a young child in the 70s, it is *striking* to me how people then were generally much thinner than people today, particularly pre-middle-aged adults (e.g. my parents).

Just because overweight has become "normal" in the sense that most western populations are now overweight, doesn't mean it is "normal" with respect to a healthy weight.

You can see this in the UK too sometimes.

Yeah, that's what I do too. When I'm at home I sometimes crave food, but I can control myself when shopping. So the trick is to buy only healthy and filling stuff. Unfortunately, my other half is the opposite - can't control herself in the shop, but has no problem not eating the junk once it's at home. ;)

Yeah, portions have increased. It's especially noticeable when you compare plate sizes. I did this last time I was at my mother's: We compared the old plates she still had from the 70s, to the more modern plates we use today. The modern ones are much bigger. The old dinner plates, you'd use them for lunch or cakes or appetisers today.

I grew up in the 70s and early 80s in western europe. We had sweets and sugar, but there wasn't the abundance of sweets then as there is today - is my vague memory. Least, I remember getting sweets being special, and not getting many of them when I did.