Apart from what others have said about the advantages of the change of lifestyle/habits that go with 'proper' weight loss, yes - the weight itself does make a difference, especially over the years. Carrying a lot of extra weight is harder on the body, ie heart, bones (knees!), etc. Also, overweight people are prone to diabetes - even the 'healthy' obese. This is due to the large amount of fat cells being 'resistant' to insulin, therefore too much glucose gets into the blood. Also, cells may start using fatty acids for energy (less efficient) and stop burning the sugars, therefore levels go sky high. Dieting, as in a bogus weight loss 'programme' that does not give your body the calories or nutrients it needs in order to lose weight, is damaging. Lifestyle change can only be beneficial - then weight loss is a nice little 'side effect'.
1. I agree and this is where my argument lies...it's not necessarily the fat (although it's not "good") that's bad )
You misunderstood. I clearly argued that fat IS bad (eg diabetes) and that extra weight (due to fat) is bad.
If you think that the fact that your body can't function properly causing a potentially fatal disease and that it deteriorates quicker because of excess fat is only 'not good' as opposed to 'bad', you are a bit blinded I'm afraid.
Here's an example: I've pretty much had a poor diet and exercise habits for most of my life. But most of my life I was underweight. People acted like I was healthy because I was thin, but it wasn't true. Now that my metabolism has slowed down and my habits have remained unchanged, I am overweight. I am still unhealthy, just as I was before, because my diet and exercise habits are the same as always. But I am even more unhealthy now than I was when I was thinner, because of the extra weight. Not only am I at greater risk for diabetes, etc., but I can feel that my body clearly doesn't function as well as it did when I weighed less.
1. I agree and this is where my argument lies...it's not necessarily the fat (although it's not "good") that's bad it's the nutrition, or lack thereof, in all the food that we eat that is. Not all people who eat this bad stuff are fat, and not all fat people eat the bad stuff. This is coupled with the fact that we aren't getting exercise at the same levels which isn't good for you either. Again, not all thin people work out, and not all fat people don't. Thus those on the obesity scale, which is still determined by the BMI metric (something we all seem to agree is an antiquated and ridiculous thing), really focuses on the wrong stuff. I admit that there are nuanced studies that go beyond BMI and measure body fat to muscle ratio, activity levels, genetics, and so on but when the general public makes determinations of people's (ill) health based on their outward appearances it's silly.
2. I think some people are misunderstanding my argument and thinking that I am saying that being morbidly obese isn't bad for you. Clearly the picture of the very overweight child is not a good thing. However, it's not the weight that concerns me so much as the fact that he's eating fast food. What research has shown is that being in the "overweight" range, and even low on the "obese" range on the BMI scale does not translate into a significant level of early mortality. Further the idea that 400k people a year die because they are obese is a gross overstatement that allows researchers to continue getting grants so they can get tenure.
3. SCB, even if you're not convinced about my obesity argument in the keynote, is the main argument convincing? By that I mean that even if obesity IS an epidemic we can't possibly combat it in a free market society that forces companies to sell more food, make cheaper less nutritious food, or compromise public health in the name of profit. I will be presenting in front of a pretty well respected obesity researcher (Debbie Youngs), and while I suspect she will disagree on the obesity point, I do hope the main argument is enough to distract her from killing me.
1. I agree with your last point, that I bolded. (I have a degree in Women Studies; they don't let you graduate until you can understand that appearance standards are socially constructed. ) But social norms are not the subject at hand, in my opinion. Maybe we are talking about two different things.
2. I think you're preaching to choir with your point about poor diet and inactivity being unhealthy. We all agree on that. I think the divergence of opinion comes with the assertion that being overweight does not increase one's risk of poor health outcomes. (Or is that not what you are saying?) If you agree that it's unhealthy to be overweight (whatever that means), but just disagree about the method by which to determine who is overweight, that's different. I don't think anyone here has been defending the BMI scale as the be-all-end-all method of determining what it means to be overweight. If you're saying that your issue with BMI as a measurement of healthy weight discredits the studies we have been discussing, I'll have to continue that discussion when I have more time to re-read the studies. Thanks for posting excerpts from the book you cited though.
I'm inclined to think we're just splitting hairs, but that this splitting of hairs could work against us.
3. Without having your keynote in front of me right now... I wouldn't say we can't possibly combat obesity (or whatever the problem is) in a free market society. That's a little defeatist. I would say, though, that we can't look to or count on the free market to combat the problem because, as you said, it is profit-driven at the expense of all else. (Same reason I think we can't have for-profit health coverage.) That's not to say market-driven stakeholders shouldn't be invited to the table to take part in the solution - I think we should get them as invested as we can - but just that we should be realistic about what to expect from them and what motivates their decisions. I would say, for instance, that the company you worked for is taking part in the solution by just offering healthier choices, despite this being secondary to profit. I do think it's a good speech and will be well-received. And please do let us know what the well-respected obesity researcher has to say about it.
SCB I think we are splitting hairs and would have to have a sit down with you probably to split them all haha. As for inviting capitalists to the table the owner of the business is about the most benevolent capitalist I have ever known and wanted to come but couldn't. He's really into my project even though he disagrees fundamentally with my belief that food should not be for profit (as well he should), and wants to get the debate going. What would be awesome is a massive conference that brings obesity researchers, sociologists, and business owners together for a talk. Usually though they end up getting taken over by the latter who don't want to hear that they are a big part of the problem.
The Campos book talks about the fat=bad studies too, and how their methods and conclusions are also flawed. I'll find more if you like. For instance most of the jump in diabetes at the present moment can be attributed to the fact that we have gotten better at diagnosing it as well as moving the blood sugar number from 141 to 126, which meant that we instantly had millions more diabetics the day that decision was made. That woule be analagous to saying that if you have been to 10 Pearl Jam concerts you must be a huge fan, and taking a number of crazy Pearl Jam fans. Then after they tour again and more concert opportunities were available lowering the required number of concerts to being a crazy Pearl Jam fan to say 7, magically you have a crazed Pearl Jam fan epidemic on your hands.
Increased prevalence due to changing methods of surveillance aside, are you challenging Redrock's explanation of biological plausibility of increased fat as a causal factor for diabetes?
What most studies find, but don't accurately report is that the process of trying to lose weight, the psychological degradation of being "fat", genetics, inactivity, taking diet drugs to lose weight, gaining the weight back, radical surgery (1 in 50 die just from having their stomaches stapled!) and so on is more dangerous than staying fat. I'm not arguing that quality of life is lower (due mainly to the aforementioned) if you are read as being "fat", but nearly every study that tries to "prove" higher mortality along the BMI scale until you get to the truly ridiculous doesn't find what they are looking for, but the "scientists" change it to what they wanted it to be otherwise they lose funding.
But do you believe it's a good idea or bad idea, generally speaking, for people who are overweight (by whatever standard(s) you or them or their doctor decides to use) to try to lose weight through improving their diet and increasing their physical activity?
Also, I'm not so sure about your last assertion there, that scientists falsify results for the sake of funding. That's a pretty bold statement.
SCB I think we are splitting hairs and would have to have a sit down with you probably to split them all haha. As for inviting capitalists to the table the owner of the business is about the most benevolent capitalist I have ever known and wanted to come but couldn't. He's really into my project even though he disagrees fundamentally with my belief that food should not be for profit (as well he should), and wants to get the debate going. What would be awesome is a massive conference that brings obesity researchers, sociologists, and business owners together for a talk. Usually though they end up getting taken over by the latter who don't want to hear that they are a big part of the problem.
That sounds like a great idea! It doesn't have to be massive, though. You could start with just your community (though maybe your community is much larger than mine). If I were organizing such a coalition, I would also invite medical professionals, public health officials, politicians, educators, coaches, students, community members, farmers, etc.
Comments
Here's an example: I've pretty much had a poor diet and exercise habits for most of my life. But most of my life I was underweight. People acted like I was healthy because I was thin, but it wasn't true. Now that my metabolism has slowed down and my habits have remained unchanged, I am overweight. I am still unhealthy, just as I was before, because my diet and exercise habits are the same as always. But I am even more unhealthy now than I was when I was thinner, because of the extra weight. Not only am I at greater risk for diabetes, etc., but I can feel that my body clearly doesn't function as well as it did when I weighed less.
1. I agree with your last point, that I bolded. (I have a degree in Women Studies; they don't let you graduate until you can understand that appearance standards are socially constructed.
2. I think you're preaching to choir with your point about poor diet and inactivity being unhealthy. We all agree on that. I think the divergence of opinion comes with the assertion that being overweight does not increase one's risk of poor health outcomes. (Or is that not what you are saying?) If you agree that it's unhealthy to be overweight (whatever that means), but just disagree about the method by which to determine who is overweight, that's different. I don't think anyone here has been defending the BMI scale as the be-all-end-all method of determining what it means to be overweight. If you're saying that your issue with BMI as a measurement of healthy weight discredits the studies we have been discussing, I'll have to continue that discussion when I have more time to re-read the studies. Thanks for posting excerpts from the book you cited though.
I'm inclined to think we're just splitting hairs, but that this splitting of hairs could work against us.
3. Without having your keynote in front of me right now... I wouldn't say we can't possibly combat obesity (or whatever the problem is) in a free market society. That's a little defeatist. I would say, though, that we can't look to or count on the free market to combat the problem because, as you said, it is profit-driven at the expense of all else. (Same reason I think we can't have for-profit health coverage.) That's not to say market-driven stakeholders shouldn't be invited to the table to take part in the solution - I think we should get them as invested as we can - but just that we should be realistic about what to expect from them and what motivates their decisions. I would say, for instance, that the company you worked for is taking part in the solution by just offering healthier choices, despite this being secondary to profit. I do think it's a good speech and will be well-received. And please do let us know what the well-respected obesity researcher has to say about it.
Increased prevalence due to changing methods of surveillance aside, are you challenging Redrock's explanation of biological plausibility of increased fat as a causal factor for diabetes?
But do you believe it's a good idea or bad idea, generally speaking, for people who are overweight (by whatever standard(s) you or them or their doctor decides to use) to try to lose weight through improving their diet and increasing their physical activity?
Also, I'm not so sure about your last assertion there, that scientists falsify results for the sake of funding. That's a pretty bold statement.
That sounds like a great idea! It doesn't have to be massive, though. You could start with just your community (though maybe your community is much larger than mine). If I were organizing such a coalition, I would also invite medical professionals, public health officials, politicians, educators, coaches, students, community members, farmers, etc.