Obesity only here in the USA ?

The Champ

Yum, who needs the bun anyway..it only gets in the way:

haffajappa

i refuse to believe that any serious professional in the medical field would agree that this:


is healthy.

_

RW81233 wrote:

You gotta check this stuff out...it's mind blowing. Basically the authors of all those books go through the studies that "prove" obesity is bad then critically re-read the methods, findings, connect the dots with corporate funders and so on, then break down the mythology (read mythology because it is rooted in SOME truth) of obesity. Believe me I was like you about a year ago thinking I was going to do this study on obesity and how to combat it, but these books basically refuted or re-framed the findings for the studies I was going to use to support my argument. What is even more interesting about all of it is that the authors themselves started off as anti-obesity researchers and had obesity grants then after doing the research changed their minds. I'm not saying you will, or that you'll totally agree, but they lay out some pretty convincing arguments. BTW the 9 percent corrollation to early death comes from Deb Burgard's chapter in the Fat Studies reader.

The thing that helped me get to this point most was to ask myself why it was that I took the obesity is terrible stance as dogma in the first place...then asked who has the most to gain from this being the case. Basically everyone involved in obesity from Michelle Obama (politically), grant seeking academics (for tenure), the diet/health industry (capital), televisual (culturally) has a hand in making it seem important, because it helps them out. Hell, you could even through me into the mix as someone whose research only exists as contrarian to the popular beliefs in obesity...if it wasn't popular I'd probably be doing something else.

I know why I take the obesity-is-bad-for-your-health stance: Because every single medical and public health professional I know has told me it is. Because all the professional organizations I trust have told me it is. And because my experience has told me it is.

So what makes the sources you cite more credible than all of these? I can’t believe that they lack a conflict of interest possessed by ALL the sources that say obesity is unhealthy. I can’t believe that they have an understanding of methodology that the preponderance of the medical and public health communities lacks. :?

LikeAnOcean

The Champ wrote:

Yum, who needs the bun anyway..it only gets in the way:

You know something, I bet that tastes REALLY good.. but so does crack.

mr.pink

Big business and the government play a huge part in increasing obesity starting in the 70s and now the same entities are reaping the benefits of the poor health they created.... and you're surprised???

haffajappa

scb wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

You gotta check this stuff out...it's mind blowing. Basically the authors of all those books go through the studies that "prove" obesity is bad then critically re-read the methods, findings, connect the dots with corporate funders and so on, then break down the mythology (read mythology because it is rooted in SOME truth) of obesity. Believe me I was like you about a year ago thinking I was going to do this study on obesity and how to combat it, but these books basically refuted or re-framed the findings for the studies I was going to use to support my argument. What is even more interesting about all of it is that the authors themselves started off as anti-obesity researchers and had obesity grants then after doing the research changed their minds. I'm not saying you will, or that you'll totally agree, but they lay out some pretty convincing arguments. BTW the 9 percent corrollation to early death comes from Deb Burgard's chapter in the Fat Studies reader.

The thing that helped me get to this point most was to ask myself why it was that I took the obesity is terrible stance as dogma in the first place...then asked who has the most to gain from this being the case. Basically everyone involved in obesity from Michelle Obama (politically), grant seeking academics (for tenure), the diet/health industry (capital), televisual (culturally) has a hand in making it seem important, because it helps them out. Hell, you could even through me into the mix as someone whose research only exists as contrarian to the popular beliefs in obesity...if it wasn't popular I'd probably be doing something else.

I know why I take the obesity-is-bad-for-your-health stance: Because every single medical and public health professional I know has told me it is. Because all the professional organizations I trust have told me it is. And because my experience has told me it is.

So what makes the sources you cite more credible than all of these? I can’t believe that they lack a conflict of interest possessed by ALL the sources that say obesity is unhealthy. I can’t believe that they have an understanding of methodology that the preponderance of the medical and public health communities lacks. :?

i agree... also, i think that we're talking about different things.
i think that they might be referring to obesity as described in a BMI measurement (which I think we can ALL agree is pretty inaccurate) ...I can only speak for myself, but I am talking about obesity as in an unhealthy body weight.

the only journal articles i've found so far on being 'healthy' whilst obese are when someone is considered "fit-fat" - like they are overweight but still live a pretty healthy lifestyle.

that said, unless i'm mistaken, i think the thread was talking about obesity in the context of people at unhealthy weights (not 'obese' on the BMI metre) ... hence why i'm also confused how anyone could seriously suggest that obesity isn't a health risk.

_

haffajappa wrote:

i agree... also, i think that we're talking about different things.
i think that they might be referring to obesity as described in a BMI measurement (which I think we can ALL agree is pretty inaccurate) ...I can only speak for myself, but I am talking about obesity as in an unhealthy body weight.

the only journal articles i've found so far on being 'healthy' whilst obese are when someone is considered "fit-fat" - like they are overweight but still live a pretty healthy lifestyle.

that said, unless i'm mistaken, i think the thread was talking about obesity in the context of people at unhealthy weights (not 'obese' on the BMI metre) ... hence why i'm also confused how anyone could seriously suggest that obesity isn't a health risk.

I think you might be right that we're talking about different things. I'm not necessarily talking about BMI. We all knew being overweight was generally unhealthy long before we ever heard of BMI. I guess I agree with you that I'm talking about obesity as in an "unhealthy body weight" - which is necessarily unhealthy (since it has the word "unhealthy" right in the description and all).

And of course obesity is only one factor of health outcomes. I'm not saying everyone who's overweight is necessarily going to fall over and die of a heart attack at a young age. But, all other things being equal, it is more likely to happen in an obese person than in a person of a more "healthy" weight. And we can look back at people who have had heart attacks and see the corrolation with obesity. Maybe we're all just splitting hairs here.

redrock

RW81233 wrote:

well i guess that's the thing when a diet works and people lose weight (I've dropped about 20-25 lbs since I got engaged 3 years ago), does that mean I get a health benefit out of it? I do eat healthier, and am more active, but is that more important than the weight itself?

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'.

_

scb wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

obesity has only been demonstrated to, at most, have a 9 percent corollation to early death

I still think this is a really misleading statement at best. And given your use of the word "corrolation" instead of "causation" I don't think it's true. (I still haven't read the stuff you sent me. I'll be sure to let you know if I change my mind.)

Update: Read the keynote. Haven't changed my mind.

facepollution

scb wrote:

Am I wrong, then, when I think you would be less likely to use her as an example of someone with poor eating and exercise habits if she were really nice and thin?

No you're not wrong, in case you haven't read the thread title it's about OBESITY, this girl is obese. If we were talking about bad eating habits amongst the slim, I would have used a different example. I think it's pretty common practive to use an appropriate real life experience as an example.

scb wrote:

I'm sure you saw that the dictionary has more than one definition, including:

"affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor."

"the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God."

Can't we feel these emotions for people we don't know, and even people we never meet?

Ah right, I sensed there were religious over tones to your views a few pages back....don;t know if I'm misunderstanding you or what......however, if I'm correct I guess we can leave it there, because we clearly have different views on the world.

scb wrote:

But I think judgements about people (note that I did not say people's actions) should be acknowledged and then set aside since, being created from our own experiences & perspectives, they only stand in the way of true understanding. Also, loving others unconditionally and accepting their behaviors are two completely different things. As they say, love the sin, not the sinner.

[/quote]

Love the sin not the sinner? I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the other way around, no?

dunkman

some of the posters on this thread clearly have a big chip on their shoulder... so, quick... eat it before the others grab it!!

RW81233

redrock wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

well i guess that's the thing when a diet works and people lose weight (I've dropped about 20-25 lbs since I got engaged 3 years ago), does that mean I get a health benefit out of it? I do eat healthier, and am more active, but is that more important than the weight itself?

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 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.

RW81233

Even if you don't believe me here's and excerpt from Paul Campos' book The Obesity Myth:
For example, "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States," the JAMA study responsible for the "fact" that fat kills three hundred thousand Americans per year, contains the following remarkable sentence in the statement of methods: "Our calculations assume that all (controlling for age, sex and smoking) excess mortality in obese people is due to their adiposity." The authors of this study did not try to determine the extent to which sedentary lifestyle, dietary content, dieting, diet drugs, poverty, discrimination in health care, and social discrimination in general, among other factors, accounted for some, most, or indeed quite possibly all of the excess mortality they observed among same groups of heavier people. In other words, they created the validity of their conclusion by sheer definition: They "discovered" that all excess mortality among the heavier than average was caused by "excess" weight by simply assuming this was the case! (p. 27)

This study is the one most often cited by the surgeon general, the diet and health industry, and other scholars who state that obesity causes early mortality, and it's based on a radical assumption. There's no way anyone could logically argue that this is "science", but because of our culture that fears fat it seems to make sense. In other words health problems based simply on weight are far too simplistic in the way that the research is analyzed. I'm telling you this book will make you question the "facts" of fatness.

facepollution

RW81233 wrote:

This study is the one most often cited by the surgeon general, the diet and health industry, and other scholars who state that obesity causes early mortality, and it's based on a radical assumption. There's no way anyone could logically argue that this is "science", but because of our culture that fears fat it seems to make sense. In other words health problems based simply on weight are far too simplistic in the way that the research is analyzed. I'm telling you this book will make you question the "facts" of fatness.

Well people don't die because of smoking itself, they die of related illnesses - it's the same for obesity. Being obese raises your risk of developing various cancers, diabetes, joint diseases etc.

The human body is not designed to be massively overweight, and we certainly don't thrive when we are. We lived for millions of years surviving on the whole food we were able to find, but the overabundance of food we have today means that people's bodies are having to adapt and cope with way more than they should to remain healthy. You think how hard the body has to work if you're consuming massive quantities of energy which you don't need. If you spend your life eating double your daily calorie needs, the wear and tear on your insides will also be double that of someone who eats more sensibly. There comes a point where the body can no longer cope. Of course this varies from person to person, and factors like genetics play a part too. Just because science might not be able to give a definitive answer for something, does not mean there isn't truth to be found.

eyedclaar

facepollution wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

This study is the one most often cited by the surgeon general, the diet and health industry, and other scholars who state that obesity causes early mortality, and it's based on a radical assumption. There's no way anyone could logically argue that this is "science", but because of our culture that fears fat it seems to make sense. In other words health problems based simply on weight are far too simplistic in the way that the research is analyzed. I'm telling you this book will make you question the "facts" of fatness.

Well people don't die because of smoking itself, they die of related illnesses - it's the same for obesity. Being obese raises your risk of developing various cancers, diabetes, joint diseases etc.

The human body is not designed to be massively overweight, and we certainly don't thrive when we are. We lived for millions of years surviving on the whole food we were able to find, but the overabundance of food we have today means that people's bodies are having to adapt and cope with way more than they should to remain healthy. You think how hard the body has to work if you're consuming massive quantities of energy which you don't need. If you spend your life eating double your daily calorie needs, the wear and tear on your insides will also be double that of someone who eats more sensibly. There comes a point where the body can no longer cope. Of course this varies from person to person, and factors like genetics play a part too. Just because science might not be able to give a definitive answer for something, does not mean there isn't truth to be found.

Agreed. I don't really need a book or science to tell me that being overweight is a problem. All you have to do is go hiking with a couple of friends and when the bear charges and you are the slowest of the bunch, guess what? The morale of the story is - make sure you always go hiking with someone slower than you.

_

facepollution wrote:

No you're not wrong

Just as I thought. Case closed.

facepollution wrote:

Ah right, I sensed there were religious over tones to your views a few pages back....don;t know if I'm misunderstanding you or what......however, if I'm correct I guess we can leave it there, because we clearly have different views on the world.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about religion, per se.

facepollution wrote:

Love the sin not the sinner? I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the other way around, no?

No. :?

facepollution

scb wrote:

facepollution wrote:

No you're not wrong

Just as I thought. Case closed.

You're not wrong purely because I wouldn't have been using a slim person in an example of obesity - which is what this thread is about. Not because I was descriminating against her purely based on her looks, had she not brought up the subject of weight etc I wouldn't have used her as an example at all - I have plenty of overweight friends, but they didn't do what she did. It's really not that difficult to grasp.......Were this thread about bad eating habits in general, I would have told you about my slim friends who eat NO fruit or veg at all, ever, or the guy at work who lives on meat, bread, chocolate and fanta - he doesn't even drink water! See, it's all about matching the relevant real life example to the subject being discussed, like I said, it's not that hard to grasp.

scb wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about religion, per se.

So the notion you're advocating doesn't bare an uncanny resemblance to the 'god loves all his children' saying?

facepollution wrote:

Love the sin not the sinner? I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the other way around, no?

scb wrote:

No. :?

So love the rapist's behaviour/sin, but hate the rapist? Ok now I am confused.

redrock

RW81233 wrote:

redrock wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

well i guess that's the thing when a diet works and people lose weight (I've dropped about 20-25 lbs since I got engaged 3 years ago), does that mean I get a health benefit out of it? I do eat healthier, and am more active, but is that more important than the weight itself?

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.

_

facepollution wrote:

You're not wrong purely because I wouldn't have been using a slim person in an example of obesity - which is what this thread is about. Not because I was descriminating against her purely based on her looks, had she not brought up the subject of weight etc I wouldn't have used her as an example at all - I have plenty of overweight friends, but they didn't do what she did. It's really not that difficult to grasp.......Were this thread about bad eating habits in general, I would have told you about my slim friends who eat NO fruit or veg at all, ever, or the guy at work who lives on meat, bread, chocolate and fanta - he doesn't even drink water! See, it's all about matching the relevant real life example to the subject being discussed, like I said, it's not that hard to grasp.

OK then.

facepollution wrote:

So the notion you're advocating doesn't bare an uncanny resemblance to the 'god loves all his children' saying?

Yes, it does. But just because it can be found in religion doesn't mean it's a religious concept. It's also the same as the ideas of Gandhi.

facepollution wrote:

facepollution wrote:

Love the sin not the sinner? I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the other way around, no?

scb wrote:

No. :?

So love the rapist's behaviour/sin, but hate the rapist? Ok now I am confused.

Wait... you're right; I had that backwards.

RW81233

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.

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.