Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4 c1ue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4 c1ue

    Our Absurd Fear of Fat

    By PAUL CAMPOS

    ACCORDING to the United States government, nearly 7 out of 10 American adults weigh too much. (In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention categorized 74 percent of men and 65 percent of women as either overweight or obese.)
    But a new meta-analysis of the relationship between weight and mortality risk, involving nearly three million subjects from more than a dozen countries, illustrates just how exaggerated and unscientific that claim is.

    The meta-analysis, published this week in The Journal of the American Medical Association, reviewed data from nearly a hundred large epidemiological studies to determine the correlation between body mass and mortality risk. The results ought to stun anyone who assumes the definition of “normal” or “healthy” weight used by our public health authorities is actually supported by the medical literature.

    The study, by Katherine M. Flegal and her associates at the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal-weight individuals. If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that doesn’t increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.

    To put some flesh on these statistical bones, the study found a 6 percent decrease in mortality risk among people classified as overweight and a 5 percent decrease in people classified as Grade 1 obese, the lowest level (most of the obese fall in this category). This means that average-height women — 5 feet 4 inches — who weigh between 108 and 145 pounds have a higher mortality risk than average-height women who weigh between 146 and 203 pounds. For average-height men — 5 feet 10 inches — those who weigh between 129 and 174 pounds have a higher mortality risk than those who weigh between 175 and 243 pounds.

    Now, if we were to employ the logic of our public health authorities, who treat any correlation between weight and increased mortality risk as a good reason to encourage people to try to modify their weight, we ought to be telling the 75 million American adults currently occupying the government’s “healthy weight” category to put on some pounds, so they can move into the lower risk, higher-weight categories.

    In reality, of course, it would be nonsensical to tell so-called normal-weight people to try to become heavier to lower their mortality risk. Such advice would ignore the fact that tiny variations in relative risk in observational studies provide no scientific basis for concluding either that those variations are causally related to the variable in question or that this risk would change if the variable were altered.

    This is because observational studies merely record statistical correlations: we don’t know to what extent, if any, the slight decrease in mortality risk observed among people defined as overweight or moderately obese is caused by higher weight or by other factors. Similarly, we don’t know whether the small increase in mortality risk observed among very obese people is caused by their weight or by any number of other factors, including lower socioeconomic status, dieting and the weight cycling that accompanies it, social discrimination and stigma, or stress.

    In other words, there is no reason to believe that the trivial variations in mortality risk observed across an enormous weight range actually have anything to do with weight or that intentional weight gain or loss would affect that risk in a predictable way.

    How did we get into this absurd situation? That is a long and complex story. Over the past century, Americans have become increasingly obsessed with the supposed desirability of thinness, as thinness has become both a marker for upper-class status and a reflection of beauty ideals that bring a kind of privilege.

    In addition, baselessly categorizing at least 130 million Americans — and hundreds of millions in the rest of the world — as people in need of “treatment” for their “condition” serves the economic interests of, among others, the multibillion-dollar weight-loss industry and large pharmaceutical companies, which have invested a great deal of money in winning the good will of those who will determine the regulatory fate of the next generation of diet drugs.

    Anyone familiar with history will not be surprised to learn that “facts” have been enlisted before to confirm the legitimacy of a cultural obsession and to advance the economic interests of those who profit from that obsession.

    Don’t expect those who have made their careers on fomenting panic to understand that our current definition of “normal weight” makes absolutely no sense.

    Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the author of “The Obesity Myth: Why America’s Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous to Your Health.”

  • #2
    Re: 4 c1ue

    I will add one thing. I absolutely despise the 'fat free' trend. Fats are not necessarily bad for you. In fact, they can be very healthy; however, they are demonized to the point that any association with fat is seen as bad. So what you end up are fat free foods that are bursting with sugar instead, which is much worse for you. I would love to see some full fat foods, like yogurt, that contain much less sugar.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 4 c1ue

      A few things to consider:

      1. This is one study. How many studies conflict with this finding?
      2. The article above is written by a lawyer who authored a book that makes the same claims. It's logical for him to jump on these findings, but it's hardly an unbiased review of the research.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 4 c1ue

        Fat people move less, thus burning less calories. Cells divide more slowly and your telomeres shorten at a slower pace. So, you will live longer. --> It is like suspended animation you see in those sci-fi inter-stellar trips of the future. While you are not actually frozen, you are slower.

        As you get heavier, exercise* becomes more difficult, so naturally one avoids it. You get less oxidative stress as you avoid these activities. Thus, you live longer. Also, cells will not need to be repaired/replaced, or god-forbid you grow more metabolism-increasing muscle. Muscles use more energy, thus you will also make more of those free radicals that cause quick aging.

        As proof: You can also slow your metabolism down substantially by semi-fasting. Rats and mice and other animals, when fed lower quantities of food, live a lot longer. This proves, beyond a doubt "Aaron's Theory". - Anything you can do to prevent cell division will allow you to live longer. This includes sitting on your ass eating all day and avoiding exercise and muscle gain.

        * exercise, in moderation, allows your body's metabolism to be more efficient. Thus, you burn fewer calories in the off times. This is how the thin people who work out for 2% of of their life can still keep up with the fat people. They are tricking their bodies using deadly exercise. Also, note that athletes tend to live shorter lives. Thus further proving the Aaron's Theory.

        **However, I would like to see a study where these same people are denied their pills for metabolic syndrome. Then the benefits of a slow metabolism might not be enough to overcome the diabetes, heart disease, etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 4 c1ue

          In order to make my scientific article seem better, I should have listed all of the references at the bottom the page to the various impressive sounding journals, that nobody would bother to read. I'd also give it a better name than Aaron's Theory. Probably, I would link to a ".org" domain, with a cool site design and call it "Metabolic Relief Act of 2013". Of course, it would be backed by experts and all sorts of research. I could even use the forwarding email that I get from my university to make myself look academic. And, if I were really awesome, I could spend more than 30 minutes on writing it. However, I may need to first get my Law Degree in order for my b.s. to be truly believable.

          I just dropped 35 pounds along the lines of rogermexico's PANU thread. I am sorry to see it was such a waste of time. Except for the extra sex, pain-free knees, disappearing back pain, and food $$ savings, I now see that I am destined to die at the same time as those who get to eat all they want and sit on their butt shooting up insulin when they get their sugar highs. Pass me fricken pizza. I want to live forever!
          Last edited by aaron; January 05, 2013, 03:38 AM. Reason: attempt at humor

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 4 c1ue

            Well done, Aaron! I expected a scathing rebuttal from c1ue, this was better

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 4 c1ue

              Humans evolved in a complex natural world, and there are many forces at work that have determined our nutritional and lifestyle needs. To focus on any one factor in isolation of all the others is mistaken . . . .
              • Why do astronauts out in space too long suffer fatal bone loss? Because humans have evolved with and need the force of gravity.
              • Why do persons who live in northern lattitudes tend to suffer from rickets and depression? Because humans evolved in sunny climates and need sunlight.
              • Why do humans and animals eating refined grains and sugars suffer from Beriberi (vitamin B1 deficiency)? Because the whole foods upon which we evolved naturally contain B1, and modern foods are missing most of the B1 due to the milling process.


              Nutritional needs are the product of human biological evolution, and are part of the way we adapt and fit into the existing environment. Our body and its needs are the same as those of humans living 50,000 years ago, so to achieve the best health, one needs to live and eat as those people did. That doesn't mean living in a cave and wearing furs. But it does mean eating a whole-foods diet, and getting plenty of exercise and sunshine. We can embrace technology to the extent that it doesn't interfere with our biological health.

              I published a small but nationally distributed health magazine for 11 years. I started it as a means of educating myself about health as well as to make a living.
              The magazine had frequent articles on the latest "superfood", or what foods contained the most free-radical fighting phytoestrogens, or the dangers of fat, etc.
              After some time, I realized that all these nutritional details were unnecesary trivia. All I needed to do to be healthy was follow the diet and lifestyle of pre-industrialized humans.
              So, I sold the magazine, and considered that my nutritional education was complete. I no longer paid attention to "scientific" nutrition.
              However, there is considerable debate on what actually was the "pre-industrial diet", so I continue to read about that.

              Note: Many people point to the disease evident in some ancient skeletons as evidence that the pre-industrial lifestyle was not healthy. The 40-year average lifespan is also mistaken brought up as evidence of ill health. However, this is a false conclusion. Many agricultural peoples living in cities consumed deficient diets, and that was the cause of their disease. Watch the History Channel for awhile, and you will see many ancient skeletons with perfect, straight teeth and healthy bones . . . and these people did not have the benefits of modern dentistry or orhodonics.
              raja
              Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 4 c1ue

                Actually I agree with the top level premise: that fat itself is demonized overly.

                The rest of the article is just crap, of course.

                Comment

                Working...
                X