Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > The Obesity Paradox
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri Nov 20, 2015 11:26 am 
Personal experience says heavy things like metal fall down, not up, but I've flown in planes. That's why I trust science over "it seems like ..."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostFri Nov 20, 2015 1:04 pm 
There's no paradox here at all. It's clear that what is DEFINED as "overweight" and "obsese", at least at the lower ends, aren't set by consideration of longevity (pretty much the only unambiguous measure of health). They're political constructs. And then there was the redefinition back in the late 90's, where the goal posts were moved and millions more were suddenly defined as overweight. Those that can't figure out this paradox (weight campaigners) start with the assumption that the current definition of overweight and (lower level) obese are absolutely correct, then wonder why those people can have better health then their preferred "normal" weight people. See, they confusing what depends on what. If they looked instead at what characteristics yield "health" (longevity), and then go from there to define what is a "healthy" weight, there would be no paradox. They'd probably also realize there is a "U" shaped response to weight - that is a fairly broad band in the middle where un-health is fairly insensitive to weight, and only once you get out of this fairly broad band, the mortality starts going asymptotic (e.g. anorexic / famine / starving people on one end and morbidly obese on the other both have strong "dose-response" rates to each increment of weight lost or gained, respectively, whereas some one who is in the upper "normal" band to the low end of the "obese" band isn't going to see significant health changes to gaining or losing 5 or 10 lbs). But hey....realizing this, the nannies would have to figure out something else to whine about so they could get grants to line their own pockets with. Up thread, there was a comment about soda companies funding this - be equally sceptical of the "edu-research industrial complex" as well.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 512 | TRs | Pics
Seventy2002
Member
PostFri Nov 20, 2015 1:42 pm 
moonspots wrote:
DigitalJanitor wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Was this study funded by McDonalds and Coca-Cola ?
ditto.gif
lol.gif Yes, one *does* have to wonder... My own personal study says this conclusion is indeed flawed.
Are you finding fault with original study or the magazine article cited in the first post? The report on which the article is based is online here. I'd say the author of the magazine article did some cherry picking. The study authors concluded "Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality. Grade 1 obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality." The article headline, probably not written by the author, said being overweight can "protect your health." The scientists said overweight was associated with "significantly lower all-cause mortality." Lower mortality isn't the same thing as healthy. The overweight and grade 1 obese may have lower death rates because their doctors pay more attention to them and/or their condition won't allow them to participate in high-risk activities.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostFri Nov 20, 2015 2:03 pm 
Token Civilian- Your thoughts may be fair. I'm not familar with how the BMI charts were established. Maybe they should be adjusted or thrown out all together, but apparently they are still being used by insurance companies to set premiums. I do believe that generally there is an unfair perception and bias out there that overweight equals unhealthy, which may need to be reexamined. But it does beg the question, as others have brought up in this thread, what is "overweight"?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostFri Nov 20, 2015 2:09 pm 
Seventy2002 wrote:
The overweight and grade 1 obese may have lower death rates because their doctors pay more attention to them and/or their condition won't allow them to participate in high-risk activities.
That would seem to make sense, but the original article, at least, suggested otherwise.
Quote:
One of the most popular explanations is that fat people get more aggressive treatment than thin people, because their weight raises red flags at the doctor’s office. This seems questionable: studies show that overweight and obese people tend to avoid doctors, get fewer preventive screenings, and receive worse treatment because they’re often misdiagnosed as “fat” rather than with a specific medical condition.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
HitTheTrail
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 5452 | TRs | Pics
Location: 509
HitTheTrail
Member
PostSat Nov 21, 2015 6:17 am 
coldrain108 wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that surviving chemo or radiation treatments is enhanced by having some extra bulk to burn while the body is at war.
Before I went through chemo and radiation last winter all three of my doctors told me to try to gain at least 20-30 more pounds before I started treatment. And they said it didn't much matter how I did it..bacon burgers, ribs, fries, carbs, etc. I managed to pack on around 15 lbs before the hellish regimen started. I made it through radiation ok but ended up refusing the last chemo treatment because I thought it was going to kill me. At that point I has lost everything I gained plus around 20 lbs more. I ended up hovering around 130 lbs and looked like I just came out of a concentration camp. Looking back on it I probably would have been much better off had I gained more weight before I started. But I found that psychologically difficult to do because I had been so conditioned to thinking the extra fat would be poisoning my body.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSat Nov 21, 2015 10:46 am 
Since this is a hiking board, I would point out that more weight is more stressing of the lower joints. Even if your "extra" weight is not enough to cause typical health problems, it might hurt your knees if you do a lot of miles and/or big hills. But while I might agree that mild overweight as defined may not be such a bad thing, I don't think they are political definitions. One thing the article pointed out is that BMI is a pretty gross measurement. Health may also be impacted differently depending on where the fat accumulates, which BMI pays no attention to.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
AR
724



Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 1514 | TRs | Pics
Location: Saratoga Passage
AR
724
PostSat Nov 21, 2015 6:26 pm 
The current standards are such BS. At 6'4'' I'm supposed to weigh 180 pounds. When I weighed 230 pounds after a serious diet the people I knew thought I was dying. My face was seriously sunken in. Now at 320 pounds I would say I'm a bit on the heavy side. It seems to be that 280 to 270 pounds is the perfect weight for me. This comes on due to weight lifting and diet. I think people really need to take it easy on themselves and eat in moderation with moderate exercise. Listen to your body. I feel the weight standards do not take into account the needs of the individual person at all.

...wait...are we just going to hang here or go hiking?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostMon Nov 23, 2015 8:50 am 
drm wrote:
Since this is a hiking board, I would point out that more weight is more stressing of the lower joints. Even if your "extra" weight is not enough to cause typical health problems, it might hurt your knees if you do a lot of miles and/or big hills.
Cycling (road especially) is great for your knees!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostMon Nov 23, 2015 9:59 am 
The study defined obesity and overweight per BMI, by which Jim Brown was on the margin between overweight and obese when he played in the NFL, and obese when he was a movie actor. Here is a picture of Jim Brown when he was obese per BMI standards:

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics
Location: Arlington
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
PostMon Nov 23, 2015 10:32 am 
Apparently were all gonna die some day regardless to if we are fat of skinny.

"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
HitTheTrail
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 5452 | TRs | Pics
Location: 509
HitTheTrail
Member
PostMon Nov 23, 2015 11:03 am 
I am now of the opinion that if they could isolate certain side effects of chemo it could be a billion dollar weight loss drug. Specifically, losing your taste buds and appetite and getting a whiff of food even 100’ away making you gag.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie



Joined: 20 May 2012
Posts: 792 | TRs | Pics
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie
PostMon Nov 23, 2015 6:29 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
Cycling (road especially) is great for your knees!
I'll vouch my whole body feels better after riding 20 miles of punishing singletrack than walking even half that! It's the downhill that will get ya while hoofing it.
HitTheTrail wrote:
I am now of the opinion that if they could isolate certain side effects of chemo it could be a billion dollar weight loss drug. Specifically, losing your taste buds and appetite and getting a whiff of food even 100’ away making you gag.
I'm making all my fam & friends promise they'll get on the weed wagon ASAP if they're ever diagnosed. Sleeping and eating are hugely underrated survival skills. Chemo, I hate you almost as much as I hate cancer itself... shakehead.gif

~Mom jeans on wheels
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
wildernessed
viewbagger



Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 9275 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wenatchee
wildernessed
viewbagger
PostTue Nov 24, 2015 9:16 am 
Living in the Anthropocene
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alpendave
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 863 | TRs | Pics
Alpendave
Member
PostFri Nov 27, 2015 12:12 pm 
Not if your weight is accompanied by type 2 diabetes. As a cardiovascular radiologic technologist, I don't think obesity is helpful at all - unless you get hit by a car or something. At the same time, we get a lot of skinny people whose smoking has led to clogged coronaries.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > The Obesity Paradox
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum