Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Fri 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 |
|
|
Token Civilian Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
Seventy2002 Member
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 512 | TRs | Pics
|
moonspots wrote: | DigitalJanitor wrote: | RandyHiker wrote: | Was this study funded by McDonalds and Coca-Cola ? |
|
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 |
|
|
Jake Neiffer Member
Joined: 07 Dec 2011 Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics Location: Lexington, OR |
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 |
|
|
Jake Neiffer Member
Joined: 07 Dec 2011 Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics Location: Lexington, OR |
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 |
|
|
HitTheTrail Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2007 Posts: 5452 | TRs | Pics Location: 509 |
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 |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sat 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 |
|
|
AR 724
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 1514 | TRs | Pics Location: Saratoga Passage |
|
AR
724
|
Sat 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?
...wait...are we just going to hang here or go hiking?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Mon 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 |
|
|
DIYSteve seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Mon 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 |
|
|
Hulksmash Cleaning up.
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics Location: Arlington |
|
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
|
Mon 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
"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 |
|
|
HitTheTrail Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2007 Posts: 5452 | TRs | Pics Location: 509 |
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 |
|
|
DigitalJanitor Dirt hippie
Joined: 20 May 2012 Posts: 792 | TRs | Pics
|
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...
|
Back to top |
|
|
wildernessed viewbagger
Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 9275 | TRs | Pics Location: Wenatchee |
Living in the Anthropocene
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alpendave Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 863 | TRs | Pics
|
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 |
|
|
|