Being overweight is nowhere near as big a killer as the government thought, ranking No. 7 instead of No. 2 among the nation’s leading preventable causes of death, according to a startling new calculation from the CDC…The new study attributes 111,909 deaths to obesity, but then subtracts the benefits of being modestly overweight, and arrives at the 25,814 figure… One major reason for the far lower number in this latest study is that it used more recent data, researchers said.
“This analysis is far more sophisticated,” said Kovar, who was not involved in the new study. “They are very careful and are not overstating their case.”
The problem with cause of death analyses is that they ignore quality of life issues. Yeah, being really fat might not kill you as fast as we used to think, but we know that it can make you miserable.
I hope that no fat people – of which I am one – take this to mean that it’s “ok” to be overweight: even with the new ranking, obesity still kills more people than guns, risky sexual behavior, or illicit drugs. In my opinion, obesity dropping 5 spots doesn’t mean that it’s any less of a problem, just that their initial figures were off.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider the report to be a “voice of reason?” What was unreasonable about the old figures?
Don’t bother googling for it as all you get is crap about “BUYMYPRODUCTCOOLFORTREATMENTOFMILDLYOVERWEIGHTFATTIES!!!”
From my vague memory of reading Campos, plump people are generally less likely to contract tuberculosis. There were one or two other benefits to being a plumpy (i.e. BMI of 26 or 27). That’s if you even believe that BMI is a good way to actually measure healthy weight, anyway.
The BMI has to be the least understood measure of health ever. Yes, it is a useful tool, but not if you’re talking about individuals. Tell me your BMI, and I don’t really know much, but tell me the BMIs of 10,000 people and I’ll tell you which groups are going to die younger.
Benefits: I believe heavier people are at less risk of osteoporosis, as every step is weight-bearing exercise.
I wonder if there’s a fertility benefit also - certainly women who are significantly underweight can suffer from amenorrhea (sp?). Of course, extremely overweight women have fertility issues with that also.
This really doesn’t mean much when you consider that “obese” as a medical term is not nearly as overweight as most people think. We’re not talking only Jared-pre-Subway or 400 pound women becoming one with the couch. At 5’7", 180 pounds is “*morbidly *obese” for a woman. So this new interpretation of the statistics does not mean that many of us fatties are in any less danger. Sure, a 5’7" woman at 135 pounds is technically overweight, but not obese. She’s (by these new interpretations) probably not much at risk. But who of us really thought she was?
My guess is that (just like we all think we’re middle class), most people think they’re “overweight” but not “obese”. Fat people - obese people - are the ones who are now going to think they’re now OK, when in fact we’re still not OK.
OTOH, it’s nice to see that the “can’t be too thin” idea may be ending. Now someone go order a round of cheeseburgers for those poor starving women in LA!
WhyNot where do you get the data that a 5’7" woman who’s 180 lbs is morbidly obese? Where do you get the data that a 5’7" woman who’s 135 lbs is overweight? According to the weight tables I linked below 135 isn’t overweight for a 5’7" woman even with a small frame.
I’m 5’6". Recommended weight for me is between 120 and 159 180 is not Morbidly obese if your BMI is less than 30. If you’re muscular you’ll tend to weigh more but have a better BMI than your less musclar peers.
Body weight isn’t a terribly accurate measure of obesity unless you take BMI into account.
What I took this report to mean is that people like me, mildly overweight, BMI less than 30 who eat right and exercise don’t need to worry so much about how their weight will affect their health.
The reason why this is so confusing is that the ideal height and weight charts were not derived by taking the average heights and weights of, say, the healthy population of the country. They were made up - the US population has NEVER been close to what the chart says is our “ideal” weight. And yet, somehow, we live to a ripe old age.
Being 5-15 pounds over the chart is average - so it’s fair to assume that a person that falls into that class will have health problems and die at a rate that is also average. In fact, a person who is 10 pounds overweight according to the charts will not get sicker or die at a rate higher than a person who is right in the middle of the published ranges.
In epidemiology this effect is seen as a “U” shaped curve. Death rates are highest at very low and very high weights. Blood cholesterol is just like this - death rate is high in persons with very low cholesterol and with very high cholsterol.
My biggest “weight” issue is that being overweight is unhealthy and unattractive, but NOT grounds for hatred, flaming, cursing, and the other overreactions given by people on the internet.
The study did not explain why overweight appeared best as far as mortality was concerned. But Dr. Williamson said the reason might be that most people die when they are over 70. Having a bit of extra fat in old age appears to be protective, he said, giving rise to more muscle and more bone.
“It’s called the obesity paradox,” Dr. Williamson said. But, he said, while the paradox is real, the reasons are speculative. “It’s raw conjecture,” he said.
From the same Times article:
[The new study] also used the federal government’s own weight categories, which define fatness and thinness according to a “body mass index” correlating weight to height, regardless of sex. For example, 5-foot-8 people weighing less than 122 pounds are underweight. If they weighed 122 to 164 pounds, their weight would be normal. They would be overweight at 165 to 196, obese at 197 to 229, and extremely obese at 230 or over.
The kind of announcement that offers me yet more proof that nutritionists, the CDC, USDA, biostatisticians, et al. really have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.
I hate to sound so cynical, but these reports and studies; month after month, year after year that literally contradict themselves makes a person tune out all the chatter.
Perhaps it’s time the medical community, researchers and regulators start putting a YMMV disclaimer in every sentence they publish.
I remember reading a study recently (no cite, sorry) that said that The Pill may not be as effective for women over 155 lbs. If you want to call increased risk of pregnancy a “fertility issue”.
Lots of doctors or raving loonies, or at least aren’t very knowledgeable in regards to nutrition and weight. I don’t think they’re even required to take nutrition classes, which is very unsettling since they’re supposed to be the keepers of knowledge about how to stay healthy. Most doctors seem to know only as much as your average Joe about nutrition.
A couple of examples of idiotic doctors (or just doctors who aren’t listening) in regards to nutrition:
When my husband went to the doctor telling him that he had gained almost 20 pounds in the last year and was having trouble breathing, both when he was awake and when he was sleeping, his doctor told him that the solution was to wear bigger clothes. He didn’t ask what my husband was eating, didn’t ask if he exercised or how he felt , if he was having chest pains or anything, didn’t bother with a family medical history. Nope. If you’re gaining weight, get bigger clothes. Brilliant!
Two years ago, I was having problems losing weight. I just couldn’t seem to shed any pounds. So I asked my doctor about it, stating that I had run the Chicago Marathon the week before, so exercise was not my problem. His answer? “Overly, I think you should consider starting an exercise program.” :rolleyes:
The old figures were highly controversial and just lumped anything that may be obesity related into deaths from obesity. Its hard to find an article on it thats not from a fat acceptance site, but they are out there and the old figures were essentially a mix of prejudice.
Why shouldn’t “anything that may be obesity-related” have been counted? Aren’t those the things that actually result in death?
From what I’ve read – including the item you linked to – the old figures were just, well, old. The discrepancy is also partly due to a lack of standards regarding the terms “overweight” and “obese.” If you’re having trouble finding any cites to support the “prejudice” claim from other than biased sources, there’s probably a reason…
This was the information that I read in the article I saw about the CDC revising obesity dangers.
The BMI charts are skewed to lower weights than average healthy Americans. For me to be at the extreme top of the healthy range I’d have to weigh 165 pounds. I weighed 160 in high school and I was sickly thin (mainly because I stopped eating for a time). My goal weight right now is 170, but a person of my height with smaller bone structure would have a healthy weight of closer to 150. I’d be obese, they’d be on the very low end of healthy.
