firecat | Great article about the "obesity epidemic"

women with bmi's over 40 live longer than "normal" weight man?

'scuse me while i go do a little dance.

This *is* a great article. Go, Sandy!

-J

Thanks. That was awesome.

I read Eat Fat, which is referenced in the article, a couple of years ago and it was a very liberating experience. How to Lie with Statistics is also a nice resource for this sort of thing.

I'm not participating in the fat flame war, but I love having ammo when I need it. Thanks!

(hey, can you see that poetry post yet?)

No I can't. Waah! Are you sure I'm on your poetry filter? (But I'm not even getting a "Can't access that" message, I'm getting "403 Forbidden.")

Weird.

I'll try again.

I'm going to be very grumpy with LJ; it didn't save the change to my friends' group.

Try now.

Yay, I can see it now!

Thanks for the link! Excellent article.

How often are there fat flame wars on LJ, and how do you find out about them? I would love to participate, but I have to prepare for a Vermont trip.

I have not been keeping up with "One Word", but I'd be glad to participate in your little dealie. I probably won't be able to get to it until Sunday night.

I have no idea how often there are fat flame wars on LJ; I found out about that one because it was linked to in two different journals I read (

kshandra's journal and

bellacurve).

I'm looking forward to seeing your oneword exercises!

Unfortunately, I lost steam with "One Word". I seem to be going through a bit of a writing slump lately.

Do you have a poetry filter?

I lost steam on mine, too.

Yes, I have a poetry filter - see my user info page.

Would you add me to it, please?

Done!

And because it's been a long time since I put any poetry on LJ, I collected some of the entries for you. No obligation to read or comment on them is implied.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/123659.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/124194.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/125165.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/135876.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/146021.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/152955.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/153155.html

What did you think of the article in the NYTimes which suggested that the obesity epidemic is related to the 500 calories per person per day which the US agricultural industry is growing now which they didn't used to, because of the 1972 Nixon administration change to direct cash farm subsidies? The article said that of the 500 extra calories per person per day grown, Americans are eating an extra 200.

I also found the analogy between the increase in consumption of whiskey in the 1800s due to low prices, and current food prices quite interesting.

I didn't read the NYT article, but I think the theory is crap. If reading the Szwarc article doesn't help you understand why I think it's crap, let me know and I'll expand.

Would you grant me the premise that North Americans weigh more now than they did in the 1970s?

That is, my point is not about any health effects correlated with body size, but merely about cheaper food and body size.

I think you'd need to prove that North Americans actually weigh more now.

For one thing, they've lowered the numbers for "obesity" several times in the interim; that 50% of Americans who are now considered obese would most likely not have been so considered in the 1970s.

I don't have the citation with me at work, sorry. I'm actually not sure it's at home - it might be in my folks' home in a box. I'll check.

According to this:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1074/T3

a greater percentage of North American adults are fat. Notice this study uses a consistent bme>30 measure, not a 'flexible definition' of obesity. So, in 1960 43% of US adults aged 20-74 had bme>30, in 1984-1994, it's 54%.

This table does not indicate if bme's < 30 increased proportionately.

The trend from 1960-1980 was slight, with the bme>30 percentages going from 43% to 46%. The 1984-1994 number was twice the rate with an increase of 8% over the 10 years, compared to 3 percent over the previous 20 years.

I'll grant you the premise, but you need to look back farther than the 1970s to determine if your theory is correct. The article says this:

As Richard Klein chronicled in his book, Eat Fat (Vintage Books, 1996), fatness is often a cultural trend with cycles of fat and thin occurring throughout history. Typically people get fatter -- and healthier -- during times of prosperity. [...] In the past century people in industrialized nations have grown taller by about 4 inches on average. In Holland, in just four generations the average height for men grew 8 inches. (Burns, 1998; DeGregori, 2003)

If weights have been increasing for the last 120 years, and if people in other countries have been getting bigger as well, then the US government's farming subsidies in the 1970s can't account for the increase. They might be a contributing factor, but I think there are lots of other contributing factors.

The article also says this:

Increasing body weights during the 1990s, while statistically resulting in a national 61% increase in obesity, haven't been a health crisis for individuals whose weights have actually increased on average a mere 7 to 10 pounds, according to research by Jeffrey M. Friedman, M.D., Ph.D., at Rockefeller University.

Note that the statistical increase in obesity resulted partly from the government's changing the definition of obesity one or more times during the 1990s.

This:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1074/T2

has a description of the ways in which obesity has been defined since 1942. In my reply to sistercoyote, I posted evidence of a trend which uses a consistent definition, and indicates that a higher proportion of US adults have bme>30 now, than they did 30 years ago.

I LOVE that phrase: killing turkeys causes winter. That's ammo for a whole lot of wars! Thank you!

I have many reasons to dislike fast food restaurants, but "making people fat" isn't one of them. "Selling people nonfood" and "lying about the nutritional content of the food" and "treating workers, especially teenage workers, like shit" and so on...

However, I do believe that a lot of people could avoid becoming fat by eating well, exercising regularly, and staying otherwise healthy. The third clause is the one that bites, I think. Fellow who lives near me doubled his weight after an accident rendered him bedridden, and now that he's up and about again, the weight is staying exactly where it is. Other people I know have thyroid problems, a family history of suddenly gaining weight in their 30s, eating disorders . . . The list goes on. It doesn't seem to matter a damn how well you eat or how often you exercise if something else happens.

I have many reasons to dislike fast food restaurants, but "making people fat" isn't one of them. "Selling people nonfood" and "lying about the nutritional content of the food" and "treating workers, especially teenage workers, like shit" and so on...

However, I do believe that a lot of people could avoid becoming fat by eating well, exercising regularly, and staying otherwise healthy. The third clause is the one that bites, I think. Fellow who lives near me doubled his weight after an accident rendered him bedridden, and now that he's up and about again, the weight is staying exactly where it is. Other people I know have thyroid problems, a family history of suddenly gaining weight in their 30s, eating disorders . . . The list goes on. It doesn't seem to matter a damn how well you eat or how often you exercise if something else happens.

And what about people who are too thin, eh?

"a lot of people" -- maybe so. a lot of people seem to manage it, in any case. but a lot of people don't seem to, on the other hand. so i don't know what such a belief gains one. IMO the first clause also bites because it's hard to define, and doctors do by no means agree on it. i grew up eating well (certainly nobody, including no doctor and no food pyramid ever disagreed), working a lot physically (which is what people did before "exercise" swept western civilization), and i was healthy alright. and yet i have always been fat. it's my metabolism, baby. it's very efficient. it's in my peasant genes. i'd have to starve myself to be at a weight western society seems to consider "healthy" these days. which wouldn't be healthy for me at all. and i am not a freak of nature. if that's true for me, it's likely true for millions of other people.

and really, it doesn't matter. i don't quite understand why so many people focus on weight over other health risks -- maybe because weight can be seen relatively easily. i don't smoke, i don't do drugs, my last tests looked good, my cholesterol is fine, aside from this pesky mental illness i am still healthy as the proverbial horse. i don't let stupid-ass LJ flamewars get to me (less stress), and i am working hard on not letting clinical depression kill me. all the while i stay fat. and anyone who tries to tell me that it's ever-so-unhealthy can go tie zirself in a knot because i just Do Not Care. i am coming to believe that caring what others try to tell one about almost all "average" and "normal" things is not healthy in itself. besides, i don't want to be average anyway, *grin*.

i am coming to believe that caring what others try to tell one about almost all "average" and "normal" things is not healthy in itself.

I {heart}

pleonastic.

I did say "avoid becoming fat" rather than "not be fat". I see no reason why people's natural born-with bodyshape would be changed by being healthy all the time. And I didn't say "could have avoided", either, because how the hell would I know?

A theory I believe, although I don't have citations for it in front of me, is "set point theory." It says that most people have a natural weight range of about 30 pounds. If they eat a lot and don't exercise, they'll hang out at the higher end of the range. If they don't eat a lot and do exercise a lot, they'll hang out at the lower end.

This doesn't seem to apply to people with Syndrome X (a condition that includes insulin resistance and sometimes leads to diabetes). But these people tend to be fat to begin with.

I agree with your reasons for not liking fast food restaurants.

I don't agree that eating well, exercising regularly, and staying otherwise healthy (whatever all those things mean) make very many people not-fat. It's a popular myth, but in fact lots of people who are fat do all three.

People who are very thin are largely ignored because of all the screeching about how so many people are getting fatter, even though there's substantial evidence that being very thin is associated with (but not necessarily in a causal way, in either direction) worse health than being fat is.

IME, the people who are fat, fit, and healthy tend to be people who have always been fat, fit and healthy, rather than people who "could avoid becoming fat". I really wasn't saying that people who are naturally fat can just choose not to be. I said that lots of people could avoid becoming fat. I did mean there to be a clear distinction between the two.

Then there's people like me, with big fat wobbly bottoms and thighs, and slightly concave stomachs [0]. I'm fat _and_ preternaturally thin, at the same time! (No, not really, but the clothes manufacturers think so).

A.
[0] The stomach is gradually becoming convex, now. Bottom still wobbles though.

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying about "becoming fat."

Then there's people like me, with big fat wobbly bottoms and thighs, and slightly concave stomachs.

Glenn Gaesser's book Big Fat Lies says that fat on the bottom and thighs protects against heart disease. So it's a good way to be, even if it makes it harder to buy clothes. :-P

Great article about the "obesity epidemic"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

NYTimes article

Re: NYTimes article

premise

Re: premise

premise

Re: premise

premise

no subject

no subject

no subject

fat flamewars

Re: fat flamewars

Re: fat flamewars

Re: fat flamewars

no subject

no subject

no subject