Posted on 03/06/2008 3:49:03 PM PST by Marie2
“The obesity epidemic has absolutely been exaggerated,” said Dr. Vincent Marks.
I once ticked off the local franchiser of Weight Watchers by pointing out my weight gain after quitting smoking was no big deal.
OK, the column should not have pointed out that the Nazis did not feed people to death in the Holocaust.
Did I mention she’s Jewish?
Now we have been told to the point of ridiculousness that we face an obesity epidemic — an abuse of a noun that really medical professionals, of all people, should avoid. The definition of overweight and obese were redefined to the point where anorexics became chubby. OK, an exaggeration on my part.
But not by much.
When someone 5-1 and weighing 99 pounds is considered “normal” and someone 6-foot and weighing 185 is “overweight,” then it is small wonder that the world is considered to be having an obesity epidemic. Check out the BMI calculator.
Sanity is making a comeback, though. Maria Cheng, AP’s medical writer, reported skeptics live in the medical community.
“The obesity epidemic has absolutely been exaggerated,” said Dr. Vincent Marks, emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Surrey.
The numbers are not there. At least not in Britain. Reported Cheng, “According to national health statistics released last month, from 1993 to 2006, ‘relatively little change’ was noted in weight gain, with men and women gaining an average of about 4 kilograms (9 pounds). In children, no significant gains were recorded.”
And there is also this natty little problem, which Cheng reported: “In 2005, Katherine Flegal of the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, finding that overweight people typically live longer than normal-weight people. More than a dozen other studies have come to the same conclusion.”
This is not to say that obesity is not a problem. But being overweight does not seem to be a problem. You may even live longer. And the problems seem exaggerated. It is as if some people want there to be an epidemic so they can cure it.
People get fat in times of prosperity and abundance and tend to get thinner during leaner times. Which would you rather deal with?
Seriously. Maybe the technical term “obesity” doesn’t apply, but there are a lot of lard-asses out there.
LOL...zing!
Heard a comedian once say, “An excuse from fat people is that they’re not fat - they’re ‘big boned’. Big boned? Excuse me - have you ever seen a fat skeleton?”
Oh, please...how come we keep hearing how the “poor” can’t afford healthy food. We just had a whole thread about THAT last week. We’ll see if everyone loses weight during the next few years...just preposterous.
For a 5'1” individual weighing 99 lbs, the BMI would be 19 — the low end of “normal” and at the border of “underweight”.
For a 6'0” individual weighing 185 lbs., the BMI would be 25 — just above the “normal” range, and at the bottom of the “overweight” range. It seems that the figures were cherry-picked to exaggerate the point.
At 163 lbs, the six footer would have a BMI of 22 — while, based on the cube of height (per #19) the BMI should only be 19.
Similarly, for a six footer to have a BMI of 19, his weight would have to be only 140 lbs. If we worked back from there, and if BMI varied by the cube of height, a person 5'1’ could only weigh 85 lbs. to have a BMI of 19.
This shows that the BMI scale is wonky, and is not a good measure of “obesity”. However, the differences aren't as extreme as the blogger makes out.
The only rationale I can think of for the BMI being based on the square of height, rather than the cube — is to make it work for both men and women, which it claims to do. The “normal” healthy percent of body fat is higher for women than for men. Women also tend to be shorter than men. By basing the scale on the square of height, rather than the cube, the BMI roughly reflects the differences in healthy body fat percentages between men and women.
Now that bathroom scales that measure body fat percentages electronically are quite affordable — there's no reason to continue using the BMI.
I can remember when a store would have 1, maybe 2, of those motorized carts for the handicapped. Today, Wal Mart has a sizeable parking area for those vehicles and every one of them is being used.
When I was in grade school, there was ONE overweight child in the whole school. ONE. These days there are 4-year-olds with weight problems and there are piggy children in every class. Every one.
Without a doubt, there are locations in the US that do not have an obese population. A trip to the mall in Bozeman, MT is not nearly as hard on the eyes and a trip to the mall in Monroe, LA.
I travel quite a bit. There are so many overly fat people in this country it is shameful. Call it entirely subjective ... call it what you will. I don't know what your agenda may be, but you are in serious denial about the obesity problem.
I agree with you. But, pay no attention to me. On another thread I admitted that I am bigoted against fat people. *sigh*
Yes, I certainly have. At the country club the ratio of overweight to normal is not as bad as it is at the grocery store, and the degree of obese differs slightly ... but the grossly overweight are everywhere in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Several years ago I was a pit manager in a large casino, where you see a wide cross-section of the local population, as well as many people from out-of-town. It was very rare to see someone that couldn't stand to lose some weight, unless they were very young (early 20's). Of those that could stand to lose some weight, about half were grossly overweight. It was sickening.
The liberals have butchered the language so badly that words have lost their meaning. “Epidemic” in older dictionaries had a very specific meaning, and it did NOT include obesity, gunshot wounds, or depression. Now when I hear the word, I just quit paying attention—unless they’re talking about smallpox, measles, mumps or the flu, it’s just more noise, with no meaning.
That video was pretty funny ... much of what he said is true.
I knew a woman several years ago that was morbidly obese. Sweet as the day is long, but nasty smelling and gross to be around. Her breathing was so labored that it pained me. I went by her home to take her something one day and peeked past her into the living room. The floor was covered with fast food wrappers! Wow.
I got a phone call last July. Laura had died one week short of her 40th birthday. Her body just gave out.
Morbid obesity is a certainly health problem but I agree that the so-called epidemic is probably “overblown” – no pun intended.
Making an assessment of someone’s overall health based solely on the currently accepted BMI is ridiculous.
A person who is considered overweight can still be healthy if they maintain a healthy lifestyle overall. At my largest weight some years ago (about 230 for a 5‘7” woman, size 22 clothing), I had repeatedly perfect blood pressure readings (120/80), amazing good cholesterol readings – low on the bad type, high on the good type, good heart pulse, no diabetes, good lung function, etc. My doctor was amazed that I was so “healthy”. But then I didn’t smoke or drink and got a moderate amount of exercise.
But I wasn’t happy with my weight and appearance so I decided to make some lifestyle changes. I didn’t go on a “diet” but I did commit to making healthier choices and to a more balanced diet with leaner meats and fish, more fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains and legumes and better portion controls even some organics (I actually was eating more overall, but smaller and more frequent and healthier meals and never deprived myself – and I still enjoy some Ben and Jerry’s now and then). Then I started playing golf on a regular basis and walked the course when ever I could. Then I joined a gym and started working out 3-4 times a week combining at least 30 minutes of cardio combined with some moderate weight training.
The pounds came off slowly at first and then they just melted away. I had a greater amount of energy during the day, better concentration and slept better at night and never felt better.
After several years of maintaining my commitment to living healthier; something I actually enjoy and don’t see as a “punishment” or a means to a short term weight loss goal, I went down to 170 pounds and a size 14 to 12 and maintained there. I like the way I look and feel today; I lost body mass (fat) but gained muscle tone (that weighs more than fat), but according the “charts” and the “scale”, I’m still “obese”.
I could loose more weight by going on a starvation diet or working out to an excessive and compulsive extreme, but that would not be healthy or balanced.
I know a lot of much thinner people who have terrible diets (fast foods, etc) and never exercise and some have serious health problems.
A lot of pro athletes could be considered overweight or obese based on a BMI. I read once that Michael Jordan, during his prime, would be considered obese based on his height and weight and BMI.
I leaned that overall health cannot be assessed by a mere number on a scale or chart
Heroin addicts and anorexics tend to have very low BMI’s but that don’t mean they are “healthy”.
I don’t have an agenda, I just think there is a lot of scare mongering over the obesity epidemic and I am tired of the thought control police and the nanny state using it as an excuse to try to control the markets and our behavior.
Well, I guess that’s an agenda.
So you’re saying the actually statistics about an average 9 pound weight gain and an aging population don’t count because your personal observances are different?
Good post, and I commend you on your attention to your overall well-being. You have likely prevented serious problems in the future, by losing the weight. Weight IS less important than overall health, and you have wisely chosen a healthy lifestyle. I don’t read any self-pity in your post, either.
But if someone had bad knees and a bad back and was >100 pounds overweight, it would be kind of pointless to have knee replacements and back surgery to fix them, as well as add to the surgical risk.
I have rheumatoid arthritis and I am still pretty mobile. I exercise and eat very well. I am not overweight. But I can tell you that if I were carrying around 100 extra pounds, my knees would be history, and so would my back.
I admit it, I am a bigot about overweight.
Would you like me to take some photos the next time I go to the store? I'd be happy to post a few.
I don't want the nanny state or anybody else telling me how to live or what to eat. That doesn't render me literally blind to the society that I see every time I venture out.
“People get fat in times of prosperity and abundance and tend to get thinner during leaner times. Which would you rather deal with?”
Worth repeating! I thank God every day I was lucky enough to be born in a time when obesity is common and even somewhat problematic. History tells us this won’t always be the case, even in this country, and the face of famine is much more unpleasant to look at than rolls of fat.
He’s not saying there aren’t fat people in this country. He’s saying there isn’t some massive epidemic health crisis. And he’s right. Most of the “data” they use to declare this “epidemic” is the BMI chart, which if you’re not a 35 year old male of average bone density and muscle mass is complete junk.
There’ve always been big people in the heartland, it’s the diet. They eat either farm food or Chicago food and neither is real good for the waste line if you get a lot of exercise in your daily routine. Of course both diets were built by people who did get a lot of exercise in their daily routine, but now life is a lot easier for most of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.