Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 12:41
liz175 liz175 is offline
Lowcarb since 7/2002
Posts: 5,991
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 360/232/180 Female 5'9"
BF:BMI 53.2/34.3/?
Progress: 71%
Location: U.S.: Mid-Atlantic
Default Scientific American -- Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic?

(Note: if you go to the original link, there are some interesting sidebars that I didn't copy here.)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...E1583414B7F0000




May 23, 2005

Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic?

A growing number of dissenting researchers accuse government and medical authorities--as well as the media--of misleading the public about the health consequences of rising body weights

By W. Wayt Gibbs

Could it be that excess fat is not, by itself, a serious health risk for the vast majority of people who are overweight or obese--categories that in the U.S. include about six of every 10 adults? Is it possible that urging the overweight or mildly obese to cut calories and lose weight may actually do more harm than good?
Such notions defy conventional wisdom that excess adiposity kills more than 300,000 Americans a year and that the gradual fattening of nations since the 1980s presages coming epidemics of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and a host of other medical consequences. Indeed, just this past March the New England Journal of Medicine presented a "Special Report," by S. Jay Olshansky, David B. Allison and others that seemed to confirm such fears. The authors asserted that because of the obesity epidemic, "the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end." Articles about the special report by the New York Times, the Washington Post and many other news outlets emphasized its forecast that obesity may shave up to five years off average life spans in coming decades.

And yet an increasing number of scholars have begun accusing obesity experts, public health officials and the media of exaggerating the health effects of the epidemic of overweight and obesity. The charges appear in a recent flurry of scholarly books, including The Obesity Myth, by Paul F. Campos (Gotham Books, 2004); The Obesity Epidemic: Science, Morality and Ideology, by Michael Gard and Jan Wright (Routledge, 2005); Obesity: The Making of an American Epidemic, by J. Eric Oliver (Oxford University Press, August 2005); and a book on popular misconceptions about diet and weight gain by Barry Glassner (to be published in 2006 by HarperCollins).

These critics, all academic researchers outside the medical community, do not dispute surveys that find the obese fraction of the population to have roughly doubled in the U.S. and many parts of Europe since 1980. And they acknowledge that obesity, especially in its extreme forms, does seem to be a factor in some illnesses and premature deaths.

They allege, however, that experts are blowing hot air when they warn that overweight and obesity are causing a massive, and worsening, health crisis. They scoff, for example, at the 2003 assertion by Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that "if you looked at any epidemic--whether it's influenza or plague from the Middle Ages--they are not as serious as the epidemic of obesity in terms of the health impact on our country and our society." (An epidemic of influenza killed 40 million people worldwide between 1918 and 1919, including 675,000 in the U.S.)

What is really going on, asserts Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, is that "a relatively small group of scientists and doctors, many directly funded by the weight-loss industry, have created an arbitrary and unscientific definition of overweight and obesity. They have inflated claims and distorted statistics on the consequences of our growing weights, and they have largely ignored the complicated health realities associated with being fat."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overweight segment of the "epidemic of overweight and obesity" is more likely reducing death rates than boosting them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of those complicated realities, concurs Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is the widely accepted evidence that genetic differences account for 50 to 80 percent of the variation in fatness within a population. Because no safe and widely practical methods have been shown to induce long-term loss of more than about 5 percent of body weight, Campos says, "health authorities are giving people advice--maintain a body mass index in the 'healthy weight' range--that is literally impossible for many of them to follow." Body mass index, or BMI, is a weight-to-height ratio.

By exaggerating the risks of fat and the feasibility of weight loss, Campos and Oliver claim, the CDC, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization inadvertently perpetuate stigma, encourage unbalanced diets and, perhaps, even exacerbate weight gain. "The most perverse irony is that we may be creating a disease simply by labeling it as such," Campos states.

A Body to Die For
On first hearing, these dissenting arguments may sound like nonsense. "If you really look at the medical literature and think obesity isn't bad, I don't know what planet you are on," says James O. Hill, an obesity researcher at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. New dietary guidelines issued by the DHHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in January state confidently that "a high prevalence of overweight and obesity is of great public health concern because excess body fat leads to a higher risk for premature death, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia [high cholesterol], cardiovascular disease, stroke, gall bladder disease, respiratory dysfunction, gout, osteoarthritis, and certain kinds of cancers." The clear implication is that any degree of overweight is dangerous and that a high BMI is not merely a marker of high risk but a cause.

"These supposed adverse health consequences of being 'overweight' are not only exaggerated but for the most part are simply fabricated," Campos alleges. Surprisingly, a careful look at recent epidemiological studies and clinical trials suggests that the critics, though perhaps overstating some of their accusations, may be onto something.

Oliver points to a new and unusually thorough analysis of three large, nationally representative surveys, for example, that found only a very slight--and statistically insignificant--increase in mortality among mildly obese people, as compared with those in the "healthy weight" category, after subtracting the effects of age, race, sex, smoking and alcohol consumption. The three surveys--medical measurements collected in the early 1970s, late 1970s and early 1990s, with subjects matched against death registries nine to 19 years later--indicate that it is much more likely that U.S. adults who fall in the overweight category have a lower risk of premature death than do those of so-called healthy weight. The overweight segment of the "epidemic of overweight and obesity" is more likely reducing death rates than boosting them. "The majority of Americans who weigh too much are in this category," Campos notes.

Counterintuitively, "underweight, even though it occurs in only a tiny fraction of the population, is actually associated with more excess deaths than class I obesity," says Katherine M. Flegal, a senior research scientist at the CDC. Flegal led the study, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 20 after undergoing four months of scrutiny by internal reviewers at the CDC and the National Cancer Institute and additional peer review by the journal.

These new results contradict two previous estimates that were the basis of the oft-repeated claim that obesity cuts short 300,000 or more lives a year in the U.S. There are good reasons to suspect, however, that both these earlier estimates were compromised by dubious assumptions, statistical errors and outdated measurements.

When Flegal and her co-workers analyzed just the most recent survey, which measured heights and weights from 1988 to 1994 and deaths up to 2000, even severe obesity failed to show up as a statistically significant mortality risk. It seems probable, Flegal speculates, that in recent decades improvements in medical care have reduced the mortality level associated with obesity. That would square, she observes, with both the unbroken rise in life expectancies and the uninterrupted fall in death rates attributed to heart disease and stroke throughout the entire 25-year spike in obesity in the U.S.


But what about the warning by Olshansky and Allison that the toll from obesity is yet to be paid, in the form of two to five years of life lost? "These are just back-of-the-envelope, plausible scenarios," Allison hedges, when pressed. "We never meant for them to be portrayed as precise." Although most media reports jumped on the "two to five years" quote, very few mentioned that the paper offered no statistical analysis to back it up.

The life expectancy costs of obesity that Olshansky and his colleagues actually calculated were based on a handful of convenient, but false, presuppositions. First, they assumed that every obese American adult currently has a BMI of 30, or alternatively of 35--the upper and lower limits of the "mild obesity" range. They then compared that simplified picture of the U.S. with an imagined nation in which no adult has a BMI of more than 24--the upper limit of "healthy weight"--and in which underweight causes zero excess deaths.

To project death rates resulting from obesity, the study used risk data that are more than a decade old rather than the newer ratios Flegal included, which better reflect dramatically improved treatments for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The authors further assumed not only that the old mortality risks have remained constant but also that future advances in medicine will have no effect whatsoever on the health risks of obesity.

If all these simplifications are reasonable, the March paper concluded, then the estimated hit to the average life expectancy of the U.S. population from its world-leading levels of obesity is four to nine months. ("Two to five years" was simply a gloomy guess of what could happen in "coming decades" if an increase in overweight children were to fuel additional spikes in adult obesity.) The study did not attempt to determine whether, given its many uncertainties, the number of months lost was reliably different from zero. Yet in multiple television and newspaper interviews about the study, co-author David S. Ludwig evinced full confidence as he compared the effect of rising obesity rates to "a massive tsunami headed toward the United States."

Critics decry episodes such as this one as egregious examples of a general bias in the obesity research community. Medical researchers tend to cast the expansion of waistlines as an impending disaster "because it inflates their stature and allows them to get more research grants. Government health agencies wield it as a rationale for their budget allocations," Oliver writes. (The National Institutes of Health increased its funding for obesity research by 10 percent in 2005, to $440 million.) "Weight-loss companies and surgeons employ it to get their services covered by insurance," he continues. "And the pharmaceutical industry uses it to justify new drugs."

"The war on fat," Campos concurs, "is really about making some of us rich." He points to the financial support that many influential obesity researchers receive from the drug and diet industries. Allison, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, discloses payments from 148 such companies, and Hill says he has consulted with some of them as well. (Federal policies prohibit Flegal and other CDC scientists from accepting nongovernmental wages.) None of the dissenting authors cites evidence of anything more than a potential conflict of interest, however.

Those Confounded Diseases
Even the best mortality studies provide only a flawed and incomplete picture of the health consequences of the obesity epidemic, for three reasons. First, by counting all lives lost to obesity, the studies so far have ignored the fact that some diversity in human body size is normal and that every well-nourished population thus contains some obese people. The "epidemic" refers to a sudden increase in obesity, not its mere existence. A proper accounting of the epidemic's mortal cost would estimate only the number of lives cut short by whatever amount of obesity exceeds the norm.


Second, the analyses use body mass index as a convenient proxy for body fat. But BMI is not an especially reliable stand-in. And third, although everyone cares about mortality, it is not the only thing that we care about. Illness and quality of life matter a great deal, too.

All can agree that severe obesity greatly increases the risk of numerous diseases, but that form of obesity, in which BMI exceeds 40, affects only about one in 12 of the roughly 130 million American adults who set scales spinning above the "healthy" range. At issue is whether rising levels of overweight, or of mild to moderate obesity, are pulling up the national burden of heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

In the case of heart disease, the answer appears to be no--or at least not yet. U.S. health agencies do not collect annual figures on the incidence of cardiovascular disease, so researchers look instead for trends in mortality and risk factors, as measured in periodic surveys. Both have been falling.

Alongside Flegal's April paper in JAMA was another by Edward W. Gregg and his colleagues from the CDC that found that in the U.S. the prevalence of high blood pressure dropped by half between 1960 and 2000. High cholesterol followed the same trend--and both declined more steeply among the overweight and obese than among those of healthy weight. So although high blood pressure is still twice as common among the obese as it is among the lean, the paper notes that "obese persons now have better [cardiovascular disease] risk profiles than their leaner counterparts did 20 to 30 years ago."

The new findings reinforce those published in 2001 by a 10-year WHO study that examined 140,000 people in 38 cities on four continents. The investigators, led by Alun Evans of the Queen's University of Belfast, saw broad increases in BMI and equally broad declines in high blood pressure and high cholesterol. "These facts are hard to reconcile," they wrote.

It may be, Gregg suggests, that better diagnosis and treatment of high cholesterol and blood pressure have more than compensated for any increases from rising obesity. It could also be, he adds, that obese people are getting more exercise than they used to; regular physical activity is thought to be a powerful preventative against heart disease.

Oliver and Campos explore another possibility: that fatness is partially--or even merely--a visible marker of other factors that are more important but harder to perceive. Diet composition, physical fitness, stress levels, income, family history and the location of fat within the body are just a few of 100-odd "independent" risk factors for cardiovascular disease identified in the medical literature. The observational studies that link obesity to heart disease ignore nearly all of them and in doing so effectively assign their causal roles to obesity. "By the same criteria we are blaming obesity for heart disease," Oliver writes, "we could accuse smelly clothes, yellow teeth or bad breath for lung cancer instead of cigarettes."

As for cancer, a 2003 report on a 16-year study of 900,000 American adults found significantly increased death rates for several kinds of tumors among overweight or mildly obese people. Most of these apparently obesity-related cancers are very rare, however, killing at most a few dozen people a year for every 100,000 study participants. Among women with a high BMI, both colon cancer and postmenopausal breast cancer risks were slightly elevated; for overweight and obese men, colon and prostate cancer presented the most common increased risks. For both women and men, though, being overweight or obese seemed to confer significant protection against lung cancer, which is by far the most commonly lethal malignancy. That relation held even after the effects of smoking were subtracted.

Obesity's Catch-22
It is through type 2 diabetes that obesity seems to pose the biggest threat to public health. Doctors have found biological connections between fat, insulin, and the high blood sugar levels that define the disease. The CDC estimates that 55 percent of adult diabetics are obese, significantly more than the 31 percent prevalence of obesity in the general population. And as obesity has become more common, so, too, has diabetes, suggesting that one may cause the other.


Yet the critics dispute claims that diabetes is soaring (even among children), that obesity is the cause, and that weight loss is the solution. A 2003 analysis by the CDC found that "the prevalence of diabetes, either diagnosed or undiagnosed, and of impaired fasting glucose did not appear to increase substantially during the 1990s," despite the sharp rise in obesity.

"Undiagnosed diabetes" refers to people who have a single positive test for high blood sugar in the CDC surveys. (Two or more positive results are required for a diagnosis of diabetes.) Gregg's paper in April reiterates the oft-repeated "fact" that for every five adults diagnosed with diabetes, there are three more diabetics who are undiagnosed. "Suspected diabetes" would be a better term, however, because the single test used by the CDC may be wildly unreliable.

In 2001 a French study of 5,400 men reported that 42 percent of the men who tested positive for diabetes using the CDC method turned out to be nondiabetic when checked by a "gold standard" test 30 months later. The false negative rate--true diabetics missed by the single blood test--was just 2 percent.

But consider the growing weights of children, Hill urges. "You're getting kids at 10 to 12 years of age developing type 2 diabetes. Two generations ago you never saw a kid with it."

Anecdotal evidence often misleads, Campos responds. He notes that when CDC researchers examined 2,867 adolescents in the NHANES survey of 1988 to 1994, they identified just four that had type 2 diabetes. A more focused study in 2003 looked at 710 "grossly obese" boys and girls ages six to 18 in Italy. These kids were the heaviest of the heavy, and more than half had a family history (and thus an inherited risk) of diabetes. Yet only one of the 710 had type 2 diabetes.

Nevertheless, as many as 4 percent of U.S. adults might have diabetes because of their obesity--if fat is in fact the most important cause of the disease. "But it may be that type 2 diabetes causes fatness," Campos argues. (Weight gain is a common side effect of many diabetes drugs.) "A third factor could cause both type 2 diabetes and fatness." Or it could be some complex combination of all these, he speculates.

Large, long-term experiments are the best way to test causality, because they can alter just one variable (such as weight) while holding constant other factors that could confound the results. Obesity researchers have conducted few of these socalled randomized, controlled trials. "We don't know what happens when you turn fat people into thin people," Campos says. "That is not some oversight; there is no known way to do it"--except surgeries that carry serious risks and side effects.

"About 75 percent of American adults are trying to lose or maintain weight at any given time," reports Ali H. Mokdad, chief of the CDC's behavioral surveillance branch. A report in February by Marketdata Enterprises estimated that in 2004, 71 million Americans were actively dieting and that the nation spent about $46 billion on weight-loss products and services.

Dieting has been rampant for many years, and bariatric surgeries have soared in number from 36,700 in 2000 to roughly 140,000 in 2004, according to Marketdata. Yet when Flegal and others examined the CDC's most recent follow-up survey in search of obese senior citizens who had dropped into a lower weight category, they found that just 6 percent of nonobese, older adults had been obese a decade earlier.

Campos argues that for many people, dieting is not merely ineffective but downright counterproductive. A large study of nurses by Harvard Medical School doctors reported last year that 39 percent of the women had dropped weight only to regain it; those women later grew to be 10 pounds heavier on average than women who did not lose weight.

Weight-loss advocates point to two trials that in 2001 showed a 58 percent reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among people at high risk who ate better and exercised more. Participants lost little weight: an average of 2.7 kilograms after two years in one trial, 5.6 kilograms after three years in the other.


"People often say that these trials proved that weight loss prevents diabetes. They did no such thing," comments Steven N. Blair, an obesity researcher who heads the Cooper Institute in Dallas. Because the trials had no comparison group that simply ate a balanced diet and exercised without losing weight, they cannot rule out the possibility that the small drop in subjects' weights was simply a side effect. Indeed, one of the trial groups published a follow-up study in January that concluded that "at least 2.5 hours per week of walking for exercise during follow-up seemed to decrease the risk of diabetes by 63 to 69 percent, largely independent of dietary factors and BMI."

"H. L. Mencken once said that for every complex problem there is a simple solution--and it's wrong," Blair muses. "We have got to stop shouting from the rooftops that obesity is bad for you and that fat people are evil and weak-willed and that the world would be lovely if we all lost weight. We need to take a much more comprehensive view. But I don't see much evidence that that is happening."



1996-2005 Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 14:21
Groggy60's Avatar
Groggy60 Groggy60 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 486
 
Plan: IF/Low carb
Stats: 219/201/172 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Quote:
Large, long-term experiments are the best way to test causality, because they can alter just one variable (such as weight) while holding constant other factors that could confound the results. Obesity researchers have conducted few of these socalled randomized, controlled trials. "We don't know what happens when you turn fat people into thin people," Campos says. "That is not some oversight; there is no known way to do it"--except surgeries that carry serious risks and side effects.


Maybe they should try long term low-carb. There seem to some people here that qualify. But then that would probably cause serious risks and side effects (like being heathier).
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 15:11
tom sawyer tom sawyer is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,241
 
Plan: Atkins-like
Stats: 215/170/170 Male 70
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Hannibal MO
Default

I think I agree with some of the assertions.

Not everyone that is over the healthy BMI category is automatically oveweight and unhealthy. BMI is overly simplistic and overly narrow in what is considered healthy.

Mildy overweight people are probab;ly not at a great increased risk of disease and death, partly because they are not all actually overweight (see above) and partly because overweight is probably somewhat linear in its effects, i.e., a little overweight would be a little unhealthy. And "modern medicine" (aka the disease maintenance system) is great at keeping unhealthy people going, that is what it does best.

Third, the idea that overweight is the cause is BS as we know. The cause is insuln resistance, overweight is but one of several symptoms. So a lack of strict correlation is to be expected, since not all insulin-resistant people manifest the same set of symptoms. It would be more telling if they correlated insluin resistance with mortality. I bet that would show a better correlation. And even then, the disease-maintenance system can keep a diabetic person going for quite awhile these days.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 15:32
ironaddict ironaddict is offline
New Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: Hybrid
Stats: 0000/0000/0000 Female 170cm
BF:
Progress:
Location: New Zealand
Default

[QUOTE=tom sawyer]I think I agree with some of the assertions.

Not everyone that is over the healthy BMI category is automatically oveweight and unhealthy. BMI is overly simplistic and overly narrow in what is considered healthy.

Hi,

Yes. Until they can come up with an accurate method of measuring body composition, then they reallly should shut up about any obesity epidemic. While they're using BMI as the criteria they have no real idea whatsoever how many obese people there are.

For eg, I'm only 18% fat (female), but have a large bone structure with very broad shoulders for a woman, and a lot of muscle. So even with muscle definition all over, I'm one point away from morbidly obese. On the other hand there are plenty of people who are carrying a lot of fat, but slip into the OK range through having a light bone structure and minimal lean mass. And neither state is unusual. I see people like that all the time. There must be hundreds of millions of people around the world who fall slightly outside the parameters allowed for by BMI, so the built-in inaccuracies of the statistics must be truly enormous.

Cheers, IA
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 15:38
littlejohn's Avatar
littlejohn littlejohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 284
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 280/215/194 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Texas
Default

I don't buy it. For me being overweight (and I was about 100 lbs over) is a disaster. High blood pressure, no energy, mental laziness, physical laziness, damage to joints, bad skin, breathing problems and indigestion were all part of my obiese self. Now they are all gone. My overall health has significantly improved.

I do accept that being 10-15 lbs overweight might be just as healthy as ideal.(cosmetically speaking) But any one 50 lbs over weight will have a better, healthier, longer life if they lose the weight. Every one is not exactly like me. But, most are a lot like me in relation to carrying excessive fat.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 15:42
ceberezin ceberezin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 619
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 155/140/140 Male 68
BF:18%
Progress:
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Default

It's not too difficult to poke holes in the obesity researchers' use of statistics. The problem with obesity researchers is that they're obesity researchers: they're dedicated to justifying their focus on obesity as opposed to other factors.

The issue that the obesity critics have missed is that the rise in obesity is linked to a rise in insulin resistance and disorders of insulin resistance, of which obesity is only one. All the things that the obesity researchers claim are caused by obesity are more directly related to insulin resistance. This rise is concomitant with the adoption of the low fat hypothesis as the official dogma of the American nutritional industry in the 70s.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 16:16
kwikdriver's Avatar
kwikdriver kwikdriver is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,581
 
Plan: No grains, no sugar.
Stats: 001/045/525 Male 72
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn
I don't buy it. For me being overweight (and I was about 100 lbs over) is a disaster. High blood pressure, no energy, mental laziness, physical laziness, damage to joints, bad skin, breathing problems and indigestion were all part of my obiese self. Now they are all gone. My overall health has significantly improved.


This goes to the heart of what they are trying to say in this article. Were your symptoms caused by obesity, or was there something at work that caused your symptoms and obesity? For example, I don't see how being obese could cause indigestion.

Was there a way you could have dealt with those symptoms without losing weight -- exercise, for example? I know when I was exercising a lot, I slept better, had more energy, and so on. It wasn't until I stopped exercising that I began noticing some of the same symptoms you complained about. As I lose weight, my apnea seems to be coming under control, but I never really noticed apnea until I became sedentary.

I should add that I thought this was an excellent article, very thought provoking.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, May-24-05, 19:06
ValerieL's Avatar
ValerieL ValerieL is offline
Bouncy!
Posts: 9,388
 
Plan: Atkins Maintenance
Stats: 297/173.3/150 Female 5'7" (top weight 340)
BF:41%/31%/??%
Progress: 84%
Location: Burlington, ON
Default

This article touches on a pet peeve of mine (one I think I've heard kwikdriver talk about too in another thread), the common mistake whereby someone uses a study where two things are correlated and assumes that means that they are cause and effect.

Without getting into the pros & cons of weight loss surgery, I had it in 1999 and within a couple of weeks, my asthma, especially at night, got much, much better. I told my doctor and he told me it was because I lost weight. Zzzztttt... wrong answer. I had been that weight on the way up in pounds and my asthma was still bad. It was another doctor that told me that asthma is often associated with acid reflux and the stomach surgery meant I wasn't getting stomach acids coming up my espophagus while I was sleeping anymore. That was far morely likely why my asthma was better. My doctor made the mistake of assuming obesity causes asthma just because asthma often gets worse as people gain more weight.

Just because obesity is linked to diabetes and heart disease doesn't mean it causes diabetes and heart disease. Actually, it is far more likely that something that causes obesity also causes heart disease and diabetes. We all are fairly certain what causes all three is a high carb diet, but it will take a while before they study that assertion!

Val
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, May-25-05, 03:23
AJCole AJCole is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 199
 
Plan: protien power
Stats: 185/155/135 Female 64"
BF:
Progress:
Default

My husbands family is very thin. He is thin (6"/170lbs) and his thin mother had ten thin siblings. He did, and they all do eat a very poor high carb diet. In thier fifties, 2/3 have had cancer and/or stroke. Not one is overweight.

For a significant portion of society, high carb is deadly without weight gain. I think to truly understand this "epidemic" (which I believe it is), you have to first investigate diet as the cause, then you have to do an analysis of those eating high carb and the hunter-gathering populations still in exsistence. Then, and only then, will the medical community understand the epidemic.


Of course, how they can understand anything with the drug companies constantly reaching into their pockets, who knows!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, May-26-05, 08:00
tom sawyer tom sawyer is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,241
 
Plan: Atkins-like
Stats: 215/170/170 Male 70
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Hannibal MO
Default

Don't get me wrong, I do think it is legitimate to say that there is an obesity epidemic in this country. You can pretty much see it when you go anywhere that there are a lot of people. I firmly believe it is a product of (1) the government pushing high carb/low fat, and (2) the food companies pushing a combination of high carb and high fat, in highly processed forms.

And of course, we do have to take some responsibility for our own actions. Even with people urging us to eat a certain way, and others enticing us to eat another, when we gain weight we have to see that it is not the right way to take care of ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, May-26-05, 14:02
Faust's Avatar
Faust Faust is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 82
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 236/219/165 Male 5'9
BF:Unknown, sorry
Progress: 24%
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liz175
What is really going on, asserts Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, is that "a relatively small group of scientists and doctors, many directly funded by the weight-loss industry, have created an arbitrary and unscientific definition of overweight and obesity. They have inflated claims and distorted statistics on the consequences of our growing weights, and they have largely ignored the complicated health realities associated with being fat."

One of those complicated realities, concurs Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is the widely accepted evidence that genetic differences account for 50 to 80 percent of the variation in fatness within a population. Because no safe and widely practical methods have been shown to induce long-term loss of more than about 5 percent of body weight, Campos says, "health authorities are giving people advice--maintain a body mass index in the 'healthy weight' range--that is literally impossible for many of them to follow." Body mass index, or BMI, is a weight-to-height ratio.

By exaggerating the risks of fat and the feasibility of weight loss, Campos and Oliver claim, the CDC, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization inadvertently perpetuate stigma, encourage unbalanced diets and, perhaps, even exacerbate weight gain. "The most perverse irony is that we may be creating a disease simply by labeling it as such," Campos states.


I realize that just because someone has credentials in a certain field, it doesn't mean they necessarily have the right of it. But somehow it seems a bit "off" (to me, anyway) that two social scientists are glibly going on like this. Methinks I smell an agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, May-26-05, 15:46
ItsTheWooo's Avatar
ItsTheWooo ItsTheWooo is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,815
 
Plan: My Own
Stats: 280/118/117.5 Female 5ft 5.25 in
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Oliver and Campos explore another possibility: that fatness is partially--or even merely--a visible marker of other factors that are more important but harder to perceive. Diet composition, physical fitness, stress levels, income, family history and the location of fat within the body are just a few of 100-odd "independent" risk factors for cardiovascular disease identified in the medical literature. The observational studies that link obesity to heart disease ignore nearly all of them and in doing so effectively assign their causal roles to obesity. "By the same criteria we are blaming obesity for heart disease," Oliver writes, "we could accuse smelly clothes, yellow teeth or bad breath for lung cancer instead of cigarettes."

Ya think?

Obesity is commonly what happens when metabolism goes to crap because of poor diet (and by poor I mean high carb (as in a standard high cal junk food diet) and/or a misguided very low fat diet).
First you get hypoglycemia after eating. You get hypoglycemia (or hypoglycemic symptoms) because sugar is too low and the body isn't running on its alternate fuel source (fat) instead. The low sugar and incapacity to burn fat are both caused by hyperinsulinemia. Hyperinsulinemia is caused by sugar sensitivity and/or intolerance. If the body can't use sugar well, it will pour out more insulin to do as good a job it can.

This - chronic hyperinsulinemia - has the consequences of totally screwing up your body's metabolism and health in a spectacular chain reaction car crash health disaster. Lack of ability to use sugar results in low sugar (...and later high sugar), which results in lack of ability to use fat, which results in your body being terrifically malnourished and on no energy most of the time. The body, even though calories may be in excess, enters a sort of "starvation mode" which results in adaptation to the lack of energy (from metabolic disease) via metabolism running at a snails pace and physical wasting (first of lean tissues and organs resulting in autoimmune conditions, then later fat as diabetes is out of control).

Obesity is often merely an obvious physical symptom of the metabolic disease caused by poor or unbalanced diet and sedentary lifestyle. When your body is starving for energy 24/7 because of hyperinsulinemia and subsequent metabolic disease, increased hunger is natural... don't be surprised if you eat more. When your body can't use sugar or fat for energy very well due to hyperinsulinemia and sugar intolerance, don't be surprised if you eat a calorie-reasonable low fat diet yet still have no energy and pile on weight. Obesity is not the primary cause of CHD or stroke or diabetes any more than runny nose is the cause of the common cold. Obesity, much like runny nose, is the body's way of "dealing with the sickness". If the body is suffering from metabolic disease, it will build fat instead of burn/use it which it has a harder time doing. If the body is sick with virus, it will produce excess mucus to try to cleanse the E/N/T structures to rid itself of the parasites.



Now on the other hand, I don't want to dumb all instances of obesity into nothing more than a physical symptom of metabolic disease. There are complex behavioral and psychological factors which cause and foster the self destructive behavior that produces the metabolic disease which cause the symptom of obesity. Just ask the dozens of low carb drop offs why they didn't stick with it.
But I do firmly believe that ultimately the majority of cases of obesity (and dysfunctional eating that produces it) - particularly almost all of the "epidemic" of obesity (meaning the sudden sharp rise in obesity) - are rooted in metabolic diseases related to poor diet/lifestyle and dysfunction in carbohydrate metabolism.

We don't have an obesity epidemic. We have a metabolic disease/syndrome epidemic, caused by a junkfood and sedentary lifestyle epidemic.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31.


Copyright © 2000-2023 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.