Obesity ills 'are a myth' - Express.co.uk
Promoted from the forums
The Daily Express has reported on an Ohio State University study that disputes the accepted wisdom that the 'obesity epidemic' is responsible for various health conditions and that we should all "curb our obsession with dieting". It uses NHANES III data and claims that there are few health differences between 'normal weight' and 'obese' indivisduals under age 40, and thereafter only in the proportion of medication use (which could demonstrate an increased tendency on the part of physicians to pathologise and hence over-prescribe to those in this group). Says researcher Brant Jarret:
“There is a myth going on. Our findings show being overweight is no different from being what we believe is a healthy weight and this is across a person’s entire lifespan. For college-age adults, this should help them realize that they don’t have to worry so much if they have a BMI of 27 or 28. Some young people with these BMIs feel like, ‘I’m going to have all these problems, I need to try 50 different diets.’ And what is all that stress and dieting doing to your body? Probably more damage than the extra 15lb. Being obese before you are 40 has no correlation to your health either. The risk that people are told about does not exist.”
There's nothing here we don't already know, but it's good to see it on the front page of one of the same national tabloids that up until now has been instrumental in the process of 'frightening' fat people into thinking they are ill. Of course there's the obligatory disclaimer about 'gross obesity' (nice!) still damaging health, and the usual comments claiming anyone daring to even think about questioning the party line is a dangerous heretic bent on undermining the war on fat people (damn right!) as well as a couple of sensible ones, but overall it's a surprisingly balanced article. More please!
The DSM-5: good news | Stubborn Ass Know-it-Alls and Barriers to Understanding
Posted by richie79 on June 1, 2010
"BYU funds supported the work." How refreshing! Independently funded, scholarly research. And how unusual. Why don't we get more research like this?
The monopoly on obesity research is still largely controlled by the agenda of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which continues to fund only "community initiatives" and insists on matching funds. Is this bad? It's a mixed bag. It means that we are seeing more community gardens and bike paths, a good thing to be sure (in addition to programs where fat people are "educated" that an apple is a better snack choice than a bag of corn chips). But we're also getting fewer empirical studies that advance good science.
If a person is a dietetics scholar desiring to make a difference in the world, for example, before she designs a study, she's going to research funding available. She'll find generous amounts available from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She'll apply for a grant and convince one or more local funders from her city to "match." That means those local funders, if they were only partially inclined to fund scientific research, will feel they've made their contribution and will likely use their remaining largesse to support other unrelated areas of interest -- symphonies and homeless shelters. And they will have helped advanced the RWJ Foundation agenda that "community initiatives" are what the world needs to treat obesity.
There is an underlying cynicism here, when one considers that Robert Wood Johnson is the founder of Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical company that is the premier maker of laproscopic bands for bariatric surgery. By keeping obesity research focused on community initiatives, RWJ is, in effect, communicating that behavior is the root of obesity and its cure. Presumably, if we just made better use of our bike paths and our community gardens, then we'd all lose weight. Right? RWJ knows this is not the case. Moreover, as long as we feel we have failed with our behavior -- we just can't seem to ride our bikes enough, darn it, despite the community commitment to help us do so -- then our guilt and desperation will make us more likely to look for other ways to end our obesity: drugs and lap bands high on that list.
Meanwhile, most unbiased scientific research has to scramble for independent funding, such as this Ohio State study or research involving test tube tipping that might advance the links between obesity and chemicals in foods, plastics and pesticides, common drugs, or anything OTHER than behavior -- DNA, etc.
Great background, Debra. The availability of research funding has such a profound impact on what gets done.
If we're just as healthy as thin people from childhood to 40 and more likely to survive after age 65 (as other studies have indicated), then I guess we should just watch ourselves between 40 and 65?
Incidentally, since that study was based on the drugs people were taking, it implies that pre-middle aged fat people don't tend have a higher than average incidence of high blood pressure or diabetes, and that they aren't consuming more health care resources than others. Interesting...
The NYT (Rony Caryn Rabin) managed to spin it in a weird way so that it appeared that is OMG horrible, deadly after 40! The short article they wrote didn't even make much sense. Makes me wonder what DIDN't make it into the final copy.
--Andy Jo--
And I'd had it in my head that Roni Caryn Rabin was a possible ally because she wrote that Fatosphere article....but clearly, she's no Abby Ellin or Kate Dailey.