The topic of obesity is a familiar one in the United States. The condition has become so closely associated with American life that some even consider it one of the nation’s chief exports, and up until recently America was the most obese country on Earth.
I’ve been pleased with the direction obesity discussions are taking lately. More and more mainstream media outlets are reporting on the problems associated with obesity, and even the First Lady of the United States has taken the time to focus on the topic. There have been good results too: obesity rate increases have stalled in the USA, a sign that at the very least we’ve come close to rock bottom with this epidemic and seen things get about as bad as they can get.
That being said, there is still a lot of delusional talk out there about obesity. Fat acceptance movements persist, claims of “fatphobia” are still being thrown at critics of the obese, and many mainstream media outlets still lament the persistence of what they call “fat shaming”.
Now don’t get me wrong, I can see where some critique of the current dialogue on obesity is welcome. For some people obesity is an actual result of serious genetic conditions or illnesses, but these people are quite rare (much rarer than the pro-fat camp would have you believe). Similarly, I acknowledge that the BMI isn’t a perfect measure of healthy weight in humans. There are many men who are “obese” simply because they lift weights, but can’t be considered anything less than in peak physical shape. There are also probably a few women who are overweight for similar reasons. These people aren’t very common but I’m aware of their existence.
That being said, the excuses above do not apply to the vast majority of America’s obese population, nearly all of whom are the way they are because of poor diets and poor (or nonexistent) exercise habits. The vast majority are not victims of genetic diseases—they are victims of misinformation and a society that still seems all too willing to assuage their ego by telling them how “all bodies are beautiful” (lamenting any critique of them as “fat shaming”), instead of actually dealing with a very real issue.
Here are three reasons why we can’t afford to let this proceed:
1. Lifespans
For the first time in the modern era, the United States is projected to witness a significant decline in the life expectancy of its citizens.
Over the next few decades, life expectancy for the average American could decline by as much as 5 years unless aggressive efforts are made to slow rising rates of obesity, according to a team of scientists supported in part by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Additional research has shown that people who are severely obese — with a BMI greater than 45 — live up to 20 years less than people who are not overweight. Some researchers have estimated that obesity causes about 300,000 deaths in the U.S. annually. In addition, obesity is fueling an epidemic of type 2 diabetes, which also reduces lifespan.
To estimate the overall effect of obesity on life expectancy in the U.S., Olshansky and his colleagues calculated the reduction in death rates that would occur if everyone who is currently obese were to achieve the difficult goal of losing enough weight to reach an “optimal” BMI of 24. The calculation was based, in part, on age, race, and sex-specific prevalence of obesity in the United States from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Based on these calculations, the researchers estimated that life expectancy at birth would be higher by 0.33 to 0.93 year for white men, 0.30 to 0.81 year for white women, 0.30 to 1.08 year for black men, and 0.21 to 0.73 year for black women if obesity did not exist.
People want to enjoy healthy, long lives. As a society, we want all of our citizens to enjoy healthy, long lives. Obesity is genuinely limiting the ability of Americans to do these things in the future, and is a factor that is literally jeopardizing our future by ensuring that Americans have less of it to look forward to.
2. Healthcare Costs
The most direct costs of obesity relate to healthcare expenditures, and they are quite extensive:
Reports on obesity-related medical spending (direct costs) have charted a steady rise in obesity’s cost over the years, as the epidemic has grown. One widely-quoted estimate from Finkelstein and colleagues, based on data from the U.S. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), found that obesity was responsible for about 6 percent of medical costs in 1998, or about $42 billion (in 2008 dollars). By 2006, obesity was responsible for closer to 10 percent of medical costs—nearly $86 billion a year. More recently, Cawley and Meyerhoefer drew headlines with their estimate that obesity accounts for 21 percent of medical spending—$190 billion in 2005—more than double Finkelstein and colleagues’ earlier estimate from MEPS data.
Looking ahead, researchers have estimated that by 2030, if obesity trends continue unchecked, obesity-related medical costs alone could rise by $48 to $66 billion a year in the U.S.
Countries with lower obesity rates than the U.S. spend a smaller share of their healthcare dollars on obesity, but the burden is still sizable.
On a per person basis, the obese are very expensive:
Several investigators have evaluated the cost of obesity on an individual level. Finkelstein and colleagues found that in 2006, per capita medical spending for obese individuals was an additional $1,429 (42 percent higher) compared to individuals of normal weight. Cawley and Meyerhoefer, meanwhile, found that per capita medical spending was $2,741 higher for obese individuals than for individuals who were not obese—a 150 percent increase.
I think that the seriousness of this spending cannot be overstated. We’re in the midst of a shutdown of the U.S. Federal Government that resulted in large part from debates over healthcare programs and the costs associated with them. As the American population gets older these costs will only go up, meaning that we will need to find more money to fund healthcare programs. Where this money will come from is anybody’s guess, as there don’t seem to be an abundance of options.
3. Economic Costs
The healthcare costs are just the tip of the iceberg. The more indirect costs of obesity hit hard as well.
How hard? Try $390 Billion a year:
click for full size
We are approaching a period of very serious challenges to our prosperity. Western nations like the United States are getting older, and that rising number of senior citizens will lead to rising healthcare costs and significant losses in economic productivity (youth = higher productivity, lower likelihood of retirement, etc). As the golden days of seemingly endless prosperity that American Baby Boomers grew up with come to an end, their children and grandchildren will be left to face a much less economically certain future. They’ll be in no position to face the challenges that future will bring if they can’t take an objective look at issues like obesity, objectively examining the consequences of said issues and making a conscious effort to reduce them.
The objective truth is simple: we are living in a society that simply cannot afford the obesity epidemic we’re facing now. Feelings will be hurt and labels of “fat shaming” will fly, but a sustained effort to combat obesity—an effort which will require fully acknowledging that it is not a positive thing and that saying “You’re beautiful the way you are!” is no excuse—will eventually need to happen.
Those unwilling to face this reality had best be willing to pay, or have their children ready to pay in the future, the exorbitant price that will accompany their refusal.
Read Next: Open Letter To Fat Girls
Another reason obamacare won’t work. Are we really supposed to give tax dollars to support this lifestyle?
Not supposed to but required to. By law. And if you don’t pay, you go to jail.
Obamacare marked the point at which Russia officially became freer than the USSA.
United States of Safer America
Damn the government. Bunch of white knights they are.
yeah but just think of all the extra money that big pharma can make…. yippee… !
Jail isn’t a punishment…the punishment is a financial one (fines, etc)
http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=f856a6b6-e9fb-4e6d-8429-67429f3b4f03
Try not paying the IRS and see what happens. Or just ask Wesley Snipes.
here’s a perfect example of lost productivity due to obesity that we all pay for…
The woman should give herself credit. She expended enough energy to get out of the car and toss a 10 oz package 2 feet. Fatties can set all kinds of records
Yes, and Twinkies.
Not defending Obamacare / ACA (should’ve just used the Swiss system) but you were supporting it before.
The quickest way to change this (ignoring healthcare) would be to stop subsidizing food, especially corn. The only way to do it now would be to raise the costs of fattening food, and soda, and that means HCFS.
Note: I’m not saying tax anything, or limiting sizes, et al. Nope, just stop paying subsidies for that shiat they turn into HCFS. Mind you, it’ll raise the price of meat as well. That’s not terrible either, in health / fat terms.
Bigger women may not be healthy, but come brother. They give me a healthy boner.
Your attraction comes second to my effective tax rate.
Sticking your boner in a fatty? Better have an exit plan. Fat fucks are risky.
BTW, love your website (no fatty) but it needs moar fatties. Sell fat fuckin protection gear, like Bogglez… see below.
Go big or go home, bro.
Oh so you’re the one who special-ordered extra-large posters of actresses Camryn Manheim and Melissa McCarthy. I’m kidding of course. We all know those posters only come in extra large.
Don’t be so sure they’re not healthy…
If Obesity is primarily a low IQ problem and is present primarily among populations that have poorer health outcomes and lower “genetic quality”, could it not be argued that they are (on average) not as healthy as those who are not obese? If higher intelligence and higher health reflect higher genetic quality and the obese tend to lack higher intelligence and better health, doesn’t that clearly lead us to the conclusion that the obese aren’t as healthy?
The implication here, as noted from the various studies referenced on my blog, is that it’s not the obesity, it’s the genetic quality (reflected in IQ, since the brain is the biggest target for mutational load). In other words, on average, an obese smart person is better off, health and longevity wise, than a skinny stupid person.
So yes, the obese aren’t as healthy as the non-obese, but the central issue, generally, is not the obesity.
Indeed, some mainstream researchers are starting to notice this. See here:
Overweight and healthy: the concept of metabolically healthy obesity – Harvard Health Publications
I’m not seeing the point here with regard to that article. It doesn’t seem to challenge the central notion that obesity, generally, is linked to poor health and that the obese tend to possess said illnesses more so than others. That obesity increases the risk for certain illnesses is clearly established and not actually undermined by the link you’ve presented.
What that link does say is that BMI is imperfect, that obesity in and of itself does not guarantee the presence of said illnesses and that some of the obese are actually healthy. My article (which you’ve described as “bullshit” on more than one occasion) made these points as well, so what is new here? The article ends by clearly establishing the role that even metabolically healthy obesity plays in creating health issues (cancer, respiratory problems, sleep apnea, etc).
You seem to be pushing the notion that obesity, in and of itself, has no significant deleterious impact on one’s health that could justify the arguments I’ve made in this post, and I’m not buying it.
You know, I was just conversing about you today. You seem like a reasonable guy, so I concluded that you’d likely react in one of three ways:
1. Absorb what was said and not respond because you were contemplating/researching what was said to you.
2. Respond acknowledging the new information provided to you and its implications.
3. Double down on your beliefs that were challenged by the information given.
Regrettably, it seems you’ve chosen third option. And I am disappointed. No matter, I will continue the conversation.
You will understand if I am rather unforgiving on the matter, considering you are making a post from the mean-spirited stance of “fat shaming” based on faulty premises.
It might not. That’s the point. Please think hard about the matter. How do we know obesity has negative health impacts? How is that impacted by the evidence I’ve provided to you?
Set aside your own incredulity for a moment and truly think about what we know based on the evidence.
Is it? What does that mean, “risk”? Again, think causation, not correlation.
Because it is bullshit. Your article implies several things:
1. Obesity causes adverse health outcomes.
2. It is possible for people lose weight en masse.
3. Health outcomes could be improved if we reduced obesity.
None of these statements has been shown to be true.
I’ve linked to the article only to show the increasing recognition that obesity isn’t as unhealthy as people think, that’s all. What we should focus on the actual evidence for the adverse health caused by obesity, which is lacking.
Look, the point is that all the evidence we have for the negative health impact of obesity comes from worthless corelational studies. These studies are fundamentally incapable of telling us that these adverse outcomes are caused by the obesity. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly, yet you seem unable to accept this point. Worse still, there is no evidence that weight loss leads to much by way of improved health outcomes, either to increased lifespan or reduced morbidity. The very best randomized controlled trials have shown no extension of lifespan (i.e., reduction of cardiac events or deaths from such) and only modest reductions in ailments (15-30%) at best, which may not be worth the effort for most people.
Let me put it this way – here’s a challenge for you: please find me good evidence that weight loss leads to improved health. This means a large, randomized controlled trial which prescribes some weight loss measure that finds reduction of deaths during the trial period and/or reduction in adverse health outcomes. If we are going to discuss this subject, it seems fitting to have full grasp of the evidence.
“It might not. That’s the point. Please think hard about the matter. How do we know obesity has negative health impacts?”
What? Did you not read your own article?
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/overweight-and-healthy-the-concept-of-metabolically-healthy-obesity-201309246697
You’re the one who posted it and vouched for the information therein. Are you just going to pretend that it doesn-
…actually, never mind. I can’t be bothered with this.
“Regrettably, it seems you’ve chosen third option. And I am disappointed.”
http://i.imgur.com/z3hwbm4.gif
You can continue the fat apologetics with someone else. Have a good one.
Are you justifying the fact that you’re fat? Or do you really think, that obesity and being generally overweight doesn’t affect your health?
Lower IQ people may have poor habits when it comes to taking care of themselves. That’s where society comes in… it shames people for doing stupid things and not taking care of themselves.
Someone once said, “tradition is the distilled wisdom of generations”.
If that’s not really your lambo bro you should use a more realistic avatar. Good post tho.
http://i.imgur.com/LfERE.gif
Sadly, it’s spreading. There was an article in today’s Daily Mail about UK students going on some sort of mass bender. In nearly all the photos the girls were FAT. At their age?! What will they look like when they’re 30? I travel to Beijing frequently on business. Every trip the women there get heavier. No, they haven’t reached US Wal-Mart mobility scooter levels of fatness yet, but they are heading in the wrong direction. The weight doesn’t look good on their more petit Asian frames. And yet they have no asses!
the UK has a history of terrible diets and bad taste… no surprise there…. add in free healthcare and you have a recipe for ultra fatties
Fat women will always be supported as they feed food corporations or is it the other way round?
The america bdget can’t afford anything at all… they’ll be $18 Trillion dollars in debt before the end of the year.
Put the interest rates at a normal 7-8% and the entire tax revenue will be spent on interest….
have another burger and supersize it while you still can, it will be beans and rice only in a few years time amigos…
No, that figure equals $18 trillion in private U.S. dollar assets, according to the definitions of national accounting. Our understanding of what “debt” means hasn’t kept up with the way fiat money works in the modern world. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory. For example:
http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
that’s fantastic news, so when the government is a $100 Trillion in debt the economy will be even better off… hell let’s make it a quadrillion ASAP…
This kind of BS Milton Freidman alchemical lead into gold economics is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Govt. has to pay interest on the loans, which means it has to raise taxes just to pay money out on its loans (mainly to wealthy banksters).
The logic of doing that is about the same as the logic of saying that a hurricane increases GDP because of all the broken houses that need rebuilding….
what it fails to take into account is that the money could have been better spent elsewhere….
and of course in the case of Govt. debt, since the FED holds a huge portion of it, having to buy Govt. paper in what is the most massive fraud in human history, and the japanese and chinese hold a large portion of the rest…
none of your helicopter money is helping the real economy, only disappearing into the ether of uber wealthy fuckers running a ponzi scheme….
We can’t escape the bottom line, as you pointed out. You didn’t say there isn’t a place for debt, you just pointed out that we have to pay it back – with interest!! We’ve already been downgraded once. Imagine what will happen if oil is no longer denominated in our fiat currency.
Quoting AA, “These budget deficits have added financial assets to the private sector, providing the demand for goods and services that have allowed us to maintain income growth. And that income growth has allowed us to save and accumulate financial assets at a far greater rate than we would have been able to without the deficits. But, we can’t change the fundamentals (free market capitalism) that brought us here and expect that to remain the case.”
I’m a layman, but let’s accept that at face value. How long can we continue the money-floating con game? If it is working, why isn’t our economy growing faster than the debt (multiplier effect)? If it does work, what if there is a glitch and markets dip or crash? The debt doesn’t go away, our creditworthiness goes away.
AA’s argument (at least to me) boils down to leverage. The problem is that we are not paying our debts back (like a leveraged company), arithmetic tells me we are not outgrowing our debt, we are digging deeper. If that can not go on forever, when does it stop and what does that stoppage look like?
AA, I’d love to hear your thoughts on my reply to theblob, below. In short, if it is working, why do we owe more and more? Why didn’t the leverage grow our economy more than the we borrowed?
I don’t believe that governments are good at managing economies and sprinkling money like fertilizer. It would be great, but why have we not outpaced our debt with growth? Why is Japan stagnant and buried under their debt?
I’m far from an expert, so I could be missing something.
Actually obesity is one of the main reasons why European-style healthcare is doomed to fail in the US. Obamacare would be a great system… if people were in relatively good shape, like Europe was in the 90’s, and America was in the 80’s.
Little known fact: Before Obamacare America already spent more per capita on socialized medicine than any other country in the world.
Our system came pre-fucked. Obama care adds sand and subtracts the Vasilene.
Great system my sore ass.
True. Health care costs at least 10x as much as it should already, and forcing people to get health insurance only compounds the problem. But the Dumbocraps, of course, wouldn’t listen to common sense, being the libtards they are.
But the fact that millions of stupid people voted for the Dumbocraps in 2012 says more than anything that our country is screwed. Emigration, anyone?
The obesity rate in Britain is about the same – if not greater – that in the U.S., and they do just fine with socialized medicine.
See:
A Fat World – With a Fat Secret? | JayMan’s Blog
The NHS has x number of people die each year waiting around on gurneys or from dehydration or lack of nutrition – in other words, neglect.
They are pretty damned far from “just fine”. I don’t see Americans flying to India for treatment. We don’t need medical tourism.
Is that actually true? I heard these “horror” stories, but not any solid evidence that this occurs.
Wish I could cite, but it was in the Daily Mail. Related: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2418250/NHS-death-rate-worst-West-Patients-50-likely-die-neglect-US-says-study.html
You can google NHS and neglect. A number of damning studies and stories will pop up.
My opposition to socialized medicine is not just reflexive, I’ve been turned off by folks that lived under those systems.
Interesting find, thanks!
Fat acceptance damages people whose “obesity is an actual results of serious genetic conditions or illnesses” because those falsely claiming to have a disorder muddles the data that is supposed to be used to effectively treat individuals who are truly victims. Normalizing the condition of obesity slows down research – facilities stop researching diseases when they’re no longer considered diseases – and makes it that much harder to identify behavioral and genetic markers resulting in a preventable disease being passed through generations.
If obesity is genetic, then carriers of the genetic traits should have the same opportunity as others to ensure their offspring do not suffer from disorders at birth or later in life. Carriers of other hereditary diseases (such as for blood) can take preventative steps like in mate selection which over time lowers the frequency of a specific condition. Or at the very least, due to the authenticity of the data being collected, medical facilities are more effective in treating those with conditions.
The people who are the subject of this article make it nearly impossible to get to that point with obesity. They keep society sick on more than one level.
I watched one of the best Ted x Talks a while back. In it, an army general was demonstrating how obesity is a national security issue. The cost these fat motherfuckers were putting on the military was ludicrous. Check it out
My overweight coworkers seem to take more sick days, so it does appear to affect productivity.
Here in Mexico a woman who is thin, even with a horse-face, is automatically in the top 30% of the market or better. That’s it. You see so ugly landwhales with double or triple bellies that a women who may be a 6 is artificially upgraded to a 7.
While men are as obese as women, you still have the issue where 100% of men are after 20% of women, like a bar or club in the USA.
yes and don’t forget that ultra snobby ‘new rich’ attitude the women love to carry in mexico… if you have a bmw or gucci sunglasses you are something special… i sometimes think if these women looked down their noses any harder, they’d topple over backwards…
Mexico is one of the best countries on earth to be a hot, young woman. The economy is stagnant but there is a very rich minority which lovesto spend on bling, so attention and validation is extreme, lots of beta providers with money (and no game) with lots of alpha latin lovers for the side.
I have travelled a lot, and an ambitious, smart czech, russian or polish 9-10 would need few months to find a beta which provides her with a flat, SUV and a level of life way beyond the european standard (besides car traffic, of course).
On the downside, sexual life for the average Mexican woman can be very tough. Lots of betas without game or money, lots of alphas without money, and brutal competition from the statistically few, hot, thin women. Many end up pregnant by 27 from and alpha/beta-asshole/idiot, divorced/dumped before 30, only to be a single mother with baggage, 20 kgs overweight at 32. At that point, their options are obese, ugly 40-60 years old betas, or a life of pump and dump by some drunk alphas.
at least in india the people are humble even if their country is a
shithole… mexico is just as much a shit hole way more dangerous…. but people behave as if they are living in Beverly Hills…it would be comical if it wasn’t so fucking irritating…
It depends in which neighborhood you live. There are the safe, wealthy ones in every city, and then the rest of the country.
And this is where JayMan, diligent warrior against all things bullshit, comes into play.
And make no mistake, this is all bullshit. The fundamental issue is this: virtually all the health wisdom here – including, if not especially, about obesity – is based on worthless observational studies. They study their subjects and just track correlations between certain traits. You may of heard, correlation is not causation. Merely finding a correlation between two variables, A & B, tells you nothing about the cause. A could B, or maybe B causes A, or maybe both A and B are caused by C. This muddles most medical research done today, as Gary Taubes explains.
As such:
So? Why is this so?
You emphasized a tautology, my friend.
All those estimates on “cost” are complete rubbish. They are based on an obviously faulty premise, that obesity causes the adverse outcomes. We don’t know that.
In fact, I can tell you what’s going on in reality. Allow me to quote the relevant passages from my blog (see the post 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Health wisdom and obesity | JayMan’s Blog):
Also, you might want to see my post:
Even George W. Bush Has Heart Disease | JayMan’s Blog
We’re all aware of the fact that correlation is not causation.
What I’m also aware of, however, is the likelihood that something like obesity can maintain relatively high correlations with a large number of medical illnesses and have little or nothing to do with them.
That likelihood is, in my estimation, not terribly high.
I would not disagree with your assertion that Obesity and IQ are linked, but that doesn’t invalidate the negative impact that obesity has on one’s health which, generally speaking, is deleterious. The number of obese today is higher than it needs to be (and growing despite a lack of similarly dramatic changes in our population’s genetic quality) and that is going to cost us.
Yes it does. How do we “know” obesity has a negative impact on health? Yup, from nonsense correlational studies. What if the association between obesity and health is entirely a result of the association between obesity and low IQ? The evidence indicates that this is in fact the case. Low IQ would then be bad for your health, and while I’m for reducing the incidence of low IQ in our society, there is no (ethical) quick fix for that.
Well, that depends on a lot, doesn’t it? Key among them is the precise cause of the rise in obesity, which, contra to what you might have heard, we are actually in the dark about. It is possible – as it appears around the world – that a rise in obesity is an inevitable consequence of modernization. That would affect what the obesity rate “needs” to be, wouldn’t it?
Look, as you might note from reading my blog (which you obviously haven’t done), I know quite a bit about this topic. You’re going to have to come back with something better than a weak off-hand dismissal.
“Yes it does. How do we “know” obesity has a negative impact on health?”
We know that excess weight has a deleterious impact on the health of one’s joints, knees and respiratory system. An article you presented to me today confirmed this, as do countless other legitimate pieces of medical literature:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/overweight-and-healthy-the-concept-of-metabolically-healthy-obesity-201309246697
We understand the role that excess body fat can play in raising blood sugar. This is well established, and also confirmed in the article you linked above.
That obesity in and of itself has a generally deleterious impact on human health is clear, enough so that I’d almost consider it a non-debatable concern. Excess weight (particularly when combined with excess proportions of body fat) is not good for you. This information is not gleaned solely from observed correlations but also from basic fundamental knowledge about how different parts of our body work and how excesses can impact them negatively.
“What if the association between obesity and health is entirely a result of the association between obesity and low IQ?”
Doubtful. That argument gives IQ too much privilege as a determinant of the human condition, a mistake commonly made by those in the HBDsphere.
Obesity may be correlated with low IQ-that we do not debate. What we debate is the notion that it lacks a deleterious impact on health in and of itself, which is obvious. Obese low IQ populations are at generally greater risk than their non-obese counterparts because obesity, in and of itself, is not good for your health (generally).
The association between obesity and health, therefore, may be linked in part to IQ (low IQ = greater predisposition to obesity, potentially), but it is not the ENTIRE story. That’s just taking the argument to an irrational extreme.
“It is possible – as it appears around the world – that a rise in obesity is an inevitable consequence of modernization. That would affect what the obesity rate “needs” to be, wouldn’t it?”
When I mention the fact that “the number of obese today is higher than it needs to be”, I am taking modernization into account. Many modern European nations have obesity rates a third of the rate seen in the United States. Black Americans have rates of obesity much larger than genetically similar populations in the UK. Even nations like Canada and Australia (arguably America’s closest cultural proxies) have significantly lower rates of obesity than those seen in the United States (ten percentage points lower in the case of Canada which, like the USA, has undergone its own obesity boom in the last couple of decades but failed to reach the same heights).
If it were indeed fact that a rise in obesity is an inevitable consequence of modernization then yes, that would impact what the obesity rate “needs” to be. Our answer to that question, however, would still probably be much lower than the rate we see in nations like the United States and Mexico, where obesity is most prevalent.
No matter how many ways you slice it, obesity does not need to be prevalent in over a third of a given population, regardless of the presence of modernization. The world we live in right now proves that.
We may not return to pre-modern levels of obesity in the near future (barring some sort of miracle in medical technology), but that does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as excessive obesity. Rates of obesity can be lower in many parts of the world and efforts should be made to that end.
“Look, as you might note from reading my blog (which you obviously haven’t done), I know quite a bit about this topic. You’re going to have to come back with something better than a weak off-hand dismissal.””
No, your blog was read. My lack of conviction with regard to your argument has nothing to do with an ignorance of your material, which I myself (and likely a very large number of other individuals) simply find lacking in this regard.
Save the condescension for another blog, bro.
If we know that, then you should have no trouble presenting me with some of those “legitimate pieces of medical literature”. Correlational studies don’t count.
No, we don’t know that either. See above.
No, it isn’t. Look, merely repeating the claim isn’t evidence for it. See below.
Actually, it is gleaned primarily from observed correlations. The rest is how we think the different parts of our body work, which is actually less well understood – especially on a population-wide level, than you’re portraying here.
Look, this isn’t based on a “just-so” story, but, as you might note, since you’ve claimed to have read my blog, but from considerable evidence. Do you care to explain the flaws in the evidence referenced in my blog?
How is it obvious? You seem to be repeating a lot of, frankly, dogmatic claims, but are providing little by way of evidence for them.
Evidence?
And they are also genetically different as well. The European countries most genetically similar to the U.S., Britain, Germany (and for that matter, the rest of the Anglosphere) have similar obesity rates. See:
A Fat World – With a Fat Secret? | JayMan’s Blog
Blacks in the UK are considerably different, genetically, from Blacks in the US.
And you know that how, exactly?
Look, Your article implies several things:
1. Obesity causes adverse health outcomes.
2. It is possible for people lose weight en masse.
3. Health outcomes could be improved if we reduced obesity.
None of these statements have been shown to be true.
The point here is that all the evidence we have for the negative health impact of obesity comes from worthless corelational studies. These studies are fundamentally incapable of telling us that these adverse outcomes are caused by the obesity. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly, yet you seem unable to accept this point. Worse still, there is no evidence that weight loss leads to much by way of improved health outcomes, either to increased lifespan or reduced morbidity. The very best randomized controlled trials have shown no extension of lifespan (i.e., reduction of cardiac events or deaths from such) and only modest reductions in ailments (15-30%) at best, which may not be worth the effort for most people.
Let me put it this way – here’s a challenge for you: please find me good evidence that weight loss leads to improved health. This means a large, randomized controlled trial which prescribes some weight loss measure that finds reduction of deaths during the trial period and/or reduction in adverse health outcomes. If we are going to discuss this subject, it seems fitting to have full grasp of the evidence.
“If we know that, then you should have no trouble presenting me with some of those “legitimate pieces of medical literature”.”
You already gave it to me.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/overweight-and-healthy-the-concept-of-metabolically-healthy-obesity-201309246697
How do I know you’re either a troll or a fat apologist?
You vouch for and post a link confirming a certain point of view, and then pretend it doesn’t exist.
“No, we don’t know that either.”
Yes we do. YOU see above.
“But muscle tissue burns blood sugar, a good thing, while fat tissue converts blood sugar into fat and stores it, a not-so-good thing.”
This mechanism is well understood and portrayed in the article you gave me, as the well as the study linked therein.
It is apparently frikkin obvious to everyone except yourself.
“The rest is how we think the different parts of our body work”
We are not in the dark about the relationship between body fat and the storage of blood sugar, nor are we in the dark about the relationship between excess weight and joint health. This is why you can referencepublications from harvard Medical School and get information relating to that.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/overweight-and-healthy-the-concept-of-metabolically-healthy-obesity-201309246697
I won’t continue pointing out the obvious.
“And you know that how, exactly?”
Because the US and Mexico are on the extremes of the global obesity epidemic, as I’m about to establish right now.
“The European countries most genetically similar to the U.S., Britain, Germany (and for that matter, the rest of the Anglosphere) have similar
obesity rates. ”
How do I know you’re full of shit?
Obesity rate USA: 35%
Canada: 25%
United Kingdom: 25%
Germany: 13%
Australia: 25%
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/27/canadian-obesity-rates-hit-record-levels
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Latest-obesity-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150359/Half-Germans-Obese-Overweight.aspx
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/obesity-and-overweight
What on earth is remotely similar about a 13% and a 35.7% obesity rate?Go on, you’re an expert. You tell me.
Actually, nevermind-don’t.
Like I said last night, I’m done with this. You run up here on my website guns blazing with claims of “bullshit” and a whole lot of condescension directed at me right off the bat. Then you come in here with some blatantly false statistical claims about global obesity.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/overweight-and-healthy-the-concept-of-metabolically-healthy-obesity-201309246697
Then you post an article (and vouch for the contents therein) from arguably the most reputable center of medical knowledge on the fucking planet that explicitly confirms the impact of obesity on joint health as well as the well understood role that excess body fat plays in storing excess blood sugar (and therefore bringing on diabetes, hypertension, etc).
You then proceed to pretend as though this knowledge (which is not only confirmed by the article YOU POSTED but is mainstream enough to be understood by any average pleb on the street with the ability to google) doesn’t frikkin exist, as though we’re actually totally in the dark about obesity.
On top of that, you’re butthurt:
“You will understand if I am rather unforgiving on the matter,
considering you are making a post from the mean-spirited stance of “fat shaming” based on faulty premises.”
“Mean Spirited”? Man deh sey him come from yaad, but caan handle a little talk online?
Fuck outta here with this shit.
You’re either a) delusional or b) a fat apologist. I don’t care which one it is, because either way you’re a waste of my time. Go and play the fat apologist game with someone else.
Is your definition of a troll include someone who merely disagrees with you, and presents evidence to support his point? If so, please, just say so now.
Look, the words on that site is mostly a bunch of mainstream mumbo-jumbo. Again, see the words of Gary Taubes on why this so (emphasis mine):
Where are the studies (and by that, I mean randomized controlled trials, or at least observational studies that control for IQ, to say the least) that support the claims it makes that you like? If you are saying that their words support your points by themselves, you would be appealing to authority.
No it’s actually not. Look, you either don’t understand or are willfully ignorant to the overarching concept being discussed here: the problem of relying on observational studies (see above).
Fundamentally, you seem blind to the concept of how our knowledge of bodily function might be hindered from our observations people. Allow me to explain: much of the time, we don’t know why what we’re seeing is happening, only that it does. Observational studies (like the one mentioned on the site, see here), on which much medical wisdom is based, are fundamentally incapable of informing you of such.
But in any case, it’s clear you have no interest in getting at the truth, merely pushing an agenda. I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong on this point.
Don’t be obtuse. What does the U.S. obesity rate look like when it’s broken down by race? (Hint: the White obesity rate is identical to the other Anglo countries.)
Look, I am trying to establish to you that the scientific basis for which you are basing this article is lacking. I have presented you with extensive evidence demonstrating why this is such. Now, instead of at least investigating the information I’ve provided to you to establish if there is any merit to what I say, you instead dismiss the information out of hand, retreat to repeating dogma, and rely on logical fallacies (e.g., the appeal to authority) to make your point. I hope you understand that there is nothing personal in the discussion and never was. Attacking a person’s claims (rightfully, in this case) as bullshit is not the same as attacking the person. The information was presented here with the hope of establishing productive discussion. Perhaps we have done so, even if you seem unable to change your position. In any case, I’m still hoping you at least allow what I’ve presented to you to impress upon your thinking in this matter in some way.
Are u a fat man which would cause you to be biased?
“They are based on an obviously faulty premise, that obesitycauses the adverse outcomes. We don’t know that.”
1) The hell we don’t: diabetes (a cascade of body parts falling to pieces), high blood pressure (stroke and heart disease), osteopathy
I omitted mental illness and obstructive heart disease to be over the top generous with objectivity.
2) W. did a lot of things as a young man (and not so young man) to abuse his body.
Again, we don’t know if obesity causes any of that. Try reading my blog next time before you respond, especially the case with heart disease.
That was the NBC doctor chica’s response, also on my blog. The evidence for a causal relationship between “lifestyle” and heart disease is weak.
I didn’t know you had a blog, but I’ll check it out.
But hang on, are you asserting that obesity and diet don’t go hand in glove with Type 2 Diabetes? Type 2, where you clobber your own insulin sensitivity and make yourself sick.
Obesity absolutely causes hypertension – its physics. All that tons of fun filling out those Juicy sweatpants is vascular. Isn’t this why people get enlarged hearts?
If you’re making a point about dietary fat or BMI, I won’t argue with you about life expectancy. But if someone is no-kidding obese, its a slam dunk that its bad for them and someone has to pay to treat them.
Seriously, bariatric is where the money is. Get rich making things for fat people as they’re body falls apart on them. Especially diabetics… lopping off toes or limbs, physical therapy, blindness, you name it – -its stops working right.
The two did indeed rise together and appear to be related.
That said, even the incidence and adverse outcomes of Type 2 diabetes may be associated with low IQ. Studies on diabetes and IQ appear to be lacking.
Perhaps it does. But then again, maybe hypertension isn’t as dangerous, in and of itself, as people think.
Are you sure about that? How do we know that? Please don’t answer from correlational studies.
Here’s the problem: most of modern medicine is based on observational studies that note correlations between some variable and some other variables. However, and here’s the key part, these studies are fundamentally incapable of telling you what causes the associations they find. As such, the bulk of medical wisdom is based on rubbish. We have evidence that IQ is a strong predictor of health and longevity. Evidence also suggests that many of the adverse health outcomes we see result from low IQ (and hence, presumably, genetic load).
I know it because knees weren’t designed to cart around 300-400lbs, bc we have to buy them scooters to get around the grocery store, bc bigger people (think NBA players) generally don’t live as long as petite people, bc they need orthopedic socks and home healthcare, and bc the nursing homes are not chock full of fat people.
We should not confuse congenital heart problems like bad valves, arrhythmia etc with a fat guy whose heart is working overtime to push blood to double the normal sized human body. If you dispute that adipose tissue is vascular and has to be serviced, there’s nothing left to talk about. That and smoking (vasoconstriction) exacerbate hypertension and kill you sooner, especially if you are genetically predisposed. Is a weak blood vessel in your brain more likely to blow out under low blood pressure or high pressure?
Having sex correlates strongly with getting pregnant. I don’t need to explain the mechanism for it to be true. Observing generations of fat people not living as long, is pretty good science.
Now, if you’re saying that low IQ is a precursor to obesity and a slew of behavioral problems, you’ve got a good point. But even that wouldn’t matter if being fat, or a drunkard, or drug addict or other risky behaviors were socially unacceptable. Which I take as the point of this whole series of articles.
Inclusion and acceptance have yielded poor results when compared to good old fashioned shaming.
I’m growing tired of discussing this topic, because I speak, but I’m not getting anywhere.
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
In other words, you know nothing. Thanks for playing.
Obesity does appear to be related to knee problems. This likely because people with a genetic susceptibility to osteoarthritis (a genetic defect) have conditions which are exacerbated by the excess weight. Think about that relationship for a moment.
No, it’s not. It’s an important start, but it’s not sufficient to proclaim understanding of the matter.
I’ve already explained to you why this is rubbish. Since you’re reverting to preaching the gospel in spite of my words, I’m not going to waste any more of my time with you.
They do. But that’s not necessarily the only reason they have poorer health and shorter lifespans.
There is no guarantee this will accomplish what you think it will.
Of course, it’s especially foolhardy when you consider that all people, including the low-IQ, live longer in our more tolerant society.
If you’re going to respond to me, please make it an intelligent, thoughtful response. Thanks.
__Flaws for Alarm__
Gentlemen, kudos to you for attempting to reason with types like Jayman. It has been useful in uncovering the fundamental flaws in his argument.
The two fallacies that he employees are:
_a_ Argumentum ad Ignorantium
_b_ Failing Occam’s Razor
So it is time to “loud up di ting” on dat.
=
=
=
Jayman…
__Smoking Gunga__
The whole premise is based on the notion that “correlation is not indicative of causation”. Hence any by addressing phenomenon that is only correlated (and not necessarily proven to be causal) we’ll are just relying on “worthless observational studies”.
Let’s consider that it is wholly non-causal. Is it really basing things on worthless findings?
No.
Whether something is ultimately responsible does not mean it is NOT a contributing factor, or is NOT a marker of a contributing factor (and especially if by removal of the marker, the underlying factor is NOT also removed.)
For example, a poorly constructed security perimeter can be “correlated” to an increase in break and enter incidences. However, the “cause” of the break and enter is really that of the existence of perpetrators (locks don’t defeat themselves, cash doesn’t grow legs and walk out the door on their own). Is no viable solution to reducing theft to be found in creating a more secure system? Is the removal of all larceny-minded persons (being that it is the true cause) the “only” viable solution? Of course NOT. The solution of increasing security still works regardless of an accurate identification or description of the root cause.
This doesn’t mean that “weak locks” are the “cause” of theft. However, the improvement of that element reduces the negative outcome. The “root cause” is still the thief, and we still have to resolve that (and by more accurate resolution, create even more efficient remedy). However, addressing the correlated weak link while continuing to discover the root is both appropriate and prudent.
But is it really non-causal?
As a plea to ignorance, he attempts to dismiss any validity of a correlation, merely because no irrefutable identification of root cause occurred. However, the challenge to such a dubious notion that is contradictory to the field is to show all of us studies that DON’T show how the introduction of obesity to a population does NOT predict an increase to the rate of obesity-related diseases.
We are all waiting.
__Thought for Food__
The finding that childhood IQ is positively correlated to lesser BMI in adulthood is used as a way to implicate that cause and effect can sometimes be spuriously connected.
The sleight of hand here is that there is no denying that cognitive skills are positively correlated to propensity to achieve and maintain a better lifestyle. So, in effect, Lower IQ is surreptitiously named the cause via the criticized segue of “correlation is causation”.
However, not being root causation does REMOVE culpability. THAT is the subtle flaw.
(Note: it doesn’t mean that a depressed IQ is the root of lesser BMI in adulthood, but rather that, like higher BMI increases the propensity for type II diabetes, it factors towards the later life trait.)
Again, a factor doesn’t have to be the root, or only cause, to be critical to a correlated variable. This is the same fallacy that climate change deniers use to state that CO2 doesn’t lead the greenhouse effect, so it can’t be the “cause” of it.
When it can be shown that the removal of an exhibiting trait (obesity in this case) from a subject lowers the propensity of other traits (developing type II diabetes) means that REGARDLESS of root cause, the existence of the trait is a herald of the other.
As an analogy, consider the cause and effect of falling off of a 30-story building. The root cause is “falling off”. However, the damage is not directly done by it. It is done by the energy imparted when meeting with the pavement. The observed effect (akin to obesity) is the acceleration leading to the velocity the instant before impact. If we have not discovered the “root cause” (as in why did the subject fall off?), does not the outfitting of a parachute, reducing the final velocity such that the subject survives, a viable option? Furthermore, does that negate the culpability of the velocity?
Feel free to prove that clinging to “you haven’t discovered the root cause” means that velocity reduction via drag device is adhering to “worthless observational studies”. Don’t wear the parachute and let us all know how this is all “cow pie”.
Q.E.D.
Nice try, though.
Well said.
Thanks, Bro.
The moment I see self-proclamation like “diligent warrior against all things bullshxt”, I am compelled to reveal the “sleight of hand”. That kind of misinformation is really quite devious and deserves the literary torpedo.
Thanks for RoK. It really is about time that somebody spoke up and made some effort to steer society in the right direction. A big thumbs up!
World’s Laziest Mail Chick:
I bet you that all of the costs of obesity are highly understated too.
I’ll live a measly 20 more years if I stopped being a glutton? Big deal. Thin People Facing Extinction
We fatties need thinlings for our own survival. Who’s going to wipe our butts and cook our food?!!!
Obesity also contributes to environmental pollution. More of everything is required to raise unnecessary crops and livestock to feed people’s gluttony. “Everything” includes electricity, fertilizer, insecticides, gasoline, etc. Unnecessary energy, water and packaging are required to prepare the excessive food. The packaging for this food is thrown away and unnecessarily clogs up municipal garbage sites. Millions of tons of poo & pee overburden our waste treatment facilities, requiring space, energy and chemicals to treat it. Fat peope require twice as much fabric to cover their huge bodies and this generated another negative environmental impact.
Logical conclusion: Fat people should be shamed for pollution, just like Evil Corporations are.
Maybe it’s time for a Fat Tax to punish fat people for consuming more than their fair share of resources?