# REALLY depressing meta-study re obesity



## Ernest Nagel (Mar 18, 2009)

Read at your own discretion but be fairly warned this is VERY discouraging. Because it's a meta-study collectively analyzing a total of nearly 900,000 subjects it's pretty solid. Yes, some will beat the odds but most of us won't. I think this is actually more disturbing to me as an FA than as someone who is overweight. I white-texted the headline and moved the body of the article down the page so nobody who's not in an acceptable space for bad news needs to read this. I'm very serious. Sorry for feeling we need to confront this openly. 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/healthmag.obesity.lifespan/

*Obesity can shorten lifespan up to a decade
*














By Anne Harding

Obesity shaves two to four years off the average lifespan, while being very obese can shorten your lifespan by 8 to 10 years, according to a new analysis of 57 studies including nearly 900,000 people.
Men and women with BMIs between 22.5 and 25 were the least likely to die during the study's follow-up period.

Men and women with BMIs between 22.5 and 25 were the least likely to die during the study's follow-up period.

"This is scary and something that we should pay close attention to," says Ali Mokdad, Ph.D., a professor of global health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle. The new findings actually underestimate the true impact of obesity on society because they don't address the costs of obesity-related illness and other factors, says Mokdad, who was not involved with the current study.

The study, published online March 18 in the journal The Lancet, was conducted in part by the eminent epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto of the University of Oxford. Peto and his colleagues in the Prospective Studies Collaboration, a team of dozens of researchers from around the world, say they did the new study to figure out exactly how body mass index (BMI) relates to mortality. Researchers also investigated how smoking influenced this relationship and how excess weight affected death risk from specific causes.

Their analysis included 894,576 people, mostly from North America and Western Europe. Most were age 46 when the study started and were recruited in 1979; the average BMI for all participants was 25. The researchers eliminated deaths during the first five years of their analysis to avoid including people who were excessively thin because of illness.

A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is normal (that translates to weighing between 114 and 149 pounds if you're 5 feet 5 inches tall); overweight is 25 to 29.9 (150 to 179 pounds if you're 5 feet 5 inches tall); and obese is 30 or more (180 pounds-plus on a 5-foot-5-inch frame.) You can figure out your BMI at the National Institutes of Health Web site.

Men and women in the new analysis who had BMIs between 22.5 and 25 were the least likely to die during the follow-up period, which averaged eight years. But every additional 5 BMI points boosted mortality risk by 30 percent. The increase was strongest for deaths due to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney, and liver disease; cancer deaths also went up with increasing BMI, but not as much as other diseases. 

People with BMIs below 22.5 had a higher mortality risk during the study than those who weighed slightly more, largely because of respiratory illnesses, such as lung cancer. The researchers say this is probably the result of skinny people who were smokers.

The researchers calculate that having a BMI of 30 to 35 takes to two to four years off the average lifespan compared with having a BMI of 22.5 to 25. Having a BMI between 40 and 45 (for example, being 5 feet 5' and weighing 240 to 270 pounds), they say, reduces one's lifespan by eight to 10 years. This reduction in lifespan is on par with being a heavy smoker. Health.com: Dietary fats can help -- or harm -- your heart

This isn't too far out of line with research conducted by Katherine M. Flegal, Ph.D., a senior research scientist and distinguished consultant with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

In a 2005 study, Flegal and her team reported that while being obese (having a BMI of 30 or above) shortened lifespan, those who were overweight (a BMI of 25 to 29.9) were at no greater risk of death, and may actually have had a lower mortality rate in a given time period than their normal-weight peers. Health.com: How to cut up to 900 calories with simple substitutions

While the study kicked up a lot of controversy -- some people thought the findings minimized the health effects of excess weight -- several other studies have also found no greater mortality risk associated with being overweight (but not obese), and possibly lower mortality, Flegal notes.

Given the difficulty of losing weight, the authors of the new study say, it may be best if people are motivated to prevent the weight gain in the first place. For example, a person who held their BMI steady at 28 rather than going up to 32 (typical of the increase seen in middle age) could extend their life by two years, the researchers say, while a young adult who maintained a BMI of 24 rather than going up to 32 could add three years to his lifespan. Health.com: BMI success story: How one woman lost 44 pounds

For this to happen here, Mokdad notes, the United States government is going to have to do a much better job of supporting prevention efforts. A "bailout" for such efforts that translated to healthier American and workers could be a pretty effective economic stimulus, he added.


----------



## Tad (Mar 19, 2009)

Yah, I read an article on that yesterday, and was too bummed out by it to post the link, I'm glad you followed through better.

I'd like to have seen more information on how well they could control for quality of diet and for activity levels, but overall.....pretty depressing stuff.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Mar 19, 2009)

Depressing? I don't think so. If being overweight takes two years off your life, it doesn't take them from your twenties or thirties ... it takes them from your eighties, when everything hurts, and what doesn't hurt, doesn't work. Unless you salivate at the thought of sitting in a nursing home, very possibly tied in place so you won't fall and break your neck, this is not necessarily bad news.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 19, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Depressing? I don't think so. If being overweight takes two years off your life, it doesn't take them from your twenties or thirties ... it takes them from your eighties, when everything hurts, and what doesn't hurt, doesn't work. Unless you salivate at the thought of sitting in a nursing home, very possibly tied in place so you won't fall and break your neck, this is not necessarily bad news.



The study indicates that higher BMI correlates more to 8-10 years taken from someone's life, Dr. Feelgood. 

I am watching my 62-year-old mother begin to suffer the effects of her obesity. She's always been very healthy. Much of what she's experiencing cannot be attributed to weight, at least not directly. Some can. What troubles her *are* weight related mobility issues. Last Saturday, she passed out _while driving_-- fortunately, my grandmother was with her and had the presence of mind to steer the vehicle into a field and then shut off the engine. Thank God they didn't suffer any injuries, or she didn't crash into a school bus. She was hospitalized on Saturday evening, extensive tests were done, and on Monday, she had a pacemaker installed. Her cardiologist tells us that her weight is a contributing factor in her heart condition. She is also diabetic and hypertensive. Dr. Feelgood, she is 62. Not 82. To somene who is 20-30, that may seem ancient. To me, she is far too young to be suffering like this. And I certainly can't be dismissive of even a few years shaved from her life. I'd like for her to be here, with me, and a major part of my son's life as well.

This study bears some serious contemplation, not outright dismissal. It's not about "oh noes TEH FAT" ... it's about quality of life, and how that very quality can be compromised and, if this study is to be believed, significantly shortened by weight-related issues.


----------



## Tracyarts (Mar 19, 2009)

It is depressing to read things like this. But what really depresses me is when I hear of yet another supersized acquaintence who has either died, become disabled and housebound, or who is suffering horribly from serious health problems.

In their 20's to 50's...

I just found out about another one yesterday. It does get to me, especially when the people involved are younger than me or not much older than me. Makes me wonder what my future holds and how much of one I will actually get to have?

Tracy


----------



## Brenda (Mar 19, 2009)

""I think this is actually more disturbing to me as an FA than as someone who is overweight.""

I think dying 10 years early is going to disturb fat people a bit more. I found your statement amazingly self focused and rather out of touch.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Mar 19, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> This study bears some serious contemplation, not outright dismissal. It's not about "oh noes TEH FAT" ... it's about quality of life, and how that very quality can be compromised and, if this study is to be believed, significantly shortened by weight-related issues.




Traci, I couldn't agree with you more. We should all take care of ourselves. But regardless of what we do, we are all going to die. Rather than worry about whether we die sooner or later, older or younger, let us use the time we have and be grateful for it.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Mar 19, 2009)

Brenda said:


> ""I think this is actually more disturbing to me as an FA than as someone who is overweight.""
> 
> I think dying 10 years early is going to disturb fat people a bit more. I found your statement amazingly self focused and rather out of touch.



I'm sorry you took it that way. All I was saying is that I'm more concerned for my partners longevity than my own. I'm an FA who is also overweight myself.


----------



## fffff (Mar 19, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> The study indicates that higher BMI correlates more to 8-10 years taken from someone's life, Dr. Feelgood.
> 
> I am watching my 62-year-old mother begin to suffer the effects of her obesity. She's always been very healthy. Much of what she's experiencing cannot be attributed to weight, at least not directly. Some can. What troubles her *are* weight related mobility issues. Last Saturday, she passed out _while driving_-- fortunately, my grandmother was with her and had the presence of mind to steer the vehicle into a field and then shut off the engine. Thank God they didn't suffer any injuries, or she didn't crash into a school bus. She was hospitalized on Saturday evening, extensive tests were done, and on Monday, she had a pacemaker installed. Her cardiologist tells us that her weight is a contributing factor in her heart condition. She is also diabetic and hypertensive. Dr. Feelgood, she is 62. Not 82. To somene who is 20-30, that may seem ancient. To me, she is far too young to be suffering like this. And I certainly can't be dismissive of even a few years shaved from her life. I'd like for her to be here, with me, and a major part of my son's life as well.
> 
> This study bears some serious contemplation, not outright dismissal. It's not about "oh noes TEH FAT" ... it's about quality of life, and how that very quality can be compromised and, if this study is to be believed, significantly shortened by weight-related issues.



Amen. 

Feelgood, I really don't think you understand that in these situations you don't just die earlier, you spend more time in pain, more time sick, and more time suffering than someone of an average weight. If your trying to correlate those 4, or 8, or 10 loss years as less suffering you could not be more wrong. 
I've watched average and severely obese relatives age and die and although the obese ones died earlier, their deaths were far more prolonged and their health problems much more severe and disabling. It killed me to watch them go through all that pain when I know it could have been avoided if they had just taken better care of themselves. But most of them ignored the problems they were having until too late. 

I try my hardest to take care of myself and stay healthy because they didn't, and despite some things I read on this board, my life is not lacking because there's many foods I can only eat in small and infrequent portions. I'd it's a choice between eating french fries whenever I want and staying healthy for as long as possible, the choice is easy for me.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Mar 19, 2009)

I wish you hadn't whited out that title. 



TraciJo67 said:


> *This study bears some serious contemplation*, not outright dismissal. It's not about "oh noes TEH FAT" ... it's about quality of life, and how that very quality can be compromised and, if this study is to be believed, significantly shortened by weight-related issues.



For all the good feelings Dim gives us about being fat and all that it entails (and it does a good job at that), it is sometimes shockingly ostrich-ridden when it comes to matters of health, and how people are affected by tremendous weight. 

On another thread, I mentioned that immobility isn't just where you're floating around on a fluffy cloud. It causes great PAIN. This is something that gets completely ignored by most, save those who have or are experiencing it. I'm not saying to kill all the fantasies, but some doses of reality would do well if we are to make any strides in actually becoming the size acceptance movement we profess to be. Does that mean we all run out and lose weight? No - it means we educate ourselves about how to best live our lives and realistically manage the challenges and consequences we will face.

That starts with *not *whiting out the titles like this one.


----------



## fffff (Mar 19, 2009)

SamanthaNY said:


> I wish you hadn't whited out that title.
> 
> For all the good feelings Dim gives us about being fat and all that it entails (and it does a good job at that), it is sometimes shockingly ostrich-ridden when it comes to matters of health, and how people are affected by tremendous weight.



What bothers me the most is that the people who usually rally against any notion that fat is unhealthy are the ones who have never been overweight. If fas are in that much denial about reality they need to just stay out of the conversation.


----------



## syrah (Mar 20, 2009)

My two cents on this:
Yes being overweight/obese is bad for your health. It's just a fact and you can't get away from it, like smoking is bad for your health or alcohol but to a certain extent (and I'm not saying this is gospel truth for everyone because there are "factors") all these things we choose. I choose to drink, I choose to smoke, I choose to have a BMI than is recommended. I could with a large amount of willpower choose to change it but I don't. I accept that I am knocking 10-20 years off my life span. I am willingly entertaining the fact that my lifestyle will kill me but at the same time that I am happy with it. I know that some people have no choice in their size and I am not generalizing here, I'm just saying that whatever you do in your life that shortens it you just accept that it is what it is.

Size Acceptance, to me, isn't about health. It's about attitudes to people. I don't care for the arguement that "being fat is bad because it'll kill you" and this makes it a reason for berating, belittling and bullying someone why? I don't like that health issues are used as a thin veil to hide what is discrimination. I'm not a big woman, I'm overweight but not by much but even at my weight I feel the pressure from doctors, government and society as a whole to be thinner like my extra weight impinges on them. Actually their hate of it impinges on me a hell of a lot more. I can't even presume to understand what that feels like when you are an SSBBW.

But back to the topic. If there is a choice involved, and I know that sometimes there isn't, then don't we just accept our choices and the consequences just like if we took up skydiving we might accept that the parachute may not open?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 20, 2009)

fffff said:


> What bothers me the most is that the people who usually rally against any notion that fat is unhealthy are the ones who have never been overweight. If fas are in that much denial about reality they need to just stay out of the conversation.


Totally. This is where the 'Fa guilt' comes in. You cant help being an Fa because it is your sexuality but you feel guilt because of the actual bad experiences fat people have to go through every day regarding comfort levels, health etc. I have seen quite a few of these posts snubbed and i expect the same of this one, the same thing happens when an individual happens to say that they are worried about health issues. I honestly think there is a 'dont ruin my hard-on' attitude in these situations. If we actually dealt with these sorts of issues we could look at ways to help extend the lives of fat people. I'm not talking about 'diet diets' which i Know dont work. I wonder if by western Europe they are counting scandinavia? All my swedish friends familly are fat and have all lived into their 90's with very few health problems; This might be an isolated incidence of good luck/strong genetics but the Swedish people eat a very different diet to Americans and British including less fried foods and more fish..they still seem to eat lots of sweets. This is just a thought mind. 
Also, i have seen Fa's talk about this Fa guilt a couple of times only for the concept to be taken out of context and a war of 'Its worse for me' errupting. I think its right to talk about these things that scare us cause if we keep sticking our heads in the sand people are going to keep kicking us in the arse!.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Mar 20, 2009)

SamanthaNY said:


> *I wish you hadn't whited out that title.
> *
> 
> 
> ...



I was honestly just trying to be considerate of folks who really don't need another brick on their load right now. I'm not someone afraid of confronting the issues or disapproval. I am concerned for hurting people who are hurting too much to begin with. 

I suspect a lot of people will be receiving variations and distortions on this article from well-meaning "friends" and family too. I just wanted them to be prepared and have a choice about it if looking at it here first. So yes, I'm sure I could've handled it better, waited for someone else to do it, posted in HP where the faint-hearted seldom venture but I did what I did. The research is deeply troubling to me personally for a number of reasons but I needed to hear other people's thoughts. Forgive me for wanting those people to be here of their own volition?

FWIW I agree completely with your other points. :bow:


----------



## Uriel (Mar 20, 2009)

As an aside, it isn't just being fat that is stressful to your body, it's weight period.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html


When I had a broken ankle a few years back, and was weighed, and was a bit embarrassed as to how much I had put on (Depression-Eating from being stuck on crutches is a cruel Mistress...especially when your buddies keep dropping off food from your fave places).
My Dr said 'Your body doesn't care if it's fat or muscle, it's extra strain, pure and simple...' He was right, and I've known several huys who pack a bunch of muscle on, and end up with joint issues, heart issues etc...

Just thought I'd share a bit.
I hope that this fings you all as healthy as possible.


-Uriel


----------



## Fairia (Mar 20, 2009)

And also remember, it isn't just being overweight/obese that has a harsh reality of shaving some years off your life or having more weight-related health issues, other afflictions can effect anyone. There can be people who won't live to see 30, 40, 50, etc. because of cancer(s) or a child afflicted with a terrible condition who might not live to adulthood. Many things can harm/kill you that could happen at any time. We all know that but try not to think about it so much, otherwise the _thoughts _of death could put a mental strain on you and affect you physically. I speak from anxiety related experiences and at times would worry about my health in the future or how much it would affect me more after my 30's or 40's, despite the very thought of being that much older is still something difficult for me to grasp just yet.

Right now, I try to take care of myself, not just physical health but emotional/mental health. Hopefully, being moderate and not just an aerobic maniac or a junk food junkie. But the idea of my weight being a bad thing because of appearence reasons or assumptions about my health can and will affect me emotionally. So, all kinds of health should be taken into consideration and to at least try to see quality instead of quantity.


----------



## Tooz (Mar 20, 2009)

Aaaaand this is why I go to the gym.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 20, 2009)

I've always said I wouldn't live past 40, much less 50. It's sad, but it's the truth.


----------



## wrench13 (Mar 20, 2009)

Life - nobody gets out alive - not fat people, not skinny people, not average people.


----------



## pani (Mar 20, 2009)

Because it is a meta study it is "solid?" Come on, you have got to be kidding me!!! I am a sociologist. Studies are our business! Meta studies are nothing more than data dredges. Far from being solid they are one of the most easily manipulated studies out there. One can plug in any stats they want to get any outcome they want. Among real scientist they are the the least credible.

Lets assume this study wasn't sponsored by pharma or researchers with ties to pharma. Which would be odd because studies that hit all the major media outlets usually are part of a PR or marketing campaign. All this study does is rehash the same results with the same tired studies we have been hearing about for decades. And they still have the same flaws:
* They do not control for social class. In industrialized counties obesity is associated with poverty. You can not look at a group of poorer fatter people (many w/o health insurance), compare them to a thinner richer population, and attribute all the excess deaths to obesity.
* They do not account for risky weight loss practices. From tapeworms to fen-phen, side effects of risky weight loss practices, including early death, get attributed to obesity
* Stigma in health care against fat. It has been documented fat people as a group can face discrimination and get delayed or inadequate health care.
And much more I don't have time to go into.

The op also does not seem to understand how studies work. It is not that most fat people die much earlier than thin people, with a few rare exceptions. They look at groups of fat and thin people. There will be more fat people who die earlier than in the thin group, and from that they get their statistical estimates. The 2 or 3 or whatever year figure is a statistical fiction based on the total numbers in both groups. If the average age of the thin group is 75 and the average age of one of the fat groups is 72, that is where the numbers come from. Averages say nothing about individuals. It is like 2 test scores. If one gets 100 and one gets 50, the average is 75. It does not really describe either party accurately. There will literally be thousands of fat people who live longer than thousands of thin people. And btw, no one is saying extremely fat people don't have shorter life spans. To make the numbers dramatic, they can include people who weigh 900 and 1000 pounds. Their life spans are included in those estimates of people with BMIs over 40. Does a 400lb person have the same risk as a 900 lbs person? Hardly.

What depresses me is that this thread has been so resigned in general of this studies conclusion. Honestly, the bb at the Chicago Trib had more critical readers. How much time and effort has the SA movement done trying to educate people on the limitations of studies? Has anyone even read The Obesity Myth by Paul Campos? Or Big Fat Lies by Gaessar. Or Junkfood Science by Sandy. I don't agree with her on every last thing but she is right when she points out these studies are marketing, NOT science.

I really don't mean to flame anyone, but it is so sad they are using the same tactics that have been debunked for decades and people are still falling for them. It is like when can't even advance from square one.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 20, 2009)

This kinda shit really pisses me off. Having HBP or Diabetes or both or any other kinds health issue is NOT a death sentence for anyone - unless you want it to be. My mom is now 73 and has had HBP all her adult life and is also diabetic. She's fine. My fat grandpa lived to be 85. I will not allow whatever health issues I have to convince me that I will die younger than I would have if I was thinner. It's just dumb. I could swallow the crap doctors dish out but I choose not to. Diabetes is not the death sentence it once was and fat and thin people can get HBP and Diabetes. Wayne's 95 pound soaking wet mother had HBP all her life too. If I was thinner would I not have these issues, I don't know. Am I going to spend my life worrying about when I'll die? No. I'm gonna go on living my life the way I want.

Remember, so called *healthy* atheletes die at young ages every year, and they thought they'd live forever. Being fat IS NOT a sentence to die young. PERIOD!!!


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm not going to lie that the numbers are great, but I didn't see any mention of lifestyle, which concerns me. That's my biggest gripe with most of these studies, because that's a lot more important (All cause determinant of mortality), and if it weren't, then me being thin would be a disease shield of which I could do whatever I want and not get sick, nor shorten my lifespan.

So my views didn't exactly change. Can fat be unhealthy? Surely, but it doesn't mean healthy living won't benefit someone if they're fat, nor does it mean healthy living isn't needed for someone who is thin unless they're trying to avoid becoming fat. I think some of the posters are jumping the gun a bit, but some of you are right on point. It's always somewhere in the middle. I'm not going to post this as a retort, but to get an idea of what I mean.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Plot+thickens+healthy+obese+debate/1398562/story.html

Focusing on how you do it seems to always be thrown under the rug.

And to the poster that mentioned that she's overweight: The study cites at the top and in the body that being merely overweight doesn't increase mortality, and there's many others that have shown it to increase longevity. Just so you know.


----------



## pani (Mar 20, 2009)

Sandy you bring up another issue. Beliefs affect outcome. No drug company would ever do a drug trial without a placebo. It is that established that if people believe something hard enough, beliefs can make it happen. The constant harping for several decades is a risk factor for fat people in and of itself!

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/December2002/DataDredging19.htm

This link is to a professional's opinion on meta analysis. It does not mention obesity, and is a bit technical. It is the best I can do on limited time. People have a right to believe what they want. But I simply can not refrain from pointing out that meta studies are fast losing credibility among professionals and should never be the last word on anything.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 20, 2009)

Pani brought up some good points too. There actually is also a correlation with social stigma and health, and that can also be a driving factor. All the data was taken from places at times where discrimination against fat people is likely, and that can affect more than just mental health, But again, that doesn't mean anyone is protected if they don't live healthy.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2009)

pani said:


> Sandy you bring up another issue. Beliefs affect outcome. No drug company would ever do a drug trial without a placebo. It is that established that if people believe something hard enough, beliefs can make it happen. The constant harping for several decades is a risk factor for fat people in and of itself!
> 
> http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/December2002/DataDredging19.htm
> 
> This link is to a professional's opinion on meta analysis. It does not mention obesity, and is a bit technical. It is the best I can do on limited time. People have a right to believe what they want. But I simply can not refrain from pointing out that meta studies are fast losing credibility among professionals and should never be the last word on anything.



Thanks pani. I kept looking at that study trying to find the smoking gun that makes this one more compelling that the ones conducted in the 60's that have already been discredited. In comparison this one seems more blatantly slanted in the elimination of early deaths associated with thinness. That didn't make the cut. 

I've been thinking about something too that maybe someone can answer. I had a physical done last November in which I tested negative for diabetes. I saw a gynocologist in February and tested negative. I had surgery last Friday and was tested again a week before that and tested negative. How fast can someone get diabetes? Aren't there warning signs first in blood tests and what not? I have a low paying job with excellent benefits and I wonder if my insurance is being charged over and over for tests that are unnecessary, only being performed repeatedly due to suspicion based solely upon my appearance.


----------



## Tad (Mar 20, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've been thinking about something too that maybe someone can answer. I had a physical done last November in which I tested negative for diabetes. I saw a gynocologist in February and tested negative. I had surgery last Friday and was tested again a week before that and tested negative. How fast can someone get diabetes? Aren't there warning signs first in blood tests and what not? I have a low paying job with excellent benefits and I wonder if my insurance is being charged over and over for tests that are unnecessary, only being performed repeatedly due to suspicion based solely upon my appearance.



I'm not an expert, but I think that it is more a matter of test to test variation. If they just did a simple fasting blood sugar test, I don't think it is super conclusive--if you have raging diabetes it should show up, but if more on the edge it may vary day to day. Although I think the one where you have to have the glucose drink and then they test you a couple of time afterwards should be a fair bit more stable.

So if it was just fasting sugars, maybe it makes some sort of sense.....but it does sure sound like "well I don't trust those test results, she is really fat so she must have it."


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Mar 20, 2009)

Um, yeah, The Lancet is known for their unscientific claptrap and reckless disregard for statistical validity. I've now seen the actual Lancet article and it's even more daunting. The notion that a meta-study is somehow less valid, especially one that was as carefully constructed and reviewed as this one is sadly just more knee-jerk denial. I'm sorry this thread was moved to the Main Board for several reasons. Not least of which was that I had hoped it could be considered without the typical bunker histrionics that anything negative about obesity engenders here. You can dismiss both the statistical and anecdotal evidence as long as you like. People still have a right to make informed decisions about their health. This raises legitimate issues that should be understood by all members of the SA community.

Short question nobody here likes answering - "what if the study is _not_ wrong?". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 20, 2009)

Especially before surgery they need to test your blood sugar because even borderline Diabetes can cause healing problems. But on the whole lancets are not a good way to test your BS - it's an indicator - blood work is a better choice.





LillyBBBW said:


> Thanks pani. I kept looking at that study trying to find the smoking gun that makes this one more compelling that the ones conducted in the 60's that have already been discredited. In comparison this one seems more blatantly slanted in the elimination of early deaths associated with thinness. That didn't make the cut.
> 
> I've been thinking about something too that maybe someone can answer. I had a physical done last November in which I tested negative for diabetes. I saw a gynocologist in February and tested negative. I had surgery last Friday and was tested again a week before that and tested negative. How fast can someone get diabetes? Aren't there warning signs first in blood tests and what not? I have a low paying job with excellent benefits and I wonder if my insurance is being charged over and over for tests that are unnecessary, only being performed repeatedly due to suspicion based solely upon my appearance.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Um, yeah, The Lancet is known for their unscientific claptrap and reckless disregard for statistical validity. I've now seen the actual Lancet article and it's even more daunting. The notion that a meta-study is somehow less valid, especially one that was as carefully constructed and reviewed as this one is sadly just more knee-jerk denial. I'm sorry this thread was moved to the Main Board for several reasons. Not least of which was that I had hoped it could be considered without the typical bunker histrionics that anything negative about obesity engenders here. You can dismiss both the statistical and anecdotal evidence as long as you like. People still have a right to make informed decisions about their health. This raises legitimate issues that should be understood by all members of the SA community.
> 
> Short question nobody here likes answering - "what if the study is _not_ wrong?". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.



What do you want fatties to do Ernst? Jump off a cliff, blow our brains out? There are people who are living with the reality of chronic illness here. You want to hold another sign up in their faces to remind them what a fkuced up failure they are compared to everyone else because they can't get down to a size 8? If it is true that is all this is. Another reason to push a lit cigarette in to the eye of every fat person with an illness. This study was not the beginning of a goddamned thing in the 60's and it's not going to be now.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Especially before surgery they need to test your blood sugar because even borderline Diabetes can cause healing problems. But on the whole lancets are not a good way to test your BS - it's an indicator - blood work is a better choice.



Thanks Sandie, this is a great help.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 20, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Short question nobody here likes answering - "what if the study is _not_ wrong?". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.



What if they found out people with blue eyes had shorter life spans? What are blue eyed people going to do?? 

I say eye transplants will become all the rage. But wait, will that help? Isn't it in the genes, not the eyes? Imagine that.:doh:


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2009)

double post


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 20, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> . Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.




And continuously telling someone they're going to die isn't beneficial to their health.


----------



## lostjacket (Mar 20, 2009)

When I wake up every morning .


----------



## moore2me (Mar 20, 2009)

I spit on this study - I have been in scarier situations many times before. Headed for our family bomb shelter during the Cuban missile crisis, spent hours in our tornado shelter, been bitten by snakes, been told by a doctor that I was going to have a heart attack IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES!, had my blood sugar drop below 40, had my heart rate (while conscious) drop 35 beats per minutes, and the list goes on & on.

Yeah I'm fat. But, my attitude is for scientists to get over it and find another rat to torture. Personally, I tend to look at a couple of other factors beside how fat I (or others) am/are when prophecizing about my life span. Some of these factors as equally important as body weight to me are: 

One is genetics. I consider the lifespan of my father and mother's family and how/when they died. Was it heart disease? Cancer? Old Age? Alzheimers? Stroke? Pneumonia? Blood Clot? Infection?

Another consideration are risk factors that are relevant that due to things other than genetics and body weight. In this category, I include wearing seat belts when riding in a car, having recommended vaccinations, *avoiding risky activities *(bungee jumping, walking on the side of the road at night wearing black, getting drunk on Wild Turkey seven nights a week, selling and cooking crystal meth, well, you get the picture. . .).

But as OPs have said, we can't get out of this life alive. We do not know the pre-appointed time of our death - and most of us would not want to know it if we could. But it was best stated by Emily Dickinson -

"Because I could not stop for Death  He kindly stopped for me." 

(It really doesn't matter how much planning and plotting we mere mortals do. We all end up the same.) Not a problem in my little black book.


----------



## Your Plump Princess (Mar 21, 2009)

Yeah.
They say the same thing about cigarettes.
If both are true.
I won't make it past 40

But, Hey, I thought the world was ending in 2012 anyway.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Mar 21, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Um, yeah, The Lancet is known for their unscientific claptrap and reckless disregard for statistical validity. I've now seen the actual Lancet article and it's even more daunting. The notion that a meta-study is somehow less valid, especially one that was as carefully constructed and reviewed as this one is sadly just more knee-jerk denial. I'm sorry this thread was moved to the Main Board for several reasons. Not least of which was that I had hoped it could be considered without the typical bunker histrionics that anything negative about obesity engenders here. You can dismiss both the statistical and anecdotal evidence as long as you like. People still have a right to make informed decisions about their health. This raises legitimate issues that should be understood by all members of the SA community.
> 
> Short question nobody here likes answering - "what if the study is _not_ wrong?". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.





Even if meta-studies are just as valid as other types of studies, Pani brings up some vaid points that you have not addressed. 

Questioning statistical information by pointing out possible flaws in the information-gathering technique and presentation of it is not the same as denying reality.


----------



## olwen (Mar 21, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Read at your own discretion but be fairly warned this is VERY discouraging. Because it's a meta-study collectively analyzing a total of nearly 900,000 subjects it's pretty solid. Yes, some will beat the odds but most of us won't. I think this is actually more disturbing to me as an FA than as someone who is overweight. I white-texted the headline and moved the body of the article down the page so nobody who's not in an acceptable space for bad news needs to read this. I'm very serious. Sorry for feeling we need to confront this openly.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/healthmag.obesity.lifespan/
> 
> ...


 


This news is not new Ernest. Researchers have been saying this for a while now. Why are you scared now? 

I personally don't care. If I die ten years sooner than I'm supposed to - whatever that means - it means that's ten fewer years of suffering fools, working and paying taxes. That sounds good to me. I exercise, eat my veggies and I get my vitals checked every year. So far I don't have any of those internal obesity related health concerns so, so much for that study. 

I dunno....this stuff just doesn't scare me right now....I know I thought I'd be okay with having gray hairs, but the minute I found one I freaked out so it might concern me more ten years from now, but for now it doesn't scare me. 

And I can't help but to think that if healthcare costs weren't tied to insurance companies - in this country and a national healthcare system in the UK that this wouldn't be such an issue for policy makers, and no one would care what fat people do. But it's easier to blame fat people than it is to try to fix health care policies.


----------



## olwen (Mar 21, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Um, yeah, The Lancet is known for their unscientific claptrap and reckless disregard for statistical validity. I've now seen the actual Lancet article and it's even more daunting. The notion that a meta-study is somehow less valid, especially one that was as carefully constructed and reviewed as this one is sadly just more knee-jerk denial. I'm sorry this thread was moved to the Main Board for several reasons. Not least of which was that I had hoped it could be considered without the typical bunker histrionics that anything negative about obesity engenders here. You can dismiss both the statistical and anecdotal evidence as long as you like. People still have a right to make informed decisions about their health. This raises legitimate issues that should be understood by all members of the SA community.
> 
> *Short question nobody here likes answering - "what if the study is not wrong?". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.*



The quality of health care counts for a lot about whether or not the data is wrong. It is a well known and well documented fact that populations that get little or bad health care will have more health problems. That fat people may not seek out health care until it's too late or that doctors will ignore genuine health concerns because of their prejudices skew the results. Race and class will skew the results too. Poor minorities are bound to get the worst health care there is. They are the ones who are also more likely to only seek catastrophic care, so if researchers are saying well fat people are more likely to have X disease that could very well be the reason why. Tho the article said they controlled for class and race and age, what standards were they using? Who was eliminated? If they only used middle class whites who live in urban areas then that already skews the results too...


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 21, 2009)

Ya know, what happened to the old belief of when it is your time, it is your time? I know we can control the quality of our life...but can we really control the length of it? I mean REALLY. 

I just found out about 10 minutes ago that a guy I went to high school has died. He was maybe 215, tall, Native American, alcoholic. He died of a heart attack. He was diabetic and didn't know it. his blood sugars were at 2000. He was life flighted out to the biggest city near Salmon Idaho. He is dead. He was younger than me. He did not weight 550+ lbs. 

When it is your time, it is your time. The only thing we control is the quality of that time. End of.


----------



## Celestial Ceece (Mar 22, 2009)

This discussion is very intense, and the study, well, I am wondering who funded it and all. I always want to know the back story behind these studies - were there any ulterior motives and did the researchers go into this informed by the things they ALREADY "knew" or did they have any biases, etc? I know you can't argue with "science" but sometimes research studies can get things wrong. I'll assume these folks are credible and that their results are truly factual.

Having said that, since I was in my twenties, I have suffered with problems that may or may not be obesity related. It depends on who is treating me for the problems. I have my own theories as to why I got rheumatoid arthritis, for instance, just shortly after I turned twenty-one. My father served in Vietnam - he died of cancer (due to agent-orange exposure???). Did he pass down mutated genes to his children? Perhaps, but the government sure as hell would NEVER admit that, nor would companies like Dow or Dupont. But I digress.

The truth is, I think that weight isn't the most important factor in determining longevity, it is lifestyle. A lot of Doctors agree, and more Doctors disagree. Just look at books by Paul Campos and that other dude - the Doctor who spoke at NOLOSE one year. Can't remember his name but somebody on this board will say, "Dr. So and So." I've read those books because they helped me understand that the best way for me to live my life is by focusing on being active AND eating a healthy, nutritious diet. Oh, and there are other factors that people mentioned above - environmental, whether or not a person smokes or is around second-hand smoke, etc. 

Case(s) in point: My ancestors on my mother's side. We're shaped by our Native American roots - as is evident by the shape my Grandmother is in and the way she looks. If you met her, you would swear she was full-blooded Native (Mohawk). I have seen pictures of Mohawk people and their shape is very much like the shape of my Grandmother, my Great Grandmother, and from what my mother tells me, my Great-Great Grandmother as well. 

My Great-Grandmother lived until she was nearly 80 years old. She died due to complications from emphysema. She smoked for 50+ years. Her sister lived to be 92 - and she was obese and toward the end of her life, diabetic. It could indeed be argued that my Great-Aunt, the diabetic, got that way because she was fat. But imagine - she was able to have a fairly good quality of life until she was in her eighties when she moved to a nursing home. 

My Grandmother is also obese, but her fat is subcutaneous - in the hips and butt and barely in the belly. She is very pear shaped. My mother tends toward the same shape and I am a supersized pear, with a really large stomach. That part (the stomach - apple shape) I got from my father's side, as we are also quite big and tall on that side. Anyway, my Grandmother is going to be 70 this year (the one on my mother's side). She is healthy and has nothing wrong with her. She doesn't smoke, she exercises, and she eats a healthy diet. She is a spitfire. I do believe she is going to live for another ten, twenty or more years. But time will tell. Because the only risk factor she has is her obesity/family history. 

My mother is 51, and she also has no health problems, save but a bad neck due to whiplash from a car accident. 

Now with me, I think the story is different, and that I could very well live a shorter life than my ancestors. I already have a disease that is known to shave a decade off of your life - and because I have other risk factors for heart disease aside from having rheumatoid arthritis, it is likely that heart disease is what will get me in the end. Also, cancer runs rampant on my father's side of the family - out of two surviving siblings (I typed three then had to delete it because my father is no longer with us), all of them have the SAME KIND of cancer. Strange? Well they grew up in a house that was built over a toxic waste disposal area, and then, my father and uncle both went to Vietnam and were exposed to Agent Orange. SO yeah, not so strange really. 

I don't know about this. I obviously dont' think that people are going to worry anymore than they already DO about their weight. It isn't like we dont' hear from people, including medical professionals, that we need to lose weight not only for longevity, but for quality of life as well. I think the focus on losing weight is so bad for a person's mental health though, at least in my own experience. I would prefer the focus to be on proper nutrition, exercise, and a healthy lifestyle overall. 

Like many other people said, we are all going to die sometime, and a lot of us have tried in vain to fight nature and lose weight. We're fighting against genes that might have served us well in Neolithic times (am I getting that right?) but in this day and age, we're fatter than ever and find it increasingly difficult to take the weight off for whatever reasons. 

Yeah, I hope I make sense.


----------



## mediaboy (Mar 22, 2009)

The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.


----------



## MickeyFFA (Mar 22, 2009)

While I can't dismiss the study completely like some on this board can, I would just like to point out that life span can have many factors.

Case in point, my grandmother is currently 83. By BMI standards she's probably obese although I've never considered her anything more than cuddly. She doesn't have high blood pressure, diabetes or any other "weight related" health problems. The only medication she's on are blood thinners to to keep her heart valve running smoothly from a genetic issue that has nothing to do with her weight.

My grandfather would have been considered "thin" by BMI standards or maybe even slightly overweight. He grew up next to my grandmother in Italy, married her at age 19 and moved to the States with her in 1945. They ate pretty much the same food, did the same activities and lived the same lifestyle as each other for over 40 years. Yet my grandfather died in his late 40s.

I often wonder why that is. My nonna has no real health problems, yet my nonno had almost every disease under the sun, hyper tension, colon cancer, pancreatis, you name it. Sometimes it's just genetics and knowing what you're predisposed to that determines your life span.


----------



## yrhighnesslv (Mar 22, 2009)

wrench13 said:


> Life - nobody gets out alive - not fat people, not skinny people, not average people.



Amen to that brother! We can do all the "right things", make all the "right choices", do everything the healthcare industry, pharmaceutical industry, diet industry, government, our pastors, parents and partners tell us to do and be killed by a car crossing the street tomorrow. The ONLY thing guaranteed in this life is that we're going to die. I personally believe we have very little control over when that will happen if we plan to allow it to happen naturally. How about living this day to the fullest because we don't know if we'll have another one!

Looking forward, Peggy


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2009)

MickeyFFA said:


> While I can't dismiss the study completely like some on this board can, I would just like to point out that life span can have many factors.
> 
> Case in point, my grandmother is currently 83. By BMI standards she's probably obese although I've never considered her anything more than cuddly. She doesn't have high blood pressure, diabetes or any other "weight related" health problems. The only medication she's on are blood thinners to to keep her heart valve running smoothly from a genetic issue that has nothing to do with her weight.
> 
> ...



That is very true. My brother is in his mid/late 50s and has always been lanky and tall. He eats like a lumberjack and I'm not exaggerating. To live with him is to spend lots of money on food. He's got high blood pressure, a heart condition, arthritus, he drinks, he smokes - all of his diseases were diagnosed years ago and he hasn't changed his lifestyle at all. I weigh more than twice what he does, don't drink or smoke, don't have near the appetite and I don't have any of those problems. I'm more sedentary than he is too. All this and he still gets chased around for being underweight and me the opposite. I believe that these studies pin prick a bit of the problem but they mostly tend to over simplify the issue to childish levels that no one seems to ever want to outgrow.


----------



## candilicious (Mar 26, 2009)

Yes, I get that this study is not a hundred percent accurate but we all know lots of people who we could apply this to and think about how they lived and the pain they lived with. And we also need to think about how much activity they did and exactly how much weight their bodies could hold compared to the amount of weight you put on your body. 



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> What if they found out people with blue eyes had shorter life spans? What are blue eyed people going to do??
> 
> I say eye transplants will become all the rage. But wait, will that help? Isn't it in the genes, not the eyes? Imagine that.:doh:


 
Yes in that situation it would be the genes entirely but a number of people here choose to get to a certian weight by gaining on purpose. I don't understand why people would want to kill themselves if its by smoking or gaining too much. Our bodies have limits and if we stretch them too far we will end up killing ourselves. Just because a few people we know have made it doesnt mean we all will and who can say they wouldn't have made it longer if they were healthier. You really shouldn't kill yourselves and by saying I figure I'll be dead by 40 or 60 even, your saying that you don't want to live. Of course being smaller won't get rid of health problems but being extremely overwieght and unhealthy does add to them. Cancer does come at all sizes and no one hopes for that. When your in you late 70 and 80s you can feel free to accept that your gonna die soon but don't wish it on yourself. If you have the oppurtunity to live you should live life to its fulliest. There's nothing wrong with a little exercise and eating a few more vegetables to stay healthy at what ever size your body is meant to be.


----------



## olwen (Mar 26, 2009)

candilicious said:


> Yes, I get that this study is not a hundred percent accurate but we all know lots of people who we could apply this to and think about how they lived and the pain they lived with. And we also need to think about how much activity they did and exactly how much weight their bodies could hold compared to the amount of weight you put on your body.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in that situation it would be the genes entirely but a number of people here choose to get to a certian weight by gaining on purpose. I don't understand why people would want to kill themselves if its by smoking or gaining too much. Our bodies have limits and if we stretch them too far we will end up killing ourselves. Just because a few people we know have made it doesnt mean we all will and who can say they wouldn't have made it longer if they were healthier. You really shouldn't kill yourselves and by saying I figure I'll be dead by 40 or 60 even, your saying that you don't want to live. Of course being smaller won't get rid of health problems but being extremely overwieght and unhealthy does add to them. Cancer does come at all sizes and no one hopes for that. When your in you late 70 and 80s you can feel free to accept that your gonna die soon but don't wish it on yourself. If you have the oppurtunity to live you should live life to its fulliest. There's nothing wrong with a little exercise and eating a few more vegetables to stay healthy at what ever size your body is meant to be.



Gee, thanks Mom and Dad. Really, do we really need to be smacked on the back of the hand for not knowing any better. How old am I, 5? Are the majority of fat people really that irresponsible and stupid to you? 

Being fat is not an automatic death sentence thank you very much. If that were the case there would be no fat people. Duh. And why would anybody want to live forever? That seems rather whackadoodle to me, but you don't see me telling people they're stupid if they do. Who gives a flying frig?

People do things that are actually reckless all the time. Motorcycle riding, parachute jumping, rock climbing, unprotected sex...Do you know how many people die each year trying to climb Mt. Everest? Where's the lecture on responsible living to them? Oh, you know what, they don't need one. They'll suffer the consequences of their actions just like everybody else.

Life was meant to be lived, so go live it however you want, and I'll do the same.


----------



## candilicious (Mar 27, 2009)

olwen said:


> Gee, thanks Mom and Dad. Really, do we really need to be smacked on the back of the hand for not knowing any better. How old am I, 5? Are the majority of fat people really that irresponsible and stupid to you?
> 
> Being fat is not an automatic death sentence thank you very much. If that were the case there would be no fat people. Duh. And why would anybody want to live forever? That seems rather whackadoodle to me, but you don't see me telling people they're stupid if they do. Who gives a flying frig?
> 
> ...


 
I know that not all fat people are stupid and irresponsible because I certainly am not. And I know that it isn't an automatic death sentence but I have have had people close to me have to live with pain and die. I just don't understand why people disregard these studies and make excuses. If you knew me you would know that I don't advocate any of unprotected sex or parachute jumping or anything like that. I really don't understand them. There are more people who die from obesity related illnesses than the number of people who die from climbing Mt. Everest. I agree that you should live your life. Stay alive. Don't kill yourself. Don't end it early by not taking care of yourself. And make sure that you can do the things you want to do and not end up having to lie in bed all day when you could have prevented it. I guess I'm saying that when you get to a certain point you might as well be jumping off Mt. Everest and I don't know why anyone would want to do that.


----------



## Tooz (Mar 27, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I know that not all fat people are stupid and irresponsible because I certainly am not. And I know that it isn't an automatic death sentence but I have have had people close to me have to live with pain and die. I just don't understand why people disregard these studies and make excuses. If you knew me you would know that I don't advocate any of unprotected sex or parachute jumping or anything like that. I really don't understand them. There are more people who die from obesity related illnesses than the number of people who die from climbing Mt. Everest. I agree that you should live your life. Stay alive. Don't kill yourself. Don't end it early by not taking care of yourself. And make sure that you can do the things you want to do and not end up having to lie in bed all day when you could have prevented it. I guess I'm saying that when you get to a certain point you might as well be jumping off Mt. Everest and I don't know why anyone would want to do that.



Apparently this has become good fat vs. bad fat.

There is so much wrong with the Everest vs. fat thing that I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 27, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I know that not all fat people are stupid and irresponsible because I certainly am not. And I know that it isn't an automatic death sentence but I have have had people close to me have to live with pain and die. I just don't understand why people disregard these studies and make excuses. If you knew me you would know that I don't advocate any of unprotected sex or parachute jumping or anything like that. I really don't understand them. There are more people who die from obesity related illnesses than the number of people who die from climbing Mt. Everest. I agree that you should live your life. Stay alive. Don't kill yourself. Don't end it early by not taking care of yourself. And make sure that you can do the things you want to do and not end up having to lie in bed all day when you could have prevented it. I guess I'm saying that when you get to a certain point you might as well be jumping off Mt. Everest and I don't know why anyone would want to do that.



If its so goddamned simple candilicious then why don't you do it? Go on, you read the report. You are doubly irresponsible for coming here advocating for something you can't even pull off. Whatever you're doing is clearly not enough since you are still overweight so you better get cracking.


----------



## loggamatt (Mar 27, 2009)

Surely it's only worth worrying about this report if your weight is something that you are capable of changing? Perhaps some people are capable of losing vast quantities of weight (and, importantly, keep it off), in which case if they are worried about the health implications of their size then by all means, they're welcome to lose weight.

But if you are someone who has spent years trying to lose weight and established that you can't do it, why live your entire life in fear of something that is beyond your control? If you're going to have less years on this planet than others then better to spend them enjoying yourself than worrying about medical studies if you ask me.

Or, if you are someone who can lose weight but doesn't want to, why is that anyone's business but your own? Why do people insist that you should be worried about the health implications? It's your life, your health... none of their business.

* So, if this study bothers you and you believe you can lose weight, go for it.

* If you can't lose weight even if you try, why waste energy worrying about something you can't control?

* If you can lose weight but this report doesn't bother you then happy days too


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 27, 2009)

loggamatt said:


> Surely it's only worth worrying about this report if your weight is something that you are capable of changing? Perhaps some people are capable of losing vast quantities of weight (and, importantly, keep it off), in which case if they are worried about the health implications of their size then by all means, they're welcome to lose weight.
> 
> But if you are someone who has spent years trying to lose weight and established that you can't do it, why live your entire life in fear of something that is beyond your control? If you're going to have less years on this planet than others then better to spend them enjoying yourself than worrying about medical studies if you ask me.
> 
> ...



Now see? You can absorb information, process it in proper perspective and conclude with something solid OR you could take in information and spew it out like verbal diarrhea. Good shit Matt! :bow:


----------



## loggamatt (Mar 27, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Now see. You can absorb information, process it in proper perspective and conclude with something solid OR you could take in information and spew it out like verbal diarrhea. Good shit Matt! :bow:



Eh? I'm confused as to whether you're commenting on the thread, complementing my post, or insulting my post...?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 27, 2009)

loggamatt said:


> Eh? I'm confused as to whether you're commenting on the thread, complementing my post, or insulting my post...?



lol It was a compliment Matt.


----------



## loggamatt (Mar 27, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> lol It was a compliment Matt.



Ooooh... good! I love cryptic compliments that I don't understand the best!  Thanks!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 27, 2009)

loggamatt said:


> Ooooh... good! I love cryptic compliments that I don't understand the best!  Thanks!



One night you'll sit up straight in bed and start laughing like a fool gasping, "I see what you did there!" I will feel accomplished.


----------



## loggamatt (Mar 27, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> One night you'll sit up straight in bed and start laughing like a fool gasping, "I see what you did there!" I will feel accomplished.



And be thankful for plenty of fibre in my diet? 

You know, now that I think about it more, this thread is really all about the whole 'FA guilt' thing.

But, in my experience, if a woman wants to try to lose weight she damned well will try whether the male in her life objects or not  I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases, FAs who believe that they're solely responsible (or even largely responsible) for their partner being fat are being rather self-important...


----------



## candilicious (Mar 27, 2009)

I have seen bodies stretched beyond their limit and it has killed people close to me. And others I know have been homebound have lost their vision or they have lost their ability to walk, and these things could have been prevented if they were healthier. So I am saying that I think when you reach that point where you take your body too far you need to stop. You need to get help. I know that people struggle with weight and I am all for being comfortable at the size I am meant to be but you shouldn’t stretch your body further than it should go. So I am saying that I believe that all people should be able to function and take care of themselves unless it is something that could not have been controlled. In many situations it seems as though it could. I just hate to see people giving up on life and being ok with not getting to see as much of it as you possibly can. You don’t know what you will miss by not being able to do things with friends and ending your life prematurely. I am not letting my weight control what I can and can’t do.
I wasn’t trying to offend anyone. I was just stating my opinion and what I have seen from my experiences. This study shouldn’t be ignored and put down just because you don’t like what it says.


----------



## Tooz (Mar 27, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I have seen bodies stretched beyond their limit and it has killed people close to me. And others I know have been homebound have lost their vision or they have lost their ability to walk, and these things could have been prevented if they were healthier. So I am saying that I think when you reach that point where you take your body too far you need to stop. You need to get help. I know that people struggle with weight and I am all for being comfortable at the size I am meant to be but you shouldnt stretch your body further than it should go. So I am saying that I believe that all people should be able to function and take care of themselves unless it is something that could not have been controlled. In many situations it seems as though it could. I just hate to see people giving up on life and being ok with not getting to see as much of it as you possibly can. You dont know what you will miss by not being able to do things with friends and ending your life prematurely. I am not letting my weight control what I can and cant do.
> I wasnt trying to offend anyone. I was just stating my opinion and what I have seen from my experiences. This study shouldnt be ignored and put down just because you dont like what it says.




That's the beauty of the world. People get to make their OWN choices about their bodies. I guarantee you there are people in the world who would view YOUR body as "stretched beyond its limit." That's NOT an insult-- I am trying to put this in perspective to you.

While I think people should strive for health as well, I respect that others have personal liberties. What they do with their own life is their business, so long as no one is depending on them.


----------



## candilicious (Mar 27, 2009)

Tooz said:


> That's the beauty of the world. People get to make their OWN choices about their bodies. I guarantee you there are people in the world who would view YOUR body as "stretched beyond its limit." That's NOT an insult-- I am trying to put this in perspective to you.
> 
> While I think people should strive for health as well, I respect that others have personal liberties. What they do with their own life is their business, so long as no one is depending on them.


 
I agree and respect your comment. Even some tiny people believe their own bodies have been strectched beyond their limit. I will continue to state my opinion just like others here did before me. But yes it is their choice just like mine is mine. I know that it is their opinion but I guess I just don't believe you can ignore the facts and the studies. And I was really sad to see people react the way they did to the study. Whatever you chose to take from it is your own but don't get upset with me for saying what I believe.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 27, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I agree and respect your comment. Even some tiny people believe their own bodies have been strectched beyond their limit. I will continue to state my opinion just like others here did before me. But yes it is their choice just like mine is mine. I know that it is their opinion but I guess I just don't believe you can ignore the facts and the studies. And I was really sad to see people react the way they did to the study. Whatever you chose to take from it is your own but *don't get upset with me for saying what I believe*.



If you post something that upsets people then we have just as much right to post a response. What is truly sad is the apalling ignorance you have about the mindset of fat people. 

_"So I am saying that I think when you reach that point where you take your body too far you need to stop. You need to get help. "_​
Really candilicious? Do you really think that fat people don't mind being sick and don't do enough to try to stay healthy? 

_"I know that people struggle with weight and I am all for being comfortable at the size I am meant to be but you shouldnt stretch your body further than it should go. "​_
So what if they are not stretching their body further than it should go? What if you are truly living healthy and they get sick anyway? Are you comfortable with someone assuming you're just too fat and stupid to care about your health despite the warnings?

_"But yes it is their choice just like mine is mine. I know that it is their opinion but I guess I just don't believe you can ignore the facts and the studies."_​
candiligious, your statements are completely inflammatory. While annoyed I can't really get angry with you because I realize that your opinion is formed our of ignorance. You just don't have enough information to come to a fully educated conclusion about the impact of this study. I've seen people lose 250 pounds and drop dead of a heart attack. I've seen people undergo weight loss surgery only to wind up sicker than they were before they had it. I've seen chubby women smugly boast about how much more clever they are keeping up with their weekly bikram yoga classes and and salmon diet only to get diagnosed with diabetes at 38 years old. This study would be important and impactful if it translated into a proven solution but it doesn't. Eat right and exercise doesn't always work. In fact I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that it rarely works, it only helps. The truth is you could become obese anyway, get diabetes anyway, get sore knees anyway. The report conclusion is conjecture based on the study of a small group of carefully selected individuals. The truth appears right in front of you daily but you refuse to hear or see. That's what's really sad.


----------



## Suze (Mar 27, 2009)

i predict a long ass thread.

don't let me down, peeps!


----------



## mergirl (Mar 27, 2009)

Suze said:


> i predict a long ass thread.
> 
> don't let me down, peeps!


Well i just plain dont like fat people. Its my oppinion and i'm entitled to it!!!


----------



## furious styles (Mar 27, 2009)

i like the random introspective myspace one liners in this thread.

i would like to add one

_"don't hate me because i'm beautiful. hate me cause yo' MAN thinks so :kiss2:"_


----------



## olwen (Mar 28, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I know that not all fat people are stupid and irresponsible because I certainly am not. And I know that it isn't an automatic death sentence but I have have had people close to me have to live with pain and die. I just don't understand why people disregard these studies and make excuses. If you knew me you would know that I don't advocate any of unprotected sex or parachute jumping or anything like that. I really don't understand them. There are more people who die from obesity related illnesses than the number of people who die from climbing Mt. Everest. I agree that you should live your life. Stay alive. Don't kill yourself. Don't end it early by not taking care of yourself. And make sure that you can do the things you want to do and not end up having to lie in bed all day when you could have prevented it. I guess I'm saying that when you get to a certain point you might as well be jumping off Mt. Everest and I don't know why anyone would want to do that.



Let me tell you something about the number of people who die of obesity related diseases each year. For decades that number was 300,000. No matter what reports came out about obesity, that numbers stayed the same and it was thrown around a lot. Then suddenly a few years ago that number jumped to 400,000, the same number of deaths attributed to smoking. How meaningful can this number be when it hasn't changed in some 30 years, then suddenly jumps by 100,000 (how convenient) and is never qualified or broken down by illness? It's just thrown around. And the numbers for smoking changes drastically. I've seen 1.3 million, 15,000, and 30,000 who die each year from smoking, but the favorite number seems to be 400,000. 

The number of people suffering from HIV/AIDS is 1.1 million. The number of people who died from it in 2007 - about 15,000. And that's just in the united states. I have known 3 people who died from AIDS related illnesses, one of which was a relative. I've known more than those 3 who are still alive and living with HIV/AIDS, and only 1 who died from obesity related illnesses, and 1 who died from lung cancer. In 1996 19 people died climbing Mt. Everest. The total number is 216 from 1921 - 2006. So you still wanna tell me fat is soooooo deadly? I'd be more worried about getting HIV than dying from some obesity related disease.

You don't understand why people do reckless things, then that's fine. I just object to your big brother tone. I have neither the time to worry about what everyone else is doing, nor the energy to tell them how to live their lives. If someone asks then I'll say something.


----------



## gangstadawg (Mar 28, 2009)

Uriel said:


> As an aside, it isn't just being fat that is stressful to your body, it's weight period.
> 
> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html
> 
> ...



so looks like having a lot of muscle has some downsides as well.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 28, 2009)

Neither the study nor the response to it surprises me one bit.


----------



## moore2me (Mar 28, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> Neither the study nor the response to it surprises me one bit.
> 
> Almost no one today bothers to dispute whether smoking is harmful to health, so why the arguments over the impact of weight? Are we to believe that scientists speak only the truth when discussing tobacco but only sizeist propaganda when it comes to the subject of weight?



Kropotkin, 

I would like to address your signature quote. I sincerely believe the majority of weight studies are biased and there is another issue in play with the cigarette studies.

My theory on why there are few groups that focus on the harm between smoking and health is that the tobacco companies need people somewhere to keep smoking. They make money by their product being used. The tobacco farmers make money by their products being used. The states make money on taxing the packs of cigs being used. So, the motivation is strong for the product to be used (perhaps even by other countries like China). Sure, it has been shown that cigarette smoking can harm people's health, but there's still that big motive standing next to these studies . . . sell cigarettes, make money for everyone. (Plus, look really sexy while you smoke and keep your weight down.)

The motivation on fat studies is generally toward weight reduction & diet. A lot of the research is funded and owned by pharmacutical companies, universities, or corporations that stand to make a bunch of money by selling a magic bullet to control or reduce weight. I believe that this is the major reason we see so many "research" studies that pick, pick, pick at fat people. (It like chickens pecking on some in the flock that are different. Except, these chickens get rich while they are pecking.) The message behind these studies seems to be . . .if you are a fat slob, buy our diet product. Make us rich and we will make you sexy and make people like you.)

Plus, this is a weight related issues board here at DIMS. We spend a lot of our time talking about fat issues that are near and dear to our hearts 
(literally sometimes, HA, HA . . . .I make the joke!). You are not going to see many Threads around here about cigarette smoking. Perhaps you would have better luck at a Phillip Morris website.


----------



## Suze (Mar 28, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Well i just plain dont like fat people. Its my oppinion and i'm entitled to it!!!


i'm only here to laugh and i'm entitled to it as wellz!111!!1


you stinky fitte


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 28, 2009)

> My theory on why there are few groups that focus on the harm between smoking and health is that the tobacco companies need people somewhere to keep smoking. They make money by their product being used. The tobacco farmers make money by their products being used. The states make money on taxing the packs of cigs being used. So, the motivation is strong for the product to be used (perhaps even by other countries like China). Sure, it has been shown that cigarette smoking can harm people's health, but there's still that big motive standing next to these studies . . . sell cigarettes, make money for everyone. (Plus, look really sexy while you smoke and keep your weight down.)



I think we may be misunderstanding each other here. In the quote I was referring to the fact that scientists and medical experts have long established that smoking is bad for your health. Almost everyone accepts this conclusion at this point, even long time smokers and tobacco companies. In other words, everyone regards scientists as perfectly honest and unbiased when it comes to the dangers of tobacco.



> The motivation on fat studies is generally toward weight reduction & diet. A lot of the research is funded and owned by pharmacutical companies, universities, or corporations that stand to make a bunch of money by selling a magic bullet to control or reduce weight. I believe that this is the major reason we see so many "research" studies that pick, pick, pick at fat people. (It like chickens pecking on some in the flock that are different. Except, these chickens get rich while they are pecking.) The message behind these studies seems to be . . .if you are a fat slob, buy our diet product. Make us rich and we will make you sexy and make people like you.)



Ah, but why do only diet and pharmaceutical companies fund such studies? And why haven't McDonalds or Coca Cola (far larger than the average diet company I would imagine) funded studies to counter them?


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 28, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> Neither the study nor the response to it surprises me one bit.



It's different when you're talking about a behavior (Smoking), and a body type. If size was a behavior, you could compare them. But it isn't.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 28, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> I think we may be misunderstanding each other here. In the quote I was referring to the fact that scientists and medical experts have long established that smoking is bad for your health. Almost everyone accepts this conclusion at this point, even long time smokers and tobacco companies. In other words, everyone regards scientists as perfectly honest and unbiased when it comes to the dangers of tobacco.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but why do only diet and pharmaceutical companies fund such studies? And why haven't McDonalds or Coca Cola (far larger than the average diet company I would imagine) funded studies to counter them?



You are really missing the larger issue here. For example, we all know the dangers of sun exposure and that those dangers are increased for those of paler complexions. The solution is to limit sun exposure, wear a hat, wear SPF, etc. but lets imagine for example that this only works successfully for 10% of the population. Let's imagine SPF causes skin reactions in those with paler skin tones who have a tendency towards sensitive skin to begin with. In order to get the benefit they have to slather on more than is reasonable or practical for living and after a while their skin would develop an immunity toward the product and it would cease to work. I think after a while people of paler complexions would become a little frustrated, angry and unimpressed with further studies designed to scare the shit out of them - especially when funded by the makers of SPF products. The fact that sunny states like California and Florida don't fund such studies is immaterial. The big theme here is that the solution is problematic. No one who has been around this block before is impressed with people who throw money at studies designed to prove what we already know. They serve as extravagant color brochures for something that wasn't working in the first place. Tender newbs and people who couldn't get sun poisoning on the worst day they ever lived will probably suffer from white coat mania but the rest of us are not going to be moved. We've heard the sales pitch and the disaffected cynicism and lectures from people who don't have to worry about it are meaningless.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Mar 28, 2009)

Oh jeez....if I want to put a gun in my mouth and end my life right now...I CAN!
No one can stop me if I truly don't want to live any more. 

I have control of my own life. If I am comfortable with my weight, I will be this weight. If not, then I have a few options. 

If I want to smoke and don't care if it takes some years from my life....as in I would rather the ones I have be happier...then who's business is it? 

I get sick of the health police.....they are as bad as the thought police.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 29, 2009)

> You are really missing the larger issue here. For example, we all know the dangers of sun exposure and that those dangers are increased for those of paler complexions. The solution is to limit sun exposure, wear a hat, wear SPF, etc. but lets imagine for example that this only works successfully for 10% of the population...



In other words, most people find the proposed solution to obesity hopelessly out of reach. To be fair, I never claimed dieting didn't entail its share of difficulties and downsides, though I agree the pills and medicines they push on TV are mostly crap. Of course, to extend your metaphor, you could just give up the source of the problem rather counteract it with ineffective measures. Just as you might avoid harsh sunlight if you have fair skin, you eschew unhealthy fatty foods. Now this demand-side approach no doubt sounds rather restrictive, but it's instructive to note that humans have survived thousands of years without Big Macs and Snicker bars. Indeed, we evolved for tens of thousands of years on a far leaner diet than many of us today care to imagine.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 29, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> In other words, most people find the proposed solution to obesity hopelessly out of reach. To be fair, I never claimed dieting didn't entail its share of difficulties and downsides, though I agree the pills and medicines they push on TV are mostly crap. Of course, to extend your metaphor, you could just give up the source of the problem rather counteract it with ineffective measures. Just as you might avoid harsh sunlight if you have fair skin, you eschew unhealthy fatty foods. Now this demand-side approach no doubt sounds rather restrictive, but it's instructive to note that humans have survived thousands of years without Big Macs and Snicker bars. Indeed, we evolved for tens of thousands of years on a far leaner diet than many of us today care to imagine.



So what you're saying is that if a person is obese all they have to do is stop eating big macs and the obesity will go away. If one is going to assume that all fat people are living on big macs and snickers bars one must also assume that all thin people are living on salads and tofu. It's overly simplistic. Americans spend 30 billion dollars a year on weight loss related products and programs. The study doesn't specify the kind of lifestyle the participants were engaging in. They do admit however that early on they eliminated a substantial number of thin people from the study because their outcomes watered down the results they were looking for. What of these thin people, all of whom died by the way? Were they eating Big Macs? The test is too vague and offers nothing of value to obese people who are life long Weight Watchers members. "Put the Big Mac down," is a trite and misguided directive.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 29, 2009)

I've been thinking about this study off and on for the last couple of days. I, too, have a lot of questions about it, like did they look at other lifestyle factors, genetics, etc. There is just so much we don't know about our bodies, let alone the effect of weight on them, that this just raises more questions than answers. Until we can get a control group of fat people who have NEVER dieted, who have ALWAYS eaten healthily and who have good genetics, we'll never know the true effect of weight on health and lifespan. That being said, there are certain diseases associated with obesity -- heart disease and diabetes come immediately to mind -- that DO cause early death. Worse than "just" an early death, these diseases can cause years of disability and pain. So those of you who are talking about quality of life and how "it's just the last 8-10 years that are gone" let me tell you about my brother.

My brother is a compliant (key word here) diabetic who is also hypertensive and who has had at least three MI's that we know of. All have been "silent", with no pain at all, only some mild shortness of breath. As a result, this man who just turned 60, has been disabled for the last three years and permanent, lasting heart damage. He went from a healthy and vigorous, active man to someone who can't get up from a chair without falling over, whose vision is failing, who cannot drive or work or talk on the phone without oxygen. He had open heart surgery two years ago to repair the damage and it has done little to no good at all. His ejection fraction is ridiculously low, he is in active CHF, and we'll be lucky if he lives another 2-3 years. He also has sores from his diabetes, cannot hold a pen to write me a letter, can't tie his shoes, lift his grandchild, or even fix himself meals. He's probably going to end up in assisted living, and he's barely 60.

So to those of you who think that just taking medicine and going to the doctor will somehow allow you to live a long and active life, please take heed from his experience. He has been beautifully compliant, has taken meds for years, eaten far better than most of us, exercised, etc. He did all the right things, and the only things he had going against him was a) genetics and b) obesity. And despite a team of cardiologists at Boston's Women and Children's Hospital, despite diabetes specialists, despite pulmonologists, and a battery of other specialists, he is DYING. Partly because his genetics and partly because he is fat.

Please, take this stuff seriously and don't expect your doctor to somehow make up for a lifetime of poor choices (or even a lifetime of being fat despite good choices). I'm probably going to lose my brother in the next couple of years, after losing my other brother this year -- also from diabetes. I'm really glad to hear about all the people with family members who have lived long and happy lives as fat people but that isn't always the reality. My father was 52. His father was in his 40's. My brother was 49 when he died last year, and my mom was only 48 when she died. And while she didn't die of a fat related disease, her weight meant that the dialysis that she was on was ineffective and she died from renal failure after battling cervical cancer for 18 months. 



LillyBBBW said:


> I've been thinking about something too that maybe someone can answer. I had a physical done last November in which I tested negative for diabetes. I saw a gynocologist in February and tested negative. I had surgery last Friday and was tested again a week before that and tested negative. How fast can someone get diabetes? Aren't there warning signs first in blood tests and what not? I have a low paying job with excellent benefits and I wonder if my insurance is being charged over and over for tests that are unnecessary, only being performed repeatedly due to suspicion based solely upon my appearance.



Lilly, when you say you tested negative, do you know what tests they ran? They can do a fasting blood glucose which tells you something, but there are other tests, like fasting insulin levels which tell you if you're insulin resistant. I had a test called a 3 hour glucose/insulin tolerance test which my provider felt was the gold standard. Because knowing not just what your sugars are, but how much insulin your body is creating to keep those levels stable, is significant. Lots of people, myself included, have high insulin levels for some years before becoming diabetic. Knowing that you're running high insulin levels can perhaps guide your provider to put you on an insulin sensitizing agent like Glucophage or Glyburide before your pancreas craps out on you (a medical term, "crapping out"). Hope this little nugget of info helps. Yes, sometimes people are symptomatic but in my experience, it's best to get treatment before you have symptoms. You end up with a much better outcome, most of the time.


----------



## moore2me (Mar 29, 2009)

kropotkin_fan,

Here's another thing to consider on exposure to the sun's energy. Those of us whose ancestors came from northern Europe, Scandinavian countries, or Russia did not get very much of the sun's damaging UV rays or heat due to the angle of the sun overhead , the climate, the weather & cloud cover, length of daytime, and temperature (too cold a lot of the time to run around uncovered), etc. So, my great-great grandma with her intensely freckled little Irish self with red hair and fair skin did not have to worry too much about skin protection in the old country.

And no, they did not get to eat Big Macs and candy bars because in genereal, the Irish were very, very poor and could barely afford enough potatoes to keep the family alive. Then came the Irish potato famine and we couldn't even do that anymore. My father's side of the family immigrated to American during the potato famine so that perhaps they wouldn't have to starve. The reason many of our ancestors did not get much to eat was because either it was not available or they could not afford it.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 29, 2009)

> So what you're saying is that if a person is obese all they have to do is stop eating big macs and the obesity will go away.



Well no, those are just some examples of the many foods that contribute to the problem. Certainly if you avoid fast food and candy bars, you'll lower your calorie intake and thus one of the forces behind weight gain. But to really tackle such problems I think we need a more holistic approach and aim for a diet rooted in healthy choices, a lifestyle conductive to exercise, etc. Most diet plans err, I think, in trying to provide an easy solution based on tweaking something minor when the problem stems from something more complicated.

On the other hand, I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the individual for the rate of overweight in the country. Much it probably has to do with structural factors related to growing technology and shifting economy. For example, daily exercise has gone from structurally required simply to survive to largely redundant and competing with other uses of time. Fast food and soft drinks have become staples of the modern American diet, displacing less processed and fatty foods.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 29, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> I've been thinking about this study off and on for the last couple of days. I, too, have a lot of questions about it, like did they look at other lifestyle factors, genetics, etc. There is just so much we don't know about our bodies, let alone the effect of weight on them, that this just raises more questions than answers. Until we can get a control group of fat people who have NEVER dieted, who have ALWAYS eaten healthily and who have good genetics, we'll never know the true effect of weight on health and lifespan. That being said, there are certain diseases associated with obesity -- heart disease and diabetes come immediately to mind -- that DO cause early death. Worse than "just" an early death, these diseases can cause years of disability and pain. So those of you who are talking about quality of life and how "it's just the last 8-10 years that are gone" let me tell you about my brother.
> 
> My brother is a compliant (key word here) diabetic who is also hypertensive and who has had at least three MI's that we know of. All have been "silent", with no pain at all, only some mild shortness of breath. As a result, this man who just turned 60, has been disabled for the last three years and permanent, lasting heart damage. He went from a healthy and vigorous, active man to someone who can't get up from a chair without falling over, whose vision is failing, who cannot drive or work or talk on the phone without oxygen. He had open heart surgery two years ago to repair the damage and it has done little to no good at all. His ejection fraction is ridiculously low, he is in active CHF, and we'll be lucky if he lives another 2-3 years. He also has sores from his diabetes, cannot hold a pen to write me a letter, can't tie his shoes, lift his grandchild, or even fix himself meals. He's probably going to end up in assisted living, and he's barely 60.
> 
> ...



I don't think it was anything special Vickie. I remember years ago I was having problems with becoming jittery during the day before meals. I was told to show up at a test site on an empty stomach one morning. They gave me this sweet gunk to drink down and I had to come in and have blood drawn every hour. I don't even know what that test was called. They had to end the test three hours in because I became visibly jittery and faint even though my blood tests weren't showing any reason for it. I was sent to go have something to eat right away. 

The tests I'm talking about now are the ones where they just draw a vial of blood and a day or so later the test came back negative. I was not told what kind of test they did or what specifically they were measuring for. I don't like being this ignorant about it considering diabetes is something that runs in my family.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 29, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> Well no, those are just some examples of the many foods that contribute to the problem. Certainly if you avoid fast food and candy bars, you'll lower your calorie intake and thus one of the forces behind weight gain. But to really tackle such problems I think we need a more holistic approach and aim for a diet rooted in healthy choices, a lifestyle conductive to exercise, etc. Most diet plans err, I think, in trying to provide an easy solution based on tweaking something minor when the problem stems from something more complicated.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the individual for the rate of overweight in the country. Much it probably has to do with structural factors related to growing technology and shifting economy. For example, daily exercise has gone from structurally required simply to survive to largely redundant and competing with other uses of time. Fast food and soft drinks have become staples of the modern American diet, displacing less processed and fatty foods.




I think for the most part we are agreeing here? I'm not certain anyone here is advocationg for ignoring common sense when it comes to health. What I object to is scare tactics represented by this study that is ripe with flaws and questionable data/conclusions. Does this really help or bring us any closer to anything? High fat diets are not some new phenomenon. All beef patties, cheese, lettuce, gravy and potatoes have been staples of the American diet long before McDonalds ever came along. Salads and tofu are what's new. There wasn't much focus on diet and exercise because those issues weren't as pressing then. The top five leading causes of death in 1905 were pneumonia/influenza, tuberculosis, diarrhea, heart disease and stroke. The average life expectancy was 47. People ate that stuff ALL the time. It's only recently that we've discovered that this type of diet is problematic. There has been no surge in the amounts of fatty foods people are consuming. Quite the contrary. We know more now and have more advantages than we ever did and as a result people are living longer, including the obese. 

My stance is that we've milked just about all that can milked out of scaring people with studies that have been poorly constructed. Fast food may be a booming business but you can't assume it is the reason everyone is obese when you can't even prove that they are the ones buying it. _Somebody_ is spending $30 billion on weightloss. Where are they coming from? These are the things we need to know.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 29, 2009)

> High fat diets are not some new phenomenon. All beef patties, cheese, lettuce, gravy and potatoes have been staples of the American diet long before McDonalds ever came along. Salads and tofu are what's new.



Actually, you do kind of bring up a good point, but this overlooks some important differences as well. I would imagine the burgers of days past were significantly smaller and leaner than those of McDonalds and usually joined with healthy sides such as vegetables, fruits, and so forth. Trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and other mainstays of modern processed foods certainly didn't exist in the meals of your typical American back then either. But since Americans have indeed been eating burgers and gravy laden potatos for some time, I don't think hearty diets tell the whole story. A big factor, perhaps even the biggest change, may lie in the decline of exercise in modern society as a result of changing technology.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I have already ruled out genetics as a factor in rising obesity since Americans today have much the same genetics of those in the past. While weight probably has a genetic component influencing it, I doubt genes control the whole thing, and I know with pretty good certainty that our genetics have not shifted radically in the past few decades.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 29, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> Actually, you do kind of bring up a good point, but this overlooks some important differences as well. I would imagine the burgers of days past were significantly smaller and leaner than those of McDonalds and usually joined with healthy sides such as vegetables, fruits, and so forth. Trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and other mainstays of modern processed foods certainly didn't exist in the meals of your typical American back then either. But since Americans have indeed been eating burgers and gravy laden potatos for some time, I don't think hearty diets tell the whole story. A big factor, perhaps even the biggest change, may lie in the decline of exercise in modern society as a result of changing technology.
> 
> Just to make sure we're on the same page, I have already ruled out genetics as a factor in rising obesity since Americans today have much the same genetics of those in the past. While weight probably has a genetic component influencing it, I doubt genes control the whole thing, and I know with pretty good certainty that our genetics have not shifted radically in the past few decades.



Well it's true that our lifestyle as a whole has changed dramatically with the advent of the automobile, the refrigerator, the crock pot and other modern conveniences. These conveniences are enjoyed by everyone though, fat and thin, and can't be made up for with 20 - 30 minutes of exercise a day as has been suggested. Short of banishing all fat people into labor camps I don't see how this can be rectified. As to genetics, morbid obesity isn't a new phenomenon in my family history at all so the fact that there have been no changes in genetics doesn't say much at least where I'm concerned.


----------



## Super Fan (Mar 30, 2009)

They take a group of super overweight people butcher a large percentage of them with horrific Weight Loss Surgery then they show that these victims have a dramatically shortened life span -- so why should that be surprising?

I am not saying it is good for your health to be very fat, just that the medical establishment are making things much worse.


----------



## SocialbFly (Mar 30, 2009)

I didnt read all the posts but i wanted to add something to the mix...i think there are a lot of things that determine legnth of life in study mix as well...also, i have an example...working nights full time is said to shorten your life by 5 years, does that mean i am going to change to the day shift, no, i choose to stay on nights, and in my fat life it is the same thing, life is calculated risk, if i worry every day how i will die, somehow i know i wont be living...

again i say, i choose life...and i plan on living it to the best of my abilities...and some of my choices may not be the best, but life is not risk free.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 30, 2009)

Super Fan said:


> They take a group of super overweight people butcher a large percentage of them with horrific Weight Loss Surgery then they show that these victims have a dramatically shortened life span -- so why should that be surprising?
> 
> I am not saying it is good for your health to be very fat, just that the medical establishment are making things much worse.



It's all about personal choice according to what is comfortable for each person. With each choice there are consequences both good and bad. That being said, ultimately no one has any control over what the future will bring. A person has to look at the big picture and decide for themselves how they want to live and what they are willing to face. I don't think it's up to anyone to judge someone simply because they have a threshold for something they don't want to be bothered with. Whatever I choose I've made peace with the potential consequences. I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me or thinking poorly of me because I'd rather visit the Great Wall and sample the pastry chefs of Paris then undergo months of drugs and chemo. It's not my responsibility to help anyone understand my choices or desires.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 30, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't think it was anything special Vickie. I remember years ago I was having problems with becoming jittery during the day before meals. I was told to show up at a test site on an empty stomach one morning. They gave me this sweet gunk to drink down and I had to come in and have blood drawn every hour. I don't even know what that test was called. They had to end the test three hours in because I became visibly jittery and faint even though my blood tests weren't showing any reason for it. I was sent to go have something to eat right away.



That sounds like a 3 hour glucose tolerance test. And your reaction sounds like reactive hypoglycemia, which is one of the precursors to diabetes. What happens is that in response to sugar your body overcompensates by making too much insulin which precipitously drops your blood sugar. That's why you had the shakes. That happened to me, too. At the time I had "normal" glucose levels but later, when they re-did the test and included testing insulin, my levels were a little elevated and my insulin was through the roof. Insulin resistance is a huge factor in developing diabetes, and it's also a huge factor in obesity. Insulin stimulates the body to store fat, making it more likely that you'll gain weight, particularly abdominal fat which seems to be linked to more disease processes. That's why I look at diabetes as a continuum, rather than one day you're fine, and the next day you're sick.



> The tests I'm talking about now are the ones where they just draw a vial of blood and a day or so later the test came back negative. I was not told what kind of test they did or what specifically they were measuring for. I don't like being this ignorant about it considering diabetes is something that runs in my family.



Usually for diabetes, they will do a fasting glucose and then sometimes a HgA1C which tests for your long term glucose control. Most people, even really sick diabetics, can have a normal fasting glucose from time to time; however, the HgA1C tells what your levels have been like for the last 90 days so it's a much better indicator of how you're really doing. I wish they'd tell you what they were testing for, though. I hate the lack of education that most doctors do. 



LillyBBBW said:


> My stance is that we've milked just about all that can milked out of scaring people with studies that have been poorly constructed.



I agree. Eventually people just tune out because EVERYTHING is bad, and they feel overwhelmed. Plus, the dietary suggestions change all the damn time, so how are you supposed to know what's the right way to eat?



Super Fan said:


> They take a group of super overweight people butcher a large percentage of them with horrific Weight Loss Surgery then they show that these victims have a dramatically shortened life span -- so why should that be surprising?



This study had nothing to do with weight loss surgery, Super Fan. But you sure are obsessed with it, aren't you? WLS is no more "butchery" than any other surgery to treat a medically acknowledged illness. I do think it's over done, but for some people (like me), it's literally a life saver.



SocialbFly said:


> I didnt read all the posts but i wanted to add something to the mix...i think there are a lot of things that determine legnth of life in study mix as well...also, i have an example...working nights full time is said to shorten your life by 5 years, does that mean i am going to change to the day shift, no, i choose to stay on nights, and in my fat life it is the same thing, life is calculated risk, if i worry every day how i will die, somehow i know i wont be living...
> 
> again i say, i choose life...and i plan on living it to the best of my abilities...and some of my choices may not be the best, but life is not risk free.



I agree -- they need to look at other factors. It's well known that working nights shortens your life span. It sure wreaked havoc with my health in the three years I did it. I think we all just need to be educated and make choices in our lives in full acknowledgment of the benefits and risks of everything we do: driving a car, living in a city, being fat, working nights, etc etc etc.


----------



## Super Fan (Mar 30, 2009)

"This study had nothing to do with weight loss surgery, Super Fan. But you sure are obsessed with it, aren't you? WLS is no more "butchery" than any other surgery to treat a medically acknowledged illness. I do think it's over done, but for some people (like me), it's literally a life saver."

Miss Vickie -- The study has everything to do with WLS, Yo Yo Diets, crash diets, diet pills, and every other harmful weight reduction or die choice that super sized people are pressured to do. They did not separate out those people.

If you got a group of normal sized people and a took a large percentage of them and bypassed their intestines and had many of them pop diet pills, and go through what really fat people go through the normal people's life span would be dramatically shortened.

Doctors generally are very harsh towards super fat people and talk them into believing that they will die in two or three years, and 25 years later the fat people are surprised that they are still alive. I would suspect if a group of normal weight people were constantly told they are going to die it would effect their health for the worse.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 30, 2009)

Super Fan said:


> "This study had nothing to do with weight loss surgery, Super Fan. But you sure are obsessed with it, aren't you? WLS is no more "butchery" than any other surgery to treat a medically acknowledged illness. I do think it's over done, but for some people (like me), it's literally a life saver."
> 
> Miss Vickie -- The study has everything to do with WLS, Yo Yo Diets, crash diets, diet pills, and every other harmful weight reduction or die choice that super sized people are pressured to do. They did not separate out those people.
> 
> ...



As a disclaimer let me just say that I *hate* weight loss surgery. I don't think I would ever get it, it would take some pretty dire circumstances for me to get in to that game.

If you take out the word "surprised" and replaced it with "horrified" you would describe a fair number of people who lingered on in life for years in a painful body that betrayed them at every turn. Some people have good coping skills under sour circumstances and choose to make lemonaide while others spend the whole time hating life. They would much rather a shorter lifespan standing up than a long one lying down. Again, it depends on the circumstances one is dealing with. I do think that wls is pushed overly so much on people as I've experienced it myself from time to time. But there are worse things out there, far worse. Niether you nor I know what either of us would do if faced with the same circumstances.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 30, 2009)

Super Fan said:


> Miss Vickie -- The study has everything to do with WLS, Yo Yo Diets, crash diets, diet pills, and every other harmful weight reduction or die choice that super sized people are pressured to do. They did not separate out those people.



You were blaming the results of the study on WLS. To my knowledge, none of the people in the study had had WLS. They were looking at people who were fat because they were determining the long term ramifications of being fat. Not WLS. If you want to discuss WLS and it's "butchery", then there is a perfectly good forum for discussing that topic. However, THIS topic is about WEIGHT. Not WLS. See the difference?



> Doctors generally are very harsh towards super fat people and talk them into believing that they will die in two or three years, and 25 years later the fat people are surprised that they are still alive. I would suspect if a group of normal weight people were constantly told they are going to die it would effect their health for the worse.



Are you a fat person? Have you had this happen to you? I was a fat woman for 40 years and never EVER did I have a doctor mention WLS to me. I was the one who pursued it because I wanted information. Despite the fact that I had a myriad of weight related co-morbids, no one mentioned it to me at all and in fact the only time I was given a hard time about my weight was during my first pregnancy 23 years ago. 

As a nurse, I work with doctors, and I care for a lot of fat patients, so I hear what other nurses and doctors say about fat people and I never hear the kind of things attributed to the medical profession that you describe. As a formerly fat woman who has had a lot of health problems, I've seen a lot of doctors for various medical problems. I think your opinions about doctors and how they behave is skewed, perhaps from hearing the occasional horror story. But assuming that doctors hate fat people because you hear a few stories is crazy, because how many times do we hear the positive stories? Bad news is always more interesting and garners more attention than a good experience. So I think your indictment of the medical profession is unfair, and your assumption that people are talked into WLS is even more unfair.

My bigger point to you is this, however. If you want to discuss WLS, then start a thread on the WLS board to discuss it there. We're not supposed to be discussing WLS on this forum.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 30, 2009)

This debate kinna reminds me of the character in catch 22 who, in order to make life feel like it was lasting longer used to stare at the walls all day long. I dont know anyone who does nothing that some scientific study has said will shorten lifespan..seriously! I think we need more scientific studies into how people can get the most out of their lives and live the lives they belong to and that are meaningful to them. Studies like this one just dont make sense to us. See, the problem is, science isnt spiritual but people are.


----------



## kropotkin_fan (Mar 31, 2009)

> See, the problem is, science isnt spiritual but people are.



True, but this emphasis on objective study rather spirituality distinguishes science from other areas of life, namely religion. Spirituality is too subjective and personal to make a reliable basis for science anyway. And mixing science and spirituality like that leads straight to things like the creationism movement.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 31, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> True, but this emphasis on objective study rather spirituality distinguishes science from other areas of life, namely religion. Spirituality is too subjective and personal to make a reliable basis for science anyway. And mixing science and spirituality like that leads straight to things like the creationism movement.


I'm not talking about religion, i'm talking about living a spiritual life and one that has meaning for the person living it. Creationism is not a mixture of science and religion.. its just religion blindly rejecting scientific evidence. Smoking damages your lungs no matter how active you are or what types of food you eat. Different people at different weights can be of varying degrees of health dependent on lifestyle, genetics.. This is why you cannot compare fat with smoking in the health stakes!.


----------



## rollhandler (Mar 31, 2009)

candilicious said:


> I agree and respect your comment. Even some tiny people believe their own bodies have been strectched beyond their limit. I will continue to state my opinion just like others here did before me. But yes it is their choice just like mine is mine. I know that it is their opinion but I guess I just don't believe you can ignore the facts and the studies. And I was really sad to see people react the way they did to the study. Whatever you chose to take from it is your own but don't get upset with me for saying what I believe.



Simple fact of studies is that next week they will publish one that either flips this one over, or muddies the facts so that no one will understand which one to believe, or both, or neither. 

This reminds me of a joke that characterizes my point.

America, Germany, and Russia all perform studies to determine the purpose of the shape of the head of a male penis.

Americas top scientists from all the big named universities get 17.2 million in government funding for a 5 year study involving 100s of men and women. By the end of the study they conclude and publish that the shape of the head of a males penis is intended by nature to pleasure the FEMALE during intercourse.

Germany performs its own study; Spending hundreds of thousands of Deuche Marks they hire an internationaly known group of scientists and at the end of a year they publish that the shape of the head of a male penis is by natures design intended to pleasure the MALE during intercourse.

Russia thumbs its nose at the ambiguity of these wasteful studies and conducts its own to determine conclusively the purpose of the shape of the head of the male penis. 
They choose a scientist named Bolchev and pay him 500 ruble to perform his study sequestered in a secret government lab for 30 days. At the end of the month his findings are published that conclusively the shape of the head of the male penis is by nature of design to keep ones hand from sliding off the end and hitting the male in the forehead.

Rollhandler


----------



## Elfcat (Mar 31, 2009)

I have never been fat, and I do want to say a few things. I have never been turned on by immobility, and it is simplistic to assume every FA does. In fact I like to see a fat partner striving to be as physically active as she can be.

Yes, I do think traditionally there has been some head-in-the-sand reactions to statistics indicating poor health outcomes for a lot of fat people. I for one think this is no longer necessary, because there is also research to indicate that negative emotional stress is a prime risk factor in just about every "obesity related" malady.

I read one study off my NIH mailings. It indicated that people who had been fat for a long time exhibited shortened chromosomal damage relating to aging, but that emotional stress had an even stronger association with this.

I think a case can be made that yes, fat people are suffering in their health, and that the emotional states which has been induced in many of them is a prime reason for this.

That is why I feel the power of a loving relationship is important in all of this, and why those who want to be lovers of fat people should not by any means quit the field, whether they have ever been fat or not.


----------



## VVET (Mar 31, 2009)

I will bet that they DID NOT take into account that all the people in their study did not have the SAME medical care. Any large person (not me) can tell you that doesn't happen, for one reason or another. Some very large people NEVER seek medical attention, because of past encounters.


----------



## rollhandler (Mar 31, 2009)

Elfcat said:


> I have never been fat, and I do want to say a few things. I have never been turned on by immobility, and it is simplistic to assume every FA does. In fact I like to see a fat partner striving to be as physically active as she can be.
> 
> Yes, I do think traditionally there has been some head-in-the-sand reactions to statistics indicating poor health outcomes for a lot of fat people. I for one think this is no longer necessary, because there is also research to indicate that negative emotional stress is a prime risk factor in just about every "obesity related" malady.
> 
> ...




Seems to me that the majority of those suffering from emotional stress due to size have it induced by society big business and peer pressure rather than from within themselves. so its not the fat that causes a lot of the stress but from a constant and nonending supply of external sources over time. That takes a toll on a person no matter what.
Rollhandler


----------



## rollhandler (Mar 31, 2009)

VVET said:


> I will bet that they DID NOT take into account that all the people in their study did not have the SAME medical care. Any large person (not me) can tell you that doesn't happen, for one reason or another. Some very large people NEVER seek medical attention, because of past encounters.



CANAHAVAHALLELOUYA!! 
My ex wife had this problem when I told her to have herself checked for diabetes. (she had all the classic symptoms and a female problem that wouldnt go away for 11 mo) It took her over a year and several doctors before she found one that cared enough to look past the fat and not simply tell her "lose weight and the symptoms will go away" and look deep enough to discover that she was insulin resistant and that was the reason she was gaining weight in the first place. Once that was taken care of her weight stabilized and she started feeling better however, since diagnosis was delayed she now has a multitude of other ailments as a result of both the apathy of the medical professionals to care for the patient regardless of size, and letting the condition go untreated and unchecked for so long.
Rollhandler


----------



## mergirl (Apr 1, 2009)

VVET said:


> I will bet that they DID NOT take into account that all the people in their study did not have the SAME medical care. Any large person (not me) can tell you that doesn't happen, for one reason or another. Some very large people NEVER seek medical attention, because of past encounters.


This is exactly it! I am not totally undermining the study but generally studies that 'study' a group or type of people usually forget to take a lot of social and psychological aspects into consideration.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Apr 1, 2009)

mergirl said:


> This is exactly it! I am not totally undermining the study but generally studies that 'study' a group or type of people usually forget to take a lot of social and psychological aspects into consideration.



Which can affect ones health both mentally and physically. You're right.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 1, 2009)

kropotkin_fan said:


> True, but this emphasis on objective study rather spirituality distinguishes science from other areas of life, namely religion. Spirituality is too subjective and personal to make a reliable basis for science anyway. And mixing science and spirituality like that leads straight to things like the creationism movement.



I don't care if someone feels better keeping a dead aphid in a jelly jar in the glove compartment. Science schmience, if something works for somebody and it harms no one else they should keep using it. It would be dumb not to.


----------



## Orsetti (Apr 23, 2009)

...that yesterday our local radiostation brought up this study.

Well, here in Germany these kind of news are only published, if nothing else interesting happens. On such boring days with no news, they bring up such "old news".

My wife listened it at the radio, as she was driving with the car. And for some reason, she said to me yesterday evening:

"Today they said on Antenne Bayern (thats the name of the station), that a BMI over 40 would shorten life for about 10 years in average."

Right at this moment I already started thinking, what to tell her, because she has a BMI of 50.

But she continued: "It`s quite cool, only 10 years. People of my age have a life expectancy of over 85 years, so I will still become around 70 - 75, that`s absolutely enough." She said and smiled. Of course this is only a question of statistics. And there can every day happen something tragic to her or myself. This could be connect to our obesity or not.

But she thinks, that she simply wants to live her life with everything, that brings her a pleasure gain, without second guessing.

And the important thing is, that about 2 years ago she did not even accept herself, but recently even starts to like her body and her fat. That`s great for me.

But best thing about that is, that with these changes in her selfperception, she start of being much less concerned about other things, like money, job etc. She starts just to live, explaining me, that after living for 27 years disliking herself, she now enjoys the "easyness of life."

Though I`m still very ununsed to her new attitude, it really pleases me.

Had simply to tell you this, because sometimes pleasure has to go outside. And I`m pleased by her mental change.

Thanks for reading

Markus

PS: Hope, my English is good enough for you to understand me


----------



## Tad (Apr 23, 2009)

Your english was entirely clear--and what a sweet story! Thank you for sharing it


----------



## katherine22 (Apr 23, 2009)

I loved your story. What point is living an extra ten years as the result of punishing, hating and denying life's pleasures. I am happy that your wife has found this awareness of self-acceptance.


----------



## Russell Williams (Apr 23, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've been thinking about something too that maybe someone can answer. I had a physical done last November in which I tested negative for diabetes. I saw a gynocologist in February and tested negative. I had surgery last Friday and was tested again a week before that and tested negative. How fast can someone get diabetes? Aren't there warning signs first in blood tests and what not? I have a low paying job with excellent benefits and I wonder if my insurance is being charged over and over for tests that are unnecessary, only being performed repeatedly due to suspicion based solely upon my appearance.




in the mid-90s when I would visit diabetic friends, who led glucose testers, I would ask them if I could test my sugar levels to see if I had become diabetic. One year, in February, my blood sugar levels acceptable. In May of the same year my blood sugar was too high and I had become diabetic. It was a cheap way to get a rough idea of whether or not I was diabetic.

Yours truly,

Russell Williams


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 23, 2009)

Russell Williams said:


> in the mid-90s when I would visit diabetic friends, who led glucose testers, I would ask them if I could test my sugar levels to see if I had become diabetic. One year, in February, my blood sugar levels acceptable. In May of the same year my blood sugar was too high and I had become diabetic. It was a cheap way to get a rough idea of whether or not I was diabetic.
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> Russell Williams



Note: Diabetes is diagnosed *only* by a medical professional, through a _series_ of office-visit tests. While there isn't a problem with checking your own blood sugar, I'm not sure sharing a glucose monitor is a good idea. In any case, a person should never self-diagnose from the results of home testing (not sure whether Russell is saying that or not, but it's important to clarify that it's wrong) without the assistance of a medical professional. There are appropriate ways of getting inexpensive basic medical tests and diagnoses - home testing for diabetes is NOT one of them.


----------



## Mack27 (Apr 23, 2009)

I hate studies that paint with a broad brush. I've seen studies that say that its worse to be obese as an adult if you weren't obese growing up. Did this one take that into account? 

I wonder if they look at genetics. If you're from a fat family and you can look at pictures going back generations showing that your family has always been fat, are you in better shape than the fat person who sees nothing but thin people in the pictures from generations past? I think you probably are.

Obesity elevates your risk for diabetes, well if your whole family is obese and none of them have diabetes maybe it doesn't really elevate your risk personally. The skinny guy with several skinny diabetic relatives should be worried though. 

Maybe science will get to the point where they can take a blood sample and tell all kinds of things about you, like in that movie "Gattaca." The computer analyzes your DNA and spits out all sorts of helpful things. "This guy will die of congenital heart failure before he's 30. This woman has an unusually high ideal weight, fighting it will lead to osteoporosis and an auto-immune disorder. This guy will be prone to aneurisms." But we're not there yet and are still subject to voodoo science with broad generalizations that may or may not apply to you individually.


----------

