We all know Americans are fat and it’s killing us off young, right?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that obesity accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States. As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher: 365,000 deaths.
According to the new calculation, obesity ranks No. 7 instead of No. 2 among the nation’s leading preventable causes of death.
This from an AP story. Seems fat isn’t quite the level of killer they’ve been claiming it is.
…like several recent smaller studies, it found that people who are modestly overweight have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight.
Biostatistician Mary Grace Kovar, a consultant for the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center in Washington, said “normal” may be set too low for today’s population.
(Emphasis in this and following quotes mine)
Hmmm… ya think?! Maybe they should stop telling us what “normal” is supposed to be. It’s not like we don’t already have Hollywood and the fashion industry to tell us normal=starving Somalian.
Using the new estimate, excess weight would drop behind car crashes and guns to seventh place – a ranking the CDC is unwilling to make official, underscoring the controversy inside the agency over how to calculate the health effects of obesity.
Last year, the CDC issued a study that attributed 400,000 deaths a year to mostly weight-related causes and said excess weight would soon overtake tobacco as the top U.S. killer. After scientists inside and outside the agency questioned the figure, the CDC admitted making a calculation error and lowered its estimate three months ago to 365,000.
The new study attributes 111,909 deaths to obesity, but then subtracts the benefits of being modestly overweight, and arrives at the 25,814 figure.
CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty in calculating the health effects of being overweight, the CDC is not going to use the new figure of 25,814 in its public awareness campaigns. And it is not going to scale back its fight against obesity.
Now, when an ostensibly objective public agency declines to publicize data it’s own scientists have discovered, it leaves only one question: what is their vested interest in the anti-fat campaign? So what do you think, folks? Is it just institutional inertia, officials unwilling to admit they were wrong and that their daily sacrifices to the gods of fitness might not be quite as virtous as they thought… or is there money involved?
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call them on having an agenda just yet. I would be loathe to publicize something that is so easily misunderstood as a carte blanche for obesity without much more research, because obesity is still a huge problem (no pun intended).
It seems to me that the new study simply says that it is not unhealthy to be moderately overweight based on current standards of “normal,” which as you already pointed out, are totally ridiculous. Most people know that it is more healthy not to be a stick figure anyway. I doubt any of the people that study applies to, these “moderately” overweight people, would really be considered fat by anyone but hollywood.
Anyway, it seems to me that the study says nothing about obesity not being a problem, it just suggests that perhaps we ought to revise our standards of what really is “overweight.” That will take a while.
Most science agencies, when presented with a study that contradicts all or most current research, won’t make a big deal of it until they do more research. Duplication is part of the scientific method, so I wouldn’t be too terribly critical of the CDC for not making a big deal out of this new study yet.
I don’t see calling it the #7 killer instead of #2 as a carte blanche…
You are conflating my points. The numerical ranking means nothing to me. Why should they immediately revise something that has been supported by many studies after only one contradicts it?
I was unaware their previous results were supported by numerous studies. Although I haven’t been following the issue in detail, I was under the impression that their original numbers were not very well-founded, which surprised a lot of people and drew a lot of questions and criticism, causing them to revise and finally re-do their research.
Well, if that’s the case, then they made an error and need to reinvestigate for a while. In college I had to read several scientific studies on obesity and the dangers of being overweight, and each of those has had about ten references to other studies. I have no idea if that is the research the CDC was using though.
Well, if that’s the case, then they made an error and need to reinvestigate for a while. In college I had to read several scientific studies on obesity and the dangers of being overweight, and each of those has had about ten references to other studies. I have no idea if that is the research the CDC was using though.
I was unaware their previous results were supported by numerous studies. Although I haven’t been following the issue in detail, I was under the impression that their original numbers were not very well-founded, which surprised a lot of people and drew a lot of questions and criticism, causing them to revise and finally re-do their research.
You are conflating my points. The numerical ranking means nothing to me. Why should they immediately revise something that has been supported by many studies after only one contradicts it?
I don’t see calling it the #7 killer instead of #2 as a carte blanche…
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call them on having an agenda just yet. I would be loathe to publicize something that is so easily misunderstood as a carte blanche for obesity without much more research, because obesity is still a huge problem (no pun intended).
It seems to me that the new study simply says that it is not unhealthy to be moderately overweight based on current standards of “normal,” which as you already pointed out, are totally ridiculous. Most people know that it is more healthy not to be a stick figure anyway. I doubt any of the people that study applies to, these “moderately” overweight people, would really be considered fat by anyone but hollywood.
Anyway, it seems to me that the study says nothing about obesity not being a problem, it just suggests that perhaps we ought to revise our standards of what really is “overweight.” That will take a while.
Most science agencies, when presented with a study that contradicts all or most current research, won’t make a big deal of it until they do more research. Duplication is part of the scientific method, so I wouldn’t be too terribly critical of the CDC for not making a big deal out of this new study yet.
Who ever likes to admit to being wrong? Maybe they just don’t like looking at fat people. Without question, however, normal should probably be adjusted. I’m within my “ideal” weight range and have a “healthy” BMI, but I still feel like I should lose a few pounds, while I have friends that weigh 30 pounds more and I think they look great. It’s subjective, but I really feel that when you set the standards to something that is so unattainable for most of us, a lot of people just give up trying.
Who ever likes to admit to being wrong? Maybe they just don’t like looking at fat people. Without question, however, normal should probably be adjusted. I’m within my “ideal” weight range and have a “healthy” BMI, but I still feel like I should lose a few pounds, while I have friends that weigh 30 pounds more and I think they look great. It’s subjective, but I really feel that when you set the standards to something that is so unattainable for most of us, a lot of people just give up trying.
I’d actually…
Like to see the study to see what it’s actual methodology is… Hearing about what newspapers state about scientific reports isn’t necessarily the best way to figure out what is actually going on. For example, one fact that I noted is that the study (and the government) use BMI to determine obesity… Which is utterly ridiculous. BMI compares your weight to your height…it doesn’t take into account whether you are made up of muscle or fat.. so.. if you are 5′ 10″ and 190lbs of solid muscle (perhaps a cornerback on a pro football team), you have a bmi that is already in the “overweight” category…
BMI is so ridiculous.. Looking at body-fat content would be more accuate, I think..
One small little secondary thing that one might ask is: What gets counted in this study? So far as I can see, it is trying to calculate weight to fatalities… But what gets counted as an obesity fatality? Do Diabetes deaths get counted in there? Does contributions to heart disease?
Also–Is total number of deaths the important number? I ask this, because people have asked the same thing about Cancer and AIDS–stating that Cancer kills so many more people than AIDS, so why should it get so much funding… But.. if you move away from “fatality” as your measure, and instead use “years of living-lost” (using average ages of death in this country) you find that Aids victims, on average lose like 40-50 years of life, wheareas most (80%) cancer patients are only losing like 10 years… (What I’m getting at, is what is the “years of life lost” result in the study…)
Additionally, what about health care costs? Is it possible that obesity is not killing nearly as many people as supposed because our medical system is using tons of resources to try and keep these people from dying? (e.g. gastric bypass, etc) What are the effects there? Is it driving up health care costs in such a way to make it harder individuals to afford health care overall? And does this increase the rate of catastrophic health problems of other kinds that might have been solved earlier if people could have afforded regular health care that would cover regular preventative visits??
Overall, I just want to know more…
While I am one who is not a big fan of stick figures–I like the meat–I do think that there are some issues on this score that need to be addressed… If you haven’t seen Supersize Me! (yes, it has an agenda–don ‘t we all–but it does present contrary evidence in the film–) go watch it.. it brings up lots of good things to chat about..
Re: I’d actually…
I’d second that, especially about how they calculate a death from obesity. Obesity is not something that people die from at all, it’s the health complications that they mosy likely wouldn’t have developed if it weren’t for their obesity.
They’re also comparing apples to oranges when they bring up moderatly overweight people. Moderatly overweight and obese are very different things.
Again, also obesioty diminshes quality of life, and I coul;d go into a long rant here but I don’t feel like spewing all over your journal.
Re: I’d actually…
I’d second that, especially about how they calculate a death from obesity. Obesity is not something that people die from at all, it’s the health complications that they mosy likely wouldn’t have developed if it weren’t for their obesity.
They’re also comparing apples to oranges when they bring up moderatly overweight people. Moderatly overweight and obese are very different things.
Again, also obesioty diminshes quality of life, and I coul;d go into a long rant here but I don’t feel like spewing all over your journal.
I’d actually…
Like to see the study to see what it’s actual methodology is… Hearing about what newspapers state about scientific reports isn’t necessarily the best way to figure out what is actually going on. For example, one fact that I noted is that the study (and the government) use BMI to determine obesity… Which is utterly ridiculous. BMI compares your weight to your height…it doesn’t take into account whether you are made up of muscle or fat.. so.. if you are 5′ 10″ and 190lbs of solid muscle (perhaps a cornerback on a pro football team), you have a bmi that is already in the “overweight” category…
BMI is so ridiculous.. Looking at body-fat content would be more accuate, I think..
One small little secondary thing that one might ask is: What gets counted in this study? So far as I can see, it is trying to calculate weight to fatalities… But what gets counted as an obesity fatality? Do Diabetes deaths get counted in there? Does contributions to heart disease?
Also–Is total number of deaths the important number? I ask this, because people have asked the same thing about Cancer and AIDS–stating that Cancer kills so many more people than AIDS, so why should it get so much funding… But.. if you move away from “fatality” as your measure, and instead use “years of living-lost” (using average ages of death in this country) you find that Aids victims, on average lose like 40-50 years of life, wheareas most (80%) cancer patients are only losing like 10 years… (What I’m getting at, is what is the “years of life lost” result in the study…)
Additionally, what about health care costs? Is it possible that obesity is not killing nearly as many people as supposed because our medical system is using tons of resources to try and keep these people from dying? (e.g. gastric bypass, etc) What are the effects there? Is it driving up health care costs in such a way to make it harder individuals to afford health care overall? And does this increase the rate of catastrophic health problems of other kinds that might have been solved earlier if people could have afforded regular health care that would cover regular preventative visits??
Overall, I just want to know more…
While I am one who is not a big fan of stick figures–I like the meat–I do think that there are some issues on this score that need to be addressed… If you haven’t seen Supersize Me! (yes, it has an agenda–don ‘t we all–but it does present contrary evidence in the film–) go watch it.. it brings up lots of good things to chat about..