Get fat, live longer: What the obesity industry doesn't want you to know

PepperFritz

The Cosmic Force
Interesting article about how our cultural taboos against "fat", and the heavy investment of the weight-loss, medical, and pharmaceutical industries in those taboos, may have led to some serious myths about the causal relationship between obesity and early death:


Get fat, live longer: What the obesity industry doesn't want you to know
Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail
July 25, 2009

Manhattanites have gained another reason to feel insufferably smug. This week, they learned they are the thinnest people in their state, and probably their entire country. America may be one big tub of lard, but not them Compared to those fat slobs in the Bronx, they are paragons of fitness, health and virtue.

In Manhattan (as in the urban upper echelons of Canada, only more so), thin is a religion. It's a mark of status and prestige, not to mention ferocious dedication to fashion, dieting and working out. The thinnest people of all, no coincidence, also tend to be the richest. As the saying goes, the smaller the woman, the bigger the apartment.

Over in the chubby Bronx, social planners are raising the alarm. They're demanding more stores with fresh produce, better public transit, more parks, bans on trans fats and junk food in schools, more programs to promote physical activity, more public education about obesity, and lots more government money. In fact, the Bronx sounds an awful lot like Canada.

Thin was always in. But now, the social and public-health message is that fat is not simply a sign of sloth. It kills. The obesity epidemic is the greatest health crisis of the age. According to various health statistics (which are never consistent), between 17 per cent and 25 per cent of Canadian adults are obese. Thirty-six per cent of the adult population is overweight, or maybe two-thirds. Whatever. It's a catastrophe.

But is it? A new study based on Statistics Canada population data reaches an exceedingly awkward conclusion: People who are overweight live longer than people who are classified as “normal” weight. Not only that, people who are classified as significantly overweight also live longer.

The study, led by Statistics Canada's Heather Orpana, was devised to estimate the relationship between body mass index and mortality in Canadian adults. The database was nearly 12,000 people. The authors of the Canada-U.S. joint study adjusted for age, gender, smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption. They found that the link between weight and mortality is relatively weak. The strongest finding was that underweight men are at greater risk than any other group.

But being overweight was associated with a 25-per-cent lower risk of dying. Being obese was associated with a 12-per-cent lower risk of dying. The risk for the most morbidly obese (who account for less than 3 per cent of all Canadians) was statistically the same as the risk for people of “normal” weight. The findings were published online in the research journal Obesity.

“Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was,” said David Feeny, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Oregon, almost apologetically. “Overweight was protective.” He added that agencies such as Health Canada might want to rethink the way they classify people's weight.

BMI - which is expressed as a simple height-weight ratio - has replaced the old insurance tables as the universal gauge for “healthy” weight. Its goalposts were recast in 1998, with the result that millions of previously healthy people were suddenly redefined as overweight. Today, a BMI of between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered “normal,” a BMI of 25 to 29.9 “overweight,” 30 to 34.9 “obese,” 35 to 39.9 “severely obese” and over 40 “morbidly obese.” By this measure, a 5-foot-4 woman is overweight at 146 pounds, obese at 175 lbs. and morbidly obese at 233 lbs. A 6-foot man is overweight at 184 lbs., obese at 221 lbs., and morbidly obese at 295 lbs. If you go by BMI, most Canadians in their 50s are too fat.

Is this study just a fluke? On the contrary. It confirms the findings of dozens of other large population studies that rarely get publicity. They all conclude that being overweight is not a problem, except at the extreme. In fact, a little extra padding is good for you.

“Decades of medical research that contradicts our popularized beliefs rarely reaches the public,” says Sandy Swarcz, the brains behind the invaluable website junkfoodscience.com, where you can find a more detailed dissection of the Canadian results.

In 2005, another researcher, Katherine Flegel, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published another large study with similar findings. Prominent health experts were outraged, calling the research flawed. “There's not a lot of money in trying to debunk obesity, but a huge amount in making sure it stays a big problem,” Patrick Basham, a professor of health-care policy at Johns Hopkins University, told The Associated Press.

Researchers and public-health authorities are heavily invested in obesity. So are major drug companies, which help fund influential bodies such as the International Obesity Task Force. The Canadian Obesity Network, which gets millions in government funding, lists dozens of leading drug companies as its “industry partners.”

Here's more bad news for all those folks who are nagging us about our weight. The evidence is very clear that, unless you are morbidly obese with health problems, losing lots of weight is bad for you, not good.

For reasons that are not well understood, people who lose substantial amounts of weight, or go up and down on yo-yo diets, suffer long-term adverse health effects. Oprah is an absolutely terrible role model, along with all the folks featured on America's Biggest Loser. As one expert told Newsweek, “People show an improvement in short-term risk factors [blood pressure and blood sugar levels], but they die. I don't think that's a good outcome.”

So who are the healthiest people of them all? Dear reader, they may well be people just like you - aging boomers who have reluctantly succumbed to middle-aged spread. Reubin Andres of the U.S. National Institute on Aging reviewed all the major population studies and found that people who gain a pound or so a year in middle age live the longest.

That extra weight is protective, especially for women. So relax. God doesn't want you to fit into your old jeans.

I am now obliged to add that none of this excuses bad eating habits or sloth. Diet and exercise - especially exercise - are clearly linked to health. But unless you are unusually thin or extremely obese - categories that describe less than 5 per cent of all Canadians - your weight doesn't matter too much. Despite the alleged obesity epidemic, our life expectancy continues to increase, and deaths by heart attack and stroke continue to decline.

Sadly, we're not likely to see headlines any time soon that say, “Ninety-five per cent of us have weight that is okay.” Not when we're all convinced that socially, if not medically, we're too fat, and that we'd be vastly better off if only we could shed those extra 20 or 30 or 40 pounds. So just remember this: Those fashionably anorexic Manhattanites are the ones we envy. But the people in the Bronx will have the last laugh.
 
Ya mean I may not HAVE to kill myself to lose the 40 to 50 lbs I keep 'thinking' I need to lose??

Well, that's kind of cool, in a 'gee I don't have to be a masochist' way. :D

I figure the diet changes to rid my body of inflammation, coupled with the physical therapy that HAS to be done to keep mobile is enough...balance in all things.


Thanks for this Pepperfritz.

Good to be reminded not to go overboard.
 
All the women in my family have been "heavy", even though most of them were hardworking farm women. I struggled with my weight as a teenager, but was quite athletic, fit, and healthy. In my late 20s, after my first husband left me for a younger woman, I resolved to obtain the "perfect body" I'd always dreamed of. I worked out obssessively and ate next to nothing. Moonlighted as a fitness instructor in order to motivate myself to keep up the punishing routine. Reached what the charts told me was my "ideal weight" and maintained that weight for almost ten years. But in order to do so, I had to do ten fitness classes a week and eat like a bird. I knew the moment I stopped working out and started eating normally again, my body would revert to its normal state.

Sure enough, I developed an inflammatory condition that no longer allowed me to vigorously work out, and I just said "What the hell!" and started eating whatever I wanted. Eventually put on 75lbs and have never lost it (OK, I never tried to). I stay active and can out-walk and hike my "skinny" friends any day. When I had to have a radical hysterectomy, my gynecologist kept trying to persuade me to lose weight first, putting the fear of God into me by telling me over and over again how overweight women don't heal as well, and tend to develop more complications from surgery than women of "normal" weight. Eventually they had to operate on me, fat and all. I ended up in a hospital room with four other women my age or younger, all "normal" weight. Within a couple of days I was so bored, I was taking walks down to the coffee shop to get the nurses their coffees, while the other women in my room still needed help going to the loo. Went home on the third day, healed quickly, no complications. The nurses were amazed. The other women were in the hospital for another week.

I don't have any of the problems that are normally associated with being "fat", e.g. I don't have diabetes (even though it runs in my family), have never had high blood pressure, and I'm told I have a very strong and healthy heart. So I don't worry about my weight. Would I like to be thin? You betcha. Would it be worth what I'd have to do in order to get there? Not my my books. Eating healthy food and maintaining moderate exercise would seem to be key. I don't consider my weight to be a risk factor.
 
I don't have any of the problems that are normally associated with being "fat", e.g. I don't have diabetes (even though it runs in my family), have never had high blood pressure, and I'm told I have a very strong and healthy heart. So I don't worry about my weight. Would I like to be thin? You betcha. Would it be worth what I'd have to do in order to get there? Not my my books. Eating healthy food and maintaining moderate exercise would seem to be key. I don't consider my weight to be a risk factor.


Same here. All the women in my family are old time farm hands. I was raised that way too. My granma weighed in at 200lbs, and she didn't look fat at all. I clock in between 210-212, and I don't look that fat. (Though at times I have appeared unhealthy)

A week or so ago, I had to have a stress test to check my heart, and it was fine. Like you, I don't have diabetes, or high blood pressure, the cardiologist told me I do not have heart disease nor am I likely ever to develop it. She did encourage me to exercise as much as I can, but didn't think the weight would hurt me if it hadn't by now.

Its funny though, until I read the article you posted, I still felt the pressure to lose weight no matter how miserable it made me. Isn't it interesting how much difference a medical paper makes?

And why should it? Hmmmm.....much to think over for the Work. :cool2:
 
Gimpy said:
Its funny though, until I read the article you posted, I still felt the pressure to lose weight no matter how miserable it made me. Isn't it interesting how much difference a medical paper makes?

Well, when we are absolutely INUNDATED by "Fat is Bad" and "Fat People are Bad" messages, to arrive at the point when you can honestly say to yourself "Hey, it's OK to be fat, in fact, it's just not an issue for me", is downright.... subversive.... :evil: hehe....

Problem is, most of us become deeply conflicted about the "fat" issue. Part of us buys into the "Fat is Bad" and "Fat People are Bad" messages, and as a result pressure ourselves to lose weight, and punish ourselves in various ways for not losing that weight -- e.g. by not allowing ourselves to wear nice clothes, limiting our social lives, letting others know that we are "ashamed" of ourselves, etc. etc. But there's another part of ourselves that is p*ssed right off about those messages and know that they are wrong and not fair. And that part plays saboteur to any conscious efforts we might make towards conforming to society's body-size expectations. And so you find yourself caught between two Little I's at an impasse with each other.

In terms of the Work, one has to sort out what the Real I really wants -- how you want to live and move and breath in the world. The Little I that has internalized all of the "Fat is Bad" messages responds mechanically and is the source of all those "I should" reprovals towards oneself. But the Little I that rebels against those messages and plays saboteur is also mindlessly mechanical, like a little kid stomping her foot saying "No, I won't!" Only the Real I can make REAL CHOICES, by becoming consciously aware of the extent to which the Little I's have been running the show, and how external messages have been influencing what we think we "want" (or "should' want).

Here's an illustration of how the Little I's tend to cancel each other out, and how getting in touch with your true needs, preferences, and aims can lead to "healthy" choices that work for YOU:

"I Should" Little I:
"I should go on a diet and lose weight, so I'm going to eat nothing but celery and carrots for the next six months".

"No, I Won't!" Little I:
"Screw that! Let's pig out on some delicious cake and ice cream instead, you deserve it!"

Real I:
"I feel like crap when I eat too much sugar and fat, so I'm going to try and eat a more balanced diet -- not to lose weight, because that's not the issue, but because eating that way makes me feel satisfied and energized throughout the day and improves my mood...."

"I Should" Little I:
"I should exercise and lose weight, so I'm going to join a gym and work-out every morning before I go to work, and every evening after work."

"No, I Won't" Little I:
"Screw that! You're on your feet all day working hard, you deserve to sleep in in the mornings, and put your feet up at night."

Real I:
"I feel sluggish and depressed sitting in front of the TV all evening long, and always feel better when I take a walk after supper. I'm going to get that dog I've always wanted, to motivate me to get out and walk on the local nature trail twice a day -- not to lose weight, but because I really enjoy it once I get out there..."
 
Interesting -- when I see people who are really old, they are almost never heavy. I noticed this about 30 years ago and it hasn't changed - of course that could be just my experience. Anyone else notice this? Could something be missing from what is revealed in the "studies?" Are they counting corpses here (weight at death), or are they considering that people are sometimes fat and sometimes thin in their lives? Or may lose weight in later years?

I'm suspicious of the word "outlive" anyway because there are all kinds of ways big pharma can extend your life and drain your bank account, but it's not necessarily a "healthy" existence. Doesn't "mortality" generally include accidents, and are people of one group or the other more prone to them?
 
PopHistorian, I have to agree with you. Every few months I will see an article or story about so-and-so who is 106 years old or so and I have NEVER seen a person around that age who is "obese" or even obviously overweight.

Having said that, this does not necessarily contradict the study above, as the study is all to do with averages. It may well be that the average life expectancy of an overweight person is higher than than of a "normal" person; but at the same time it may be possible that there are those few rare individuals who have a specific genetic type that gives them a much longer life expectancy than average. This genetic type might also give that person "skinny genes", though their skinniness is just a "side effect" of those genes and is not the reason behind their long life expectancy. All this is just a possibility, of course.

I too am suspicious of the word "outlive", and I'm even suspicious of the claim that we are "now living longer than ever before". I can't find the link just now, but I once read a pretty convincing article debunking the idea that people 100 years ago had shorter lives than we do now. I think the article in question said that yes, infant mortality was higher 100-200 years ago, but the life expectancy of a person who was 18 or so has remained virtually unchanged between then and now.
 
PepperFritz said:
I don't have any of the problems that are normally associated with being "fat", e.g. I don't have diabetes (even though it runs in my family), have never had high blood pressure, and I'm told I have a very strong and healthy heart. So I don't worry about my weight. Would I like to be thin? You betcha. Would it be worth what I'd have to do in order to get there? Not my my books. Eating healthy food and maintaining moderate exercise would seem to be key. I don't consider my weight to be a risk factor.

Hi PepperFritz,

I have always been a tall, thin individual. Even as I approached my mid 40's I used to wish for an additional 20 pounds of weight. My mother always said to "just wait until you get older". And sure enough, around my early 50's the added weight came on, so much so that I worried it wouldn't stop. That's menopause for you.

Funny thing is, I never felt healthy as a thin person. But now, even with the additional weight (around 25 lbs) I feel great. No health problems to speak of and I've given up on dreaming about having a waistline again. I'm active and people don't think I'm overweight. Eating right, exercise and releasing that stress has worked for me. I've weighed the same for the last 10 years, so I've decided that, at least for me, the additional weight is a good thing. The one thing I do miss is having a dog. That was always a wonderful reason to get out and walk. But lucky for me I have a couple of friends who hike and always invite me along.

Echo Blue
 
More info about the study:

More evidence that the ‘overweight’ are at the lowest risk of death

_http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/07/10/more-evidence-that-the-overweight-are-at-the-lowest-risk-of-death/

The standard way of assessing weight as it relates to health is the body mass index (BMI) – calculated by dividing an individual’s weight in kilograms by the square of their height in metres. According to conventional wisdom, a BMI of 18.5 – 24.9 is to be regarded as ‘healthy’, while BMIs of 25.0-29.9 are considered ‘overweight’. Those of 30 or above are considered ‘obese’. While the BMI usually forms the basis of the advice health professionals give to individuals about their weight, there are reasons to be mistrustful of it, I think.

My main gripe with this measurement is that while the BMI tells us something about the relationship between height and weight, it tells us nothing about body composition. It is entirely possible, therefore, to have a heavy, muscularly built, really very healthy individual whose BMI marks him or her out as ‘overweight’ or even ‘obese’. The other side of this, of course, is that someone can have a body composition that is low in muscle and high in fat, but at the same time be classified as ‘healthy’ from a BMI perspective.

The fact that the BMI tells us nothing about body composition means that, in all likelihood, it’s not going to tell us much about health status either. While it might be enshrined in medical lore that a ‘healthy’ BMI is one that ranges between 18.5 and 24.9, there is actually some evidence which calls this wisdom into question.

One way to assess the appropriateness of the BMI categories is to measure the overall risk of death in each category. If BMIs of 18.5-24.9 are deemed as being most healthy, then individuals with BMIs in this range should be at the lowest risk of dying too, right? Well, the biggest and most comprehensive study ever to look into the relationship between BMI and risk of death was published in Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007 [1].

Some notable findings from this study included:

• Being overweight was not associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease

• Being overweight was not associated with an increased risk of death from cancer

• Being overweight was associated with a reduced risk of deaths not related to cardiovascular disease or cancer

• Being overweight was associated with the lowest risk of death overall

Recently, some doctors acknowledged this evidence, but then reinforced the usual message that individuals should keep out of the overweight category. You can read about this here.

This week sees the publication of yet more evidence for the notion that ‘ideal’ and ‘healthy’ weights as determined by the current classification of BMI are wide of the mark [2].

In this study, researchers followed more than 11,000 Canadians over a 12-year period. They then calculated overall risk of death in each category (underweight, ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’, overweight, obese and extremely obese.

Compared to individuals in the ‘healthy’ category (BMI 18.8-24.9), overall risk of death for the other categories was as follows:

Underweight (BMI <18.5): 73 per cent increased risk of death

Overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9): 17 per cent reduced risk of death

Obese (BMI 30.0-34.9): No statistically significant difference in risk of death

Extremely obese (BMI 35 or more): 36 per cent increased risk of death

Here, again, we find that the lowest risk of death was found individuals classified as ‘overweight’. And this result was statistically significant. Perhaps even more surprising than this, though, is the finding that being ‘obese’ did not appear to put individuals at a significantly increased risk of death.

Risk of death is not the only way to measure health. Risk of illness and quality of life should be borne in mind too. However, some would argue that risk of death is probably the best single measure of the impact of a body measurement or lifestyle factor on health. I mean, there is an argument for believing that the most fundamental measure of health is whether someone is dead or alive.

We now have large studies which have found that being ‘overweight’ is associated with reduced risk of death. There is a case for changing the name of the ‘overweight’ category to ‘healthy’ and the ‘healthy’ category to ‘underweight’. And bearing in mind the failing of the BMI in terms of assessing body composition on a personal level, there’s an argument for ignoring it altogether. For information regarding what measurement is a better guide to health status, see here.

References:

1. Flegal KM, et al. Cause-Specific Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity. JAMA. 2007;298(17):2028-2037

2. Orpana HM, et al. BMI and Mortality: Results From a National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Adults. Obesity 2009 Jun 18. [Epub ahead of print]
 
PopHistorian said:
Interesting -- when I see people who are really old, they are almost never heavy. I noticed this about 30 years ago and it hasn't changed - of course that could be just my experience. Anyone else notice this? Could something be missing from what is revealed in the "studies?" Are they counting corpses here (weight at death), or are they considering that people are sometimes fat and sometimes thin in their lives? Or may lose weight in later years?

I'm suspicious of the word "outlive" anyway because there are all kinds of ways big pharma can extend your life and drain your bank account, but it's not necessarily a "healthy" existence. Doesn't "mortality" generally include accidents, and are people of one group or the other more prone to them?

That's probably because they were hefty and healthy in their prime and then kind of used it up as they got older, That happened to some of the real old people in my family. They were broad when young, and sorta "shrunk" as they got older and lived to some amazing ages - nearly all nonagenarians or centenarians.
 
Back
Top Bottom