Posted on 06/09/2004 10:14:12 AM PDT by Still Thinking
This morning's New York Times features a widely respected university professor and obesity researcher (in fact, the man who discovered the appetite-suppressing hormone leptin) decrying the distorted perception that Americans' waistlines are exploding. Dr. Jeffrey Friedman sharply criticized debates surrounding the national girth as "so political, so rife with misinformation and disinformation." In an effort to fight this particular obesity myth, Friedman points to a CDC study of the changes in American's body weights from 1991 to today, which shows that it's obesity hype -- and not the average American -- that's startlingly bloated.
The Times reports that the CDC found very little weight gain except among those Americans who were already extremely obese: At the lower end of the weight distribution, nothing has changed, not even by a few pounds. As you move up the scale, a few additional pounds start to show up, but even at midrange, people today are just 6 or 7 pounds heavier than they were in 1991. Only with the massively obese, the very top of the distribution, is there a substantial increase in weight, about 25 to 30 pounds
Seeking a response from a noted obesity warrior, the Times quotes fat tax advocate Marion Nestle: "It's one thing to talk about statistics and another to talk about what's happening to individuals." According to the Times: "Dr. Friedman, however, begs to differ. The statistics let scientists get beyond impressions and focus on the evidence." Nestle obviously missed the first day of Science 101 -- the lecture about actual evidence.
But Nestle's no longer a scientist -- she has become an anti-corporate activist who pushes some of the most draconian food restrictions possible. She was a keynote speaker at a conference "intended to encourage and support litigation against the food industry." And Nestle recently told Food Engineering and Ingredients that she favors a ban on food advertising to anyone under 17 or 18 years of age.
Nestle and her food-cop posse continue to beat the obesity drum, pointing to flawed government statistics that show 64% of the population is overweight or obese. That's based on the Body Mass Index (BMI), a highly flawed measure that classifies (and often misclassifies) Americans as normal, overweight or obese. What Nestle won't tell you is that in 1998 the government arbitrarily shifted the BMI scale, instantly casting 39 million previously government-approved Americans into the "overweight" category. At the time, a paper in the American Journal of Public Health sharply criticized this arbitrary change: Our results are consistent with other studies and fail to justify lowering the overweight threshold on the basis of mortality. Current interpretations of the revised guidelines stigmatize too many people as overweight, fail to account for sex, race/ethnicity, age, and other differences; and ignore the serious health risks associated with low weight and efforts to maintain an unrealistically lean body mass ... This seeming rush to lower the standard for overweight to such a level that 55% of American adults find themselves being declared overweight or obese raises serious concerns.
The flaws in the government scale can bee seen just by flicking the remote. A BMI of 30 or more tags you as obese. And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31. Likewise, back in his homerun-hitting days, Mark McGwire (6-5, 250 lbs.) was considered "obese" due to his BMI of 30. Our super-fit President Bush and Michael Jordan are only slightly better off, according to the BMI scale. They score 26 and 25 respectively, and are therefore "overweight." (To see how the government's dubious scale rates you, click here.)
Dr. Friedman summed it up best, telling the Times: "Before calling it an epidemic, people really need to understand what the numbers do and don't say."
One of the most infuriating tactics of CSPI, MADD, and other freedom thieves literally ad nauseum is to quietly lower the threshold of the "problem" (thus creating more of it with no actual change in the measured data), then decry from the rooftops the exploding (obesity/drunk driving/freedom/whatever) problem. Just chaps my hide.
Quiet... How can the bogus Atkins fad continue if you keep throwing out facts?
They did this to me during my time in the Army. I was going along well within my height/weight limits when, all of a sudden, before the next PT test, I was classed as "overweight" by five or so pounds. Now, this can be a death sentence in the New Army, requiring counseling, additional training, additional testing, and a fast discharge if you don't reduce your weight, unless you still pass your body-fat percentage test.
So, a week or so before every PT test for the next several years, I'd starve myself and eat nothing but light soups and salads and purge myself with ex-lax so that I could come in underweight at the weigh-in. However, this also caused me to catch every cold, sore throat, or flu that was within a 12-state area during that time.
Finally, the last five years in, I just gave up trying to make my weight because I knew that I was well under the allowance for body-fat percentage. Since that time, I haven't been sick or missed a day of work for an illness. If Tom Cruise is 5/7" and 201, I didn't know that I looked that well at 5'6" and 205. Anyway, I still run PT with my subordinates and can finish my two miles in right at 10 minutes, still doing 75 push-ups and 75 sit-ups before each run.
Yet, by my height/weight limits, I would be considered "morbidly obese" or at best simply "obese".
Screw 'em ...
Apparently The Times saw fit to educate neither it's readers, or the good Dr.Marion about the Fallacy of Composition
The Favorite Propoganda tool of Leftists everywhere.
It is not all hype. When I see the kids getting out of school in my old home town, I see lot's of fatsos much worse than the worst fatso we had in our class.
That's not insignificant. For example, a recent study found that a 5% weight gain since college put women at a substantially higher risk for breast cancer. Furthermore, clothing manufacturers have been steadily increasing clothing sizes (both the actual sizes of labelled numerical sizes, and the output of clothing with larger labelled numerical sizes) for a number of years, and children's clothing has been a major part of this trend. So I don't buy that Americans aren't really getting a lot fatter on average.
However, there is no need for government action, except to stop using tax dollars to pay people's medical bills. When people have to pay their own way, they'll start being more careful.
"The flaws in the government scale can bee seen just by flicking the remote. A BMI of 30 or more tags you as obese. And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31. Likewise, back in his homerun-hitting days, Mark McGwire (6-5, 250 lbs.) was considered "obese" due to his BMI of 30. Our super-fit President Bush and Michael Jordan are only slightly better off, according to the BMI scale. They score 26 and 25 respectively, and are therefore "overweight.""
Typical journalistic hype. The BMI guidelines specifically state very clearly that they do not account for increased muscle mass, pregnancy, etc. The author goes for sensation over truth.
My exact height and weight, and due to the magic of bodybuilding, I too am obese. Ban exercise now! It makes you obese! Sheesh.
Children are shorter these days too. I've been this height since I was 12; my siblings and most of my friends had their growth by the time we got into high school. Visit a high school now, and the freshmen will look like fifth-graders to you.
You wanna lose 15 pounds? Take of the breastplate.
You said it was a death sentence but went on to say that if you passed the body fat percentage it was not. Sounds like you could pass that and the only misery was at your own hands trying to reduce weight.
Read the BMI guidelines. If you are muscular, you may not be considered to be obese.
Not the high school near me! These gals look like women and are dressed to kill - at least kill those that are doing too much head-turning as they drive by.
Wow - y'all must be feeding yours right! I substitute-taught at my old junior high a few years back, and I had kids who were not yet five feet tall. In eighth grade.
They've been toying with the body-fat percentage cut-offs again. Had I stayed in, it may very well have been a death sentence. If they can change the height-weight tables, they can surely decide that 15% body fat is too much and it should be reduced to 12% .. or any other number they arbitrarily arrive at.
BMI indeed ... "by my intuition"?
I covered the mighty Loyola U. track teams, both sexes, in my college years. Once the coach of the women's team called me over to chat while they were going thru weekly weigh in. They were clothed normal, I'm guessing because he needed to be there and all. Anyway, I wasn't looking at their weights, but being self-concious, they hid a large hunk of the scale's reading with a piece of tape, and would then peek under it to record the figure. Of course all this silliness just caused us to watch all the more.
One girl, who was in great shape amongst normal women, but not with all the track stars, had a weight that took the needle past the tape. I felt bad for her - didn't know how to tactfully (and truthfully) say she looked fantastic. THe star of the team, who years later finished sixth in the US Olympic marathon tryouts, was such a tiny thang her wieght didn't even make it up to the taped area.
Extremely poorly written article. First, saying 5-7 lbs is indicated in the "midrange" (not given.) If midrange is 100-140 lbs, this is substantial. Next "very top" is given as being overweight byt 25-30 lbs; even at 300 lbs, this is high. What about those 15-20 lbs overweight? What is the body weight percentage here?
What percentage of people have this extra weight? The article makes it seem as if 100% of the midrange people are 7 lbs high. (That would be a national problem.) Is the median being used? If so, then 1/2 the people in midrange are more than 7 lbs heavy.
The author is using 1991 as a baseline. If people were (for example) already 5 lbs overweight in 1991 (compared to what?) then we're looking at about a 10-12 lb excess in 2004.
Is there a trend? Are weights getting worse? No information here; just a hint that things are getting worse from the few numbers give.
This article criticizes junk science but is one of the most egregious examples of such. I would venture that 98.6° of the statistics in the article were made up on the spot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.