Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In the Fatosphere, Big Is In, or at Least Accepted
The New York Times ^ | January 22, 2008 | RONI CARYN RABIN

Posted on 01/23/2008 5:22:10 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: Ignatz; Eric Blair 2084

Let us not forget that the Fed changed the definition of “overweight” several years ago.


I believe that was when the clintons were still in office. Figures.


61 posted on 01/23/2008 6:57:09 PM PST by The Ghost of Rudy McRomney ("I'm a proven leader. That's what the Des Moines Register said."-Mrs.Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77

Are you saying they rack disiprin?


62 posted on 01/23/2008 6:58:37 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

I totally agree. That’s why I think that the market is going to force the issue sooner rather than later.


63 posted on 01/23/2008 7:00:11 PM PST by steel_resolve (If you can't stand behind our troops, then please stand in front...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77

“Sorry, but I worked for a surgeon who did stomach surgery for obese people. He stated that 99.9% of them had a eating problem....they just won’t put their forks down and they won’t get to moving. He’d done thousands of procedures. It always boils down to choices....nobody made them do it.”

Then he’s part of the problem.


64 posted on 01/23/2008 7:02:18 PM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

Can you back up that data?


65 posted on 01/23/2008 7:03:15 PM PST by steel_resolve (If you can't stand behind our troops, then please stand in front...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Maybe, but if they elect Huckabee, he’ll probably regain the weight and then we’ll have a Fat President.

But if we elect Obama, at least we’ll have a thin president who smokes.


66 posted on 01/23/2008 7:03:17 PM PST by altura (Go, Mitt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

later (Gubmint) has already beat sooner (market), at least when it comes to health insurance on the Government level...Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP. Everyone is equally screwed.


67 posted on 01/23/2008 7:25:27 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

“Can you back up that data?”

www.junkfoodscience.com has several article that allude to it.

“Lower deaths (lives saved) associated with being “overweight” (BMI 25-30) = 86,094

Yes, you’re reading that right. Being overweight is actually associated with reduced mortality rates. Being well nourished is healthful. In fact, looking at the data on nonsmokers, ages 29-59, those who are “overweight” or “obese” (BMI 30-35) have 66 to 77% of the mortality risk of government-approved “normal” bodies (BMI 18.5-25). For an average 5’4” woman, that means weighing 145 to 205 pounds is the least risky; for someone 5’11”, the lowest risks are at 172 to 247 pounds.

But being underweight, even after accounting for smoking or illness, is 25% more dangerous than being “normal” weight. And it’s considerably more dangerous when compared to either “overweight” or “obese” (BMI 30-35): 89% to 62%, respectively. After the age of 60, being underweight becomes especially hazardous and is the riskiest of all: almost 200% greater risks than those associated with “normal” weights, 266% greater than “overweight,” 145% more than “obese” (BMI 30-35), and even 29% more than the most extreme obesity (BMI >35). In contrast, obesity only reaches the same risks as underweight among younger ages (25 to 59 years) at the uppermost extremes of BMIs over 35, which represents a mere 8.3% of the population. That’s a far cry from the government’s claim that 66% of us are “too fat.”

While the dangers of underweight are significant, they’ve been largely ignored while the risks of overweight have been greatly overstated. The findings of Flegal and colleagues are nothing new, most of us just haven’t heard the facts before. Of all the body weight studies published in the last half century, about 75% find weight to be irrelevant to health and mortality except at the extremes of BMI, according to Glenn Gaesser of the University of Virginia. . .”

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042505D


68 posted on 01/23/2008 7:35:18 PM PST by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77

It boils down to ingesting more calories than burned. Not really that complex.


69 posted on 01/23/2008 8:01:40 PM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Your article references a JAMA article as the basis for it's conclusions. I'm sure you didn't bother to read the JAMA study, so I did it for you. Here is the money paragraph

Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111,909 excess deaths in 2000 (95% CI, 53 754 to 170 064) were associated with obesity (BMI 30) (Figure 2). Of the excess deaths associated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths; 95% CI, 44 843 to 119 289) occurred in individuals with BMI 35 or greater.

So yes, there is a very high correlation to a high BMI and an early exit from this world...the article continues...



Of the 111 909 estimated excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30), the majority, 84 145 excess deaths, occurred in individuals younger than 70 years. In contrast, of the 33 746 estimated excess deaths associated with underweight, the majority, 26 666 excess deaths, occurred in individuals aged 70 years and older.


You just got served.
70 posted on 01/23/2008 8:04:48 PM PST by steel_resolve (If you can't stand behind our troops, then please stand in front...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
is it because most of the fat people die before 70? OR is it because people start to lose their appetite in the 60s and start to dwindle?

Probably a combination of both.

71 posted on 01/23/2008 8:10:34 PM PST by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084
They argue that Americans are not that much larger than they used to be
and that being fat in and of itself is not necessarily bad for you.

I'm all for people choosing to do what they want, short of violating the rights of others, but when you're wrong you're wrong. There are a lot more fat people now than there used to be. It is true that being fat isn't necessarily bad for you but it quite often is. But that's no one's business but the fat persons. It most emphatically is no business of the government.

72 posted on 01/23/2008 8:10:52 PM PST by TigersEye (McCain is unfit for office. See my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
how many fat people do you see who are 70 years old or more?

Good point. Come to think of it, there are lots of "little old ladies" but not many big ones.
73 posted on 01/23/2008 8:28:27 PM PST by Nathan Jr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

I agree that you can always out-eat an exercise program. Easily. In fact, that may be one of the more self-defeating myths out there... that if I exercise hard enough I can eat whatever I want.

My life is spent in a struggle not to eat too much, too often. I’ve recently realized that that’s not likely to change too much. And I don’t know which side is going to prevail.


74 posted on 01/23/2008 8:54:32 PM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dad x 3

nice


75 posted on 01/23/2008 8:57:38 PM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Down in Jamaica they loooove the fat girls. Fat means rich. Skinny girls got to pay.


76 posted on 01/23/2008 9:02:24 PM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

Thanks for the ping!


77 posted on 01/23/2008 9:41:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"You have to ask yourself this question, how many fat people do you see who are 70 years old or more?"

Fat and 70 yes, lots. Fat and 80 not so much. Obese is a whole other story. Not many 400 pound people around to see 60. Off the subject a little bit, but you hardly ever see very tall old people either. One time I saw an ex NBA player in his 80's as a patient. He was still about 6'10 and his legs were hanging off the end of the gurney.

78 posted on 01/23/2008 10:19:46 PM PST by boop (Democracy is the theory that the people get the government they deserve, good and hard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: altura
"But if we elect Obama, at least we’ll have a thin president who smokes."

Smokers are thinner anyway. Fashion models are huge smokers. Well, they have a tendency to use cocaine too, but.....

79 posted on 01/23/2008 10:22:22 PM PST by boop (Democracy is the theory that the people get the government they deserve, good and hard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: boop
Off the subject a little bit, but you hardly ever see very tall old people either.

Yep, makes me especially worried about Shaq. If he packs on the pounds once he stops playing, I don't know how his heart is going to make it. Even Wilt Chamberlain didn't make it out of his 60s.

80 posted on 01/23/2008 10:23:58 PM PST by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson