I am so damn sick of hearing about the "obesity epidemic"

Let me start with a confession: I weigh more than the BMI tables say I should weigh. At present, I am following the Weight Watchers diet (basically a portion control diet) and I am losing about a pound a week. So far I have lost 16 pounds. I am mostly losing weight for aesthetic reasons -- I have put on some weight in the years since college and I really would like to get rid of it.

Luckily, I do not have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol or any of the other health problems associated with being heavy. But I am working to eat less and exercise more. It ain't easy, but I am trying.

Yet I must say that my patience is being sorely tried by the media obsession with "the obesity epidemic." Every day some newspaper, or magazine, or TV station, decides they are going to report about it. Last night, ABC News had a story about the terrible news that this "epidemic" was leading to manufacturers making bigger chairs -- as if that was the end of the world. Today I look at Time and they have a story about obesity. Over and over, there it is.

The stories say nothing new. We're getting larger; it's costing us money; people are dying; we don't know why or what to do about it. So what's the point of these stories? Do they really think that heavy people don't know they are heavy, so they need to promote awareness of this problem? Dammit, I know I need to lose weight. I don't need Time or ABC News to tell me that.

Okay, rant over. Now I feel better. :)

Atkins must be a tremendous money-maker, for example. If you make billions making people fat, you may as well make billions convincing them you will make them thin again.

... weight-loss nostrums are as old as time and mostly as effective as a time machine.

Yes, Adkins is a bandwagon, as every diet fad that has ever come down the pike. The difference is that this particular fad will be around a long time because it is the first diet in decades that is actually really different, and actually works in a way that more people can live with (i.e. you don't have to starve).

As for the "obesity epidemic", it is definitely overhyped, it is also quite real and BMI is a horrible yardstick. I'm pretty sure my BMI is not too great but if you met me you would not think I'm remotely overweight.

If you are a man and your bodyfat is over 18% or so, or a woman with over about 28% bf, you are overweight regardless of any other measure. All I have to do is go shopping to see that way way way too many people in this country are just freaking fat. And mostly they are people whose lives consist of TV and food. Really sad.

65lbs, it isint a "fad" diet

That doesn't mean that it can't work, at least for some people under some conditions.

and 5 other people i know

And if it's healthier than how you used to eat -- and how a lot of people eat on 'low-carb' diets -- then so much the better. But it's still a fad diet, by definition. :D

than it will be more than a passing fad

Actually, it already is. It's been here before, and I'm talking pre-Atkins and pre-'72.

People are dying of diabetes, heart problems, and strokes because of obesity and that they need to do something about it before it's too late. Of course, they can remind us once-in-awhile instead of every day, like you said.

On a totally unrelated note: I hate UConn! They beat my Gopher Women's Basketball team. :cry:

I think they're a great team. I saw Whalen play with Connecticut last weekend and she's pretty awesome. :)

Too bad she's not playing for the Lynx. :cry:

And with good reason, as you noted. Most practitioners understand that the number one way to improve health in this country is to address the increase in average weight of Americans. It's a complex matter, and, yes, some are pushing their snake oil in order to make a quick buck. But the legitimate studies aren't hitting us in the face every single day. It comes down to choosing legitimate sources for news, and ignoring the nonsens, like with everything.

I'm sick of hearing about Iraq, too. But I sure don't want that to get pushed away from the public eye.

From the article I posted below.

A 1996 project undertaken by scientists at the National Centre for Health Statistics and Cornell University analysed the data from dozens of previous studies, involving a total of more than 600,000 subjects with up to a 30-year follow-up. Among non-smoking white men, the lowest mortality rate was found among those with a BMI between 23 and 29, which means that a large majority of the men who lived longest were "overweight" according to government guidelines. The mortality rate for white men in the supposedly ideal range of 19 to 21 was the same as that for those in the 29 to 31 range (most of whom would be defined now as "obese"). In regard to non-smoking white women, the study's conclusions were even more striking: the BMI range correlating with the lowest mortality rate was extremely broad, from around 18 to 32, meaning a woman of average height could weigh anywhere within an 80-pound range without seeing any statistically significant change in her risk of premature death.

In almost all large-scale epidemiological studies, little or no correlation between weight and health can be found for a large majority of the population - and indeed what correlation does exist suggests that it is more dangerous to be just a few pounds "underweight" than dozens of pounds "overweight".

Anyone who actually pays attention to the science that comes out regularly knows that the twists and turns used by that pop book to sell us all on another spin are, well, great salemanship. Longevity has been correlated to weight repeatedly, in addition to limited caloric intake and, yes, activity. Head to your local health and science university library and take a longer look than what you'll find online. Unfortunately, most of the hard stuff isn't available to the general public, which is really sad.

Sorry I know that researchers and doctors are just as prone to bias as anyone else. I actually know more fat people that have longer and healthier lives than thin people.

The key is that they have daily physical activity. Those studies also discount the affects of injuries and the level of care on the populace and merely shifts the blame to weight.

Daily physical activity is a great start. In fact, it's a great start toward losing weight. Of course, it's interesting that you point out the injury factor, as that is something that weight affects. Active or not, if you weigh more, you're more likely to have more severe joint injuries and nagging problems.

Everything is very connected. One pop book and one article in a general interest newspaper doesn't change that.

http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other/news/030102ExposureNYT.html

In a preliminary study that takes into account not only
nuclear tests in Nevada but also nearly all American and
Soviet nuclear tests conducted overseas until they were
banned in 1963, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has found that virtually every person who has
lived in the United States since 1951 has been exposed to
radioactive fallout.


The new study, which was completed in August 2001 and was
first revealed yesterday in USA Today, suggests that for
all Americans born after 1951 "all organs and tissues of
the body have received some radiation exposure." The study
says in highly guarded terms that the global fallout could
eventually be responsible for more than 11,000 cancer
deaths in the United States.


http://www.diabetesnet.com/news/news102900.php#Arsenic

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to low concentrations of arsenic over many years can lead to diabetes, anemia, reproductive disorders, and cancers of the skin, bladder, lungs, and prostate. The current congressional standard for the presence of arsenic in water is limited to no more than 50 parts per billion. However, the EPA hopes to lower this standard to no more than 5 parts per billion.

In the meantime, the EPA encourages people to become aware of the arsenic levels in their drinking water. People who get their water from city municipal or privately owned drinking water supplies have access to the annually published Consumer Confidence Reports, which list average arsenic levels for the year as well as highs and lows. For those who get their water from private well-water systems, arsenic levels can be tested by certified laboratories, such as the Environmental Quality Institute.



http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/smlt0002.html

Data from a previous study on arsenic exposure and mortality at a copper smelter in Sweden were reexamined to investigate a possible association between diabetes mellitus and arsenic exposure. Death records for the years 1960 to 1976 in a parish in northern Sweden were used as the source of data. The authors conclude that the findings of this study provide some support for the suggestion that arsenic exposure could be an important factor in the development of diabetes mellitus.




http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/dwg/gw/research/summary/158.pdf

In 1987, a groundwater study conducted by the Department of Natural Resources identified a large vein of arsenic in a bedrock layer found at the interface of the St. Peter Sandstone and Sinnippee Dolomite. This geologic formation stretches from southern Brown County into Outagamie and Winnebago Counties and lies beneath more than 20,000 private water supply wells. Water samples from 1943 private wells in the Fox River Valley contained arsenic concentrations that ranged
from 1.0 to 12,000 µg/L. Levels exceeded 5 µg/L in 622 (32%) of these wells, and 68 (3.5%) of the wells had arsenic concentrations that exceeded the federal standard of 50 µg/L.


http://www.healthrecipes.com/food_additives.htm

Dyes, bleaches, antioxidants, preservatives, chemical flavors, buffers, noxious sprays, alkalizers, acidifiers, deodorants, moisteners, drying agents, expanders, modifiers, emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners, clarifiers, disinfectants, defoliants, fungicides, neutralizers, anticaking and antifoaming agents, hydrolyzers, hydrogenators, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic hormones, antibiotics, steroids and four thousand other drugs that just make your mouth water with anticipation.

They find their way into the human food chain and become the raw materials for every cell of your body. They disrupt the natural chemistry resulting in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, allergies, diverticulitis, emphysema, stomach ulcers, premature aging, impotence, hypoglycemia and arthritis. These countless diseases exist because chemically-synthesized substances disrupt the bio-chemistry of hundreds of billions of microscopic living cells which make up the body.



http://www.foresight-preconception.org.uk/summaries/frames/foodadd-nf.html

An excessive refined carbohydrate consumption can also lead in susceptible individuals to a disordered carbohydrate metabolism, especially to reactive hypoglycaemia (163,164), which in turn has been found to be particularly prevalent among violent offenders (28,164-176). Reactive hypoglycaemia has also been associated with diverse personality and psychiatric disorders, such as neuroses, panic attacks, agoraphobia and schizophrenic episodes (177).




http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/environment021024.htm

A report published by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, "Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2000," offered new information that strengthened the case for a link between diabetes and dioxin, said David Strogatz, an epidemiologist with the State University of New York at Albany who helped write the document.

In a related study of dioxin and diabetes, Matthew Longnecker of the National Institutes of Health showed a connection between dioxin exposure and diabetes in Vietnam veterans who did not work directly with Agent Orange. "He found those with higher background levels of dioxin contamination had a greater risk for diabetes," said Dr. Arnold Schecter, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health.




More than enough evidence that industry kills more than weight.

Why is that?

All the studies that you site (no links, isn't that odd?) are meant to divert the debate from industry to the individual. When industry causes far more death and destruction.

I tried to engage you in a genuine conversation, one that encouraged you to go to some different sources that can't be found on the Internet. Whatever excuse you want to offer for not spending some time investigating your local health science university is fine by me. It's your life.

But don't try to argue that you're on topic. You can't criticize researchers and publications you haven't read with such a sweeping generalization when you don't even know how they're funded. I find such a generalization to be quite disingenuous. It's clear that you're more focused on "being right" than on learning more about how weight and exercise and health science actually intermingle. Well, that's also your choice.

It's also my choice not to waste my time with a conversation that's going nowhere.

Goodbye.

You said everything was connected. I showed you just how well connected. If you don't like that fact, there's nothing I can do.

Goodbye

You brought up a new topic, simply because you didn't know what else to say. That made it very clear that you weren't actually here to discuss anything, but to play games.

Bye again!

You can read my mind. Oh boy. I put up links that said that obesity was not the major cause of disease and you didn't like that.

A major factor in the so-called "obesity epidemic" is to get people to believe that only they are the cause of their problems. I argued that it's bunk. Which it is.

I'm not the one playing games. I'm posting info. Are you?

Your links have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You posted an article that purports to argue that there is no link between weight and disease, only between activity and disease. That's what we began discussing. You didn't like that discussion, so you went off about "industry."

Industry may be a big problem. However, its existence doesn't eliminate the reality of increasing waistlines in America.

Sorry, but, yes, you are just playing games. There's no two ways about it.

I said it's bunk. Which it is. No amount of saying otherwise proves the theory unless you have hard data to back it up.

You've got data that stands up to the test of science?

Show me the data!

And, no, don't waste my time with your diversionary tactic. You know what I'm talking about.

Where's yours? You've offered nothing but opinion.

and asked for links from you, which you don't provide.

But, alas, no, you didn't read my post. You responded to what you thought was my post, which makes it clear that you didn't actually read it. But thanks for trying to cover up, again.

Again, there are thousands of studies showing Campos' book to be nonsense. If you want to believe otherwise, because you don't want to go down to the health science u library, hey, that's your choice.

That's one heck of a lot of links I just gave you -- Again. Let me know if you choose to check them. In the meantime, please don't feign as if your links, which are on another topic entirely, mean a damn thing.

Thank you.

shit or get off the pot.

Get out of the house and do some research.

Thanks for pretending that I haven't given you any "links" once again.

There's still more information in this great big world than can be had sitting in front of a computer screen.

Or are you afraid of that information?

-----

It is funny, though, to note how you've chosen to ignore the link that debunks Campos' nonsense down below.

Dude. It's so clear that you're here to play games, it's not even funny. You might not even realize it yourself. But that's actually why you're here!

That explains nothing. All that is is a potshot and you know it. Evidence please.

Wait, you don't have any.

Since you refuse to hit a health and science university library, I can only assume so.

You brought up potshots. Since I hadn't offered any, I thought it was time.

It's definitely time for you to do some reading.

The library awaits.

I'm still waiting for you to bring up other evidence. Haven't seen anything beside personal attacks and simplistic assumptions from your posts.

http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2004-05-06/cover.html

Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration -- aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals -- are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that may be unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda.

Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that more than 60 scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical experts, released a statement on Feb. 18 that accuses the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends."

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like. Probably the best-known case is global warming. Over the past two years the Administration has done this to a dozen major government studies on global warming, as well as to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its own efforts to stall action to control industrial emissions. The list also includes major long-term studies by the federal government's National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, and by scientific teams at the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and a 2002 collaborative report by scientists at all three of those agencies.

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

even if our industrialized and toxic society is responsible for great ills, there's still a lot that we can do about our own behavior and the choices that we make. Our control over larger forces may be indirect, at best, but we have total control over ourselves.

I don't think you're suggesting that we sit around bemoaning industrial-related maladies while downing Twinkies and (my favorite) various chocolate-related ice cream flavors, but that'd be the absurd end result of what your post seemed to be getting at.

I am suggesting that all this trying to lose weight can be doing more harm than good.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of padding. There's a lot wrong with a few hundred pounds of it. Most of us are closer to the former than the latter and, yes, I think the harm associated with societal obsession with weight loss comes in many forms and can be potentially lethal (eating disorders being one extreme example) as well as mentally destructive even in small doses. But losing weight safely and sanely, and recognizing that there are NO 'quick fixes' (oh, Americans do love them so) that are worth a damn, can be a very beneficial thing for a lot of people.

But merely blaming the victim and not looking for other causes merely invites more discrimination when there are other correlating factors.

I think it would be safe to say that business would not like gov't regulation of what goes into food and if more people actually knew what they were eating and why there would be alot of protest going on.

Most prefer to keep blinders on about it. Oh yeah, also people who are afraid and sick don't fight back. It's another tactic meant to keep us afraid and divided.

There's great food available in the US. But you've got to know what you're looking for. The supermarkets seem primarily ladened with processed stuff that's probably no good for anyone -- I'm not averse to eating some of it, but a good many of the most popular foodstuffs in this country will never cross my palate any more than I'd suddenly decide it's a good idea to take up smoking or mainlining heroin. Or, at least, these alleged 'foods' will do so only on tremendously rare occasions when (knowing full well what I'm doing, from a nutritional standpoint), I get an inexplicable craving.

I don't judge people by the content of their shopping cart, but in more than a few carts I've seen some nutritional atrocities just waiting to happen. You can;t help noticing sopme of these things...the advertising on packaged food is typically far from subtle, and there often seems a negative correlation between its garishness and the nutritional content of the product.

Some of the most disgusting to me, even more so than the traditional Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs 'cereal,' are these lunch packs for school kids that contain nothing but junk food. Nice. Really helping in the struggle against youthful obesity and/or deteriorating health.

We can even eat some of those things in balance and burn them off, as long as we exercise. It's a more complicated issue then some of the posters here suggest.

The danger is alot of these processed foods are being advertised as "healthy" thus fooling alot of people.

We're not disagreeing really. Just putting more into different things. Some think we have an obesity epidemic. I think we have an exercise epidemic.

possible to overtrain and extreme exercise can be an expression of bulimia, I haven't noticed a tendency for most Americans that I know to come dangerously close to exercising too much. Far from it...this is an increasingly lazy country and you just need to look at all the labor-saving devices, proliferating daily, to see how we're being encouraged to become even less mobile. Some of these gadgets may be great for people with arthritis or certain other physical ailments, but I think it's ultimately self-destructive to avoid trivial physical exertion of any kind if you have the ability to exert on occasion.

On the other hand, I know plenty of people who are obsessing on various diets, and a goodly chunk of them will take any shortcut that comes along (including pills, overdosing on trace nutrients, etc), and jump on every passing bandwagon, in pursuit of svelteness. If there's an epidemic that's the natural opposite of the obesity epidemic, I'd say it's the dieting epidemic. Not coincidentally, it's a huge industry...and so is its partner industry, the elective cosmetic surgery industry. Not to say that some diets don't do the trick, but even the ones that produce decent results need to morph into something else to be successful (and healthy) over the long term in most people.

I stand corrected.

Since many people are interested in losing weight, there are lots of differnt theories out there about diet, exercise, and weight. I don't know what the book was or who it is by as I skimmed it a year or so ago while I was killing time in a local book store. This guy wrote about how and why overweight fit people are healthier than sedentary thin people. Being fit allows one's body to be able to more easily handle the extra weight. Those who are sedentary but of "healthy weight" aren't really fit enough to even handle that weight. Of course being thin enough to handle their weight while just sitting around puts them at risk for death too. The point was that exercise will allow your body to safely handle extra weight and that everyone should exercise to lower their risk factors.
By overweight, this book meant up to about 50 pounds for serious athletes and up to about 20 pounds for people following the recommended 3 20 minute wokrouts per week.

Unfortunately, the studies don't match this theory.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/su/health/01/content04.htm

There is no single determinant of good health. Education, the environment and access to health care services are particularly important determinants of health, and are all related to economic security. Age and sex are important, as are lifestyle, nutrition, social and community networks, living and working conditions, and broader socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions. The determinants are inter-related and tend to move together to exert a combined influence on health.

We also need to destress the workplace, and establish
a society that average Americans can raise children in without two parents working 3 jobs.

We need a radical change, how much change are you ready for?

What do you suggest they do? Create an agriculture system in which farmers who grow vegetables are compensated more than farmers who grow sugar or corn? Make it less rewarding for manufacturers, distributers and retailers to push cheap to produce, high-profit junk food on the public than healthy foods? Create a business model in which heads of families are not too worn out from working 10-hour days to prepare healthy meals--those who aren't working through mealtime. No, it's easier to bemoan the state of things and lecture people who already know they're too fat.

Here endeth my rant.

more people are having to be treating for secondary conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure.. etc.. that would go away if a person lost weight. Added to that the workers comp claims by hospital workers having to lift/transport larger patients, the cost of equipment to accomodate larger bodies.. etc.. It's spiraling out of control.

I too need to lose weight and I know it, but I also see why they're trying to raise awareness. It's not just a matter of how one looks, there are many other issues that are being created because of it.

If it keeps on like this we are going to become a nation of grossly obese people.

Listen I have lost five pounds and look to try and lose another 10 pounds myself.

It is a real health problem that as a nation we need to get off our collective fat asses and start to deal with.

_

Getting off our fat ass doesn't do much to help,It won't do just to do the diet game.. until we honestly as individuals LOOK at the stress we live under and change that, (emotional eating because we are insecure,feel unloved,do too much,can't take vacations,have trauma issues, worry,worry worry).Until we really look at the types of lifestyles we lead,(eat crap on the run,stand up and wolf it down as fast as we can, sit at a computer avoiding our own families play video games ignoring the world,food network??)

Until we honestly look at why people crave things like sugar and carbs, high fat things and admit there may be an addictive component to it.Pooh poohing this as a possible and instead harping that fat people are morally weak instead is a pathetic cop out the industrial food producers Love because it feeds their industry)The brain does react to foods like the body does.Spices can affect us like drugs if you eat enough of certain kinds. And when food companies put profit over people(and get honest ALL companies do) Addiction to a product ensures sales.The tobacco companies put a lot of crap in cigarettes that didn't have to be there for a reason,to keep customers coming back.

And we need to also consider what kind of crap companies are putting in our food,how much agriculture has depleted our topsoil,and how many nutrients our foods have in them now that the topsoil has been leached of nutrients polluted and overworked,how much industrial pollution is contaminating us,how sick our world is from the misuse of it.Pollution can damage your body's metabolism,immune responses and DNA..There are thousands of industrial chemicals,heavy metals and other toxic things stressing our bodies every moment. We have artificial lights, night shifts,depression and our circadian rhythm can affect weight too.We dump our children on strangers at day care,we drive long commutes,we don't relate to each other, alot of people are unhappy angry and afraid,traumatized,addicted or in denial about it.

Stress pollution,non-nutritive foods, and psychological problems and your emotions can make you fat just as much as'eating too much'.
We need to look at why we eat too much instead of the old medieval Christian sin paradigm of "gluttony =evil=morally weak=not worthy of love.
But companies don't count stress and emotional turmoil as a cost of business in their Pollyanna profit reports.

We need to stop dismissing the issue out of hand or demonizing it and take a seriously look at the problem as a healthcare issue.

This is also why I said, "our collective fat asses" because we all have a stake in this no matter what our size.

I am not pushing the bullshit sin paradigm but I am not ready to run into some reactionary game of putting down anyone who thinks that obesity is a problem in this country as someone who is just out to insult "fat" people.

There a ton of reasons that America has become the nation of the overweight.

Most of which you listed but you also have to understand that we are just not working the same way as our grandfathers did. There is no way we can continue to down the traditional amount of calories our grandfather's did and work sedentary office jobs.

We are taught sedentary as a lifestyle in school.Which incidentally was a corporate idea to make us into good little workers..Sit at your desk pay attention fight the boredom ands urges to do something else..obey,tame yourself..dio as you are told and not as you want or need,ask permission to go to the bathroom(bathroom control is one criteria used for destructive cults btw). Gym is for bullies to show off and you to show how uncoordinated you are, and it's for strife,stress and sapping the joy from exercise,and making it traumatic , Recess is where bullies can harass you unhindered.
Not everyone experiences school this way but some do and it effects them.

WE have been psychologically engineered.
Now the social engineers don't like the product they created from our society so what do they do,scapegoat fat People like a school bully hoping to engineer us into another trap.

... you can blame the food processors for putting corn syrup in damn near everything they make.

On the other hand, processors make foods that people buy. If nobody bought all that sugar-carb crap they would make no money on it and they'd stop making it.

All in all there seems to be a greater awareness of nutrition in this country and that is a good thing. Eating good food is not all that impossible or expensive as some claim. It just takes the motivation.

We have a son with all kinds of food allergies and dietary restrictions. He's being treated with some shots called LDA, a fairly bleeding edge treatment, but it takes 2 years to complete.

In the meantime, my wife has become a minor expert on processed foods. Bottom line, he can't eat most of them because he is allergic to corn and wheat. Corn appears in the most unlikely places. Corn syrup must be really cheap because it is in EVERYTHING. And wheat, in the form of "modified food starch" - is another land mine.

So, we all eat a lot less processed food around here. Probably a good thing :)

People complain about smokers because it's the cool thing to do, but with the rise of the sedentery lifestyle and plain old laziness obesity has gotten big enough(no pun intended) to actally sap the health care resources of the country.

It debunks alot of that shit. Well worth the read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html

I always forget.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

eom

And I saw another that said 12 pounds...
Shit, I thought they called these things "standard" for a REASON?

from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weights_and_measures

The stone, quarter, hundredweight, and ton were larger units of mass used in Britain. Today only the stone continues in customary use for measuring personal body weight. The present stone is 14 pounds, but an earlier unit appears to have been 16 pounds. The other units were multiples of 2, 8, and 160 times the stone, or 28, 112, and 2240 pounds, respectively. The hundredweight was approximately equal to two talents. In the United States the ton of 2240 pounds is called the ?long ton.? The ?short ton? is equal to 2000 pounds.

nt

as the principal of my son's school is a big health nut...and I wanted to give him some different perpsective. KIds and others need exercise and to eat fewer fries, but this stuff they are pushing now seems absurd.


Thanks for putting up this link again. :hi:

About the worst thing a school system can do is to cut Phys Ed. It helps to keep kids more active.

A progressive agenda gives us more leisure time to be active too. Doctors and researchers are taking a too simplistic approach, as usual.

about not asking parents what they want before they involve kids in study-type activities related to health concerns. I don't mind healthy activities for kids, I just don't want my child to be caught up in some academic's latest agenda without my permission.

Parents should be informed about any change in policy. A legitemate concern.

C'mon, this is conspiracy theory bullshit that makes half-baked arguments and rhetorical devices rather than actually trying to counter the overwhelming mountains of evidence that indicate that America is fatter, and that being fatter carries huge health risks.

I.e., Russell Crowe being "obese" under BMI. 1) BMI explicitly notes that it may not be applicable to people who lift weights a lot or are otherwise athletic. Nonetheless, this doesn't belie the fact that by ANY measure, America is much much fatter than before.

"Why are Americans so afraid of the generally small health risks associated with above-average weight, while remaining comparatively indifferent to the much larger health risks associated with being a man, or poor, or black, or unusually thin?"

Is this guy smoking crack?

Almost not worth the effort, but here goes. a) Poor people, black people, and/or men may also be fat- w/r/t black people and/or men, some of the greatest health risks are associated with obesity. It is very clear that a non-fat man or non-fat black person has less health risks than a fat woman and/or fat white person. b) People who are unusually thin have less health risks than fat people, UNLESS that unusual thinness is caused by some eating disorder. However, no one is arguing that being fat is worse for you healthwise than anorexia-nervosa or bulimia; on the other hand, you don't have 30%-60% of the population suffering from eating disorders.

Ask any doctor or health care professional who's NOT associated with the health care industry and they'll tell you the same thing: obesity is a huge problem in our country, and it's the major health issue of the 21st century. To counter this with asinine conspiracy theories involving the health care/insurance complex is ignorant.

Annual Deaths Attributable To Obesity In The United States, which appeared in the Journal Of The American Medical Association (Jama) in 1999, is the source for the endlessly repeated statistic that overweight causes around 300,000 extra deaths in the US every year. (This "fact" has been cited in the major media more than 1,700 times in the past two years alone.) Look at these figures more closely. As Glenn Gaesser, a professor at the University of Virginia points out, studies have consistently failed to find any correlation between increasing BMI and higher mortality in people 65 and over, and 78% of the approximately 2.3 million annual deaths in the US occur among people who are at least 65. Thus, 78% of all deaths lack even the beginning of a statistical link with BMI. "That leaves 500,000 annual deaths in persons under 65 that might be related to BMI," Gaesser told me. "These include deaths from every possible cause: motor vehicle and other accidents, homicides, suicides, cigarettes, alcohol, microbial agents, toxic agents, drug abuse, etc, etc. To think that 60% of these deaths are due to body fat is absolutely preposterous."

Indictments in the case against fat invariably focus on diabetes, because Type 2 diabetes is much more common among heavier-than-average people. It has become routine to claim that America is about to be overwhelmed by a diabetes epidemic, that for the first time Type 2 diabetes is being seen among children, etc, and that the solution to this crisis is to make fat people thin. Actually, the definition of diabetes has changed (from a fasting blood sugar of 140 to a blood sugar of 126) and many more people have been diagnosed as suffering from the disease. Several recent studies indicate that the key to avoiding Type 2 diabetes is not to try to lose weight (indeed, there is much evidence that dieters are far more prone to the disease than average), but rather to make lifestyle changes in regard to activity levels and dietary content that greatly reduce the risk of contracting the disease, whether or not such changes lead to any weight loss.

I admit, I fall into the 'needing to stay thin' thing far too often. Most guys I've talked to even say that they like women who weigh more than most women say they'd want to, to be attractive.

Growing up knowing a lot of black and puerto rican girls, I'd certainly second the feeling that they are happier with their bodies, in general. It's something I've always been jealous of, how they can be fine with a body that I wouldn't be, and wonder what makes the difference...

Eat well and exercize, and screw the whole 'dieting' thing... makes sense to me.

thanks for posting

Whom, I should add, has no degree in medicine, nor any experience whatsoever in public health or scientific research. Hmmm, sort of reminds me of those "scientists" who "debunk" global warming. Many of this book's statistics come directly from the processed food industry, I found them right on their website. Did you know that? Did you even check the statistics out?

This article actually debunks nothing. The overwhelming majority of the scientific and anectdotal research shows that the less calories consumed, the better the health, particularly the older you are. The World Health Organization now considers obesity a global pandemic. How much more evidence do you need?

BTW, I am not unfamiliar with obesity and it's medical ramifications, as my thyroid disease recently caused me to gain over thirty pounds in less than 6 months. I can tell you first hand, that even though I was eating the same foods, it was much harder to do everything I had normally done. My joints ached, my breathing was labored and my heart was under more stress than it should have been. Weight matters, particularly body fat, no matter what a law professor from Colorado may write to sell books.

I'm a bit shocked that the Guardian didn't have a more critical eye on that one.

Plus, I think Britain is just now getting a taste (if you'll excuse the horrendous pun) of the effects of the American fast food industry's effects, so they may not have the same perspective on the subject. They're still a little behind us in the processed food consumption race.

I think we are catching you up fast. Bliar and his chums have decided that we have an obesity epidemic and that it is all the fault of fast food (and nothing to do with the fact that his government is selling off all the school playing fields and crammed the school curricula so full that children have no time to exercise). Normally when Bliar gets agitated like this it presages a new tax - he's probably got a new war to finance - if I were Norwegian I'd be sweating.

While I do take your point that being overly obese causes strains on the joints. However it is not the major cause of disease. Environmental factors also must be looked at.

Calling it a pandemic just turns eyes away from the real problem. Which is industry.

Since this guy cribbed many of his from the food "industry".

Fat-out Fiction... regarding Campos and his book... (speaking of someone out to make a buck at the expense of others...):
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040522-102508-3674r.htm

----------

I'd still prefer to meet you at the health science u library, but since this is where you prefer to go, I guess I must be somewhat accommodating.

This is a well-done piece that clearly shows just how disingenuous the piece you offered is in reality. And all you can say is "a right wing rag"?

You really are just here to play games.

Good luck with that. I hope it keeps you healthy.

You expect me to put any weight in that? BTW, I'm thin. Check the gallery.

More so, actually (this is not to be construed as an endorsement of his politics!):

Michael Fumento

Senior Fellow

Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Office

Areas of Expertise

Science and technology
Health
Legal issues
Environmental issues
Biotechnology


Biographical Highlights

Michael Fumento joined Hudson Institute as a senior fellow in November 1998. He is an author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues.

Prior to joining Hudson’s Washington, D.C. office, Fumento was a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also served as a legal writer for The Washington Times, editorial writer for the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, and was the first “national issues” reporter for Investor's Business Daily.

Fumento was the 1994 Warren T. Brookes Fellow in environmental journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.; a fellow with Consumer Alert in Washington, D.C.; and a science correspondent for Reason magazine.

He was the U.S. correspondent for the Austrian environmental and economics magazine, a3 Umwelt. Fumento also has been a former AIDS analyst and attorney for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Fumento has lectured on science and health issues throughout the country and in Europe, China, and South America. His honors include the American Council on Science and Health’s “Distinguished Science Journalist of 1993” award, the American Agri-Women’s “Veritas Award,” and a nomination for the 1998 National Magazine Award.

Fumento is a 1985 graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law and earned his B.A. in political science from the University of North Carolina.



Publications and Media Exposure

Fumento is the author of four books: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (Basic Books,1990, revised, Regnery, 1993); Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment (William Marrow, 1993); Polluted Science: The EPA’s Efforts to Expand Clean Air Regulations (AEI Press, 1997); and The Fat of the Land: The Obesity Epidemic and How Overweight Americans Can Help Themselves (Viking, 1997).

He also has authored a monograph on silicone breast implants and co-authored another on the alleged health risks of chlorine. His articles appear in a large number of textbooks as well as Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, The Bulletin (Australia’s version of Newsweek), Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, New Republic, The New York Times, Readers’ Digest, The Sunday Times (London), USA Weekend, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and Weekly Standard.

Fumento is currently writing a book on biotechnology.



Articles & Publications by Michael Fumento

Viewing records 1 - 25 of 90


Why the Shredded Wheat? 05/27/2004
Don't Worry, Be Fatty? 05/21/2004
Is the Oil Spigot Running Dry? 05/14/2004
Holes and All, Bioshield Needed 05/04/2004
EPA Promotes "Toxic Towels" 04/20/2004
USA Today’s Reporting Scandals 04/09/2004
Green Activists Threaten Peru's Golden Goose 04/02/2004
New Weapons in War on Cancer 03/10/2004
Ending the Agent Orange Myth 03/05/2004
'Bioconfinement' Baloney 02/11/2004
Who's Afraid of Biotech? 01/29/2004
Stranger than Fact 01/09/2004
There's More Future in Your Future 12/26/2003
Stem Cell Politics 12/15/2003
Man’s New Best Friend 12/12/2003
Scientists Develop New Weapon Against Cancer 11/19/2003
Plants that Will Save Lives and Eyes 11/06/2003
The Horror of Partial-birth Abortion 10/29/2003
Flu Facts and Fallacies 10/16/2003
Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science 10/10/2003
Yes, We Still Have Bananas 09/22/2003
Europe's Bioskeptics 07/24/2003
SARS: Postmortem of a Panic 06/23/2003
Don’t Expect a SARS Vaccine Right Away 06/04/2003
Organic Food Industry Faces a Fear Backlash 04/25/2003


http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=FumeMich

It's like the women's magazines that you see at the checkout. The headlines: New diet! Lose 20 pounds in 2 days! are always superimposed over a photo a twelve-layer chocolate cake.

Yes, we're fat. We sit on our asses all day and night, and watch too much TV, and eat portions that are way too big. But you are right, everyone who is fat knows they are fat, and most would do something about it if they could muster up the energy, the time, and the discipline.

Personally, I have done the yo-yo thing a couple of times, and gotten really fat. I just lost the same 50 pounds for the THIRD time in my life. My dad is obsessive, and I've seen him gain and lose 80+ pounds at least five times that I can remember. This is actually supposed to be worse for you than just being slightly overweight all your life.

The problem is that the poor and the middle class are leading lives of such drudgery, with so little in the way of rewards, that the only thing they can afford to do is "supersize" and try to eat their way into the American dream.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

people there were, and that a lot of them are walking around eating, standing in line eating, just eating all the time...

I'm not at all trying to be mean because I am also a serial dieter and never completely happy with my weight, but I'm kind of glad to see this subject out there because I think a lot of people are getting all these ad messages from TV etc. to eat eat eat and it's nice to see the alternative message (wait, stop eating) out there to balance it out.

Seriously have you ever had that experience where you are completely OK, not hungry, you turn on the TV for 1/2 hour and end up in the kitchen picking at something? If you counted how many cues we are given through TV and radio and billboards every day to eat something, it would probably be like, 1,000. I think commerical TV is the most fattening thing there is!

Of course they blame what they're eating and their "heavy courseload" as if they're bodybuilders when they're not taking classes.

I truly believe 95% of the cases of people being obese and repulsively overweight are the own person's fault. It's like someone who smokes for thirty years and then blames the tobacco industry for having black lungs. How about people start taking responsibility for their actions instead of being coddled like they're two?

Disgusting, NO, that's not what I meant...

For God's sake nobody WANTS to be 100 pounds overweight, there are all sorts of reasons, I am not judging them...I'm just suggesting that turning off the TV is a good tactic for someone wanting to get out of the auto-food thing, the alternate eat/diet messages you get bombarded with are crazy making...

In general I think more reading, more walking, more gardening and less noise is conducive to a healthy weight, I'm just trying to be constructive.

but the fact it seems NOBODY is willing to take responsibility for what they're doing to themselves. Just like anyone who started smoking after the surgeon general's warning on tobacco products has NO RIGHT to sue a tobacco company for getting lung cancer. I believe in personal responsibility, and am disgusted by people who refuse to admit they're to blame for what they're doing to themselves. Yes there are some people who have genes that makes it easier for them to gain weight or are in a physical situation who are unable to exercise, so they can't do anything about it, but the vast majority of these people could eat healthy and exercise instead of eating at Wendy's once a day and watching TV.

So once again, I'm disgusted by people who blame others for what they're doing to themselves.

In my experience, fat people or I will specify -- fat WOMEN blame themselves constantly, if self-loathing could make you thin, there would be very few fat women, indeed.

Yes I agree that one has to take responsibility for stuff, and take control, but self-loathing/self-disgust is NOT conducive to weight loss.

The whole lung cancer/smoking/suing thing, you are making a weird connection there -- this thread is not about lawsuits, it's about the pervasive nature of obesity in our society, I think it has to be looked at in ways other than what to eat/what diet to go on.

I went on diets after both my kids were born and my advice is, do NOT put yourself down -- wear nice clothes, be nice to yourself during your weight loss, deflect all "i'm fat and worthless" thoughts from your head, they are fattening!

When I get TV-induced munchies, I'll make a salad or chop up some carrots.

As if any were needed. :P

"You weight 200 lbs? Sorry, but your disease is your own fault and we won't cover nuthin'. Now keep making that monthly payments. Have a nice day."

On taking the time to loose the weight. It is a difficult thing to do.

Hope it keeps working out for you.

I have lost 3 pant sizes since December and I'm almost down 4.

I am not dieting.


I'm looking at my emotions,what I am using food as a substitute for that I am not getting in my life.
I am de stressing,telling more people no,I can't do that.
I am taking time to do what I want.
I am refusing to hurry up.

I am thinking about what I eat why and I ask myself if I am really hungry or not.
I can recognize when my body is hungry vs when I want to consume.
AS a kid I was thin.Back than most of my food came from our backyard garden and wild plants. I gained slight weight when I started school sitting all day and starchy lunches took their toll,When I reached adolescence early in 6th grade I grew fat.because people made fun of my body,I had boobs early.
I developed an addiction to coca cola. and I started to get depressed because I was tormented in school alot.

When I was 21 I got down to a normal weight,than after I faced an attempted rape and fought off the attackers,the weight returned astonishingly fast.And I was eating the same amount of food as before the rape because in my living situation then the food was provided.
Stress gain.

I have found out this, need to live my life my own way,take care of myself,and the rest of the world will just have to deal with it.If I try to live my life according to what's expected,normal or what others want,I will gain weight because of the stress and unhappiness I am heaping on myself trying to conform and ignore what I feel,I need ,I love.]
Alot of people ignore their emotional responses to things.

My secret to weight loss,is to get to know yourself first,know why you eat.Learn to recognize true bodily hunger signals VS the emotional eating to fill voids in the heart .Be true to yourself,love yourself even if nobody else does,wants to,or can.Relax as much as possible ,refuse to rush,refuse to worry over bullshit(like what other people think),and do say no to whenever requests, other's demands you need to say no to and don't feel guilty over it.Lastly keep yourself clean by trying to avoid pollution,toxins and chemicals around us as much as you can.Try to eat food that is not pumped full of chemicals and depleted of nutrients.
Just by doing this for myself I have lost weight. Diets do not work.I have been on them and I came out of them fatter than I was before.
Confront the issues driving the weight gain,the toxins in all environments and in your emotional environment.
There's my 2 cents.

they show all these pictures of people's big bellies

just explain it's unhealthy and regardless of the fact most people seem to be overweight now, it's not normal to be that overweight. The fact 1/3 of this country is obese while most of the world is full of countries with that high a percentage of its country starving is disgusting on more than one level.

Some of the comments people feel free to make about the obese from people who otherwise consider themselves to be tolerant simply amazes and appalls me.

The compassion and understanding of the complexities behind tobacco, alcohol, and drug addiction seems often missing when we talk about weight loss and obesity. Many who would argue for comprehensive medical approaches including societal and public health intervention for the former, (by contrast) seem determined to reduce the problem with obesity to one of simple lack of self-control. At the same time, they appear to hold those who struggle with weight loss with the same disdain that we might hold a chronic liar or thief.

The most troublesome aspect to me, is the level of overt bigotry that seems to be acceptable for no other group, but the obese. Most of us would never accept this attitude towards any racial, ethnic, gender, nor sexual preference group. To hear the cruel taunts leveled at the obese teen in full hearing range of any number of parents and other adults left unchallenged is a tragic thing, IMO.

The reason why it is important to identify the problem as a public health epidemic is because there is tremendous need to look at the societal role in promoting and conversely countering obesity.

On a personal level, I am tremendously happy to be living in the heart of a city with parks, sidewalks, and some level of mass transit. I can walk to buy groceries (and I DO) and bike many places. The exercise I get does not have to be pre-planned but simply part of my lifestyle and with sensible diet, I am able to avoid too much weight gain. However, I have also lived in cities (e.g., Atlanta) where rapid growth produced suburban housing complexes (largely the only affordable housing) along interstate corridors-- far from the city and jobs, and without sidewalks, transit centers, or shopping anywhere nearby. That this latter situation led to two-three hour commutes, the need to drive everywhere, and promotes a sedentary lifestyle is hard to argue. In that setting, even starvation levels of calorie intake would be unlikely to balance the lack of exercise and weight gain would be difficult to avoid.

I hope we will adopt some new policies (and attitudes) in this country that will combat the problem of obesity. At the same time, I truly hope some who are so pious towards the morbidly obese and so willing to ignore them, denigrate them, or discount them as human beings--even on an anonymous internet forum-- will think again.

high calorie foods taste good to us because back when things to eat were harder to come by we needed a drive to eat the high calorie goods when we could find them and a way to store it for when they were gone. Now we live in super wealthy culture and don't do any "work" at all to get our food. The drive is still there to gorge during the good times in order to survive the lean times, problem is the good times are going on several generations now.

if you ignore pop culture garbage. Destroy your TV and take trips to foreing countries if possible.

It's a lot easier to lose weight if you change your lifestyle as well.

Good luck with your program. If you stick with it, it will work. It just takes awhile to see results. Don't let pop culture garbage interfere with your goals.

(maybe about 10 "vanity pounds," as the TV ad says for a weight loss product). But I have high blood pressure and a high cholesterol count. So I don't think those health problems stem from being overweight, but from heredity.

OK, I remember the old days when people rode horses *continues long, incomprehensible rant involving a lot of walking through snow drifts*.

All kidding aside, there have always been three groups of people:

• clinically obese ie. pushing 300 pounds or above or grotesquely fat kids - some sort of medical problem
  
• genetically skinny, scarf down a medium pizza and lose weight from the exertion of all that swallowing and chewing
  
• everybody else
  

The problem has always been the "everybody else" category.

In the 50's and early 60's "everybody else" tended to be carrying a bit more weight than is considered "healthy" now because the research on bad cholesterol hadn't hit the streets yet. Anybody past the age of 50 had a reasonable expectation of dropping dead of a heart attack or stroke and that was the way of it. It was that or cancer. Those people dieting and exercising were doing it more for asthetic reasons than health. Then the doctors started talking nutrition and exercise and people started to pay attention. People started to get healthier and eating better. You could afford it then.

The average guy on the street looked trimmer and healthier. Granted, he was probably shovelling his own walk and raking his own leaves - leaf blowers hadn't been invented yet.

Then along came fast food and the two-income household, courtesy of Raygun and Bush 1's economy. Those who could afford it hit the gyms. Those who couldn't started tubbing up.

I've noticed a trend in the last five years. People are starting to get really, really heavy again. It's like living in the 50's. Health clubs have gotten so expensive and so time consuming they're beoming unaffordable. Good quality food that has to be trucked in (eg. fresh veggies) is getting out of reach.

There's one good thing about the high price of oil. The bike racks at work are jammed with the bicycles of those who can't afford to drive anymore. I ride 40 minutes to work and another 45 minutes back (I take my time) which is a nice bit of exercise. I've lost three pounds in the last week (I was fretting about having put on 5 pounds).

One thing that bothers me is that we tend to lump categories 1 and 3 together. A person who puts on 10 pounds from eating too much pizza freshman year of college is different from a person who weighs 400 pounds. Yet they tend to be lumped together, when you're really looking at two different things.

nt

Thank God Bush's capture of Manuel Noriega stopped all the cocaine from getting in!

"Krispy Kreme" may turn out to be a good investment after all.

Here I sit, 5'11" and 200 pounds. BMI tells me I am overweight at 27.9. Yeah, I carry some pudge, less than I did a month ago but oh well.

Last month my bodyfat % was ~17, this afternoon it was 15.4 %. I still weigh the same weight! This is where the one-size-fits-all height/weight charts blow up. I've lost bodyfat and gained lean muscle mass through running and lifting in the gym. I'll bet you next month it will pan out roughly the same; lower bodyfat %, same weight.

But the BMI chart says it doesn't apply to those that exercise! We've all seen those guys that never touch weights and still have larger than average muscles. Does the BMI account for these gifted fellows? Doubtful.

I'm an overweight guy that can bench his weight, squat almost twice that and leg press over a quarter ton. Individual bodyfat measurements are more indicative of what a person should weigh IMHO.

The BMI offers people a place to start. However, for someone of your activity level, it's offers a fairly accurate picture. You may have lost some body fat, but not a whole lot.

It really makes no sense to demonize the tools. Any tool must be used in context. At any rate, it's not the BMI that led to the increase in average weight of Americans.

I know that they say it is, but I wonder where they get the numbers from. Not all people who have high cholesteral, high blood pressure, diabetes, suffer heart attacks, or suffer strokes are overweight. Not all people who are overweight suffer from those problems.
In addition being overweight can be caused by one or several factors. Some are overweight because they eat high calorie diets but competitive athletes and heavy laborers often eat high calorie diets without being overweight. Some are overweight because they are sedentary, but some sedentary people aren't overweight either. Some weight problems are caused by medical problems and not not necessarily just gladular problems and such. I have also seen studies citing stress and sleep deprivation as factors in gaining weight without changing caloric intake. Perhaps being overweight in itself does not cause health problems but some of these factors by themselves or in combination.
We must also remember that people are living longer now and some of these problems are more likely to develop as people age. Perhaps we have more people suffering from "obeseity realted ailments" just because more people are living above 60. Having a little extra weight also helps people survive many illnesses.
I think tat the main reason that people talk so much about the obeseity epidemic is because it is a money making industry. Most people who diet or try whatever gimmick will not get as thin as they want to be or gain weight back after they quit the herbal supplement, special food, or gym.
People are getting heavier but we should adress some of the problems such as our fast paced lifestyles causing stress and sleep deprivation as well as fast food eating, the effects of some substances in processed food, neighborhoods being built away from stores and other conveinces that people used to walk to, the decline of community involvement such as sports leagues, and not encouraging children to go play outside and play off their extra energy and instead drugging them.

They do, however, care about their patients, and they know what the research indicates. Will every overweight person die early? No. Will more overweight people face disease and die early than those who are not overweight? Yes. It's your choice whether or not you want to gamble.

Unfortunately, high blood pressure runs in my mother's family and my paternal grandfather's family regardless of their weight. My blood pressure started rising when I started taking birth control pills and became stage I hypertension when I started having panic attacks. I take a cheap beta blocker which in conjunction with lowering my stress through group therapy has gotten my blood pressure well into the normal range. Even though I was mildly overweight according to BMI when I started having panic attacks, my doctor did not suggest that I lose weight. Strangely, she didn't suggest that I stop taking birth control pills either, which are sometimes related to higher blood pressure too. My husband who is considered obese by BMI has lower blood pressure than I do even now. He is adopted, which is good considering heart attacks run in his father's family whether or not they are overweight.
I might get diabetes too. Despite what they'd have you beleive, not everyone who gets type 2 diabetes is overweight. Although two of the three of my grandparents who have it were mildly overweight when diagnosed, my other grandparent who developed it earliest was actually on the thinner side of a healthy wait range. His mother had it too. He is 88. His mother died when she was 102.
I am not overweight now. I didn't lose weight by decreasing my calories or increasing my exercise. I lost weight, almost 20 pounds, when my chronic sinus infection and stomach problems were cured by antibiotics and I started eating more. I know that I am at risk for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes though regardless of my weight.

:eyes:

Risk factors. You know them. You're able to list them in regard to family history. Again, anecdotes about people who ate poorly and were overweight and still lived to be XX can always be had. It's your choice if you want to roll the dice and go for the possibility of being an anecdote. By and large, however, your chances of living a long, healthy life increase when you eliminate every risk factor that you can eliminate on your own. You can increase your own odds. But, of course, you never know. Some with poor odds go a long way, and some with great odds don't get that far. Still, I prefer to do what I can to put the odds in my favor.

I have diabetes. I must be too fat then, eh? 2+2=4.

Which is what I believe you have stated here before that you have. It's an autoimmune disease and quite unlike the diabetes (Type II)that we're discussing here. But you know that, don't you?

and I started out as a type 2. I am a type 1.5. New category.

onset diabetes (Type II) and sleep apnea, these are USUALLY (not always) related to the obesity, and if the obesity can be "cured", by diet/exercise, surgery, or whatever, then MOST (like 80 percent) of the time, hypertension, adult onset diabetes, and sleep apnea problems will resolve when the weight goes away.

These are not a small effect. It is a MAJOR effect.

Of course there are thin people who have HTN, AODM and OSA (Obstructive Sleep Apnea). But if you have these problems and are fat, they are usually related to your being fat. And can be effectively addressed by losing the fat.

:crazy:

This thread has more than made its point.