being skinny is more unhealthy than being fat?

thebigcb

Well you would be better off being obese v a skinny smoker.

Its far too random. In general stay away from extremes, ists and isms and ity's

You'll be safe then

menletti

Being unhealthy is unhealthy. Doesn't matter which side of the spectrum you fall on.

Exactly!

secretlobster

Yes we know "being unhealthy is unhealthy." The question is WHAT DEFINES UNHEALTHY.

You people make the internet(tm) such a frustrating place.

thebigcb

Obesity is unhealthy mind you. Partner did a study on it herself for her degree(related field) and the results where scary

Katie3784

I would assume that a women who is 5'5" and weighs 90lbs and is anorexic will die much sooner than a woman who is the same height but weighs 300lbs. I think anorexia takes a greater, faster toll on the heart than obesity.

MFPBrandy

.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

I've heard this before. It only says they're more likely to die. It doesn't say from what. The reason doesn't have to be health related. One possible explanation is the activity level of active, healthy weight people ("normals" as the article calls them).You're more likely to die at any given moment if you're outside running or climbing rock wall than if you're sitting on your couch.

Agree with this, the article is a limited statement that doesn't say what the people are dying from, just their likelihood of dying at 2 different spectrums of what is considered "unhealthy bmi." I would hazard to say that environmental factors and overall lifestyles have a lot to do with the causes of death. The other question I have is if this would be overall average in life span or at the time of death because with many illnesses (my bil recently died of cancer) one of the side effects can include not being able to retain nutrients or the inability to eat. My 6' BIL spent most of his life in a healthy to high end of the bmi spectrum but by the time he died his health complicaitons had so ravaged his body he was under 130 pounds . . . something like that would certainly skew the facts. I think this is a really unreliable article (notice I didn't say study).

jadedone

healthy = adopting healthy habits, weight =/= health

Healthy Habits:
1. Eating well (plenty of produce, not too much processed sugar)
2. Staying active (moderate leves of activity, not super intense is required)
3. Maintain a healthy blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose and triglyceride levels
4. Maintain bone density and functional strength
5. Maintain functional balance and flexibility

This may or may not cause you to lose weight and put you in the "healthy" weight range.

No matter what you weigh, if you follow steps 1-5, you'll likely live a long time, even if you remain overweight.

Avandel

Do these people who write this crap realize there are not two types of weight but three. :grumble: How about this concept, underweight, overweight & a healthy weight. (you know, the one in between) duh!

And these days any of these are more likely to die texting while driving or walking for that matter.

secretlobster

Do these people who write this crap realize there are not two types of weight but three. :grumble: How about this concept, underweight, overweight & a healthy weight. (you know, the one in between) duh!

They did use "normal weight" people as controls in the study.

laynunugawa

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Avandel

Do these people who write this crap realize there are not two types of weight but three. :grumble: How about this concept, underweight, overweight & a healthy weight. (you know, the one in between) duh!

They did use "normal weight" people as controls in the study.

I didn't say Normal, as each person's healthy weight is going to be different all depending on each person, height, age, etc.

secretlobster

Do these people who write this crap realize there are not two types of weight but three. :grumble: How about this concept, underweight, overweight & a healthy weight. (you know, the one in between) duh!

They did use "normal weight" people as controls in the study.

I didn't say Normal, as each person's healthy weight is going to be different all depending on each person, height, age, etc.

The study was based on BMI (which includes height as part of the ratio), and included samples from 51,000 people of varying ages. Please, just admit you didn't read the article.

Also, diabetes and hypertension WERE taken into consideration.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

Yes we know "being unhealthy is unhealthy." The question is WHAT DEFINES UNHEALTHY.

You people make the internet(tm) such a frustrating place.

The definition of unhealthy is simply the lack of good health in the current moment. You cannot define it much further because so many independent variables are involved. People are saying "being unhealthy is unhealthy" AT ANY WEIGHT.

What's frustrating is that "health" is frequently measured by weight (is skinny more unhealthy then being fat -- no, because health shouldn't be measured by weight alone) - which is why the debate needed to stop with unhealthy is unhealthy at any weight.

mielchat

You can be unhealthy at any weight. Both the extremes obviously carry their own risks, but I wouldn't say either one is 'healthier' than the other.

secretlobster

The definition of unhealthy is simply the lack of good health. You cannot define it much further because so many independent variables are involved. People are saying "being unhealthy is unhealthy" AT ANY WEIGHT.

What's frustrating is that "health" is frequently measured by weight (is skinny more unhealthy then being fat -- no, because health shouldn't be measured by weight alone) - which is why the debate needed to stop with unhealthy is unhealthy at any weight.

Of course it would be ignorant to say that weight (to put it simply) has no bearing on health, and it would also be ignorant to say that weight is the only factor involved in health. But the purpose of a scientific study like this is to find a link between a variable and an effect, with the understanding that there will always be exceptions, genetic mutations, what have you. It helps to have a society that understands basic rules based on scientific study in order for individuals to make better decisions. Would you argue that maintaining a healthy size is not important? Okay, well how do we figure out what a healthy size/weight/mass is? By scientific study. The goal is not to conclude whether someone should strive to be fat or skinny, the goal is to continually reevaluate the standards by which we deem ourselves to be "healthy" or "unhealthy" based on longevity and predisposition to disease.

the debate needed to stop with unhealthy is unhealthy at any weight.

So what if scientific study concluded that being 15lbs "overweight" actually has no negative effect on a person's health? You don't think that is worth talking about?

devil_in_a_blue_dress

The definition of unhealthy is simply the lack of good health. You cannot define it much further because so many independent variables are involved. People are saying "being unhealthy is unhealthy" AT ANY WEIGHT.

What's frustrating is that "health" is frequently measured by weight (is skinny more unhealthy then being fat -- no, because health shouldn't be measured by weight alone) - which is why the debate needed to stop with unhealthy is unhealthy at any weight.

Of course it would be ignorant to say that weight (to put it simply) has no bearing on health, and it would also be ignorant to say that weight is the only factor involved in health. But the purpose of a scientific study like this is to find a link between a variable and an effect, with the understanding that there will always be exceptions, genetic mutations, what have you. It helps to have a society that understands basic rules based on scientific study in order for individuals to make better decisions. Would you argue that maintaining a healthy size is not important? Okay, well how do we figure out what a healthy size/weight/mass is? By scientific study. The goal is not to conclude whether someone should strive to be fat or skinny, the goal is to continually reevaluate the standards by which we deem ourselves to be "healthy" or "unhealthy" based on longevity and predisposition to disease.

the debate needed to stop with unhealthy is unhealthy at any weight.

So what if scientific study concluded that being 15lbs "overweight" actually has no negative effect on a person's health? You don't think that is worth talking about?

I think you're missing my point entirely -- there is are too much emphasis on healthy as it related to weight.

So, no quite frankly, I don't think it's worth talking about as it was posed here. What I can tell you for certain is this the standard by which we determine "overweight" is irrevocably jacked. I wouldn't find it shocking in the least that somebody 15 pounds overweight suffered no negative impact health-wise. If anything, that just tells you the standard by which we're measuring healthy weights needs adjusted to capture more accurate pictures of health and not higher insurance premiums. If that's what you want to talk about -- dandy, there is a discussion to be had -- but this thread seems to be about weight and health as it relates to the BMI. I don't find that discussion to be helpful at all.

omma_to_3

Being underweight will kill you FASTER but being overweight/obese will still get you in the end. A 6 year study isn't a long enough time frame to show that.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

Because malnourishment will get you sooner rather than later. Diabetes will get you later rather than sooner. I mean severely underweight.

Vailara

I think it's quite a positive article, and the results of the study are interesting. It's good news, isn't it?

After all, we're not all suddenly going to get to a "healthy" BMI. It's nice to see something encouraging for those of us who don't make it there and our overweight friends and loved ones.

It seems that as we've got fatter, we're living longer. I know the article conflicts with other information we have, but the issue isn't clearcut. (Google "obesity paradox").

secretlobster

I think you're missing the point entirely -- there is are too much emphasis on healthy as it related to weight.

So, no quite frankly, I don't think it's worth talking about. What I can tell you for certain is this the standard by which we determine "overweight" is irrevocably jacked. I wouldn't find it shocking in the least that somebody 15 pounds overweight suffered no negative impact health-wise. If anything, that just tells you the standard by which we're measuring healthy weights needs adjusted to capture more accurate pictures of health and not higher insurance premiums. If that's what you want to talk about -- dandy, there is a discussion to be had -- but this thread seems to be about weight and health as it relates to the BMI. I don't find that discussion to be helpful at all.

I'm not missing the point. I understand the point of the study. I agree that one of the standards for health, weight, is misunderstood and unreliable as a sole indicator of health. What you are failing to understand is that the PURPOSE OF THE STUDY is to investigate whether our current standard for weight as an indicator of health (and weight IS an indicator of health, just not the only one) needs to be adjusted.

You don't want to believe it because you didn't read the study, but it's illustrating your exact feelings on weight.