Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Obesity Paradox: Health benefits to being overweight?
djcolloid
Posts: 13 Member
Recently, several news sites (Quartz, Times, etc.) have reported on this study that pointed out overweight people have a longer life expectancy than people with normal BMI, with the account of elevated heart disease/diabetes risk caused by excess fat.
This 'obesity paradox' has been reported before, but with the whole fat acceptance movement, discussion and debate have become more frequent. Is this change in stance detrimental to fighting the obesity epidemic?
This 'obesity paradox' has been reported before, but with the whole fat acceptance movement, discussion and debate have become more frequent. Is this change in stance detrimental to fighting the obesity epidemic?
0
Replies
-
I have read the basis of the tables used for hight/weight recommendations are based on information taken from the insurance industry possibly as far back as the 1930's/40's. There was some talk of these figures being tilted towards an under weight status and probably not representing a "good weight". The difference may only be 7 lb or so which could account for why some people look more importantly feel too thin at a prescriptive weight. 7 lb would be enough to shift the balance towards a slightly higher weight.
There may be benefits of carrying an extra 7 lb but the probable consequences of carrying a few extra stones or more are inescapable. We still need greater understanding of what makes our bodies tick so people with "disrupted" systems can achieve systemic/metabolic support rather than vilification.1 -
How are they gathering the information? Because it could be correlation not causation. Many people become very thin when they are ill and dying. Being thin didn't cause the illness and death. It's the other way around.6
-
IIRC there was some evidence to show that being mildly overweight (not obese) according to traditional BMI calculations (so a figure of around 26) was protective against mortality depending on lifestyle factors (so the whole fat but fit thing.)
There is an argument to say that current BMI calculations should be revised anyway and the revisions I have seen would place the people now deemed to be mildly overweight into normal weight categories.
I don't think such information is detrimental to fighting the obesity epidemic as it doesn't pertain to obese people in the first place but rather how it is spun by certain movements or in news reporting.0 -
The only study I've seen with those results failed to account for individuals who were normal or underweight as a result of being ill. People who'd lost weight on long-term chemo, that sort of thing. It skewed the mortality. After this was pointed out, either that group or another (can't remember) corrected the data and it showed no benefit to being overweight vs normal weight. There was a detriment to being underweight or obese.5
-
The only study I've seen with those results failed to account for individuals who were normal or underweight as a result of being ill. People who'd lost weight on long-term chemo, that sort of thing. It skewed the mortality. After this was pointed out, either that group or another (can't remember) corrected the data and it showed no benefit to being overweight vs normal weight. There was a detriment to being underweight or obese.
That's what I remember reading as the outcome also.1 -
Firstly, there is a difference in overweight and obese. It's pretty easy to be a few lbs overweight and remain healthy if you exercise regularly.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Firstly, there is a difference in overweight and obese. It's pretty easy to be a few lbs overweight and remain healthy if you exercise regularly.
Of course. There is a very big range of healthy. It's individual.0 -
Have read a couple of articles on this.
The big gaps:
- no adjustment for lifestyle factors such as smoking (where the smoking population has a lower average BMI than the remainder of the population, combined with a higher mortality rate)
- no adjustment for weight loss caused by serious illness (people wasting away & dying; low body weight and high mortality rate).
The serious illness is of particular significance - unexpected / unintentional weight loss is a really significant market to physicians.
You rock up to your doctor and say 'I've unexpectedly lost 10kg / 25lb in the past 3 weeks' and they're going to put you straight into hospital.
............................
The studies reminded me of a story / exercise from my Statistics class way back in the day.
When helmets became widely issued to infantrymen in the first world war, the rate and number of head injuries increased significantly.
The above statement is completely true, factually correct, backed up by statistics.
So...how? Why do soldiers still wear helmets? Why would you want to increase the rate of head injury in soldiers?
Simple....helmets save lives. While the head-related injury rate increased, more people survived, albeit with head injuries.
In other words - don't look at data in isolation as it may lead you to the wrong assumptions!16 -
A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.6
-
Is this anything to do with the whole early man eating as much as they could get hold of during times of food being plentiful to compensate for famines and thus being able to survive on their higher body fat levels thing?0
-
Pinkylee77 wrote: »A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.
I absolutely agree with this one. Have seen it happen many times.0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.
I absolutely agree with this one. Have seen it happen many times.
Yes, but that's the difference between underweight and normal weight. When an older person is above normal weight, and possibly even high normal they often start to have problems with mobility. When they move less, that is when there's a greater chance to develop health issues in the first place.0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.
I absolutely agree with this one. Have seen it happen many times.
Yes, but that's the difference between underweight and normal weight. When an older person is above normal weight, and possibly even high normal they often start to have problems with mobility. When they move less, that is when there's a greater chance to develop health issues in the first place.
Maintaining activity is so important.0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.
I absolutely agree with this one. Have seen it happen many times.
Yes, but that's the difference between underweight and normal weight. When an older person is above normal weight, and possibly even high normal they often start to have problems with mobility. When they move less, that is when there's a greater chance to develop health issues in the first place.
Even normal weight patients often don't have reserves to deal with a sustained illness. We are not talking about obese who can't move. All too often even normal weight elderly have mobility issues. But yes staying active is important.0 -
Generally speaking,bryanliang7 wrote: »Recently, several news sites (Quartz, Times, etc.) have reported on this study that pointed out overweight people have a longer life expectancy than people with normal BMI, with the account of elevated heart disease/diabetes risk caused by excess fat.
This 'obesity paradox' has been reported before, but with the whole fat acceptance movement, discussion and debate have become more frequent. Is this change in stance detrimental to fighting the obesity epidemic?
I doubt it. I think the people that use this type of info to justify obesity are the ones least likely to change based solely on information from studies.
PS
BMI is stupid for assessing individuals.
0 -
Pinkylee77 wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »A factor that people working in the medical field has seen is a little extra weight provides the reserves when the older person develops a serious illness such as pneumonia or major infection and is hospitalized. The very thin older person does not have the reserves to sustain them through an illness.
I absolutely agree with this one. Have seen it happen many times.
Yes, but that's the difference between underweight and normal weight. When an older person is above normal weight, and possibly even high normal they often start to have problems with mobility. When they move less, that is when there's a greater chance to develop health issues in the first place.
Even normal weight patients often don't have reserves to deal with a sustained illness. We are not talking about obese who can't move. All too often even normal weight elderly have mobility issues. But yes staying active is important.
Which are often improved by staying at a lower, but still healthy, weight.
Sustained illness once you get to a certain age is going to be a major issue whether or not you have reserves to deal with it. I do agree that if two people were equally fit and healthy to start, then the slightly overweight one might have a better chance.0 -
rrowdiness wrote: »Have read a couple of articles on this.
The big gaps:
- no adjustment for lifestyle factors such as smoking (where the smoking population has a lower average BMI than the remainder of the population, combined with a higher mortality rate)
I can't find the article now, but this was what I read as well. The old study that claimed to show this did not separate out underweight and healthy weight non-smokers. So people who are slightly overweight but don't smoke are healthier than healthy weight and underweight smokers. But once you remove the smokers, being overweight is not healthier.
Here's an up to date (sort of) study on disproving this myth:
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1864462&_ga=1.87697435.2087464074.1460756204#tab1Compared with metabolically-healthy normal-weight people, metabolically-healthy obese people were at significantly greater risk for death and cardiovascular events, which affirms the notion that obesity portends an adverse long-term prognosis irrespective of the presence or absence of concomitant metabolic abnormalities.Obesity adversely affects almost all physiological homeostatic mechanisms, and its presence is associated with both cardiac and many noncardiometabolic disorders, including malignancy, infection, infertility, joint disease, depression, and cognitive decline.Although the analysis by Chang et al. (6) failed to uncover a significantly greater burden of subclinical atherosclerotic disease in the overweight compared with normal-weight people, the meta-analysis by Kramer et al. (7) clearly demonstrated a significant association between being overweight and cardiovascular events. Given that overweight people are at heightened risk for evolving into an obese state, interventions that target the overweight population are equally critical.0 -
Remember there is a difference in obesity and over weight3
-
all i know is when i weighed 400lbs i was in terrible shape now im 282 and still loosing feel great and lots of heath issues are gone so idc about any charts, studies, or crazy ideas5
-
Pinkylee77 wrote: »Remember there is a difference in obesity and over weight
I know there's a difference between obesity and overweight, but the used term for this phenomenon is called the "obesity paradox". Sorry it's not the "overweight paradox", I didn't come up with it.0 -
As one article pointed out there are factors we just do not know about yet perhaps.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Firstly, there is a difference in overweight and obese. It's pretty easy to be a few lbs overweight and remain healthy if you exercise regularly.
I bet dollars to donuts every person with a squat booty at my gym is in the overweight BMI category. They look trim but technically tip the scales.2 -
i'm betting the "overweight" category they're referring to is people 5 or 10 lbs over normal weight parameters, not 50+. I'm betting too, those people work on fitness and good nutrition. I could see a person on the heavier end of normal, or plus a few lbs, who exercises, possibly having health benefits. I also bet the term "obesity paradox" is an attention-getter, and they really do mean "overweight by a few lbs, but otherwise healthy and active".0
-
Things to remember:
A max BMI of 27 used to be considered in the healthy weight range - it was lowered to 25 in the 90s.
The chart was used by insurance companies to divide up their policy holders and charge appropriately.
Using population statistics is different from an individual. Keys - the guy who wrote a paper on using BMI for population studies - never wanted it to be used for individuals.
When an overweight or obese person comes into a doctor's office with high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart problems - they're told to change their lifestyle (obvious first line of attack) - easy identified cause. When a thin/healthy person is in the same situation - and diet isn't the (obvious) cause, then it falls to genetics - maybe not so much can be done.
Muscle mass. Muscles are good for you. Thin people tend to have less muscle.
Fat can protect you during bad diseases. If you've got an illness (I'm thinking pneumonia)... having a bit of energy stored up can help you survive.
Isn't there a movement to use waist measurements instead of BMI? I thought they were supposed to be more accurate at predicting longevity (for population and individuals).
3 -
Vetticus_3 wrote: »Things to remember:
A max BMI of 27 used to be considered in the healthy weight range - it was lowered to 25 in the 90s.
The chart was used by insurance companies to divide up their policy holders and charge appropriately.
Using population statistics is different from an individual. Keys - the guy who wrote a paper on using BMI for population studies - never wanted it to be used for individuals.
When an overweight or obese person comes into a doctor's office with high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart problems - they're told to change their lifestyle (obvious first line of attack) - easy identified cause. When a thin/healthy person is in the same situation - and diet isn't the (obvious) cause, then it falls to genetics - maybe not so much can be done.
Muscle mass. Muscles are good for you. Thin people tend to have less muscle.
Fat can protect you during bad diseases. If you've got an illness (I'm thinking pneumonia)... having a bit of energy stored up can help you survive.
Isn't there a movement to use waist measurements instead of BMI? I thought they were supposed to be more accurate at predicting longevity (for population and individuals).
Exactly !!!!!!!!! The BMI chart does not account for age. At almost 60 it is impossible and not healthy to weigh what I did at 21. My weight lifter son by the BMI chart is overweight but he is strong and fit!0 -
Pinkylee77 wrote: »Vetticus_3 wrote: »Things to remember:
A max BMI of 27 used to be considered in the healthy weight range - it was lowered to 25 in the 90s.
The chart was used by insurance companies to divide up their policy holders and charge appropriately.
Using population statistics is different from an individual. Keys - the guy who wrote a paper on using BMI for population studies - never wanted it to be used for individuals.
When an overweight or obese person comes into a doctor's office with high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart problems - they're told to change their lifestyle (obvious first line of attack) - easy identified cause. When a thin/healthy person is in the same situation - and diet isn't the (obvious) cause, then it falls to genetics - maybe not so much can be done.
Muscle mass. Muscles are good for you. Thin people tend to have less muscle.
Fat can protect you during bad diseases. If you've got an illness (I'm thinking pneumonia)... having a bit of energy stored up can help you survive.
Isn't there a movement to use waist measurements instead of BMI? I thought they were supposed to be more accurate at predicting longevity (for population and individuals).
Exactly !!!!!!!!! The BMI chart does not account for age. At almost 60 it is impossible and not healthy to weigh what I did at 21. My weight lifter son by the BMI chart is overweight but he is strong and fit!
It does, actually. There's an official sliding scale of BMI underweight/normal/overweight/obese thresholds adjusted for age. See cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html1 -
Yes, I tried to make this fact known here on mfp a couple of years ago and got totally blastd for it.
Also, I would rather be in the oveweight category than the low normal category if an ebola pandemic took place!
1 -
My hair game was tight when I was fat. I had long, shiny, luscious locks and my nails grew fast and my skin was glowy. That was the only benefit I saw/felt.0
-
Alluminati wrote: »My hair game was tight when I was fat. I had long, shiny, luscious locks and my nails grew fast and my skin was glowy. That was the only benefit I saw/felt.
Are you saying this is not the case eating your current macro?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions