Gaaaa. No need to have that photo. That thing is not merely fat, that is obesity.
On a serious note, while there probably is some causation between being overweight (and taxing your organs) and death, the whole thing seems to me to have been manipulated by the nanny-staters who want to use the "Americans are too fat and costing us precious medical dollars" meme to regulate us.
I wonder if it is possible to do a study contrasting people who eat too much (and are overweight) because they are happy and love food with people who eat too much because they're depressed or unhappy. There are studies out there saying happier people live longer, but do they control for weight?

Forget about fat kills, it isn't the dying from being obese that's necessarily the biggest problem; it's the awfulness of living in an obese body. I've never been as obese as captain potato chip up there, but I've been overweight and now I'm relatively fit and active. It took a good bit of determination as well as some time, but the difference in the way it feels is incomparable. I'll never go back to my old habits, regardless of any study. Fuck the twinkies.

Right, bingo. And that lack of mental and physical well-being is your body's way of saying, "dude, lose some weight. Stuff ain't working right." And when you study a good deal of health and medicine, it's remarkable how so much of it all ties together ...

I admit to having the snarky reaction you described when I first read the articles about this. In fact I was briefly furious when I read that the CDC did not intend to change their plans to fight obesity based on those numbers. In other words, I figured they invented a program (with the $$$ spent) based on faulty numbers, and now they aren't going to pull it?

But the truth is upon a more careful reading I was less concerned. What the articles don't make clear enough IMO is the distinction between being overweight and being obese. This newest study confirmed the dangers of obesity (as in severely overweight), only contradicted the dangers of being "just" overweight.

With that said, it still seems sensible to continue to campaign against obesity---at least to the extent that you believe the government ought to be playing mommy.

Right, it's all about context. My 101yo grandmother died this week. She was from Oklahoma, & ate fatty food all her life: bacon & eggs for breakfast, fried chicken/fried okra/fried anything. She was hefty, but never obese. Well into her 90s her favorite meals were grease bombs like Long John Silvers & KFC. Sadly, she didn't pass on her cast-iron stomach to any of us

Um. Just who is Captain Potato Chip, anyways?

Who? The picture? That's me.

Nuh-uh. I had you pegged for a Lay's kinda guy.

;)

I'd say the guy in the pic is aiming for what's known as man-pretty. With breasts.

Right, Bill. To think that the mind and the body can opperate completely separate is ludicrus. Although, in rbj's example, the mental state was a cause of the eating, and was the cause of the effects. The eating is not causing the depression. Although...getting fit IS a good way to help with that problem.

Bill - the Update: More url you have doesn't work (I updated the post which screws up a blogspot url). the correct link is this. Sorry!

There is no "epidemic of obesity," and there never has been. I blogged on this more than three years ago:

In 1998, the U.S. Government changed the standards by which body mass index is measured. As a result, close to 30 million Americans were shifted from a government-approved weight to the overweight and obese category, without gaining an ounce, Burrita said.

If you run the numbers correctly, obesity may have been decreasing over the past several years.

Bill Q,

I'm sorry, but while I'm not shooting down your premise that the govt played a "shell game" with the numbers, I do have to point out that your post sort of repeats the cardinal sin of using the general concepts of "obesity" and "body mass index" interchangeably. Because while you correctly criticize the govt. for changing the standards by which being "overweight" is defined, you prematurely come to the conclusion the "there is no obesity epidemic."

Why premature? Because as one of your excerpts implies, being "overweight" is not analogous to being "fat." Thus, in order to really state that "there is no obesity epidemic," you would have to provide statistics from studies that specifically look at actual obesity, not the bullshit BMI.

And more specifically, macro measures of central adiposity (and concommittant diabetes and heart disease) would be the real deal in macro analysis of what the modern, abundant American diet is doing to general health. Trust me, in smaller scope, specific studies, it ain't generally pretty.

Large studies of the lifespans and habits Okinawans and "the French paradox" are a good (extreme continuum) place to start googling when you want to compare dietary influences on longevity and health. The benefits of eating healthy and having the information available to make such a choice - from a libertarian perspective - have stunning implications for our society, especially with an older demographic shift enabled with modern medical interventions. Thus - my admonition not to fight the stern health-lifestyle warnings.

Feel free to box the govt's ears and take numerical proclamations (oversimplified by the media) with a shaker of salt, but don't conflate this with fighting accurate information that correctly states that a modern diet is atrocious for your health.

Trust me, it ain't generally pretty.

Well, since I don't even trust myself half the time, could you provide a cite or two to back up your arguments about the fatty epidemic, or whatever you think it is, pretty or not?

I showed you mine.

Also, your entire argument that BMI and obesity aren't correlated sort of collapses in the face of the fact that obesity is officially defined by the AMA as being a function of the BMI. See this: JAMA -- Table of Contents (Vol. 282 No. 16, October 27, 1999)

Bill,

Carefully note my weasel words - I'm not stating that there IS a fat epidemic (though the daily evidence in front of mine own two eyes intuitively suggests it, that's useless from a scientific perspective), I'm merely stating that your post - while correctly pointing out the govt's folly with BMI and mucking with the definitions - also does not have the citation-juice to state that there is NOT an "obesity" epidemic.

And when I specifically refer to "trust me it ain't pretty," I am referring to specific, narrowly-focused studies on the universal effects of being a fat-ass ... which can reasonably theorized to have large implications for public health. Some of the zillions of resource cites available for perusal to back up my assertion can be found by the search string highlighted in the third of the three links in the above post.

In the meantime, I'll dig up a cite on rising type two diabetes (which off the top of my head I'm certain exists), a major environmental disease tied to a modern diet that puts the body's insulin pathways through the effing ringer. Stay tuned.

Bill Q -

Care to direct me specifically to the portion of that page that you reference that asserts that "obesity is officially defined by the AMA as being a function of the BMI?"

As far as your aggressive language about my argument "collapsing," I'd riposte that why exactly do you inherently trust an AMA definition of obesity that references BMI as being more trustworthy than any iffy govt. definitions that use the same methodology? Any AMA mentioned definition of BMI which implies that "obesity" is a fundamental part of the BMI equation (such instances may exist, but I'm not finding them apparent from the page that you provide) is WRONG. Dead wrong. BMI is an overly simplistic measure that has been used to buttress overly general, large-scale junk science.

Here is the specific definition of BMI: "WEIGHT(kg) / HEIGHT(m)2 (Weight in kilograms divided by the square of your height in meters). "

There is no variable listed for actual "fat," only "weight." Traditional BMI measures don't even take into account the size of a person'a frame. Any implication about obesity from BMI is a misleading implication. And according to craptacular BMI measures, Hulk Hogan is morbidly, morbidly, morbidly obese. Be careful about throwing political punches in an argument about science. Your instincts of mistrust of govt proclamations are right, but it's easy to draw overly general and aggressive conclusions in the "opposite" direction.

Here are some random, cursory refs to rising Type II diabetes, an environmental illness dependent on diet and physical activity.

From 1963 to 1970, about 4.5 percent of children were overweight. From 1999 to 2002, the number had increased to 16 percent, and continues to rise.

In 1985, experts estimated that about 1 to 2 percent of children with diabetes had Type 2. By 1995, the number stood at about 17 percent. More recently, in some areas of the country, 30 to 40 percent of children with diabetes now have Type 2.

While the above reference certainly uses BMI to delineate "overweight," the significance of the rising Type 2 diabetes rates as a portion of total diabetes cases is important because Type 1 is considered genetic, whereas type 2 is generally considered environmental - especially when kids are now getting it, and it used to be a disease reserved for adults over 45. The body's insulin pathways are being worn out early by crappy diet and inactivity.

And one other distinction: I'm down on BMI, because it's a very non-specific measure for "obesity" (again, it's just "weight") that would fail to account for a large uptick in more average muscle development via exercise, but it's not entirely unfair for researchers to make some implications via BMI. Just somewhat unfair. It's a bad measure.

http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/4881.html

http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/type_two_diabetes_rising_among_youth.htm

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7283/377

http://www.idf.org/home/index.cfm?node=204

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say, to to even suspect the CDC would sandbag its numbers... especially in light of the razor-edge accuracy with which they report their gun violence statistics.

Two things.
Boy, am I glad you don’t pile into every TCS article like that. Whew.

Two, when you say "central adiposity" do you mean fat around the waist? Certainly, on this side of the pond it is generally assumed (almost folk wisdom) that a thick (ie fat) waistline is a much greater health problem than, say, thick thighs or a fat ass.

when you say "central adiposity" do you mean fat around the waist?

Exactly. Fat that surrouunds the midsection is metabolically different (in a negative way) from other deposits of fat.

"Overweight and fat distribution are useful predictors of premature mortality and the risks of heart disease, hypertension, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease and some cancers. However, if body fat per se were the major risk factor associated with premature mortality, obese women might be expected to have shorter life expectancies than obese men. This is generally not the case, and it is now recognized that it is fat distribution, especially an increase in abdominal and visceral fat, that is a predictor of the health risk related to obesity. For example, weight gain of less than 5 kg in women during adult life may carry little extra risk, particularly if the added weight is located in the femoral region. For most men, any weight gain after the age of 20 years increases risk because this fat is usually deposited as abdominal and visceral fat."

I'm not closely vetting these sources (random googles), but that's good description.

A couple things....first, why is it there can never be a discussion about weight without name calling..(captain potato chip, fat ass..etc,etc..) I found this site from someone elses blog who wanted to know "what the thing in the picture was".
Second, beyond someone justifying their job or budget this whole thing is pointless. Whether being obese or overweight,(the public doesn't make that distinction, a fat person isn't more likely to be persueded to lose the weight by telling them yet another reason they'll die sooner.

1. A couple things....first, why is it there can never be a discussion about weight without name calling..

I dunno. I posted the pic because the guy is both morbidly obese and hysterical. I mean, he's smiling like a goofball whilst opening a bag of chips with elbow length formal gloves, ferrchrissakes.

2. Second, beyond someone justifying their job or budget this whole thing is pointless. Whether being obese or overweight,(the public doesn't make that distinction, a fat person isn't more likely to be persueded to lose the weight by telling them yet another reason they'll die sooner.

Pointless? Cautioning about health risks is pointless? I think you've got some sort of strange axe to grind on this one.

While your first point stands on good ground, please, do praytell - if a fat person won't lose weight to avoid ridicule, and they won't lose weight because they're told how being obese WILL KILL THEM, then what exactly is the proper motivation?

A hug?

Pointing out the lethality of cigarettes seems to have done wonders to stamp out smoking. So what's the key to making the effective point teaching folks that regular bags of potato chips will do them in as surely as smoking cigs ... how do we get fat folks with poor eating habits to eat healthier and move more?

Many folks are fat because of powerful genetic predisposition. Many, many, many more are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise. I do not believe that this is something that we should all just warmly accept, especially when I have to pay into a reactionary healthcare system that's keeping a bunch of morbidly obese houses of hypertension, chronic inflammation and type 2 diabetes alive with exorbidantly expensive medical interventions.

The point being, it's overkill, if the person won't lose the weight for one reason, what makes you think they're more likely to lose it if you pile on ten more?
I'm in my 40's and I haven't seen a noticable decrease in smokers, merely a bunch of laws prohibiting where you can do it. Tobacco products have been taxed up the ying yang, everyone knows tobacco kills yet people still do it, or start doing it knowing it's health risks. Ironically some do it as a defense against weight gain.

"I do not believe that this is something that we should all just warmly accept, especially when I have to pay into a reactionary healthcare system"

I don't like my medical costs going up because of alchohol consumption or smoking.
The solution? Possibly making sure kids remain active from the get go instead of vegging out on the computer, x-box or tv.
Or maybe,despite knowing the risks, people get fat or remain fat then what is at play is not just laziness or gluttony. More likely addiction, sugar, caffine, saturated fats,or depression.

My own ax to grind? Can you honestly think of one other group of people whom others take so much delight in creating new insulting nicknames? If ridicule worked then there wouldn't be any fat people.

Opus -

1. The point being, it's overkill, if the person won't lose the weight for one reason, what makes you think they're more likely to lose it if you pile on ten more?

Right, because more medical information is just pointless, right? I'm sorry, but this is pretty ridiculous logic. The fact is, most people hae NO CLUE how the body reacts to various components of a modern diet, because hey, it's just food, right?

As for this ...

I'm in my 40's and I haven't seen a noticable decrease in smokers, merely a bunch of laws prohibiting where you can do it.

How about you note this:

An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged ³18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997, with the rate for men (27.6%) higher than for women (22.1%) (Figure 2). The percentage of adults who never smoked increased from 44% in the mid-1960s to 55% in 1997.

Reductions in smoking result from many factors, including scientific evidence of the relation among disease, tobacco use, and environmental exposure to tobacco; dissemination of this information to the public; surveillance and evaluation of prevention and cessation programs; campaigns by advocates for nonsmokers’ rights; restrictions on cigarette advertising; counteradvertising; policy changes (ie, enforcement of minors’ access laws, legislation restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation); improvements in treatment and prevention programs; and an increased understanding of the economic costs of tobacco.

But you know, I'm sure that pointing out that smoking KILLS YOU IN A THOUSAND WAYS, over and over again, has little to do with the decrease.

My own ax to grind? Can you honestly think of one other group of people whom others take so much delight in creating new insulting nicknames? If ridicule worked then there wouldn't be any fat people.

Yes, I can think of other groups.

But more to the point, you seem to be positing that I'm arging FOR ridicule? Where do you get that idea? I said that you had an axe to grind because you are bizarrely arguing against pointing out the myriad of deleterious health consequences from being fat, many of which are being newly discovered and associated with obesity, like extra cancer risk.

That's what's bizarre, someone like you forecfully arguing in a blog comments section for IGNORANCE - that educating people about how obesity is a comprehensive killer is a bad or pointless exercise. Which might infer that you either cherish ignorance or obesity. Or potato chips.

If you dislike health information or medical writing, then ignore it. Because otherwise, advocating against that gosh durned annoying book learnin' just seems a bit dumb.

Yes it is pointless, if telling them being fat is really bad for them, then telling them it is REALLY REALLY bad for them is going to make a difference?
If their lifestyle and eating habits were controled by any type of logic, only the first warning would be necessary. Yes the medical profession should know the intricate details of what obesity does, but the average patient either doesn't care, or doesn't pay attention to it. Which accounts for doctors frustration with obese patients.

Smoking/tobacco use...good numbers, I hope they're accurate, but I see the same number of smokers that I did 20 years ago.

Please point out that group that is more ridiculed or that people take more delight in giving insulting nicknames.

I'm not arguing for ignorance, I'm arguing that it's a wasted tactic. That instead of dealing with WHY they are eating so much, or not exercising we throw facts at them which accomplishes nothing. If it did we wouldn't have fat people.

1. I'm not running a public health service, though I agree that public health authorities should take every chance to provide the public with accurate information about nutrition and substances and states of beings that are bad for the public, so that the market may act on complete, correct information.

2. I'd venture to say that most people have no clue that being fat ups their chances for certain types of cancer, for example. This changes the perception of risk.

3. As a non-obese individual, my obtention of information on how the human body works, in relation to what I eat, has drastically changed the way I normally eat. It has also sickened me to the average American diet, and it strikes me that most individuals have no clue about the VAST differences between different widely available foods.

This isn't just a matter of making the "right choices," as about 90% of the public does not have ENOUGH information to make all the right choices, trust me. Most of the crap sitting on shelves in a grocery store isn't exactly good for you.

A slight example - soda is a public health risk that's probably been partially responsible for the wave of type 2 diabetes in 9 YEAR OLDS. Soda should not be served in schools. Neither should chocolate milk. Poor or lazy people that buy canned vegetables instead of fresh produce have NO IDEA that the food that they buy has lost almost all the vitamins typically found in veggies. Might as well chew sand.

4. Smoking/tobacco use...good numbers, I hope they're accurate, but I see the same number of smokers that I did 20 years ago.

Those numbers are accurate.

5. Please point out that group that is more ridiculed or that people take more delight in giving insulting nicknames.

Short people, stupid people, white, southern people. Formerly, minorites. We've all got our crosses to bear, waa.

6. I'm not arguing for ignorance, I'm arguing that it's a wasted tactic.

Right, facts are a "wasted tactic." Damn book learnin' ain't got nothin' on the taste of a twinkie. But it did with me? And as with smoking, it does with many other people as well. We're not all mindless, pleasure-hoarding animals, immune to education.

7. That instead of dealing with WHY they are eating so much, or not exercising we throw facts at them which accomplishes nothing. If it did we wouldn't have fat people.

Ah, why is that? The taste of food? To counteract depression or gaping holes in one's life? the food industry's addition of addictive additives? Combating these reasons that people eat too much is too multifactorial and damn near impossible, and some tactics smack of nanny-statism - and I'd doubt that you could even give me a detailed and common-sense exposition of what the other factors even are, or how to specifically address them.

Instead, you just criticize giving out information as "useless." So in short, I think you're full of crap, criticizing public health information because you're either busting my balls with selective argumentation, because you want to be left alone, because you cherish ignorance, or because you're fat and would like to stay that way without being hassled with pesky "facts" about vegetables, insulin pathways and diabetes. Not knowing you, I have no idea.

But I do know that your argumentation ("I haven't seen less people smoking" - well that's some great statistical observation) is unconvincing, to say the least, and until you can come up with some better debating points, I think we're at an impasse.

Don't fool yourself, you ARE arguing for ignorance.

You're right you are done, you've pitifully failed in disguising your own bigotry against the obese. In lieu of dealing with reality on how to handle problems with fat people you're own prejudice won't allow you to see beyond your own narrow minded vision.
You claim to not support ridiculing fat people, yet don't hesitate in attempting to weild it as a weapon in saying I MUST be fat. You post a picture of a fat guy partially dressed in women's clothing with a bag of chips and then discuss BMI data? Sure, no prejudice there, right? I'm sure when serious discussions are going to be had about dwarfism they use pictures of munchkins.
Since you like facts and stats so much may I suggest you delve into the studies done about anti-fat bias in the medical profession as well as with the general public.
You're a bigot, deal with it.

Just curious, Bill. Did you happen to see the full-page ad on page A16 of today's Post?

No?

Considering the limitations of comment systems, I'll reproduce this as best I can.

The first six lines are in various fonts of about 72pts:

-----

Obesity:

"Epidemic" (crossed out)

"Problem" (crossed out)

"Threat" {crossed out)

"Issue" (crossed out)

"Hype"

Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the "food police," trial lawyers, and even our own government."

Learn the truth about obesity at:

ConsumerFreedom.com

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense.

-----

Just thought I'd let you know.

Lying lobbysists.