This week's circle is at skeptical surfer's blog. Although I think Christian has made an error or two in his evaluation of the latest NHANES studies and what they say about obesity. For one, obesity has always been 30+ BMI, overweight was changed from 27 to 25 by one government agency responsible for surveillance of disease (CDC) to conform with other agencies' metrics. Further as I explained, the NHANES studies are hardly single variable, and don't take into account a change in medical culture towards better secondary prevention of comorbidity in the overweight and obese. It's all good though. I appreciate an honest effort.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Why the Washington Post decided to devote space to libertarian crankery from the Pacific Research Institute, I'll never know, but today's op-ed from Sally Pipes on the evils of governmental interference in diet is a bit much.
The way I see it, obesity cranks recycle 3 arguments over and over. It…
Multiple news sources have been covering this recent article in JAMA (1) which provides epidemiological evidence that being overweight (but not obese) may decrease the risk of some illnesses, while not increasing one's overall mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Given that we've talked about…
In response to the conversation on "Obesity, Evolution and Delayed Gratification" on the main page and Razib's coverage of a fascinating new study on the relationship to the lactase gene and obesity, I thought now would be a good time to write about an important new study that helps define the…
Diet seems to be all over the New York Times this week, with an oversell of the benefits of the Mediterranean diet, and now Mark Bittman, everyone's favorite food scold, declaring sugar is the culprit for rising diabetes. His article is based on this interesting new article in PLoS One and begins…
Thanks for your plug and criticism which, as a skeptic, I welcome. I also have thought about a possible "more sick but better treated" issue. This looks like an easy explanation but it does not really convince me. It would imply that the secondary prevention or treatment progress must work better in the overweight than in the normal-weight, otherwise you cannot explain the shrinking mortality gap. After a heart attack, patients of all weights get the same therapy yet the obese have a better prognosis. Thus, the difference cannot be in the therapy but must be in the patients. Or do you see all the normal-weight heart patients as formerly obese after unintentional weight loss due to serious disease? Anyway, things are not so easy in my view and I am eager to see new study results on this subject.