It was written: ...The other problem is using BMI as a measure. Someone could have a higher BMI but still have a low body fat content (someone who lifts weights for instance).... --------------------------- I don't have a problem with using BMI. On average it is a pretty good measure and we, as psychologists, are quite accustomed to nomothetic data. The athletes among us, for whom that much muscle mass makes a difference, are a small percentage. For the vast majority of us who fall under the normal curve, BMI is a good measure.
However, I agree that the article is problematic. It primarily seems to conclude causality from correlation. This final sentence in the abstract seems to be most meaningful to me: "Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality. Grade 1 obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. The use of predefined standard BMI groupings can facilitate between-study comparisons." Bottom line as I read this through my own biased lenses: being overweight predicts greater longevity (without any statement of quality of life); obesity (except for mild--grade 1) does NOT. Having a little extra weight might be a good protective mechanism to get a person over health crises. Having a lot of extra weight does not help and probably hinders. My issue with the entire issue is that we now have the ability to "treat" high blood pressure, hypercholesterolemia, type II diabetes, and keep people alive much longer than they would otherwise live with obesity. Without all the medications to "treat" their own overeating-induced diseases, most morbidly obese people would die off. Medicalization results in a much larger number of obese people living fairly normal life spans but being unable to work until full social security age and becoming a medical and financial drain on the country's economy via high medical costs and the need for financial subsidy (early social security secondary to illness), due to their own doing. Almost everyone who needs to, can lose weight. In addition, the quality of life of these individuals is diminished by their constant and on-going health problems. Yes, all of this comes from a reformed foodie--having lost 80 pounds and keeping it off--once I was on two blood pressure pills, two statins for hyperlipidemia in general, and just getting started on meds to reduce high blood sugar (read that as obesity-induced type II diabetes). The blood sugar levels finally woke me up to the dangers and diminished life style choices I had. I can now exercise normally to keep my muscles and body fit and stay mobile for longer and have a better quality of life as a result, I no longer take any of these meds except for one statin (which are I argue vigorously about with my MD. I also hope to live long enough for my very tardy children to produce grandchildren that I can spoil! So there is probably quite a bit of validity to the "somewhat fatter live longer" idea, because they have the "reserves" to get them through an illness. But when you look at the big picture of quality of life and medicalization of "normal" life, and the cost to us as a society, then any article that promotes obesity seems to me to be wrong-minded. But then again, I am a reformed foodie (well, I still LOVE great food, but have learned to eat small portions and enjoy what I have--food is fuel!!) and have these highly biased views. Annette OK, I am off the soap box! Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22698 or send a blank email to leave-22698-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
