Yes, because there’s a sudden abundance of overweight people, not underweight people. Epidemic refers to any sudden population increase of a health problem. I don’t think public health people mean it to be stigmitising.
Dieting is dumb though, you’re right about that. At least locally the authorities try to be clear that you’ve got to make a lasting lifestyle change.
There’s no real evidence that there are significant average weight differences between today and 70 years ago. Differences in the proportion of the population of “overweight” people is primarily due to changing the definition of what constitutes overweight.
And being fat isn’t a “disease”, any more than having big feet is.
I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?
Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.
Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.
The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.
You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.
Taller people are heavier. If you’re not adjusting for that your data will be funny. Guess what, if you adjust for that using the square of height you’ve invented raw BMI. The categories are probably arbitrary, but you don’t need them, and a different exponent will generally show the same trajectory if by different magnitudes.
Although come to think of it, the population got taller, so the trend would be even stronger if we weren’t factoring that out.
I’m willing to change my mind too, and I do indeed have a lifetime of exposure to media and experts behind this, although I don’t believe in conspiracy theories which seems to be what you’re suggesting by a certain ideology being pushed.
That’s a fun paper, because they basically find no actual negative health effect, then just ignore that fact and continue as if they did.
First, the global focus on the obesity epidemic has largely overshadowed the persistence of underweight in some countries. Our results show the need to address the remaining underweight problem
Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies, at the population level, the effect of rising BMI on the course of mortality reduction has so far been somewhat small in high-income countries
All the study shows is that as people get richer they can overcome being underweight, which is an incredibly good thing - it reduces health risks significantly. Then it goes back to the usual moral panic shit about how that’s actually a bad thing.
Essentially everything you ever heard about weight and fat is ideological, not scientific, in basis. Research consistently finds results that aren’t statistically significant, then just blathers about how that statistically significant result would exist if they could account for x y z. There’s no scientific basis to the claim.
The basics of it are that extremes on either end, of being underweight or very overweight, are health risks. The health risk of being “overweight” are massively overstated, because people like to judge and bully fat people.
Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies
in the same exact excerpt.
Yes, being poor and starving still sucks. Nobody cares because it happens outside of the magic Western bubble, but that’s another issue for another thread.
I think I’ve proven my point here, so I’ll just duck out.
Yes, because there’s a sudden abundance of overweight people, not underweight people. Epidemic refers to any sudden population increase of a health problem. I don’t think public health people mean it to be stigmitising.
Dieting is dumb though, you’re right about that. At least locally the authorities try to be clear that you’ve got to make a lasting lifestyle change.
There’s no real evidence that there are significant average weight differences between today and 70 years ago. Differences in the proportion of the population of “overweight” people is primarily due to changing the definition of what constitutes overweight.
And being fat isn’t a “disease”, any more than having big feet is.
I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?
Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.
Well then, congratulations, you’ve arrived at a stance you can never be argued out of regardless of it’s truth.
Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.
The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.
You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.
Taller people are heavier. If you’re not adjusting for that your data will be funny. Guess what, if you adjust for that using the square of height you’ve invented raw BMI. The categories are probably arbitrary, but you don’t need them, and a different exponent will generally show the same trajectory if by different magnitudes.
Although come to think of it, the population got taller, so the trend would be even stronger if we weren’t factoring that out.
I’m willing to change my mind too, and I do indeed have a lifetime of exposure to media and experts behind this, although I don’t believe in conspiracy theories which seems to be what you’re suggesting by a certain ideology being pushed.
Here’s the first paper that comes up, using BMI, about the exact breakdown of how it increased: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30054-X/fulltext
That’s a fun paper, because they basically find no actual negative health effect, then just ignore that fact and continue as if they did.
All the study shows is that as people get richer they can overcome being underweight, which is an incredibly good thing - it reduces health risks significantly. Then it goes back to the usual moral panic shit about how that’s actually a bad thing.
Essentially everything you ever heard about weight and fat is ideological, not scientific, in basis. Research consistently finds results that aren’t statistically significant, then just blathers about how that statistically significant result would exist if they could account for x y z. There’s no scientific basis to the claim.
The basics of it are that extremes on either end, of being underweight or very overweight, are health risks. The health risk of being “overweight” are massively overstated, because people like to judge and bully fat people.
I mean, there’s also
in the same exact excerpt.
Yes, being poor and starving still sucks. Nobody cares because it happens outside of the magic Western bubble, but that’s another issue for another thread.
I think I’ve proven my point here, so I’ll just duck out.