AS a result of histerectomy, which is frequently performed as a part of therapy of breast cancer, a lot of women will put on weight. My mother put on over 100 pounds in 2 years, and I ahve seen examples of similar range.

I have been berated on more than one online forum for daring to suggest any of the things you mentioned in the post and backing up my claims with references to the same/like studies. One woman claimed to be a nurse and said she would *never* believe that a fat person could be healthy “no matter how much evidence” I presented - she saw fat people in her hospital and dammit, they were there because they were fat and it was all their fault. It kind of worries me when people who supposedly have scientific training refuse to even *consider the possibility* that fat might not equal certain early death when shown the results of quality studies.

Another board was for crafters, and they had a “dieting support” section on the board. I didn’t read it except once I saw a post entitled “Dieting tips that DO work!” and it was full of the usual fibs like drinking water will reduce your appetite and so on. I replied with a note that I was a proponent of Health At Any Size and didn’t believe dieting was healthy, but that if you were going to try you might as well be familiar with some basic biology, even put in spoiler space (!), and then (gently, not troll-ly) refuted the tips with stuff that is readily available for all to see in any Human Nutrition & Physiology 101 textbook…and man, were people angry. I must have been lying because these weight loss tips came from “leading bariatric clinics” and I was just jealous and angry because I was fat and unsucessful at dieting, and so on. The level of freaking out from people was, well, freaky. It certainly was a lesson in how ingrained is the idea that FAT IS BAD THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE POSSIBLE both from the medical and moral beliefs held by people.

The amount of time and energy and money spent by (mostly) women on the quest to be thin is such a waste. A friend of mine was “encouraged” to come along to Weight Watchers meetings with a group of coworkers. She said no, but she will instead spend the $30/month or whatever it is on sponsoring a child in a developing country. Blank looks and confusion all around from the coworkers. (OK, I’m getting into what could be dodgy moral comparisons and stuff here, but you get the idea.)

I know quite a few 400-pound-plus folk (and am married to one who weighed 370 until quite recently), and they all have weight-related problems with their joints, as well as their blood pressure. Of course, exercise would help lower both the BP and the load on their bones and ligaments, but with their joints degenerating, exercise is difficult — which of course means they get fatter, which puts even more of a load of their joints and their circulatory system. (My spouse was lucky enough to start a moderate exercise program and go on meds before he collapsed from a stroke; he can now do thirty minutes a day on the bike, but he’s still so heavy that even with gloves and ergonomic grips, his hands get numb after that point.)

As Professor John Brignell writes:

For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2. [...]

“In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” [Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.]

But when it comes to the search for evidence that obesity is deadly, the ordinary caution used when interpreting risk ratios is forgotten, and risk ratios of less than 2 are treated as irrefutable proof that being fat is deadly.

so this biological entity or whatever the brain doesn’t operate on this plus that = this no matter what the circumstances, doesn’t work in the body.

so calories in/ calorie out doesn’t work that way, you cannot force the body to use up it’s reserves by restricting food or eating less than the body demands, the body of most obese person’s and moderate overweights or shall I say over fat rebels against anything that is a survival threat.

second if you weigh 200 pounds and it is some fat and muscles and it is hard on teh body and slows you down why would 200 pounds of mostly muscles weight be any easier on the body? I mean weight is weight regardless if you are carrying a 100 pound backpack or 100 pounds of muscles, and most obese people are not all fat, they develope alot of muscles (if they aren’t dieting or restricting caloires) just to carry the weight around.

I know my doctor is amazed at my muscles and yet I still have alot of fat, and you know something funny, no matter what I do I have high bp very high stage 3 no matter when I weighed 160 pounds or 250 pounds over the years, and I ran, and ate well, seldom indulged in junk food except when recovering from a famine.

I have to take medications to get it down, of course they slow me down furthur but it is better than dying of hbp.

and I don’t know why people think fat is hard on the heart (except for the obvious of movement with the weight) because fat takes very little energy or blood flow to maintain whereas muscles require alot of energy and blood flow to maintain. fat is actual light and bulky, only 10 percent water, while muscles contain 90 percent and water is very heavy, I mean when I wasn’t being treated for my condition I could urinate enough water in 24 hour period to lose 10 pounds, I mean water is heavy.

I would think alot of muscles would be harder on the heart even in exercise due to high o2 and fuel needs of the muscles and the heart has to supply it. but his is just my opinion not physiology or anything just something I wonder about.

so is it the fat or just the weight period that is hard on the heart and other organs? or is it something else like junky diets or low nutrition and to much stress on people or whatever?

also the studies about reducing caloires increasing life span is inconclusive, you would have to follow people on a 1500 caloire or 1800 caloire diet for their whole life to see if they live to a ripe old or to see if they die of malnutrition (starvation) before then. but you don’t really need that since people in this country always are on some reduced caloire diet one time or another each year, just follow weight watchers for a while and see what you get or jenny craig .

note who goes, how much weight they lose what their health parmeters aer before during and after and follow them for about 20 years and see how their health goes, and along with that follow those who do nto diet and refuse to and note health parameters and then follow them for 20 years as a control group.

those who exercise, those who do not, that sorta thing, you cannot follow a rat starve it and see it live a month or two longer than most rats and then decide that a reduced diet lengthens life, when in reality it may for rats who are probably miserbly hungry and passive due to starvation.

anyone knows you can slow your heart rate down by semi starvation and slow metabolism and lengthen life in the short term, but in the long term it leads to body’s cannabalism of it’s own tissues to make up the caloiric deficit. you can follow moderate aneroxics (who do eat some food everyday) and see how long they live and what their quality of life is and their health status from year to year.

I mean there aer so many ways to test semi starvation diets without alot of expense since many (millions) voluntarily undertake such a life and pay for it (weight watchers, jenny craige etc) for the privilege of starving themselves or enduring a famine,

I mean we can cite studies and tests, but the real test is in human suffering (for the sake of appearances). just ask all those people who are overweight, or thin due to famines. they can tell you how much suffering there is in maintaining thinness or trying to get there and they can tell you all their health problems too that go with it.

RR

Just because researchers can’t pinpoint exactly how much life you’re losing (not to mention the unquantifiable quality of life) by being overweight,

Quite obviously Mike has never been chubby-loved, and honey… you ain’t been loved ’til you been chubby-loved.

Instead of overweight people continually posting on multiple enabling boards every day, take that time to be active. Go on a walk, garden, do anything other than sit passively and inactively in front of a keyboard. Already active, you say? Good for you, now be active in the time you normally spend sitting at your computer commiserating about how mean the world is to you.

Neither you nor anyone you have ever met is immune to the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight; if you consume fewer, you lose weight. Be a little more active without upping your food intake, and you’ll lose weight. There’s nothing mystical or insurmountable preventing you from doing this. All it requires is a little bit of willpower. You either have it or you don’t. If you don’t, then continue posting on this and other sites about how unfair the world is and how it’s not your fault at all. Enjoy!

Summary: What’s been said here already — a risk ratio of 1.5 can definitely be significant if the sample size is large. But also, an interesting history of how Philip Morris used a front organization to push the idea that a risk ratio of less than two can be ignored.

I love the research and reasoning you bring to the blogosphere. Keep up the good work.