Some Extra Heft May Be Helpful, New Study Says - NYT

[Burma Jones]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/health/20fat.html


HA HA HA - Hand me a stick of Butter - European Butter


<snip>
People who are overweight but not obese have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight, federal researchers are reporting today.

The researchers - statisticians and epidemiologists from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - also found that increased risk of death from obesity was seen for the most part in the extremely obese, a group constituting only 8 percent of Americans.

And being very thin, even though the thinness was longstanding and unlikely to stem from disease, caused a slight increase in the risk of death, the researchers said.

The new study, considered by many independent scientists to be the most rigorous yet on the effects of weight, controlled for factors like smoking, age, race and alcohol consumption in a sophisticated analysis derived from a well-known method that has been used to predict cancer risk.

</snip>

[ClintonTyree]

1. And tomorrow there will be a study....

claiming the opposite. Scientists (as politicians) can manipulate data to prove just about anything. It all depends who's paying them.

My outlook; if you're happy with yourself, no matter what condition you're in, then don't change. Trying to keep up with every fad diet, plastic surgery, what brand of beer you drink, what car you drive....is all an illusion created by Madison Avenue to keep people's dollars rolling in.

Everyone's going to die someday. You may as well live your life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you're not a burden on others.

[Burma Jones]

3. I think this study supports what you're saying

The study also seems to be one of the most legitimate examinations of this issue. So, I give this one much more credence than others...

[Lindacooks]

5. The scientists I have known have better morals than that.

They don't change results of studies 'depending on who's paying them'. There probably are some scientists who do that, but NOT the majority.

[enki23]

6. unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple

there are all sorts of ways corporate (and other non-public) funding distorts science.

first, there's the simple bias toward doing only those studies which are considered likely to help a funding source, along with a considerable bias against doing any study which might be likely to harm it. most tobacco companies didn't hide research linking tobacco to lung disease. most never *did* any such studies. they didn't want to know.

second (though this isn't really limited to studies which are no-publically funded), there is a publication bias which science has been struggling with forever. you publish positive results far more often than negative. and when you set up a study for something like a drug, you design it so positive results are the ones which say it works. your null hypothesis, that you're trying to disprove, is that there is no difference between the group taking your drug and the control group. disproving it is evidence your drug has a tested effect. if you don't get them, one way or another, you don't publish. nobody outside your organization learns anything.

third, there are HUGE conflicts of interest involved. this one is the biggest no-brainers of them all. they don't have to be overt. most people like to keep their jobs. if you don't produce, you are less likely to keep your job. that's pressure to produce, or at least appear to produce. that's pressure to deliver positive results. if you own stock in the company or product, it just gets worse. it doesn't have to be overt, it doesn't even have to be purposeful. you are more likely to interpret the data differently, depending on what you wish to see. and, coupled with the second point (which, i'll admit, is not particularly a problem specific to private funding) people massage their data *all the time* to try to achieve positive results simply so they can get it published. spin isn't just for pundits.

[Skittles]

7. yup

I know how to be "thin" but prefer a more normal weight and a bit of indulgence in my favorite foods. Yes INDEED!

[KarenS]

2. this posting made me smile today !! Thanks N/T

[fasttense]

4. I've heard for years

that people who are ten to fifteen pounds overweight live longer than people who are thin. This was based on doctor's antidotes and not thorough research. Good to see someone finally did a full study. I've always said that mouse study didn't apply to humans. You know that mouse study where they overfed some mice and underfed some other mice and the skinny ones lived long. Well in humans everything is a bell curve. It's the people on top of the bell that tend to do the best, not the ones on either extremes.

Oh, by the way, we will need this extra weight to survive when b*sh is done with this country.

[Danmel]

8. A few extra pounds give you a cushion if you get sick.

You don't become frail and weak as quickly! Hey time to go eat a muffin!

Reminds me of "Sleeper" when Woody Allen, proprietor of the "Happy Carrot" health food restaurants finds all that all the conventional wisdom of his day was false and that red meat and tobacco are healthy!

[Gyre]

9. Don't worry, be fatty! NT