Being overweight isn't all bad - especially annoying, because it's so sneaky. My problem is not with the study itelf; my real gripe is that a profound (and attention-getting) conclusion is drawn by the author of the article which on closer inspection isn't really supported by the study.

The subject of the study is the relationship between BMI, incidence of different diseases, and rate of mortality. The most major conclusion, if I may use the term, is that obesity is not a causastive factor for cancer. Ok, maybe, I have no basis to argue. But then the article goes on to conclude that the rate of mortality for "overweight" individuals is lower overall. "Whaaaaaa??????".

Undoubtedly there are many situations where having excess body fat contributes to survival by providing an energy reserve. But I really have a problem believing it makes enough difference that a point should be made of it.

The biggest flaw that I can see is that the study relies strictly on Body Mass Index (BMI). If you take a look at that link you'll see that the BMI calculation uses only height and weight as input. You don't even have to look at the actual formula to see the problem there. Since muscle weighs more than fat by volume, someone with almost no body fat and above average muscle mass is going to be "overweight", almost by definition; add some fat, still less than average body fat and they could be bumped up to "obese".

So an unknown number of the "overweight" actually have more muscle and less fat than the average. There could be additional factors:

How many of the actually overweight are that way because they can afford it, as well as decent health care, shelter, all the things that technology can provide for safety and shelter. How many of the non-overweight have to stretch their food budget to cover their children and can't afford to pay for adequate health care and shelter.

Conclusions that are based on fairly raw statistics and ignore other factors are pretty suspect. Among a supposedly "overweight" study population it's clear that some are overweight only statistically, but there's no attempt to determine how many or to adjust the results to compensate. There's no attempt to determine what other economic factors there might be. For instance, in my example, weight is related to the actual cause, but not a cause itself. So the conclusion that weight is a factor would be erroneous.

Even more revealing are a couple of quotes from the article.

"The take-home message is that the relationship between fat and mortality is more complicated than we tend to think," said Katherine M. Flegal, a senior research scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, who led the study. "It's not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation, where excess weight just increases your mortality risk for any and all causes of death."

That makes sense. Here's the statment (by the author of the article) that makes it appear it's actually healthier to be overweight or even slightly obese:

An association between excess weight and nearly 16,000 deaths from diabetes and kidney disease was overshadowed by a reduction of as many as 133,000 deaths from all other deaths unrelated to cancer or heart disease. Even moderately obese people appeared less likely to die of those causes.

Ok, if you just want to focus on death. How many people suffer from diabetes and kidney disease but haven't died? Another article I read said that many people with diabetes and kidney disease end up dying of a heart attack and that's how their death is classified. How many overweight people don't die because they're not out and about and exposed to some dangers. Maybe none of the things I've mentioned are factors, but there are so many things that could be and don't seem to be taken into account.

This is followed by the statement that the study did not examine why being overweight might help, Flegal alluded to other research suggesting extra 'heft' might supply extra reserves to fight and recover from illness. Then here's the direct quote:

"You may not just have more fat. You may also have more lean mass -- more bone and muscle," Flegal said. "If you are in an adverse situation, that could be good for you."

Oh, well, that's the same. Excess fat and excess bone and muscle are exactly the same, except muscle weighs more, so you can have less and be even more overweight and healthy. And you never find that people with more muscle have less fat - so really, it's all the same thing. Why quibble?

Seriously, that raises so much doubt about the conclusion about extra weight being more healthy it makes you wish someone - not me, I don't think violence solves anything, would walk up to whoever wrote this piece and just ... say "You should be more conscientious."

I was just doing some cross-checking and I noticed this headline at the beginning of the article didn't make sense:

Carrying Excess Pounds Does Not Increase Risk of Dying from Cancer or Heart Disease, Researchers Say.

In reality, the study found that obesity does not contribute to cancer but it does to heart disease. Being simply overweight contributes to neither. If obesity doesn't cause cancer, then it's not really significant that overweight doesn't cause it either. But the author ignores the main point of the study and conflates the findings, presumably to get 'heart disease' into the heading; but it makes it appear as though obesity is not related to heart disease. After all, how is obesity not 'Excess Pounds'? It was only when I read the direct statement that obesity does cause heart disease that I realized the headline had to be qualified with 'excess pounds short of obesity'. How many other people will be as blatantly stupid as I in missing the obvious, draw the same conclusion but not notice the discrepancy because they didn't pick the article apart? Oh well, they shouldn't be so stupid.

Here's another point. Statistics are slippery sometimes. How many people of normal weight didn't get sick in the first place? Is that a factor? I don't know. Do more raindrops hit your windshield or your roof when you drive in the rain? I don't know that either, but I'd find out if I was going to write a life and death article about it. (That seems unfair somehow, but strangely empowering, yellow journalism is fun!!!)

I checked out some of the comments on sites that had picked up on the article. Many people seem to take this news with great joy and no doubt that it's true. - Just the part about overweight being healthy - most don't care about the other, apparently. That's a shame, because I've been fat, and I wouldn't go back to it, or even being pudgy, even if it turns out I'm all wrong and it would add ten years to my life. Actually, I don't care how many years it would add - what would be the point? And don't forget, overweight is so good about silently slipping over into obesity because it's so much nicer not looking in the mirror or stepping on the scale when you know you're not going to like what you see, even if it is "healthy".

Heres a link to a pdf of the actual study if you're interested.

For a more objective and complete article, see Overweight People Found Less Likely to Die From Some Diseases

According to Reuters Health, "A new study debunks the widely held belief that diet plus exercise is the most effective way to lose weight."

My take after reading the article: The statement that dieting alone is just as effective may be technically correct using a very narrow definition of the word 'effective'. ie, What they found is a calorie lost through exercise is the same as a calorie 'lost' by never consuming it in the first place. If you take into account the long term effects of exercise such as increased metabolic rate and muscle mass then the relative 'effectiveness' may change.

My real point is that it's difficult to diet in the first place. Doubling the deprivation is disenheartingly worse, as is trying to lose weight without exercising. It's totally passive. Just a waiting game with no dynamic. But, there are people who will take this to mean they don't need to exercise anymore; does anybody really think they'll eat less to compensate? The lame qualifier about other benefits is a fig leaf to cover their socially irresponsible punchy headline. And if you don't think there are people who will take it to mean they're free to give up exercising with no penalty, then you haven't been paying attention to what people are gullible enough to believe, especially if it's what they want to believe already. Also, TV news reports I saw basically just used the sexy part:

No need to diet and exercise to lose weight. A new study debunks the widely held belief that diet plus exercise is the most effective way to lose weight.

Wow, that's incredibly helpful. Thanks so much for encouraging even more inactivity.

The math they use is also interesting " (first group) they reduced their caloric intake by 25 percent ... (second group) they reduced their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their exercise by 12.5 percent.". Interesting; 12.5 percent of the exercise they already happened to be getting is equivalent to 12.5 percent of the caloric intake they were already getting. Figures do lie, but I think in this case it's more like reporters who can't get the figures right.

The worst part of this is, when I googled the headline, I got 1,060 hits. One site near the top on the first page used it to justify their theory being overweight had no relationship to health or longevity. I was naive enough to actually email the place that did the study to tell them their results were being mis-used, but of course I never heard anything.

It would be more relevant to determine how many people are successful in losing weight through diet alone as opposed to dieting and exercise. As for the study, whoop-ti-doo, they proved a calorie is a calorie and you can't spot reduce, which has been common knowledge for a long time. Interestingly though, Doctor Oz of Oprah fame is big on waist size proportion as the most accurate indicator of metabolic syndrome, and he says people who are cardiovascularly fit tend to have a smaller waistline. So, maybe you can spot reduce your waist, at least, through aerobics.

But, if you do a lot of crunches or other exercises that tighten your stomach muscles, then you can reduce your waist line measurement without losing any fat at all. But, unless I'm mistaken, toned stomach muscles have no relation to metabolic syndrome, so how does that work?

Probably I'm mixing my generalizations, but seriously, get into JumpRock and HoopRock and you can soon forget about this stuff. It's all part of the energy-focused exercise cornucopia of health benefits. If you find a physical activity that's so much fun you want to do it every day, you can actually use a mirror to tell you everything you need to know on your way to a skinny waist. If you care about being overweight, and not everyone does, why would you be satisified if the mirror shows you're still not there? Please, tell me, I want to know, because when I get close to my goal is when I have the hardest time dieting even though my mirror is clearly stating I'm not done yet. But that's what's great about energy-focused exercise. You keep on doing it even if you get discouraged about your diet.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the study per se, or the conclusions coming out of it. What bothers me is information empowering to people who are trying to lose weight is not being passed on to them in that context.

If I understand the article correctly, the more overweight you are, the more your body ignores the effects of leptin that normally suppress appetite. Here's a relevant quote from the article:

Leptin is a hormone, secreted by fat cells, which indicates how much fat is in the body and regulates food intake by binding to neurons in the hypothalamus region of the brain. In lean people, leptin serves to regulate weight by controlling appetite and the use of stored energy. Obese individuals, however, appear to be resistant to leptin, much as diabetics are resistant to insulin.

Ok, but it turns out, the more weight you lose, the less resistant you are to leptin and the more your appetite decreases. Here's another quote to support that:

I think the take-home message is that (this study) gives hope. You need the caveat that it's not the same between mice and humans, but it does give hope that loss of a person's (ability) to regulate what they eat can be restored to maintain a normal weight.

The "hope" he's talking about is a pill or treatment. Great, but nowhere in the article does it acknowledge this information may help an obese person summon up more willpower in the knowledge that weight loss equals a decrease in the fierce, overpowering hunger.

If you don't think that's a big deal, you've probably never been obese. I remember what it was like when I was 240 pounds and at other times when I've blown my diet for long enough that I'm well into the "eat to live" phase. I can remember, for instance, scouring my kitchen trying to find something suitable for the sour cream I had leftover from Mexican takeout. Losing weight seems hopeless because you are just so damn hungry all the time. But you can work your way out of it as I've tried to describe elsewhere.

I'm also put off by this conclusion:

One interesting facet of the findings, Cowley said, is the recognition that obesity, like diabetes, is truly a physical disease. "Obesity is not just a failure of will," he said. "This is a fundamental biological difference between obese and lean groups.

Let me get this straight. If I gain enough weight I get the obesity "disease", and if I lose it again, then I'm cured. But according to the rest of the article, there's pretty much no hope of my doing that.

I'm sure glad I didn't know this when I was 240 pounds, because I just went ahead and cured myself. It's amazing how many other miracle workers there are who have done the same thing.

But let's assume he's correct for some people that are obese. First of all, why can't they check into a hospital and be fed a controlled diet through a tube until they're cured. Second of all, why send out this message to people, such as myself, who don't fall into that category?

It's because these guys are 'experts' in ivory towers that can't see the implications of their own research if it's outside their field, even slightly. They also have agendas to fund their research and sell their pills. Telling people how to cure themselves won't help with that. To be fair, however, that's the work they're involved in, so maybe it's just circumstaces that they deal in masses of people and the implications of their work for individuals slips through the cracks.

If you're overweight, just remember that you're not a statistic. You have the ability to decide for yourself without being discouraged by the biased nay-saying of people who have no concept of what goes on in the real world, or even the real reasons people eat. ie My appetite is only part of the problem. I just like to eat and I'm sure it's the same for a lot of other people who have trouble controlling their food intake. Here's a quote I found kind of funny in that context.

...the researchers found that leptin normally governs neuropeptide release from cells called neurons in the hypothalamus, suppressing food intake...

Suppressing food intake? Does it make you gag when you try to eat? No, I don't think so. I think they were trying to weasel their way out of suggesting it was anything you could actually control on your own when, really, you are the only one that can actually suppress it.

Outrageous appetite is a severe psychological and physical problem when it comes to dieting. It can actually be painful and/or nauseating as probably most people reading this know. But the severity lessens as you lose weight and eat cleaner, more rapidly if you deliberately eat small meals to "shrink your stomach". I've indulged myself enough times in the last 40 years to need that technique so I know it works. Now that I'm eating healthier as a matter of course and I have JumpRock I'm hoping to keep the fat in check. I've also become more sensitive to how eating affects my energy level overall. I was oblivious to that up until just a few years ago. I thought energy slumps were due to old age and occasional over exercise, but it turns out that the cleaner I eat, the more consistent my energy level. So when I stray, I have an additional incentive to get back on track.

It's even possible to get to a place where casual hunger is just a feeling that can be resisted. When you really need to eat you know it because of the empty feeling. All you have to do is eat clean and stop eating before you get full. If you don't feel reasonably satisfied within 15 minutes or so, you're overdoing it. This is not a starvation diet, it's simply spreading the load out so you don't get triggered into lethargy. It's a great state to be in, but hard to get there and hard to stay, so I guess most of the time I do "live to eat", like it or not.