3 ms·
The thing is, a 3-year life expectancy loss doesn't usually mean "you just cut off the last 3 years of your life." In many (or most) cases, your years of healt
by bpodgursky 6y ago
The thing is, a 3-year life expectancy loss doesn't usually mean "you just cut off the last 3 years of your life." In many (or most) cases, your years of healthy life adjust downward accordingly.
At 27, you have the same medical problems and quality-of-life degradations a healthy person gets at 30. At 55, you're a 58 year old.
It's really easy to look at a number like that and think "Yeah, I'd be happy to lose the 80-83 bracket". But effectively it's the 20-23 range of healthy, happy life you've cut out. And that IS a big difference.
- confidantlake 6y agoI think it is even worse than that! A healthy 30 year old is going to have a much better quality of life than an obese 20 year old. They will be able to climb stairs, walk without getting winded, have more energy, look better ect.
- paulpauper 6y agoBut this is sorta moving goalposts. We're talking about years of life, not quality of life. That is important too but the claim that obese people die at a significantly earlier age than non-obese people is not supported by evidence.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI would argue that "Quality Years of Life" is what 80% of people (both as individuals and as policymakers) would optimize for, if given a good metric and perfect information, and that "crude life expectancy" is only commonly used because it is so easy to non-controversially measure. So IMO it's not really moving the goalposts as much as "reminding us of what the actual goalposts are."