4 ms·

I find it problematic how they turn overweight != healthy into chubby != healthy. Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. Bu

I find it problematic how they turn overweight != healthy into chubby != healthy. Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. But a obsession with forcefully trying to gain a specific wight can easily be much less health then being slightly overweight.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby. This is coping, losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good,
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  For many healthy people, losing weight to reach a government ideal of 'healthy' means dropping useful muscle mass. Which is not good.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    What. 90% of people do not have any musculature worth talking about. Where are your sources? For 99% of people losing weight will be the problem
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      The Army Sergeant Major of the British Army is 'overweight', for example. (He's done interviews about it.) That's obviously nonsense and he doesn't need to lose any weight at all. The idea of 'overweight' is meaningless.
      - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Is he jacked, or fat? If he's jacked, then yes of course he doesn't need to lose weight. That is a tiny proportion of the population though.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        He's jacked, but the original comment was 'losing weight to a target healthy weight is always [ALWAYS] good'. It sounds like you agree that's a false statement?
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        The original comment was making a generalization that was pretty fair considering that the proportion of the population that has enough muscle mass to cause them to be 'overweight' is pretty small. Obviously "always" is wrong. Almost nothing is absolute.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Obviously "always" is wrong. Bingo.
    - geomark 6y ago
      Brings to mind the MRI scans of the thighs of an elderly athlete versus an elderly sedentary man https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2012/use-or-lose-looks-like https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2012/use-or-lose-looks-l...
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    If you define many as like 2% maybe.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      GP said 'losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good'. 'Always' is not true.
      - hombre_fatal 6y ago
        Well, encumbering "losing weight" with a bad method like losing muscle or breakfast cocaine or cutting fat off your belly with a knife to do it isn't an attack on losing weight, but a misunderstanding of their claim.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Since most people are average, there is an average "healthy weight" target. Of course individually, it's really about the ratio of lean mass to fat.
- fullstop 6y ago
  I was denied life insurance once because I was underweight. Maybe, statistically, it's true. I have since gained weight and now have life insurance.
- perardi 6y ago
  Wow, no, stunningly wrong. Being underweight is highly correlated with poor health outcomes in seniors. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16886095/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16886095/) Obesity is obviously bad there, but being underweight is just as dangerous.
  - tw04 6y ago
    "In seniors" would be the key word there. For the average American they'd be far, far better off being slightly underweight than being obese.
    - perardi 6y ago
      The parent comment was “I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby.” Pretty decent chunk of the world is seniors these days.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    "is highly correlated". Correlated, not caused by being underweight. Studies on actual cause has shown the opposite (eating to the point of being underweight raising lifespan).
- geomark 6y ago
  Does anyone know if the thresholds for being "overweight" and "underweight" have changed over time? I mean, with so many people getting heavier and heavier has the standard crept up so that "underweight" isn't even skinny anymore?
  - david_allison 6y ago
    Typically BMI (mass/height^2), which hasn't changed. Excluding the fact that average height has increased gradually over time.
    - projektfu 6y ago
      I believe they have changed the cut-offs because they noticed that cardiovascular issues started to occur at lower BMI than previously thought.
      - david_allison 6y ago
        I didn't know this. Thanks! It was lowered in July 1998 ("overweight" was reduced to 25 from men: 27 and women: 28) https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/us/us-to-widen-its-definition-of-who-is-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/us/us-to-widen-its-defini... https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/a-number-that-may-not-add-up/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/a-number-that-may-...
- kikokikokiko 6y ago
  In fact being slightly underweight is one of the only sure ways to increase your life expectancy. Restrictive calories diet.
tw04 6y ago
You don't really need to be obsessed though, you just need to be willing to commit to an appropriate caloric intake. You might need to look at boxes for a while to see how many calories are in your favorite foods, and you might even need to cut some of them out, but after a month or two you just kind of know what you can and can't eat, no unhealthy obsession required.
- readme 6y ago
  Calories, although the simplicity of the thermodynamics analogy seems simple are not the only factor at play here. The basic reason is that your body can increase or decreased its energy expenditure drastically in response to increased or decrease consumption of calories. I'm reading The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung right now and he presents a very strong argument that the cause of obesity is insulin resistance. In the book he cites both overfeeding studies where subjects were fed very large numbers of calories but did not gain weight, as well underfeeding studies where subjects ate only 500 calories a day but didn't lose weight. After reading this I'm pretty damn convinced that the diet problems facing us are: highly refined carbohydrates, sugar and sugar substitutes, and alcohol (I haven't come across this in his work, but if you look at the stuff by Dr. Lustig you'll see sugar and alcohol are incredibly similar metabolically) Think about this: for most of human history we did not count calories and yet we were not obese. It's the highly processed western diet of breads, cakes, cereals, soda, etc that are the culprit.
  - projektfu 6y ago
    A great book as well is The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet. It looks at the neurology of eating, overweight and obesity, and there is a ton there. Basically, most of the popular theories (insulin, microbiome, willpower, sugar, etc.) are only a tiny bit right, and the truth is predictably holistic, mostly driven by things that are not acting under conscious control. There are of very interesting studies covered in that book.
  - tw04 6y ago
    It is physically impossible to consume 500 calories a day and not lose body weight if you are making even a basic effort to exercise. That might work for a week, it won't for 6 months. I see he's written a book. I don't see any peer reviewed papers or actual scientific studies that have been reproduced by others.
coldtea 6y ago
>Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. Anorexic is not healthy. Underweight within reason is. In fact the best way we currently know to live more is to eat much less... https://gizmodo.com/how-living-near-the-starvation-point-can-extend-lifespa-1791290101 https://gizmodo.com/how-living-near-the-starvation-point-can...
cuddlybacon 6y ago
I think there are a few parts that are more problematic: * Most layman diet advice is awful. There is scientifically backed advice. I think most people could understand it. It seems to not be common knowledge. * A lot of people "backseat drive" other people's diets. Since most people carry awful advice, this is extremely unhelpful in practice. * Some people have a crab bucket mentality towards others losing weight, and almost go out of their way to sabotage.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby. This is coping, losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good,

chrisseaton 6y ago
For many healthy people, losing weight to reach a government ideal of 'healthy' means dropping useful muscle mass. Which is not good.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  What. 90% of people do not have any musculature worth talking about. Where are your sources? For 99% of people losing weight will be the problem
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    The Army Sergeant Major of the British Army is 'overweight', for example. (He's done interviews about it.) That's obviously nonsense and he doesn't need to lose any weight at all. The idea of 'overweight' is meaningless.
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      Is he jacked, or fat? If he's jacked, then yes of course he doesn't need to lose weight. That is a tiny proportion of the population though.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        He's jacked, but the original comment was 'losing weight to a target healthy weight is always [ALWAYS] good'. It sounds like you agree that's a false statement?
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        The original comment was making a generalization that was pretty fair considering that the proportion of the population that has enough muscle mass to cause them to be 'overweight' is pretty small. Obviously "always" is wrong. Almost nothing is absolute.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Obviously "always" is wrong. Bingo.
  - geomark 6y ago
    Brings to mind the MRI scans of the thighs of an elderly athlete versus an elderly sedentary man https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2012/use-or-lose-looks-like https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2012/use-or-lose-looks-l...
- austhrow743 6y ago
  If you define many as like 2% maybe.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    GP said 'losing weight to a target healthy weight is always good'. 'Always' is not true.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      Well, encumbering "losing weight" with a bad method like losing muscle or breakfast cocaine or cutting fat off your belly with a knife to do it isn't an attack on losing weight, but a misunderstanding of their claim.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Since most people are average, there is an average "healthy weight" target. Of course individually, it's really about the ratio of lean mass to fat.
fullstop 6y ago
I was denied life insurance once because I was underweight. Maybe, statistically, it's true. I have since gained weight and now have life insurance.
perardi 6y ago
Wow, no, stunningly wrong. Being underweight is highly correlated with poor health outcomes in seniors. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16886095/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16886095/) Obesity is obviously bad there, but being underweight is just as dangerous.
- tw04 6y ago
  "In seniors" would be the key word there. For the average American they'd be far, far better off being slightly underweight than being obese.
  - perardi 6y ago
    The parent comment was “I fail to see how in any world underweight is worse unless its a baby.” Pretty decent chunk of the world is seniors these days.
- coldtea 6y ago
  "is highly correlated". Correlated, not caused by being underweight. Studies on actual cause has shown the opposite (eating to the point of being underweight raising lifespan).
geomark 6y ago
Does anyone know if the thresholds for being "overweight" and "underweight" have changed over time? I mean, with so many people getting heavier and heavier has the standard crept up so that "underweight" isn't even skinny anymore?
- david_allison 6y ago
  Typically BMI (mass/height^2), which hasn't changed. Excluding the fact that average height has increased gradually over time.
  - projektfu 6y ago
    I believe they have changed the cut-offs because they noticed that cardiovascular issues started to occur at lower BMI than previously thought.
    - david_allison 6y ago
      I didn't know this. Thanks! It was lowered in July 1998 ("overweight" was reduced to 25 from men: 27 and women: 28) https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/us/us-to-widen-its-definition-of-who-is-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/us/us-to-widen-its-defini... https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/a-number-that-may-not-add-up/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/a-number-that-may-...
kikokikokiko 6y ago
In fact being slightly underweight is one of the only sure ways to increase your life expectancy. Restrictive calories diet.

tw04 6y ago

You don't really need to be obsessed though, you just need to be willing to commit to an appropriate caloric intake. You might need to look at boxes for a while to see how many calories are in your favorite foods, and you might even need to cut some of them out, but after a month or two you just kind of know what you can and can't eat, no unhealthy obsession required.

readme 6y ago
Calories, although the simplicity of the thermodynamics analogy seems simple are not the only factor at play here. The basic reason is that your body can increase or decreased its energy expenditure drastically in response to increased or decrease consumption of calories. I'm reading The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung right now and he presents a very strong argument that the cause of obesity is insulin resistance. In the book he cites both overfeeding studies where subjects were fed very large numbers of calories but did not gain weight, as well underfeeding studies where subjects ate only 500 calories a day but didn't lose weight. After reading this I'm pretty damn convinced that the diet problems facing us are: highly refined carbohydrates, sugar and sugar substitutes, and alcohol (I haven't come across this in his work, but if you look at the stuff by Dr. Lustig you'll see sugar and alcohol are incredibly similar metabolically) Think about this: for most of human history we did not count calories and yet we were not obese. It's the highly processed western diet of breads, cakes, cereals, soda, etc that are the culprit.
- projektfu 6y ago
  A great book as well is The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet. It looks at the neurology of eating, overweight and obesity, and there is a ton there. Basically, most of the popular theories (insulin, microbiome, willpower, sugar, etc.) are only a tiny bit right, and the truth is predictably holistic, mostly driven by things that are not acting under conscious control. There are of very interesting studies covered in that book.
- tw04 6y ago
  It is physically impossible to consume 500 calories a day and not lose body weight if you are making even a basic effort to exercise. That might work for a week, it won't for 6 months. I see he's written a book. I don't see any peer reviewed papers or actual scientific studies that have been reproduced by others.

coldtea 6y ago

>Sure we all know (I think) that over- (or worse under-wight) is not health. Anorexic is not healthy. Underweight within reason is. In fact the best way we currently know to live more is to eat much less... https://gizmodo.com/how-living-near-the-starvation-point-can-extend-lifespa-1791290101 https://gizmodo.com/how-living-near-the-starvation-point-can...

cuddlybacon 6y ago

I think there are a few parts that are more problematic: * Most layman diet advice is awful. There is scientifically backed advice. I think most people could understand it. It seems to not be common knowledge. * A lot of people "backseat drive" other people's diets. Since most people carry awful advice, this is extremely unhelpful in practice. * Some people have a crab bucket mentality towards others losing weight, and almost go out of their way to sabotage.