4 ms·

> Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy (pun intended) obsession of the media and society writ large. Being overweight and diabetes are comorbiditi

> Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy (pun intended) obsession of the media and society writ large. Being overweight and diabetes are comorbidities of nearly everything, and are comorbidities of each-other for that matter. People are more overweight than ever. If anything there is not nearly enough alarm, and far too much normalization of the increasing status quo. > Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. Approximately 1.5% of US adults are underweight. Approximately 73.6% are overweight or obese.

mumblemumble 4y ago
There's so much to unpack beyond these surface-level statistics, though. Like how there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact of weight loss diets being really bad for your health, plus selection bias. People with lower BMIs are significantly less likely to attempt these health-destroying weight loss diets in the first place. Which would then imply that an approach to the issue that focuses primarily on how to get people who are already fat to lose weight, rather than as a prevention-focused public health initiative, may be doing more harm than good. Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles that seem to be healthiest together with those that have the poorest health outcomes, and away from a group that was arbitrarily defined the better part of two centuries ago based on one person's aesthetic standards rather than any health indicators, most of which weren't even known at the time. In other words, it's the crux of a pervasive piece of statistical circular reasoning. And the moralizing statements like "normalization of the increasing status quo" that politicize the issue, thereby making it harder to have a nuanced, thoughtful discussion about the topic, and instead push it toward always being yet another pea shooting contest between the "personal responsibility" and "fat positivitiy" caucuses. Which only serves to drown out any attempt to really contend with the full magnitude of the nuances and unknowns that surround this issue.
- jagraff 4y ago
  This is nonsense. Obesity doesn’t cause health issues because of crash diets - the link between obesity and several bad health outcomes (insulin resistance/diabetes, hypertension, joint damage, to name a few) is extremely well established, and has nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved. You’re right that there is some controversy about where exactly the line for “overweight” should be, but there’s no question that when you get into the obese category (41% of Americans) it is extremely bad for your health, irrespective of what diet you’re on - humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate.
  - checkyoursudo 4y ago
    > humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate. Maybe so, but like with all other evolution, presumably we'll either adapt or die? Maybe fat accumulation via material prosperity is the Great Filter.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jagraff 4y ago
      Yes, over the long term (tens of thousands of years?) evolution will probably come up with adaptations to material abundance assuming it lasts. Cold comfort to the people that suffer from it today though. Evolution can't do anything to help anyone who is alive today.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The link between many health issues and constant failed, and increasingly desperate attempts to lose weight is also extremely well established. Why do you dismiss the connection as if it were nothing in order to frame fatness as moral failure and disease as punishment? > as nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved This is a religious belief. Evolution doesn't visit judgement on human behavor, and any number of things that we do now that we didn't do in the Stone Age fail to have negative health consequences. Some might even be good for you, judging by the comparative lifespans of prehistoric humans and modern ones. Look, if you care about people losing weight instead of wallowing in the cruelty and definitely something that looks like jealousy (e.g. that happy feeling some people get when they hear that people who have sex caught a venereal disease) - if you really care, then the health consequences of crash diets would concern you. The consequences of repeated failures to lose weight would concern you. None of this would be dismissed if your concern were health instead of moral superiority. Sorry for the accusatory tone. To preempt, I'm 6', 175lb.. edit: > Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles This is the fucking worst because it's conscious dishonesty. It's intentional deception.
- dbspin 4y ago
  > there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact [sic] of weight loss diets being really bad for your health Citation needed. Without fail when an article about health, weight loss and diet appears on hacker news these comments appear. Suggesting obesity isn't dangerous, and that we should be careful about addressing it due to normative standards, bias, demonisation etc. In reality the severity of the impact of obesity on health is enormously underplayed in mass media - especially in the United States where are you admit there is a 'fat positivity' lobby. There are lots of nuances around how and why this epidemic has happened. From food deserts to the promotion of fast food and high fructose corn syrup to shift work to sedentary lifestyles. But the impact itself is scientifically uncontroversial. Sharing pragmatic articles about how to address this in our communities and our own lives is literally life saving.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I failed to find a citation in your own comment.
- RubyRidgeRandy 4y ago
  Not at all. The science is very clear and has been for quite some time - being overweight is bad for your health and increases all cause mortality. I could link meta analyses about how strong the link between increased weight and CVD is as one example, but I don't think you're really looking to change your mind. Instead I'll just make it as simple as possible. Increased weight = increased metabolic demand = more stress on the heart and other organs.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > I could link meta analyses about how strong the link between increased weight and CVD is as one example, but I don't think you're really looking to change your mind. You could not say that you could do something if you don't plan to do it, and you could avoid blaming the person you're arguing with for your failure to produce evidence that supports your point instead. Try making it complicated.
    - RubyRidgeRandy 4y ago
      your advice makes your own comment pretty ironic, don't you think? but no. I really don't have to provide evidence that the sun is hot, that Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States, or that being fat is bad for you. I understand HN is for a technical audience, but in the nutritional and health field, this is an accepted fact.
pessimizer 4y ago
> Being overweight and diabetes are comorbidities of nearly everything https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-being-overweight-means-you-live-longer-the-way-scientists-twist-the-facts-10158229.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families... The only reason people treat statements like the ones you're making as obviously settled is because it plays into Protestant bullshit about being punished for enjoyment i.e. the worse it tastes the better it is for you. The science of health vs fat is complicated, it's not some abstract moral tale of the gluttons being punished by god for their immoderate behavior.

mumblemumble 4y ago

There's so much to unpack beyond these surface-level statistics, though. Like how there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact of weight loss diets being really bad for your health, plus selection bias. People with lower BMIs are significantly less likely to attempt these health-destroying weight loss diets in the first place. Which would then imply that an approach to the issue that focuses primarily on how to get people who are already fat to lose weight, rather than as a prevention-focused public health initiative, may be doing more harm than good. Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles that seem to be healthiest together with those that have the poorest health outcomes, and away from a group that was arbitrarily defined the better part of two centuries ago based on one person's aesthetic standards rather than any health indicators, most of which weren't even known at the time. In other words, it's the crux of a pervasive piece of statistical circular reasoning. And the moralizing statements like "normalization of the increasing status quo" that politicize the issue, thereby making it harder to have a nuanced, thoughtful discussion about the topic, and instead push it toward always being yet another pea shooting contest between the "personal responsibility" and "fat positivitiy" caucuses. Which only serves to drown out any attempt to really contend with the full magnitude of the nuances and unknowns that surround this issue.

jagraff 4y ago
This is nonsense. Obesity doesn’t cause health issues because of crash diets - the link between obesity and several bad health outcomes (insulin resistance/diabetes, hypertension, joint damage, to name a few) is extremely well established, and has nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved. You’re right that there is some controversy about where exactly the line for “overweight” should be, but there’s no question that when you get into the obese category (41% of Americans) it is extremely bad for your health, irrespective of what diet you’re on - humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  > humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate. Maybe so, but like with all other evolution, presumably we'll either adapt or die? Maybe fat accumulation via material prosperity is the Great Filter.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jagraff 4y ago
    Yes, over the long term (tens of thousands of years?) evolution will probably come up with adaptations to material abundance assuming it lasts. Cold comfort to the people that suffer from it today though. Evolution can't do anything to help anyone who is alive today.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The link between many health issues and constant failed, and increasingly desperate attempts to lose weight is also extremely well established. Why do you dismiss the connection as if it were nothing in order to frame fatness as moral failure and disease as punishment? > as nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved This is a religious belief. Evolution doesn't visit judgement on human behavor, and any number of things that we do now that we didn't do in the Stone Age fail to have negative health consequences. Some might even be good for you, judging by the comparative lifespans of prehistoric humans and modern ones. Look, if you care about people losing weight instead of wallowing in the cruelty and definitely something that looks like jealousy (e.g. that happy feeling some people get when they hear that people who have sex caught a venereal disease) - if you really care, then the health consequences of crash diets would concern you. The consequences of repeated failures to lose weight would concern you. None of this would be dismissed if your concern were health instead of moral superiority. Sorry for the accusatory tone. To preempt, I'm 6', 175lb.. edit: > Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles This is the fucking worst because it's conscious dishonesty. It's intentional deception.
dbspin 4y ago
> there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact [sic] of weight loss diets being really bad for your health Citation needed. Without fail when an article about health, weight loss and diet appears on hacker news these comments appear. Suggesting obesity isn't dangerous, and that we should be careful about addressing it due to normative standards, bias, demonisation etc. In reality the severity of the impact of obesity on health is enormously underplayed in mass media - especially in the United States where are you admit there is a 'fat positivity' lobby. There are lots of nuances around how and why this epidemic has happened. From food deserts to the promotion of fast food and high fructose corn syrup to shift work to sedentary lifestyles. But the impact itself is scientifically uncontroversial. Sharing pragmatic articles about how to address this in our communities and our own lives is literally life saving.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I failed to find a citation in your own comment.
RubyRidgeRandy 4y ago
Not at all. The science is very clear and has been for quite some time - being overweight is bad for your health and increases all cause mortality. I could link meta analyses about how strong the link between increased weight and CVD is as one example, but I don't think you're really looking to change your mind. Instead I'll just make it as simple as possible. Increased weight = increased metabolic demand = more stress on the heart and other organs.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I could link meta analyses about how strong the link between increased weight and CVD is as one example, but I don't think you're really looking to change your mind. You could not say that you could do something if you don't plan to do it, and you could avoid blaming the person you're arguing with for your failure to produce evidence that supports your point instead. Try making it complicated.
  - RubyRidgeRandy 4y ago
    your advice makes your own comment pretty ironic, don't you think? but no. I really don't have to provide evidence that the sun is hot, that Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States, or that being fat is bad for you. I understand HN is for a technical audience, but in the nutritional and health field, this is an accepted fact.

pessimizer 4y ago

> Being overweight and diabetes are comorbidities of nearly everything https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-being-overweight-means-you-live-longer-the-way-scientists-twist-the-facts-10158229.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families... The only reason people treat statements like the ones you're making as obviously settled is because it plays into Protestant bullshit about being punished for enjoyment i.e. the worse it tastes the better it is for you. The science of health vs fat is complicated, it's not some abstract moral tale of the gluttons being punished by god for their immoderate behavior.