3 ms·

You seem to be assuming that the health conditions and costs commonly associated with obesity are all primarily caused by obesity. I'd suggest you consider the

You seem to be assuming that the health conditions and costs commonly associated with obesity are all primarily caused by obesity. I'd suggest you consider the possibility that obesity is just as likely to be a symptom of poor health as it is to be the cause of it. On this point, there are plenty of people who aren't obese who have cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. There's a lot we don't know about the human body, but based on what we do know, it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence. That, however, is what magic pill research effectively promises.

jessriedel 12y ago
> I'd suggest you consider the possibility that obesity is just as likely to be a symptom of poor health as it is to be the cause of it. I gladly acknowledge that possibility, but you should acknowledge the likelihood that the medical community is roughly correct in its belief that obesity does in fact cause a huge number of health related problems regardless of whether this is "primary". My claim above does not rest on obesity being the dominant factor. > it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence. Misunderstanding someone's claim and then suggesting that their beliefs are asinine is not a good way to get people to engage productively with you.
- rational-future 12y ago
  Haha, 7Figures2Commas got pwned.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  First, please don't pretend that the "medical community" is a homogenous body that produces broad consensus on complex matters. There is and always has been a significant amount of debate amongst medical professionals on a variety of topics. The topic of cholesterol provides many examples of this. For years, it was widely believed that raising the levels of HDL cholesterol would reduce the risk of heart disease. On that belief alone, many doctors regularly prescribed niacin to patients. Yet a few years ago, a study basically revealed that while niacin did raise HDL levels, it didn't reduce heart disease risk[1]. What's worse, more recent studies have revealed that niacin may have exposed patients to unacceptable risk[2]. To be clear: if you were ever diagnosed as having low HDL cholesterol, there's a good chance that your doctor would have recommended that you consider a treatment that not only would have been ineffective but exposed you to risk. All based on a widely-promoted hypothesis we now have ample evidence is flawed. On the topic of obesity, there is growing evidence that obesity is not the cause of a significant number of the most expensive health problems thought of as being caused by or strongly associated with obesity. Take Type 2 diabetes. Recent studies[3] show that it's a very complex condition, and genetics likely plays a more significant role than thought. Somewhat disturbingly, a longitudinal study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes." That calls into question the notion that even weight loss is a panacea for Type 2 diabetes. You may not like my use of the word asinine, but if you're going to suggest that a magic pill for obesity "would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars worth of improved health outcomes in the US," you should at least have some evidence to back it up. To do that, however, you have the very high barrier of establishing that a) obesity in meaningful part causes the costly conditions promoted as being obesity-related and b) reduction of obesity would provide a significant enough benefit to eliminate a meaningful portion of the costs associated with these conditions. More and more research shows this is not the case. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/health/policy/27heart.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/health/policy/27heart.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taking-niacin-for-the-heart-may-pose-serious-health-risks/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taking-niacin-for-the-heart-may-... [3] http://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-diabetes-news-181/obesity-isn-t-sole-cause-of-type-2-diabetes-691898.html http://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-d... [4] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914

jessriedel 12y ago

> I'd suggest you consider the possibility that obesity is just as likely to be a symptom of poor health as it is to be the cause of it. I gladly acknowledge that possibility, but you should acknowledge the likelihood that the medical community is roughly correct in its belief that obesity does in fact cause a huge number of health related problems regardless of whether this is "primary". My claim above does not rest on obesity being the dominant factor. > it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence. Misunderstanding someone's claim and then suggesting that their beliefs are asinine is not a good way to get people to engage productively with you.

rational-future 12y ago
Haha, 7Figures2Commas got pwned.
7Figures2Commas 12y ago
First, please don't pretend that the "medical community" is a homogenous body that produces broad consensus on complex matters. There is and always has been a significant amount of debate amongst medical professionals on a variety of topics. The topic of cholesterol provides many examples of this. For years, it was widely believed that raising the levels of HDL cholesterol would reduce the risk of heart disease. On that belief alone, many doctors regularly prescribed niacin to patients. Yet a few years ago, a study basically revealed that while niacin did raise HDL levels, it didn't reduce heart disease risk[1]. What's worse, more recent studies have revealed that niacin may have exposed patients to unacceptable risk[2]. To be clear: if you were ever diagnosed as having low HDL cholesterol, there's a good chance that your doctor would have recommended that you consider a treatment that not only would have been ineffective but exposed you to risk. All based on a widely-promoted hypothesis we now have ample evidence is flawed. On the topic of obesity, there is growing evidence that obesity is not the cause of a significant number of the most expensive health problems thought of as being caused by or strongly associated with obesity. Take Type 2 diabetes. Recent studies[3] show that it's a very complex condition, and genetics likely plays a more significant role than thought. Somewhat disturbingly, a longitudinal study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes." That calls into question the notion that even weight loss is a panacea for Type 2 diabetes. You may not like my use of the word asinine, but if you're going to suggest that a magic pill for obesity "would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars worth of improved health outcomes in the US," you should at least have some evidence to back it up. To do that, however, you have the very high barrier of establishing that a) obesity in meaningful part causes the costly conditions promoted as being obesity-related and b) reduction of obesity would provide a significant enough benefit to eliminate a meaningful portion of the costs associated with these conditions. More and more research shows this is not the case. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/health/policy/27heart.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/health/policy/27heart.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taking-niacin-for-the-heart-may-pose-serious-health-risks/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taking-niacin-for-the-heart-may-... [3] http://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-diabetes-news-181/obesity-isn-t-sole-cause-of-type-2-diabetes-691898.html http://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-d... [4] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914