I've long had concerns about how we measure and define overweight and 
obesity, and what it means for health. The entire reason to wage a "war"
 on the "epidemic" of obesity is because we want to improve the health 
of individuals and the population. Many studies have demonstrated 
previously that being overweight and (in some cases) obese is NOT a risk
 factor for mortality. Obesity only becomes an issue at levels of "Grade
 2 Obesity". However, I've always found it difficult to reconcile the 
data with the message. These studies--and I've been involved in a few 
related to child obesity--are difficult to publish, precisely because 
they go against the paradigm, and when they are, they receive little 
attention.
Yesterday, a study was published that should
 have helped bring the matter to a close. In a meta-analysis of 97 
studies, representing nearly 3 million people and 270,000 deaths, Flegal
 and her colleagues demonstrated that being in the overweight category 
(so, a BMI of 25-30, the lowest of the overweight groups) was associated
 with lower mortality than being "healthy weight". Grade 1 obesity (BMI 30-35) was associated with no difference in mortality.
This
 is not an inconsequential finding. Meta-analyses have their own set of 
critiques, but, at least in my opinion, this one addresses to the extent
 possible most of them. They appear to have a rigorous a clear protocol 
for selecting the included studies, and perform the analyses in several 
different ways (presenting all of the findings). Indeed, Dr. Flegal 
herself is a well-known obesity researcher at the National Center for 
Health Statistics and has played an important role in development of 
obesity-related research. If she has any subconscious bias, I would 
expect it to be in the direction of demonstrating overweight obesity are
 bigger problems.
The authors make very little comment on 
the meaning of these findings. They do, however, note that possible 
explanations include earlier presentation to health care for heavier 
patients (meaning more screening for risks), and higher metabolic 
reserves (a fancy way of saying that when you get cancer or other severe
 illness and lose a bunch of weight, heavier people can tolerate that 
better). An accompanying editorial
 (which, unfortunately, can not be accessed for free) extends the 
discussion a bit, but discuss whether BMI is a good measure of obesity 
(in terms of fat tissue) and that, of course, weight alone should not be
 the only factor a physician considers when estimating a patient's risk.
What no one is willing to come out and say is this: Maybe overweight and (moderate) obesity are just not a big deal? Maybe
 we defined these "diseases" all wrong, and maybe we're creating 
problems that don't really exist. Maybe we let social perceptions of 
what someone "should" look like effect these definitions? Maybe we have 
been unwilling to consider the possibility that overweight is not a 
health risk because we are so invested in the paradigm of obesity = 
really, really bad that we are unwilling, as a field, to step outside 
that paradigm.
 
Thank you for bringing this up. I also read that study and would agree to say that overweight is not a big deal. I think that our society has a damaged relationship with fat that needs healing. I also think that it is within us to be disgusted by fat, and for this reason we attack obesity more than it deserves. I wonder why this is? Why do we struggle to find beauty in overweight people? What is it that has shaped that preference? What does obesity represent that causes it to be so abhorred?
ReplyDelete