obese

The Top 10 Fattest Cities in America

The whole world is getting fatter. One 2015 study, from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, found that an astounding 2 billion people around the globe are either overweight or obese, and that figure just keeps climbing. While the United States has been unseated as the world’s fattest country, we’re still home to 13 percent of the world’s fat population, despite making up less than 5 percent of the world’s total citizenry. (Taken together, China and India, the world’s most populous countries with a combined total of 37 percent of the world’s people, just pass us with 15 percent of the globe’s fat population.)

Keep reading... Show less

When Fat is Healthier than Skinny: The Obesity Paradox

The following is an excerpt from the new book The Obesity Paradox: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier by Carl J. Lavie (Penguin Books, 2014): 

Similar to how the famous French paradox points to an inverse relationship between the incidence of coronary heart disease and the consumption of saturated fats, the so-called "obesity paradox" points to an inverse relationship between body fat and risk of death in many cases. While it's well-documented that obesity has contributed to our challenges with chronic illness, and that exercise is often a surefire antidote, no one has explained some of the stranger cause-and-effect reactions going on deep within our cellular makeup that have everything to do with fat's positive side. It's pretty straightforward: Fat isn't always bad. And exercise isn't always good.
These are hardly inconsequential findings. The fact that body fat protects us in a lot of surprising ways—not to mention may help us live longer after a grim diagnosis or heart attack—has been quiety circulating in our most prestigious medical literature for the past few years.
***
As the studies about the benefits of fitness despite the presence of fatness (a “fit- fat” paradox) were coming into view, so, too, were hints that obesity as an absolute evil condition begged to be reconsidered. As a prelude to our detailed discussion of the obesity paradox, let me showcase a relatively recent study that’s tested conventional health wisdom for its surprising, unassailable evidence that obesity isn’t always bad. 
In 2012, a report from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry made international headlines with data from more than sixty-four thousand patients that featured a most counterintuitive and unlikely relationship: Once people have developed heart disease, they have a reduced risk of dying if they are overweight or obese, while underweight and normal-weight patients have an increased risk.
The researchers evaluated patients who had developed heart problems such as unstable angina (chest pain caused by an inadequate blood supply to the heart) and heart attacks, and at those who underwent coronary angiography, a special X- ray test to discover detailed information about the condition of their coronary arteries, between May 2005 and December 2008. Patients who were underweight (BMI of less than 18.5) had the greatest risk of dying—double that of normal- weight patients, who had BMIs between 21 and 23.5. Compared to the group with lowest risk of mortality, meaning those with BMIs of 26.5 to 28, underweight individuals had three times the risk of death. The researchers also found that the relationship between BMI and mortality was U-shaped. In other words, those with the lowest risk of death were overweight and obese patients, with BMIs ranging from 26.5 to about 35; and the highest risk resided among underweight and morbidly obese patients, those with a BMI above 40. 
While many of us struggle daily with constant thoughts about losing weight (and how we’re going to do that), especially if we’ve been diagnosed with a “weight- related” condition such as heart disease, these researchers dared to suggest that there’s no evidence to prove that weight loss helps someone who has a heart condition. They were even bold enough to say that there’s evidence to show that weight loss after the diagnosis of a heart condition might in fact have a negative effect, particularly for those who have a BMI less than 40. I personally feel that purposeful weight loss, when done in a healthy manner and with good intentions, is safe despite the obesity paradox. There is some evidence from small studies that show such weight loss can be safe and beneficial, but we have yet to collect substantial data from large studies proving the benefits of weight loss on cardiac patients and in terms of overall survival, especially in people with established heart disease.
So if you have to choose between being fit or fat, go for fit even if it means being heavier. As I’ve already mentioned, many people lose fitness and gain fatness with aging. The good news is that if you gain weight as you age, your health can still be excellent so long as you remain fit. And we’re not talking about super- high levels of fitness, either. You just need to avoid being in the bottom twentieth percentile for fitness given your age and gender, as chapter 10 outlines. You also need to avoid the dreadful act of prolonged sitting, which could potentially cancel out much of the beneficial effects of a single daily dose of exercise due to sitting’s negative metabolic outcomes. Remember, although genetics also have an influence, fitness is achieved primarily through regular, intermittent physical activity that gets your blood moving at a faster clip. In fact, many heavier people with more body fat who remain as active as possible throughout the day can be fitter— and healthier— than thin people who sit all day and do not exercise or who confine their workouts to a single time period.
And indeed, obesity does have its survivalist advantages. It is said that many great leaps in science have been made when alert people, looking for something else, came across a major discovery and recognized its importance. The discovery of the obesity paradox is turning out to be a fine example.
[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"full","fid":"572850","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"318"}}]]
From THE OBESITY PARADOX: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier by Carl J. Lavie, MD. Reprinted by arrangement with Hudson Street Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, a Penguin Random House Company. Copyright © Carl J. Lavie MD., 2014.

11 Reasons Americans Are Obese - It's Not About Personal Choice

Everyone has allowed themselves to make an offhand comment about obesity, whether as a societal problem or on an individual level. It’s almost a reflex, and the idea that weight is entirely based on personal lifestyle choices (and maybe genetics) is deeply ingrained in our culture. But America, despite its growing problem with obesity and its related illnesses, is not simply a country of lazy people who only want to eat hamburgers. There are a huge amount of factors at play here, many of which seem to decide our fate before we even pick up the fork.

Keep reading... Show less

Can Drugs Make Americans Lose Weight? Not Likely

"I have taken this drug off and on for the past 10 years for weight loss. It works, but the results NEVER last, it makes you feel great for about six months, you lose weight, you have awesome energy to work out and then it begins to not work anymore. It's like you build up an immunity to it or something."

Keep reading... Show less

Celebrity psychopathology

Here's a great magazine version of beach reading from New York Metro: "Celebrity Psychos -- The Summer They All Went Mad." Despite its tabloid-like headline, Vanessa Grigoriadis pulls together an intelligent, substantive and very readable analysis of what it feels like to be a celebrity in this fame-crazed age. Besides, what can be better than the rare article that makes you more than content with your lot in life?

Here's an excerpt from what is a very long essay:

Keep reading... Show less

The Values Ploy

I was listening to Mike Barnacle this morning ranting on MSNBC about how the Dems need to get with this whole "values" thing or they will be a minority party forever. He said that Dems have to stop making fun "of people who say they dunked their heads in a river and discovered Jesus," and who want to defend traditional concepts like marriage. Otherwise, Barnacle said, the Dems will continue losing to the party that recognizes and honors those beliefs.

America is divided, not just on the war and economic policy, but also on this whole "values" business. Barnacle may be right – from a tactical standpoint. Certainly that's how the Republicans play the issue. Do you believe for a second that Karl Rove would want to spend a weekend locked up alone with the typical evangelical Christian couple? Maybe, but only if the couple were the last two swing voters in a tight race. Otherwise the prospect of two days of scintillating faith-based conversation with those two would appeal to Rove about as much as Novocaine-free root canal.

The GOP's relationship with the religious right is a rock hard practical/tactical alliance that in reality has little to do with sharing common values. (Pro-family? Pro-marriage? Would anyone like to do a study on how many GOP politicians are divorced or have gotten caught cheating on their spouse? I will bet the difference between the Values Party and the Dems would be indistinguishable.)

Besides the dishonesty beneath the values business there are very real reasons to worry about this clearly successful tactic. When a nation's leaders pander to fundamentalists they eventually must either deliver on their demagoguery or face their wrath. Politicians who may have thought they rode an elephant to power quickly discover they are really on the back of a hungry tiger – a tiger they must now either have to feed or be eaten.

So, they parcel out morsels to keep their pet in line. Civil liberties are usually the first to go followed closely by science. Control of the judiciary then becomes a necessary as people go to court to regain their civil liberties and scientists fight for their right to continue shedding light further down mankind's evolutionary path.

We don't need to imagine fictional outcomes. History is filled with real ones. Galileo just wanted people to know that they had the solar system all wrong. The earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa. Of course he was entirely correct and Church-captive authorities suspected so. Nevertheless, he found himself in deep doo-doo. Here it begins with things like stem cell research, but will certainly not stop there.

Women are common targets of politicians seeking to appease their values constituents. Look to the Islamic world for contemporary examples. Here in the West values-based policies materialize in less visually jarring forms. It begins with women losing control over their own reproductive systems and proceeds from there to policies that restate a woman's key role in society as that of mother hen. Jobs, professional careers and other un-hen-like pursuits, may be allowed, but only after she has completed raising her brood. Laws requiring equal pay are cast in the values political dialog as incitement for young women to shirk home and hearth for the decidedly un-hen-like world of men.

Yesterday more than half of American voters voted for the Values Party. Those who make their livings analyzing why people vote the way the do say the GOP's emphasis on values like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools and the sort, gave them the electoral edge over secular Democrats.

So, I agree and disagree with Mike Barnacle. Yes, the Values Party won because they pandered to America's fundamentalists. But I disagree that Democrats need to jump aboard the values express. He is right that none of us (myself included) should gratuitously make fun of born agains and their kind. But, having said that, please notice that it is they of late who are currently ridiculing and making fun of "Godless" secularists.

But Democrats should not become value-whores like the GOP. That would only accelerate the Talibanizaton of America. At least one party needs to continue to fight for free speech, free thought, enlightened education, science and – most of all – the one thing that makes all that possible – a free, open and progressive secular democracy.

Who will carry that banner for us now? Not the current crop of traditional machine Democrat hacks, that's for sure. (Bye, bye Daschle ... and good riddance.)

If ever there was moment justifying a wholesale purge of the Democratic Party leadership, it's this morning. Start with that little scumbag Terry McAuliffe, but don't stop there. Get rid of Bob Schrum once and for all. Carville, Bagala – shut up. Just shut up. You have nothing useful to offer to the discussion after this. And don't give me that crap about me organizing a "circular firing squad," either. You guys are so yesterday.

We either need a reformed Democratic Party or a moderate third party made up of refugees sick and tired of the mediocrity and mendacity of the other two parties. (Calm down Ralph, I'm not referring to you. For you I prescribe a long vacation – a road trip in a vintage Ford Pinto.)

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.