Quantcast

CDC flubs up on flab

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Obesity Hysteria Survives Despite Official Debunking
Thursday, May 12, 2005
By Steven Milloy


Obesity hysteria recently collapsed under its own weight. But the public health establishment, media and politicians are doing their best to revive it.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the April 20 Journal of the American Medical Association that estimated the net death toll attributable to obesity to be 25,814 people per year.

This, of course, was quite a downward revision from CDC’s March 2004 claim that obesity caused about 400,000 deaths per year, approaching the toll estimated for smoking. Readers of this column learned at the time that the 400,000-estimate was quite faulty and it’s rather refreshing to see the CDC admit that it was wrong.

But don’t expect the 93.5 percent reduction in the size of the scare to have any measurable impact on the obesity industry’s momentum.

When the new study was published, CDC chief Dr. Julia Gerberding told the Associated Press that the agency won’t scale back its anti-obesity campaign which, by the way, won’t mention the new reduced death toll estimate.

“There's absolutely no question that obesity is a major public health concern of this country,” Gerberding insisted.

The translation, of course, is that CDC receives plenty of taxpayer funding to promote the obesity scare and it’s not giving it back.

In the wake of the new study, the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group “promoting personal responsibility and consumer choice,” took out full-page ads in several major daily newspapers depicting the “Obesity Epidemic” as shrinking over the last year to a “Problem,” then to a “Threat,” then to an “Issue,” and finally to just "Hype."

Although the Washington Post was happy to take $100,000 or so from the Center to run the ad, the newspaper apparently wasn’t too happy about the message. Several days after the ad ran, the Post published a lengthy story on front-page of its Business section knocking the Center for Consumer Freedom as the tool of the restaurant industry.

Adding insult to injury a few days later, the Post then ran an editorial in which it ridiculed the Center for Consumer Freedom’s ad as a “scandal.”

“A group actually calling itself the Center for Consumer Freedom did buy $600,000 worth of advertising in The Post and elsewhere last week calling the links between obesity and mortality ‘hype’ fostered by the government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In principle, these advertisements are no less of a scandal: The high cost of diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses is not in dispute, any more than is the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. Obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled in the past 30 years and have tripled among children,” editorialized the Post.

Note how the Post actually tried the old trick of changing the subject, shifting the focus from the CDC’s bogus estimate of 400,000 deaths to perhaps equally dubious factoids about childhood obesity.

What’s really scandalous, though, is how the Post kept the Center’s money while simultaneously disparaging it.

Former President Clinton joined the obesity fray this week announcing a joint campaign with the American Heart Association to encourage children to have healthy diets and to be physically active -- both worthy goals.

But President Clinton stepped into the realm of obesity hype when he stated, “The truth is that children born today could become part of the first generation in American history to live shorter lives than their parents because so many are eating too much of the wrong things and not exercising enough.”

The reality of the matter is actually quite different.

First, there is little evidence to support the notion that otherwise healthy adults have shorter lifespans simply because they may be overweight. In fact, the new CDC study reported that adults who are merely “overweight” actually live longer on average than adults who are of “normal weight.”

Next, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that, for otherwise healthy children, childhood weight determines or impacts longevity.

Perhaps worse than any weight problem that may or may not be occurring, is the problem of the obesity scare industry, consisting of government regulators, the media, politicians, and various nonprofit groups.

Regardless of the facts, these groups have a vested interest -- mainly at taxpayer expense -- in maintaining the fiction that Americans are eating themselves to death.

Perhaps many of us should eat less and exercise more. But we should also put the obesity industry on a steady diet of fewer taxpayer dollars and more truth-telling.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,733
8,740
um, your article/editorial is just a bunch of unsubstantiated facts and generalizations, often (intentionally?) misusing or switching between "obesity" and "overweight" to make its dubious point.

a quick search on pubmed returned these peer reviewed papers published in mainstream journals (ie not by "mcdonald's institute for beefeating"):

A.H. Mokdad, B.A. Bowman and E.S. Ford et al., The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States, JAMA 286 (2001), pp. 1195–1200.
G. Colditz, Economic costs of obesity and inactivity, Med Sci Sports Exerc 31 (1999) (Suppl 11) S663–7.

the first documents that obesity has increased in prevalence by 61% since 1991, the second that obesity plus physical inactivity account for approximately 9.4% of U.S. health care expenditures. with this in mind how is the CDC's wavering about numbers significant?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,988
22,026
Sleazattle
My unscientific observations show that there are much more fat people these days and an alarming number of fat kids.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Toshi said:
um, your article/editorial is just a bunch of unsubstantiated facts and generalizations, often (intentionally?) misusing or switching between "obesity" and "overweight" to make its dubious point.

a quick search on pubmed returned these peer reviewed papers published in mainstream journals (ie not by "mcdonald's institute for beefeating"):

A.H. Mokdad, B.A. Bowman and E.S. Ford et al., The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States, JAMA 286 (2001), pp. 1195–1200.
G. Colditz, Economic costs of obesity and inactivity, Med Sci Sports Exerc 31 (1999) (Suppl 11) S663–7.

the first documents that obesity has increased in prevalence by 61% since 1991, the second that obesity plus physical inactivity account for approximately 9.4% of U.S. health care expenditures. with this in mind how is the CDC's wavering about numbers significant?

I don't think anyone is saying it's perfectly healthy to be obese. It is however noteworthy to point out the significant difference between 25,814 and 400,000.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,733
8,740
Damn True said:
I don't think anyone is saying it's perfectly healthy to be obese. It is however noteworthy to point out the significant difference between 25,814 and 400,000.
that's true, true, but that garbage article tries to go on and do much more than that:

the article said:
Next, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that, for otherwise healthy children, childhood weight determines or impacts longevity.

Perhaps worse than any weight problem that may or may not be occurring, is the problem of the obesity scare industry, consisting of government regulators, the media, politicians, and various nonprofit groups.
a) "otherwise healthy children" by definition do NOT have a weight problem. see my references above. obesity leads to disease, end of story.
b) no one except for this tabloid writer is suggesting that america has a weight problem that "may not be occurring"
 

stinkyboy

Plastic Santa
Jan 6, 2005
15,187
1
¡Phoenix!
Westy said:
My unscientific observations show that there are much more fat people these days and an alarming number of fat kids.
Disturbing numbers of fat chicks in gut hanging short shirts in Phoenix. Is this a local thing or a national epidemic?
 

riderx

Monkey
Aug 14, 2001
704
0
Fredrock
Damn True said:
The translation, of course, is that CDC receives plenty of taxpayer funding to promote the obesity scare and it’s not giving it back.
Of course. That could be the only possible explanation :rolleyes:
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,988
22,026
Sleazattle
stinkyboy said:
Disturbing numbers of fat chicks in gut hanging short shirts in Phoenix. Is this a local thing or a national epidemic?
National epidemic. I don't understand what they are thinking.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Westy said:
National epidemic. I don't understand what they are thinking.

I think it's a plot by their hotter friends to look better by comparison.

More often than not it seems like those girls are squeezing into clothes that are just too small. Many of them would look fine if they were wearing something that fit properly.

Heather: "Jennifer, do these jeans look ok?"
Jennifer: "Sure Heather, they look sooooo cute on you!"

Later.......
Jennifer: "Misty, did you see how fat Heather looks in those jeans?"
 

stinkyboy

Plastic Santa
Jan 6, 2005
15,187
1
¡Phoenix!
Damn True said:
Heather: "Jennifer, do these jeans look ok?"
Jennifer: "Sure Heather, they look sooooo cute on you!"

Later.......
Jennifer: "Misty, did you see how fat Heather looks in those jeans?"

Nice casting! :D
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,988
22,026
Sleazattle
binary visions said:
Exposed fat rolls in public make Baby Jesus cry...
It's like me having my brains hang out of the leg of a pair of running shorts and thinking it's sexy.