Obesity rate will reach at least 42%

[reinhard]

Sounds like not nearly enough people are doing no-s!

(Oprah, for the good of the nation, would you pick up no-s already?)

Some highlights (or lowlights) from:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -least-42/

Researchers at Harvard University say America’s obesity epidemic won’t plateau until at least 42 percent of adults are obese, an estimate derived by applying mathematical modeling to 40 years of Framingham Heart Study data.

The projections by Hill and colleagues are a best-case scenario, meaning that America’s obesity rate could rise above 42 percent of adults.

Reinhard

[wosnes]

Aren't we close to that?

Recently I've been paying attention to people on TV -- especially those in the background during news pieces and some reality shows. The majority are overweight. I found myself wondering if there are no normal weight people.

[reinhard]

Aren't we close to that?

Sadly I guess we're not too far, but I guess the news here is that though researchers had previously thought we'd plateaued (or hit rock bottom), that no longer looks to be the case -- there's further to fall. The current obesity rate is 34%, plus an additional 34% who are merely overweight. I didn't see if they made overweight projections, but I assume it's not going down. So assuming it stays exactly the same that's 3/4 of the population overweight or obese (as opposed to the current awful but not quite as awful 2/3).

Reinhard

[Sienna]

According to the article, 34% of Americans are obese and an additional 34% are overweight but not obese. That leaves approximately 1 in every 3 Americans at normal or underweight.

I find research on the social transmission of obesity fascinating. This especially struck me:

Hill, Rand, and colleagues found that a nonobese American adult has a 2 percent chance of becoming obese in any given year — a figure that has risen in recent decades — and that this number rises by 0.5 percentage points with each obese social contact, meaning that four obese contacts doubles the risk of becoming obese.

I knew people who were overweight were more likely to have overweight friends, but I always sort of thought that part of that was a self-selecting thing. And I never thought the social transmission effect could be so drastic (although the article still cites non-social transmission as the more important factor in the increased incidence of obesity)

I wonder if part of the issue with increased obesity rates is the perception of what obese is. I'm obese. I have been for awhile, but I only recently admitted it to myself (I always just pretended BMI was a crock and that while I needed to lose weight, I certainly wasn't obese. And it kind of is a crock, but I'm still obese). Even still, people who I've discussed it with are shocked to find out that I'm obese. I don't *look* obese. Heavy, yes. But obese? I think when many people think of "obese" they think of morbidly obese. People who can't get off the couch anymore or need special re-enforced furniture obese. And I think that it can lead to a gradual psychological acceptance of a higher weight. Especially when people such as myself are in denial about their own obesity. [/quote]

[Spudd]

I thought this part of the article made no sense:

Hill, Rand, and colleagues found that a nonobese American adult has a 2 percent chance of becoming obese in any given year — a figure that has risen in recent decades — and that this number rises by 0.5 percentage points with each obese social contact, meaning that four obese contacts doubles the risk of becoming obese.

By comparison, an obese adult has a 4 percent chance of losing enough weight to fall back to merely “overweight†in any given year. This figure has remained essentially constant since 1971.

If a non-obese American has a 2% chance of becoming obese every year, and an obese American has a 4% chance of becoming non-obese every year, wouldn't the number of obese people be decreasing rather than increasing? I suppose if the non-obese have more than 4 obese social contacts then their percentage would increase over 2%. But I wonder how well you have to know someone for it to count.

[Sienna]

I think it's been steady at 34% for a few years now.

With four obese contacts, then theoretically that would be 4% risk. And with 1 in 3 people being obese, it's not hard to imagine someone having 4+ obese contacts - possibly without even realizing it. (Remember, obese does not necessarily mean morbidly obese - here is an interesting flickr account that has pictures of people with their BMI and classification http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N ... 199008819/ some of them seem right, but I think some are a little surprising)

Additionally, there are roughly twice as many non-obese people as there are obese people. So if you have the same percentage of obese people losing weight as you do non-obese people gaining weight, there is still a net increase in obese people (e.g. if you have 100 obese people and 200 non obese people, and 4% of each switch categories that is 4 obese people losing weight and 8 non-obese gaining weight resulting in 104 obese people and 196 non-obese). Plus depending on your prediction models, collection methods etc, statistics can be made to say almost anything

[oolala53]

I don't know about anyone else, but my head is spinning!

I also think that link to people's pics and their supposed BMI's is interesting. I wonder where they are getting the info on the pictured person's weight? I think some of those people are kidding themselves, though there are probably a few who are legitimately misclassed.

I'm sorry, but I really believe the cases in which the BMI does not indicate an accurate representation of the correct category are the exception. Okay, so athletes, very tall or short people: exceptions! A lot of muscle? Exception! Hey, I'm the first person to be indicted, but I spent a lot of years kidding myself. The truth is I ate way too much for years and have not gotten consistent exercise for most of my life. I've done the best I have for most of my adult life this year on No S, besides a few whirlwind events of 3-6 months, and I have a ways to go. I, too, have people telling me all the time that I look good and that I don't look fat, but I weigh more than I need to and more than I would if I were eating healthfully and exercising 85% of the time, which seems reasonable to ask for. I plan to keep doing my part to turn the tide. I've considered taking a sabbatical and going to live overseas just to thwart the influences. The thinnest I've been in my adult life was when I was a tourist for several months, averaging two meals a day when I was HUNGRY, but eating whatever I wanted, and walking several hours a day.

Excelsior!

[Sienna]

I also think that link to people's pics and their supposed BMI's is interesting. I wonder where they are getting the info on the pictured person's weight? I think some of those people are kidding themselves, though there are probably a few who are legitimately misclassed.

I'm sorry, but I really believe the cases in which the BMI does not indicate an accurate representation of the correct category are the exception.

Eh. There are a lot of issues with BMI, but I do think that because people know that there are problems with BMI, they can use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that they aren't actually at a healthy weight.

But, the reason I linked to the pictures was more to make a point about perception than to discredit BMI. Many of the people in the obese category look overweight to me, but I wouldn't necessarily have thought they were obese. I especially wouldn't have a few years ago before I started paying a lot more attention to weights and BMI classifications. Based on conversations with others, I know I'm not alone in this downgrading weight class. And I can't help but wonder if that is part of the reason for the increased obesity rates - especially given the effect of social contact with obese people on the chance of becoming obese.

It's like we (or at least some of us) have mentally moved the setpoint of what fat versus not-fat is upward over time. But the problem is, what a healthy weight is hasn't changed over time.

[magrat]

I also think that link to people's pics and their supposed BMI's is interesting. I wonder where they are getting the info on the pictured person's weight?

I can't believe it, but I actually recognize one of the people pictured! Shauna is dietgirl (www.dietgirl.org) who has had a popular weightloss blog for many years. I know she has a flickr account on her website, so I assume she added her own picture and stats.

[DaveMc]

I've concluded that my issues with BMI amount to haggling over the last ten pounds or so. One's weight is a continuous quantity, and it's only the ranges on the BMI chart that are discontinuous: that is, move from 25.1 to 24.9, and suddenly you've moved from "overweight" to "normal". But that's a bit silly: there's no actual sudden change in your health risk, they just have to draw the boundary line somewhere. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that being a few pounds away from the "normal" range really represents a substantial health risk -- in fact, I read a paper a while ago that plotted a measure of risk against BMI, and it was quite flat except for the very low and very high ranges (below 17 and above 30, say), where the risk started to shoot up dramatically. So I do worry that it's possible to be too obsessed about where you fit on that chart.

On the other hand, it's a perfectly reasonable number for defining what's typical, and you're right that although exceptions exist, if you're *far* away from the so-called normal range, you probably do have a problem that's worth addressing. I just don't think it's worth panicking if you're ten pounds over what the chart says. Possibly I'm fooling myself, I don't know. (And I guess I should note that ten pounds is about five percent of my body weight, it may be much more significant for smaller people.)

[Starla]

My understanding of the BMI is that it was never intended to classify an individual, but to be applied to a population. It makes sense that using it to categorize individuals leads to some odd results.

Thanks so much for posting that link - it was very interesting. As I went through the pics, I guessed each classification before I looked, and I was right more than 70% of the time, but very surpised on others. It's interesting to look across one range and see the wide variety of body types included. "Overweight," for example, shows everything from bodies that are clearly chubby to bodies that look absolutely perfect.

[sophiasapientia]

Thanks for posting the link!

The obesity rate really is shocking. Companies are beginning to use scare tactics to prod folks to get this under control. It is Benefit Enrollment period for my DH's employer and he was telling me that, in order to qualify for the preferred health insurance policy anyone with a BMI of 30 or over has to be a paying member of Weight Watchers. Otherwise, they can opt for higher premiums, etc. I was thinking about how seven years ago, when I was at my all-time high weight and my BMI was 34, I would have been mortified by this. Plus, WW never worked for me. No S really should be on Oprah.

[Spudd]

I wonder what's cheaper, paying for WW or paying the higher premiums. It's odd that they specify WW rather than just saying must be a member of a weight loss organization, or something. I wonder if this insurance company gets kickbacks from WW!

[oolala53]

Does sound suspicious! But WW doesn't have much competition when it comes to having actual meetings for accountability. However, I imagine their drop-out rate will climb even more, if people are required to sign up for it. If they could just quit talking about all the fake foods and how many points everything has, I might even consider going back. Or if they had a side meeting for No S-ers! I can't really talk because I've been stalled at about 15 lbs. above a BMI of 24.9 for about 6 months. Don't know what it's going to take to get down there, but I'm pretty confident that I'm not going to go back to being officially obese.

[sophiasapientia]

It is a major insurance company and DH works for a huge corporation (which also offers a "WW at work" program) and I'm sure that they have an agreement with WW ... For the past few years, the insurance policy has been that, if your BMI is above normal weight, you & your doctor have to sign a waver, stating that you are actively trying to lose weight (using the method/program of your choice.) This whole required WW thing is new. They are also tightening things up with smoking. Previously, you just had to sign a form saying that you are non-smoker. Now everyone has to provide a nicotine-free urine sample to qualify as a non-smoker.

[kwidener7]

It's so true that the perception of what's healthy as far as weight is TOTALLY skewed toward higher weights being "normal." It's becoming really infuriating as I continue to lose weight! I know BMI is not perfect, but for the vast majority of people it is a great indication of whether you are in a good weight range for your body.

Lately, I've had people telling me that I don't need to lose anymore weight (And yes, that is technically true), but I am still a good 21 pounds away from even getting near underweight. Also, I know I still carry too much fat (especially in the middle) and I want to lose more weight for a variety of reasons. Improved health, looks, comfort in my own skin, etc. I'm really sick of people acting like I'm bordering on anorexic or underweight when I am smack in the middle of "normal" according to BMI and want to lose more weight.

(For the record, I'm 5'6" and currently right above 136 lbs. According to the BMI calculators, I wouldn't be underweight until I'm below 115 lbs.)

And I've noticed based on the pictures and just the trend from people around me, that "overweight" is the new "normal" in most peoples' eyes and the norm as far as what range most people are in. And we wonder why we have an epidemic of weight related health problems in this country.

[Aleria]

I know this probably isn't a popular opinion here, but I actually think the problem isn't the acceptance of a higher normal range, but rather trying to quantify "normal" for a large group of people.

I don't like generalizations as a rule, and it seems very silly to me to say to someone who's very muscled "you're overweight!" or someone who's naturally thin "you're underweight!" and tell them to lose/gain when they're happy and healthy where they are. If you are uncomfortable with your weight, then work to change it. If not, don't.

But then, I'm the girl who's lost 6 inches off her waist and still weighs the same, overweight, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter.

ETA: Wanted to add that I'm not trying to argue, merely point out that there are different opinions on the subject.

[oolala53]

Wow, it's all relative, isn't it? I'm 5'6" and would cry with joy if I got down to 154 again. I haven't weighed 136 for more than a minute since I was a sophomore in high school. But you do realize you are not overweight and the health benefits of being much smaller are controversial, i.e. some say it helps and some say it doesn't. For appearance, though? You might find this interesting. It might perk you up because you're closer than you thought, or you might redouble your efforts! But I imagine you look pretty good, just not as va-va-voom as you'd like.

I've read recently that if a woman's waist is greater than 46% of her height, her health risks are greatly increased. The most cosmetically attractive waist (but not necessarily healthier) for a woman is as close as she can be to 39-40% of her height, no matter what her weight. Then if her hips are about 1.42 times that, she will be considered eye-catching to men. (This is the same as a waist that is .7 of the hip size, but waist size is the most important relative to height. There is some variation in hip preference with it being as low as 6.5 and as high as .8 compared to hips, but .7 has been the most pleasing the most often.)
So I guess a woman of 5'6'' with a waist of near 26" (ouch!) and hips at 37 is the ideal. If you aren't there, and you're willing to keep eating less and losing more to get there, more power to you! This 57 year-old isn't going to hold her breath for those stats on herself! I'll keep shooting for 154 lbs. as my first goal and hope that gets me to a 30" waist (the upper end of healthy) and see what I look like with consistent working out as well. I'll have a shot at my cosmetically correct hips at 42" then. But, you go, girl! You'll certainly be helping to bring down those obesity averages in this country!