Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MrPepper11 - 17 Mar 2005 19:44 GMT
March 17, 2005
Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan
By RACHEL ZIMMERMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

For two centuries, life expectancy in the U.S. has increased steadily,
thanks to clean water, improved nutrition, better sanitation and
medical breakthroughs such as antibiotics and vaccines.

But a new study finds that an explosion in obesity -- mainly in
children and adolescents -- is threatening to slash two to five years
from the average American lifespan. That would mean that the
life-expectancy gains could be reversed for the first time since the
early 1800s -- and that today's children may well live shorter,
less-healthy lives than did their parents.

The results -- published in today's New England Journal of Medicine --
underscore the growing need for public-policy efforts to curb obesity
in younger Americans, the study authors say. For example, one piece of
federal legislation proposed yesterday by Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa
Democrat, would restrict junk-food advertising aimed at children.

"This is like a tsunami," says study co-author David Ludwig, of Harvard
University and Children's Hospital Boston. "You don't want to wait
until the wave reaches the shoreline to act."

The current average U.S. lifespan is 77.6 years, up from 47.3 years in
1900. Scientists and policy makers long have assumed it would continue
rising. The United Nations has projected a life expectancy of 100 years
in most developed countries by 2300. The U.S. Social Security
Administration, among the more conservative of the estimators, predicts
it will reach the mid-80s in this century.

But the fresh analysis, conducted by some of the nation's top academic
experts in life expectancy, suggests that these reports haven't taken
into account the negative effects of obesity on lifespan, which will
likely occur during the next 10 to 50 years.

Obesity is defined as a body-mass index of more than 30. (BMI is
calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in meters
squared.) It currently knocks at least four to nine months off the
average U.S. lifespan, according to researchers led by S. Jay
Olshansky, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and others at
Harvard and the International Longevity Center of New York.

If childhood obesity continues to increase, obesity could end up
slashing a total of two to five years from the average lifespan, the
researchers found. Today, about nine million children over the age of
six are obese, according to a 2004 Institute of Medicine report. That
is double the number of preschool children and triple the number of
six-to-11-year-olds who were obese in the 1970s.

Obesity raises the risk of heart disease and cancer. Another problem is
type 2 diabetes, which drastically increases the risk of early death.
The surge in childhood obesity has triggered a tenfold rise in the past
decade of type 2 diabetes in children.

The diagnosis of diabetes last year at age 12 was a wake-up call for
Somerville, Mass., teenager Ariel Baugh. Four feet five inches tall,
Ariel weighed in at 156 pounds at the time of her diagnosis, says her
sister and legal guardian Marcie Baugh, thanks in part to a diet of
"Big Macs and Happy Meals with ice cream." Now, with a healthier diet,
regular exercise and attendance at a weight-loss program at Children's
Hospital, Ariel has lost about 30 pounds, but sometimes still cheats on
her eating plan, Ms. Baugh says, adding, "It's so hard when you're a
teenager and everybody else is eating the junk food."

The effect of obesity on lifespan could be so great, the researchers
say, that even significant medical advances -- such as curing one major
disease -- won't prevent life-expectancy gains from stalling or even
dropping, the study finds. Minorities and the poor, with less access to
health care and with higher rates of obesity, are expected to be
hardest hit.

Such a trend could be a money-saver for the nation's Social Security
system, the researchers say. But the costs to the health-care system,
as well as the price paid by obese Americans themselves, justify a
major national effort to get youngsters to slim down, the researchers
say.

An accompanying editorial by a University of Pennsylvania researcher
suggests that elements of the study are "excessively gloomy," given
likely new medical advances and successful public-health campaigns for
such longevity-increasing measures as safer sex, better eating habits
and quitting smoking.

And the Center for Consumer Freedom, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit
group funded by the restaurant and food industries, called the study
"terrible," and said the dire warnings aren't supported by the data.

Obesity experts heralded the findings, which they believe may finally
help the public understand the high price that society is paying for
obesity. "The results are striking in that they put the high levels of
obesity in terms that people can understand," says Kelly Brownell,
director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale
University.

Environmental factors and a "super-size-me" attitude are largely to
blame for the obesity explosion, experts say. Inexpensive fast food and
soft drinks are ubiquitous; portion sizes have ballooned; schools sell
junk food in the cafeteria while cutting physical education programs.
At the same time, children are becoming less active, watching more
television and spending more time online.

Parents need to establish eating habits early, and watch portion size
from age two on, says Allan Walker, a doctor who heads the division of
nutrition of Harvard Medical School. He also recommends healthier
snacks, and making meals a social time for family bonding.

Even intrauterine nutrition can significantly influence body size in
children, and may predispose children to developing obesity, says Emily
Oken, an instructor at Harvard Medical School. She says a growing area
of research suggests a link between birthweight and body size in
childhood and later in life.
Jeff - 17 Mar 2005 19:55 GMT
Hey, look on the bright side: Soc. Sec. is safer than ever.

And just think, the people let this happen.

Jeff
James Michael Howard - 17 Mar 2005 20:47 GMT
>March 17, 2005
>Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
>of research suggests a link between birthweight and body size in
>childhood and later in life.

secular trend: increase in testosterone
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 18 Mar 2005 06:11 GMT
> >March 17, 2005
> >Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
> >of research suggests a link between birthweight and body size in
> >childhood and later in life.

And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.


At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Jeff - 25 Mar 2005 02:44 GMT
(...)

> And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.

No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined with
excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.

The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.

If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
articles.

Jeff

> At His service,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 25 Mar 2005 03:06 GMT
> (...)
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
> articles.

It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.  

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Jeff - 25 Mar 2005 03:22 GMT
>> (...)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.

I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.

More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature,
which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
properly.

I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this good,
one would think that you would publish the work.

Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web study
until the review boards at Emory started asking questions. Which makes one
really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.

Jeff

> At His service,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 25 Mar 2005 03:59 GMT
> >> (...)
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.

Not according to the on-line Webster's at:

http://www.m-w.com

> More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature,
> which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
> properly.

That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 folks who have
used this method for more than 5 years to realize their "ideal" body
weight so why does it bother you intensively?

For all intents and purposes, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been studied
properly and you know this because you voiced false concerns more than 5
years ago that the study would not be properly conducted and yet here we
are, study completed.

> I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
> participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this good,
> one would think that you would publish the work.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.  As for
publishing the 5 year experiences of the more than 625,550 people who
have made this lifestyle change, you will just have to wait, Jeff.

> Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web study
> until the review boards at Emory started asking questions.

Actually, that was more than 5 years ago.  Now you know your complaints
about the study were determined to be unfounded because the study was
properly crafted and more than adequately powered (actually vastly
overpowered) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed lifestyle
change.

> Which makes one
> really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.

I believe you and everyone following this thread now know that the
2PD-OMER Approach has indeed been properly studied.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Pizza Girl - 25 Mar 2005 04:06 GMT
You know I hate this bullshit attitude of people that come into a discussion
group tooting all the so-called scientific methods that haven't been done
this way or that way. Even if you laid 1000 pages of peer reviewed double
blind studies there would always be some argument that the studies were
crap.

Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?

tit for tat, a.shole?

> > >> (...)
> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Jeff - 25 Mar 2005 23:27 GMT
> You know I hate this bullshit attitude of people that come into a
> discussion
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> tit for tat, a.shole?

Thanks for the name calling.

For this diet to work, you have to stick to it. I would like the to see the
data that shows that what percentages of people who start the diet stick to
it.

Jeff

>> > >> (...)
>> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
>> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Pizza Girl - 25 Mar 2005 23:35 GMT
You show data first.

You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't like
what he is saying and I am going to cry"

> > You know I hate this bullshit attitude of people that come into a
> > discussion
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
> >> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> >> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Jeff - 26 Mar 2005 05:27 GMT
> You show data first.
>
> You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't like
> what he is saying and I am going to cry"

You've got it backwards. Chung is making a claim. It is up to him support
his claim.

And if you read this thread carefully, I have asked him for the cites, and
*HE* says they don't exist.

Jeff
Pizza Girl - 26 Mar 2005 06:26 GMT
The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
there is no point trying.

> > You show data first.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Jeff
Bob (this one) - 26 Mar 2005 08:20 GMT
> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
> there is no point trying.

This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
for.

And Chung's numbers went from his saying that 90,000 people were doing
his diet a few months ago, to more than 600,000 today - that he says
have been doing his silly diet for more than 5 years.

And he makes reference to a study and says it's complete but nowhere are
the results available. He makes many assertions but shows no more
substance than your repetitions about fiber being an "essential
nutrient" without knowing what that means.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for someone with such finely
honed prejudices and doomsaying about foods, your "Pizza Girl" handle is
kinda funny.

Pastorio

>>>You show data first.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>>Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 26 Mar 2005 11:18 GMT
> > The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> > chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> his diet a few months ago, to more than 600,000 today - that he says
> have been doing his silly diet for more than 5 years.

In truth, I had written *more* than 90,000 people (and growing) a number
of months ago.  Now I am writting more than 625,550 people (and still
growing).

Is there are particular reason why you believe this number should stop
growing ?

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
jt - 26 Mar 2005 14:09 GMT
>> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
>for.

You are an idiot.  The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
and your refusal to answer questions.  You say that zero carb diet is
ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet.  I am not sure
how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.

You actually think an active to very active  person can convert enough
carbs from protein?

Even if one accepts your argument that carbs aren't necessary does
not mean they are not valuable and important part of ones diet.  If
you want to consider it a luxury be my guest.  You could use your lame
argument to stop eating vegetables as well since mere survival does
not require they're consumption.  Based on your stupidity I think the
low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
Pizza Girl - 26 Mar 2005 16:13 GMT
First of all, nothing "effects" your brain. The word is "affects" This a
very common mistake with the malnourished crowd.

Carb are necessary for life and I doubt any thinking, researching
professional will tell you different. Even the LC proponents like Atkins
will tell you that over and over. Try reading an Atkin's book once and you
could talk intelligently on this. Or is it that you did read an Atkin's diet
book and you can't force yourself to eat that many vegetables each day? Now
you need somebody to back your childish attitude.

> >> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> >> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> not require they're consumption.  Based on your stupidity I think the
> low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
Bob (this one) - 26 Mar 2005 17:04 GMT
> First of all, nothing "effects" your brain. The word is "affects" This a
> very common mistake with the malnourished crowd.
>
> Carb are necessary for life

I guess the disagreement between subject and verb in your few words
above could be attributed to the same condition, right?

But you still don't say which ones. Of course, fiber isn't a carb - or
any other macronutrient - since we don't digest them.

> and I doubt any thinking, researching
> professional will tell you different.

Try Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard med school. Just for kicks, look him
up and see what he says. Carbs aren't needed, but he likes them. As do I.

You still haven't grasped the notion of "essential nutrient" and are
arguing from convenience and preference rather than science.

> Even the LC proponents like Atkins
> will tell you that over and over. Try reading an Atkin's book once and you
> could talk intelligently on this. Or is it that you did read an Atkin's diet
> book and you can't force yourself to eat that many vegetables each day?

How silly a thing to say. Atkins had a good bit of it right, but it was
empirical, immediate and unstudied. Not good recommendations for
scientific rigor.

> Now
> you need somebody to back your childish attitude.

<LOL> As opposed to your diligent, mature, informed attitude...?

Bwah.

Pastorio

>>>>The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>>>>chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>not require they're consumption.  Based on your stupidity I think the
>>low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
Bob (this one) - 26 Mar 2005 16:15 GMT
>>>The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>>>chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
> You are an idiot.

Such logic. So many facts. Such deep reasoning. And I'm dazzled how
wonderfully your answer connects with the words above. Been saving it
up, have you...?

> The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
> and your refusal to answer questions.

I don't recall not answering questions; perhaps you can point to them
and I'll happily answer.

> You say that zero carb diet is
> ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet.

No. I didn't say that. I actually never suggested not eating carbs. I
happen to like some of them and consume them regularly. I *like* them.
But I don't *need* them. Just like you don't *need* them.

Unless you have some responsible citation that demonstrates that we do...

Maybe you could list some that are essential nutrients that we have to
eat to get. I'll wait. Again.

> I am not sure
> how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.

Read along with me here. It has not been demonstrated that dietary
carbohydrates are necessary for human survival. That is, they are not
"essential nutrients" as defined by the community of scientists who use
that expression. See how simple it is. And, BTW, it would be good not to
make up definitions and then attribute them to others.

> You actually think an active to very active person can convert enough
> carbs from protein?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> not require they're consumption.  Based on your stupidity I think the
> low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.

Given the clumsiness of your writing, the stunted use of logic, the
construction of straw men, and the grammatical blunders, perhaps you
need to look to your diet to see if it's *affecting* your thinking. All
you've offered is insult and heated rejection with nothing to support
your silly, excited ranting.

Run along now.

There's a good kid...

Pastorio
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.