Medical Forum / General / General / March 2005
Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan
|
|
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
|
|
|