Pages

Showing posts with label bmi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bmi. Show all posts

Friday, 27 May 2016

BMI categories may need adjusting, argue researchers

Wednesday May 11 2016
Improvements in treatments for weight-related conditions may have contributed towards the trend
There was a three-point upward shift in the 'optimal BMI' score
"Being overweight may not be as unhealthy as it was 40 years ago," BBC News reports.
New research has found a body mass index (BMI) of 27 is linked to the lowest rate of death – but someone with a BMI of 27 is currently classed as being overweight.
BMI is a score calculated by dividing your weight (usually in kilograms) by the square of your height (usually in metres and centimetres). Currently, a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is classified as being overweight.
Researchers looked at 120,528 people from Copenhagen, recruited from 1976 to 2013, and separately compared those recruited during the 1970s, 1990s and 2000s. They were followed up until they died, emigrated, or the study finished.
The BMI linked to the lowest risk of having died from any cause was 23.7 in the 1970s group, 24.6 in the 1990s group, and had further risen to 27 in the 2003-13 group.
It may be the case that the suggested upward shift in optimal BMI is the result of improvements in preventative treatments for weight-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes.
But this is just an estimate based on averages – it doesn't mean that having a "healthy" BMI is bad for you. Similarly, it shouldn't be assumed that it's now best to be in the overweight category. People often gain weight as they age, so there is the risk you could move from being overweight to obese.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital.
It was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation, the Danish Medical Research Council, Copenhagen County Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and Copenhagen University Hospital. 
The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The study was covered by the UK media with a certain amount of glee, with the Daily Mail suggesting that the BMI system was a "blunt instrument".
It also said this study showed that, "Millions of Britons who are currently classed as overweight, actually have the optimal BMI and the lowest chance of death."
However, the study was reported on accurately, and the reports included expert views saying that people still need to keep an eye on their weight.

What kind of research was this?

This cohort study compared results from three large previous cohort studies in the same part of Denmark, starting at different times.
Researchers wanted to see if there had been a change over time in the optimal BMI score – that is, the BMI shared by people with the lowest rate of death from any cause.
While this type of study can show trends of this nature, it cannot explain why the changes happen.

What did the research involve?

Groups of adults in Copenhagen had their height and weight measured as part of three studies carried out in the city in 1976-78, then 1991-94, and the final study in 2003-13.
Researchers followed them up, then looked to see at which BMI people had the lowest chance of dying. They compared the numbers for the three studies to see if that number changed over time.
The first two studies were linked. Participants for the first study were invited back for a second round of measurements over the period from 1991-94, although younger people were recruited to add to the numbers. People in the third study had not taken part in either of the first two.
As well as weight and height, researchers checked whether people smoked, how much exercise they did, whether they'd been diagnosed with any medical conditions, including cancer or heart disease, and how much alcohol they drank.
They carried out sensitivity checks by including or excluding people with different risk factors to see whether any of them explained the overall results.
The researchers also looked at whether length of follow-up made a difference. They did this by carrying out their calculations with a much shorter follow-up period to see if the longer follow-up from the older studies distorted the results.

What were the basic results?

The average BMI at which fewest people in the studies died from any cause increased by three points over the three decades:
  • 23.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.4 to 24.3) in 1976-78
  • 24.6 (95% CI 24 to 26.3) in 1991-94
  • 27 (95% CI 26.5 to 27.6) in 2003-13
The results showed a similar shift when researchers looked at just deaths from cardiovascular disease for non-smokers who had not been diagnosed with diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer, as well as for shorter periods of follow-up. None of the sensitivity analyses explained the trend.
In addition, researchers found the increased risk of death linked to being obese – a BMI of 30 or above – compared with a "healthy" BMI has gradually decreased to zero.
In the 1970s obese people had a 31% increased risk of death. By the 1990s it had reduced to a 13% increased risk, and by 2003-13 there was no longer a statistically significant link (adjusted hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07).

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say their findings were "robust" and cannot be explained by confounding factors such as age, sex, smoking status and disease at the start of the study.
They said that, "If this finding is confirmed in other studies, it would indicate a need to revise the World Health Organization (WHO) categories presently used to define overweight."
They also said cohort studies cannot address the causes of the results, but speculated that their finding may reflect improvements in treatments for diseases affecting people with higher BMIs, such as heart disease and diabetes.
This would make it less risky to be overweight than in the 1970s, when more people died of these diseases. The reduction in smoking and increase in exercise they found could also have helped mitigate the effects of being overweight, they said.

Conclusion

The link between weight and health is not straightforward. We've known for years that if you plot death rates against BMI categories on a graph, you get a U-shaped curve, where people who are very underweight or very overweight are at higher risk of dying, while people in the middle have a lower risk.
This makes sense: extremes of weight are linked to illness, both as a cause or result. Many people with cancer or lung disease, for example, are underweight, which is one reason why lower BMIs are linked to higher death rates. That's why doctors talk about people having a "healthy" BMI.
What this study seems to show is that the lowest point of that U-shaped curve has shifted to the right, towards higher BMIs. But it doesn't mean that slimmer people are at a higher risk of death.
The study shows that in the period 2003-13, there was no difference between the death rates of people with a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 (healthy) and those with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 (overweight), which were 4 per 1,000 per year for both groups.
The rate for obese people was 5 per 1,000 per year, despite this being a non-significant increased risk of death. There's certainly no need to try to put on weight if you are already at a healthy weight for your height.
The potential reasons for the shift are interesting. It may be, as the researchers suggest, that the diseases which killed more overweight people in the 1970s are now better treated and controlled, meaning that the risks of being overweight are smaller than they once were.
It's possible that the risks associated with being underweight have not decreased in the same way, which would automatically shift the "optimal" point towards overweight.
Also, despite a general increase in the population's BMI over the decades, health awareness has improved. Though the results have taken smoking status into account in the analyses, other factors, such as improvements in physical activity and alcohol moderation, could be having an influence.
However, this study has some limitations. Importantly, it was only carried out among white Danish people, which means it may not apply to other ethnic groups.
We know that some groups, such as people of south Asian origin, are more likely to have problems such as diabetes at lower BMIs than white people, so this study might not apply to everyone. And the follow-up for the most recent group studied was, on average, four years, so we don't yet know if this is a long-term trend.
The criticisms of the BMI system are not unfounded, though. BMI doesn't take into account the increased weight of muscle compared with fat – some athletes have high BMIs, despite being very fit, for example.
Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio can give a good indication of body "fatness". Regardless of your height or BMI, you should try to lose weight if your waist is:
  • 94cm (37in) or more for men
  • 80cm (31.5in) or more for women
You are at very high risk and should contact your GP if your waist is:
  • 102cm (40in) or more for men
  • 88cm (34in) or more for women
Read more about why waist size is important.
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow NHS Choices on Twitter. Join the Healthy Evidence forum.
Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Choices
reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/05May/Pages/BMI-categories-may-need-adjusting-argue-researchers.aspx

crabsallover highlights, key points, comments / links.

Sunday, 30 June 2013

for each 1 unit BMI rise, risk of heart failure increases by 17%

Just a few extra pounds increases heart failure risk - Health News - NHS Choices
  • for each one unit rise in body mass index (BMI) the risk of experiencing heart failure increased by 17%.
  • being fatter increased the risk of developing other cardiovascular diseases such as type 2 diabetes.
  • The Daily Telegraph’s headline stated how “piling on as little as 4lbs can raise risk of heart attack by 17%” when in fact the 17% figure related to heart failure. These are not the same thing.
  • Heart failure is a serious chronic (long term) condition whereby a damaged heart cannot pump enough blood around the body. A heart attack on the other hand is an acute medical emergency that happens when the supply of the blood to the heart is suddenly blocked. 
  • a one-unit increase in BMI corresponds to roughly 220,000 additional heart failure cases in Europe (113,000 additional cases in the US).
  • So even a modest gain in weight (for a man who is 5'10", one BMI unit is equivalent to a seven pound or 3.2kg weight gain) can lead to extensive health costs at a population level.

Conclusion

This large study uses an interesting genetic approach (Mendelian randomisation) to suggest obesity increases the risk of heart failure and adverse changes in liver enzymes.
The combination of a very large sample, prospectively collected information, and a wide range of cardiometabolic measures lend credibility to the findings. The method the researchers used is also thought to reduce the chances of factors other than BMI influencing results, and the chance that the ‘outcome’ could be causing the ‘exposure’ (reverse causality).
The main limitation of this kind of research is that assumptions need to be made. The potentially weakest assumption is the reliability of the association between the FTO genetic variant and BMI. Although the researchers report that this link has been widely found in many other studies, they also note that the strength of the link is relatively weak – the variant is only thought to explain about 0.3% of the variation of BMI in the population.
Estimates of the effect of BMI would be more accurate if this link was stronger.
The researchers suggest that studies in the future might use more than one genetic variation to increase the strength of the link, leading to more precise estimates. 
They also note that an effect of the variant on characteristics other than BMI cannot be ruled out.
Body mass index also has its limitations as a measure of fatness – you can be very muscular and have a high BMI. However, it is a widely used measure of obesity, and across the large number of people involved in the study, measuring BMI should give a reasonable measure of relative fatness.
Overall, this study provides additional evidence to suggest obesity (raised BMI) has a causal influence on a number of different cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure.
And this serves to re-emphasise the message that maintaining a healthy weight is beneficial to many aspects of health.
If you are concerned about your weight, try the free NHS Choices 12-week weight-loss guide – for an evidence-based method of working to achieve safe and sustainable weight loss.  
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter.

Links to the headlines

Few extra pounds ‘could be deadly’. Daily Express, June 26 2013

Links to the science

European Network for Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology (ENGAGE) consortium. The Role of Adiposity in Cardiometabolic Traits: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. PLoS Medicine. Published online June 25 2013

Friday, 1 February 2013

Short bursts of exercise at home good for the heart

reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/February/Pages/Short%20bursts-of-exercise-good-for-heart.aspx
crabsallover highlights, key points, comments / links.


Short bursts of exercise, such as raking the lawn and climbing the stairs, are an excellent way of warding off health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, the Daily Mirror and many global media outlets reported.
The news is based on the results of a cross-sectional study which suggested that even less than 10 minutes of moderate or vigorous activity, such as climbing stairs, ‘count’ and may be as beneficial as longer periods of exercise.
This useful and well-conducted study measured the physical activity of more than 6,000 adults, in addition to measuring various health markers such as blood fats, blood sugar and blood pressure, that are known to be risk factors for chronic conditions including diabetes and heart disease.
The study found that performing moderate or vigorous activity of any duration – either short bursts of less than 10 minutes or for longer – was associated with improved measurements of several cardiovascular risk factors.
The study suggests that even people who do not have time to go to the gym or an exercise class can get many of the health benefits of exercise from adopting an ‘active’ lifestyle.
While the study cannot directly prove cause and effect, it would suggest that any moderate or vigorous exercise you can fit in during the course of a day, benefits your health.

10-minute exercise programmes

NHS Choices has produced a series of 10-minute exercise programmes you can do in the comfort of your own home:
Don’t forget to warm up before, and then cool down after, exercising.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from Bellarmine University and Oregon State University. The source of funding for this study was not declared.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Health Promotion.
This study was covered by the Daily Mirror and the Mail Online. Although the gist of the story is correct, the researchers looked at short bursts of moderate and vigorous physical activity, rather than the ‘light exercise’ reported in the Mail Online.

How active should I be?

To stay healthy, adults aged 19-64 should try to be active daily and should do:
  • at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) of moderate-intensity aerobic activity such as cycling or fast walking every week, and
  • muscle-strengthening activities on two or more days a  week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders and arms)

What kind of research was this?

This cross-sectional study aimed to determine whether short bursts of physical activity were associated with a decreased risk of metabolic syndrome.
Metabolic syndrome is a term used to describe a combination of related risk factors for chronic conditions such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes – these factors include high waist circumference, blood fats, blood sugar and blood pressure.
The researchers also looked at some additional biological markers known to be risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
They looked at whether there were any differences in risk factors for short bursts of activity versus more prolonged bursts.
Cross-sectional studies have a inherent limitation as they cannot prove causation (a direct cause and effect), they can only highlight possible associations.
So in this case, the researchers cannot conclude that it is the short bursts of activity directly affecting the biological markers measured.
Also, because participants aren’t followed over time we don’t know what came first, so we don’t know:
  • if people who exercise a certain way are healthier
  • if people who are healthier exercise a certain way

What did the research involve?

The researchers used data collected as part of the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which collects annual health and nutrition data on a random sample of US citizens. For this study, data from 6,321 non-pregnant adults with data on physical activity from the 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 cycles was used.
A participant’s physical activity was determined by collecting data using an accelerometer. Accelerometers measure the participant’s change in velocity over time (acceleration) allowing the intensity of physical activity to be measured, as well as the duration.
Participants had data on physical activity for at least four days, and at least 10 hours each day. The researchers classified the intensity of physical activity into moderate or vigorous using cut-offs for accelerometry readings.
The researchers also classified activity levels by duration, into two main groups:
  • less than 10 minutes duration (‘nonbout’)
  • more than 10 minutes duration (‘bout’)
Each period of activity was terminated if accelerometry readings fell below the cut off for three minutes or more.
The researchers also calculated whether a participant met physical activity guidelines, defined as engaging in 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity or some combination of the two per week, and whether a participant met the criteria by only performing short, less than 10 minute duration ‘nonbout’ periods of activity.
The US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey also collected data on a participant’s cardiovascular risk factors, including:
  • metabolic syndrome – defined as having three or more of the following symptoms: a high waist circumference, a high level of triglycerides (a type of fat), low levels of high-density (‘good’) cholesterol, elevated blood pressure, elevated fasting blood sugar
  • systolic and diastolic blood pressure
  • blood levels of C-reactive protein (an inflammatory marker), high-density cholesterol, low-density (‘bad’) cholesterol, total cholesterol and blood sugar
  • anthropometric measurements including waist circumference, skinfold thickness and body mass index (BMI)
The researchers also collected data on age, gender, smoking status, race/ethnicity, current health status, and whether the participant was taking any medication.
The researchers analysed whether there was an association between short ‘nonbout’ periods of activity and longer ‘bout’ periods of activity and cardiovascular risk factors.
They also looked at whether there was any difference in risk factors when physical activity guidelines were only met by performing short ‘nonbout’ periods of activity.
In these analyses, the researchers controlled for age, gender, smoking status, race/ethnicity, and current health status.

What were the basic results?

The researchers found that on average, participants performed 23.6 minutes of moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity per day in short, ‘nonbout’ bursts, and 6.6 minutes in 10 minutes or longer bursts (this rather confusing figure is due to some people not doing any moderate to vigorous physical activity in bouts of 10 minutes or longer, during some days).
A total of 42.9% of participants met physical activity guidelines if nonbout physical activity was included, but only 9.7% met guidelines if only 10 minutes or longer periods only were included.
Both ‘nonbout’ and ‘bout’ physical activity were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk factors. The associations were strongest when enough activity was performed to meet physical activity guidelines.
The strengths of associations were generally similar for ‘bout’ and ‘nonbout’ physical activity for all risk factors measured, with the exception of BMI.
To make sure the results weren’t due to the fact that people who performed the longer periods of activity were also performing the shorter periods of activity, the researchers repeated the analyses controlling for 10 minutes or longer periods of activity.
Short ‘nonbout’ physical activity was still associated with a reduced risk of metabolic syndrome; favourable levels of C-reactive protein, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides; and favourable sized waist circumference, skinfold thickness and BMI.
Again, the associations were strongest when enough ‘nonbout’ physical activity was performed to meet the physical activity guidelines.
Finally, the researchers compared the mean levels of biological markers in people meeting the physical activity guidelines solely through performing short ‘nonbout’ periods of physical activity and those meeting guidelines by performing longer periods of activity.
There was no statistical difference between the level of any marker except for BMI. Participants who met guidelines through longer periods of activity had significantly lower body mass indices (25.85) than those meeting guidelines through short periods of activity (27.49, p<0.0001).

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers conclude that these results show that “with the exception of BMI, meeting physical activity guidelines using an ‘active lifestyle’ approach (nonbout activity) as opposed to a more structured exercise approach (bout activity) resulted in similar health outcomes.”
They suggest that “to reduce levels of adult adiposity (body fatness), adults are encouraged to engage in bouts of physical activity of at least 10 minutes in duration; however, for other health outcomes, an active lifestyle approach (for example, climbing a flight of stairs vs. taking the elevator), particularly of vigorous intensity, may be beneficial for initiating physical activity behaviour among inactive adults as well as being sufficient to elicit improvements in health parameters.”

Conclusion

The results of this study suggests that even short periods of physical activity ‘count’ and are associated with improved levels of several risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The study found that the strength of this association was generally as strong for short periods of activity as longer periods of activity.
This study has strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are that both physical activity and the levels of the biological markers were measured objectively, and did not rely on self-reporting, and that it was performed using a large sample of US adults.
However, it was a cross-sectional study, and cross-sectional studies have the limitation that they cannot show causation, in this case, the researchers cannot conclude whether it is the short bursts of activity that affect the biological markers measured.
Also, because participants aren’t followed over time we don’t know what came first, so we don’t know if people who exercise a certain way are healthier or if people who are healthier exercise a certain way.
However, overall this study supports the suggestion that any level of physical activity is better than no activity.
Even if you don’t feel ready to join your local gym, you can still begin making changes to your lifestyle today to improve your activity levels – read more about how you can get fitter without the gym.
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

What is the optimum BMI to reduce Mortality & Disability? 2

reposted from: The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9669, Pages 1083 - 1096, 28 March 2009 (full text)

Lancet Editors' note: Around the world, increasing body-mass index (BMI) is a major public concern. Rightly so, according to this international collaborative analysis of almost 1 million people, followed from middle age in 57 prospective studies. A J-shaped mortality curve is observed, with optimal survival at a BMI of 22•5–25 kg/m2. Above this range, mortality from several causes—especially vascular diseases—was increased. Moderate obesity (BMI 30–35) was associated with 3 years’ loss of life. People with extreme obesity (BMI 40–50) lost 10 years of life, equivalent to the years lost by lifetime smoking.



Findings

In both sexes, mortality was lowest at about 22·5—25 kg/m2. Above this range, positive associations were recorded for several specific causes and inverse associations for none, the absolute excess risks for higher BMI and smoking were roughly additive, and each 5 kg/m2 higher BMI was on average associated with about 30% higher overall mortality.

Below the range 22·5—25 kg/m2, BMI was associated inversely with overall mortality, mainly because of strong inverse associations with respiratory disease and lung cancer. These inverse associations were much stronger for smokers than for non-smokers, despite cigarette consumption per smoker varying little with BMI.



Interpretation

Although other anthropometric measures (eg, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio) could well add extra information to BMI, and BMI to them, BMI is in itself a strong predictor of overall mortality both above and below the apparent optimum of about 22·5—25 kg/m2. The progressive excess mortality above this range is due mainly to vascular disease and is probably largely causal. At 30—35 kg/m2, median survival is reduced by 2—4 years; at 40—45 kg/m2, it is reduced by 8—10 years (which is comparable with the effects of smoking). The definite excess mortality below 22·5 kg/m2 is due mainly to smoking-related diseases, and is not fully explained.


Diagrams, list of studies & causes of death

Optimum BMI for men: 23.5
BMI Optimum: 22.5
BMI Optimum: 22.5
BMI Optimum 27.5
BMI Optimum 23



Monday, 25 October 2010

Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated? Yes

reposted from: http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7638/244.full via http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v17/n4/full/oby2008640a.html#bib10

also see: Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated? NO

BMJ 2008; 336 : 244 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39458.480764.AD (Published 31 January 2008)
  • Head to Head
  1. Patrick Basham, professor1, 
  2. John Luik, senior fellow2
+Author Affiliations
  1. 1Johns Hopkins University, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20036, USA
  2. 2Democracy Institute, London EC1V 4PY
  1. Correspondence to: P Basham patrickbasham@gmail.com
    The UK health secretary declared last week that we are in the grip of an obesity epidemic. Patrick Basham and John Luik believe that the problem is less clear cut, but R W Jeffery and N E Sherwood say that obesity is a growing global problem
    The claims, both in the media and in professional publications, about an epidemic, its causes, consequences, and cure often exceed the scientific evidence and mistakenly suggest an unjustified degree of certainty. The fact that cases are “clearly above normal expectancy” anchors the concept of an epidemic. In this respect, describing obesity as an epidemic is subject to two difficulties.

    Definition of normal

    Firstly, it is difficult to determine normal expectancy. Much of the data on overweight and obesity are limited, equivocal, and compromised in terms of extent and the reliability of the measurements and the populations sampled. In the US, for example, data about population weights date from only 1960. Several pieces of evidence, however, suggest that the contemporary situation may be close to, rather than in excess of, normal.
    The earliest national survey shows that in 1960 45% of the US population was overweight, accordingto sex specific weight for height tables (corresponding to a body mass index of 25 to <30).1 In the 1970s, 22% of US men aged 18-19 were overweight compared with 16.7% of boys aged 12-19 in 2002.2 Fogel’s ongoing work in various countries on the relation between health, mortality, nutrition, and technology suggests that as populations grow healthier, prosperous, and long lived they gain in height and weight.3
    Moreover, current data are highly equivocal in their support for claims of an epidemic. For example, the average population weight gain in the US in the past 42 years is 10.9 kg or 0.26 kg a year.4 Yet, between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, there were no significant changes in the prevalence of overweight or obesity among US adults or in the prevalence of overweight among children.2

    Association with mortality

    Secondly, the determination of the categories of normal, overweight, and obese is entirely arbitrary and at odds with the underlying evidence about the association between body mass index and mortality, a fact that destroys the index’s scientific pretensions and diagnostic value. The bands for overweight and obesity in the US, for example, are the product of the 1997 National Institutes for Health task force report on the prevention and treatment of obesity that supposedly links these bands to increased risk of death. However, the study on which the report is based does not support these linkages.5 It found that the death risks for men with a body mass index of 19-21 were the same as those for men who were overweight and obese (29-31).
    The study’s findings are not unusual. Flegal and colleagues found the weight group with the lowest death rate was overweight,6 while Gronniger’s analysis found negligible differences in risk of death among people with body mass values from 20 to 25.7 Even where there are significant associations, the risks are so modest as to be highly suspect. For example, whereas the reported lung cancer risks for smokers are typically 10-15 times higher than for non-smokers, the death risks for overweight and obese people are in many instances closer to 0.5-1.75 above those for people with normal weight.8
    Despite the supposedly abnormal levels of overweight and obesity, life expectancy continues to increase. According to the UK Office for National Statistics, the current life expectancy of 77.2 years for men and 81.5 for women will rise by 2031 to 82.7 and 86.2, respectively.9

    Morbidity

    Moreover, the association of overweight and obesity with higher risks of disease is equally unclear, partly because of the multifactoral character of these diseases. Increases in overweight and obesity have been paralleled by falls in US total cardiovascular mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as in prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.101112
    Several factors justify scepticism about the link between non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and overweight and obesity. They include the absence of compelling direct evidence that excess fat is the cause of insulin resistance, the fact that the link fails four of the Austin Bradford Hill criteria for causality, and that increased physical activity and dietary changes reduce diabetes risk in advance of, or in the absence of, weight loss.13
    There is considerable evidence that most fat adults were not fat children.14Moreover, the thousand families cohort study found both little consistency between childhood overweight and adult obesity and no net increase in adult risk of disease for overweight children or teenagers. Nor did childhood thinness protect against either adult obesity or coronary vascular disease.14 15
    Some in the public health community believe that deliberate exaggeration or, indeed, misrepresentation of the risks of diseases or certain behaviours or our capacity to prevent or treat them on a population-wide basis is justified, if not demanded, in the interests of health. Since many of the exaggerations come from people who understand the scientific uncertainties around overweight and obesity, it seems that these individuals have adopted such an approach to the obesity epidemic. The unwelcome implications of this for science policy and for evidence based medicine dwarf those of any obesity epidemic, real or imagined.


    References

    1. ↵


    2. ↵

    3. ↵

    4. ↵

    5. ↵


    6. ↵


    7. ↵


    8. ↵

    9. ↵

    10. ↵

    11. ↵


    12. ↵

    13. ↵


    14. ↵


    15. ↵