[Commercial disclaimer: I am fat]

Contrary to popular belief, fat people can even ride motorbikes
Aren’t fat people awful? I mean they take up all that space and sweat so damn much. If the law says we can’t snuff out their existence in an orderly fashion then we should just tax the merry fuck out of them till they stop it. After all – fat people cost us BILLIONS in NHS costs every year, and it doesn’t seem fair that us thin folk should shoulder such a heavy burden.
I’m reminded of this by a story on the BBC (quelle surprise!) about the dangers of being overweight during pregancy. A typical story, you might think.
Bizarrely, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology would appear to paint a more nuanced picture.
“Low weight and BMI at conception or delivery, as well as poor weight gain during pregnancy, are associated with low birth weight, prematurity, and maternal delivery complications”
As would the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
“Maternal thinness is a strong predictor of both preterm birth and fetal growth restriction”
Who are further backed up by America’s National Maternal and Infant Health Survey
“Low weight gain in pregnancy was associated with increased risk of preterm delivery, particularly if women were underweight or of average weight before pregnancy”
Further studies by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology also found that:
“Women whose BMI declines between pregnancies are at increased risk for pre term birth”
And when you start to look away from the whole spitting-entire-people-out-of-your-vagina scene you will see a similar pattern emerging.
- “For every 5-U increase in BMI, the odds of risk-adjusted mortality was 10% lower“ Source: American Heart Journal
- “For all factors studied, except body mass index, we observed statistically significant linear trends for lower offspring examination 1 risk factor levels with increasing parental survival category.” Source: The Archives of Internal Medicine
- “Among men, risk of death from suicide is strongly inversely related to BMI” Source: The Archives of Internal Medicine
- “Obesity in critically ill patients is not associated with excess mortality” Source: Society of Critical Care
- “Overweight and obese stroke patients have a lower poststroke mortality rate than normal-weight and underweight patients” Source: The Journal of Neuroepidemiology
- “Overweight and obesity were associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates in patients with chronic heart failure and were not associated with increased mortality in any study” Source: The American Heart Journal
- “Compared to non-obese individuals, overweight and obese patients have similar or lower short- and long-term mortality rates” Source: University of Alberta
- “Obese/overweight women at risk for spontaneous preterm birth exhibit less uterine activity and less frequent spontaneous preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation than normal/underweight women.” Source: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
- “Estimates for all-cause mortality, obesity-related causes of death, and other causes of death showed no statistically significant or systematic differences between BMI and other variables” Source: National Center for Health Statistics
Here’s how science works. You make an observation about the universe (“Ed Balls is a cunt”) then construct a hypothesis to explain that (“perhaps he is from a disadvantaged background?”) then create a test to see whether that hypothesis holds water (“did he go to a bad school?”) and then publish your conclusion (“No. He’s just a cunt”). Other scientists then test the rigour of your hypothesis and suggest alternatives and eventually some kind of workable agreement is reached until a new improved theory emerges later.
The great thing is that you only need one – as in a single – refutation of a theory to falsify it. As Einstein famously put it:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
And yet, despite the slew of ‘null findings’ (findings that disprove a theory of correlation) the myth of obesity as a risk factor in health of itself remains unchallenged. There’s even a cardre of people writing fretful pieces trying to reconcile the ‘obesity paradox’.
Here’s a hint, Poindexter – there is no paradox. Just the facts.
It has become groupthink. The mythology is so intertwined in our culture that it is hard to see it shifting any time soon – whatever the evidence might inconveniently say. All the way down from Jamie Oliver who was happy to call people “fat scrubbers” and “white trash arseholes” for feeding their kids chips, down to the endless reams of Government advertising and to the constant low-level jibes that are directed at anyone with a belly.
There’s an unholy mix of interests promoting this guff. Hell – it’s got it’s own industry sector these days, fronted by a phalanx of charlatans, politicians, celebrity chefs, credulous dupes and self-satisfied, whippet-thin, permatanned nonentities with a product to hawk or a lifestyle to shill.
And if you think the problem is confined to the public health debate, think on the next time someone tells you that the science of climate change is “settled” or that a “consensus” is all the authority you need to send your economy back to the stone age.
HT to the massively informative and well-written Junkfood Science.
I’m not necessarily against fat people, but godammit they have to be jolly, otherwise whats the point.
You’re really going to hate a book being published in October called The Energy Glut.
Totally agree with you Carps.
Although, I’ve read that BMI is flawed, so I wonder if they could use a better metric…
@Richard – Oh gawd… I just read the preview/synopsis of that book and had to chain myself to a radiator to stop myself from boiling myself alive so that I wouldn’t ever risk seeing that book in the flesh on a shelf in a bookshop.
…all this just because you want a guilt free pasty!?
Eeek!
“Cuba and the era of the bicycle”
So, umm, that’s what they’re going to be suggesting as the solution, right?
‘Here’s how science works … “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”’
Except that science doesn’t proceed like that, not really. Of course a single negative result can disprove a hypothesis deductively, but if you mean to use this as a model for actual scientific practice, you are barking up the wrong tree. In the world of real science, induction (ie empirical confirmation of a hypothesis) is used all the time. And that’s just fine.
Right, generalities out the way, let’s look at your hypothesis: ‘obesity is a risk factor in health’. Is this one that could be deductively refuted by a single experiment? No, because it is not of the form ‘all x are y’. (Indeed, most scientific hypotheses are not of this form.) The deductive refutation method doesn’t work at all in your example: real studies will look for correlations between (eg) BMI and heart disease. Some studies will find one, but some may not and we have to decide how to take things forward. But this is in no way equivalent to (eg) finding 100 white swans and 1 black swan and taking the hypothesis ‘all swans are white’ as refuted.
Also, your hypothesis itself (‘obesity is a risk factor in health’) is so imprecise that even if we took the very various studies you reference as conclusive in the specific areas of health each one looks at, it would still be possible that obesity is a risk factor in another aspect of health.
I quite agree with your points, Steve – in fact, you’re making much the same point as me, albeit from the other direction. The point about the science is that it is uncertain and nuanced, whereas the public health message that is constantly delivered across all kinds of media is that “obesity kills” and “obesity is bad”. No grey areas are allowed – and in fact, myths are being promulgated.
Among the most egregious of such myths being Jamie Oliver’s claims that “the young generation is the first that will die younger than their parents” and that some people are “vomiting their own shit” due to their obesity. That is pure, unalloyed horeshit that a media with no real scientific understanding allows to be promulgated to a populace who will believe it, simply because there is no correcting, sober discourse on the subject.
And not only is there a single message being delivered, but there are coercive policies on the table that would tax people’s eating habits, ban particular foods and many other interferences that are simply not justifiable on scientific grounds.
Taken in the round, the hypothesis that “obesity is bad” is on very shakey ground. There is no correlation between high BMI as a predictor of most diseases commonly attributed to it as study after study after study has found.
So back to the point: where is the corresponding nuance in the public health message? There is none. The science has been highjacked by vested interests in government, the media and industry who wish to exert their influence over our lives for a variety of motivations.
That is not a grown up, rational or scientific approach to either public health or policy.