Curing obesity... doesn't reduce health care costs

A cornerstone of the new Health Care Reform law (and virtually all Health Care reform proposals) is the assumption that ending bad behavior will reduce overall costs for everyone. It seems intuitive - if treating obesity-triggered diseases is expensive, eliminate obesity. But a new study suggests this is not the case as a longer lifespan offsets any short-term savings.

Of course, we should all be trying to be the best version of ourselves, so no one should take this as an excuse to stop exercising and gorge themselves on sweets. But it is a reminder that we should temper our zeal for policy-making with a humility that admits there will always be unexpected consequences that we can not predict.

Obesity is contagious

This is one study that will come as no shock to anyone who's tried to stay on a diet while hanging out with sugar-loving friends. They have found that having obese friends is likely to lead you into obesity as well.

The more obese friends you have, the more likely you are to become obese, a new study suggests. This confirms previous research that gaining weight may be socially contagious...

"We find that having four obese friends doubled people's chance of becoming obese compared to people with no obese friends," says Alison Hill, the study's lead author and a Harvard researcher.

About the rising incidence of obesity, she says, people have gotten better at gaining weight in recent years, but not at losing it.

David Rand, a Harvard research scientist who also worked on the study, says that the more obese people you have contact with, the more likely you are to become obese.

From my experience, the opposite is true as well - have a few friends working to lose weight or maintain their weight-loss makes you much more likely to be losing weight. Why? Simple - it's easier to exercise together, just as it's easier to pig out together. Whatever you make the center of your social calendar becomes central when you're craving human contact.

Should we ban chocolate milk from schools?

When I was a kid, I hated milk. It was a mostly irrational hatred, but the white stuff simply had no appeal to me. There were only two ways to convince me to drink milk: soda milk or chocolate milk. Now, facing the obesity epidemic, some are arguing that chocolate milk should be banned from schools. I will admit that cutting sugary drinks (i.e. soda and lemonade) from my diet did make a huge difference in my weight.

While milk has been the keystone of America's school lunches since the federally subsidized program was established in 1946, the role of chocolate (and other flavored) milk has become a focus of late following a 2006 rule that required schools to establish comprehensive "wellness programs." Public school districts in Berkeley, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. — two of America's more progressive towns — have removed the drink from their list of daily offerings, opting for low-fat, organic white milk instead. That's a perfect way to force kids to shun milk completely, says the dairy industry.

My own opinion is that banning chocolate milk is likely to backfire and cause kids to drink soda instead. That's what they really want, after all, thanks to persistent advertising. Thus, the kids are left without the nutritional value of milk entirely. But I am interested to see what Mod-Bloggers think.

Made me laugh out loud

Posting Calorie Counts does NOT encourage better eating habits

When I was first exposed to the calorie counts in New York restaurants, it certainly changed *MY* eating habits. I simply could not bring myself to order *ANYTHING* at the local McDonald's and simply went hungry until I got home. But a recent study of fast food restaurants showed that for the average shopped, the calorie counts did not lead to better choices.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

This speaks poorly for human nature, and even worse for well-meaning policies. It may go to show that you can not mandate better behavior, without doing away with liberty. And I'd rather have liberty and obesity, than have neither.

Treat Fatty Foods like Tobacco?

Hat tip to Mod-blog reader Nick for this one.

Regular readers know that I have been fighting my own "battle of the bulge" for a over a year now, and have lost 75 lbs through a combination of diet changes (portion control, no sugar, few carbs) and focused exercise (bicycling). It was hard work, and I am not sure if I would have had time or the extra energy/money to pursue all of this if I had been married or had children. (Although, hopefully now that the habits are established, it won't be a problem to take into a marriage, if I should be so fortunate.)

But policy-makers right now don't see obesity as a personal challenge for individuals. They see it as a monetary black hole sucking up health care dollars, just as the President is trying to pass health care reform. "Obesity-related diseases" (mostly heart disease and diabetes) are on the rise, and lawmakers are looking for any way to cut cost and raise money to pay for their proposed health care plans. Now, they are turning to the model of the wars on tobacco, and are considering taxing fatty or sugar-laden foods in order to pay for universal health care. The idea is if you make it expensive to buy sugar, either people will stop eating it or they will be paying for their own health care thru taxation.

It is an interesting idea, but we also need to look at the other lessons from the tobacco wars. To this day, the government both taxes tobacco products AND subsidizes the growth of tobacco in America. Government is fundamentally two-faced, and we need to be ready to face this fact as we look to increase health.

Obesity causes Globbal Warming?

Regular readers know that I have lost 75 lbs this year thru a combination of diet and exercise (biking). There were many reasons why I wanted to lose weight: looking better for the opposite sex, health concerns, back pain, etc. Global warming was not one of my reasons.

Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine...

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The conclusions being drawn from this study by the popular media are idiotic. But we all know that the last people it is okay to make fun or and discriminate against are the overweight. In general, the "fat people" I have known are more likely to be homebodies who stay around the house and don't travel. The extremely thin people I know, on the other hand, tend to be movers and shakers, who tend to drive their SUVs everywhere, smoke like chimneys, and always demand the latest and greatest. Does this mean thinness is a threat the planet? Of course not. But you watch. A "fat tax" is only a few years away.

Is obesity contagious?

While it is true that the current generations are eating more fats and artificial flavorings/preservatives than past ones, scientists have still been at a loss to explain why more Americans and Europeans are obese than ever before. Not merely overweight, mind you, which is explainable by the rise of the couch potato, but actually obese. Many theories have been advanced, but now one is gaining the attention of more and more doctors. Obesity, in some cases, may be contagious - passed from person to person by a form of the common cold. A recent study showed that specific forms of one virus can cause fat cells to multiple unusually quickly, and laboratory animals infected with the virus grew fatter than uninfected controls, even when fed the same amount of food.

Of course, this is no excuse for failing to exercise or try to eat better. But it may provide a new therapy for those who have found it difficult to shed the pounds.

Fat does not always mean Unhealthy

I am working hard to lose weight and get into better shape, but I found this article on a new study on obesity to be very encouraging. It has found that fat does not necessarily mean unhealthy, and that with regular exercise overweight people can be more healthy than thin people who do not exercise.

Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.

At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.

This, of course, does not let anyone off the hook. If you are severely overweight because you never get up off the couch, you are still living an unhealthy lifestyle. But it offers hope for those who are trying to lose weight, but never able to get down to the size 0 pushed by madison avenue. Regular exercise alone may make the difference between dying young, and living to see your great-grandchildren.

Another argument for low carb diets

Many years after the low carb diet craze kicked off by Dr. Atkins has diet down, I still find that keeping the number of carbs in my diet low has been key to my weight loss. And it turns out there is yet more evidence to back up this kind of eating plan.

Fat People Actually Live Longer?

That is what a new study appears to be saying. The study followed a group of thin people, fat people, and obese people, and found that the fat group had far fewer deaths than the thin group.

But, contrary to expectations, the obese did not have an increased risk of dying from cancer. They were slightly more likely than people of normal weights to die of a handful of cancers that are thought to be related to excess weight — cancers of the colon, breast, esophagus, uterus, ovary, kidney and pancreas. Yet they had a lower risk of dying from other cancers, including lung cancer. In the end, the increases and decreases in cancer risks balanced out.

As for diabetes, it showed up in the death rates only when the researchers grouped diabetes and kidney disease as one category. Diabetes can cause kidney disease, they note. But, the researchers point out, the number of diabetes deaths may be too low because many people with diabetes die from heart disease, and often the cause of death is listed as a heart attack.

Talk about running contrary to general wisdom. Researchers DID caution people that mortality should not be confused with health, and many of the longer-living fat people had poorer health overall. But this study may well rewrite many of our ideas about how militant to be about weight control and body image.