How Related Are Weight And Health? – Comments
August 15, 2008
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Yesterdays post was about analysis of NHANES data that showed that body weight and health are not always related. The analysis looked at “metabolic markers of obesity” which were high triglycerides, low levels of HDL (the good) cholesterol, high level of fasting glucose and high blood pressure. The data demonstrated that there are some people who are “overweight” that do not have metabolic markers of obesity, and some people who are “normal” weight who have the metabolic markers.
For some diseases there is a straightforward genetic relationship. You have a particular form of a gene you get the disease. For many other diseases it is not so straightforward. There are a number of factors and genes that have can interact and affect whether you get the disease, and also how severely you get it.
With this in mind the data in that being normal weight or overweight does not completely correlate with whether a person has the metabolic markers makes more sense.
Some people will have a combination of genes that makes them very susceptible to having, as an example, high triglycerides. For these people they are going have high triglycerides whatever. The triglyceride levels will probably be even higher if they are overweight vs normal, but even if really skinny they will probably have high triglycerides.
Other lucky people will have a combination of genes that makes it unlikely that they will ever get high triglycerides, high fasting glucose etc., whatever their weight and lifestyle.
Most of us fall in the middle ground. The combinations of our genes make us susceptible to getting the metabolic markers of obesity. For us, an increase in weight is a strong negative interacting factor. Introduction of this strong factor (weight gain) into the mix will make it more likely that we will get one or more markers, or if we already have any, that they will get worse. For many in this category, putting on weight, particularly round the middle is going to be unhealthy.
If you read the previous post and looked at the percentages, you would have noticed that as people aged the likelihood increased, whatever their body weight, that they would have markers of obesity. This suggests that age is an independent interacting factor for getting the metabolic markers. Previously, the increase in the metabolic markers with age has often been suggested to be due to the fact that we tend to put on weight as we age. While this is true, this data suggests, that since the increase in metabolic markers occurred in normal weight participants too, that age itself plays a role.
So for the majority of people, with regards to the metabolic markers, though we can try to keep our weight down, unfortunately, we cannot stop aging.
Technorati Tags: weight, metabolic, age, genes, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, NHANES
Popularity: 7% [?]
80 Years Ago There Were No Obese People
June 7, 2008
To try to get the point across and stand out from the crowd, many articles start with a ridiculous statement. In order to get our attention they start out with something outrageous.
The problem is that the article then looses credibility, and then the often good content gets the “yeah right” thought, and is not given serious consideration.
Here is a good example. The current Best of Third Age lead article is Facts about Fat. The 10 points in the article are good and pertinent, but the lead paragraphs are ridiculous.
Dr. Roger Unger, 84, considers himself something of an anomaly: He’s old enough to remember the novelty of seeing a fat person. Of, if he so desired, paying a dollar to peek into a tent at the circus fat lady.
Now, he says, he can stand on a street corner and see hundreds of dollars worth of fat people.
“Most of the people alive in the U.S. have never experienced life in a non-obese country,” says Unger, professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center.
So 70 to 80 years ago there were no obese people. Give me a break.
There were less people who were obese, but they were not exactly rare and in a freak show. The circus fat lady was probably 500 lbs or more.
The increase in obesity is certainly a worrying problem. But when I was a kid and there were lots of people who were of Dr Unger’s generation, and there were certainly some obese people. There have always been obese people. Look at some of the old paintings in art galleries.
Dr Unger has rose tinted glasses, a selective memory or most likely is using exaggeration. I understand that there are really important points in the article, but by straining our credulity makes this article have less authority.
The lead to this article detracts from what is a reasonable article about fat.
Popularity: 30% [?]
Reduces Wrinkles by 50%!
May 4, 2008
This blog has a tab and category for skin. When I started this blog I thought I would have a reasonable number of posts about skincare, wrinkles and skin aging in general.
It seems that there are a lot of claims and few facts. I am amazed that I have found so little to blog about.
Much of the problem is that all the formulas and ingredients are proprietary. The companies make the claims, but do not put out any data to back it up. I am sure there is some great stuff out there, but how do you know which product is great and which one is rubbish? There are a few products that do have a scientific background that I will soon discuss, but most of it is just a black box.
Some of the claims are nice and vague. For instance, “Reduces wrinkles by 50%.” Sounds great until you think what exactly does that mean? Who knows? I am damn sure it does not mean that you have 50% less wrinkles. Does it mean that your wrinkles are 50% less deep? Changed from the Grand Canyon to the Columbia Gorge? Or more likely, 50% of the wrinkles looked less deep. Anything that plumps up your skin can temporarily do that, since stretching the skin out will make the wrinkles less deep. Short term non-surgical face lift in a bottle. If only we knew which ones work.
Technorati Tags: skin, wrinkles, skincare
Popularity: 51% [?]
Woman Anger Bad. Man Anger Good.
April 5, 2008
Isn’t this so true. In the workplace women who lose their temper are considered emotional and less competent whereas men are considered to be strong and competent. Also true is that women who are more aggressive in their pursuit of advancement at work are considered bitches. On the other hand a more aggressive man is considered a go-getter.
In a new study, videos were made of actors applying for jobs. The actors were told to be angry. The video applications were viewed by the participants of the test. The participants were told to rate the applicants on their competence, how much responsibility they should be given, whether they should be hired and how much salary they should be paid.
photo credit: hownowdesign
Both men and women reached the same conclusions: Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.
Videos of actors that were either angry or emotionally neutral were also shown. For the emotionally neutral, the disparity in the perceptions of the male and female candidates were eliminated.
The study was reported in Science Daily.
It seems that we are all hard wired for primitive society where men are tough and go out and fight and hunt and the women do all the menial work and nurturing.
So how are women to go out and get what they want effectively? How can women be firm and not back down without generate negative feelings in those with whom they interact? Damned if I know. Wish I did.
Technorati Tags: women, anger, bad, competence
Popularity: 51% [?]
Majority Of Physicians Support National Health Insurance
April 1, 2008
The results of a large survey of US physicians are published today. The survey shows that 59% now favor the establishment of a National Health Insurance Program (universal healthcare) and 32% are opposed. All I can say is Finally! It is time that everybody had similar access to health care.
I should preface my comments by saying that I am a dual citizen of the US and the UK. During my recent visits to England I was very disappointed to see that even the Labor government is trying to push the Nation Health Service (NHS) into the US model. The politicians should all be made to live here for a while with no health insurance and then let’s see whether they think it is a good idea.
Whether your politics are for government involvement in running things, or not, the current for-profit way that the system is run is not working for most Americans. To maximize profit you are not going to want to treat large segments of the population. You are going to want to select those that will cost you the least, and so maximize your profit. So whatever changes are made to the system we have to make the system more universal and not cherry pick. How can decent health care only be available to so few?
One objection that is raised is the cost. However, Canada and the UK governments spend less per capita than the US government does. Some of this is the economy of scale. For instance the government negotiates with a drug maker and gets a steep discount for the whole country.
One term that the opponents use to make people think a universal healthcare system is bad, is socialized medicine. This is supposed to make you think communist. However, now the words social and socialized are being used widely in other more favorable contexts such as social media. The question that needs to be directly discussed is, “Should everybody have the right to have access to good affordable healthcare?” It seems that now even the majority of physicans seem to think so.
If the situation stays the same, what is your healthcare situation going to be like when you (and/or your spouse) stop working? Would one serious illness be a financial catastrophe?
The results are published in Annals of Internal Medicine 148:566-567, 2008. It has not been indexed by PubMed yet.
I think I have said enough for now. What do you think?
Technorati Tags: national health insurance, socialized medicine, universal healthcare
Popularity: 38% [?]
This Blog, Information And A Carbon Dioxide-Based Fractional Laser
February 18, 2008
There was a recent news release, that propagated round the internet, about a new carbon dioxide-based fractional laser. This laser is able to go deeper into the skin with less damage than current lasers. The information says that this laser is better able to treat wrinkles, tighten skin and reduce pigmentation. Sounds wonderful.
First came a news release came from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern (in Dallas), which is one of the places approved by the FDA to use the laser*. This news release was picked up by a few web news services. These news services were then scrapped (text copied verbatim and republished) many many times. I wanted to find out a bit more information about this laser. Using a number of different search terms, all I got was the same copy with the same picture, page after page.
I never did find out which other places were approved by the FDA to use this laser (UT Southwestern only blew their own trumpet), or the few other technical details I was interested in. So where are the other lasers? For all I know there is a carbon dioxide-based fractional laser down the road from my house.
This is copying of copying, of copying, of web copy with no additional information. At least it can be assumed that since the info came from the (very effective) PR Dept of UT Southwestern that is probably accurate. This is often not the case.
On this blog I hope to provide accurate information and will, wherever possible, provide links to the original sources. This way the information can be checked. I like to make comments, but these are presented in a way that make it obvious that they are my opinion and are not presented as fact.
* Original UT Southwestern PR release about the carbon dioxide-based fractional laser
photo credit: timparkinson
Technorati Tags: blog accuracy, links, carbon dioxide-based fractional laser
Popularity: 55% [?]
Harvard Poll On Socialized Medicine
February 15, 2008
Yesterday Harvard released a report on “socialized medicine”. As somebody who grew up in England with the National Health Service, I certainly have opinions on this topic. The term socialized is interesting. It obviously was coined to suggest communism, and all the connotations that go with that word, by people who did not want to change the system. It is really a national system, where everybody can get healthcare whenever they need it.
Due to the nature of my work, I interact with people from many countries. I have yet to find somebody who grew up with a National Health system, whatever their political persuasion, that thinks that their national system is not far superior to the US. Everybody is in total agreement on this, if nothing else. Many say (and a few have done so) that if they get really sick and it is not a total emergency that they would leave the US and seek treatment in their country of origin.
It was such a shock when I moved here 27 years ago (I am now a US citizen), when I needed health care to be concerned about how to pay for it. When you are sick you need to focus on your health and getting well, not stressed out about the cost. You have no idea how different it is. If you need to see your primary care provider, if you are fairly sick but not at emergency room level you can get an appointment immediately. For something that needs care but is not that bad, you can get an appointment later that day or the next day. Something bad, you call an ambulance. Your kid gets sick in the middle of the night, call the doctor, since there is 24-hour healthcare.
The main claim for the system here is that the US has the best healthcare. Look at statistics, such as infant mortality, life expectancy, survival rates, etc. If you have great health insurance (as I do) then the care is reasonably good; but for many people not so good.
What about waiting times? This depends on what you are waiting for. In the UK, if you have something that needs treatment but is not a serious health concern such as bunion surgery, yes, unfortunately you will wait quite a while. Have something serious, you are admitted and treated immediately.
Not only is care for the masses inferior, but also the cost is higher. The US government in 2001 spent 13.9% of GDP on healthcare. Japan spent 7.8%, and the UK spent 7.6%. If nothing else a national health service would save the country a lot of money.
The sad thing in the UK is that the government is moving towards the US system. Parts of the system are being privatized. or place in control of charities. The charities are technically non-profit, but seem to be, for the most part, cash cows for those who run them. A great system is starting to fall apart. I am sure in a decade it will be a terrible mess.
The Harvard Report can be viewed here.
Technorati Tags: socialized medicine, national health service, poll, Harvard
Popularity: 44% [?]
What to Wear
February 4, 2008
First day back at work. Not really mentally ready for it. Everybody said I looked good. Didn’t believe I had put on 7 lbs in two weeks. Told them I was wearing clogs with very thick soles and jeans with long legs that hit the floor. This is something I learned from Trinny and Susannah who did the original BBC, “What Not to Wear” program. The original was really excellent, full of advice on what to wear for different body types, sizes etc. as well as being entertaining. The US version by comparison was awful, little practical advice and often quite insulting. There are a couple of books available such as the original What Not to Wear and What You Wear Can Change Your Life that are informative.
So my plan is to lose the weight, and as I do so, wear lower and lower shoes. The clogs are not particularly practical for the days where I on my feet a lot. Hopefully by the time the weather finally gets nice I can be wearing flip flops.
Technorati Tags: weight, clothes
Popularity: 33% [?]
Newsletter & Updates
Sign up to receive news and information about all aspects of aging, health and...
Get the Feed
