S/O, why is the black woman figure big?

[Anonymous]

20% of Europeans smoke.

[Anonymous]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HUMM... these posts are making me hungry and I think I am going to run to the Mcdonalds.

signed,

fat white ass

I'll take a Big Mac and Large fries please.

I'm just going to tell you that for my money McD's just does NOT taste good or satisfying to me. I think anyone over the age of 40 who used to eat it before they took all of the bad fats out of it. it just tastes actually horrible to me and I feel sick after eating eat. The comments on here about the harsh choices that you make when you have very limited money are very accurate. People have to come together as an "american culture" to make healthier choices. Yes, the mother who is collapsing exhausted after 3 jobs will cut corners. But we need to reinforce an ethic that will not tolerate that choice. Close down Mcd sue them virtually out of existence, like the tobacco companies Make fast food a lot less available. Attach shame to consuming it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

Me again. Oops- it does separate the moderately obese but this is only one study of young Dutch men. The other studies include huge numbers of people and point to a totally different conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

The heavier people appeared to live longer in the studies as designed. The flaws matter a lot, so much that JAMA took it on. When articles come out that look at a series of studies and conclude that there were many sources of error, it is for a very good reason. I am on this topic because medical research and the validity of studies is my part of my profession. I had heard about this research before and I did not think that anyone else took it seriously. The studies need to be redone using strict criteria: prospective double blinded. Very serious factors such as smoking and coexisting disease have to be considered, otherwise, it is garbage in garbage out.
BTW, a relative of ours suffered from swallowing (and other GI) problems for years. She finally died at 60 and weighed 79 pounds...that is one example of who should not be included in the study. We all know that extremely low BMIs are dangerous or a sign of serious illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

The heavier people appeared to live longer in the studies as designed. The flaws matter a lot, so much that JAMA took it on. When articles come out that look at a series of studies and conclude that there were many sources of error, it is for a very good reason. I am on this topic because medical research and the validity of studies is my part of my profession. I had heard about this research before and I did not think that anyone else took it seriously. The studies need to be redone using strict criteria: prospective double blinded. Very serious factors such as smoking and coexisting disease have to be considered, otherwise, it is garbage in garbage out.
BTW, a relative of ours suffered from swallowing (and other GI) problems for years. She finally died at 60 and weighed 79 pounds...that is one example of who should not be included in the study. We all know that extremely low BMIs are dangerous or a sign of serious illness.

I am not saying that it doesn't matter. I am saying that the purpose of these particular studies was to ask a simple question of what body type has the longest lifespan. Of course, further investigation is necessary but you can't rule out the possibility that thin people might not be the healthiest people. The studies are not necessarily flawed- they just don't show the whole picture and they don't answer all of the important questions. They don't even attempt to. They are limited in scope but they are still valid studies that answer one important question. Skinny people do not live as long as slightly overweight people. Thin people can no longer claim to be the healthiest until we have more answers. I have pointed out that I am actually a thin person but I can't stand the self-righteous bullshit that thin people like to spew about their perceived superiority to "overweight" people. We might need a new definition of "overweight." If you look at the current evidence which is absolutely valid though limited in scope, thin people will die sooner than slightly overweight people. Period. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

The heavier people appeared to live longer in the studies as designed. The flaws matter a lot, so much that JAMA took it on. When articles come out that look at a series of studies and conclude that there were many sources of error, it is for a very good reason. I am on this topic because medical research and the validity of studies is my part of my profession. I had heard about this research before and I did not think that anyone else took it seriously. The studies need to be redone using strict criteria: prospective double blinded. Very serious factors such as smoking and coexisting disease have to be considered, otherwise, it is garbage in garbage out.
BTW, a relative of ours suffered from swallowing (and other GI) problems for years. She finally died at 60 and weighed 79 pounds...that is one example of who should not be included in the study. We all know that extremely low BMIs are dangerous or a sign of serious illness.

I am not saying that it doesn't matter. I am saying that the purpose of these particular studies was to ask a simple question of what body type has the longest lifespan. Of course, further investigation is necessary but you can't rule out the possibility that thin people might not be the healthiest people. The studies are not necessarily flawed- they just don't show the whole picture and they don't answer all of the important questions. They don't even attempt to. They are limited in scope but they are still valid studies that answer one important question. Skinny people do not live as long as slightly overweight people. Thin people can no longer claim to be the healthiest until we have more answers. I have pointed out that I am actually a thin person but I can't stand the self-righteous bullshit that thin people like to spew about their perceived superiority to "overweight" people. We might need a new definition of "overweight." If you look at the current evidence which is absolutely valid though limited in scope, thin people will die sooner than slightly overweight people. Period. End of story.

OK, I think that the argument is moot at this point. As a physician, I have always known that if you look at all of the thin people in the US and measure average years lived the results WOULD show that they live shorter lives than "normal" or slightly over weight people. So if THAT is the only question, then you are absolutely correct.
[The results are even more pronounced in places like Africa, since many thin people have serious diseases like AIDS and TB. Thin people there live much shorter lives]

However, the researchers need to remove the skinny people who suffer from kidney failure, cancer, AIDS, tobacco abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, inflammatory bowel disease, scleroderma, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis (old days) to name a FEW, who are thin because of their disease, as a matter of fact (sadly) many are terminally ill. Also remove them from the heavier group, you will find that the thin people live LONGER.

To answer your question, we know why a random sample of thin people do not live as long, I gave examples of a few diseases that contribute to an earlier death. Importantly, being thin does not give them these diseases, rather the illnesses make them thin.

I am sorry to say that your studies are flawed.

I will have to move on from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895435688901618


But look at this abstract that examines the study designs and flaws. I think you will have to pay for the whole article:



http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/3/353.short

The Dutch study is comparing BMI of 19 or lower with 25 or higher. It doesn't separate obese (30 or higher) from moderately overweight (BMI 25-30). As far as the link showing the comparison of studies is concerned: I am sure that there is bias in every research study ever conducted. You will find a flaw in any study if you look for one. But that doesn't change the fact that the 25 major research studies were massive- they included massive numbers of people and they compared lifespans. They did not ask the question of why this is- they only compared lifespans. It's a simple equation. To me, this is relevant information because for some reason, moderately overweight people, as a whole, live longer than the other two groups. We don't know why yet. You can point to smoking or other factors but that proves nothing. The point is that moderately overweight people have a higher chance of living longer whether you like it or not.

The heavier people appeared to live longer in the studies as designed. The flaws matter a lot, so much that JAMA took it on. When articles come out that look at a series of studies and conclude that there were many sources of error, it is for a very good reason. I am on this topic because medical research and the validity of studies is my part of my profession. I had heard about this research before and I did not think that anyone else took it seriously. The studies need to be redone using strict criteria: prospective double blinded. Very serious factors such as smoking and coexisting disease have to be considered, otherwise, it is garbage in garbage out.
BTW, a relative of ours suffered from swallowing (and other GI) problems for years. She finally died at 60 and weighed 79 pounds...that is one example of who should not be included in the study. We all know that extremely low BMIs are dangerous or a sign of serious illness.

I am not saying that it doesn't matter. I am saying that the purpose of these particular studies was to ask a simple question of what body type has the longest lifespan. Of course, further investigation is necessary but you can't rule out the possibility that thin people might not be the healthiest people. The studies are not necessarily flawed- they just don't show the whole picture and they don't answer all of the important questions. They don't even attempt to. They are limited in scope but they are still valid studies that answer one important question. Skinny people do not live as long as slightly overweight people. Thin people can no longer claim to be the healthiest until we have more answers. I have pointed out that I am actually a thin person but I can't stand the self-righteous bullshit that thin people like to spew about their perceived superiority to "overweight" people. We might need a new definition of "overweight." If you look at the current evidence which is absolutely valid though limited in scope, thin people will die sooner than slightly overweight people. Period. End of story.

OK, I think that the argument is moot at this point. As a physician, I have always known that if you look at all of the thin people in the US and measure average years lived the results WOULD show that they live shorter lives than "normal" or slightly over weight people. So if THAT is the only question, then you are absolutely correct.
[The results are even more pronounced in places like Africa, since many thin people have serious diseases like AIDS and TB. Thin people there live much shorter lives]

However, the researchers need to remove the skinny people who suffer from kidney failure, cancer, AIDS, tobacco abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, inflammatory bowel disease, scleroderma, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis (old days) to name a FEW, who are thin because of their disease, as a matter of fact (sadly) many are terminally ill. Also remove them from the heavier group, you will find that the thin people live LONGER.

To answer your question, we know why a random sample of thin people do not live as long, I gave examples of a few diseases that contribute to an earlier death. Importantly, being thin does not give them these diseases, rather the illnesses make them thin.

I am sorry to say that your studies are flawed.

I will have to move on from here.

You can't possibly make those claims. That is based on your belief system alone, not on reality. It seems like you just don't want to admit that you might have been giving your patients the wrong advice for a long time but I can certainly understand that. Sorry, but lots of scientists do believe that these studies are valid. Those studies took place over long periods of time. The Australian study took place over a decade and looked at people who were in those BMI ranges for long periods of time. The Finnish study followed nearly 20,000 twins over a period of 24 years! How can you say that's invalid? And what about this one? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10121660

You are totally full of shit. I am seriously glad you are not my doctor. Yes, time to move on.

[Anonymous]

If you look at photos from the civil rights era, you will see that most black people back then (at least the ones in the photos) were not fat. Americans as a whole are getting fatter, and black Americans are doing so at an even faster rate. I am black (though not American), and I'm struck by how much thinner Europeans (black and white) are. I think it's a combination of eating habits, the type of food consumed, inactivity, and yes, cultural acceptance. If you are fat in France, you won't be able to buy any clothes!

[Anonymous]

Blacks are more muscular than whites generally. Muscle weighs more than fat.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the posts, but there's absolutely a correlation between obesity and poverty (and in DC, there is a correlation between poverty and being black). Partly because of food deserts, partly because of corn subsidies that make processed crap masquerading as food cheaper than actual fruits and vegetables, partly because of the convenience of getting fast food takeout for low-income parents who are working 14-hour, 2-job days to just scrape by. We need to do better as a country.

But is doesn't appear we're going to. Fast food companies are pushing be be allowed to accept food stamps. What a horrible notion.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/28/food-stamps-for-fast-food-yum-say-restaurants/

And recently the USDA rejected NYC's quest to ban the purchase of soda and other sugary drinks with food stamps - not because they thought it was a bad idea, but because it was too hard. Seriously, it was too tough for the Department of Agriculture to do. It's easy to give billions in subsidies to agri-business so they can cheaply grow corm to make the damn soda in the first place, though. Aargh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/nyregion/ban-on-using-food-stamps-to-buy-soda-rejected-by-usda.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blacks are more muscular than whites generally. Muscle weighs more than fat.

you are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Black and I find this thread hilarious...are people really this ignorant?

It's no surprise that a large part of the population of black people in the US are poor. If you have $10 to feed your family, what are you going to do? Not everyone can afford to shop "organically" at Whole Foods. When you have hungry children and you can fill them up for $2 at McDonald's....that's what you're going to do. There's no concern about nutritional content...the concern is to rid yourself of gnawing hunger. Some of you people are clueless.....do you really think that the problem is simply that black women like to eat? OMFG....get a clue.

The irony of this is that $10 is likely to go a lot further is this same family would go out and buy a pound of ground turkey (WF is not the only supermarket in the city) and a few whole wheat burger buns and cook at home. The idea that fast food is cheaper is a fallacy. Its not solely about cost its about laziness and/or not knowing any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blacks are more muscular than whites generally. Muscle weighs more than fat.

you are nuts.

Umm..have you noticed the high percentage of black athletes versus white athletes.