Highlights from JunkFoodScience:
Highlights from JunkFoodScience:
Written by Sandy Szwarc, RN, BSN, CCP
Sandy is a registered nurse with over 27 years in neonatal intensive care and pediatric emergency triage, medical outreach education and preventative health communications. She’s also a certified culinary professional, food editor, book author and winner of the international 2004 Bert Greene Award for Food Journalism. In addition to writing critical analyses of the science and fears surrounding food and health issues, and on the economic, political and public health implications of science-based policy decisions, she’s spoken to food and media professionals on the importance of communicating reliable information. She is a member of the National Council Against Health Fraud, American Council on Science and Health, Association for Size Diversity and Health, Advisory Board for NAAFA, and the International Association of Culinary Professionals. Her upcoming book is The Truth About Obesity and Dieting.
“Obesity Paradox” #9
Dr. Sturman’s team found a significant relationship between underweight and cognitive decline over time. In comparison, there was lower cognitive decline among overweight and obese people, with each increase in BMI associated with less cognitive decline.
They then reanalyzed the data using several different modelings and were unable to remove the favorable associations between higher weights and preservation of cognitive function. They further adjusted for illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and still the association didn’t change substantially. Finally, they eliminated 1,010 of the participants from their analysis to exclude those with low scores on one of the tests (MMSE) and only then were able to make the associations between BMI and cognitive decline statistically not significant.
What is striking about all of this research, besides the fact it didn’t make the news and isn’t common knowledge, is that no matter how hard some researchers are trying to find reasons why the natural weight gain that comes with aging is bad for us, and how much they torture the data, they can’t. Maybe, Mother Nature isn’t so dumb after all with the natural creeping up of weights and health indices as we age.
“Obesity Paradox” #1
Several studies this week have tried to explain what is being called the “obesity paradox:” the fact that most fat people actually live longer than thin people.
Obesity Paradox #3
The third edition in our collection of Obesity Paradoxes addresses the leading cause of death in the United States: heart disease. The CDC reports we’re most likely to die of heart disease than anything else. But research just published in the American Heart Journal found you are 2 1/2 times less likely to die of acute heart failure if you are obese when you’re hospitalized than if you are “normal weight!”
Obesity Paradox #4
When investigative researchers were recently unable to attribute heart disease to obesity, understandably, the story wasn’t widely circulated and, with a note of (likely unintentional) humor, they said “more research is needed to discover the links between obesity and cardiovascular disease.” The story headline craftily, but inaccurately, said: “Obesity’s Connection to Cardiovascular Disease Remains Poorly Understood.”
Science by press release
We’ve covered several times just why the weight gain guidelines are as they are, and that recommendations to restrict pregnancy weight gain has been tried before. Medical professionals quickly found that advice for weight gain restrictions endangered babies, and babies were having poorer chances for survival and more health problems. Medical guidelines were reversed to what we have today and the research continues to show that these recommendations help to ensure a safe pregnancy, optimal fetal growth and healthy babies. Without working from good information, we could repeat history.
But, as we learned in August from a St. Louis University media release, there is a movement afoot to revise the pregnancy weight gain guidelines downward to address the ‘obesity epidemic’ and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-commissioned review is coming up this fall.
A baby "paradox"
An enormous study on every child born in Denmark since 1977 through 2004 was published in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers from the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen had gathered the reported birth weights, gestational ages and potential confounding factors for 1.7 million children and examined them against hospitalizations for infectious diseases from birth through childhood. Healthcare is publicly-funded in Denmark, reducing population variabilities in prenatal and pediatric care and record-keeping.
The results were incontrovertible. The heavier the children were at birth, the lower their risks for serious infectious diseases resulting in hospitalization. Birth weights were inversely related to hospitalizations and the effect persisted through the age of ten. The results were also present among those born at term and were independent of prematurity.
Written by Sandy Szwarc, RN, BSN, CCP
Sandy is a registered nurse with over 27 years in neonatal intensive care and pediatric emergency triage, medical outreach education and preventative health communications. She’s also a certified culinary professional, food editor, book author and winner of the international 2004 Bert Greene Award for Food Journalism. In addition to writing critical analyses of the science and fears surrounding food and health issues, and on the economic, political and public health implications of science-based policy decisions, she’s spoken to food and media professionals on the importance of communicating reliable information. She is a member of the National Council Against Health Fraud, American Council on Science and Health, Association for Size Diversity and Health, Advisory Board for NAAFA, and the International Association of Culinary Professionals. Her upcoming book is The Truth About Obesity and Dieting.
“Obesity Paradox” #9
Dr. Sturman’s team found a significant relationship between underweight and cognitive decline over time. In comparison, there was lower cognitive decline among overweight and obese people, with each increase in BMI associated with less cognitive decline.
They then reanalyzed the data using several different modelings and were unable to remove the favorable associations between higher weights and preservation of cognitive function. They further adjusted for illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and still the association didn’t change substantially. Finally, they eliminated 1,010 of the participants from their analysis to exclude those with low scores on one of the tests (MMSE) and only then were able to make the associations between BMI and cognitive decline statistically not significant.
What is striking about all of this research, besides the fact it didn’t make the news and isn’t common knowledge, is that no matter how hard some researchers are trying to find reasons why the natural weight gain that comes with aging is bad for us, and how much they torture the data, they can’t. Maybe, Mother Nature isn’t so dumb after all with the natural creeping up of weights and health indices as we age.
“Obesity Paradox” #1
Several studies this week have tried to explain what is being called the “obesity paradox:” the fact that most fat people actually live longer than thin people.
Obesity Paradox #3
The third edition in our collection of Obesity Paradoxes addresses the leading cause of death in the United States: heart disease. The CDC reports we’re most likely to die of heart disease than anything else. But research just published in the American Heart Journal found you are 2 1/2 times less likely to die of acute heart failure if you are obese when you’re hospitalized than if you are “normal weight!”
Obesity Paradox #4
When investigative researchers were recently unable to attribute heart disease to obesity, understandably, the story wasn’t widely circulated and, with a note of (likely unintentional) humor, they said “more research is needed to discover the links between obesity and cardiovascular disease.” The story headline craftily, but inaccurately, said: “Obesity’s Connection to Cardiovascular Disease Remains Poorly Understood.”
Science by press release
We’ve covered several times just why the weight gain guidelines are as they are, and that recommendations to restrict pregnancy weight gain has been tried before. Medical professionals quickly found that advice for weight gain restrictions endangered babies, and babies were having poorer chances for survival and more health problems. Medical guidelines were reversed to what we have today and the research continues to show that these recommendations help to ensure a safe pregnancy, optimal fetal growth and healthy babies. Without working from good information, we could repeat history.
But, as we learned in August from a St. Louis University media release, there is a movement afoot to revise the pregnancy weight gain guidelines downward to address the ‘obesity epidemic’ and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-commissioned review is coming up this fall.
A baby "paradox"
An enormous study on every child born in Denmark since 1977 through 2004 was published in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers from the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen had gathered the reported birth weights, gestational ages and potential confounding factors for 1.7 million children and examined them against hospitalizations for infectious diseases from birth through childhood. Healthcare is publicly-funded in Denmark, reducing population variabilities in prenatal and pediatric care and record-keeping.
The results were incontrovertible. The heavier the children were at birth, the lower their risks for serious infectious diseases resulting in hospitalization. Birth weights were inversely related to hospitalizations and the effect persisted through the age of ten. The results were also present among those born at term and were independent of prematurity.