Talk:Obesity

Review of obesity in the developing world

Caballero B (2001). "Introduction. Symposium: Obesity in developing countries: biological and ecological factors". J. Nutr. 131 (3): 866S–870S. PMID 11238776. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Another small change

Dieting section - 2 grammatical errors need to be fixed: No adverse affect from low carbohydrate diets were detected. They found that these diet lowered total body mass by 8% over 3–12 months. Amiwikij (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

THANKS--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-Immigrant Jewish-Americans Living in the South-Western United States

It has recently been found to be true that those of Jewish decent are prone to obesity because most of the foods eaten at holidays (of which there are more that involve large meals than in Christianity) are high in fat and oil content. Such foods are latkes (potato pancakes) and high-fat briscuit with gravy Jewish-Americans are especially prone to this as America is a very unhealthy nation. The South-Western United States has extremely unhealthy food from the blending of Mexican food and unhealthy American food. Thus, Jewish-Americans residing in the South-Western United States often eat unhealthy Tex-Mex-esque foods on a regular basis and eat unhealthy Jewish holiday-esque foods at family holiday gatherings. Though this is true, it isn't true for Jewish-American residing in the South-Western United States who immigrated to the country because they for the most part retain their healthier eating habits and more active life-styles from their native country. So, for example, a Canadian-born Jew who immigrates to somewhere such as Arizona, USA, will be less prone to obesity than an American-born Jew living in Arizona along side the Canadian-Jew. This happens to be especially true when concerning Jews approximately around the age of 10-16, when young Jewish adults are being immersed in much of Jewish culture and cooking.

From ~~ReyJudio~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.223.172 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but could you provide a reliable medical source supporting your perspective? JFW | T@lk 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of original research of the worst sort, if not a really bizarre attempt at trolling. Arizona and New Mexico are both among the top 10 thinnest states in the country, and Jews among the thinnest where religious demographics are concerned. I'm going to leave this up because I felt obligated to respond, but someone else please feel free to delete this nonsense. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User 96 you are most likely right. This is why we are waiting for a good reference for the above comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maternal obesity

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/6/636?etoc - may be useful for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have started some discussion about morbidity and pregnancy complication on the page Obesity associated morbidity. Will add this reference.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

free material

It's probably duplicating what you already have, but I thought I'd paste this, cut from an AfD'd article, in case it's any use.

Obesity is one of the leading health issues in today's society, resulting in about 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. About 65 percent of American are now considered overweight or obese. According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Study collected between 1970s and 2004, overweight and obesity prevalence have increased steadily among all Americans over the past three decades. If these trends continue, 86.3% of adults will be overweight or obese, and 51.1%, obese by 2030. By 2048, all American adults would become overweight or obese.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Will add it to the page on epidemiology of obesity. Have removed the trends stuff. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mortality

"A BMI of over 32 is associated with a doubling of risk of death" etc? Really? Doubles from certain to what exactly? Is this some technical way / medical way of expressing risk? Does this mean premature death? Is there a clearer way of explaining what is meant here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexFoster (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference will tell you. Obesity is associated with a large number of life-limiting conditions such as cancer and diabetes, as the article makes clear. JFW | T@lk 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what is meant is premature death. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Will run through the recent changes:

• The changes to the lead make it no longer compliant with WP:LEAD therefore changed back
• The edits were marked as minor when none of them were. They envolves the removed of a fair bit of well sources text
• The entire medical community is more than some researchers therefore removed

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Some edits were minor and so marked. Others were not minor and not so marked. If I made a mistake in marking an edit, I apologize. I relocated and condensed material in an effort to improve readability, but removed very little. The re-edits make this already unwieldy article even more redundant.

The "entire medical community" has not agreed on this highly controversial issue, but this article does read as if it has, in violation of WP:NPOV. Much significant alternate data is not represented. The article is rife with generalities and opinions stated as facts, and implies relationships are causal without proof. It offers only token representation of differing medical opinion or doubt and no acknowledgment of the flawed methodology behind a number of studies or their financing by diet drug peddlers, e.g.:

When WHO defined the body mass index scores constituting normal, overweight and obese, they appeared to be the result of an independent expert committee convened by WHO.

Yet the 1997 Geneva consultation was held jointly with the International Obesity Task Force, an advocacy group whose self-described mission is "to inform the world about the urgency of the (obesity) problem.

According to the task force's most recent available annual report, more than 70 percent of their funding came from Abbott Laboratories and F. Hoffman La-Roche, companies which make top-selling anti-fat pills.[1]

It's a pity that Wikipedia's article on this subject should be so unbalanced and full of the scaremongering bias of medical people who profit from frightening fat people. On the other hand, since it is so long, redundant and full of overly technical language and passive voice, few people are likely wade through it. Fijagdh (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will agree there is a small group of people who try to deny that obesity has any adverse health effects. There is a section on it "Size acceptance and the obesity controversy" There are over 200 studies and reviews on the obesity pages here at Wikipedia that support everything that is here. There are many more available.

The pro obesity lobby has grabbed on to Flegal's study and continuously misinterpret it to say that obesity does not cause increased mortality. Please read her study PMID 15840860 Paul Campos is famous for this. All researchers / scientists agrees that obesity cases health problems and death. The debate is over overweight. If you want to bring the discussion there I would be happy to carry on.

Read the aol article. Have read lots of similar stuff. They claim that the scientific community confuses obesity and overweight. Than they use Flagels study that say being overweight causing little health problems. Well glossing over the increased mortality she found in obese people. And this does not even look at morbidity. This is garbage I hope you realize.

Please find recent reviews that support your POV. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way this is what the IOTF says since you took it out of context "The IOTF is a global network of expertise, a research-led think tank and advocacy arm of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. The IOTF is working to alert the world to the growing health crisis threatened by soaring levels of obesity. It works with the World Health Organization, other NGOs and stakeholders to address this challenge. The IOTF's mission is to inform the world about the urgency of the problem and to persuade governments that the time to act is now." --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment

I've been asked to review the recent changes here (disclaimer: I have not edited this article before, and I find the number of recent changes and the discussion here a little overwhelming and hard to follow). I find these changes troublesome vis-a-vis of WP:NPOV—too much watering down via the introduction of WP:WEASEL words like "claim" or "some", replacing "normal weight" with "skinny people" etc. The first thing I would recommend is to reduce the pace of editing so changes can be individually discussed. If there are significant alternative medical viewpoints on the effects of obesity, then they should be mentioned. But until that is done (using reliable medical sources, of course), it's inappropriate to alter the language to give the impression that some research findings are disputed if they are not. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why this is bad writing

I have not bothered to become a registered user, so my opinion may not count. However, this article does seem to me to go out of its way to select and emphasize material that puts the darkest possible perspective on the health and economic issues surrounding obesity. That there are is a lot of medical opinion supporting obesity as hazardous to one's health is true, but the minority opinion is not well represented here. Putting the negatives at the top and burying the other side of the issue hardly seems to be fair play. (And presenting other theories in a belittling fashion, lumped in with the fat acceptance movement as if such research were wishful thinking, is particularly disturbing.)

I also agree that the article is badly written, which is what I originally came to the talk page to say. Besides the redundancies and technical language already mentioned, it is, particularly, bad science writing.

A thing I find troubling about Wikipedia generally is it encourages a system of assertions and citations on the order of: "Here is a fact[somebody said it]". Those can be fine if you want to know what year a rock band had its first hit, but much less truthful when it comes to presenting scientific research. This is a highly controversial subject that experts are still hashing out. To assert that debate is over over overweight is both blithe and untrue. Debate still continues; there no universal agreement among "authorities", and to imply that there is complete consensus, or to present a point of view--even a majority point of view--as fact is highly misleading.

To say "most" scientists agree on something implies that someone has polled them all, not merely that many studies support a hypothesis. "Many" or even a specific large number is not "most"; it is, weasely as that may be, "some". (I will point out that the article is already riddled with weasel words: "commonly defined"; "has been found"; "is thought to"; "authorities view"; "has been perceived"; "typically assessed;" etc.)

It would be far more honest (and encyclopedic) for the article to present its assertions by saying, "According to John Doe and Jane Roe..." or "A 19-- study of 500 Canadians by Researcher Z showed..." than its current presentation: "Obesity kills[reference to a paper]". 75.56.56.186 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You complain it is technical and then say we should make it more so?

Wikipedia presents the topic according to the acceptance by the scientific community. That obesity is not a health problem is a FRINGE position propagated by a small group of people. Show me one review or even one research paper that shows being obese is healthy? I am not saying overweight. This page is not about overweight. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying you need to explicitly attribute statements to specific experts in the text rather than to vague "authorities". That adds transparency, not technicality.

No one has suggested that the article state that obesity is healthful. However, there is significant disagreement among reputable authorities over scope. I am suggesting that alarmist phrases like "one of the leading preventable causes of death worldwide" and "epidemic proportions" and the amounts of associated costs need to be attributed, and explained, with reference to disputes over various means of crunching numbers.[2] and possible bias created by funding, as fijagdh mentioned above, from organizations who stand to gain from widespread panic over obesity.

Further, I don't think the article goes far enough to explain and detail the difference between health factors associated with obesity and those proven to be caused by it. The article currently implies, for example, that obesity directly causes hirsutism, dementia and carpal tunnel syndrome. 75.56.56.186 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole page on Obesity associated morbidity which is still a work in progress.

People suggest that obesity is healthy all the time. I am glad no one here is making that assertion. She Paul Campos. The page preventable causes of death gives a review paper and that comment is supported by many references.

Let look at the main ref: Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ (2006). "Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data". Lancet. 367 (9524): 1747–57. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9. PMID 16731270. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is published in the Lancet one of the world top journals. It is published in 2006 ( recent ). It is a systematic review addressing a specific question. If this does not change you POV than it sounds like it is held in faith and their is nothing I will be able to present to change it.

I have no intention of changing it to the WHO consider it a leading cause in the world the CDC considers it a leading cause in the states etc thru every country. All these statements are referenced. Click on the reference and that will take you to the supporting evidence.

You say their is considerable disagreement among researchers about Obesity I know that they lay press misinterprets scientist to try and create what seems to be a controversy. They all use Flagel in an attempt to support themselves. Her published research found that obesity causes many deaths. Find one research paper that says obesity is not harmful to your health so that we have somewhere to start from. Not a popular science book, not an opinion peice, not a magazine article.

You attach an article saying that their is discussion about the numbers. Yes there is. What mortality do we quote: "111,909 to 365,000 death per year in the United States" The first is Flagel the other represents the other major study. This is the big discussion and all the controversy you refer to. Does obesity cause 111,000 deaths or 365,000 deaths?

The media and the fringe groups than grab onto this and say aha the scientists are confused so obesiy must be good for you.

You have seen this technique with evolution and with global warming. So I end with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE" Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Doc James here; controversy over an estimate of effect size is not the same thing as disputing the existence of the effect, namely that obesity is a cause for mortality. If you think the 2005 spat in Science over the effect size adds something significant to this article, discuss it, but don't flash that to contradict the virtually universal agreement that obesity is harmful to one's health. 08:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The "obesity is not dangerous" people don't exactly manage to make their voices heard (if they do, you have to show sources), so our 5 lines on obesity-dangers-as-conspiracy is giving more than enough weight to this view. Narayanese (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Just looking at what you could summarize more in the article, per Geometry guy's suggestion, do you think in the "Classification" section that the various ways of calculating measures could be summarized and, if necessary, spun off into a subarticles. I'm thinking that BMI, Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio, and Body fat percentage, for example. Just have a summary in the article. The same with the "Causes" and "Management" section. Seems to me that perhaps "Clinical protocols" is too detailed and could go. Also, with "History". Why does "Weight loss drugs" have a section to itself under History? Isn't it sort of an overlap with "Medication"? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Matisse has a point here. There needs to be single overview article about measuring body fat that other articles (obesity, overweight) can defer the details to; Body_fat_percentage#Measurement_techniques look fairly comprehensive content-wise, although it's a bit thin on citations. This article should be deferring more to that one methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given how long this article is, a 4-paragraph lede seem suitable. You could add one on management for instance. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The classification of obesity is more than just a determination of body fat % which is not discussed on the page you refer to. Will see if i can condense things a little better. Already move some stuff.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The way I see it body mass index is mainly used as a convenient method to estimate body fat (the excess of which over a certain threshold defines obesity). Now, both this article and the one on BMI dance around this fact that seems simple to me, and it's outlined in Body_fat_percentage#Measurement_techniques . Are there other significant uses for BMI so it cannot be considered just a method of estimating body fat? And, more importantly, even if that's the case in general (which I can't figure out from the Applications section of the article on BMI), does it matter for this article to the point that BMI and Body fat percentage are discussed separately? I would introduce the classification section with "Direct attempts to determine body fat percentage are difficult and often expensive. A common clinical method used to estimate it is the body mass index; therefore, the definition of obesity has been operationalized in terms of BMI. Central obesity is a more sensitive indicator of health in certain groups; it can be estimated by waist circumference and waist–hip ratio." Then I would put the subsections on:

• BMI, which should include, the stuff now in Body fat percentage on how BMI is related to body fat. I don't see a definition of obesity using the body fat percentage in there, so I'm not sure that the more sensitive methods of measuring body fat are worth discussing in such detail. [sorry, I had missed it on my 1st reading.] Childhood obesity classification should also be discussed in this subsection since it seems based solely on BMI (and defer the epidemiological numbers on that since this is the classification section).
• Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio is good as it is.

Is this making sense? Also, I don't see why Risk factors and commodities is a subsection of classification—surely other factors increase the risk of various bad outcomes that obesity contributes to, but is anyone classifying obesity based on those? Xasodfuih (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that section can be improved. Will make a small difference but not much in the overall size of the article. Childhood obesity has a page of its own and is thus discussed breifly.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Body fat percentage, BMI, Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio are all seperate techniques to determine obesity. Body fat % is the gold standard, BMI and waist measurements are what is used. Childhood obesity's definition has the added complexity of needing to refer to charts and is seen as a sperate classification. Never liked the section on risk factora. Therefore all but the last sections are needed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lenght

This article is the same length as prostate cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Schizophrenia, and Major depressive disorder. All four of which are FA. Obesity is a complex and controversial topic. Therefore I am not sure how much small I can reasonable make it. There are already subsection for neither ever section of this article similar to other FA. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has a clear layout which results in short enough sections, so I don't think length is a problem - the reader can still find the info of interest without sifting through too much text. Narayanese (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this article has a clear structure, see my comments in the thread right above. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how your coment is about layout. It seems to be about the fne details on obesity definition. You have to say what's wrong with the layout in a more easy to understand way. Narayanese (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition of obesity

"It is commonly defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher.[1] This distinguishes it from being overweight as defined by a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher.[1]" I do not think that it is good to begin an article with the first few sentences not making sense. If the common definition does not make sense, that is a person can be defined as overweight with a BMI of "25 kg/m2 or higher", then perhaps you need to reword it, use a difference definition, or something. A person can be classified as both overweight and obese at the same time. No wonder the WHO has no credibility in this area. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not that is doesn't make sense. It is that it is not what most people expect and why most people often mix up the two terms. I am happy to go with 25-30 though. Have found another reference that support it.

The WHO defines overweight as any BMI > 25 than breaks it down into preobese and obese. Obese is than further broken down into Class 1 - 3 obesity. Some do however define overweight as a BMI of 25-30.

The surgical literature breaks down class three obesity further into super obese and morbid obese.

Therefore you can be overweight, obese, and super obese all at the same time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Even uptodate misquotes the WHO. http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/topic.do?topicKey=obesity/4467&selectedTitle=1~150&source=search_result#5 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf see page five. As does the media. Most simply equate pre obese and overweight. If we really want to get technical this article will get longer. I could change the name of the overweight page to pre obese. I personally do not care which way we leave it of if you feel this is a issue that we discuss things in greater detail. Will add some details to the page on overweight to clarify things.

Looked into things further and I had already added both definitions to the page on overweight. Obesity is not a simple topic. Therefore it is not going to be straight forwards to understand it. It is a subject full of misconceptions and urban legends. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes and hope this addresses the issue.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fix the typos and errors, please.

"It was not until the 20th century that it became common, some much so that in 1997 the World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic." Some needs to be changed to so. That was just a single error, but because it exists, someone should go over the entire article and give it a once over for such errors.