Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fat Geeks Healthier Than You Thought

Posted by Zonk on from the do-not-start-eating-fried-peeps dept.

DoubleWhopper writes "Sound the trumpets! Being a fat geek may not increase your risk of death after all. According to this ABC News article, a re-examination of the available data suggests obesity is still a health risk, but the 'pleasantly plump' among us 'do not have the same health risks as obese individuals.' But, from the article: 'People shouldn't think that this study gives them a free trip to the pork rind buffet.' Believe what you want, but you'd better hope I don't get to the Twinkies aisle before you."

4 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Bingo. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is just a very crappy article.
    I know it was flippant and humorous, but it's still a dangerous idea to think that you can eat Joe Lois, maintain a BMI of 29 and be healthy. Indeed, it's not the BMI - it's the food you eat, the nutrition, etc.
    Damn straight! It isn't about weight. It's about exercise and nutrition.

    Show me the death stats for people based upon exercise and nutrition INSTEAD of focusing on the weight of their corpse.

    I'm betting that doing it that way would show a more understandable progression (ie. the healthier you keep yourself, the longer you will live).

    But that kind of research won't get the headlines.

    And the average person who reads that will only remember and believe what he wants to ("being fat means I'll live longer").
  2. Re:Wait a minute by shawb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose another factor is they go off BMI in the study, which is a weight/height ratio. Well muscled people can have a high BMI and still have low body fat. A 6 foot tall person weighing in at 225 would have a BMI in the "obese" range. It is feasable for this to be a very ripped bodybuilder with a body fat of less than 10% (although being that muscled could lead to its own cardiovascular problems.)

    However, I suppose a lot of very athletic people would fall in the "overweight" range even if they do not have a high body fat content. To be overweight according to BMI at 6'0" is only 185 pounds, which isn't all that much for an active person who does a moderate amount of weightlifting.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  3. Re:I dont know... by SunFan · · Score: 4, Interesting


    It turns out vegetable shortening is bad for us, but eggs and meat are not. (trans fat and cholesterol ratios)

    It turns out Scotch is bad for us, but Vodka is not. (urethanes)

    Just recently, they're starting to question the safety of Triclosan, a very common ingrediant in soap and toothpaste (chloroform inhalation)

    Recently, people are starting to recognize that not all carbohydrates are created equally (e.g. the glycemic index).

    The only conclusion is that science is really a long way from catching upto reality. It would be interesting to see how much of the current heart disease "epidemic" was caused by the refined-food revolution of the 20th century (sliced white bread, shortening, etc.).

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  4. Re:Wait a minute by platypus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fundamental Problem is that they are taking the Body Mass Index as a measure for overweight. This is ridicoulous and will seriously skew the results to "slightly overweight" people - because more athletic people doing sports which are not only aerobic/endurance dominated tend to get a relativly high BMI.
    Example:
    Shaquille O'Neal
    height: 2,17m
    weight: 147,4 kg
    => BMI: 31.3

    Yeah, that sounds like using BMI is a good idea.