don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

In a word, "no," the obesity epidemic is NOT an urban legend. Yes, the problem of rising obesity levels in this country and worldwide is real, in my opinion. Whether it should be called an epidemic or not, I don't know. That issue is grist for a fair debate. But the problem of rampant obesity and the certainty of adverse economic, health and other negative global consequences of rising obesity is a sure thing. Furthermore, I suspect that many of those who claim otherwise are full of it. I think they might be trying to get on Oprah, like me. The debate is about one thing, when you look closely at the challenge to obesity trends described in the preceding essay: Exactly how severe and widespread will the problem become? (Not if there is a ghastly problem.)

Yes, of course I'm kidding about trying to get on Oprah. Steven Blair and the others who question the "epidemic" nature of the obesity forecasts have respectable, scientific credentials. I don't think they care about being on Oprah.)

The challenge to the "obesity epidemic" described in the introductory essay brings to mind a recent column by satirist Andy Borowitz: "Rocket scientists, long considered the gold standard in intelligence among all professionals, are not nearly as smart as originally thought, according to a controversial new study published today by the American Association of Brain Surgeons." (See "Rocket Scientists Not As Smart as Originally Thought," September 14, 2006.)

Look at it this way: Who's going to pay attention to an expert who claims he agrees with the theory of gravity? Nobody. This theory is accepted as fact, a well-established truth based on observation as well as overwhelming scientific evidence. Only a certified lunatic would think otherwise. Yet, if you are an expert seeking fame and fortune, a guest shot on TV and every chance possible to sell books, become a celebrity and make a bundle fast, you must go the contrarian route -- challenge the theory of gravity. Or something -- why not the consensus on obesity, how extensive it is and will become? I think, judging from my own nefarious motivations, that this is probably the motive behind the challenge to obesity trend predictions.

This tactic is exactly what a clever doctor did a few decades ago with a contrarian book on exercise, claiming the benefits were a myth but the dangers were not well understood. He made a big splash arguing against exercise -- something that seemed shocking and newsworthy then, as it would be now. He also managed to confuse, befuddle and misguide ordinary folks, most of whom were looking for excuses not to exercise. Here was a bona fide doctor claiming exercise was overrated, dangerous folly that did not contribute to health or longer life.

It was easy to poke holes in exaggerated claims for exercise -- some claims were excessive. However, a few exaggerations did not invalidate all the research that clearly showed the enormous benefits of exercise properly done on a regular basis. For the most part, the contrarian claimed there are SOME dangers in chronic over-training, and that extreme exertions can SOMETIMES cause wear and tear on the body and make SOME folks more susceptible to disease. Well, sure, but there remain a bazillion sound reasons in favor of exercise.

So it is with the latest myth-buster-wannabes on obesity, who offer objections to the prevailing orthodoxy about the epidemic of blubber.

Yes, reasonable folks can dispute the level of danger of excess fat. Yes, some calls for reform are extreme, some of the warnings seem like scare tactics and some claims (like comparing obesity trends with the 1918 flu epidemic) seem implausible. Also, it's true that some of those warning about obesity dangers have a vested interest (diet vendors, for instance). Finally, it's true that definitions and ways to calculate overweight and obesity (in other words, BMI indices) are debatable. However, the variable most likely to make the situation worse is that perpetrated by obesity trend critics, namely, denying the severity of the problem.

I agree with James O. Hill, an obesity researcher at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (quoted in the Scientific American article referenced in the first essay), who said of the critics: "Nonsense. If you really look at the medical literature and think obesity isn't bad, I don't know what planet you are on." Just so.

Even the nay-sayers acknowledge that severe obesity increases risks of numerous diseases; the conflict focuses on "whether rising levels of overweight ... are pulling up the national burden of heart disease, cancer and diabetes." The obesity trend cynics, unlike the doctor who wrote The Exercise Myth,  do not question the value of "regular physical activity as a powerful preventative against heart disease."

All agree the other factors consequential for reducing weight gain include diet, physical fitness, stress levels, income, family history and the location of fat within the body, along with improved diagnosis and treatment of high cholesterol and blood pressure.

"Never trust anecdotal information," or at least do not rely upon it in making decisions is a good guide for critical thinkers. However, "don't hesitate to use such information if it supports your case," might also fit as a lawyer's maxim. Borrowing from the latter school of ethics for a moment, let me conclude with a commentary in support of the validity of obesity trend data from Dr. Wendy Shore, a researcher at The Johns Hopkins Medical School: 

DId you hear about the tour boats that capsized last year in Lake George and Baltimore? Both were found to have followed the legal limitation on number of passengers. However, the number was determined some 20-plus years ago, based on average weight per passenger. The average weight has gone up so much since those limits were set that both boats were, in fact, several hundred pounds over the weight limit! Look at crowd photos taken 30 years ago, and some new ones. In the latter, most people are overweight. That was not the case just 30 years ago. To get back to the gene thing, it would be ludicrous to argue that humans have changed genetically in 30 years. If most of it is genetic, how come obesity used to be rare, and was until very recently?

What are your thoughts on the current obesity trend warnings? Do they seem likely to you, or is this some kind of tempest in a wide-body teapot? Inquisitive wellness minds would love to know.

Be well -- look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of nutrition. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell