Obesity Death Numbers Need Even More Slimming

Brian Doherty | January 19, 2005

The correction to the notorious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) figures on obesity deaths that Jacob Sullum blogged about here back in November was officially issued this week, in the form of a letter in an issue of the journal. The Los Angeles Times supplied the best reporting (reg. req.) on this I've found today, going beyond merely the admission by the Centers for Disease Control reserachers that their paper from last March overstated obesity deaths by 35,000 to discuss the lingering doubts about even their newer, more modest conclusions.

From the L.A. Times report:

Lead author Ali Mokdad and coauthors wrote...that their principal conclusions remained unchanged: Obesity, caused by inactivity and poor diet, is a leading killer--and the death toll is increasing.

However, critics disagreed, saying that the actual death toll from obesity could be much lower because of methodological errors in calculating the risks of death.
......
Critics said the original study, for example, assumed that the death risk associated with obesity is the same for younger adults and for the elderly. Some studies suggest that older people have a lower risk of obesity-related death.

Last year, two papers co-written by CDC scientists argued that such an assumption would lead to inaccurate estimates.

"There's absolutely no question that it's overestimated," said Daniel McGee, professor of statistics at Florida State University in Tallahassee.
.......
The result could be an inflation of the death toll by 100,000 or more, some experts said.

Our Jacob Sullum has been writing on these matters of obesity and the often illegitimate government and medical industry war on it for a long time, most comprehensively in this Reason Aug./Sept. cover feature "The War on Fat: Is the Size of Your Butt the Government's Business?"

Comments

|1.19.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Obesity is certainly not very good for your health. If particular reports on the magnitude of obesity-related health risks are exaggerated by unscrupulous researchers, then by all means they should be exposed as frauds.

However, let's not assume that all obesity research is flawed or dubious simply because some people want to use obesity research to push for an expanded nanny state. Such assumptions would make us as dogmatic as those who would cook numbers to arrive at their preferred outcome.

Besides, the case against involving a nanny state in our health does not hinge on the magnitude of the health risks associated with obesity.

|1.19.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Obesity, caused by inactivity and poor diet

Why not target inactivity as avidly as "poor diet" (i.e. fast food)

Oh that's right, there's no money nor glory in it.

|1.19.05 @ 2:56PM|#

"Why not target inactivity as avidly as "poor diet" (i.e. fast food)

Oh that's right, there's no money nor glory in it."

Nonsense. We can enact (another) car tax based on how many miles you DON'T walk each year. Or a tax based on how many remote controls you have in your home. Perhaps a sensor installed in your La-z-boy that tells how many hours your fat ass has logged in it each day. You just have to be creative, that's all.

|1.19.05 @ 3:13PM|#

"Why not target inactivity as avidly as "poor diet" (i.e. fast food)

Oh that's right, there's no money nor glory in it."

I don't know about glory, but there's certainly money (private money) involved in targeting it - as evidenced by all those annoying exercise gadget informercials all over TV.

|1.19.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Speaking of nanny states, a Texas legislator has proposed requiring schools to include a child's body mass index on school report cards. From today's Houston Chronicle:

"Texas school districts would be required to include the body mass index of students as part of their regular report cards under a bill introduced by a lawmaker seeking to link healthy minds with healthy bodies.

When the measurement, which calculates body fat based on height and weight, indicates a student is overweight, the school would provide parents with information about links between increased body fat and health problems, said Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte."

|1.19.05 @ 3:14PM|#

Ah, but they can't target 'inactivity' as avidly as "poor diet" -- because they already have, and it failed miserably. Exposing that would only call into question the delivery mechanism for the failed attempt -- mandatory PE. And then as a (minor?) side-effect, it would challenge the value of sports and athletics overall.
I, for one, remember the shock and horror that reverberated through schools when Sputnik went up and suddenly phys-ed was inflicted on millions of helpless schoolkids.
But the very generation that suffered thru the tender mercies of the jack-booted thugs masquerading as "phys-ed instructors" or "coaches" are the ones who are out of shape, overweight, and [not] dieing like flies because of it.

regards,
Shirley Knott

|1.19.05 @ 3:17PM|#

Nonsense. We can enact (another) car tax based on how many miles you DON'T walk each year. Or a tax based on how many remote controls you have in your home. Perhaps a sensor installed in your La-z-boy that tells how many hours your fat ass has logged in it each day. You just have to be creative, that's all.

Sounds like a plan to me. We have got to get a successful War On Obesity going like the hugely popular and successful war on drugs.

Obesity is not a victimless vice, how about all the people affected by your early death? It is not fair for all of us to pay your health care costs because you are a fat and lazy pig.

Slim and trim J in California.

|1.19.05 @ 3:24PM|#

"You just have to be creative, that's all."

Yah, leave it up to the trial lawyers and government nannies to figure out the best and most efficient method to rape your liberties. Here's a few to add to the list (Not that I wish to give the snakes any good ideas, but, I doubt that they need my advice in this arena...)

-State-mandated, yearly, complete physical examinations. Any categories of health in which you are lacking, and which can be tied to voluntary lifestyle activities, are used to impose a new "unhealthy tax".

-Excise taxes on such vices as recliners, couches, televisions, books, video games, DVD players, cable services, cars, and anything else that might be linked to a sedentary lifestyle

-Government subsidies for gyms, gym equipment manufacturers, sneaker companies, etc.

-From the end of the trial lawyers, they can sue "Big Entertainment" for tempting people with their delicious tv programming, their irresistably comfortable couch pillows, and their lavishly addictive literature. Before you laugh, please tell me how this would be ANY DIFFERENT than suing big tobacco or big fast food. (note: it's not)

|1.19.05 @ 3:29PM|#

A simple law stating that all televisions and computers be powered by an attached exercise bike would do the trick.

|1.19.05 @ 3:32PM|#

1) Ban unhealthy food, anything that has carbs in it.

2) Base income tax on inverse of BMI.

3) Jail anyone with an excessive BMI.

4) Sue all food producers.

5) Ban food advertisements.

|1.19.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Doh! Everyone who heaped abuse on Juanita in the past is hereby sentenced to five self-inflicted slaps to the forehead, for taking her sarcasm seriously. It's obvious now. (This note is not sarcasm.) (Neither was that disclaimer.)

|1.19.05 @ 3:50PM|#

Juanita: your satire misunderstands our system greatly. When there is no established industry to plunder, then it is easy for pols to place an outright ban on something---narcotics, for example. While this may not be economically lucrative for a beaurocrat, it might provide political capital.

However, an established industry, coupled with widespread public disdain (inevitably fueled by public and private hysteria & junk science), present an incredible synergistic opportunity to our esteemed elected officials; namely, an opportunity to use this perceived public bad will to fatten their pockets and their vote counts. This is done in various ways: instead of outright bans, they enact massive "vice" taxes. Instead of crushing an entire industry, they "subsidize" certain industries or portions of industries, which in turn earns them campaign contributions and votes (see: corn syrup v sugar).

It may be a cynical view, but it's the reality. K street is the fourth branch of government, and far be it from a beaurocrat to turn down an opportunity to cash in at the expense of the people and their liberty.

In a most sickening display of hubris and arrogance, I heard an NPR piece the other day wherein a state attorney general was running for/being appointed to some higher federal position, and among her self-proscribed list of "accomplishments" was "earning" billions and billions of dollars for the state coffers by successfully suing the tobacco industry. I can't even tell you how many different ways that is fucked up. Not only is she bragging about outright theft, but she is also brazenly admitting that the act of theft was in fact all about the money. Hmph, I guess, at least she was honest.

|1.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#

Right-o. I'm drafting my suit against Laz-E-Boy and Frito Lay now, covering my ass in both categories.

|1.19.05 @ 4:08PM|#

"Hmph, I guess, at least she was honest. "

Not in the prosectution of the lawsuit she wasn't. One of the claims the states put forth in their tobacco lawsuits was that settlement money would be used to fund smoking cessation programs. As far as I know, no more than a tiny fraction of the settlement money received by any state has actually been spent on that purpose.

|1.19.05 @ 4:20PM|#

I heard an NPR piece the other day wherein a state attorney general....

That would be he new Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire.

The truly dishonest thing about the Tobacco lawsuits was the claim that they were attempting to be "reimbursed" for Medicaid costs when in fact tobacco taxes over the years had provided more than enough to cover the costs of treating respiratory ailments.

Angela Keaton|1.19.05 @ 4:20PM|#

Quasi-libertarian Jeff Ward is talking about the Tx BMI on KLBJ 590 AM at 3pm Central. www.590klbj.com

Ward has put out a call to find anyone in Austin who thinks the fat report card is a good idea.

|1.19.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Stevo Darkly

Juanita's satire is more obvious today than it was before. Is that good or bad?

Her drug war statements could have been lifted from the ONDCP website so how were we to know?

|1.19.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Slim and trim J in California.

Yeah, right, how do we know your not some fat 50-yr old guy in his underwear in his mother's basement?

fyodor|1.19.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Shirley Knott,

Why was phys-ed a response to Sputnik?

I agree that phys-ed teachers get away with some nasty shit.

|1.20.05 @ 6:57AM|#

They can take my Big Mac away from my cold dead hands!!! (Oh, shit! Those thugs just might take me seriously!)

|1.20.05 @ 9:24AM|#

fyodor & Shirley Knott

I believe some big science education thing came about because of Sputnik. The PhysEd thing came from some other threat to our National Greatness.

|1.20.05 @ 10:13AM|#

As Isaac notes, it is possible that my memory is flawed and the phys-ed regime was instituted not because of sputnik but because of some other alleged threat to our 'National Greatness'. But I do recall that it was wrapped in patriotic fervor and presented as part of the overall 'response' to 'Soviet agression'.
The point I was trying make holds, though -- "we" imposed a phys-ed regimen on a generation of school students who today are the people who are lazy and obese. Failure of the educational system as well as invalidation of the underlying notions of 'phys ed' as having any meaningful value.

regards,
Shirley Knott

fyodor|1.20.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Shirley,

I'm sure future generations will be in tip top shape now that gym teachers are no longer restrained by the Geneva Convention.

|1.20.05 @ 12:12PM|#

I'm sure future generations will be in tip top shape now that gym teachers are no longer restrained by the Geneva Convention.

That was spray-inducing!