http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...esity&printer=1

Study: We're Eating Ourselves to Death

1 hour, 35 minutes ago



By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO - Inactive Americans are eating themselves to death at an alarming rate, their unhealthy habits fast approaching tobacco as the top underlying preventable cause of death, a government study found.

In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths — more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer.

The gap between the two is substantially narrower than in 1990, when poor diet and inactivity caused 300,000 deaths, 14 percent, compared with 400,000 for tobacco, or 19 percent, says a report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).

"This is tragic," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, CDC's director and an author of the study. "Our worst fears were confirmed."

"It's going to overtake tobacco" if the trend continues, Gerberding said. "At CDC, we're going to do everything we can to prevent it," she said. "Obesity has got to be job No. 1 for us in terms of chronic diseases."

The researchers analyzed data from 2000 for the leading causes of death and for those preventable factors known to contribute to them. Like tobacco, obesity and inactivity increase the risks for the top three killers: heart disease, cancer and cerebrovascular ailments including strokes. Obesity and inactivity also strongly increase the risk of diabetes, the sixth leading cause of death.

The results appear in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association (news - web sites).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) officials discussed the findings Tuesday at a Washington news briefing where they announced a public service ad campaign using humor to get Americans to pay attention to the dangers of inactivity and obesity.

"I am working very hard at CDC to walk the talk," Gerberding said in a telephone interview, noting efforts the agency has made at CDC offices to improve the health of its 9,000-plus employees.

They include putting music, lights and fresh paint jobs in stairwells to encourage employees to use the stairs for exercise. Also, besides the current indoor smoking ban, CDC will ban smoking from outside all of its buildings starting later this year.

In order, the leading causes of death in 2000 were: Heart disease, cancer, strokes and other cerebrovascular disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, unintentional injuries, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), kidney disease, and septicemia.

The underlying preventable causes of death were, in order: tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity, alcohol, microbial agents, toxic agents, motor vehicles, firearms, sexual behavior and illegal drug use. Together, these accounted for about half of all 2.4 million U.S. deaths in 2000.

An editorial accompanying the study in JAMA says national leadership and policy changes are needed to help curb preventable causes of death.

"After all, wisdom is knowing what to do next. Virtue is doing it," said editorial authors Drs. J. Michael McGinnis and William Foege. McGinnis is with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Foege is with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (news - web sites).

___

On the Net:

JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov

Read this too....not surprised, are any of you????

I know I was killing myself not worrying about my weight.....then trying LF. BOTH made me feel lousy. Glad I found LC.....now if the rest of the country would listen!

And now. . . for an opposing viewpoint. . .

http://www.techcentralstation.com/073003C.html

Actually this is one of an EXCELLENT series that tries to examine the evidence behind the 'obesity is killing us' speeches.

Helps to keep an open mind about this stuff. I think there's a bit too much of holier than thou 'tsk-tsking' going on about obesity -- especially with pronouncements like "We're all fat slobs and killing ourselves and it has all got to stop NOW because it's all too disgusting.'

Anyway, just to show you there IS another viewpoint here.

Where I work, three of my co-workers have died in the last few years. All three were obese and all three died of heart attacks at middle age. That is my viewpoint of obesity kills. None of the smokers I work with have died.

Very thought provoking Walt... thanks.

Interesting how we look poo-poo at all the studies that claim that fat causes a host of disease, yet we accept the claim that obesity is the number one killer in America, without any question.

good point. Remember the bell curve ?

Well, not to be argumentative, but association is not causation. Let's assume that they were also caucasian, you could also conclude that being caucasian kills.

Maybe a more accurate picture would be to say that their obesity was a sympton of something else, maybe their lack of activity, their diet (undoubtedly high in processed carbs), their lifestyle, or all of the above with a series of other yet-to-be identified factors.

The link Walt posted reminded me that science doesn't know everything and tends to make way too many quick assumptions because that's how the system works. Money and prestige goes to scientists with politically correct views.

There is definitely a relation between obesity and morbidity, but I firmly believe that obesity is merely another symptom of underlying factors that lead to health problems.

Case in point, an obese person who starts lc'ing and drops their cardiac risk factors and blood sugars drastically. Only a small amount of weight may be lost, but not equally in proportion to the staggering drop in risk factors.

For example, my cardiac risk profile dropped to the very bottom, but I am still technically 30 lbs overweight.

So it's not carrying the weight that is the issue, but what prompted the weight gain to begin with. I think we can universally agree that the following factors affect obesity:

1) activity level
2) genetic predisposition / metabolism / body type
3) type, quantity, quality, frequency of intake calories (food consumption)
4) stress levels & coping mechanisms
5) quantity of sleep
6) sex of person, related hormone levels

All these factors do have independent effects on the human body and are associated with risks of different specific diseases, not only related to obesity, but certainly obesity might be symptomatic to all of these things and thus a common factor.

It is my belief, therefore, that these 6 factors together in a negative fashion could result in both morbidity and obesity.

For example:

A non exerciser
who has diabetes commonly in their family
who eats a diet high in processed carbohydrates and potentially trans fats
who skips breakfast but eats very large meals at 9 pm
who has a very stressful job and marital tension at home
who smokes to alleviate stress and control eating, who eats for comfort
who does not sleep enough
who is a woman going through menopause

Is more than likely going to be an obese person with a very high risk for morbidity. The obesity is merely one side effect of these factors.

Conversely:

A person who regularly exercises
who does not have a family history of heart disease or health problems
who eats a balanced diet of whole foods
who eats regularly throughout the day in normal portions
who does not have a stressful job or marital tension
who does not smoke or eat for comfort but instead focuses on exercise, art, music, or other hobbies for stress relief
who sleeps at least 8 hours per night
who is a young man

Is more than likely not going to be an obese person and probably has a very low risk for morbidity.

With regards to the genetic factors involved in obesity, I submit that one of the problems with a universal diet is that there are so many different body types with different nutritional needs. In parts of the world where diet, culture, and race is common, you will tend to see more people with similar physical traits... for example Northern Europeans tend to be paler and taller, whereas Mediterraneans are shorter and darker. The basic nutritional needs and dietary and physical habits of people of the same racial composition who have had a similar culture for thousands of years is more likely to be the same than that of our modern world where there is a lot more mix of genetic traits and races, as well as a huge variety of cultures and eating habits.

What is particularly interesting about this is that the US which is currently struggling with the highest rates of obesity in the industrial world is also one of the most racially, genetically, and culturally diverse places in the world.

In fact "culture" changes in this country take place often in less than a decade, not giving bodies time enough to adapt to the constant stressors of changing family dynamics, changing roles for men and women, changing valuation type and stress of career paths (increasingly sedentary), transportation (a car has become another limb), changing time for meals (stay at home cooking?), and a serious lack of sleep.

The type of metabolic changes that assist us to maintain healthy bodies without changing behaviors take thousands of years, not a handful, and yet we expect our bodies to keep up with the lure of everchanging proclamations of a definition of "health" or what is good and fast to eat and what consitutes quality of life. We have become dependent on medication because we refuse to change our lifestyle and there is no physical genetic evolution that is fast enough to help us out.

In light of this trying to come up with dietary and lifestyle recommendations that suit everyone is particularly challenging and honestly should be extremely individual.

Very interesting reading. I am concerned with losing weight to increase my health, but have been told repeatedly by doctors, "you are healthy, but overweight." Can this be true? I exercise 5 days a week and have reduced my weight by 10% over the last 5 months. I'm just hoping to improve the overall quality of my life and if that helps me live longer, great.

I'm not completely convinced that obesity in and of itself kills. Here's an example:

My grandmother was at least 50-75 pounds overweight most of her adult life. She lost some weight as she got older, just from losing appetite as opposed to dieting. She lived to be 84 years old. She died of an anuerisym (sp?) My grandfather however was very thin all of his life and a smoker. He died of brain cancer at 67 years old. So did being overweight limit my grandmothers life. Hard to say, but I think 84 is getting up there! I think smoking certainly contributed to my grandfathers rather early passing.

Here's a thought, if a young overweight person was to be killed in an accident, would the experts attribute their death to their obesity? Don't forget it's life and NO ONE gets out alive.

Hear hear!

I agree that obesity is a SYMPTOM. While it causes plenty of problems on its own, it's very existence is a sign that other things are going wrong as well.

"For example, my cardiac risk profile dropped to the very bottom, but I am still technically 30 lbs overweight."

I'm the opposite. My lipids went up on LF and up still on LC. I'm trying a few other things with the LC, like flax and coconut oil. But even if it stays at it's highest, total chol over 300, Once I get to my goal I'll be considered low risk. Low enough risk, even tho I'm a smoker (I know, I know....AFTER I get to goal), that I'll no longer be considered a candidate for statins. And that damn doc will stop bugging me!!!!! (I keep refusing, she keeps wring the prescriptions.)

Just goes to show, we're all different.

This is certainly true. There are so many factors in our body composition and diet that are very individual. There are people who have genetic predispositions for high cholesterol. My mother is one of those people. She was on statins, but Atkins brought her cholesterol dangerously too low, so she stopped taking them, and her cholesterol went up, but I've heard that it can take 6 months for the effects of lc'ing to show up in cholesterol profiles after using statins.

There is, however, some debate as to how cholesterol is related to heart disease. Some of it concerns particle size. Big fluffy particles are good. Others say that triglycerides are a higher marker for heart disease. It certainly bears some research. Also, with the total cholesterol vs. the ratio, I have heard that the ratio of LDL to HDL is more important. HDL is often too low in people; I believe the recommendation for good HDL is over 35.

T2 Diabetes also causes some blood lipid irregularities.

But I also wonder if smoking could be having an effect on your blood profiles. I know that smoking is supposed to cause hardening of the arteries, in a similar way that other heart disease factors cause plaquing, but unfortunately I don't know the mechanism.

It definitely would be an interesting point of research to see if there is a correlation.

If you haven't read DR. ATKINS AGE DEFYING DIET, I think you would find it very interesting because it goes into a lot of detail about heart health in general and explains a lot of the mechanisms behind LC theory.

"Others say that triglycerides are a higher marker for heart disease."

My triglycerides were great after LC, but they were "too high to calculate" pre-lc. Total Chol went up to 324 (had been 256). HDL did go up a bit, but from 33-35! LDL barely budged. But, I do think that if I had stayed on LC my HDL would continue to improve, so that's why I'm back on LC.

I haven't yet read DR. ATKINS AGE DEFYING DIET, but I do intend to soon.

And yes, absolutely, smoking is a contributing factor in artheroschlerosis. I do intend to quit, I have several times, but I've decided to get the weight off first. I'm hoping by then I'll be able to withstand the horrors of withdrawal!

You're doing the right thing. That's usually what is recommended--getting the weight off first. DH is going through the same thing himself. He has promised to tackle quitting after the weight loss, so I'm trying not to bug him so much.

Bugging doesn't work Bea!

Do you have children? If you do, use them as ammo when he decides to give it a try. For my kids, if nothing else, I wish I had kept it up when I quit years ago. Both have smoked, although DD has quit for over 2 years!

Have you checked with your insurer? They might have programs or incentives that will help too (mine doesn't).

I'm going to join the smokers forum when I quit....because I'm going to need a lot of support!