Please consider registering

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

— Match —

— Forum Options —

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Wildflower Riot! And The State Of The Paleo Community
sp_BlogLink Read the original blog post
January 6, 2013
5:57 pm
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline


Absolutely.  Corporate welfare is a much greater problem than individual welfare, though the societal consequences are harder to pinpoint since corporations on welfare don't generally engage in violent crime on an individual level.  (Collective extortion is more their racket.)


I've seen the paper you linked: while they point out that lifespan is still increasing in America, functional lifespan is actually decreasing -- which strongly suggests that improved medical care is compensating for a sicker population, and America is not growing more healthy as it grows more obese.

Furthermore, Ned Kock has ably dissected the "why do overweight people live longer?" paradox in this article, and its sequel.  It turns out that having greater fat-free mass is very strongly associated with lower mortality as we age -- an effect that even shines through the prevalence of obesity among old people who are "overweight" according to BMI.

That being said, I agree that health is a better goal to pursue that an arbitrary bodyfat percentage!  However, I believe the evidence shows that a healthy weight is a salutary side effect of healthy diet.  Eating like a predator won't necessarily get you a six-pack by itself, but you shouldn't remain obese barring serious hormonal/metabolic dysfunction.  The failure of dietary therapy is an indictment of mainstream dietary advice, not an indictment of the idea that a heavy fat mass is often indicative of health issues.


January 7, 2013
4:32 am
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
September 20, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline



We have seen in studies (and I'm actually way too lazy this morning to look them up…) that overweight and obese people tend to underestimate how much they eat.  We also see many diseases correlated with a higher body fat percentage (whether that's visceral or subcutaneous is a different story.. =) ). 


To turn your back to those results while counseling obese patients is, I think, morally wrong.  Linda Bacon does such a good job of massaging and ignoring data in her published book/works that I''ve physically thunked my forehead with my hand a few times.  Book was a waste of my valuable $1.99.


Perhaps its a logical fallacy of sorts, but I just can't take her research seriously.

April 5, 2014
6:00 pm
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

E Craig:

The "metabolically healthy obese" are only 10-15% of the obese population, if I recall correctly.

Also, the "metabolically healthy obese" are only so because they're continuing to get fatter, which poses its own problems -- namely that they won't be metabolically healthy forever.  Weighing 300+ pounds poses its own health risks even if your glucose tolerance is still good.

That being said, if someone is in a strongly weight-reduced state (e.g. they started at 300# and now weigh 200#, even though their ideal weight is around 150#), the health impacts of trying to lose that last 50# against leptin and insulin dynamics probably overshadow the benefits!  However, that's not Bacon's thesis AFAIK.


Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 183

Currently Online:
59 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1767

Members: 5371

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 250

Posts: 7105

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2045