• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Why the Obesity epidemic isn't a big problem, and distract from real problems

aging longevity obesity

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 01 November 2015 - 03:10 PM


http://www.longevity...-aging-epidemic

 

Large amounts of precious resources are being spent on encouraging weight loss and healthy living. While the intention of trying to reinforce healthy living is laudable, the evidence is that our resources are being wasted on minimal benefits.

Society considers obesity a big threat that needs to be overcome, but being thin is seen as a panacea

The diseases caused by biological aging carry on incessantly taking the lives of 100 000 people every day. While age 87 is the most common age of death for people in the western world, little progress has occurred during the past decades.

Currently by the statistics of WHO 39% of the adult population aged 18+ in the world are overweight, and 13% are obese; in the US 35% are obese and 69% overweight respectively. These statistics are alarming, and a lot of people are obviously concerned, seeing obesity as the major cause of ill health and taking action to save resources and create a healthy population. 

Based on these statistics, in an effort to improve citizen health, governments in Europe are working hard to ban candy machines targeted to children in schools. Laws are also created to put taxes on unhealthy foods to benefit children. The desired outcome from this nannying is a reduction in the number of heart attacks that will occur in the 2060s-2070s brought on by the metabolic syndrome these children are expected to suffer as a consequence of a suboptimal diet. This reasoning is presuming that medicine won’t change before then, despite medical advances that with the right investments and work, might have considerable impact upon both the premature mortality caused by bad lifestyle choices, as well as the unavoidable aging damage itself.

How bad is obesity?

Less than 1% of all heart attacks occur in people under the age of 40 (of which a certain number are due to genetic defects and not related to atherosclerosis), and this pool of statistics includes many very obese people in the age range of 20-40. I do not want to belittle the fact that very obese adolescents are developing diabetes, and that sugar is the culprit behind the metabolic dysfunction - causing cancer and heart disease in one’s upper middle age. But let’s face the facts, the number of people below 40 who suffer fatal consequences from their weight remains very scarce. The leading causes of death below age 45 in Western Europe are by far accident and suicide. 

Currently 90% of us are expected to reach 67, whether healthy or unhealthy

The increased life expectancy, longevity prevalence (100+) as well as exceptional longevity (110+) in regions such as Okinawa known for a diet low in calories and plenty of vegetables and green tea, is well established. It is also known that this avoidance of particular age-related diseases is lost among genetically okinawan people adopting a western diet abroad. This offers tantalizing (but not strictly proven) clues that dietary factors might influence maximum longevity (~101 years in Western Europe for the top 1% born a century ago). Nevertheless the evidence by epidemiological studies in Europe is that people keeping fit and active in their retirement years often have better-than-average functionality and then rapidly decline in their mid-late 80s due to pathologies resulting from an unaltered intrinsic aging process. 

What needs to be understood is that there is no "fountain of youth" on a macroeconomic level to be earned through citizens living healthy, and many of the costs needed to implement “healthy living” are perhaps better spent focusing on using regenerative medicine to restore function to aging tissues. Even if obesity was outlawed, the medical expenses might go down less than you think in contrast to age-related disease; the gains are minimal compared to real breakthroughs that could give you more time regardless of your diet. 

So eat your burgers and fries, statistics show you can be "almost" as fat as you want and still count on reaching 60. For that matter just by being “moderately” obese (BMI 30-40), instead of morbidly obese (BMI 40+) you are still expected to reach 75. If we want to make some serious headway, we need to focus on aging itself instead of obsessing over expanding waistlines alone at the expense of real progress.

Guest contributor Victor Björk

 

 

 


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • like x 1

#2 albe

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Pavia
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2015 - 03:53 PM

Right, but now fight obesity is easy and following with standard procedures, fight aging is near impossible and require tailored procedures. Are the people majority and national healt services able to follow the second fight? I think not in Italy ... You think this is possible in Sweden?
I want follow antiaging system and I can, don't need a law for me ... and a law is good for nothing for my smocker friends :) ... right?



#3 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 02 November 2015 - 11:44 AM

That governments are now focusing on banning candy machnies in schools... That indicates that they don't think LE therapies will arrive the next 50 years or so.......



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 November 2015 - 02:24 PM

Do we really want corporations putting candy machines in schools in order to make a profit at the expense of our children's health?   Why not have cigarette machines too?  Or machines that dispense heroin and syringes?  This is all the same kind of thing-  stuff that makes you feel good for a while, but is addictive and harmful to your health.  I don't like nannyism, but candy machines in schools is not the place to fight that battle.  Also, there's more to obesity, metabolic syndrome, and T2DM that just their effect on lifespan.  They also harm the quality of your life.  I'd rather be healthy and strong than have diabetic neuropathic pain and be unable to climb stairs without gasping for breath, regardless of how long I live.


  • Agree x 3

#5 albe

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Pavia
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2015 - 06:52 AM

Our governements are always late, and they think only until their mandate, I'm not astonish of this  ... perhaps isn't the same in Sweden, Victor. 

In Italy aren't candy machines in the school, but a lot of other snakes. Ok the business competition, but is important, I think, avoid insane temptation for young peolple: In Italy is forbidden smoke in the school, in the yard too, this is good, I think.

A jurist said me that a therapie not authorized doesn't exist for law, isn't the same in other states I think. There are legal problems if we want take hoped therapies, now: this is a unresolved problem!


Edited by albe, 03 November 2015 - 06:55 AM.


#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,042 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 November 2015 - 10:51 PM

Do we really want corporations putting candy machines in schools in order to make a profit at the expense of our children's health?   Why not have cigarette machines too?  Or machines that dispense heroin and syringes?  This is all the same kind of thing-  stuff that makes you feel good for a while, but is addictive and harmful to your health.  I don't like nannyism, but candy machines in schools is not the place to fight that battle.  Also, there's more to obesity, metabolic syndrome, and T2DM that just their effect on lifespan.  They also harm the quality of your life.  I'd rather be healthy and strong than have diabetic neuropathic pain and be unable to climb stairs without gasping for breath, regardless of how long I live.

 

As a libertarian leaning person, I don't force anyone to subscribe to any particular lifestyle. Unfortunately I have been forced into the situation because modern tyrannical support systems force me to pay for other people's bad choices. Of course, nanny-ism is going to run rampant. If I have to pay for someone else's medical treatment, I am going to push for a ban on processed sugar altogether. Ice cream gone! Candy gone! Donuts banned! Birthday cake done!

 

A less contentious way forward is to just develop medical/technological solutions to our "bad choices", our addictions, which is the point of the argument. We can "tilt at windmills" and try to FORCE people to exercise, eat vegetables, not smoke, etc, but it is an enormous waste of wealth and effort and creates criminals out of non-violent people.


  • like x 1

#7 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 04 November 2015 - 12:56 AM

As a libertarian leaning person, I don't force anyone to subscribe to any particular lifestyle. Unfortunately I have been forced into the situation because modern tyrannical support systems force me to pay for other people's bad choices. Of course, nanny-ism is going to run rampant. If I have to pay for someone else's medical treatment, I am going to push for a ban on processed sugar altogether. Ice cream gone! Candy gone! Donuts banned! Birthday cake done!

A less contentious way forward is to just develop medical/technological solutions to our "bad choices", our addictions, which is the point of the argument. We can "tilt at windmills" and try to FORCE people to exercise, eat vegetables, not smoke, etc, but it is an enormous waste of wealth and effort and creates criminals out of non-violent people.


Or we can keep trying to change legislation. One thing to consider is that many people are now forced by low income and inequalities into obesity. I live in an urban blighted food desert, for example. To eat healthy, I've got to wander far away from my neighborhood. Many of my neighbors are unable to schedule time off work to travel (bus rides, tired after low wage, awful work schedules) to healthier food options. And many here simply cannot afford fresh fruits and vegetables.

People buy junk foods because they're the cheapest, easiest calories available. And this is by design: we make subsidy choices as a society. We choose addictive, cheap junk food. Then we get fat and sick. Yet if most people had the chance to eat healthy food for a decent, fair price, and if fresh foods were more convenient and available -- if the system wasn't rigged against poor people trying to eat well -- I believe most people would eat healthy food. But the system is twisted up against us -- we are rewarded for eating junk (low cost, easy availability) and penalized for eating healthy (high cost, inconvenience).

Consider this from 2013, Apples to Twinkies:

http://www.uspirg.or...s-twinkies-2013

"At a time when America faces high obesity rates and tough federal budget choices, taxpayer dollars are funding the production of junk food ingredients. Since 1995, the government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies, $19.2 billion of which have subsidized corn- and soy-derived junk food ingredients..."

Edited by sthira, 04 November 2015 - 12:58 AM.

  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#8 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 November 2015 - 08:41 PM

Point is: If noone was biologically over 40 we would not see much morbidity due to obesity, only very extreme obesity (like 400+ pounds) would be at risk of death.. The reason for why obesity is dangerous is mostly because it speeds up aspects of aging, few people are like the bedridden cases who actually could be said to die from obesity itself.



#9 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 05 November 2015 - 09:46 PM

Point is: If noone was biologically over 40 we would not see much morbidity due to obesity, only very extreme obesity (like 400+ pounds) would be at risk of death.. The reason for why obesity is dangerous is mostly because it speeds up aspects of aging, few people are like the bedridden cases who actually could be said to die from obesity itself.


I may not be understanding you correctly. Is your message here is that we (society, researchers, "the government") need(s) to place more focus on the disease of aging rather than obsessing over the obesity epidemic?

If that's what you're arguing, then I agree with increasing funds and public awareness to help solve aging. Yet I disagree with your advice to "...eat your burgers and fries, statistics show you can be 'almost' as fat as you want and still count on reaching 60..."

In the US there's an unparalleled obesity epidemic amongst six-month old children. In addition to mortality issues, there are quality of life reasons why we should not be advocating that kids and young adults should just keep chowing down on junk food until they're fat and sick. We should focus on rejuvination medicine, of course, but why sacrifice our everyday health in the hopes that rejuvenation medicine finally rejuvenates someone someday in the future?

I mean, can we have both? Obesity prevention and longevity research funding? We could help pass legislation to subsidize fruits and vegetables rather than corn and soy. We can also petition the FDA to change disease status of aging. Currently aging it isn't classified as a disease, and changing that might be a step toward increased longevity research funding.
  • Good Point x 1

#10 xxxxxxxx

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 3
  • Location:moon
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2015 - 11:24 PM

I'm interested in the logic that obesity is a mental illness/ drug addiction, associated with deficits in food reward processing. Ideally, we will have psych drugs for it.

 

Yes, people are obese because they ate too much, but WHY? It's not like naturally thin people are starving themselves; they eat cake and then the cake loses its reward value when they are full. An obese person feels full too, but the signal to stop being attracted to the prospect of cake doesn't turn off. Do you know that obesity researchers have a very hard time fattening rats for research? The rats just don't want to overeat, so the researchers have to basically force them. Then, some genius came up with "the cafeteria diet", where he just went over to the vending machine and got artificially flavored junk food. The previous weight-homeostatic rats suddenly started spontaneously overeating the crap and got fat easily. 

 

The modern diet is full of unnaturally rewarding flavors (even if the artificial chemical flavorings aren't "toxic" in the formal sense, merely do their job of tasting too good). Some people's brains react to that like drugs. These genetic brain differences are being apparent only now, because the diet didn't used to be that rewarding. 

 

If you put an obese person on a forced calorie restricted diet, their bodies fight it by slowing the metabolism and increasing craving even more. Do you know what happens when you give an obese person free access to unlimited calories (yes, including fat and even SUGAR), but of boring, tasteless food? They magically stop overeating! Their spontaneous calorie intakes can drop as low as 400 cal/day and they don't feel hungry! Their weight loss is massive and free of those compensation mechanisms. 

 

This one blogger (and you don't have to agree with everything else he thinks 100%) made a series explaining this better than I can. Check him out: http://wholehealthso...othesis-of.html

 

 


Edited by MiaouMixe, 05 November 2015 - 11:24 PM.

  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: aging, longevity, obesity

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users