"It goes without saying that, in science, if you want to keep getting
funded, you should find something earthshaking. And if you want to get
your name in the newspaper, give a reporter some material that gives
him/her hope of breaking 'the big story'!" (Dr Roy Spencer, former
senior scientist climatologist with NASA in his book, CLIMATE CONFUSION,
NY, 2008)
On and off, we have read about the obesity study out of Harvard which
concluded that even if a person is physically fit, that does not cut risks
if he or she is fat. This was a "data dredge" study taken from
existent data (in the infamous nurse's study). Studies using this same
generalized data have been proven misleading in several other areas
(example HRT) sometimes "proving" the opposite of what double blind
studies found.
The main problems with this study were:
- Risks were calculated on what the women weighed in 1976 - most obese
women are yo yo dieters or weight cycling which has been proven in MANY
STUDIES to considerably raise the risk of disease and death, yet yo yo
dieting was not taken in consideration AT ALL in the study
- The researchers are hoping that the public is not familiar with
calculating risk factors - a risk factor of less than 2 is considered
insignificant. In the study the risk factor for all those whose
BMI was under 40 was 1.69 or less i.e. NOT SIGNIFICANT. For those
with BMI over 40, the risk factor was 2 - slightly higher risk.
This was only 170 women out of 11,000 so the conclusions of the
study were decided on 170 women NOT the 11,000 the researchers
reported on.
Other and detailed problems with the study include:
- self reported data on exercise habits - is
notoriously,
very inaccurate
- In the data used for this study, the determination
of exercise did not always fit the definition of cardiovascular
exercise, the type known to reduce health risks
- fitness can only truly be ascertained by physical
exam, treadmill test, O-2 test etc
- for example, one year, the cohort was asked how
many times they climbed a flight of stairs in a week
- exercise habits only surveyed 5 times in 20 years
- people are not consistent with exercise programs so
the persistence of those who reported exercising is probably a low
percentage (only 25 percent of the population exercises CONSISTENTLY)
- Obesity judged SOLELY by the recorded weight in
1976
- obese individuals likely attempted to lose weight
several times during the 20 years of the study - thus greatly
increasing their risk factors over if they remained at the same weight
- 2 studies of women over 50 showed that those who remained at the
same weight had half the risk of heart attack as those losing even a
modest amount of weight (even if done sensibly) and even if those
women who remained the same were obese to begin with.
- Weight may not be a good determination of fatness - bodyfat
percentage is a better determinator and even with a higher bodyfat
percentage, the question about what type of bodyfat should be asked
i.e. is the majority of the fat "visceral" or "subcutaneous" (as found
in the fat and fit) because it makes a difference as far as health
risks.
- Connection with diet pills and Atkins
- Willett has done several studies funded by the Atkins Corporation
suggesting low carb diets are safe when other independent studies have
come up with different results
- JoAnn Manson was a consultant for the manufacturer of Redux, a
drug about which she admitted, in 1995, did cause pulmonary
hypotension but was only a "slight risk"
The best article on this study was written by a medical provider, Sandy
Szwarc, RN, BSN in her article,
NONSENSE FOR THE DIET SEASON.Stephen Milloy, Fox News junk science journalist, had some interesting
things to write about this study when it first came out, suggesting that even a
lay person applying a bit of logic would see serious problems with the
study!
Milloy wrote:
I don’t know whether
fat-but-fit is a myth, but I do know that Hu’s study is extraordinarily
dubious.
Data on the women’s level of physical activity were collected at
numerous points during the study (in 1980, 1982, 1988, 1992, 1996 and
1998). In contrast, the data on the women’s bodyweight were collected only
once — by self-report in 1976.
So Hu’s results are based on analyses of the women’s bodyweights in
1976 and their subsequent physical activity levels as much as 22 years
later. Hu's myth-busting effort might have been on firmer ground had he
showed, for example, that women who were consistently overweight but
active throughout 1976-1998 had greater mortality than women who were
consistently lean-and-fit throughout that time frame.
Hu claims that the 1976 bodyweight data alone were used “to reduce the
effects of underlying disease on weight” — whatever that means. He,
therefore, admits possession of the bodyweight data for the period
1976-1998.
I can only conclude that Hu chose to use the 1976 data alone
because they gave him the myth-busting, headline-making answer he wanted.
If you think I’ve been too rough on Hu’s fat-but-fit hooey, please
recall his recent dastardly effort to link
soft drink consumption with diabetes.
NOTE: This study can be read at:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/8/927 It
should be noted that this was a large data dredge study (i.e. using
existent data) which due to the collection of information, omitted many
factors which might have had a drastic effect on the outcome and made a
simple connection between drinking sugar pop and diabetes. (it is
likely the same connection could have been made between drinking milk and
diabetes). Not to say that a high consumption of sugar DOESN'T hasten the
onset of diabetes (in susceptible individuals) because this is as yet
unknown, but that this study, highly publicized, didn't prove this
hypothesis.. .
Hu and crew are notorious purveyors of junk science.
Steven Milloy is the publisher of
JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute and the author of "Junk
Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams"
(Cato Institute, 2001).<<<<
"My wife does not agree with me on this but I have a theory that
scientists are human...Like most other people, scientists don't know as much
as they pretend to know. Scientists generally do not like to reveal to
the public the uncertainties that are associated with their research. It
might make them look less expert. Sometimes it's just too complicated
to explain all the uncertainties. Whatever the reason, claims that
scientists make are usually more dramatic and confident than can be defended
with the science alone." (Dr Roy Spencer, former senior scientist
climatologist with NASA in his book, CLIMATE CONFUSION, NY, 2008) |