Thursday, January 3, 2013

Two different approaches

Timmy reports that those who are above the Body Mass Index (BMI) that our sanctimonious medical profession deem optimum are, in fact, rather more likely to live longer than the stick insects that the scum of the public health fascists would have us emulate.
This isn’t new nor a surprise. But it does show the problem we’ve got with the BMI measure:
Dr Katherine Flegal, of the National Centre for Health Statistics in the United States, found that people who are overweight had a six per cent lower risk of death than normal weight people.

The risk for those with a BMI (body mass index) of between 30 and 35 fell by five per cent. But those grossly obese with a BMI above 35 were 29 per cent more likely to die than slim people of the same age.

Let us assume, for moment, that the aim of all of this is indeed to enable us all to live long and enjoyable lives (as opposed to the Puritans getting to impose their idea of the good life on us).

Logically we should change the advice we give people. We should be aiming for a BMI of 30-35, not the 25 we are currently told to aim for.

That this has long been known and yet the advice hasn’t been changed rather leads to the idea that it is all about the Puritans really….

Now, most of us possessing a single ounce of common sense know that the BMI is a big load of arse-wibble (at 11 stone, I am malnourished apparently. I'm sure the wife would disagree).

However, it is Chris Snowdon who points out that presentation is everything. For whilst Timmy points to the Telegraph, Chris contrasts an impartial view with the BBC's reportage...
There are two ways to report news that divides opinion. The first is to report what has happened and then include comments from those who have a view on it, including critics. The second is to lead off with disparaging comments from the critics so that the news itself becomes incidental. This latter approach amounts to poisoning the well and is mainly favoured by propagandists and media outlets which have a blatant editorial bias.

And with that in mind...
'Weight is healthy' study criticised

A study which suggests being overweight can lead to a longer life has caused controversy among obesity experts.

One labelled the findings a "pile of rubbish" while another said it was a "horrific message" to put out.

As Chris says, "Boom"!

I thoroughly recommend that you wander over to Serious Researcher Snowdon's place for a thorough filleting of our impartial broadcaster's take on this rather obvious science.

Needless to say, the... [cough]... scientists of the Beeb's journalistic arm are perplexed—and merely compliant with what their political masters would want them to report.

Remind me again: why is it that I can go to prison for refusing to pay these bastards...?


JuliaM said...

Meanwhile, over in the 'Guardian', Glenn Greenwald shows either a touching naivety about modern journalism, or a huge blind spot:

"Of all people who would want the state empowered to criminalize ideas, wouldn't you think people who enter journalism would be the last ones advocating that?"


Anonymous said...

The stats have been around for forty years but the high prestige cardiology division of medicine, ablybassisted by big pharma with an eye to drug pushing hijacked the debate. Yes, thin people have fewer heart attacks and strokes but they still have ,a higher mortality rate. Heart attacks and strokes have been declining since the immediate postwar period, possibly related to improved diet and antibiotics, but precede faddy low fat diets and statins. Cholesterol lowering drugs reduce heart attacks in MEN but only marginally and don't reduce overall deaths.

FlipC said...

I'd like to add the 'of course' that BMI was designed for generalised population statistics and was then [cough] applied to bed-bound/comatose patients before becoming the go-to statistic for interfering busybodies.

MessageSpace Adverts