Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:54:52 PM
For the
second time in two days, I find myself nitpicking an article from
Best of the Web, though in this case there is a purpose to my nitpicking. You see, their article is on the claim that the number of overweight soldiers is increasing, and, while they make fun of the fact that the author blames this on the was in Iraq, I had to point out another problem.
You see, in 2000, the
definition of obese and overweight changed. Overweight (for men)had been a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 27.8 to 31.1. In 2000 it changed to a BMI from 25.0 to 29.9. And as obesity is defined as anything above overweight, the definition of obese required a similarly reduced BMI.
Now, just because numbers are changed, that does not mean all doctors begin to use them that instant. They need to be picked up by journals and professional education classes, doctors need to read those journal and attend those classes, and, most importantly, doctors need to hear them enough times to decide it is a real change and not a passing fancy among a vocal but small faction within the profession. (Doctors will rarely admit this, but their profession is just as prone to politicization and turf wars as any human endeavor, so simple publication is not always an assurance that a study has been completely thought out, peer review or no. Peer review is easy to pass if you choose peers sharing your bias. Just check out how the "
hockey stick" passed environmental journal review despite being based on horrible science.)
So is it any wonder that the sudden climb in obesity, though the numbers are still far below the population average, came two to three years after the new numbers were published?
And even more importantly, is it any surprise that we began hearing again about the "
obestiy crisis" early in this decade? Interesting how easy it is to show an increase in obesity when you define down what obesity means. Not that there is no problem in the US, but comparing pre-2000 numbers with post-2000 numbers is still comparing apples and oranges, and should not be the basis of science or public policy.