Sasha, Liz, meet the blog fans.
Blog fans, say hello to Sasha and Liz.
And say hello to each other Sasha and Liz--you're sort of sisters now.
Sasha and Liz are two Weight Watchers members who have volunteered to be my guinea pigs for the coming year. Obviously two people do not a scientific sample make, so clearly this has nothing to do proving any theories. I just wanted to find some random people who would be willing to allow me a peek into their progress on the program for 12 months.
Liz is 27 year old rock goddess haling from the Golden Horseshoe. Liz's goal is to lose 24lbs on the program and she's been working at it since joining WW in October of 2007. This is the third time she's embarked on the program with her first attempt in 2003 and her second in 2005. While the the 2003 stint was very brief (six weeks) she spent almost a year on the program the second time but had to discontinue attending meetings for fiscal reasons (a very real issue with any paid weight loss program). This time, however, Liz's plan is to get to the point at which she's no longer paying and doesn't have to deal with that issue anymore. Liz is using the Flex (points) plan.
Sasha is a 25 year old mother of three little girls under the age of three--obviously a saint (grin). She has tried WW before but left the program due to a pregnancy. Her goal is to weigh 125lbs and she is presently at 177lbs. She started the program in the third of week of January and is using the Flex plan.
I'm looking very forward to bringing you updates of their experiences on the program every three months and I hope they enjoy the ride as much as I know we will.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
5-Vacation and Work -- Mutually Exclusive
So I had these lofty plans to get all this work done on this blog on my week off. Instead I've spent my time watching crap loads of really bad daytime TV whilst sitting around in my pjs refusing to bathe regularly. Yeah, I kinda suck, but that's what vacations are for. Also a couple things that I am working on haven't come together as quickly as I had anticipated so I assure you, there are two potential posts that are not quite ready for public viewing. In the meantime enjoy these articles. Food for thought.
Smokers, fat folks mean health care savings
MARIA CHENG
Associated Press
February 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM EST
LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
“It was a small surprise,” said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. “But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more.”
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Mr. van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on “cost of illness” data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.
“This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars,” said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.
“If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact,” he said.
Obesity experts said that fighting the epidemic is about more than just saving money.
“The benefits of obesity prevention may not be seen immediately in terms of cost savings in tomorrow's budget, but there are long-term gains,” said Neville Rigby, spokesman for the International Association for the Study of Obesity. “These are often immeasurable when it comes to people living longer and healthier lives.”
Mr. van Baal described the paper as “a book-keeping exercise,” and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking and obesity prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.
“Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long,” Mr. van Baal said. “But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more.”
The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.
“We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity,” Mr. van Baal said. “But they should do it for the right reasons.”
Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated?
(Head to Head: Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated?)
Saturday February 2, 08
Yes: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/336/7637/244
No: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/336/7637/245
Last week, the UK health secretary declared that we are in a grip of an obesity epidemic, but does the evidence stack up? Researchers in this week's BMJ debate the issue.
Claims about an obesity epidemic often exceed the scientific evidence and mistakenly suggest an unjustified degree of certainty, argue Patrick Basham and John Luik.
For example, the average population weight gain in the United States in the past 42 years is 10.9kg or 0.26kg a year. Yet, between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, there were no significant changes in the prevalence of overweight or obesity among US adults or in the prevalence of overweight among children.
Furthermore, they say, the categories of normal, overweight, and obese is entirely arbitrary and at odds with the underlying evidence about the association between body mass index and mortality.
For example, the study on which the bands for overweight and obesity in the US are based found that the death risks for men with a body mass index of 19-21 were the same as those for men who were overweight and obese (29-31). Other studies have shown negligible differences between body mass index and death rates.
The association of overweight and obesity with higher risks of disease is equally unclear, they write. And, despite supposedly abnormal levels of overweight and obesity, life expectancy continues to increase.
They suggest that some public health professionals may have deliberately exaggerated the risks of overweight and obesity, and our capacity to prevent or treat them on a population wide basis, in the interests of health. They warn that this has unwelcome implications for science policy and for evidence based medicine.
But Robert Jeffery and Nancy Sherwood argue that a large body of scientific evidence shows that obesity is a major global health problem.
In the US, the prevalence of obesity in 1976-80 was 6.5% among 6-11 year olds and 5% among 12-17 year olds. In 2003-4 it was 19% and 17% respectively. Europe can also expect to see the numbers of overweight and obese children rising by around 1.3 million a year by 2010.
The risks of obesity on many serious health conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer, are also serious and well established, they write.
Most health economists and epidemiologists agree that the contribution of obesity to current healthcare costs is high and that it is likely to get much higher. Some have argued that we may even see real falls in life expectancy within a few decades, they add.
In summary, a large body of evidence documents that over-nutrition and obesity are a major global health problem, say the authors. With the continuing rise in obesity and limited treatment efficacy, options for averting a poor public health outcome seem to rest either on the hope that scientists are wrong in their projections or speedy investment in the development of more effective public health measures to deal with it.
They think the second option a more prudent scientific and policy choice.
I hope you enjoyed those two offerings. I hope to have some original content for you soon!
Smokers, fat folks mean health care savings
MARIA CHENG
Associated Press
February 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM EST
LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
“It was a small surprise,” said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. “But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more.”
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Mr. van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on “cost of illness” data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.
“This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars,” said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.
“If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact,” he said.
Obesity experts said that fighting the epidemic is about more than just saving money.
“The benefits of obesity prevention may not be seen immediately in terms of cost savings in tomorrow's budget, but there are long-term gains,” said Neville Rigby, spokesman for the International Association for the Study of Obesity. “These are often immeasurable when it comes to people living longer and healthier lives.”
Mr. van Baal described the paper as “a book-keeping exercise,” and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking and obesity prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.
“Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long,” Mr. van Baal said. “But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more.”
The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.
“We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity,” Mr. van Baal said. “But they should do it for the right reasons.”
Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated?
(Head to Head: Is the obesity epidemic exaggerated?)
Saturday February 2, 08
Yes: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/336/7637/244
No: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/336/7637/245
Last week, the UK health secretary declared that we are in a grip of an obesity epidemic, but does the evidence stack up? Researchers in this week's BMJ debate the issue.
Claims about an obesity epidemic often exceed the scientific evidence and mistakenly suggest an unjustified degree of certainty, argue Patrick Basham and John Luik.
For example, the average population weight gain in the United States in the past 42 years is 10.9kg or 0.26kg a year. Yet, between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, there were no significant changes in the prevalence of overweight or obesity among US adults or in the prevalence of overweight among children.
Furthermore, they say, the categories of normal, overweight, and obese is entirely arbitrary and at odds with the underlying evidence about the association between body mass index and mortality.
For example, the study on which the bands for overweight and obesity in the US are based found that the death risks for men with a body mass index of 19-21 were the same as those for men who were overweight and obese (29-31). Other studies have shown negligible differences between body mass index and death rates.
The association of overweight and obesity with higher risks of disease is equally unclear, they write. And, despite supposedly abnormal levels of overweight and obesity, life expectancy continues to increase.
They suggest that some public health professionals may have deliberately exaggerated the risks of overweight and obesity, and our capacity to prevent or treat them on a population wide basis, in the interests of health. They warn that this has unwelcome implications for science policy and for evidence based medicine.
But Robert Jeffery and Nancy Sherwood argue that a large body of scientific evidence shows that obesity is a major global health problem.
In the US, the prevalence of obesity in 1976-80 was 6.5% among 6-11 year olds and 5% among 12-17 year olds. In 2003-4 it was 19% and 17% respectively. Europe can also expect to see the numbers of overweight and obese children rising by around 1.3 million a year by 2010.
The risks of obesity on many serious health conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer, are also serious and well established, they write.
Most health economists and epidemiologists agree that the contribution of obesity to current healthcare costs is high and that it is likely to get much higher. Some have argued that we may even see real falls in life expectancy within a few decades, they add.
In summary, a large body of evidence documents that over-nutrition and obesity are a major global health problem, say the authors. With the continuing rise in obesity and limited treatment efficacy, options for averting a poor public health outcome seem to rest either on the hope that scientists are wrong in their projections or speedy investment in the development of more effective public health measures to deal with it.
They think the second option a more prudent scientific and policy choice.
I hope you enjoyed those two offerings. I hope to have some original content for you soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
