MSN published the newest state-by-state obesity figures on their web site today.  Here are the states with the highest and lowest rankings.  (Note:  in this table and all other tables, I’m skipping Washington, D.C.  It’s a city, for Pete’s sake, not a state.)

1 Mississippi
2 Alabama
3 Tennessee
4 West Virginia
5 Louisiana
6 Oklahoma
7 Kentucky
8 Arkansas
9 South Carolina
10 North Carolina
41 California
42 New Jersey
43 Montana
44 Utah
45 Rhode Island
46 Vermont
47 Hawaii
48 Massachusetts
49 Connecticut
50 Colorado

As you can see, southern states dominate the obesity list.  Quite a few articles have been published that attempt to answer the question Why Are Southerners So Fat? — that was actually the title of one.  I believe we’re looking at two factors, which are in part related:  poverty and race.  Cheaper foods tend to be high-carb foods, so it would make sense that poor people tend to eat high-carbohydrate diets.

Tennessee has the third-highest obesity rate.  And yet as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t see many fat people in our area.  In fact, in a list of county-by-county statistics, I saw that the average adult BMI in our county is 25.  Our county also has the highest per-capita income in the state. 

But I also believe race plays somewhat of a role apart from poverty.  Here’s the same list of states again, with another column showing each state’s rank by the African-American proportion of the population:

State Obesity Blacks/Capita
Mississippi 1 1
Alabama 2 6
Tennessee 3 10
West Virginia 4 37
Louisiana 5 2
Oklahoma 6 24
Kentucky 7 23
Arkansas 8 12
South Carolina 9 3
North Carolina 10 7
California 41 26
New Jersey 42 16
Montana 43 50
Utah 44 44
Rhode Island 45 30
Vermont 46 48
Hawaii 47 39
Massachusetts 48 27
Connecticut 49 21
Colorado 50  33

It’s hardly a perfect correlation, but the correlation is there.  The southern states tend to have a higher proportion of African-Americans than the northern states. 

As I mentioned in Fat Head, African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately labeled as overweight or obese, and to a large extent, the label isn’t fair.  I’ve had a few pinheads in cyberspace accuse me of being a racist for stating that on average, African-Americans and Latinos are genetically pre-disposed to be thicker than whites.  They may as well yell “racist!” if I say that those same groups are pre-disposed to have darker skin.  We’re talking about physiology here, pure and simple.

If you look up studies on osteoporosis, you’ll see it stated over and over that African-American and Latina women are the least susceptible.  You’ll also find the reason:  denser, thicker bones — African Americans in particular.  You’ll also see it stated that Asians on average have thinner bones than whites. 

Go figure … given the same height, smaller-boned people tend to be lighter, and thicker-boned people tend to be heavier.  The thicker-boned people also tend to carry around more muscle.  In addition, I’ve seen it stated in research papers that African-Americans on average tend to have bigger thigh muscles — some of the largest muscles in the body. 

So if we’re determining who’s overweight or obese by simply (and stupidly) comparing height to weight, African-Americans are going to have the highest BMI, followed by Latinos, whites, and Asians.  Yes, people with the highest BMI scores may also tend to be the fattest overall.  But the statistics are skewed.

As long as I was looking up data and making correlations, I decided to have a little fun with another set of statistics.  Below are the highest and lowest rates of cancer by state.  (#1 = highest rate of cancer, #50 = lowest.)

1 New Jersey
2 Maine
3 Rhode Island
4 Kentucky
5 Massachusetts
6 Pennsylvania
7 Connecticut
8 Washington
9 Michigan
10 West Virginia
41 Texas
42 California
43 Maryland
44 Montana
45 Hawaii
46 Colorado
47 South Dakota
48 Utah 
49 New Mexico
50 Arizona

Northern states dominate the top 10, while the bottom 10 is made up largely of sunshine states.  Most likely, we’re looking at the effects of vitamin D.  I was curious as to why relatively sunny states like Kentucky and West Virginia have such high rates of cancer, so I looked up smoking statistics.  Sure enough, West Virginia ranks #1 and Kentucky ranks #3, after Indiana.

But here’s what’s really interesting:  New Jersey, with the highest overall cancer rate, ranks #49 in smoking.  Maine ranks #27, and Rhode Island ranks #35.  In those northern states, it’s not smoking that’s causing the high cancer rate.

In previous posts, I’ve tried to pound home the point that correlations don’t tell us much.  Traits that are correlated often have independent causes … and yet researchers and health reporters too often assume that if two traits are related, one must be causing the other.

Look at the table below, where I’ve put the cancer rankings alongside the obesity rankings.  (I’ve removed Kentucky and West Virginia because of the high smoking rate — we’ll call that a confounding variable.)

State Obesity Cancer
Mississippi 1 24
Alabama 2 25
Tennessee 3 21
Louisiana 5 11
Oklahoma 6 31
Arkansas 8 38
South Carolina 9 33
North Carolina 10 35
California 41 42
New Jersey 42 1
Montana 43 44
Utah 44 48
Rhode Island 45 3
Vermont 46 26
Hawaii 47 45
Massachusetts 48 5
Connecticut 49 7
Colorado 50  30

You know what I see there?  I see evidence that obesity reduces your risk of developing cancer.   Or, to adopt the style I often see in health-article headlines, LOWER BODY WEIGHT RAISES CANCER RISK.

Somebody get T. Colin Campbell on the phone …

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
29 Responses to “Correlations: Obesity, Geography, Race and Cancer”
  1. Rob says:

    My own pet theory for fat southerners – two words – sweet tea. Having grown up in NC, I and everybody I know sucked that stuff down constantly. Liquid sugar bombs, I tell you…

    I experienced an example of that recently. We stopped at a Hardee’s in Kentucky and I asked for iced tea. The counter-clerk replied, “We’re out of iced tea. All we have left is unsweetened.”

  2. Lori says:

    Interesting post. A few observations:

    Some of the difference might be cultural. Where I live (Denver area), we don’t put sugar in our tea, for instance, as they do in the Midwest. Most of us don’t push food on each other (e.g., “Oh, go on, have another piece, c’mon”). And you can barbecue pretty much year round here. As for smoking, it’s not allowed indoors in a public place in Denver, if I understand the law correctly.

    In Boulder and downtown Denver, people are a lot thinner than in the suburbs. I think the reason, besides local culture, is that food downtown is more expensive.

    We do have lots of sunshine–over 300 sunny days a year. With the skiing, plus tennis, biking, hiking, etc. that you can do pretty much year round, we may have a lot of athletes moving here. I know we attract a lot of Californians seeking a place they can afford to live.

    While there aren’t many black people here as a portion of the population, there are a lot of Latinos in Denver and the West in general.

    I’m sure a lot of the difference is cultural. There were areas in L.A. where physical appearance was very important — the showbiz influence — and those areas would more likely attract good-looking people and more people determined to stay that way.

    When I lived in downtown Chicago, people were also thinner there than in the suburbs as well. But people living downtown were also generally younger, and more likely to be single and still in the dating market.

  3. Brandon T. Bisceglia says:

    Those are interesting correlations. I wonder, however, about other confounding variables when it comes to things like bone density. Is it possible that the density and thickness of bones is more of an epigenetic phenomenon, rather than a straightforward genetic one? That is, could cultural, dietary, and other environmental factors contribute to the propensity for thicker or thinner bones?

    I haven’t seen any studies directed specifically at this question, but it seems to make sense, given the changes that we’ve witnessed in body types as other cultures adopt Western diets. Unlike the starving poor in other parts of the world, the poor in the United States often take in plenty of calories, often from dubious sources. These dietary habits (some of which are more or less predominant in different racial groups) undoubtedly do impact bone growth, from embryo to adulthood.

    If the phenomenon is epigenetic, then the racial factor has less to do with genetic predisposition and more to do with socioeconomics and the cultural reinforcement of certain habits, which in turn influence phenotypic outcomes.

    None of this negates the correlation itself, but may complicate the causal explanation that you proposed.

    Also, being from Connecticut (which is low on the obesity scale but high on the cancer scale), I feel I should point out that there is a lot more than vitamin D contributing to cancer. Regional air quality is quite bad – we get smog all the time in the southwestern corner of the state, where the population density is highest. Water pollution has been a major issue for years.

    Post-industrialization has turned up all kinds of other toxic substances (my home town of Stratford was once the residence of an asbestos company, and we’ve been cleaning up buried deposits of the stuff in schoolyards and parks for over 20 years). On top of all that, the Boston-Washington corridor has the highest population density in the country, which means that any environmental factor impacts more people than it does in most other places.

    All of these contribute to cancer rates – especially for those who were living here before we became more conscious of the environmental problems and began managing them better. Because cancer has a long lag-time, those people are feeling the pinch today of carcinogens they were exposed to years ago.

    Of course, low vitamin D doesn’t help, either.

    Your final correlation is really funny. : )

    There are usually multiple factors involved, whether we’re talking about cancer or obesity. That’s why these simple correlations made by many researchers are useless.

  4. jabekk says:

    Great post. Statistics are fun! African americans and other non white also have a higher prevalence of the strange and seemingly culturally dependent type 2 ketosis prone diabetes which might just be caused by a higher sugar intake. More here: http://ketosisprone.blogspot.com/

    Interesting.

  5. Dan says:

    Its ridiculous for you to be labelled a racist when your simply stating a biological fact. If anyone can’t handle that then I would suggest they have their own issues to deal with. I guess fat tends to be considered as negative and so when you say black people are fatter they interpret that as you calling them more lazy, or ugly etc. But thats their problem not yours if they can’t see thats not what your trying to say.

    I lived in Rhode Island for a year. When I returned home to New Zealand I kept telling people that the Americans didn’t seem so fat to me. Well your list explains why. They are one of the thinnest states. Now Im in Canada and I can see overweight people all around me.

    I was surprised by the racist accusation, since I was explaining in the film that blacks are over-categorized as obese. But yes, some people go bonkers anytime you say there’s any difference whatsoever between races.

  6. Dave Wilson says:

    How about tracking obesity rates compared to household income? The South is traditionally poorer than Northern states post-Civil War, and as we know carbohydrates are the cheapest form of macronutrient.

    I’ve seen data that there is an association between income and obesity.

  7. Mallory says:

    love how you analuzed th data here… i live in mississippi lol, but i am not obese,just a primal health freak haha. i do not hear of cancer much down here but am ALWAYS reminded of people in Marlyland where i use to live getting cancer. strange, never made the overweight or vitamin D connection. you’re spot on about the black and bone density too i think.

    I only heard about the cancer/vitamin D connection in the past year or so, but it makes sense.

  8. Dianne says:

    When I was in my early 20s, I had a friend that was from Mississippi, also in her early 20s. She had lost almost off her teeth. She said it was genetic, and named off all her relatives that had lost all their teeth. Then I noticed she was never without a coke in her hand, and she bought them by the case load. I asked if her family drank a lot of soda. She said that they had them deliver 6 cases at a time. She was a smart woman, and I don’t know why she never saw the correlation.

    My mother was from Texas, and I loved visiting there. We had sweet iced tea at every meal, and even put sugar on sliced tomatoes. My dad (from California) mentioned that when he met my mother (at college in Texas) she sure drank a lot of coke. Luckily for me, we didn’t have the money to drink sodas when I was growing up, although we did drink on occasion kool-aid (at least with real sugar) and fizzees.

    All that sugar and soda will definitely do it.

  9. k_the_c says:

    There’s a causality question with thicker bones: Do thicker bones predispose people to be “obese” or do “obese” people have thicker bones because they carry more weight around?

    BMI seems like a pretty useless ratio.

    I suspect that people with bigger bones are more prone to carry more weight, but I can’t say for sure.

  10. chuck says:

    Although politics is a subject to be avoided in a lot of cases. I saw that list yesterday and thought to myself “Red states, Blue states???”. There is a pretty interesting correlation. Democratic states tend to be less obese. I have thoughts but this is not the forum.

  11. Chareva says:

    Here’s another thought. Weston A. Price in his book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” (published in 1945) studied samples of the vitamin content of dairy products from all regions in Canada and the United States. He found that the rate of mortality from heart disease and pneumonia were higher in the states where the land had been tilled the longest, where the vitamin content of the milk and butter were lowest. The soil was less productive and lower in nutrients (pg 387).

  12. Dave, RN says:

    And I guess you’ve heard that our BMI is going to be a mandated part of the mandated government electronic health record.

    And what will they do with this information? Why, to protect us from ourselves of course. When you can use this inaccurate measure, you can count lots more people who are “obese” that in fact aren’t. Then you can justify “interventions” to address the problem. Interventions that control people’s habits.

    And based on the latest food guidelines, my guess is that among these interventions will be a tax on foods with fat. We will see 80% hamburger with a “fat Tax” that 90% won’t have. Same will go for milk etc.

    I’m betting that the BMI will also be used to shuffle about gov’t healthcare dollars too.

    I’m afraid you’re right.

  13. Michelle B. says:

    As an African-American female, I can tell you that what you said in Fat Head is not racist. Whoever said that to you is being foolish.

    Obesity among African-Americans is complex. Some of it is economic. Some of it is that African-Americans, especially women, are not going to have self-esteem issues if they are 20 pounds overweight. They tend to accept themselves for who they are. In a way that can be good and bad because obesity can cause a lot of health issues.

    But this is one thing I do know: African-Americans do not want to be obese and this epidemic is hitting us hard because of the poor quality food the government says is good for us. Case in point, a former student of mine, who is now 21 years old (she is African-American) asked me to help her lose weight since I lost so much. When I walked her through the grocery store and showed her all the sugar that was in her favorite “healthy” food she could not believe it.

    And yes, I live in the great state of North Carolina, we are in the top ten for obesity, and people drink a lot of sweet tea down here.

    Thank you, Michelle. I hope your former student heeds your advice.

  14. Verimius says:

    Hi,

    You said “I’ve seen data that there is an association between income and obesity.”

    There’s an association between race and income, and income and obesity, so there’s probably (but not definitely) an association between race and obesity.

    There are plenty of obese people who are poor and white. You should check if income level rather than race is where the real correlation is.

    I believe Americans often overlook the broader question of class when considering race.

    That’s why I said they’re related factors, but given that blacks have thicker and denser bones on average, I’d expect them to weigh somewhat more than whites across the income spectrum. Again, that doesn’t necessarily mean fatter. As Michelle pointed out, black women aren’t as obsessed with being thin. And as Dr. Eric Oliver pointed out to me, the belief that thin = beautiful is more common among whites.

    In a poor area of Arkansas last summer, we noticed that a HUGE proportion of the local population (mostly white) was obese. There’s definitely an income connection as well. It could be that poor people buy cheaper foods which are higher in carbs, or it could be that the traits that drive people to earn higher incomes also drive them to choose more nutritious foods, or a combination. I don’t think anyone has the definitive answer for that one.

  15. doom awaits says:

    What percentage of CO residents live at (significant) altitude? Living at altitude reduces obesity significantly, though I dunno exactly which mechanisms are most important in doing so (higher BMR, lowered appetite, etc.)…

    Interesting to see that CA residents are relatively lean, on average, despite a veritable buttload of Latinos (esp Latina women) who look like dorm fridges w/feet.

    I’m not touching that one.

  16. Bushrat says:

    Just so you aren’t the last to know this time, Denise Minger has another post up about the China Study.

    Thank you. I’ll check it out.

  17. Lori says:

    When I visited a friend in North Carolina many years ago, everything tasted sweet, even the mashed potatoes. Here in Colorado, we tend to go for spicy foods (again, cultural differences). Street vendors mostly sell hot dogs, burgers and brats. If you want to buy grass-fed meat and animal products raised here or in Wyoming, you have to look for it, but there are several places that sell quite a variety of it. To be sure, there’s plenty of high-carb junk available, but I think it’s easier to make better food choices here than in a lot of other places.

    We’re noticing an emphasis on sweet foods around here, too.

  18. Jenna says:

    Sorry this is off topic, but I was watching CBS Sunday Morning this am, and it was all about obesity. I almost turned it off, but I was loading the dishwasher and bs is better than nothing in that situation… So they did all this stuff about low fat, how to shop, etc. Then they did a segment on sumo wrestlers and explained that, although they are heavy (400+ lbs) they are muscular and fit because they work out all the time. Then, they started talking about the sumo wrestlers diets. Sumo wrestlers eat a low fat, nearly vegetarian, high fiber diet consisting mostly of a thick vegetable based stew that they use to wash down all the white rice they eat to help them bulk up. The narrator stated this without a trace of irony. So, a low fat, nearly vegetarian, high fiber diet consisting of a lot of grain (rice) is good to help sumo wrestlers reach their goal of weighing 400+ lbs, but it is what we should eat to LOSE weight? LOGIC, PEOPLE!!!!

    And we’ve recently learned that gladiators ate a lot of grain to give themselves a protective layer of fat. It’s like Dr. Eades said: the diet we feed to livestock (and sumo wrestlers) to fatten them up is the same diet the government recommends to help us slim down.

  19. Vin says:

    Did you see this article about this guy who died at 21. The doctors said he was killed by saturated fat (he would have a big fry up and burgers and kebabs everyday).
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20060122/ai_n16019710/?tag=rel.res1

    Good lord … so the guy eats chips (french fries on this side of the pond) and other foods most likely fried in some rancid vegetable oil, but it was the burgers that killed him, eh?

  20. Dou says:

    You should see weightology
    http://weightology.net/?p=265
    This guy thinks low-carb is a viable way to live but thinks Taubes has it wrong.
    I pretty much agree with a lot of what he said. My BS detector went off when Taubes said that obese people ate the same amount of calories as thin people.
    He also has some great stuff on insulin
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

    Very interesting critiques. I also doubted that obese people consume fewer calories than lean people on average — I believe obese people eat more because their bodies are storing a disproportionate amount of what they consume as fat.

    However, I’ve known lean people who eat huge amounts of food without gaining an ounce (my son being one), and when I tried to lose weight purely by calorie restriction, I never lost as much as the calories in/calories out theory would predict. Worse, I was hungry all the time, which wasn’t the case when I restricted carbohydrates and then let my appetite regulate my intake.

    I don’t believe insulin is a villain, since we’d be dead without it, but too much insulin is clearly a problem. Krieger exonerates insulin by showing the insulin response in HEALTHY people. As I said in Fat Head, if you have a HEALTHY metabolism, it only takes a little insulin to bring your blood sugar down, and then everything goes back to normal. Most of us, when we were young, could eat all kinds of crap and not gain weight.

    But it’s not people with HEALTHY metabolisms who become obese and diabetic. Once you’ve screwed up your metabolism, as I did in my youth, the game changes completely. Now if I eat a white potato or some pasta, my blood sugar will still be far too high two hours later. That probably wasn’t the case when I was 10.

    As for insulin producing satiety, that makes no sense to me. The same foods that jack up my blood sugar also make me hungry sooner. Dr. Mary Vernon recently presented a study in which kids ate oatmeal or eggs for breakfast. The oatmeal group experienced a rapid rise in blood sugar, followed by a spike in insulin, followed by a drop in blood sugar to below baseline. A falling blood sugar creates hunger. Whether or not insulin is chemically responsible for the hunger is perhaps another issue, but the carbohydrate-rich meal certainly was.

  21. Ned Kock says:

    Hi Tom.

    Sometimes using appropriate measures makes a huge difference. For example, when you correlate the following two variables you get a very strong association: (a) the percentage of people per state who are obese (even when you use BMI > 30 to define obesity); and (b) and population-adjusted cancer deaths. See the graph on the post below:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/04/body-mass-index-and-cancer-deaths-in.html

    It seems that the source dataset used on the post above (correlation=0.702; strong) is similar to that used to build your last table. One key difference is that your table has rankings.

    Btw, I correlated the numbers in your last table, and the result was -0.091. This suggests a weak negative association between obesity and cancer, as you noted.

    It’s a fine example of how researchers can come up with different conclusions by choosing different datasets to compare. So when researchers are hoping for a particular outcome, they can often make it happen.

  22. Dou says:

    I would stay away from carbs too if my blood sugar shoots up like yours does.
    Let me point out that while eggs don’t raise blood sugar, they do raise insulin (as they contain protein) so that is what might help create the sense of fullness we get after eating a steak or eggs.
    I suppose everyone is different as well. As you said insulin responses are different in healthy and unhealthy people.
    I don’t know about falling blood sugar causing hunger either as the study said that though whey protein caused a drop in blood glucose it was also the best at suppressing hunger.

    If you Google “falling blood sugar hunger” you’ll get thousands of hits. Here’s a quote from one article:
    =========================================
    It’s not just low blood sugar but also rapidly falling blood sugar that triggers a powerful hunger signal. In 16 studies, 15 of them found that meals that raise blood sugar quickly resulted in feeling hungrier before the next meal. For example, in a study of 65 women, those whose meals were designed to keep blood sugar stable reported feeling less intense hunger and less desire to eat, especially during the afternoon.

    These kinds of meals increase levels of leptin, a hormone that decreases hunger (and boosts fat burning) and lowers levels of ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger. The women who ate blood sugar-boosting meals reported that they felt hungrier sooner.

    In many studies, people who ate such meals also ate more at the next meal. In a study of overweight teenage boys, the boys ate 500 more calories within 5 hours after eating blood sugar-boosting breakfasts and lunches than they did when they ate meals that were kinder to their blood sugar. In other studies, the differences were more modest, about 150 calories.
    =========================================
    That’s definitely been my own experience, although I’m a sample size of 1 and not statistically significant. Not sure why whey protein doesn’t have the effect on me that the study claims. When I tested my blood sugar an hour after a whey protein shake, it was at 102.

    What was especially interesting about Dr. Vernon’s presentation is that she showed how the kids who ate oatmeal returned to normal blood-sugar levels after the drop: their lil’ bodies pumped out epinephrine, a “fight or flight” hormone. Yes, that’ll give you some blood sugar, but it doesn’t do much for concentration or mood.

    The quote is from an article in Reader’s Digest — hardly an academic journal, but I’m pleased to see the mainstream press printing articles about the dangers of chronically elevated blood sugar, which was the topic of the article.

  23. Phil says:

    Tom,

    While this doesn’t detract from your point, in the table of cancer rate rankings you list Colorado as 46, while in the last table of correlated obesity & cancer rankings you list it as 30. If the correct value is 46, it knocks the correlation down to -0.003, although obviously a correlation using rankings of the top & bottom 10 states is completely meaningless.

    Doh! That’s what happens when I have to type tables of numbers. The correct figure is 46. The correlation is meaningless, of course. I was just making a point about how health reporters jump all over associations.

  24. Ned Kock says:

    Hi Tom, again.

    > It’s a fine example of how researchers can come up with different conclusions by choosing different datasets to compare. So when researchers are hoping for a particular outcome, they can often make it happen.

    They have to do good research. Btw, I strongly believe in that association between obesity and cancer, because obesity causes a massive reduction in the hormone adiponectin (among other things).

    Adiponectin seems to have strong anti-cancer properties. The only known way to increase your adiponectin levels today is to lose body fat; the relationship is between adiponectin and body fat levels is very strong:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/03/adiponectin-supplementation-body-fat.html

    Interesting. Any difference in the amount secreted by subcutaneous or visceral fat? Visceral fat seems to be more metabolically active, and not in a good way.

  25. Matt says:

    “Did you see this article about this guy who died at 21. The doctors said he was killed by saturated fat (he would have a big fry up and burgers and kebabs everyday).”

    In the article they claim he ate 6300 calories per day, which included 285 grams of fat.
    * 6300-285*9=3435 remaining calories.
    * 3435/4 = 858 protein+carbohydrate calories.
    * 10.4st = 145 lb. So maybe he could eat 300g protein max comfortably? That’s about 600g carb/day.
    * 4g = 1 tsp sugar; 150 tsp sugar/day. 48 tsp = 1 cup.

    New headline: Man Who Consumes Equivalent of Three Cups of Sugar Daily Dies of Heart Attack.

    Yup, I bookmarked that one. And he ate a lot of fried food, which I’ll bet was fried in rancid vegetable oils.

  26. Ned Kock says:

    > Interesting. Any difference in the amount secreted by subcutaneous or visceral fat? Visceral fat seems to be more metabolically active, and not in a good way.

    I think that loss of visceral fat will have a more pronounced effect on adiponectin levels than loss of subcutaneous fat. The flip side is that abnormal visceral fat gain will have more of a negative effect. And this will not be only in adiponectin, but also various pro-inflammatory hormones. Here is a post:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/07/subcutaneous-versus-visceral-fat-how-to.html

    In other words, excess subcutaneous fat is not nearly as detrimental as excess visceral fat, as you noted. Excess visceral fat typically happens together with excess subcutaneous fat; but not necessarily the other way around. For instance, sumo wrestlers frequently have excess subcutaneous fat, but little or no visceral fat.

    The more health-detrimental effect of excess visceral fat is probably related to its proximity to the portal vein, which amplifies the negative health effects of excessive pro-inflammatory hormone secretion. Those hormones reach a major transport “highway” rather quickly.

    That makes sense.

  27. Laurie says:

    “Ketosis-Prone Diabetes”. I had to search around and look this up. Just a quick and cursory look and I found a few journal articles that go on to say this is KETOACIDOSIS – in the finer print.
    I will delve further, but as far as I know there is definitely a large difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis.
    I had a request to look up and find an article about low cholesterol and increased cancer risk. I found one that was particular to the cancer in question (hairy cell leukemia). The study pretty much supported that LOW blood cholesterol was correlated with INCREASED cancer cell proliferation. The Abstract to this article noted this and actually concluded with something like, ‘but we all know cholesterol in the diet is bad so we recommend further reducing dietary cholesterol and further drugging down cholesterol’!. You just can’t invent some of this stuff.

    Amazing, isn’t it? It’s just like the ADA’s advice to eat carbs, even though their own literature says carbs raise blood sugar.

  28. Vin says:

    As for my calculations , a medium serving of chips has 40g carbs (-fiber). A Lager has 10g and a cola 40g. Depending on what he liked in his fry up he might have had some baked beans and adding in the carbs from his hamburger bun puts me at about 280g.

    Just keep repeating: it was the burgers that killed him. It was the burgers that killed him. It was the burgers that killed him.

  29. Walter B says:

    One factor linking obesity and income, is that high carb diets causes low energy states which is bad for staying employed. I lost at least one job for not being able to stay awake at my desk. After going low carb, I stopped having that problem. Also is the effect of obesity induced sleep problems.

  30.  
Leave a Reply