March 18th, 2010 by StaceyButterfield in Better Health Network, Research
1 Comment »
You might already be aware of this week’s finding if you’ve watched baseball in the past decade or so and noticed that Mark McGwire’s arms are about the circumference of the average ballplayer’s waist in the 70s. But just to be sure, researchers recently compared the BMIs of professional baseball players from 1876 to 2007 to find that, like serving sizes and master bathrooms, they’ve gotten bigger.
Clear, right? But in taking the next step, drawing conclusions from this study, this article from HealthDay gets about as confused as a science article can be. The study authors are concerned because they correlated the ballplayers’ “increased BMIs with an increased risk of death.” (We’re assuming that’s a risk of premature death, since it seems pretty certain that the 1876 team would be dead regardless of their % body fat.)
But a critic of the study argued first that ballplayers’ increasing size is not a health risk, and then that the players might be dying early because they’re using steroids. Um, we’re not scientists, but mightn’t there be a relationship (even a causal one, perhaps?) between steroid use and increased BMI?
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
November 4th, 2009 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
As a class of human beings, cardiologists do not enjoy subtlety or nuance. Indeed, the reason most of them chose to specialize in cardiology, as opposed to specializing in some other organ system, is that the heart is the most unsubtle organ in the body. Unlike, say, the liver or the kidneys or even the brain (which, after all, just sit there), the heart does something quite obvious, and furthermore it does it 50 – 100 times per minute (so that even a physician with a very short attention span is likely to notice).
So perhaps it is not surprising that cardiologists seem to have entirely failed to mark certain emerging – and quite subtle – currents in the “preventive health” movement, and accordingly, continue to unabashedly seek more and more “preventive tools,” whatever the cost, with all the sensitivity and social awareness of the cousin who obliviously shows up at the funeral of the family priest wearing a pro-choice lapel pin. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
September 7th, 2009 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Better Health Network, News
No Comments »
Finally, a study that many women can like. The British Medical Journal published a study out of Denmark that looked at the association between thigh circumference and the incident of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Why anyone would even think of thigh circumference being of importance is beyond me, but the Danes seem to think it was important. They found people with thin thighs had more risk of developing heart disease or premature death.
The study looked at 1436 men and 1380 women and examined them for height, weight, hip, thigh and waist circumference. The results showed that small thigh circumference (below 60cm or 23 inches) was associated with more cardiovascular disease and mortality. They did not find the same association with waist size and the findings were independent of percentage body fat mass or obesity. Small thighs were a disadvantage to health and survival for both sexes.
Twenty three inches is not a very small thigh, and in fact, more than half of the men and women aged 35-65 have thigh circumferences below that size. Maybe it has to do with muscle mass (less exercise, less mass). I can’t imagine any other reason this strange finding should occur.
I think this study will probably not hold up to analysis and further investigation. There are just too many variables and I don’t think people with large thighs should feel they are immune to heart disease.
But the idea that, for once…the skinny models and actresses don’t have the advantage is kind of heart warming.
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
