Now on ScienceBlogs: A study that oversells massage therapy

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Gene Expression

Human evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices

Books

Q & A

tonee.jpg
...

An Original ScienceBlog


Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences

Search this blog


Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Blogroll

Recent Posts

« Katz | Main | Is Mozilla obsolete? »

Being oveweight as a function of region & race  permlink

Comments

1

The stats don't take into account the greater muscle mass of blacks; it says on the site they used BMI's of 25.

Weren't there a lot of issues with this (Blacks get overweight at higher, and East Asians lower, BMI's than whites) so that the stats would be different if this was corrected for?

Posted by: deadpost | July 25, 2009 4:55 PM

2

Weren't there a lot of issues with this (Blacks get overweight at higher, and East Asians lower, BMI's than whites) so that the stats would be different if this was corrected for?

yes. you want to do the correction? the data is there. just send me the file and i'll post an updated with corrected proportions.

Posted by: razib | July 25, 2009 5:00 PM

3

Do blacks have greater muscle mass on average? Is that upper or lower body, or both? How come it's always white nordic guys in the worlds strongest man competition? Previously I've heard nordic whites have more upper body mass -- no idea if that's true though.

Posted by: david | July 26, 2009 12:34 AM

4

If we consider the possibility that the standard medical definition of overweight (BMI 25 to

Posted by: adina | July 26, 2009 1:18 AM

5

At the risk of being a stinker, have you looked at the interaction terms (ie., ANOVA & ANCOVA). I'm thinking they would be very illuminating.

Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | July 26, 2009 5:57 PM

6

I am not sure that this can get anywhere - the strongest determinant of weight is body type and genetic history - we continue to try and "blame" large people for being large -Kenyans and Etheopian marathon runners are not 5' 6" and 140 pounds because of anything they do... Nor are Samoan adult males 6' plus and over 280 pounds because of the number of McDonalds on their islands.

This crap is both silly and dangerous...

Posted by: Lonely Libertarian | July 26, 2009 6:24 PM

7

I read an article showing a positive correlation between weight and income for very poor people, which is inverted from some level of income and further. So, if that article is right, then "% who are low income" is not a good measure, overlapping two contrary effects.

Posted by: hacs | July 26, 2009 6:46 PM

8

the strongest determinant of weight is body type and genetic history - we continue to try and "blame" large people for being large -Kenyans and Etheopian marathon runners are not 5' 6" and 140 pounds because of anything they do... Nor are Samoan adult males 6' plus and over 280 pounds because of the number of McDonalds on their islands.

this is dumb. just because something is strongly heritable doesn't mean environment doesn't matter.

Posted by: razib | July 26, 2009 7:23 PM

9

At the risk of being a stinker, have you looked at the interaction terms (ie., ANOVA & ANCOVA). I'm thinking they would be very illuminating.

i would prefer to do that in R. perhaps i will at some point since people are interested.

Posted by: razib | July 26, 2009 7:26 PM

10

Interesting that blacks are reported as having slightly greater muscle mass and lower body fat than a caucasian of a given weight on average, yet blacks nevertheless suffer from diseases which are increasingly commonly described as linked to weight at higher rates, sometimes at significantly higher rates. If the issue is weight and its impact on health and health care costs, it doesn't appear that BMI variations matter all that much.

Posted by: MPO | July 26, 2009 10:23 PM

11

BMI is a useful population level number. you have to control for population. the "natural" median BMI for europeans may be higher than for asians, for example. whether it has that much individual level information, well, there's a debate about that (depends on how much statistics you think a typical doctor understands enough to transmit to a patient).

Posted by: razib | July 26, 2009 10:47 PM

12

I read an article showing a positive correlation between weight and income for very poor people

Posted by: Emily  | July 27, 2009 7:33 AM

13

I don't have data on this, but my impression is that Southern cities have more fast food restaurants. Folks love the cheeseburgers and fried chicken.

Posted by: Ron Guhname | July 27, 2009 9:57 AM

14

There might be errors in the data. Colorado's total obesity rate is about 55% in the last plot, but the table at the end has it at about 60%.

Posted by: Jose | July 27, 2009 12:03 PM

15

we have fat poor people in the usa. poor people world wide are actually poor. our poor have cell phones and massive amounts of food. how great is the usa? seriously.

Posted by: jimmy | August 5, 2009 1:55 AM

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.