Fat Americans overwhelm imaging machines

Damn! Lose some friggin weight, America!

That's just downright sad.

It may be sad, Lady J, but if the facts are that 60% of Americans are overweight, and those are the people more likely to use the machines, then what were the manufacturers thinking?!

As I understand the article, the problem isn't simply that the physical dimensions of the scanning machines aren't built for the obese. This is a fairly simple redesign problem.

Unfortunately, physical laws can't be redesigned as easily as machinery. Sound rays, electromagnetic radiation, nuclear scans all give more accurate images of thin people than fat people. Fat gets in the way.

I can see problems from each viewpoint. First, as Eva said, the machines were not designed to accomodate persons of a very large size. To "re-size" the technology and make lareger machines would be a huge cost factor in our ever increasing medical expenditures. And as you say, Noddy, it is true that the images from CT Scans, MRI's, Nuclear Scans, et al, do have a tougher if not inaccurate view of problems trying to be diagnosed through excesses of fat.

After I had originally read this post yesterday, I went to the CDC Webpage to find out exactly what their take on our nation;s overweight problem is and it is true:

CDC: Obesity approaching tobacco as top preventable cause of death

In a recent government study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that obesity is fast approaching tobacco as the top underlying preventable cause of death in the USA.
Thirty-four percent of U.S. adults are considered overweight, and an additional 31 percent are obese.

Anyone with a body mass index (a ratio between your height and weight) of 25 or above -- that's someone, for example, who is 5-foot-4 and 145 pounds -- is considered overweight, according to the National Institutes of Health. Anyone with a body mass index of 30 or above -- such as someone who is 5-foot-6 and 186 pounds -- is considered obese.

The results of the new study appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths -- more than 16 percent of all deaths and the No. 2 killer. That compares with 435,000 for tobacco, or 18 percent, as the top underlying killer.

According to the study the gap between the two is substantially narrower than in 1990, when poor diet and inactivity caused 300,000 deaths, 14 percent, compared with 400,000 for tobacco, or 19 percent, says a report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Like tobacco, obesity and inactivity increase the risks for the top three killers: heart disease, cancer and cerebrovascular ailments including strokes. Obesity and inactivity also strongly increase the risk of diabetes, the sixth leading cause of death.

I also read an interesting article (that I can no longer find, of course) by an attorney who believes the standards that the CDC uses to measure our BMI are way too low and that the CDC, by keeping their BMI calculations so low, is one of the main reasons the entire diet industry is as huge as it is. He is an advocate of raising the BMI scale. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

And why don't we just 'lighten' up those stats for those thin people in Africa too. 2000 joules a day!! More than one meal a day! Something to go with cold rice! Get real folks!

No doubt. It felt to me that Mr. Attorney simply wanted a way for those who fall into the overweight and obese categories to feel better about themselves, without taking into account the health risks associated with excess weight.

Lady J - there's an Aussie expression overdue for inclusion into the US varient of English:

barge-arse

says it all, don't it!?

Mr. Stillwater...I do believe I quite like that. Unless of course, you are referring to me personally. :wink:

You seem so light and flowery in your avatar.....


I am not referring to anyone in particular. It's just that we Orstraylians have a certain.... way of defining things that doesn't leave any doubt about meaning.

Let's be honest, the USA spawned the 482 kilogram man, he was concerned with children saying 'Look at the fat man'. He'd long since gone beyond 'fat' by then - what kind of a culture can let someone do that to themselves and still look for 'positive reinforcement' of their self-image?

Here's a good site to find your BMI.. Lots of other good stuff, too.

Aside from the CDC site, I also found another that takes age and gender into consideration, which I think would be an important factor. Historically men have a higher bone density than women, especially as they age. I did all three calculations and still ended up with the same BMI. 19.8. Low end of normal. But to tell you how years and years of conditioning have affected me, I have always thought I was a fairly "big girl". Boy, talk about how we see ourselves in the mirror every day, huh?

Thank you, Mr. Stillwater, you are a kind and gentle man

Lady J--

Unfortunately that figure of 400,000 deaths a year from obesity is proving to be somewhat overstated--at least in so far as "cause of death" is spelled out on the death certificate.

I used to have a certain amount of sympathy with the "Fat is Beautiful" crowd until I read an article pointing out that these particular Beautiful People were driving up health insurance rates.

Aside from having higher rates of both cancer and cardiovascular disease, fat people take up more medical time. Two or more nurses are needed to move the obese from bed to wheelchair or gurney to x-ray table. Focusing the radiation machine to zap abdominal tumors takes a lot more time when the tumor is buried in fat. Pain medication is less effective when body weight is unnaturally high.

Certainly, some people are gifted with fat-burning metabolisms and inborn appetite control. "Thin" is more easily achieved and maintained by these people.

I'm not one of the naturally "thin"--but I'm no longer obese.

That's the message I strive to communicate on this forum. Just misunderstood, I guess....

Aren't we all at times. With no voice inflection to carry our tune, a written word is often misunderstood. You are probably more understood than I, after all, you have tenure. And by your avatar, I thought you lived in the Bahamas! I've always had a sweet spot for you down under. :wink: