Talk:Overweight

Need for copy editing at least

This page seems to be locked for editing even by accepted Wiki editors (as I am - Eric Deeson); there are various copy-editing needs, including [at least] one where an editor has rightly asking for copy-editing; also I believe there should be a section on improvements to BMI and its interpretation (such as that of hall.md), eg taking account of gender and age in giving the 25 boundary. This article several times implies the need for more flexibility in the use of MBI. 14 Oct 2013 Eric Deeson (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Overweight and obesity

Unresolved

 – See below; merge proposed.

Please make sure there is no duplicate content with obesity. JFW | T@lk 13:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make sure there was as little duplicated content as feasible when making the page. There are a few things which it's hard to avoid duplicating as they do apply directly to both subjects. Do you have any specific suggestions on something that needs work in this department? Foogod 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the two should I think be highlighted more clearly in the introduction. To many lay people these terms are very often confused, and it's best to clear that up as early as possible in the article.--Pharos 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there wasn't a picture here when there is one in other similar articles. Being an overweight male, I took a picture of my belly and added it to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.12.173 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Set Point

one common theory suggests that each person may possess an inherent "set point" weight which the brain attempts to maintain...

Can we get a cite or reference for this? Google turns up mainly diet book propaganda. 24.2.48.202 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

High-Glycemic claim in category "causes"

Like to call attention to the following information that i found on yahoo health news one day. This oughtta be enough evidence to delete the high-glycemic claim.

"

"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss By Amy NortonThu Apr 19, 11:44 AM ET When it comes to losing weight, the number of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what matters most, according to a new study. The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly -- approaches to calorie-cutting. The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are considered to have a low glycemic index. The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate. Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load. However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not be worth it, if the new study is any indication. Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight adults shed pounds over one year. Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who followed a high-glycemic-load diet. "The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're cutting calories." A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she noted. Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30 percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables. The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include. "Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions served at so many U.S. restaurants. This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes. And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone insulin, which regulates blood sugar. SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007."

Somebody change the page, if u will. --89.54.27.39 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

gone ahead and deleted the "glycemic" claim. --78.49.189.62 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Although you've taken out the section, I should be included in ==Noncauses== to explain information about what doesn't cause overweightedness. This should be used for other articles as well, excluding or including ==Noncauses== headlines, sections and/ or groups.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Split Please

The links in overweight are for obese and should be re-classified .pls double check user:Ayyah tubby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.64.11 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition overweight contains the condition of obesity within it.--Doc James (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Waist measurement

I was surprised to see that waist measurement was not included in the list of ways to assess if someone is overweight. I was under the impression that some studies have concluded that it is a more effective measure than BMI. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit I Last Made

Physical excerise was already linked in the above section.68.148.164.166 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Division Between Overweight and Obese

As was mentioned above there is often confusion between the categories of Overweight and Obese. As this is a page related to medicine my recommendation is that we primarily define the two as they are in the scientific literature ie. based on BMI. I have made a few changes to reflex this.

Jmh649 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reduce butt Fat

https://healthiswealthguides.com/reduce-butt-fat/

Additional citations about overweight, happiness, self-esteem etc.

"Psychological well-being is also at risk in the overweight individual. Discrimination against fat persons is common socially. This may affect their ability to find a mate or employment.

Overweight people are most likely to have lower self-esteem than others. This may make them seriously depressed and emotionally disrupted. They might attempt to seal themselves from the outside world."

I don't see any citations for this. Does anyone know of any sources? I would also like to have something added about the connection between overweight/obesity and happiness in life. --Deleet (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merge

Resolved

 – Just an FYI; merge discussions happen at talk page of target not source article.

Merger of Overweight into Obesity has been proposed, on the grounds of naming conventions and redundancy. See Talk:Obesity#Proposed merge for discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BMI not highly correlated to body fat percentage

I just changed the statement:

BMI is highly correlated with both body fat percentage and body fat mass.[5]

to:

It is only moderately correlated with both body fat percentage and body fat mass (R2 of 0.68.)[5]

because the claim is not supported by its own reference, which only reports a R² value of 0.68. There is no formal definition of what vale of R² is "highly correlated", so it is more useful to list the actual value and let people decide for themselves. However in most fields, 0.68 would be considered only moderate correlation. In particular it suggests that if some person were to make diagnoses of excessive body fat solely on the basis of BMI, such diagnoses would be wrong very frequently. (Full personal disclosure: my BMI is 31 ... and I am a distance runner, in preparation for my fourth marathon.) -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1.5 billion adults overweight instead of 1 billion

I went to the WHO website (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/) and there they stated that some "in 2008, 1.5 billion adults...were overweight", instead of the over 1 billion as stated on the wiki.

Thought this should be fixed in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement regarding dieting

The article states: "Studies suggest that reducing calorie intake by itself (dieting) may have short-term effects but does not lead to long-term weight loss". In addition to needing a citation, this also flies in the face of thermodynamics; TEMPORARY alteration of one's diet, this holds true for, but the fact is, a maintained diet will result in maintained loss of adipose mass, even if not accompanied by exercise or a general increase in physical fitness. This sentence should at least be altered so that it makes physical sense. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

I would like to write about overweight and how people can lose it on a safe way without medicines. Michaeltje123 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to request your changes here. The template has instructions for reactivating should you wish to do so. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Edinburgh 1120570 nevit.jpg

I am confident that you have great capacity to compose the article of your liking - despite not knowing you personally. Internet users have teems of data especially apropos of losing weight and other health concerns. Just ensure that you are well-endowed with trustworthy information for your article; and enjoy writing it. Good luck! Witteberg (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits

This edit [1] removed updated content and added poorly sourced content.

High quality secondary sources need to be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's very important to note that the above is rather your personal impression of the sources; your edit deleted vast amount of based data from the article; I'm not saying that the references were perfect, and generally improvements can be made in many Wiki articles (seemingly, also in this one), but delete so much data that could be useful (data that no one besides you found not well-sourced), I think it's an exaggeration; Adding sources would be far better that deleting. From my personal experience in both Wikis, Deleting in such cases, brings mostly unneeded conflicts. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So you removed a systematic review from the Lancet

Here are the refs you have used

1. Primary source 20 subjects [2]
2. This one does not even mention the term overweight [3]
3. Large sections have no refs
4. Issues with headings and capatalization
5. This is little more than spam [4]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1. 8 sources were removed in your edit.
2. Well? it doesn't have to, it's a partial source for a larger claim...
3. If a source appears it can be used; I think deletion is problematic.
4. Edit is much better in such cases - Capitalizations and heading aren't something critical, I'm sure.
5. Why do you think this way? (and it's not that I have a problem of replacing the source with a more scientific one). Ben-Natan (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we push for high quality referencing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem of references, that you have recognized, can be easily solved. Ben-Natan (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Question

Since when is overweight considered a noun? Any takers? VetLH (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the word "overweight" is an epithet. A friend of mine, however, is "Overweight". In the latter case the word is a proper noun. Witteberg (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Causes

The "Causes" section of this article is completely unreferenced. I think this is an unacceptable state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.174.112 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

I can replace the dead link

Giorgi3092 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Number 8 in References is a dead link and I want to replace with my site link which has tips on how to lose weight.

Change to: 31 Everyday Tips For Losing 10 Pounds <spam link removed> Hifercweb (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The citation you wish to add doesn't serve the purpose of supporting the content of the article, and would probably not be considered a reliable source. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I have removed several links from the request which appear to just be spam. Deli nk (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

New paper mentions this article

A new paper from Flegal (The obesity wars and the education of a researcher: A personal account) in the journal Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases is fascinating, and mentions this Wikipedia article.

Around the same time, some unusual statements were anonymously inserted in the Wikipedia entry on “overweight.” These statements asserted with no references that our article had been “widely discredited and regarded as fatally flawed by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, American Cancer Society, and even the CDC agency itself, which has backtracked on the findings from the Flegal report.” This was part of what appeared to be an ongoing campaign to present our article incorrectly as having been repudiated by reputable sources.

Just sharing for interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Hi dear editors, I have gone through this article, overall the article is well written and there is no need to change something, But I feel that an online bmi calculator should be link in external link section, as this article is about overweight, some people feels that they are overweight,but in reality they are not. Here we should add parameter that user can asses health condition, weather they should reduce the weight or not. Following is a BMI calculator which should be link.

https://y2calculate.com/bmi-calculator-advanced/

I hope this would be helpful SKafridi007 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The CDC offers a calculator, which may be a better source if anyone wants to add a calculator to the external links: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/english_bmi_calculator/bmi_calculator.html

I don't think the addition of the calculator link would be particularly helpful, though I'd support the insertion if other editors think it would be useful. ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a link directory. I believe most would see this as link spamming. If somebody disagrees, feel free to ping me and we can discuss. Best, Seawolf35 (talk - email) 01:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)