Thou Shalt Be Overweight: Religious Involvement Correlated to Obesity

[WalkerW]

Did they control for region? That map makes me think the problem may be Southern cooking.

On the other hand, religiosity correlates strongly with marriage and number of children. Parents tend to put on weight after having a kid or two. Married people also have less motivation to watch their diet, since they're not actively seeking a sexual partner. I'm guessing this explains most of the variance.

On the other hand, it's remarkable that Utah is so skinny given how many kids Mormons tend to have. I'd say Word of Wisdom observance has worked out pretty well for them.

One of the best comments in the thread.

[44Foxtrot]

A statistical study DOES NOT SHOW CAUSE only correlation

Do you understand that statistics are a tool used in epidemiological studies and that the CARDIA study is not a "statistical" study"?

Do you understand that CARDIA is a large prospective study in which a great deal of data are gathered that can be used to test hypotheses regarding the various outcomes observed in cohorts within the study group and their controls?

Do you understand that epidemiological studies such as CARDIA are the most important means tools available in helping to determine the causes (yes, causes) and implications of illness in all kinds of populations?

Apparently not.

_____________

See small edit of Q 3 for clarification.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Do you understand that statistics are a tool used in epidemiological studies and that the CARDIA study is not a "statistical" study"?

Do you understand that CARDIA is a large prospective study in which a great deal of data are gathered that can be used to test hypotheses regarding the various outcomes observed in cohorts within the study group and their controls?

Do you understand that epidemiological studies such as CARDIA are the most important means available of determining the causes (yes, causes) and implications of illness on all kinds of populations?

Apparently not.

You can't determine cause by observation alone, you need to observe the subject in a controlled setting and by random assignment, otherwise you cannot factor out third variables from skewing the data. Such as the fact that the age of people who regularly attend religious services has increased over the last two decades, with age increase you also have a increase in the likely hood of being overweight.

So the increase in obesity rates in people attending religious services regularly could very well be attributed to the increasing median age of the population and NOT the religious services themselves!

This is why statistics are not to be used for political purposes.

Added by edit:

What is your control groups here and how did you randomly assign people to each group to ensure that non related characteristics were not affecting the groups?

Without an control group and random assignment (which is impossible in the real world you can't tell one person to attend Church and the other not to) in a controlled setting (aka a laboratory) you cannot say you have found cause only a correlation.

To act like you do have cause without a control group and random assignment (as the researchers at Northwestern have it appears) is unscientific and unethical.

[DH]

It doesn't surprise me. Food can be a comfort drug.

Most of the world will go drown their sorrows and cope from stress with alcohol and drugs, but most religious folks refrain.

The LDS population also has an obesity problem just like the entire nation with the same problems and stressors. We like our food and most of it is unhealthy including "it does a body good".

I have to admit that I have a problem with eating for comfort, and it shows. I used to joke that I was in training to become a bishop (I've had a number of portly bishops)! That doesn't work now, though, because my current bishop is pretty fit.

Don't know if there's a correlation with religiosity or not, but I do know a number of Mormons who are quite health-conscious. I hope to catch that bug!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

However, the fact that Utah has low obesity rates in no way invalidates or calls into question the findings on religious practice and obesity that have come out of the CARDIA study.

Thats right, this anomaly in Utah, it actually proves that being religous means you are more likely to be fat.

You cannot be serious DrW. You are to smart to say such un-smart things.

Unrealated and unimportant note:

You seem to be acting just as dogmatic as the people that were under Plankton's control in Sponge Bob the movie. "All hail Plankton".

[44Foxtrot]

Thats right, this anomaly in Utah, it actually proves that being religous means you are more likely to be fat.

You cannot be serious DrW. You are to smart to say such un-smart things.

Unrealated and unimportant note:

You seem to be acting just as dogmatic as the people that were under Plankton's control in Sponge Bob the movie. "All hail Plankton".

Someone here needs to read more carefully and perhaps think a bit more, and that someone is not me. The percentage of obese individuals in Utah has no bearing on the validity of the conclusion from the study. None whatsoever. And I have certainly not stated or implied otherwise.

For you to claim that I have simply shows that you have either not read my posts or do not understand what you have read.

[44Foxtrot]

You can't determine cause by observation alone, you need to observe the subject in a controlled setting and by random assignment, otherwise you cannot factor out third variables from skewing the data. Such as the fact that the age of people who regularly attend religious services has increased over the last two decades, with age increase you also have a increase in the likely hood of being overweight.

So the increase in obesity rates in people attending religious services regularly could very well be attributed to the increasing median age of the population and NOT the religious services themselves!

This is why statistics are not to be used for political purposes.

Added by edit:

What is your control groups here and how did you randomly assign people to each group to ensure that non related characteristics were not affecting the groups?

Without an control group and random assignment (which is impossible in the real world you can't tell one person to attend Church and the other not to) in a controlled setting (aka a laboratory) you cannot say you have found cause only a correlation.

To act like you do have cause without a control group and random assignment (as the researchers at Northwestern have it appears) is unscientific and unethical.

Please see post # 40.

[Chris Smith]

One of the best comments in the thread.

Thanks. It could be that they controlled for these things, though. I haven't read the study.

[Jigglysaint]

So wait, why is it wrong to be fat again?

[bookofmormontruth]

Yeah, I don't read the books of diet gurus and diet doctors, because the diet fads are not medicine or science, the key to health is to use what you consume. Genetics and environmental factors play key roles on your physical appearance that the vanity of society does not take into consideration. The problem with the "obesity epidermic" is the sedimentary lifestyle not diet.

Also there are people who are very healthy and active yet still are considered overweight, look at linemen in the NFL, look at professional body builders, ect.

The problem is that society has so perverted the concept of body image that no one can fit into the "norm" anymore. People are killing themselves by over exerting themselves and under nurishing there body to fit into the vanity of the newest generation of fashion idiots.

300 years ago the fatter the sexier you were, not it the opposite the slimmer the sexier, both are completely idiotic. Eat your fill, be active, and you body will stay healthy and beautiful, now each person's body composition is different so we have to learn to understand this and not expect women to have a waist that is the diameter of a pencil with a DDD bosom, and a man to have a Herculean physique.

Some are skinny by nature, some more heavy set, the big thing is how active are they. I know plenty heaver set guys (myself included) that can out run a lot of the "in shape" people out there.

We mostly agree.

The book is definitely not a "diet fad" or from a "diet guru" or "diet doctor". Which I understand why you labeled it as that without knowing what really is in the book or who the expert is in the field of environmental medicine. I have no personal gain in the book, but I will personally refund the money you pay for - if you don't like the information inside for environmental toxins has an impact in every area of health, including weight.

The book is obviously for the lay public with invaluable information which happens to help lose weight for people that really struggle and don't know why. I am sure you would be bored with the actual studies and the impact environmental factors have on our health including keeping on the weight - hence why I recommended the book.

Regardless of the book. My experience with patients, obesity doesn't have one factor. Hence why individualized medicine is so important for one factor could be completely different for another person.

Body perceptions are important, but I would not discount the diet as a factor so easily either. I know this is common perception in the orthodox world that a diet (food) isn't important. Bottom line: if you are eating more (calories) than burning - you will gain weight. You also have to consider food sensitivities (not allergies) that also add to the weight on an individual for the body has a tendency to gain weight in an "inflamed" state. You also have to consider disease states which with the wrong foods will increase the weight. ie. diabetes.

Exercise is pivotal in managing weight, no one will argue with that. I also need to add that BMI is an important tool to get a overall picture of a patient. Obviously, in your case it won't give a complete picture of fat content so a bioelectrical impedance test would be your best option. But it doesn't end there, you could be thriving at your weight, but maybe you have health symptoms related to increased BMI? Maybe your heart is overworked from increased BMI? Maybe your knees and ankles are in pain from increased BMI? Many scenarios are possible, but again you as a patient know your body the best.

But it doesn't hurt to have someone on your team in regards to health who is qualified to give you an educated assessment of your current health.

Food for thought.

[bookofmormontruth]

If members of the Restoration would follow the health advice (ALL of it) given in the Word of Wisdom, there wouldn't be such a problem.

I agree 90% which is a surprise because you are an enigma to me.

The 10% is in regards to wheat. Satan has found a way into the word of wisdom - well at least in America. Wheat sensitivities have become an epidemic in America- all because our wheat has been altered to increase gluten content. Unfortunately, most people's bodies don't like this alteration. This is not to mention all of the other GMO foods.

Which is probably why the word of wisdom starts off as "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days..."

[44Foxtrot]

Thanks. It could be that they controlled for these things, though. I haven't read the study.

Chris,

CARDIA is a long term (25 year) prospective study, sometimes also referred to as a longitudinal study, with an enrollment (n) of more than 2400. In prospective studies, the "controls" normally come from within the cohort.

These are the most powerful kinds of epi studies. One simply keeps track of as many variables as possible on an enrolled population (cohort) and sees how these relate to outcomes over time.

Probably the best known of these types of studies is the NIH Nurses Health Study, which was started in 1976 and involved more than 122,000 individuals. These nurses were referred to as the original cohort and were followed from enrollment to the present or until death.

Ancillary to the study, biological samples have been collected from tens of thousands of these nurses and analyzed for a variety of metals hormones, etc. Data from this study has been invaluable in determining a large number of risk factors related to women's health, including breast cancer risk factors. The data from this study are available to most qualified researchers at minimal or no cost.

In a cohort study, one simply looks for exposure (or treatment) and outcome correlates. If one has more than 100,000 female nurses enrolled and sees that those who report nightshift work have a statistically significantly elevated incidence of breast cancer (which was, in fact, the case) as compared to this who do not, then one can reasonably start looking at all of the factors for which one have data to determine possible mechanisms.

Among the things one looks for are "dose response" correlations and combinations of factors (e.g smoking plus radiation exposure for lung cancer) that could help explain the differences.

If one were to inspect the data and come up with the hypothesis that light exposure at night is associated with increased breast cancer risk, for example, then one would check this hypothesis in data sets from other shift worker populations. If the correlation holds, one would start looking for mechanisms such as changes in hormone levels, etc. With 100,000 nurses, researchers can select sub-populations to control for factors such as BMI, smoking, alcohol use, and the like.

You might be amazed at how quickly one can get to the right answer when one has a few million person-years worth of data with which to work.

Back to CARDIA. Did they control for the religious practices of Mormons in Utah? Highly unlikely. However, they did have more than 60,000 person years of data.

What they did test in their data set, almost certainly using in cohort controls, was the effect religious activity had on their study outcomes. They found that those who spent more time in religious activities were more likely to be obese. That is all they claim. That is all I claimed.

They concluded, and rightly so, that factors associated with religious activity lead to increased incidence of obesity. Normally the correlation for such an association has to be strong to be published. The confidence level would normally have to be greater than 95%. And you can bet that in the current climate of conservative hyperreligiosity in this country the study was severely peer reviewed as well.

[Chris Smith]

Foxtrot,

I wasn't criticizing you, or the study. I was just making a suggestion as to what might explain the correlation. Since religious activity is roughly colinear with marriage and number of children, one would hope that the study's authors controlled for those variables in their analysis. It would probably be easy enough to check, if one had access to the study and the time and desire to do so.

Peace,

-Chris

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot,

I wasn't criticizing you, or the study. I was just making a suggestion as to what might explain the correlation. Since religious activity is roughly colinear with marriage and number of children, one would hope that the study's authors controlled for those variables in their analysis. It would probably be easy enough to check, if one had access to the study and the time and desire to do so.

Peace,

-Chris

Chris,

Your comment was perfectly reasonable and I certainly did not take it as criticism.

Since the issue of proper controls has come up several times in the thread, including in your comment, I thought I would take the opportunity to try to explain where the controls normally come from in prospective studies.

In point of fact, since Mormons are a small percentage of the US population (as Pa Pa pointed out) it is highly unlikely that they were represented in the study cohort to an extent that would allow any firm conclusions to be reached about obesity in Mormons as a group.

As for the other variables you mentioned, I am quite confident that they would have been adequately controlled for given the stature of the CARDIA study and the time and money invested in it.

[Monster]

Most of the world will go drown their sorrows and cope from stress with alcohol and drugs, but most religious folks refrain.

That is such Mormon think. The rest of the world is in a drug and alcohol induced stupor and has no way of coping with reality without religion. It is a stereotype that rather annoys me as it is promoted so often at church. The vast majority of non mormons do not abuse alcohol or drugs and cope with their problems just fine.

[krose]

Clearly, this must be why Utah ranks 44th overall amongst American states when it comes to obesity: Link.

Do you think the people in Utah are more religious than most other states? If so, why?

Personally, I agree with Chris that the map (which reminds me a lot of the 'red state/blue state' map) probably has more to do with regional eating habits and activity rates. There is a lot of fried food consumed in the bible belt, and people in the West are generally more active, with more outdoor recreational activities available.

[bookofmormontruth]

That is such Mormon think. The rest of the world is in a drug and alcohol induced stupor and has no way of coping with reality without religion. It is a stereotype that rather annoys me as it is promoted so often at church. The vast majority of non mormons do not abuse alcohol or drugs and cope with their problems just fine.

Sorry that annoys you so much.

Please re-read what I posted, or ask me to clarify, but don't put words in my mouth and the annoyance will magically disappear. You are welcome!

[LDS Guy 1986]

That is such Mormon think. The rest of the world is in a drug and alcohol induced stupor and has no way of coping with reality without religion. It is a stereotype that rather annoys me as it is promoted so often at church. The vast majority of non mormons do not abuse alcohol or drugs and cope with their problems just fine.

I'm not saying that view is 100% right but I can understand how one can believe this, all you have to do is turn on the nightly news to hear about another drunk driver killing someone in a wreck, or Lindsy Lohan's drug problems, Mel Gibson's drunk rants about jews, ect.

The world does have an appearance of an excessive amount of alcohol use and a regular use of drugs, especially since both alcohol and certain recreational drugs are so glamorized in the media.

So acting like this observation is so outlandish and crazy is a little overboard, IMO.

I agree that not every single person is a raging alcoholic or a drug user, but society does glamorize the use of alcohol and drugs as the "cool" thing to do.

[ERayR]

So wait, why is it wrong to be fat again?

Don't you read your scriptures? That is the eleventh commandment and is reiterated in the fifteenth article of faith.

[Chris Smith]

I agree that not every single person is a raging alcoholic or a drug user, but society does glamorize the use of alcohol and drugs as the "cool" thing to do.

Some segments of society do, I suppose.

Personally, I have never smoked or done drugs, and I could count the number of alcoholic beverages I've consumed on one hand. I feel no particular need for such activities. If the main value of religion is as a substitute for such things, then perhaps that explains why I feel no particular need for religion, either.

[thesometimesaint]

Probably a better correlation would be with those that worship at the church of the NFL, or maybe the church of NASCAR.

[rodheadlee]

Those who are overweight will survive the famines of the Great Tribulation. Kind of like a bear storing it up for the winter. No, I'm not overweight. 6-2 200LBS.

[bu11fr0g]

Prospective studies still only determine correlation. It takes the randomized placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis. The best example of this are the diet studies. There were several studies akin but much more powerful than CARDIA that showed a correlation (including dose effects) of beta-carotene ingestion and decreased incidence of cancers. However, in the randomized trials, beta-carotene actually ended up increasing the incidence of lung cancer. There is a nice summary here: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2004/final-caret1204

There are so many confounding variables between religion and obesity that make any causal assumption completely foolish.

Chris,

CARDIA is a long term (25 year) prospective study, sometimes also referred to as a longitudinal study, with an enrollment (n) of more than 2400. In prospective studies, the "controls" normally come from within the cohort.

These are the most powerful kinds of epi studies. One simply keeps track of as many variables as possible on an enrolled population (cohort) and sees how these relate to outcomes over time.

Probably the best known of these types of studies is the NIH Nurses Health Study, which was started in 1976 and involved more than 122,000 individuals. These nurses were referred to as the original cohort and were followed from enrollment to the present or until death.

Ancillary to the study, biological samples have been collected from tens of thousands of these nurses and analyzed for a variety of metals hormones, etc. Data from this study has been invaluable in determining a large number of risk factors related to women's health, including breast cancer risk factors. The data from this study are available to most qualified researchers at minimal or no cost.

In a cohort study, one simply looks for exposure (or treatment) and outcome correlates. If one has more than 100,000 female nurses enrolled and sees that those who report nightshift work have a statistically significantly elevated incidence of breast cancer (which was, in fact, the case) as compared to this who do not, then one can reasonably start looking at all of the factors for which one have data to determine possible mechanisms.

Among the things one looks for are "dose response" correlations and combinations of factors (e.g smoking plus radiation exposure for lung cancer) that could help explain the differences.

If one were to inspect the data and come up with the hypothesis that light exposure at night is associated with increased breast cancer risk, for example, then one would check this hypothesis in data sets from other shift worker populations. If the correlation holds, one would start looking for mechanisms such as changes in hormone levels, etc. With 100,000 nurses, researchers can select sub-populations to control for factors such as BMI, smoking, alcohol use, and the like.

You might be amazed at how quickly one can get to the right answer when one has a few million person-years worth of data with which to work.

Back to CARDIA. Did they control for the religious practices of Mormons in Utah? Highly unlikely. However, they did have more than 60,000 person years of data.

What they did test in their data set, almost certainly using in cohort controls, was the effect religious activity had on their study outcomes. They found that those who spent more time in religious activities were more likely to be obese. That is all they claim. That is all I claimed.

They concluded, and rightly so, that factors associated with religious activity lead to increased incidence of obesity. Normally the correlation for such an association has to be strong to be published. The confidence level would normally have to be greater than 95%. And you can bet that in the current climate of conservative hyperreligiosity in this country the study was severely peer reviewed as well.

[bookofmormontruth]

Prospective studies still only determine correlation. It takes the randomized placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis. The best example of this are the diet studies. There were several studies akin but much more powerful than CARDIA that showed a correlation (including dose effects) of beta-carotene ingestion and decreased incidence of cancers. However, in the randomized trials, beta-carotene actually ended up increasing the incidence of lung cancer. There is a nice summary here: http://www.cancer.go...final-caret1204

There are so many confounding variables between religion and obesity that make any causal assumption completely foolish.

I know this is unrelated, but I have to come to the defense of my vitamin "friends" A & E.

As you stated: "There are so many confounding variables between religion and obesity that make any causal assumption completely foolish." which is also true with the very weak beta-carotene studies. In the studies, they used synthetic forms of Vitamin A & E which are found in popular brands like centrum, costco and etc...

In addition, a meta-analysis can be a powerful scientific tool that can harness information from smaller studies (in this case 68 randomized trials) to give it more power if it is used by knowledgeable objective researchers. However, depending on who is doing the study and what their motives are, they can design the exclusion criteria to benefit whatever outcome they want.

No study is perfect and you can always find holes in them so you have to use common sense. I would stay away from all synthetic forms of vitamins/minerals to an extent and especially if you have cancer, but are we really going to believe that carrots, oranges, cantaloupe, pumpkins, papaya, kale, tomatoes, nuts, avocados are harmful for us? Food is the best source for nutrients, but if you decide on supplementing the diet - go with mixed carotenoids and mixed tocopherols and stick with the recommendations of the word of wisdom.

Food for thought.

[44Foxtrot]

Prospective studies still only determine correlation. It takes the randomized placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis. The best example of this are the diet studies. There were several studies akin but much more powerful than CARDIA that showed a correlation (including dose effects) of beta-carotene ingestion and decreased incidence of cancers. However, in the randomized trials, beta-carotene actually ended up increasing the incidence of lung cancer. There is a nice summary here: http://www.cancer.go...final-caret1204

There are so many confounding variables between religion and obesity that make any causal assumption completely foolish.

If you will read what I wrote (which you quoted and which is quoted again below for your convenience) you will see that I did not claim direct causality, nor as far as I am aware, did the study authors.

They found that those who spent more time in religious activities were more likely to be obese. That is all they claim. That is all I claimed.

They concluded, and rightly so, that factors associated with religious activity lead to increased incidence of obesity.