Brian's health

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Didn't Brian (or someone around him) recently say that he is taking a medication for his auditory hallucinations which is so dangerous that it needs constant monitoring?  I looked up the med, and substantial weight gain is one of the side effects.

[lance]

I agree with you that he is a big boy and can take care of himself. I don't agree that there is 'probably no reason to worry about his spare tire.' Other than the fact that ,ultimately, it isn't our business, I suppose.
I'm sure the 'best medical care/advice money can buy'* would agree with me. He has already said in an interview that he was 'pre-diabetic.' That's not something you just blow off.

Yes, his medication does cause weight gain. Which makes it more tragic for me because that coupled with the bad back might truly make it out of his control. He looks better in recent days, I think though. I think the tour is doing something good for him. I hope.

*Eugene Landy and michael Jackson's doctor spring to mind as examples of why a certain skepticism should accompany this 'surety.'

[drbeachboy]

While not a lot of spring in his step last night, neither was he shuffling his feet last night. I think his back is better than it was last month.

[runnersdialzero]

I looked up the med, and substantial weight gain is one of the side effects.

This hadn't even occurred to me and is likely part of the cause. The guy's diet isn't said to be the best, sure, but lots of medications for mental health issues cause weight gain. I gained 60 fuckin' pounds while on Paxil for a little less than a year, so yeah. Wouldn't shock me if Brian was on something a little more hardcore, and those can be even worse - I was prescribed a temporary dose of Zyprexa (which is what Wesley Willis was on - think about that in terms of what it can do for someone's weight) and didn't even want to take those for three days because of all the side effects, which include rapid weight gain and even diabetes if taken for even as little as a few months (and we know Brian is pre-diabetic, or was a few months ago).

[b00ts]

 I just know that obesity carries with it very serious health problems and shortens life. This is not some sort of society-pushed message pushing people into 'unhealthily' worrying about their weight.

Tell that to Sir Winston Churchill.

Now I am not arguing that being fat is good for you. The statistics do show that there are increased risks of various illnesses and conditions. But I would also say that Brian isn't incapable of looking after himself and he will have the best medical care/advice that money can buy. Brian has survived a lot, he is a robust guy. I'm just saying that there is probably no need to worry about his spare tyre.

I am a little concerned about the fact that he looks 10 years older than he did 5 years ago. But then the dude is nearing 70. He's more active than most 70 year olds.

  to argue that his weight is healthy is just, well, incorrect.

None of us is privy to his medical notes. We don't know what is weight is. For all we know, his heart rate, blood pressure and blood work all show him to be in good condition.

Also if you look at your average 80 year old, I think you find that there are very few as fat as Brian. Not saying there are none. But the fact is that obesity will get you sooner or later(sooner if your genes are bad.) Again, this is not a judgement. It's a scientific fact.

I think you are overdoing the scientific fact thing. What gets us in the end is death. Brian's only outward sign of ill-health has been his back, which is hardly surprising for an older man of his height. Anything else, such as the effect his weight might have on his health, is entirely conjecture.

I don't think he is overdoing the 'scientific fact thing.' Being obese is really bad for one's health. That's science fact.

[absinthe_boy]

I don't think he is overdoing the 'scientific fact thing.' Being obese is really bad for one's health. That's science fact.

There are many other factors. I am not arguing that it is in any way good to be fat, but it is not always bad. Everyone's body reacts differently. Brian is made of strong stuff to even be here today.

The comments about medications may well be right on the button. Many chemical treatments for depression (which is one of Brian's illnesses AFAIK) make it more difficult to lose weight or even make the body more likely to gain weight.

I agree from what little we know it doesn't look like Brian is a health food person these days, he mentions steak restaurants etc. But nor is he on a diet of birthday cake. He doesn't look especially unhealthy to me for a man pushing 70.

What does concern me slightly is that he looks 70 now. Five years ago he barely looked 60. Brian has apparently aged a lot in the last 5 years. But I don't know Brian Wilson, I've never actually seen him outside of a concert situation. So really any comment is pure guesswork.

[AndrewHickey]

I do not consider obesity to be 'stupidity' at all. that's ridiculous.

 I just know that obesity carries with it very serious health problems and shortens life. This is not some sort of society-pushed message pushing people into 'unhealthily' worrying about their weight.

 It is a scientifically proven fact.

There is no such thing as 'a scientifically proven fact'. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

You're also wrong. Statistically, 95% of people who lose weight by dieting go on to put it back -- and more -- within five years. There's actually no long-term way to lose weight successfully. Trying to lose weight is actually a very good way to make yourself unhealthy.

BUT it has been shown that focusing on health rather than weight can lead to positive clinical outcomes -- that many of the health problems associated with weight increase can be ameliorated *without losing the weight*. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3041737/

Also if you look at your average 80 year old, I think you find that there are very few as fat as Brian. Not saying there are none. But the fact is that obesity will get you sooner or later(sooner if your genes are bad.) Again, this is not a judgement. It's a scientific fact.

You're sounding like Brass Eye now -- "there's no actual evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact". To quote the paper I linked above:

Except at statistical extremes, body mass index (BMI) - or amount of body fat - only weakly predicts longevity [32]. Most epidemiological studies find that people who are overweight or moderately obese live at least as long as normal weight people, and often longer [32-35]. Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I, II, and III, which followed the largest nationally representative cohort of United States adults, determined that greatest longevity was in the overweight category [32]. As per the report, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and reviewed and approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, "[this] finding is consistent with other results reported in the literature." Indeed, the most comprehensive review of the research pooled data for over 350,000 subjects from 26 studies and found overweight to be associated with greater longevity than normal weight [36]. More recently, Janssen analyzed data in the elderly (among whom more than 70 percent of all deaths occur) - also from 26 published studies - and similarly found no evidence of excess mortality associated with overweight [37]. The Americans' Changing Lives study came to a similar conclusion, indicating that "when socioeconomic and other risk factors are controlled for, obesity is not a significant risk factor for mortality; and... for those 55 or older, both overweight and obesity confer a significant decreased risk of mortality." [38] The most recent analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that overweight was associated with increased risk, but only arrived at this conclusion after restricting the analysis by excluding 78 percent of the deaths [39]. They also used a reference category much narrower than the entire "normal weight" category used by most other studies, which also contributed to making the relative risk for overweight higher.

So if you're "overweight" or "obese", statistically you're *less* likely to die. That's not a 'scientifically proven fact' -- there is no such thing -- but it *is* the most accurate information we have.

If you're going to make scientific claims, at least bother to spend two minutes looking for the actual data.

[lance]

Well, semantic quibbling aside, I think only on a Beach Boys board would people argue, apparently, that being overweight and pre-diabetic is, in fact, not bad for you. I guess I'm going to stay saying: it is bad for you. And by bad, I mean its unhealthy.

Yes there are other factors. No one said that there weren't.
For example, getting plenty of sleep is good for you. Maybe Brian gets plenty of sleep. However, he is still obese--not 'a bit overweight'-- and pre-diabetic. Most people, even those who qualify as 'the best care that money can buy' would say that those are unhealthy 'factors.' And pretty significant ones. The fact--or whatever we want to call it, being careful here!--that most people who lose weight gain it again is rather irrelevant, in my opinion. Or, rather, I'm not grasping the relevance.

But I'll concede that being overweight doesn't necessarily mean that one is unhealthy. However, since he is overweight AND pre-diabetic, that sort of leads me to presume that Brian is not healthy.

And come now. Anybody can google any thing that supports an argument like this. I won't bother to post links to the hundreds of thousands of articles, studies, statistics, etc. that support my thesis that, generally, obesity is unhealthy and causes health problems.

 And I have spent a good deal more than two minutes looking into this. Rather weeks and months.

 But, well, you believe what you want. Fat people live longer, or something. I'm pretty sure that the 'best medical care/advice money can buy' is going to be on my side, though.

[lance]

Here: this will only take two minutes to read.http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/16/can-being-overweight-be-good-for-you/

 For you:

There are studies like the most recent Japanese one, saying that being overweight increases lifespan or reduces the odds of dying early. However, there are others that show the opposite. A Swedish study that we blogged about before showed that being overweight as a teenager increasesd the risk of an early death by the same extent as smoking one to ten cigarettes a day.

The big picture

When some studies say one thing and others say another, it’s useful to look at the evidence as a whole and see what picture it paints.

And one group of scientists has done just that, pulling together the results of 57 different prospective studies across Europe and North America. Together, the studies looked at the health of over 894,000 people, making this the best evidence to date on the effect of obesity on death.

The researchers found that the optimal BMI was 22.5, which sits in the middle of the healthy range (18.5 to 25). At this point, the odds of dying prematurely are at their lowest, providing powerful support for the importance of maintaining a health body weight.

The results of this analysis are particularly strong because they’re based on such a large number of people. For comparison, the sample size in the most recent Japanese study was around 20 times smaller. Larger samples make it less likely that results are influenced by chance or biases that might skew the results.

’s also important to note that most of the studies we’ve discussed in this post have looked at the links between body weight and premature death. But it’s not just the quantity of life that matters but its quality.

Many of the conditions and diseases that are caused by obesity, including heart disease and diabetes, can often be successfully managed or treated. But that doesn’t mean that they should be ignored.

So it’s also important to look at whether being overweight or obese increase the risk of developing diseases rather than just dying from them. And certainly, when it comes to cancer, that evidence is very clear. After being a non-smoker, keeping a healthy body weight is one of the best ways of stacking the odds of avoiding cancer in your favour.

Being overweight and obese increases the risk of many different types of cancer, including some of the most common (breast and bowel cancers) and some of the most difficult to treat (cancers of the pancreas, gallbladder and food pipe (oesophagus) to name a few). In fact, as more large studies are completed, the list of cancers that are affected by body weight grows ever larger.


Eh. Science, schmience. Load up on the steak and birthday cake, Brian! Dr. Hickey says it's OK!!

[AndrewHickey]

Well, semantic quibbling aside, I think only on a Beach Boys board would people argue, apparently, that being overweight and pre-diabetic is, in fact, not bad for you. I guess I'm going to stay saying: it is bad for you. And by bad, I mean its unhealthy.

No, as I just showed you, it's *not* only on a Beach Boys board where people would argue that being overweight is not bad for you (I said nothing about being pre-diabetic -- that's a term that can mean many things, some of them very bad, some not). It's argued in the Nutrition Journal, as I linked. And the American Journal of Epidemiology (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/147/8/739.long -- shows that the second-highest quintile for weight is the category with the lowest mortality rate, while the highest has a very slightly higher than average mortality rate, but still much less than for example the thinnest people). And the International Journal of Obesity And Related Metabolic Disorders (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8788324 - "This quantitative analysis of existing studies revealed increased mortality at moderately low BMI for white men comparable to that observed at extreme overweight, which does not appear to be due to smoking or existing disease.") . And Obesity Reviews (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17212795 - "These calculations indicate that a BMI in the overweight range is not associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality in the elderly, while a BMI in the moderately obese range is only associated with a modest increase in mortality risk"). And Social Science And Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20226579 "Among adults age 55 and older at baseline, the risk of mortality was actually reduced for those were overweight (hazard rate ratio = 0.83) and those who were obese (hazard rate ratio = 0.68), controlling for other health risk behaviors and health status").

ALL the science -- actual science, not just people talking rubbish on message boards -- points the same way. Being 'overweight' is correlated with being slightly healthier than average. Being 'obese' has a *very slight* correlation with being unhealthy, but that correlation is the same as the correlation between obesity and inactivity, and goes away with exercise and low stress levels. Someone at the lower levels of the obese range of weights, who is normally active (as Brian is, other than his recent back problems) is simply not at any significantly greater health risk than anyone else.

And given that, maybe it would be best to leave the concern about Brian's health to people who actually have a clue what they're talking about -- namely Brian's doctors, who unlike us know what his actual medical condition is?

[AndrewHickey]

Here: this will only take two minutes to read.http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/16/can-being-overweight-be-good-for-you/

The single study they point to that says that (as opposed to the other studies they link to, which you cut out of your quote, and which say "combined, obesity and being overweight actually led to a net reduction in the number of deaths, to the tune of 44,000 per year.") does definitely point to weight being correlated to excess mortality. Unfortunately, there's no easy way for me to tell if it's accurate or not. The paper doesn't actually set out how its data is collected, it just says that it's collected the same way as two other papers -- unfortunately, both those other two papers are behind Elsevier's paywall, and I don't care enough about this discussion to pay actual money to see the evidence.

Collection methodology in meta-analyses is *hugely* important (I'd point you to my own paper on the subject, S Hickey, A Hickey, L.A. Noriega Implications and insights for human adaptive mechatronics from developments in algebraic probability theory. Presented at the EPSRC UK Postgraduate Workshop on Human Adaptive Mechatronics (HAM), Staffordshire University, 15–16 January, 2009, but I don't believe there's an online copy at all), and given the way it can distort studies I'm not minded to accept as reliable a meta-analysis whose collection methodology I don't know. But that's me refusing to pay to look at the evidence, not saying that the evidence doesn't exist, and so I'll bow out of the discussion -- I still think I'm right, but not enough to spend money on it.

[absinthe_boy]

I for one would be very wary of any study purporting to say that any range of BMI values has any impact on health.

BMI was not designed to be, and never has, been an indicator of health. It can be hugely skewed by muscle growth....for example every sporting rower or rugby player would come out as 'obese' or even 'morbidly obese' according to their BMI when they are among the fittest people around - as anyone who has ever tried rowing will attest.

Two people with an equal BMI can have massively different body fact content.

It is also worth noting that until recently, most research into obesity was directly sponsored by the weight loss/diet industry and (surprise) came to conclusions which supported buying dieting products. If the diet industry actually worked, there would be no diet industry. It's like the never-ending light bulb....if it were ever invented, no company would market it.

Bariatrics is probably the only line in 'medicine' where people look at a photograph of a person and not only diagnose them but also prescribe treatment.

[Amanda Hart]

I for one would be very wary of any study purporting to say that any range of BMI values has any impact on health.

BMI was not designed to be, and never has, been an indicator of health. It can be hugely skewed by muscle growth....for example every sporting rower or rugby player would come out as 'obese' or even 'morbidly obese' according to their BMI when they are among the fittest people around - as anyone who has ever tried rowing will attest.

Two people with an equal BMI can have massively different body fact content.

It is also worth noting that until recently, most research into obesity was directly sponsored by the weight loss/diet industry and (surprise) came to conclusions which supported buying dieting products. If the diet industry actually worked, there would be no diet industry. It's like the never-ending light bulb....if it were ever invented, no company would market it.

Bariatrics is probably the only line in 'medicine' where people look at a photograph of a person and not only diagnose them but also prescribe treatment.

This is the first post in this thread that has actually made any sense. Reading through these posts has been like my worst nightmare, I don't even know where to start. I hate even seeing stuff like what's been posted here, because I feel obligated to correct it, but I don't want to come off like some pushy asshole. I'll just keep it to a minimum and if anybody wants to further the discussion we can move to the nutrition thread I made in the sandbox the last time this sort of thing came up.

The above poster was correct in pointing out what a faulty statistic BMI is. The article that Andrew Hickey quoted a few posts up lost all creditability in the first sentence when it defined BMI as body fat. BMI and body fat are two totally different measurements. BMI is simply height divided by weight, body fat percentage is the actual measurement of subcutaneous fat mass compared to lean mass. As noted above, BMI can be skewed by muscle mass and also by someone who is "thin" but not lean. BMI is the worldwide standard for measuring obesity simply because it is the easiest. All your doctor or insurance company has to do is weigh you and look at a chart and put you in a category. Japan has moved to using waist-to-hip ratio as their standard obesity measurement, and hopefully the rest of the world will follow. While it's not quite as telling as body fat percentage, it is cheap and easy. Body fat can be cheap and easy, but you have to have a qualified person measuring, so it's something that probably will not become part of a routine physical anytime soon.

I don't mean to be a know-it-all dick about this kind of stuff, it's just so hard to see all the bad information going around, when the good information is there and so simple if you take the time to understand it.

[Yorick]

Amazing how some of you Americans wouldn't call Brian obese   I guess so many people are obese in the USA that people don't know what IS obese anymore...

(note how I said 'some', no offense meant!)

[Amanda Hart]

Amazing how some of you Americans wouldn't call Brian obese  I guess so many people are obese in the USA that people don't know what IS obese anymore...

There actually is some truth to this. The charts American doctors use to measure children are based on percentiles and adjust based on NHANES data every 6 years. When you take your kid to the doctor, they tell you what their measurements are in relation to where they fall based on the averages. Parents get a skewed view of their child's health because they are told that they are in the 50th percentile, so they say "Johnny's normal, everything is perfect." When, in reality, what's average now is 30% heavier than it was for children's weight 20 years ago.

[drbeachboy]

Amazing how some of you Americans wouldn't call Brian obese   I guess so many people are obese in the USA that people don't know what IS obese anymore...

Well I will be snotty here and say; he lives here. so we'll call him however he fits in with us Americans. Amazing the sh*t that gets talked about in here, whether it's our business to know or not. Brian, as well as anyone else in this world will weigh and look however they feel like. Let Brian and his doctors worry whether he is unsafely overweight or not,

[KittyKat]

I get tired of reading this debate.  I'm not going to go around telling people what they should weigh or what they should eat.  Given that no one here knows Brian that won't work anyways. 

[AndrewHickey]

The above poster was correct in pointing out what a faulty statistic BMI is. The article that Andrew Hickey quoted a few posts up lost all creditability in the first sentence when it defined BMI as body fat. BMI and body fat are two totally different measurements.

I read the 'or' in that sentence as saying something like "or for that matter amount of body fat" rather than as an explanation of the meaning of the term BMI. I agree though that it's at best ambiguously worded and if read as you've read it it's flat-out wrong.

[onkster]

Well, to lighten things up a bit, this all gives "Brian's Back" a whole new meaning.

(As in "Brian's Back...is sore, and it's bugging him." Wink wink. Get it, get it?)

[Amanda Hart]

The above poster was correct in pointing out what a faulty statistic BMI is. The article that Andrew Hickey quoted a few posts up lost all creditability in the first sentence when it defined BMI as body fat. BMI and body fat are two totally different measurements.

I read the 'or' in that sentence as saying something like "or for that matter amount of body fat" rather than as an explanation of the meaning of the term BMI. I agree though that it's at best ambiguously worded and if read as you've read it it's flat-out wrong.

Now that you point it out, I suppose they could have intended it in the way you're saying, but either way it's still a little questionable.

The fat vs. fit debate is endlessly interesting to me. They do great work along these lines at the Cooper Institute in Dallas. A person's weight alone does not determine how fit or how healthy they are. This line of thinking leads a lot of skinny people to believe they don't need to take care of themselves. At the same, this shouldn't be an excuse for people who are overweight to not be physically active or to think it doesn't matter what they put into their bodies.

While it's not the most important factor, weight certainly is a factor in things like heart disease and diabetes. The biggest danger is visceral fat, the kind that lies between your organs that you can't really see. Too much visceral fat around the liver can effect hepatic metabolism, which lowers insulin sensitivity. There are multiple studies that look at this link, but I would have to look them up. I did quite a bit of research on this during my masters program.

There isn't as clear of a link to body fat and heart disease. The obvious argument is excess body weight leads to high blood pressure (because you're heart has to pump harder to get the blood all the way around), which can damage the vessels, which can interfere with nutrient delivery or cause clotting, which could lead to heart attacks or strokes. Atherosclerosis is the more common cause of cardiovascular disease though, and there is no specific, direct link to body weight or stored body fat and hardening of the arteries.

Overall, the key is being healthy. If you're physically active and eating right, you give yourself the best chance, no matter how much you weigh.

[AndrewHickey]

Overall, the key is being healthy. If you're physically active and eating right, you give yourself the best chance, no matter how much you weigh.

Exactly.

[Tilt Araiza]

I recall an interesting health plan being advocated in the mid-to-late 60s that consisted of:

1. Maintaining a generous intake of calories
2. Allowing for long periods of rest
3. Maintaining good dental health
4. Partaking in exercise, such as jogging
5. Being involved in a large number of activities.
6. Avoiding inactivity.

If I recall correctly, the people proposing this plan put in far simpler terms.  They sang it, too.

[anazgnos]

I for one would like to get to the real issue at hand: is he, or is he not, taking good care of his feet?

[absinthe_boy]

He'll feel better when he sends in his letter....

[KittyKat]

H.E.L.P. is on the way.