10 reasons you can't afford to be obese

[email protected] (Health Me Up)
August 29, 2014

ObeseObesity is by definition excess of fat storage rather than weight. Men with more than 25% of total body fat and women with more than 30% total body fat are considered obese.

There are many different ways to classify obesity. In accordance with endocrine and pathogen of the metabolic disease, obesity can be divided into simple obesity, secondary obesity and drug-induced obesity. Obesity, a growing health problem, is the door to a lot of illness and life threatening conditions that can make your life a living hell. Dr Ramen Goel, Head, Bariatric Surgery, Nova Specialty Surgery, Tardeo Mumbai, explains 10 reasons why obesity is bad for your health.

Type 2 diabetes

Obesity is one of the major causes of type 2 diabetes. Studies suggest that higher than normal body weight greatly increases the risk of getting diabetes. Uncontrolled diabetes in return leads to all serious complications such as high BP, heart attacks, brain strokes, blindness, kidney failures and nerve damages with amputations.

Heart attack

Obesity and overweight are linked to several factors that increase one's risk for cardiovascular disease (heart attack). Abdominal obesity or pot belly is said to be one of the major risk factors that can lead to heart ailments.

High blood pressure

Weight gain and hypertension are interconnected as increased weight raises the risk of developing high blood pressure. Weight reduction can actually help normalize the blood pressure. No wonder doctors recommend those suffering from hypertension to exercise and maintain their body weight.

Obstructive sleep apnea

Obesity results in obstructive sleep apnea where the person is not able to sleep well and snores, while remaining drowsy during the day. It is a respiratory problem in which breathing is stopped intermittently during sleep. Besides problem of sleep this results in high BP, heart failure etc.

Gout

An obese person is four times as likely to develop gout- a medical problem that affects joints, as someone with a normal body weight. In gout people have increased uric acid levels which results in painful, red and inflamed joints. With weight loss, the uric acid levels in the blood can decrease.

High cholesterol

One of the major risks in being overweight is the development of high cholesterol. Obesity increases the levels of triglycerides and bad cholesterol (LDL) in the body. Obese people generally have low levels of good cholesterol (HDL). High level of LDL and low level of HDL are major causes of atherosclerosis which results in narrowing of blood vessels leading to heart attack.

GERD

Recent research suggests that obesity is driving rise in people suffering from acid reflux. Obesity increases reflux because abdominal fat puts pressure on the ring of muscle at the bottom of the oesophagus - the 10-inch tube connecting the throat to the stomach - which normally prevents stomach acid from flowing back. The condition leads to heartburn.

Osteoarthritis

Being overweight puts extra stress on the joints, such as the knees, and consequently is a risk factor for developing osteoarthritis. Increased body weight puts more stress on joint surfaces causing damage.

Cancer

Medical research suggests that obesity plays an important role in cancer and that the lifetime risk of cancers is more among obese individuals. Obese people have higher chances of getting bowel, breast and esophageal cancers.

Heart failure

Worldwide research suggests that increased body-mass index is associated with an increased risk of heart failure.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 17,2020

Geneva, May 17: Spraying disinfectant on the streets, as practised in some countries, does not eliminate the new coronavirus and even poses a health risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned on Saturday.

In a document on cleaning and disinfecting surfaces as part of the response to the virus, the WHO says spraying can be ineffective. "Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is... not recommended to kill the Covid-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris," explains the WHO.

"Even in the absence of organic matter, chemical spraying is unlikely to adequately cover all surfaces for the duration of the required contact time needed to inactivate pathogens." The WHO said that streets and pavements are not considered as "reservoirs of infection" of Covid-19, adding that spraying disinfectants, even outside, can be "dangerous for human health".

The document also stresses that spraying individuals with disinfectants is "not recommended under any circumstances".

"This could be physically and psychologically harmful and would not reduce an infected person's ability to spread the virus through droplets or contact," said the document.

Spraying chlorine or other toxic chemicals on people can cause eye and skin irritation, bronchospasm and gastrointestinal effects, it adds.

The organisation is also warning against the systematic spraying and fumigating of disinfectants on to surfaces in indoor spaces, citing a study that has shown it to be ineffective outside direct spraying areas.

"If disinfectants are to be applied, this should be done with a cloth or wipe that has been soaked in disinfectant," it says.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of the pandemic that has killed more than 300,000 people worldwide since its appearance in late December in China, can attach itself to surfaces and objects.

However, no precise information is currently available for the period during which the viruses remain infectious on the various surfaces.

Studies have shown that the virus can stay on several types of surfaces for several days. However, these maximum durations are only theoretical because they are recorded under laboratory conditions and should be "interpreted with caution" in the real-world environment.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 6,2020

Researchers have found the rates of lung cancer are higher in young women than men.

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, examined lung cancer rates in young adults in 40 countries across five continents and uncovered a trend of higher lung cancer rates in women compared with men in recent years.

The emerging trend was widespread, affecting countries across varied geographic locations and income levels.

The changes appeared to be driven by a rising rate of adenocarcinoma lung cancer among women, said the study researchers from University of Calgary in Canada.

Lung cancer rates have been higher among men than women because men started smoking in large numbers earlier and smoked at higher rates; however, recent studies have reported converging lung cancer incidence rates between sexes.

Among men, age specific lung cancer incidence rates generally decreased in all countries, while in women the rates varied across countries with the trends in most countries stable or declining, albeit at a slower pace compared to those in men.

For the findings, lung and bronchial cancer cases between 30-64 age group from 1993-2012 were extracted from cancer incidence in five continents.

The study found the higher emerging rates of lung cancer in young women compared to young men.

According to the researchers, future studies are needed to identify reasons for the elevated incidence of lung cancer among young women.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 15,2020

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.