But in this country, we are NOT talking about a little bit of fat and being a little overweight. Carrying around an excessive amount of fat cannot be a good thing. (I suspect we will find that yo-yo rapid weight loss and gain such as losing thirty pounds over six months and regaining it all in three months, repeated cyclically, is far, far, FAR worse than merely being overweight, even by a 100 pounds, however.)

I believe the “one size fits all” theories on measuring health risks, like BMI, are meaningless. The military used a similar method for years. At the time I was working out daily, training in martial arts, and in the best condition of my life. But I could never beat my “pack a day” co-workers who never went to the gym.

Scientists always have pet theories. And they always believe that they are right. That human tendency promotes the creation of false evidence amongst scientists. That is why we have scientific hoaxes.

People forget that Galileo was totally incorrect in his beliefs, given the fact that his mathematics didn’t back up his claims. Nor did Galileo have any other evidence. Galileo didn’t claim the Copernican Heresy, either. But that’s ancient history.

not even my all ice cream diet

If you were lifting weights, Book, then you should have been on a mostly protein diet. Milk would have been far better. The high adaptation metabolism of people that Neo has talked about, including you and me, can only gain weight via weightlifting and high protein intake. Course, you have to be maxing your weight lifting numbers. Endurance training doesn’t work.

But others dismissed the findings as fundamentally flawed, saying an overwhelming body of evidence has documented the risks of being either overweight or obese.

It is not really clear whether such health problems occur because you have more weight or because of your behavior which caused you to have such weight. If you don’t exercise, and thus gain weight, then obviously it is a question of whether you get sick because of a lack of exercise or an abundance of fat. Could be both. Could be the first. Could be the latter. Who knows. It is very very hard to conduct experiments based upon these factors since there are so many of them, with so many combinations.

What do you mean, “we”, Kemosabe?
You have to differentiate between a great many players here. Let me present a fictitious example of how these things happen:

1. Sam Scientist publishes a paper in “Statistical Studies in Nutrition”, entitled “Analysis of Mortality Rates for Swedish Patients during 1970 - 1990″, in which he writes: “A correlation coefficient of 0.12 with a confidence of 98% was found between the incidence of valvular cardiomyopathy and body mass index.”

2. Robbie Reporter publishes a story about the paper. Does he give it the headline “Weak Correlation found between Body Mass Index and Heart Disease”? Of course not! He instead writes “Scientific Study Proves: Fat People Drop Dead From Heart Attacks!!!” Does he include all the fine points, exceptions, and qualifications that were part of the original paper? Of course not! That would be boring! By the way, Fred likes to use exclamation points! Lots of them!!!

3. Dorothy Doctor tells her patient, “You really must lose weight. All the evidence indicates that being overweight will reduce your life expectancy.”

4. Sally Scientist publishes a paper in the Czech Journal of Medicine” in which she presents data showing a weak negative correlation between body mass index and uterine cancer.

5. Ronnie Reporter writes a news story about Sally’s paper entitled “Beat Cancer by Getting Fat!”

6. Bookworm reads Ronnie’s article and concludes that you have to take scientific consensus with a grain of salt.