Talk:Obesity paradox

Requested move 20 April 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: move will require admin assistance, which I will request. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverse epidemiology → Obesity paradox – There are more systematic review results for "obesity paradox" than "reverse epidemiology" on PubMed. For this reason, as per Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles, I think this page should be moved to "obesity paradox". --Relisted. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Everymorning   talk  00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Obesity paradox because I think that name is more likely to help interested readers find the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * support as per reason given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * support per proposer. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need to add the following
I would like to add the follwing to the obesity paradox. I posted a month back ago, which was removed, reasons not explained. Now the Tuft University has accepted my hypothesis in the Nutrition Degree curriculum and I think at this point, it may be considered for wiki.

(https://www.nutrition.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/syllabus/MNSP227%20Fall%202015%20Syllabus.pdf) page 10

Fitness first hypothesis(1)⁠ is the first hypothesis put forward as an evolutionary explanation for both increasing trend of obesity and obesity paradox. Rather than dismissing it as a error due to various biases and statistical errors, it considers the true existence of obesity paradox and how it may benefit the human race rather than an individual. By various pathways, insulin resistance accompanying obesity promotes somatic growth, promotes anti-oxidant function that may help to increase survival probability. At the same time obesity reduces fertility. The quantity- quality trade off occur among by organisms that optimizes fitness of the race depending on the mortality rates, resources and carrying capacity of the environment. and hence from life history theory and evolutionary point of view, the obesity(milder forms) and the obesity paradox may represent an evolutionary adaptation of humans to a resource-rich environment – a mechanism improving survival and promoting investment in fewer offspring, thereby improving the biological fitness of the race.

1. Rakesh TP. Milder forms of obesity may be a good evolutionary adaptation : “ Fitness First ” hypothesis. 2014;1–8.

Drrakwiki (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry, but required reading for a course at a university is not sufficient.
 * You should really read Identifying reliable sources (medicine), those are the guidelines for medical content on wikipedia.
 * In short:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources: expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies.
 * WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view, wikipedia must present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus.
 * Primary sources cannot be used to contradict or counter conclusions made by reliable secondary sources. And your hypothesis is exactly that: a new theory. We can only write about it when reliable secondary sources have reviewed and confirmed it.
 * Sources must be independent: When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used.
 * WP:NOR: No original research, editors cannot include their own ideas in articles.
 * WP:COI: Conflict of interest: Editors should not edit articles in their own interests, to publish their own ideas, or in the interests of external relationships. So even when your theory is accepted by the medical community, and it can be added to the article, it preferably shouldn't be done by you or friends of you.
 * Wikipedia has new editors every day creating new articles about their own companies, inventions, theories, and those pages are always removed. People can't use wikipedia to spread their ideas or gain notability, it's the other way around: once they become notable, then we may write about it.
 * The best thing you can do is get your ideas published and recognized by the medical community. One school using your text is a start, but only after others have reviewed your theory and written about it in reliable medical sources (like New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA..) can wikipedia write about it. Ssscienccce  (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

30 Oct 2015 :Please accept this as a reply to above : Absolutely true. Now I am impressed by the quality control of wiki. Cheers to you folks. I shall wait for the apt time. Drrakwiki (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)