Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science News

Causes of Death Linked To Weight 385

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the pick-your-poison dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention that while a couple of years ago researchers found that overweight people have a lower death rate than people with a normal weight, it may be more complicated than that. "Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Causes of Death Linked To Weight

Comments Filter:
  • I'm not... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous@yahooBLUE.com minus berry> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @03:57PM (#21271531) Homepage Journal
    I'm not pigging out. I'm defending against Alzheimers and Parkinsons.

    Brilliant!

    • by gbulmash (688770) *
      Wait. Is your weight measured before or after the chemotherapy caused you to stop eating or your out-of-control diabetes put you into ketosis (the state you try to achieve through the Atkins diet)?
    • Re:I'm not... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Retric (704075) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:09PM (#21271707)
      "And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease."

      Hmm, what about accidents? It seems like extremely overweight people tend to spend more time at home which probably lowers their risks from car / skydiving / whatever accidents. My guess is the low weight stay at home people probably live longer than fat stay at home people. Wonder if I could get a grant to study this...
      • Re:I'm not... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Knuckles (8964) <knuckles AT dantian DOT org> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:39PM (#21272171)
        I'm fairly certain that I have read many times over the years that accidents at home create more costs for insurance companies than any other activity. That is, people are more likely to fall down their stairs than having a car or mountaineering accident. In fact, whenever I read/heard about this it was in the context of insurance companies' campaigns to reduce home risks, like "don't stack a chair onto a table to reach to the ceiling."

        Dunno if there is a correlation between home accidents and weight, though.
        • You may be "informative" but you're also wrong, unless you're using some fancy definition of "more" like including all the people that never see a car.

          Cars are EXTREMELY dangerous, and that we let all of us idiots drive such powerful death machines with such little regulation is frightening.

          If you want some pseudomath - the insurance company premiums are directly related to their costs, at least if you assume a semicompetitive market. Housing insurance is annually lower than car insurance - even with extr
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by dgatwood (11270)

            It's also a measure of number of people your house interacts with compared with your car. Insurance on places business costs a lot more than home insurance for two reasons: 1. Most people who visit someone's home are friends, and for the most part people don't sue their friends. 2. The number of random strangers who interact with your home on a daily basis is fairly limited.

            Put another way, I guarantee you that house insurance would cost every bit as much as automobile insurance if everyone drove their

    • Re:I'm not... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BewireNomali (618969) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:35PM (#21272111)
      the japanese are pretty long-lived, and tend to be pretty small. i heard life expectancy for the japanese drops when they adopt western eating habits (mostly consuming milk) which causes them to grow larger in addition to the fact that the western diet is nutritionally deficient relative to the tradition japanese one. also incidences of all prime causes of early mortality increase: heart disease, etc.

      also, women across all societies live longer than men. i think that while women tend to be smaller overall (than men), they tend to have higher BMIs, correct - in the sense that women carry more fat than men in general.

      i also read somewhere - and never was able to find it again - that death rates decreased in general the closer one's body mass got to 55kg. man, if i can find that link i'll post it.

      when i was a kid, i was undersized for a while - and there was an old lady who lived next door who saw me frustrated about not being big enough to ride the bike i'd gotten. i told her my frustration about being small and she said, "look at hte bright side. if you're small, you'll probably live a long time." Apparently there is some anecdote about living longer if you are smaller.

      not that anecdotal evidence means anything, but the japanese population is not an insignificant sample size. interestingly enough, on a biological level longevity is inversely associated with fertility (another factoid i read somehweree that i cannot substantiate at all - no flames please) - and the japanese have one of the lowest birth rates in the first world.

      again, no flames as i cannot substantiate these assertions and don't have the time to. But the japanese thing and the woman thing are pretty much documented as regards longevity.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022)
        The Japanese are also statistically more resistant to lung cancer if they smoke. I think there is more to their longevity then just diet.
    • Re:I'm not... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75.yahoo@com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:38PM (#21272153)
      Seriously, now we're going to have to deal with a bunch of obese people pointing to this study as evidence of why they don't feel a need to lose weight.

      Something's obviously missing in this study, because there is a positive correlation between average lifespan and obesity rates, both when comparing countries around the world and when comparing historical rates within this country. The simple fact is that all else being equal, the fatter a population is, the shorter its average lifespan. The United States, for example, ranks 42nd in world life expectancy - Japan, with much lower rates obesity and average weight, ranks #2. (Behind Andorra.)

      Not to even mention other studies (like this one [medicalnewstoday.com], for example) that show that being even moderately overweight can increase your risk of heart disease by more than 30% - and that's our nation's #1 killer. That's to say nothing of diabetes.

      I'll take my chances on being thin, thanks. One study that appears to contradict all scientific knowledge we've accumulated to this point isn't going to change my mind.
      • by fbjon (692006)
        Two important points: 1) the study says specifically overweight, not obese, and 2) it doesn't talk about quality of life, only mortality rate.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QMO (836285)
        You say (and bold), "all else being equal," and then compare the US to Japan.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @06:07PM (#21273377)
        I'll take my chances on being thin, thanks.

        It's thin people like you, who clearly are too lazy to put in the effort to get obese, that fat asses like me are paying for with my medical insurance. It truly sickens me.

        Wow - I can see why thin people shout that kind of thing so often; it really is an ego kick, the superiority thing. It is nice to have a study to kinda wave around and get all preachy about - if only I could still raise my arm.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I'll take my chances on being thin, thanks. One study that appears to contradict all scientific knowledge we've accumulated to this point isn't going to change my mind.
        Every study I have ever seen which compares being too thin to being too fat indicates that your overall health risks are massively higher if you are 5% below recommended weight than if you are 5% over. As a general rule, they all indicate that you are better being overweight (but not obese) than underweight.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by darkonc (47285)

        The simple fact is that all else being equal, the fatter a population is, the shorter its average lifespan.

        That was the myth -- the fact (or, rather, the theory that seems to fall out of this study) is that the longevity seems to be more like a bell curve -- If you're intensely underweight, you're more likely to die, and if you're intensely overweight, you're more likely to die.

        The other proposal that seems to fall out of these stats is that the proper 'healthy' weight appears to be higher than what's being suggested right now.

        I'm willing to bet that the 'correct' weights were promulgated based upon an (inc

      • by sentientbrendan (316150) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:00PM (#21274895)
        It's true that obesity kills, but there are 4 categories the article identifies

        1. underweight
        2. at weight
        3. overweight
        4. obese

        The article seems to indicate that the best categories to be in are 2 or 3, which shouldn't be that surprising. Being obese is horrible for your health, but there is a fairly wide range of weight around normal weight which remains healthy.

        One thing that the article makes clear is that being *underweight* is pretty bad for you, and has much more problems associated with it than being overweight (but not obese). Again, this shouldn't be surprising. Being overweight just means that you are carrying around some excess fat, but is not an indication of malnutrition. Being underweight means that your body is nutrition deprived enough that it hasn't been able to build up a fat store. It also means, that since you don't have a significant fat store, your body starts to cannibalize muscle tissue whenever you go for a while without eating.

        In general, good nutrition is the key thing. Either overeating *or* dieting when you don't need to will damage your body and lower your life span. Remember, also you need some fat on your body for doing things like cushioning your heart, and for when you go a while without eating anything nutritious, which many people do without realizing it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ceoyoyo (59147)
        The summary is a bit misleading. Overweight people have a lower mortality rate but obese people have a HIGHER mortality rate.

        The overweight category is a bit sketchy. BMI is a really simple measurement and it's perfectly possible (even likely) for a fit person to get slotted into the overweight category simply due to muscle mass.

        It's been shown that a better metric than BMI is waist to hip ratio. The beer belly is also where the more dangerous fat that builds up around internal organs tends to show up mo
  • it aint complicated (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n3tcat (664243)
    Let's break it down.

    Smokers eat less. Smokers die of cancer. Cancer kills more people than obesity.

    Wow.
    • People on chemotherapy lose weight. Sick people tend to eat less than healthy people. Just because A and B are correlated, it doesn't mean that A causes B. B could cause A or they could share a common cause. (I.e., you give one possible explanation, or an explanation for one part of the trend, but there are a whole bunch that readily spring to my mind.)
    • Clearly, NOBODY EVER thought to try to control for other health factors in the study.

      Obviously, you, and only you, have noticed this awful, systematic flaw in this study that obviously didn't have to pass an kind of rigorous review process to get published in JAMA.

      Praise be, we've found a new Einstein!
      • It's not a controlled study. It's a correlation study. We need to be careful about mixing up the idea of controlling for a factor in an experimental design, and controlling for a factor in a correlation or meta study. In the latter case, it's important if you want to come up with interesting correlations, but I doubt you can ever be that sure you've really disaggregated the confounding data.

        For example, note the huge fraction of reduced deaths among the overweight that is attributed to lung and respirato
    • by Fr05t (69968)
      I'm a fat smoker. You insensitive clod!
    • by sam_handelman (519767) <skh2003@colum[ ].edu ['bia' in gap]> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:12PM (#21271767) Homepage Journal
      I understand that no-one RTFA, but they corrected for that: and they did it correctly. That's not why.

        Oh, yes, I *actually do* biostatistics and know what I am talking about.

        Now, you are *correct* that there is no cause and effect established here!

        It's entirely possible that genes-which-make-you-thin are also genes-which-give-you-alzheimers, or that they are proxies for such genes.

        For example: being white makes you much more likely to have Cystic Fibrosis. This does not mean that getting a tan prevents CF.
    • by gorbachev (512743)
      Obesity also increases risk of cancer, btw. Just not lung cancer.

      And obese people also smoke.

      I think it's a little more complicated than that.
  • duh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by calebt3 (1098475)

    may be more complicated than that
    This is biology. Of course it is more complicated than that.
    • As much as this is a glib answer, and as much as I hate to disparage people who make a career out of scruting the inscrutable, you're right. I'm filing this under the same heading as the story that grapefruit cures cancer: YBMV (Your Biology Might Vary). Anyone who gorges on pizza, fries and milkshake as a result of this story deserves what they have coming.
  • Diseases that cause people to forget to eat, or be unable to eat, don't kill overweight people?

    Of course not.

    They kill starved people.
  • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @03:59PM (#21271553) Homepage
    So, less than 100%?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TitusC3v5 (608284)
      Well, a little part of me dies every time they bring back the McRib. Does that count?
    • by EMeta (860558) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:07PM (#21271667)
      This research [theonion.com] is now a decade old, but it's the most recent I can find. The 100% death epidemic is just terrible.
    • I dunno. I've seen people argue that America simply couldn't have a 100% mortality rate, because America is too good for that...
    • by Eudial (590661)

      So, less than 100%?


      I, for one, welcome our new big boned undead overlords.
    • Until everyone alive today dies, you don't really know. Maybe we'll cure death next Saturday.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Roger W Moore (538166)
      So, less than 100%?

      Yes - assuming you define the death rate as no. deaths/no. births then it will be less than 100% and will remain so while the population is above zero. To define it otherwise is to assume that everyone alive now will die which, while likely, is not yet proven. Afterall I think I speak for most of the human race when I say that we all want to live forever, or at least die trying!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by edwardpickman (965122)
      Hey most of my overweight friends are still alive. Maybe they have something there?
  • by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowskyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:02PM (#21271593) Homepage Journal
    The whole study is a joke because it assumes that body mass index is a valid measure of obesity, and it isn't. The only real way to tell how fat you are is to measure your body fat percentage, usually with calipers although some new scales claim to be able to do it electrically.

    I lift weights, and I'm at the higher side of the BMI because I've got a bit more muscle mass. Yet, according to that study, I'd be "fat". And I'm not even particularly big. If you got a man who was lifting since their teens into middle age, he could easily have 20 - 40 pounds more muscle than the average joe.

    It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. Anything less, is wrong, and anything based on it, is absurd.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Close.
      BMI has limited use, and is used to get an overview of a large population.
      But, you need to be very muscular for it to tag you as obese.
      If you are competing, you should be concerned.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Volante3192 (953645)
        But, you need to be very muscular for it to tag you as obese.

        Obese isn't really a problem; but it might be overly affecting the overweight spread, which is the grouping that seems to faring the best in this report.

        What if overweight started at 27 BMI instead of 25 BMI?
    • by SpeedyDX (1014595)

      It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers.
      "Suzie! Stop poking Scott with those calipers!"

      "Danny, stop running around with them, you're going to poke someone's eyes out!"

      "NO, LIZ!! You're not supposed to use them on your private area!! STOP IT NOW!!"
    • I lift weights, and I'm at the higher side of the BMI because I've got a bit more muscle mass. Yet, according to that study, I'd be "fat".

      I know what you mean. When I was in junior in college, I was in absolutely fantastic shape. And yet according to that stupid BMI chart, I would have still been classified as "overweight", even for a forty-year-old. The only way I could have weighed any less would have been to stop all strenuous exercise and also stop eating. I wonder how many teenagers that chart has

    • Yes, the BMI says that Lance Armstrong is quite overweight. No kidding.
    • by Otter (3800) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:15PM (#21271819) Journal
      It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. Anything less, is wrong, and anything based on it, is absurd.

      BMI combined with a shred of common sense is a perfectly fine approximation of obesity. There are two Unix admins here with scary-high BMIs, and you don't need calipers to know which one is obese and which one is just on steroids.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WarwickRyan (780794)
      You're technically correct, but I disagreed.

      BMI, as a measurement of fatness, gives a really good combination of coverage, it's accurate for the majority of westerners, it's very easy to check and it's easy to explain to people.

      Sure, it breaks down when applied to fit people, but works a charm when applied to fatties or anorexics. I honestly can't believe that anyone who was fit enough to be over BMI 25 with muscle would ever think the scale has any application to them.

      So, it's technically wrong but practi
    • by Shoeler (180797) *

      The whole study is a joke because it assumes that body mass index is a valid measure of obesity, and it isn't. The only real way to tell how fat you are is to measure your body fat percentage, usually with calipers although some new scales claim to be able to do it electrically.

      Bingo. Also most people get weighed at their doctors office with crap in their pockets, heavy shoes, etc. I weigh in at 198 in the morning when I wake up. By the time I eat breakfast and get dressed, I weigh in at 210-ish at the doctor's office. I'm 5'11, so my BMI at 198 is a slightly overweight 27.6. Once dressed and fed, I'm a 29.3, almost obese.

      Oh and I run 3x or more a week, lift 1-2x a week and make a close watch of what I eat - wheat wraps with specifically sized portions of lowfat mayo, l

    • Mod parent up. A fat slob and a body builder can have the exact same BMI, yet their risk for various diseases are going to completely different. These articles never talked about the fact that the elderly lose bone matter and probably have a lower BMI then younger healthy people. In fact this research didn't even seem to take into account age at all.

      I didn't see anything about when they BMI'd these individuals. Did they weigh them a few weeks before, a year before, after? Furthermore, what about the
    • Sure. So tell me, what is the percentage of people with a BMI > 30 who are actually very muscular and not obese? The answer is: miniscule. Over a large population, especially for those in an industrialized nation, BMI > 30 practically means obese.
    • Why is there a category missing completely? They've got underweight, overweight and obese. Where's the "target weight" category?
    • by NerveGas (168686)
      When I was more serious about lifting, my height/weight ratio had be as borderline obese, despite being 6 feet tall and wearing 31" pants... :-)

      Now I'm still borderline obese, but it's slightly more deserved. Not entirely, but definitely more so than before. :-(
    • by Kjella (173770)
      In a study where you take an average across many people, I swear the vast majority with a high BMI are fat. Have you got any study showing how "poor" an approximation that is in the general population? Like test with BMI, test with calipers, see how many people are off by what margin? I swear, for every muscle buff I see where the added muscle mass would really make a big difference, I see ten if not hundred that are plain old floppy and fat. It's really not hard to see if anyone has 20-40 pounds of muscle
    • by Joey Vegetables (686525) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @05:32PM (#21272879) Journal

      First of all, I'd rather be physically fit even if doing so shortened my life a bit. The increased quality of life would still be worth it to me.

      But you're very correct that BMI is a useless indicator of fitness.

      I'm a tad over 40 years old. 4 months ago I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic. I drank 4-5 liters of Pepsi per day. I looked like a big blob of partially hydrogenated whale blubber, marinated in high fructose corn syrup made from genetically modified corn. I couldn't climb 2 flights of stairs, bench-press half my weight, or even take what I now consider to be a deep breath.

      Knowing either it was this or insulin, I decided to hit the gym, and to give up the Pepsi. It's worked out very well for me. I've more than doubled my strength, and probably improved my cardiovascular endurance tenfold (I couldn't walk half a mile before; now I can power-walk for over an hour, although I still can't jog or run because the weight is too hard on my legs).

      I feel infinitely better, and even look somewhat better.

      Yet my weight only dropped slightly during this whole time, by about 10 pounds (from 215 to 205). Thus my BMI also changed only slightly. I've gained significant muscle mass, and thus lost significantly more than 10 pounds of fat. The increased muscle mass should, with any luck, help increase my metabolism, making it easier to burn the remaining excess fat. The BMI reflects none of this. According to the BMI, I was obese before, and only slightly less obese now. But I sure as hell do feel better, and it seems pretty certain that I will have a far better quality and quantity of life, assuming I keep up the present level of exercise (and don't get hit by a bus), than if I did not.

  • by foobsr (693224) * on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:02PM (#21271595) Homepage Journal
    In 2005: "Obesity Threatens to Cut U.S. Life Expectancy, New Analysis Suggests"
    http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm

    Besides, being underweight, I don't buy into it anyway.

    CC.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by GreyPoopon (411036)

      Besides, being underweight, I don't buy into it anyway.

      Look, we all understand about denial. But this is your health we're talking about; there's no room for self-deception. Now go on. Eat that triple-burger and super-size fries. I know you can do it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by NerveGas (168686)
      If you look at the graphs, being overweight reduced your chances... but being obese looked like it greatly INCREASED your chances of dying.
    • Always amusing. I am also considered underweight -- 6' 2", and I hover between 136 and 142 Lbs. My BMI right now is 18.

      I drink plenty of (Belgian) beer, can eat half a pizza by myself, entire packages of bacon with breakfast, and just about anything else that comes anywhere near me. I don't gain any weight.

      I lost weight when I started to work out a bit. I stopped working out after my gym membership ended.

      I must be in denial, and I should prolly put myself on a diet. There's no bacon like PLENTY of bac
  • that it is best to be somewhat overweight when you are elderly, that this weight class had the lowest levels of mortality. that when you are old, being thin is a greater danger than being somewhat overweight, for all of the risk factors mentioned above in the story summary

    however, at all other times in your life, being any kind of overweight begins the inevitable accumulation of damage due to extra fats in the system, extra sugars, extra inflammatory agents, etc.

    so i think the best idea would be to remain t
  • A Chinese colleague of mine once remarked that my buddha belly would mark me as a lucky person in China.
    • In Shanghai at least (the only bit of China I've seen) there don't seem to be many fat people. Most workplaces have cafeterias. I ate in one once and the food consisted mainly of cabbage and minced pork. They also mostly ride bicycles. When they can all afford cars and more food, watch the obesity epidemic begin! ...right after the asthma and lung disease.
  • by jamstar7 (694492) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:04PM (#21271637)
    Strange, I coulda swore I saw something someplace that said the death rate is the same for everybody - One life, one death.

    Personally, with my current health state, I don't want to live forever. And yes, I live in what most believe to be the most technologically advanced society on the planet, however, medical technology ain't cheap. What good is top-notch health care if you can't afford it?

    • by geekoid (135745)
      Get a better job.

      Personally, yeah, sign me up for that 'won't die of old age' treatment.
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      My grandmother told me when she was 95 years old "I don't know why people want to live to be a hundred. It ain't no fun bein' old!"

      She died in 2003 just short of her hundredth birthday.

      -mcgrew
  • ...they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights...

    That's great, but there's still that whole 'death' thing.

    Wake me up when they work that one out. If I'm alive.
  • not weight--waist (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:11PM (#21271765) Homepage
    Recent studies show that a persons weight or BMI are terrible indicators of their overall health. The best method available (without special equipment) is the ratio of waist size to height.

    If your waist circumference is less than 50% of your height, you are at a low risk for fat-related diseases. If it is more than 50%, get to the gym, stat!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AJWM (19027)
      The best method available (without special equipment) is the ratio of waist size to height.

      There's my problem, I'm too short!
  • by monoqlith (610041) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:15PM (#21271823)
    Just a thought: According to the graph in the first link, underweight people have a greater chance than overweight people of dying of lung diseases and coronary heart disease. However, smoking, a major causative factor in both groups of diseases, also suppresses the appetite and causes people who would normally be normal or overweight to become underweight. Thus, underweight people might be more likely to die from lung disease and heart disease, but this may just be becaquse underweight people are more likely to smoke.

    So, even if smoking isn't actually a major factor int he result, one has to look at the lifestyles that each weight group is likely to lead in order to determine what the important relationships are. Causations are what's important, not correlations.
    • Not to mention the wasting effects of cancer: by the time one dies of cancer, one may have been "underweight" for quite a few years.

      Bogusness abounds!
  • by Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) <abacaxi.hotmail@com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:16PM (#21271829)
    Low weight is a symptom seen in many people with diseases that will kill them: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancers ... and the loss of weight happens after the disease is well under way. It's a common symptom, not the cause or even contributing factor.
    • ++. Scientists know better than to confuse correlation and causation, so I can only conclude that this is designed to ignite controversy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DCheesi (150068)
      From TFA: "The researchers caution that a study like theirs cannot speak to cause and effect. They do not yet know, precisely, what it is about being underweight, for instance, that increases the death rate from everything except heart disease and cancer. Researchers tried to rule out those who were thin, because they might have been already sick. They also ruled out smokers, and the results did not change."
  • by trongey (21550) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:18PM (#21271847) Homepage
    The chart compares the number of "Excess" deaths. So I guess this really just means that us fat people are less likely to die more than once.
  • by techpawn (969834) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:20PM (#21271881) Journal
    What's right for one person is not right for another? Is milk good for you? I bet if you search for that you'll find research going both ways... We're all... Snowflakes... There was a guy in New York who lived to be over 100 living on Thunderbird Wine and Bread fried in fat back. When asked why he doesn't fry his bread in bacon he said because it was too lean. Here was a guy who knew exactly what his body needed and lived to be a ripe old age. If he'd of gone to a doctor they'd of told him to eat some vegetables and he'd of been dead in a week...
    • Dr. Gail, though, had some advice, which, he said, is his personal opinion as a physician and researcher: "If you are in the pink and feeling well and getting a good amount of exercise and if your doctor is very happy with your lab values and other test results, then I am not sure there is any urgency to change your weight."

      I don't know about you, but when I'm "in the pink and getting a good amount of exercise" I feel friggin FANTASTIC. Now I have a medical study that documents sex being good for me, thus I support this research wholeheartedly.

    • Well done sir, you've just made medical science obsolete! Now all the doctors can become pig farmers or something.
  • by Black-Man (198831) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:24PM (#21271945)
    If they weighed a person suffering from lukemia - by the time the disease had devastated the body - they wouldn't be fat anymore! Therefore... skinny people die young! Stupid.

  • Talk about adding "weight" to the "body of evidence". This ought to be a meaty topic to chew on.

    What's next? Scientists discover an inverse relationship between resistance to being struck by lighting the more body hair the would-be struckee has?
  • I for one welcome our Pizza eating Overlords.
  • Especially if you make "Speak your Weight" machines.

    "You weigh 330 pounds and will die when your heart explodes next Thursday at 3pm".
  • This seems rather odd to me since I've recently seen a study from the UK, and one from Canada correlating an increased risk of cancer with increased weight.

    I haven't been able to find the link for the study in Canada, but here is the British: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/07/uk-cancerstudy.html [www.cbc.ca]
  • by fredrated (639554) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @05:29PM (#21272827) Journal
    So, can I look up what I will die from by my weight?
  • by ivanmarsh (634711) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @06:42PM (#21273851)
    I wonder how much constantly being reminded that you're going to die contributes to your death?

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...