Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life 383
Hugh Pickens writes "Findings of a new study show that underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight — but those who are only a little overweight actually live longer than people of normal weight. 'It's not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying, but it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage,' said one of the coauthors of the study. 'It may be that a few extra pounds actually protect older people as their health declines, but that doesn't mean that people in the normal weight range should try to put on a few pounds.' The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die. But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9. The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight. The authors controlled for factors such as age, sex, physical activity, and smoking. 'Overweight may not be the problem we thought it was,' said Dr. David H. Feeny, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research. 'Overweight was protective.'"
But it's in CANADA (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the study took place in Canada. Skinny, underweight people dying faster in the cold of Canada just seems like a no brainer. I'd like to see the study replicated in the tropics to see if the numbers stand up somewhere that extra insulation doesn't help as much.
Based on the stu
Re: (Score:2)
I dare you to make a "400 pounder" get down to the tropics for that longevity test :-D
And yup... I would not want to be too skinny up here in Canada... when it gets cold... its friggin COLD... and I am pretty far south... I wouldn't survive Edmonton for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But it's in CANADA (Score:5, Funny)
The ignorance of some humor is just shocking!
Of course Canadians have cars and central heating. How else would they get to and stay warm in their yurts? Although the heating is a tricky business for those who live in igloos, but they're just a smaller portion of the population. Only about 35% or so.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, you'll be fine if you spend your entire life indoors. Which I'm guessing is what you'd do anyway, being on /.
Re:But it's in CANADA (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, there's more to the "but it's Canada" argument than just heat.
Japan tops the world in longevity and they also have some of the lightest people in the world. While obesity isn't unheard of there, and neither is being slightly overweight, it's a lot more common to be underweight by the accepted western definition. I couldn't find the average weight for adults, but the average weight for a 16 year old male in Japan is around 136 pounds at a height of around 5'6". In the United States, that is the lowest recommended weight even for someone with a "small frame" at that height.
So why do they have such long lifespans if being slightly overweight is better than being underweight?
I'm sure it has mostly to do with the amount and type of nutrients a person is ingesting. Westerners eat a diet that's higher in fat and calories per nutrient. For example, they eat a lot more fish than we do; we eat more red meat. They eat more rice; we eat more potatoes. Without making a real effort or taking supplements, a westerner will need to ingest more calories and fat to get the same nutrients as a Japanese person.
I would strongly suspect that this is a case where correlation != causation in terms of being slightly overweight and living longer. A person would probably live longer still if they were slightly underweight but got the same (or better) nutrients, which is basically the situation in Japan and that is exactly the result.
Re:But it's in CANADA (Score:5, Funny)
It's not that bad. The igloo I grew up in, in Edmonton, worked pretty good at insulating us against the cold.
I remember coming in off the ice-flow, after spending the day hunting sea-lions for food and fuel-oil, the igloo was so warm I had to pretty much strip off all my clothing.
But now that I've moved to Vancouver, where we've got these new-fangled things called 'houses', I find that I'm expected to remain mostly clothed both indoors and out. And my snowmobile only is useful a couple days a year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die" did they also find the fountain of youth? I'm pretty sure that humans have a 99.9999% chance of dying taking into account the humans currently alive who still have a chance of finding that fountain of youth. Its not the destination its the trip that truly matters.
Amazing discovery in Canada (Score:2)
"70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die" did they also find the fountain of youth?
It's the other way around: they found the fountain of zombies, and it's apparently in Canada!
Normal people have a 100% chance of dying (obviously), so these poor saps must have a 170% chance of dying. On average, therefore, they will die 1.7 times each. Damn Canadian zombies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing to be careful about with these statistics is that Canada has a very good public health system. One that far outranks just about every other western country on this blue marble. That will surely shift the results to the right compared to other countries.
And yes, I am dirty about it. My country *used* to have a superior public health care system. That is until a prime minister thought it would be a good idea to follow the US. There's the lingering shell but that'll be gone in a couple of
Re:But it's in CANADA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But it's in CANADA (Score:4, Interesting)
Canadians love to complain about our health care system, but the numbers show that it does very well compared to other systems.
The article you link to seems pretty shady. It's clearly looking for reasons why the US should not change their private health insurance model. The first paragraph talks about how Erbitux (cetuximab) "... targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body" even though standard treatment with cetuximab is used in conjunction with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, in patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone. Did she already fail a course of chemotherapy? She went to a cancer clinic in a foreign country (the US) and was surprised that it was hard to get reimbursed? Finally, cetuximab is only used in cases of colorectal cancer where there's EGFR expression. If her tumor was not this kind then treating her with cetuximab would indeed be unproven. It also appears that cetuximab has not yet completed it's phase III trials, which again makes it experimental. Nevertheless, it has been approved by Health Canada for patients who meet the criteria above.
You can read the Health Canada Summary Basis of Decision on cetuximab here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/phase1-decision/drug-med/sbd_smd_2007_erbitux_088225-eng.php [hc-sc.gc.ca]
Re:BMI is worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: 6' 2"
weight: 215
BMI: 28 - overweight
I cycle 10 miles a day to and from work. Hit the gym 3-5 days a week for resistance training. I weight 215 pounds and have a 6-pack.
Oh and i asked my doctor what the lowest possible weight should would recommend for me, if say i wanted to wrestle a low weight class: 190 pounds.
The study proves that the BMI is wrong. An overweight BMI might mean in shape and active.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BMI is worthless (Score:5, Funny)
Big deal. I have 3 cases in the fridge right now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BMI utterly breaks for anyone outside of "normal" height range (+/- about 1 stdev for men and women or about 5'4"-5'9" for men and maybe 5'2"-5'7" for women). If you look at the formula, it goes up as a square of height. That makes the "normal" BMI of anyone 6' or taller something around 170ish pounds. It tells me, that at 6'2" I should be 180 pounds max. This is insane. At 200 pounds I start to feel ribs poking through, and I feel like I'm starving all the time.
No, BMI should not be used as any kind o
BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Insightful)
bullshit measuring index (Score:2, Funny)
bringing the health industry profits since 1830
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:4, Insightful)
However, given the current Body Builder/All American Lardass ratio, and the fact that BMI's failure in high muscle scenarios isn't exactly a secret, I suspect we'll muddle through somehow. It is a pity that more precise measurements aren't cheaper to make.
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for do have easy to measure heuristics that are significantly more reasonable.
Even taking BMI and correcting it for waist size goes a long way into taking muscle mass into account.
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Insightful)
BMI itself is not "stupid". It's simply a way of normalizing weight to height. They could have correlated mortality to weight, but that would have been stupid. A person weighing 200 pounds is overweight if they're 4 foot 6, but underweight if they're 6 foot 4.
What you mean to say, I assume, is that it is "stupid" to use BMI as the single parameter to judge health, or, that there is more to health than simply weight. Of course.
BMI has the advantage of being relatively easily measured. There is, in doing quantitative science, a significant advantage in studying things that can be measured. If it is a "stupid" measurement, then this will show up in the data, in the form of there not being a correlation between BMI and mortality.
And then you have to account for Cartman ("I'm not fat, I'm just big-boned").
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)
Re: (Score:2)
For testing health? Bah. Better test would be to see how long it takes you to get winded screwing at a medium pace.
Besides, I'm not as concerned about my health in re: longevity. What's important is my evolutionary health.
And I can pretty much guarantee that I'll have many more chances to sire crotch potatoes on random women if I'm at the "ideal" weight instead of "slightl
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Funny)
Better test would be to see how long it takes you to get winded screwing at a medium pace.
Are we talking Torx, phillips, flathead, or something else? I know I get breathless just thinking about it...
Re: (Score:2)
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
This is a little contentious, since there are different ways of being "fit." For instance, many cyclists, even at the professional level, make pretty bad runners, and vice versa.
Aren't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately?
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Interesting)
Crossfit type workouts can give a good measure of several metrics, but it isn't exactly easy to quantify.
I think what you refer to in your example is less a case of measuring fitness than it is measuring performance in some extremely specialized circumstances where the difference between first and last isn't all that much. Lance Armstrong wasn't a great runner despite being a great cyclist, but he is probably far better than most other non-runners. Just like Robbie McEwen can't match Armstrong in the Alps but would crush him in the last 100 meters of the flats.
When I was in the USMC we did a lot of 'fitness' stuff and everyone was more or less in pretty good shape. When I went to sniper school there were some physical requirements that were different and others that were under more scrutiny. That made obvious what were previously undetectable differences. Two guys could finish a run side by side but one of them would be so taxed he couldn't steady his rifle, despite both having first class PT scores. After I was discharged I worked more on strength than anything else and when I got back into competitive shooting I immediately noticed the difference. Hard to say which constitutes 'fitter', benching 325 or being able to march all day with a full pack and a 16 lb rifle.
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish they had analyzed body fat percentage, in addition to BMI. The two numbers together could yield much more specific information.
Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure (Score:4, Insightful)
Or drop BMI entirely, it is worth than worthless. It's misleading.
BMI is nothing more than a height to weight ratio, completely ignoring the fact that muscle weighs more than fat.
Most body builders you'll see in competition are classified as obese based on the BMI scale, despite the fact that they often carry less than 4% body fat [healthchecksystems.com].
BMI is only popular because it is a simple number with a simple scale that can be easily calculated and interpreted by simple people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
except it proved the opposite. Being ripped and overweight with muscle makes you live longer.
That's just the problem--it didn't show anything about being extremely "heavy" and having a low BF%. You are conjecturing that such people skewed the results. The study controlled for activity level, so I'm not sure that skewing occurred. (The least skewed part of the results should be the part that applies to inactive people, because body builders will not be part of this group.)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 (Score:2)
If you do any kind of regular exercise for a long period of time, you may as well throw BMI out the window.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from the fact that even the summary says the study correct for physical activity, BMI is just weight normalized among height/gender. It may not be as good as body fat %, but its a load better then just weight. That said, BMI is still a good measure of the fat for the population. Your average person does a light amount of exercise. I'd say, the very active people are outmatched by the sedentary people. Given BMI accounts for the average, the sedentary people, who have a high fat:muscle ratio compared t
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since I started lifting weights 10 years ago, I went from underweight to obese on the BMI scale..
Problem is, your weight lifting program is the twelve ounce curl.
Okay, noob question time (Score:5, Insightful)
Then let me ask this. If slightly overweight seems to be healthy, then how was the "ideal" weight range determined?
Re:Okay, noob question time (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to science, things change based on new information.
We get a hypothesis, test it, and if it tests out we have a generally accepted theory. That theory is subject to change, someone reads its comes up with a new hypothesis and runs some more tests.
I can't answer your question specifically, but what probably happened was that the ideal range was determined based on information available at the time. Now there is new info.
There's an even chance that this will either shift the ideal range of BMI or place more emphasis on factors other than BMI. Maybe both.
Re:Okay, noob question time (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to science, things change based on new information.
We get a hypothesis, test it, and if it tests out we have a generally accepted theory. That theory is subject to change, someone reads its comes up with a new hypothesis and runs some more tests.
The problem is that folks are making life-changing decisions based on these theories. Doctors yell at us. TV "educates" us about what is acceptable. Then, something new comes along and says 'forget all that stuff, do this instead'. Doesn't take long before folks tune it out altogether.
For me, it was salt. Loved it. The more the better. Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all, unless you already have a heart condition, or family history. So basically I got duped into giving up something I enjoyed. Makes me more skeptical about the next scientific finding about my diet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, I just want to point out that without salt you would be dead. Back before it was easily available (which actually wasn't that long ago) salt was worth more than gold.
Salt is one of those things that has to be "just right". Not too much and not too little. The amount needed is different for everyone. Depends on how much you sweat, what you eat, your other electrolyte levels, if you are sick (fluid loss), etc. Tons of variables.
Personally I have to make sure I get enough salt, not too much. I make
Re:Okay, noob question time (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the common mistake of confusing 'media hysterics' with 'actual science'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By getting the professional opinion of a doctor or registered dietitian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, it was salt. Loved it. The more the better. Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all, unless you already have a heart condition, or family history. So basically I got duped into giving up something I enjoyed. Makes me more skeptical about the next scientific finding about my diet.
You have a point about the sort of science-reporting that media outlets engage in. One year, coffee is bad for you and eggs are good. 2 years later, coffee is good for your and eggs are bad. A year after that, coffee and eggs are both good for you.
But a fair amount of that isn't the fault of science, it's the fault of reporters. The truth is, things are rarely "good" or "bad", at least not completely and in all situations. Take your example of salt-- the science behind it really hasn't changed that mu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Alternatively, one could simply drink a glass or 2 of water, and rid themselves of the excess salt.
Kidneys are amazing things. It takes a hell of a lot of salt, or a very bad case of dehydration, to keep them from regulating your body's salt content.
Re:Okay, noob question time (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all...
In that case the problem isn't really the science, the problem is panic and making drastic decisions based on limited information.
The overall best advice for health has been moderation, its been that way for centuries:
- don't do too much hard work or you'll burn out and get injured
- don't sit around and do nothing, you need to move and use your body
- don't eat a lot of one thing, variety is good
- recognize things with negative effects and limit their use, if you ingest something that you react badly to, don't ingest it. More on this later
- remember that your body changes gradually. Pushing it too hard too fast, even in a healthy direction, is bad
- its YOUR body you have to take responsibility for it and understand what you do to it. If you don't entirely understand advice, ask more questions and do a bit of research and find out for yourself.
Identifying things with negative effects is what really gets people. Smoking is bad, your body coughing and having nic fits is a sign of distress. Having a few drinks and relaxing and laughing is good, being hungover is your body telling you "that was dumb, we're OK now but don't do it again".
Overeating and being dog tired isn't normal. Its OK once in a while, but usually you should be able to eat. Take a few minutes to let it all settle down, then have energy to go do stuff.
I guess the overall answer is to take unsolicited advice or to take drastic all-or-nothing actions with a GRAIN OF SALT (long setup on that one). Anyone suggesting that you radically alter your life in a short time span, is either taking urgent action to keep you from dying or full of shit and trying to gain power over you. I have a good relationship with my doctor and put him in the first category and most others in the latter. Even then, I make sure that the actions my doctor advises are backed up not just by the latest research, but solid foundations and long term common sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of listening to one's body. Pay attention to what you're craving, and what's in it. I agree, your body really does know what is best, and is screaming at you. You should listen.
BMI is Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
There's an even chance that this will either shift the ideal range of BMI or place more emphasis on factors other than BMI. Maybe both.
BMI is a stupid measure. IIRC, it was developed in the 1830's for some kind of sociology study, nothing to do with health, diet, etc.
Penn & Teller's BullSh*t has a good episode called "The Obesity Epidemic is Bullshit", which is currently on Netflix streaming. They make the point that Brad Pitt is overweight and George Clooney is obese, according to BMI. And this is what they base our insurance premiums on....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is no ideal weight range, only idea percentage of body fat.
Re:Okay, noob question time (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how it was determined, but I do know that my "ideal weight" (according to BMI) isn't my real ideal weight. A few years back, I seriously worked hard to lose weight. I went from 255 down to 173. At my height (5' 11"), BMI says that my ideal weight is 133 - 178.5. However, when I dropped below 180, people started telling me how I looked *too skinny.* (The first time I've been called that ever in my life.) Sure enough, my bones were showing way too much in my shoulders and face. So I intentionally put some weight back on. I determined that my ideal weight is about 185 - 190 so that's what I shoot for every time the pounds sneak back on*. According to BMI, I'm overweight, but I feel that I'm perfect weight-wise when I'm in that range.
*Fighting my weight is going to be a lifelong battle. I'm on the path to healthy eating, but old habits can sneak back into my life all too easily. I just need to recognize when they're beginning to do so and nip the weight gain in the bud.
Muscle Weighs more than Fat (Score:2)
BMI doesn't take into account fat vs muscle. It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs). Perhaps the effect they're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not going to say BMI is a horrible thing, but as a critical data point in a study like this it is far too inaccurate. Body fat percentage seems like a much better factor.
Results don't surprise me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds to me like the definition of "over-weight" is based on appearance instead of health.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Following that logic, people that look better just possess some quality that makes them more successful at reproducing offspring that themselves reproduce. Which is kind of a circular argument, but you get my point.
Living longer than it takes to raise your children to the point where they can raise their children would be pointless from an evolutionary standpoint.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Living longer than it takes to raise your children to the point where they can raise their children would be pointless from an evolutionary standpoint.
Naturally, humans don't live longer than it takes to raise offspring. It is our medicine and technology that enables us to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally, humans don't live longer than it takes to raise offspring. It is our medicine and technology that enables us to do so.
The natural human lifespan, barring death by disease or violence, seems to be about the Biblical "threescore and ten." Sure, life expectancies used to be a lot shorter than that, but it's not like healthy people routinely dropped dead of heart attacks as soon as their kids were out of the house; people died young for specific reasons, and those who dodged the various bullets (or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but it wasn't that long ago that women who are overweight now were once what was pretty. I'm honestly not sure what evolution tells me and what I was raised to admire.
This is great news... (Score:4, Funny)
Lies lies and statistics? (Score:2)
more likely to die! (Score:2)
The study showed that underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.
Wait... I'm confused... how is an underweight person 70 percent more likely to die than 100% of people dying. This... does not add up!
Or perhaps it is better to be extremely obese so as to have a higher chance of being immortal than skinny people?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That kind of survival statistic is always measured within some specified period of time, usually a year for this kind of study. So if, say, the annual death rate is 100 per 10,000 for people of normal weight (just pulling the number off the top of my head here), 170 per 10,000 for underweight people, and 136 per 10,000 for obese people, then the statement is correct.
Optional? (Score:2)
"But overweight individuals defined as a body mass index of 25 to 29.9 were 17 percent less likely to die than people of a normal weight defined as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9."
Man, now that I know dying is optional, I'll have to start eating more...
Seriously, does anybody ever actually pay attention to how they phrase this stuff?
Real conflict for Govt. Busybodies... (Score:2)
They've been working up to outlawing eating fattening foods-- you can see it in the research being funded and articles in the paper and magazines.
So now what? Force you to eat if you are underweight (70%??? Wow!)?
BMI is also a problem. I'm 268-- 6'5". My doc says I should be 235.
Problem is I have a six pack, visible veins sticking out on my arms and legs, and you can see individual muscle sections moving when I move. So I'm fairly lean.
But my BMI is high. I can lose weight- probably 25 pounds-- no one
Yeah, it's true (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are the exact weight you need to be, then you need to have a very well balanced diet, that includes all the nutrients you need in the proper proportions. Otherwise, obviously, you are going to be missing a few nutrients you need.
If you are a little overweight, it's not nearly as hard to have a balanced diet: you can have a higher percentage of carbohydrates and lower percentage of protein in your diet and still be ok, because you are eating more than you need of both. It is more flexible and easier, even if less attractive.
And don't forget to eat broccoli. You're going to have to eat a lot of beef and wheat and other foods to make up for the nutrients you are not getting in green vegetables. That can put you far overweight, especially as you age.
And misinterpreation ensues... (Score:5, Interesting)
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight. It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories. What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.
Intuitively, I agree with the point made here. From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations. Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.
Oh well. Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.
Poor perspective. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"They" say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than "normal" weight. Perhaps the reality is "they've" defined normal a little too low.
There's definitely some truth to that statement. In addition, there's a natural tendency for people to gain weight as they get older. In our youth obsessed culture thin=young=good, which may not actually be true.
I think the real reason having a little extra weight is beneficial is that it helps if you get seriously ill. If you are very sick, you might not be a
Canada (Score:2)
A little extra blubber keeps the Canucks from freezing. It's science.
I feel better (Score:2)
I must say that I usually feel better when I'm 2 or 3 kilos over the maximum weight that I may have according to the BMI 'norm.'
Are you sure they live longer.... (Score:4, Funny)
...or is it just that it takes longer for friends and family of the slightly overweight people to realize the fact they are still on the couch is not normal.
More data needed (Score:2)
I'd really like to see the curves, and not just the conclusions on this study.
This 1999 study by Calle et al. [ox.ac.uk] suggested that the optimum BMI is about 22-24. The new study summary says people with BMI 25 to 29.9 are less likely to die than people with B.M.I. 18.5 to 24.9.
The problem is that there's a huge difference between "18.5" (= way underweight) and "24.9" (around the optimum). That's just too large a data bin to be useful. It's too large to be able to tell if the new data contradicts the old da
WTF? (Score:2)
Why would the researchers be surprised by this? Jesus, you don't need to be in medicine (I'm not, but I am interested, and my Dad's a doctor) to easily know that a few extra pounds are good for you.
When people get sick, their body often turns cannibalistic; consuming itself to try and heal. If you have no extra weight, then your body will start consuming muscle tissue, and all the associated problems that brings.
By having some fatty tissue in excess of the ideal BMI, you provide yourself a reservoir of ener
So many Faults (Score:2)
Control (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions that they "controlled" for physical activity. Does that mean that they compared like for like? Fat couch potatoes with skinny ones, fat joggers with skinny ones? I'm not a statistician but it seems on the face of it there's a problem: Being overweight generally causes you to become less physically active, so comparing normal joggers to heavy joggers is comparing someone of high-normal fitness to an obese person who's extraordinarily fit (for their weight range). The comparison may not be fair because that extraordinarily fit person could have good genes to begin with.
That aside, people who are skinny are sometimes skinny for health related reasons: cancer, AIDS, drugs. Here it's not the fact that they're skinny which is the issue but their low weight is a symptom of health problems. A more complex take on that would be a person who has lost weight because they were ordered to by their doctor. They're diabetic or have high blood pressure. So yes, they've lost weight and are healthier than before, but still less healthy than the slightly overweight person whose doctor didn't make them lose weight because they didn't have metabolic syndrome. Again, the low weight would not be a cause of illness, but an (indirect) effect.
Also, if it's true that you tend to gain weight every year you remain alive, then people who live a long time are more likely to be overweight. Not because they're heavy but because they're still alive. And people who die prematurely young are more likely to be skinny, not because they're malnourished, but because they simply didn't live long enough for a slow metabolism to pack on the pounds.
More likely to die. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's nonsense.
Everyone dies.
They're asking the wrong questions, as usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken. And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. Which is medically dangerous quackery.
The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training. It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs. When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.
The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998. You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n. All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.
Because, dammit! those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!
Re:They're asking the wrong questions, as usual. (Score:4, Informative)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm [about.com]
Ummm (Score:3, Interesting)
1. This is old news.
2. They mean 20-30 lbs. overweight, not 100. I.e. the peak of the longevity Bell curve is about 20-40 pounds more than the supposed medically desirable weight. Then it goes back down again.
The guy giving the South Park kids a run for their money on WoW has a life expectancy significantly lower than the "normal" weight people, who are lower than the "overweight but not obese" people.
Cartman, however, remains doomed.
I thought we already knew this (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember reading a study like this something like 2 years ago. I don't think this is a new idea at all. As I recall, the conclusion of the one I read a while back was that people who are a little bit overweight tend to exercise more frequently than people who are at a normal weight in an effort to lose the extra weight, and the extra exercise gave them bonus health points. Basically, by constantly wanting to lose that extra 10 lbs, you improve your cardiovascular health in a way that far outweighs the negative impacts of carrying an extra 10 lbs.
It makes sense to me that people who are obese don't see the same advantages, because I imagine there is very little interest or incentive in getting out to exercise when you have such a long road to fitness in front of you. It also makes sense for obvious reasons that people who are naturally underweight or at a normal weight have less social pressure to get out and exercise.
Did they control for sick people? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which one is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
More calories or less?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction [wikipedia.org]
Calorie restriction refers to calories of food energy absorbed per day (rate of energy in). "Overweight" refers to accumulate body mass, in the form of fat (accumulation). You use fat at a rate determined by your physiology and physical activity (rate of energy out).
rate of energy in - rate of energy out = rate of accumulation
You can be fat and eat very few calories, or skinny and eat a lot of calories. If your rate in is equal to your rate out, you'll maintain your current weight, whatever that might be.
The study in TFA, however, is probably misleading to most of us because it's a critique of BMI, which only measures weight, not fat content. I know people who are very fit, not crazy body builders, and still considered overweight via BMI because they have too much muscle and not enough fat to match the index's expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Correlation =/= Causation. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you're feeling really smart now, having repeated the endless slashdot correlation does not prove causation meme. It's so great that every 14 year old slashdotter seems to know more about statistics than scientists do.
You're even closer to your "best of slashdot" award by not even reading the summary, or not knowing what "corrected for physical activity" means. But beware: the hundreds of "BMI is stupid because I'm not fat/It's all muscle/my bones are heavy" commenters are on your heels. It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat. But maybe, just maybe, all the geeks here are secret superheros.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
OP could have made it even better by demonstrating that in addition to knowing more about statistics than statisticians, he also knows more about climate change than climatologists, more about string theory than physicists, and more about evolution than biologists. Spelling out Obama's full name and giving a detailed explanation about types of birth certificates would have been good for bonus points, along with a complaint about the PC liberal media, and of course he could have made the whole thing perfect
Re:Correlation =/= Causation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately neither one does a good job of separating visceral fat from subcutaneous fat, and that's more important than being a bit chubby. I do carry a fair bit of fat, but very little of it is visceral, and I'm still within about 5lbs of what's ideal for a person of my build.
The BMI demanded weight of about 170 would definitely be detrimental to my health. BTW, last time I weighed myself I was roughly 189 and 5' 10.5, I don't feel well when I have gotten down under 180.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll forego using mod points on this thread to reply. I'll burn them off on some other topic.
It's surprising that there's not a single really overweight person commenting here, considering that 90% of overweight (by BMI) are simply fat.
I qualify by BMI (29.5, just shy of "obese") and by personal assessment (yes, I do look feel fat in this body right now). I was forced into a more sedentary life style 20 years ago and for many years I was obese by any standard, but I've shed more than 20 lbs from my heaviest weight. I am now reasonably fit, bicycling over 100 miles per week and self-training to do century ride in a month or so. I also do flat water
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you asked: I'm really overweight; BMI is bullshit. These two things are not related.
The idea that body shape is irrelevant in determining "ideal" weight is somewhat bizarre.
By the way, great job coming up with that 90% figure - it's fun to make shit up, isn't it?
Re:Correlation =/= Causation. (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.
Yeah, if you like bedsores [wikipedia.org] on your ass!
;)
There aren't enough details to decide but I could understand how being slightly overweight could be beneficial to women in particular. There's a reason why women like these [citizenarcane.com] and this [wikimedia.org] were considered the most attractive in antiquity. Chubby is coming back in style
Even today many guys like me prefer chubby women - they're softer to cuddle with, they tend to have bigger and more plump breasts, they're curvature is accentuated and their plumpness makes them look "cuter", they're better-equipped to have healthy babies, and (in my experience) they have more orgasms. The homos out there are aware of the popularity of "bears".
I'm glad that the starving, anorexic "heroin-chic" fad is going out the door. One can be fit and comfortable without having to go hungry or be unattractively obese. Vanity, like eating, is unattractive in excess.
Re:Correlation =/= Causation. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being a bit flame-batish, but I do have to agree. The "fashion industry" (or rather what a bunch of homosexual men and weird women) promotes a form of female beauty that's largely at odds with the ideal as found throughout most of human history.
A few months ago my wife and I were watching Some Like It Hot, and during the scene where Marilyn Munroe sings, my wife commented that according to modern fashions, she would be considered overweight, if not outright fat. It struck me right there that here is one of the most sensual women of the modern era in one of the sexiest scenes ever to be found in the movies (all praise Billy Wilder with putting up with her to make this film), and a pack of queers and freeky fashionistas have programmed into so many that having some seventeen year old girl with the figure of an eight year old boy is superior to the greatest sex goddess of modern times.
So, from all the guys who secretly fantasize about the golden age of Hollywood sexpots, here's a big "fuck you" to the fashion industry, truly the most perverse and vile aspect of modern media around.
Re: (Score:3)
i disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
what you describe as the ideal curvaceous woman is a man's idea of an attractive woman. a woman's idea of an attractive woman is not the same as a man's idea of an attractive woman. for whatever reason, a lot of women are very self-loathing. and no, its not the usual bogeyman we try to blame for our own behavior, "the media", its some sort of innate psychological thing. a lot of women really think the body of a prepubescent boy is the ideal female appearance for some reason
if you take a woman with a banging bod, subject her to constant attention from all men, she can still go home and look in the mirror and find something to criticize. and she does: she think's she's too fat
the fashion industry has no real power. the fashion industry is given power by the people who buy clothes: women. and there's a lot of self-loathing in the female world. a shame
In the words of the great philosopher (Score:4, Insightful)
No wait... That was Spinal Tap.
Re:Correlation =/= Causation. (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, I totally agree with your point. The fashion industry has promoted an unhealthy ideal for decades. So why did you have to ruin your post with the homophobia? I'm not doubting that there are tons of gays in fashion, I'm just saying that it's a huge homophobic leap to go from that to "teh homogays made wimmen hate themselves".
The guy who discovered Twiggy, the stick-figure prototype of the modern model, was hetero enough to have two kids with her. I know that doesn't prove anything, but still... are you sure that you're not full of shit?
I think you're dying to wear your Peter Pan costume to work tomorrow. And you know what? I hope one day you do give yourself permission to be who you really are. I'll support you in that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BMI is useful for 99.9% of the population.
People getting butthurt that they got a high BMI despite being "athletic and fit" are idiots.
Re:No survivors (Score:5, Funny)
That used to be true. Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century. 100% mortality rate. But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.
If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.
At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!
Re:No survivors (Score:5, Funny)
I would say everyone is 100% likely to die.
Speak for yourself. I plan on living forever.
So far, so good!
Re:BMI is a bad measure. (Score:4, Informative)
There's a big problem with the BMI. It's a quadratic aproximation to a cubic mesure. I.e. the body should be proportional to the cube of the height.
No, it most certainly shouldn't.
Cube square law.
Large humans cannot be scale models of small humans. Bone strength is proportional to the square of the linear dimension, not the cube. If you scale the skeleton up by a factor of X, the mass you hang on it had better scale up by no more than X^2. Check out Haldane's essay "On Being the Right Size [ucla.edu]"