SubscribeOverweight Face Lower Death Risk?
Health research is a contradictory beast. In the same week as cancer being linked to body weight - another set of research comes out claiming there are certain diseases that overweight people are less likely to get than normal weight people.
Confused?
The NY Times covers the research.
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.
However, other experts pointed out that other pieces of research have different outcomes.
[...] other studies, including ones at Harvard, found that being obese or overweight increased a person’s risk for any of a number of diseases, including diabetes, heart disease and several forms of cancer. And, she added, excess weight makes it more difficult to move about and impairs the quality of life.
The last comment is helpful: mobility, cardiovascular fitness, functional strength - all help quality of life - whether you are "too-thin" or "too fat".
If people truly cared about mortality rates - then (for example) no-one would smoke.
More like this in Health · Nov 12, 2007
It seems to me that all of the research taken together indicates that there is no "silver bullet" for good health. As much as most of us would like to have a simple, easy, single thing that we could do to have great health, it just ain't so. Our bodies are so much more complicated than that. Good health is the sum total of all that we do -- eating right, exercising, managing stress, not smoking, living in a place with good air, etc.
ReplyThis study contradicts the last 70 years of research.
Also, overweight was defined as being less than 25 pounds overweight in this study. That would include most of the healthy range.
ReplyThe NYTimes article says this is a federal study. Well hello, the food processing industry lobbies Washington. Too many people taking up diets of whole foods affects the sales of highly processed foods. Will big business ever back off. No way.
ReplyI think we need to start worrying less about weight and more about HEALTHY EATING and EXERCISE. Who cares about weight? All I've ever really seen it do is intimidate and depress people. If all this research says anything-- it says don't freak out about weight-- worry about your health.
ReplyDidn't they just decide that being overweight DOESN'T make you more prone to get cancer?
I imagine being overweight would help you recover from illness since you have a bit more to lose. I've seen several friends go from "fluffy" to very thin due to chemo. If they'd been very thin to start with...yikes.
ReplyI would think that quality of life is a lot more important than just simply being alive. I'd rather be active and healthy for the majority of my life than inactive with a bunch of minor complaints (like arthritis and whatnot) for my whole life. I think Heather's right...we need to focus on exercise and eating right and not focus so much on the number on the scale.
ReplyThe discrepancies creep into these studies when some consider the weight of the person at the time they get ill, while others consider their weight when they are killed by the disease. In the vast majority of cases someone with, say, Alzheimer's, will lose a lot of weight in the closing stages of dying.
My grandmother, for example, weighed about 110kg from her 50s to her 70s, and developed Alzheimer's and diabeters. The last couple of years of her life she was down to around 55 kg and died at 49kg.
I have seen studies that literally consider only the weight at death as evidence of whether the death was weight related, completely disregarding the weightloss late in illness.
ReplySo overweight or normal weight people falls under the same category of lower death risk. That does not mean that they are more healthy though the death risk is lower. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight is what we should aim for.
ReplyLiving is a risk of death. I'm sick of all these studies because they never really benefit anyone. There only thing we know is to eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, lean meats, wear our seat belts and pray.
ReplyYou are over looking the obvious, most people who work out out and are athletic are over weight according to BMI. As a person who lifts weights I'm considered obese, with a BMI if 30.5, but my body fat is only 15 %. Who would you expect to live longer, an "obese" athlete with a low body fat, or a "normal" weight, skinny fat couch potato?
ReplyAbsolutely. What is the comment that has been made, "Don't get worked up about life, you won't get out of it alive." Especially with scientific studies--not that they don't serve a good and useful purpose--we focus so completely on the minutia that we forget life is about living and enjoying, and that health, the likelihood of imminent death, etc., should serve to prop up that enjoyment rather than replace it.
ReplyWith all the emphasis on obesity and it's deleterious effects on health,
the question of body size has been largely ignored. There is some data on
the shorter life span of sumo wrestlers, and on the increased morbidity and
mortality of football players, and how the bigger the player the higher the
risk. The recent studies of causes and prevention of cancer and the direct link
to body weight, does give some additional data. My feeling is this: Bulk is bad.
While a twenty or even thirty something person may feel 'great' with all their
Replystrength and fitness from their muscle mass, even though they deny the reality
of their high BMI, they do not appreciate the protective effects of youth. It may be possible to be a large, but not obese individual, but I believe it is a time bomb if one does not decrease their mass as they age. Studies have demonstrated that cardiac size and enlargement is
directly related to muscle mass,and cardiac muscle does not respond in the same "healthy" fashion as striated muscle to increased load forces The more mass the heart must supply with blood, the higher the risk of failure of the pumping mechanism .I believe this view will eventually have more data to support it.
Medicine and science will still be studying things while your life is ticking away We all have to make our own health and fitness decisions,often with
insufficient or constantly changing data. I hope we all choose wisely.
That is such an ignorant statement. Most athletes are considered obese according to BMI.
ReplyThis is true... football (north american, that is) is certainly an exception but if one were to collect all professional athletes from all sports, I would venture to say there wouldn't be too many "obese" ones. That said, BMI calculations are certainly not a valid predictor for those who are muscular.
ReplyDefine "bulk"? Are we talking strictly muscle (as in a 200 lbs/10% BF athlete) or the ex-high school football player who has a substantial BF % that lifts weights? By all accounts both may be considered "bulky", but surely one has a lower overall disease risk?
ReplyHi Mike!
ReplyAs I said in my original post, my concern is that BMI relates to obesity which by definition relates to excessive body fat. My concern is the (by BMI scale) individual who does not have enough fat to be obese, but has enough mass to be a high BMI. As I said, this area does not have much research that I am aware of, and I just suspect that this bulk will become problematic with aging and the loss of the protective factors of youth. I believe I explain one reason why this may be in my earlier comment.
Ummm... I think you need to clarify this, too. The heart is a muscle. Every time you exercise your body, you exercise your heart, too. If your body is getting stronger, then your heart is, too. I agree that a lazy, large body is harder for an unexercised heart to support, because it's a weak muscle ('non-exercised weak', not 'defective-weak'). But a strong, healthy heart should have no trouble pumping blood to a strong, healthy body, regardless of it's size.
ReplyI'm sorry if my language is too technical. The heart is 'cardiac' muscle. The voluntary muscles that are developed with exercise are 'striated' muscle. They do not respond the same to stressors. The heart was not designed to work better with increased size. It becomes more efficient with use up to a point. This may have to do with it's limiting blood supply which does not expand as the blood supply to the biceps for example. You have heard of a 'triple' bypass? That's because there are only three major blood vessels that supply the heart.
ReplyAs much as I wish your statements as to the relation of the heart to the body and it's ability to keep up with it's growth and strength were true, they are not. Like I originally said, this area has not been adaquately researched, but I believe from many perspectives including our evolutionary developement, that bulk is unhealthy. I'm sorry if this conflicts with your ingrained belief system, but hey, maybe I'm wrong :-)
I see... after reading the potential impact on cardiovascular health you stated in response to another post, I can see where that could be a logical conclusion. Do you think excess bulk would be confined to cardiac issues or might it have deleterious effects on other systems?
ReplyTo further my above post, Dr. J - I have to say that I used to find the BMI scale an absolute outrage. But when used for widespread studies, the vast majority of people who are a +30 BMI have a higher-than-desirable body fat percentage. BMI will always have its glaring limitations, but it fairly accurate over a broad-based population. If you get a chance, here's the abstract to a study that supports this:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/bjn/1991/00000065/00000002/art00006
In obese subjects the prediction formulas did slightly overestimated the BF%, but interestingly, the margin of error was no different than the margin you would see when using differing body composition methods.
ReplyHey Mike!
ReplyI don't know about other internal systems, possibly the kidney with excessive protein breakdown, maybe the respiratory system by limiting chest expansion, but of course it will affect the musculoskeletal system. The supporting bones, tendons, ligaments, etc have to be stressed. Up to a point, this is probably a good thing. Where is that point? Another thing I alluded to is our development as a species. What are our strengths for survival? As I see it, we have the advantage of a larger brain and we have the ability dissipate heat really well. Our 'weapons' and muscular strength may work when we try to kill each other, but against most predators and even non predators, our added muscle is just more 'steak' for them! We can chase down our prey, if we can fool them into running, but if they decide to test us in a fight, we don't have the claws or teeth to even handle much smaller opponents. That's part of why I think we evolved to be a smart, endurance oriented creature. Anyway, just some thoughts. We are all looking for answers, no?
You are completely off your rocker.
Dogs can run down a deer. Humans, gorillas, marmosets... No.
Our physical skill is in manual dexterity, ocular sensitivity (including depth perception) and quick lateral movements.
Replyhttp://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us
ReplyEndurance, sure, but not to run. Our labors built cities and great machines, but we are not nature's runners.
We're just not a very horizontally arranged beast. Pumping the arms for balance is a waste of energy, if those arms aren't also touching the ground and pushing off (as in four-leggeds). Our legs take all the beating, while the arms push air.
The four-leggeds can also use their spine as a spring, having it attached to the ground both fore and aft, via the limbs. The tail then balances this springiness, with contra-movement. Meanwhile, our spine serves as more dead weight.
Watch a gazelle running, then watch a human jogger. Which one looks more in their element? And which one looks like a complete dork? I rest my case.
But if you need more proof, here is a gazellle vs. A.C. Slater:
Replyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srs7ANKsTUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HDGWUzggHU
Thanks for that Doc! Very interesting insight.
ReplyStraw man
ReplyThe straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished.
Oh no! My muscular body is ruining my cardiac health. That's why I have a resting heart rate of 57... because I"m two steps from heart failure. My marathon running has been in vain!
Please cite your studies, instead of just saying medicine and science is the source. There are a lot of contradictory sources out there to just claim one as the absolute, and I prefer to see the structure of the study, and all that-- it really makes a difference. The studies I have seen ENCOURAGE maintaining muscle mass as you age to maintain health.
ReplyI'm still going with my original theory that muscle mass=good mass, fat mass=bad mass. My grandfather died early due largely to his weight. He had 4 heart attacks in his lifetime (the first was mild, the second required quintuple bypass, the third required an angioplasty, and the fourth one killed him). After each attack, his doctor told him to try and lose some weight (he weighed over 300 lbs), cut back on saturated fat and cholesterol, and try to exercise. But he figured "I'm going to die sometime, so why stop eating what I like?" He developed diabetes and glaucoma and he suffered mini strokes after his third heart attack that severely compromised his quality of life. When he died at age 67, my grandma got really depressed because she didn't expect to be a widow so soon. She went to the doctor because she was having problems walking and they told her she should get a hip replacement because of her arthritis. Once she healed from that, she started walking a LOT and doing strength training. She actually gained some weight but went down 2 sizes and has never felt better in her life. So I'm pretty sure it's not just weight, but how much muscle you have that affects your quality of life when you're older.
And while I don't really think humans were built for chasing down their prey, they are built for walking long distances to hunt/gather food with the occasional need to run away from predators. So we are built to be active and lightweight...not like, say, a rhinoceros that doesn't need to really run from anything.
ReplyI agree that there is alot of contradictory information out there. For example,should we rely on the BMI as indicator of ideal weight? Or is keeping to the "right" number of calories the way to go? Is popping diet pills safe? The human body is highly complex and one method may work for one, but not for another. Hence, I always believe in moderation and keeping to the basic philosophy of keeping my metablism high, eating only what I need, sticking to high fibre foods that are low in simple sugars and healthy plant oils. i do however eat fish and lean meat (mostly chicken).
ReplyMarathon runners aren't muscular...
I just saw the Philly marathon yesterday and I didn't see many muscular people.
But I believe we should all try to put on as much muscle as possible and crush the trolling Dr.J
ReplyUmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am a marathon runner. I am muscular. I work hard at both.
Reply