Modestly Overweight Linked To Lower Death Risk

I just read this in the NY Times. Maybe I should go off my diet?:rolleyes:

“I believe the data,” said Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. A body mass index of 25 to 30, the so-called overweight range, “may be optimal,” she said.

Unfortunately, the next paragraph refutes this:

Others said there were plenty of reasons that being overweight was not desirable.
“Health extends far beyond mortality rates,” said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Manson added that 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.
“That’s the big picture in terms of health outcomes,” Dr. Manson said. “That’s what the public needs to look at.”

Win some. Lose some. :confused:
 
I just read this in the NY Times. Maybe I should go off my diet?:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the next paragraph refutes this:
I don't think this refutes anything. These objections are just “My two cents” type of comments, from people with no familiarity with the data. Mortality rate has one huge advantage over all other endpoints- it is definite and easily measurable. Quality of life is the opposite. For many, their quality of life would be hugely improved by not having to starve themselves every day, or needing to spend 2 hours sweating in the gym.

The weakness in this study is more how the BMI is derived- i.e. with shoes or without, if with, how much heel; naked or wearing clothes, and if wearing clothes, what clothes? What season of the year?

Then we have the whole problem of BMI- what is it really measuring? Clearly it measures something meaningful if averaged over many people. I say this because they got results- the groups were differentiated.

Go back 100 years and people were far more likely to fear being underweight than overweight. Possibly in part because it was a marker for TB. If infections and other non-cancer, non-CVD illnesses are once again becoming more important contributors to mortality, a bit of extra weight might be helping survival in these conditions. It would be interesting to know what caused the excess deaths in the underweight group. It would also be interesting to know if deaths soon after a subject was enrolled were tossed out. My thinking here is that advanced illness could easily cause weight loss. The fact that cancer was not a part of underweight excess mortality to some degree argues against this interpretation of the data.

Ha
 
I heard that report on the news last night. :)

".....risk of death from all causes was significantly lower in overweight people compared to normal weight, and significantly higher in the underweight and obese."

Hot d*mn!!! Pass the pizza!! :D

I've been moderately overweight for about 30 years (+ or -), and I've always been healthy as a horse. I eat a fairly healthy diet....lots of fruit and veggies, but also get my weekly bacon & eggs 'fix, and my cheeseburger 'fix'. I've dieted and kept physically active, but then felt fairly yucky, and thus went back to my normal eating habits (while staying physically active). Never lost a significant amount.....never gained a significant amount, dieting or not. My pants size has stayed the same for years! Which is good because I'm too cheap to have to go out and buy a new wardrobe! If they begin to get a little snug, I adjust my 'hand-to-mouth' exercising until they're fitting comfortably again

So I guess I'll stay where I am to keep my risk of death lower! ;)
 
It's no different than the studies touting the health benefits of drinking. They always have to pour cold water on it by stating that the risks in other ways outnumber the benefits found in this study.

Bottom line, IMO, is everything in moderation.
 
Back
Top Bottom