Slashdot Mirror
Causes of Death Linked To Weight
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."
I'm not pigging out. I'm defending against Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Brilliant!
Start a happiness pandemic
So, less than 100%?
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.
This is my sig.
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.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The /really/ old people, in addition to being skinny, are usually also short.
At 6'4" I take this personally as a bad sign.
On the other hand, there's some guy who's trying to achieve longevity through calorie restriction. Only problem is that he's cut his diet back so far that he doesn't have the energy to enjoy normal activities. He may live a long time, but he won't have much fun doing so. I'd like to live as long as I can live well, and so far in my 50's I can do all of the things I enjoy.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Just remember that the average height in the Western world has gone up significantly in the last century due to better nutrition. A lot of the really old people who are really short also didn't get the best quality, variety, or quantity of food when they were growing up, which is a contributing factor to their shortness.
I bet you the average height of men 80 or older has gone up at least 3 inches in the last 30-40 years. By the time you'd be 80, who knows where it will be?
Start a happiness pandemic
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!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
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.
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.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
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...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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.