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."

Comments

I'm not...

[gbulmash]

I'm not pigging out. I'm defending against Alzheimers and Parkinsons.

Brilliant!

Re:I'm not...

[Retric]

"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...

[BewireNomali]

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:I'm not...

[badasscat]

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, 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.

Re:I'm not...

[Knuckles]

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.

Re:I'm not...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Lower death rate?

[seanadams.com]

So, less than 100%?

Body Mass Index Not a Measure of Obesity

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Body Mass Index Not a Measure of Obesity

[Otter]

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:Body Mass Index Not a Measure of Obesity

[Volante3192]

BMI combined with a shred of common sense is a perfectly fine approximation of obesity.

Maybe it's common sense that needs to be taught in schools then.

The Times They Are A-Changin' ...

[foobsr]

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:Interesting!

[dpilot]

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.

Re:it aint complicated

[sam_handelman]

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.

Less EXCESS Deaths

[trongey]

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.

overweight vs obese vs underweight

[sentientbrendan]

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.