Being Slightly Overweight May Lead To Longer Life

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.'"

Comments

BMI Is not a Good Measure

[MarkPNeyer]

Someone with a high BMI might be overweight - or they might be in really good shape and have lots of muscle. Just something to think about.

Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

BMI is a heuristic. If you follow it slavishly, you'll paint yourself into a corner case.

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

[piojo]

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

[Geoffrey.landis]

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

[Thaelon]

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.

BMI is only popular because it is a simple number with a simple scale that can be easily calculated and interpreted by simple people.

Okay, noob question time

[MyLongNickName]

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

[NevarMore]

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

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:Okay, noob question time

[MrMista_B]

You're making the common mistake of confusing 'media hysterics' with 'actual science'.

Results don't surprise me.

[Dog-Cow]

Sounds to me like the definition of "over-weight" is based on appearance instead of health.

Yeah, it's true

[phantomfive]

As someone who has been extremely underweight (body fat percentage down to 3.4%), 50 pounds overweight, and also a track runner in good shape, I can agree with this. Underweight is by FAR the worse: you feel absolutely horrible because your body doesn't have the nutrients you need to rebuild your body and keep it in good shape. It took me years to completely recover from that. There is nothing worse than waking up in the morning and feeling just as bad as when you went to bed because your body hasn't been able to repair itself in the night.

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.

Re:But it's in CANADA

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Correlation =/= Causation.

[matt4077]

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.

Poor perspective.

[Jason1729]

"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.

Re:Correlation =/= Causation.

[MightyMartian]

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.

More likely to die.

[mtxf]

extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die

That's nonsense.

Everyone dies.

i disagree

[circletimessquare]

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

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'.

No wait... That was Spinal Tap.

Re:But it's in CANADA

[badasscat]

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:BMI is worthless

[blueskies]

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:BMI is worthless

[ImOnlySleeping]

Not only does BMI not account for muscle, it doesn't account for width. A wider (shoulder width, not stomach width) person will weigh more.