Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

31 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. BMI Is not a Good Measure by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    My blog
    1. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.

      BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.

      (and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by piojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish they had analyzed body fat percentage, in addition to BMI. The two numbers together could yield much more specific information.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    3. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by MrCrassic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Body fat calculators are free, and correlate body weight to body type significantly better than BMI does.

    4. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better test would be to see how long it takes you to get winded screwing at a medium pace.

      Are we talking Torx, phillips, flathead, or something else? I know I get breathless just thinking about it...

    5. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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").

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    6. Re:BMI Is not a Good Measure by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Crossfit type workouts can give a good measure of several metrics, but it isn't exactly easy to quantify.

      I think what you refer to in your example is less a case of measuring fitness than it is measuring performance in some extremely specialized circumstances where the difference between first and last isn't all that much. Lance Armstrong wasn't a great runner despite being a great cyclist, but he is probably far better than most other non-runners. Just like Robbie McEwen can't match Armstrong in the Alps but would crush him in the last 100 meters of the flats.

      When I was in the USMC we did a lot of 'fitness' stuff and everyone was more or less in pretty good shape. When I went to sniper school there were some physical requirements that were different and others that were under more scrutiny. That made obvious what were previously undetectable differences. Two guys could finish a run side by side but one of them would be so taxed he couldn't steady his rifle, despite both having first class PT scores. After I was discharged I worked more on strength than anything else and when I got back into competitive shooting I immediately noticed the difference. Hard to say which constitutes 'fitter', benching 325 or being able to march all day with a full pack and a 16 lb rifle.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  2. Okay, noob question time by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then let me ask this. If slightly overweight seems to be healthy, then how was the "ideal" weight range determined?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Okay, noob question time by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Okay, noob question time by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      The problem is that folks are making life-changing decisions based on these theories. Doctors yell at us. TV "educates" us about what is acceptable. Then, something new comes along and says 'forget all that stuff, do this instead'. Doesn't take long before folks tune it out altogether.

      For me, it was salt. Loved it. The more the better. Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all, unless you already have a heart condition, or family history. So basically I got duped into giving up something I enjoyed. Makes me more skeptical about the next scientific finding about my diet.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Okay, noob question time by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Okay, noob question time by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all...

      In that case the problem isn't really the science, the problem is panic and making drastic decisions based on limited information.

      The overall best advice for health has been moderation, its been that way for centuries:
        - don't do too much hard work or you'll burn out and get injured
        - don't sit around and do nothing, you need to move and use your body
        - don't eat a lot of one thing, variety is good
        - recognize things with negative effects and limit their use, if you ingest something that you react badly to, don't ingest it. More on this later
        - remember that your body changes gradually. Pushing it too hard too fast, even in a healthy direction, is bad
        - its YOUR body you have to take responsibility for it and understand what you do to it. If you don't entirely understand advice, ask more questions and do a bit of research and find out for yourself.

      Identifying things with negative effects is what really gets people. Smoking is bad, your body coughing and having nic fits is a sign of distress. Having a few drinks and relaxing and laughing is good, being hungover is your body telling you "that was dumb, we're OK now but don't do it again".

      Overeating and being dog tired isn't normal. Its OK once in a while, but usually you should be able to eat. Take a few minutes to let it all settle down, then have energy to go do stuff.

      I guess the overall answer is to take unsolicited advice or to take drastic all-or-nothing actions with a GRAIN OF SALT (long setup on that one). Anyone suggesting that you radically alter your life in a short time span, is either taking urgent action to keep you from dying or full of shit and trying to gain power over you. I have a good relationship with my doctor and put him in the first category and most others in the latter. Even then, I make sure that the actions my doctor advises are backed up not just by the latest research, but solid foundations and long term common sense.

  3. Results don't surprise me. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  4. This is great news... by jeffliott · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I have an excuse to not lose those "extra pounds" my wife has been complaining about!

  5. Yeah, it's true by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Qxe4
  6. And misinterpreation ensues... by MrCrassic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification. See, the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits (or lots of drinking), inactivity or a combination of both.

    It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight. It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories. What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.

    Intuitively, I agree with the point made here. From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations. Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.

    Oh well. Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.

  7. Re:Correlation =/= Causation. by matt4077 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Poor perspective. by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  9. Re:Correlation =/= Causation. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As long as you had food, water, and pr0n you could live forever on your computer chair.

    Yeah, if you like bedsores on your ass!

    There aren't enough details to decide but I could understand how being slightly overweight could be beneficial to women in particular. There's a reason why women like these and this were considered the most attractive in antiquity. Chubby is coming back in style ;)

    Even today many guys like me prefer chubby women - they're softer to cuddle with, they tend to have bigger and more plump breasts, they're curvature is accentuated and their plumpness makes them look "cuter", they're better-equipped to have healthy babies, and (in my experience) they have more orgasms. The homos out there are aware of the popularity of "bears".

    I'm glad that the starving, anorexic "heroin-chic" fad is going out the door. One can be fit and comfortable without having to go hungry or be unattractively obese. Vanity, like eating, is unattractive in excess.

  10. Re:But it's in CANADA by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not that bad. The igloo I grew up in, in Edmonton, worked pretty good at insulating us against the cold.

    I remember coming in off the ice-flow, after spending the day hunting sea-lions for food and fuel-oil, the igloo was so warm I had to pretty much strip off all my clothing.

    But now that I've moved to Vancouver, where we've got these new-fangled things called 'houses', I find that I'm expected to remain mostly clothed both indoors and out. And my snowmobile only is useful a couple days a year.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  11. Re:Correlation =/= Causation. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. Re:No survivors by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Funny

    That used to be true. Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century. 100% mortality rate. But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.

    If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.

    At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!

  13. Re:But it's in CANADA by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The ignorance of some humor is just shocking!

    Of course Canadians have cars and central heating. How else would they get to and stay warm in their yurts? Although the heating is a tricky business for those who live in igloos, but they're just a smaller portion of the population. Only about 35% or so.

  14. Re:Correlation =/= Causation. by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And how do you know which is which? The BMI is not meant to be used in the fashion that you're suggesting, percent body fat is. While percent body fat isn't the end all be all, it is a fair measure, and it does a pretty damn fine job of it too.

    Unfortunately neither one does a good job of separating visceral fat from subcutaneous fat, and that's more important than being a bit chubby. I do carry a fair bit of fat, but very little of it is visceral, and I'm still within about 5lbs of what's ideal for a person of my build.

    The BMI demanded weight of about 170 would definitely be detrimental to my health. BTW, last time I weighed myself I was roughly 189 and 5' 10.5, I don't feel well when I have gotten down under 180.

  15. They're asking the wrong questions, as usual. by taustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken. And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. Which is medically dangerous quackery.

    The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training. It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs. When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.

    The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998. You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n. All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.

    Because, dammit! those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!

    1. Re:They're asking the wrong questions, as usual. by changedx · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002."
      http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm

  16. i disagree by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. Re:But it's in CANADA by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not so fast. As a guy who has married into a Canadian family (hailing from Vancouver, to be specific), I have had quite a re-education as to how bad the Canadian Health Care system is. I, like many other Americans, bought into the idea of how great Canada's Health Care System was, but I have been taught that this is absolutely not the case. I've learned this from many family members and friends. I've read many articles and stories like this one that paint a very different picture than the rosy one I had heard about before.

  18. Re:No survivors by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would say everyone is 100% likely to die.

    Speak for yourself. I plan on living forever.

    So far, so good!

  19. Re:BMI is worthless by blueskies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:BMI is worthless by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    Big deal. I have 3 cases in the fridge right now.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.