Being Overweight Reduces Dementia Risk

jones_supa writes Being overweight cuts the risk of dementia, according to the largest and most precise investigation into the relationship (abstract). The researchers were surprised by the findings, which run contrary to current health advice. The team at Oxon Epidemiology and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine analyzed medical records from 2 million people aged 55 on average, for up to two decades. Their most conservative analysis showed underweight people had a 39% greater risk of dementia compared with being a normal healthy weight. But those who were overweight had an 18% reduction in dementia, and the figure was 24% reduction for the obese. Any explanation for the protective effect is distinctly lacking. There are some ideas that vitamin D and E deficiencies contribute to dementia and they may be less common in those eating more. Be it any way, let's still not forget that heart disease, stroke, diabetes, some cancers and other diseases are all linked to a bigger waistline. Maybe being slightly overweight is the optimum to strike, if the recent study is to be followed.

Comments

Easy explanation

[jawtheshark]

Easy explanation: They die before they develop dementia...

Re:Easy explanation

[Mr D from 63]

This explains why we never see fat serial killers in movies.

Re:Easy explanation

[tie_guy_matt]

Right accept that people who are overweight or mildly obese actually live longer:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt...

Re:Easy explanation

[ShanghaiBill]

Easy explanation: They die before they develop dementia...

Another easy explanation is that the causation goes the other way: People with dementia are less likely to gain weight. There could be many reasons they eat less: less cravings, less ability to prepare food, less social interaction at meals, or just forgetting to eat. They are also more likely to smoke, which reduces appetite.

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you saying that correlation implies causation? Or that causation implies correlation? Or that there's a correlation between causation and correlation? Or that there's a causation between correlation and causation?

Re:Easy explanation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Another easy explanation is that the causation goes the other way: People with dementia are less likely to gain weight.

Well, that would work if they studied people with dementia to determine their weight, instead of studying people without dementia, then waiting nine years to see if they developed dementia...

Re:Easy explanation

[pepty]

Our cohort of 1958191 people from UK general practices had a median age at baseline of 55 years (IQR 45–66) and a median follow-up of 91 years (IQR 63–126). Dementia occurred in 45507 people, at a rate of 24 cases per 1000 person-years. Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI 40 kg/m2) having a 29% lower (95% CI 22–36) dementia risk than people of a healthy weight. These patterns persisted throughout two decades of follow-up, after adjustment for potential confounders and allowance for the J-shape association of BMI with mortality.

Re:Easy explanation

[pigiron]

Correlation may imply causation. This inspires scientists to develop testable hypotheses that might prove or disprove a connection between the correlated data.

Re:Easy explanation

[Ol Olsoc]

Easy explanation: They die before they develop dementia...

I've seen my relatives die from dementia, heart attacks and cancer.

Believe me, to die before you get dementia is preferable. I know one "happy" dementia patient. The others were either angry or criers. Living ten years longer isn't worth it if you spend it without a functioning brain.

Go visit a nursing home if you want to see the results of our extended lifespan.

Don't forget your maintenance meds now!

Re:Easy explanation

[Ol Olsoc]

Another easy explanation is that the causation goes the other way: People with dementia are less likely to gain weight. There could be many reasons they eat less: less cravings, less ability to prepare food, less social interaction at meals, or just forgetting to eat. They are also more likely to smoke, which reduces appetite.

Problem with that explanation is that most obese people are obese for a log time, ans being slender doesn't mean you are already demented.

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Right accept that people who are overweight or mildly obese actually live longer:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt...

I like how the article you linked to already has a refutation of this claim within it.

One of the experts who takes issue with Flegal's conclusions is epidemiologist Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health. He has read her new paper and says he's not buying it.

"This study is really a pile of rubbish, and no one should waste their time reading it," he says.

Willett says it's not helpful to look simply at how body mass indexes, or BMIs, influence the risk of premature death, as this paper did, without knowing something about people's health or fitness. Some people are thin because they're ill, so of course they're at higher risk of dying. The study doesn't tease this apart.

Also, he says the analysis doesn't address the bigger, more important issues of quality of life. If an overweight person does live longer — is he or she living with chronic diseases?

"We have a huge amount of other literature showing that people who gain weight or are overweight have increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, many cancers and many other conditions," Willett says.

Re:Easy explanation

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, that would work if they studied people with dementia to determine their weight, instead of studying people without dementia, then waiting nine years to see if they developed dementia...

Dementia doesn't work that way. It is not like the flu, where you are just fine until you "catch" it. Dementia creeps up on you. So even nine years earlier, there were almost certainly already behavior differences that would be amplified as the disease progressed. School essays written decades earlier, by people that latter suffered from dementia, are less creative and more likely to be just a list of statements, with less emotion and self-reflection. So it is likely that eating habits could also be affected years before the symptoms become obvious.

Re:Easy explanation

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Too much blind guessing. Here's the correct answer.

The error everyone makes in assuming that because it's bad for heart disease, it's bad for everything.

Obesity is a problem primarily because of cardiovascular reasons, like heart attack and stroke. Otherwise it's loaded with nutrition and calories. This probably explains why "overweight" (though not obese) are the longest-lived segment of society. Thinner people are running more on empty, leading to under-performing immune systems and healing.

That's where I'd start to look anyway.

And on top of all this, high fat content is known to help neurons function in cases with epilepsy, so again it's not a surprise here.

Re:Easy explanation

[TWX]

You have no idea how relieved I am that the oldest generations in my family and in my wife's family that we have personally known have lived functionally on their own into their eighties until their deaths at home in the case of my side, and are still alive at home in the case of my wife's side. None of them fell into complete dementia. That isn't to say that there hasn't been a small degree of low-grade dementia, but nothing like those that have been effectively committed and are under 24/7 managed care like the old-folks homes have to deal with.

It makes me hopeful for my parents, my wife, and myself that we'll live out our days essentially functional.

Re:Easy explanation

[ShanghaiBill]

Go visit a nursing home if you want to see the results of our extended lifespan.

Selection bias. The people in the nursing home are not a random sample, but mostly the people worst off.

Re:Easy explanation

[sconeu]

Or in other words..... CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

As has been pointed out many, many times in other discussions.

Re:Easy explanation

[Ol Olsoc]

Go visit a nursing home if you want to see the results of our extended lifespan.

Selection bias. The people in the nursing home are not a random sample, but mostly the people worst off.

Oh great whooshy whooshes for ridiculous levels of whooshieness. If I need to spell it out to you, there are living situations that are much worse than death.

And of course, one of the best places to see people suffering from dementia is in your "selection bias" place, a nursing home. Because that's where they tend to end up. And if we lessen the other causes of death, then all that does is increase the likelyhood of dementia. Or do you figure that we are going to live forever now?

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

I've begun to believe that discussions about data are a direct cause of the quotation "correlation does not equal causation".

But I can't prove it yet...

Re:Easy explanation

[QRDeNameland]

Another easy explanation is that the causation goes the other way: People with dementia are less likely to gain weight. There could be many reasons they eat less: less cravings, less ability to prepare food, less social interaction at meals, or just forgetting to eat. They are also more likely to smoke, which reduces appetite.

One such hypothesis that reverses the causation is that obesity and dementia could be different responses to the same or similar underlying disturbance.

Obesity and dementia (both vascular and Alzheimer's) are strongly correlated with metabolic syndrome, along with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and many cancers. The conventional wisdom is that obesity causes the metabolic syndrome and the other ensuing conditions in the obese, but does not explain how the same problems occur in lean people as well.

With diabetes, for example, there is significant evidence that shows that although the obese are far more likely to develop Type II diabetes than the lean, the lean people that do get it have worse mortality than obese people with the same condition. And here we see a similar correlation showing obesity as being "protective" against a another chronic illness strongly correlated to metabolic syndrome, which is essentially defined as disturbed insulin response.

So one possibility is that the initial condition is the disturbed insulin response, which in most people will result in obesity but some not. Those who do become fat could be staving off the later consequences of metabolic syndrome for a time (first is usually diabetes and hypertension, later heart disease, dementia, etc.), where those who don't fatten start developing those consequences earlier.

So what causes the disturbed insulin response? Robert Lustig would say sugar, Gary Taubes would say sugar and refined starch, Campbell/Esselstyn et al. would say meat/animal products, others will cling to the old tautological standby of 'too many calories', and still others hypothesize a prominent role for things like chemicals in the environment and antibiotics. But regardless of what causes metabolic syndrome/insulin dysfunction, the fact virtually all of what are often described as the 'chronic diseases of civilization' are associated with it suggests that the progression of these diseases, though they manifest differently in different individuals, could be tied to a single cause or group of causes.

Re:Easy explanation

[David_Hart]

Too much blind guessing. Here's the correct answer.

The error everyone makes in assuming that because it's bad for heart disease, it's bad for everything.

Obesity is a problem primarily because of cardiovascular reasons, like heart attack and stroke. Otherwise it's loaded with nutrition and calories. This probably explains why "overweight" (though not obese) are the longest-lived segment of society. Thinner people are running more on empty, leading to under-performing immune systems and healing.

That's where I'd start to look anyway.

And on top of all this, high fat content is known to help neurons function in cases with epilepsy, so again it's not a surprise here.

There was also a study of elderly done a while back, I think that it was on 60 minutes, that found that elderly people who were a bit overweight tended to live longer. One of the possible reasons was that when they got sick, injured, etc. they had body reserves that would help them heal and get better.

Re:Easy explanation

[AchilleTalon]

Anyway, what's the point of living longer because you are skinny and 'healthy' but unaware of your last 20 years because you got dementia?

Re:Easy explanation

[AchilleTalon]

BTW, I should say that the medical profession in my country and province, yep Quebec, Canada, is asking the government to legalize euthanasia for patients with dementia without any other legal authorization -since these patients cannot agree or not with their own life termination- in order to reduce healthcare costs and grab an hand on what these will leave behind depending if they have family or not. So, at the end, it will be totally pointless to make any efforts to live longer. They don't want you as soon as you are no longer productive and require some healthcare you have paid for you entire life.

Re:Easy explanation

[radarskiy]

... which is already refuted in the abstract, since they measured BMI at the beginning of the study not the end.

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Any more info on the "School essays written decades earlier, by people that latter suffered from dementia, are less creative and more likely to be just a list of statements, with less emotion and self-reflection." part you mentioned? Like links?

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Go visit a nursing home if you want to see the results of our extended lifespan.

Selection bias. The people in the nursing home are not a random sample, but mostly the people worst off.

About 50% of people over 95 in the USA are in nursing homes right now.
Those over 85 have a 50% chance of ending up in a nursing home.
It's hard to call "selection bias" when it's half of who we're talking about, which is to say "those with extended life spans"

Re:Easy explanation

[ShanghaiBill]

Any more info on the "School essays written decades earlier ...? Like links?

Here you go.

From the reference: it was found that an essay's lack of linguistic density (e.g., complexity, vivacity, fluency) functioned as a significant predictor of its author's risk for developing Alzheimer's disease in old age. ... Roughly 80% of nuns whose writing was measured as lacking in linguistic density went on to develop Alzheimer's disease in old age; meanwhile, of those whose writing was not lacking, only 10% later developed the disease. Overall, findings of the Nun Study suggest "that traits in early, mid, and late life have strong relationships with the risk of Alzheimer's disease, as well as the mental and cognitive disabilities of old age."

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in other words..... CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

As has been pointed out many, many times in other discussions.

And what does that have to do with this study?
I'm not joking.
Why do you think the statement "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION" has anything to do with this study?

Re:Easy explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what it says, I do question whether nuns are representative enough of the population.

The Nun Study's latest published findings offer similarly provocative ideas about how positive emotional state in early life may contribute to living longer. Experts say linking positive emotions in the autobiographies to longer life echoes other studies showing that depression increases risk of cardiovascular disease and that people rated as optimists on personality tests were more likely than pessimists to be alive 30 years later.

The findings also raise questions like, What underlies the positive emotions?

"How much of this is temperament?" Dr. Suzman said. "How much of it is affected by life events and critical relationships with parents, friends, teachers, peers?"

Dr. Snowdon is quick to agree with other experts who say his conclusions need to be corroborated by other studies. There are limitations to the autobiographies, for instance, since the nuns knew a mother superior would see their writing and therefore may not have been totally candid.

Interesting read. But with news like http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83029939/ there's hope.

Also, I wonder if someone could get that May 2001 article posted on Slashdot.

Re:Easy explanation

[jafac]

Well, from my admittedly "selection-biased" perspective, I *do* know some elderly people. Yes, the ones with dementia are quite miserable. The ones who get into a really severe state, generally don't "last" more than a year. (thankfully). I also know a couple of elderly people (in their 90's) (and, I've had some relatives, as well, up in their late-90's) who are totally mentally sharp. They have hobbies, activities, and some health problems, but nothing horrible. I don't even know how people like this die. :)

I've also known a couple of guys who, in their 70's, got cancer . . .
And I've known a couple of people who suffered from strokes, and heart problems.

Unfortunately, strokes and heart problems can lead to dementia SYMPTOMS. (until the heart just quits, of course). Take care of your ticker, and your blood pressure.

Of all these; I'd say cancer was probably the easier death.

But my first choice is "none of the above, and have a happy, full-life into my 90's". Whether I have any friends or family or not.

Dementia would be last on my list of "ways to go peacefully". Maybe 2nd to last, because ALS fucking sucks too. (just ask Stephen Hawking).

Re:Easy explanation

[Ol Olsoc]

death.

But my first choice is "none of the above, and have a happy, full-life into my 90's". Whether I have any friends or family or not.

Dementia would be last on my list of "ways to go peacefully". Maybe 2nd to last, because ALS fucking sucks too. (just ask Stephen Hawking).

My first choice is to live to 200 as a 30 year old. But of course, that's not going to happen.

Second choice is to pass on with my dignity intact.

mode of death

[Anonymous Coward]

diabetes, heart failure, stroke & cancer are all better deaths than alzheimer's(or any of the neurodegenerative illnesses)

Re:mode of death

[beelsebob]

Yep, way too much focus is put on living a long time, and no where near enough on actually having some quality of life. Dying with dementia (or living with it) is honestly my worst fear.

Re: mode of death

[erebus2161]

I've got to disagree with you there chief. Dementia and Alzheimer's might seem terrible from the outside, but I bet it isn't that bad on the inside. Cancer on the other hand is pretty terrible. Diabetes isn't a cake walk either. And all four of those conditions can kill you decades before a neurodegenerative disease is likely to strike. I'd much rather die at 90 from Alzheimer's than at 40 from a heart attack. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for spending money on neurodegenerative diseases. I'd just like to live long enough to benefit.

Re:mode of death

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I dunno. With Alzheimer's, you lose your ability to create short term memories, but your long term memories remain intact. One sufferer quipped, "I get to meet someone new every day!" So the question is, do dementia sufferers even realize, that they have dementia . . . ?

A relative recently died of terminal lung cancer. She suffered in pain for a year, and knew that there was no hope. Now THAT really sucked. I'm wondering if I was bat-shit crazy, if I would even have the sense to know that I was definitely going to die in pain, really soon. Just pump me up with pain killers, and let me dream away the last days, in a sea of opiates . . .

Re: mode of death

[pepty]

but I bet it isn't that bad on the inside.

Except that for many people they are very aware of what's happening and what they are losing. They are intensely angry and frustrated when they lose the ability to verbalize all (or part) of what they are thinking and then it gets worse when they can no longer hold onto the complete thought. Plus as they lose executive function it is harder to control that anger and frustration. Sure, some folks have a stroke and seem to enter a second childhood, but for many it's a living hell of isolation from everyone you know - including yourself.

Re: mode of death

[Ol Olsoc]

I've got to disagree with you there chief. Dementia and Alzheimer's might seem terrible from the outside, but I bet it isn't that bad on the inside.

You need to visit a nursing home some time. Where my mother in law was housed had lots of dementia patients. A lot of them cried all the time, some were angry - in at least one case, the fellow was violent, and they eventually had to send him to a more restrictive facility. Anyhow my mother in law was a crier, I can't imagine anyone spending time around her and thinking dementia isn't that bad. I knew one "happy" dementia patient.

Plus, it isn't just wandering around being a little confused. As your brain shuts down your cognitive ability, it is also bitching up your internal organs, everything gets messed up, and you die slowly, usually over around ten years.

Cancer on the other hand is pretty terrible. Diabetes isn't a cake walk either. And all four of those conditions can kill you decades before a neurodegenerative disease is likely to strike.

My father died of cancer. He had the benefit of pain killers, and it was fairly quick. And he had his mind. We had intelligent conversations up to the evening he died.

I'd much rather die at 90 from Alzheimer's than at 40 from a heart attack.

Perhaps if you see a few family members take ten years or so to die, spending every waking moment crying, or some times having to be restrained because they are violent toward other patients, or all calm on haldol because otherwise they spend their days screaming at the bats flying around in the room, you might willingly trade ten years of life for a happier ending.

The worst thing is that we even try to extend their lives as their internal organs are going haywire, they are on drugs to keep themselves and other patients safe.

I long ago decided that if there is a hell, it resembles nothing as much as a dementia ward.

Re:mode of death

[Ol Olsoc]

I dunno. With Alzheimer's, you lose your ability to create short term memories, but your long term memories remain intact. One sufferer quipped, "I get to meet someone new every day!" So the question is, do dementia sufferers even realize, that they have dementia . . . ?

Go visit a nursing care facility where they store dementia patients. I think you have a made-for-TV version of dementia in mind. For every "happy" dementia patient, there are many many more who suffer horribly. Terribly unhappy or violent, and hallucinating.This isn't a little switch in the brain, it's the brain slowly shutting down. The internal organs and other parts are deteriorating along with meeting new people every day.

A relative recently died of terminal lung cancer. She suffered in pain for a year, and knew that there was no hope. Now THAT really sucked.

There isn't any form of death that doesn't suck. I think you are thinking of dementia as a get out of jail free card. It isn't

I'm wondering if I was bat-shit crazy, if I would even have the sense to know that I was definitely going to die in pain, really soon. Just pump me up with pain killers, and let me dream away the last days, in a sea of opiates . . .

With some notable exceptions, that is what does happen.

Re: mode of death

[hairyfeet]

Insightful? Really mods? As someone whose father in law has it let me clue you in on something pal, they can literally feel their minds going and can't put their fingers on WHAT is going wrong, just that something IS going wrong. Result? Either they cry as another guy said or even more likely they get ANGRY and stay that way for the rest of their days.

Picture a wounded animal, snapping at those around it because it is in pain and cannot help itself...THAT sounds like fun to you? I know you are probably basing it on vids of Douglas Adams.....DON'T DO THAT, Adams had a VERY rare form that attacks the back of the brain instead of the front and center, that is extremely rare, for the other 99.9995% it attacks the front and center and while you may end up as nothing but a quietly laying lump that takes a very loooong time to get there and for the rest? You are dangerous (because you refuse to accept you can't do the things you always did), mad (because you know you aren't right but cannot create the words to express it which is frustrating as hell), and you often refuse to have a damned thing to do and will outright attack those that try to help you like your family because you cannot recognize them no more except for a vague feeling that leaves you uneasy...and THAT sounds like its "not bad" on the inside?

Personally I'd rather eat a damned bullet than end up like that, at least it would be over quickly.

Re: mode of death

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd rather eat a damned bullet than end up like that, at least it would be over quickly.

Well, you have that choice. Don't try to tell other people what to do.

Re: mode of death

[TWX]

I think that you meant to say Terry Pratchett instead of Douglas Adams. That doesn't really impact your point though, and given that Pratchett was a relatively wealthy man who enjoyed help continuing his work he probably had a better quality of life in part because those around him already understood what he wanted or needed to communicate through that work, and as you said, he had a different form of Alzheimer's as well.

Re: mode of death

[cleara]

This friend speaks my words. My mother (who did not have dementia) was in hospice in a nursing home. There was a woman who had dementia down the hall about 10 rooms away from my mother's room. We heard her angry outbursts throughout the entire L shaped floor.

Re: mode of death

[Will.Woodhull]

Personally I'd rather eat a damned bullet than end up like that, at least it would be over quickly.

The problem with that strategy is that it is so damned hard to judge the timing. Dementia usually develops with a huge denial component. And it is so easy these days to be in denial about mental deterioration: it isn't your mind, it is the drugs you have to take for the depression that your doctor tells you is a common side affect of the blood pressure medication you need if you are going to live to old age, and of course there is also that nagging worry about how your son is going to get out of debt after having lost his job yet again, and is your daughter staying sober or is Child Protection Service going to have to take the grandchild away after all? Daily life can offer all kinds of excuses for increased forgetfulness, increased frustration, bursts of anger. Even if a person suspected they were developing dementia, it would be damned hard to tease those symptoms out from the crap most people have to deal with.

You don't want to eat the bullet too soon, not when others you care about need your help, or when maybe the problem is simply that the meds you are taking to improve your health just need to be tuned better to your personal physiology. So it is really easy to wait so long that you no longer have the bullet option.

Demented patients in care facilities wander off all the time. Frequently they are found and returned to the facility, and usually they explain that they were just going down to the corner store of their childhood days and had then gotten lost, or something like that. Some benign tale. But sometimes it is their bodies that are found, where hypothermia and exposure brought a not uncomfortable end of life. And it makes a person wonder-- are those who wander away and die the ones who succeeded in finding what they were looking for?

Re: mode of death

[sconeu]

"... and *OTHER* neurodegenerative ..." (emphasis mine)

Have you ever seen someone die from ALS? It's sort of a "reverse Alzheimer's". The body shuts down, while the victim remains mentally aware, trapped inside her own body, knowing what is happening to her.

Remember, Alzheimer's and Dementia are not the only neurodegenerative disease.

Re: mode of death

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got to disagree with you there chief. Dementia and Alzheimer's might seem terrible from the outside, but I bet it isn't that bad on the inside. Cancer on the other hand is pretty terrible. Diabetes isn't a cake walk either. And all four of those conditions can kill you decades before a neurodegenerative disease is likely to strike. I'd much rather die at 90 from Alzheimer's than at 40 from a heart attack. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for spending money on neurodegenerative diseases. I'd just like to live long enough to benefit.

not all that bad on the inside?
The two relatives of mine that spent their last years having Alzheimer's were living in terror almost all day every day. To them life was a literally a nightmare (and I know what literally means) in which they had been taken from home and dropped in a strange place where they knew no one and had no belongings and were completely helpless. And they lived at home until almost the end.

Re: mode of death

[Ol Olsoc]

The two relatives of mine that spent their last years having Alzheimer's were living in terror almost all day every day. To them life was a literally a nightmare (and I know what literally means) in which they had been taken from home and dropped in a strange place where they knew no one and had no belongings and were completely helpless. And they lived at home until almost the end.

And just wait until they have absolutely no idea who any members of their family are, and are convinced that they are there to steal their stuff.

I have strict instructions to my family is I get causgt in that trap and don't manage to check myself out early, that no "Alzheimer's treatment" drugs be administered, which should be considered a form of torture, as they merely extend the horror for a while longer, and don't do much else. If I get caught in the dementia trap, its nothing but anti-psychotics and barbs for me, preferably in huge doses (probably can't do that though)

Re: mode of death

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who has been dealing with the relatively minor memory loss, anger, depression, and frustration that comes with a thyroid disorder, when your brain turns on you, it's hell. You know something's missing there, and you know you're probably never going to get it back. It's not some fun trip back to living in a time when you were a kid and everything was rosy (although the very intense, sharp memories of things way back when that I'd entirely forgotten about were interesting at the same time as being terrifying, and they often popped out of nowhere without any rhyme or reason).

You don't want brain problems of any sort. You just don't. And end of life dementia also attacks the physical body, so it's not like you're off in cloud cuckooland with the body of a teenager.

Thankfully, treatment of the thyroid seems to be bringing more lucid hours back to my days. It has not been a fun couple months.

Kill me quick with a train at 60, before this stuff has a chance to set in for good.

Only correlation has been established.

[Anonymous Coward]

So we shouldn't say this: "Maybe being slightly overweight is the optimum to strike, if the recent study is to be followed." And we shouldn't say this: "Being overweight cuts the risk of dementia."

Maybe skinny people lead more stressful lives. Giving them a cholesterol problem won't necessarily help that. There are also studies that suggest health risks pick up quickly as we go even slightly overweight.

Re:Only correlation has been established.

[beelsebob]

Actually, studies tend to show that being slightly over weight reduces all-cause mortality compared to "normal".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Your all-cause mortality rate for overweight, and grade-1 obese are roughly 0.95 times that for "normal" weight. However, being grade-2 obese or more is associated with a sudden, very rapid increase in mortality rate.

Basically, being slightly overweight isn't bad, and may even be pretty good. Being more-than-slightly overweight is really really really bad though.

Re:Only correlation has been established.

[Anonymous Coward]

So IOW, our calculation of what it means to be overweight is wrong, since the ideal weight is apparently higher than the established norm.

Re:Only correlation has been established.

[abies]

Only if you define 'ideal weight' as one which reduces mortality by highest margin. If there would be a way to guarantee 200 years of body life by putting person in pharma coma for all that time, would it be 'ideal state' to go through live?

Mortality quality of life. Probably a lot of people will trade extra 1% of chance dying few years earlier, for 80% of having 10 last years of life bearable instead of being bed-bound.

Now, I'm not saying that being slight overweight neccesarily decreases quality of life (looking at what my weight-aware friends are eating I'm quite sure of opposite) or will make you a cripple. Just want to point out that there are more things to take into account that pure statistical mortality.

Re:Only correlation has been established.

[TWX]

This is a guess, but I suspect that people with just a *little* bit of extra fat content are better able to survive illness where they cannot eat or where they suffer from diarrhea or other digestive tract inflammation. I've also read somewhere that there's a theory that nerve cells and fat cells are relatively closely related, so perhaps when the lean individual gets ill, the body inadvertently starts trying to extract the energy from nerve cells in a fashion similar to what it does from fat, which effectively attacks the nervous system.

Obviously too much fat is very unhealthy, stressing the organs and the joints, but the definition of what's healthy has changed so many times over the last several decades that I don't know what to shoot for.

Re:Only correlation has been established.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also assuming conditions to the increased life that are not demonstrated as yet.

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off!

That explains it

[argStyopa]

I guess we know where the phrase "anchored in reality" comes from.

Caveat

[CrimsonAvenger]

Being overweight in MIDDLE AGE is good for preventing dementia.

No correlation has been proved with being overweight your entire life. Probably because the study examined people who were 55 at the start of the study.

So, put on a few pounds at the time of life when putting on a few pounds is pretty much natural, then ditch those extra pounds as you get past middle age and into old age.

Dumb study

[Anonymous Coward]

So it lowers dementia risk, what about heart disease, diabetes, and uglyitis?

Re:Dumb study

[Anonymous Coward]

So it lowers dementia risk, what about heart disease, diabetes, and uglyitis?

They're using medical terms, so overweight means maybe 5 or 10 pounds of extra fat, and obese means less than 50 pounds, roughly speaking. If you're packing around a gut or fat rolls, you're probably already well past the medically obese stage and into the Morbidly Obese range... and this study is NOT saying that you get any benefit from being that much of a disgusting fatbody.

Now excuse me while I got eat a few cakes.

laugh

[koan]

Yeah because you die of a coronary from obesity prior to dementia forming.

This is literally the stupidest "health" article I have seen yet.

Re: laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not seem stupid if you read the study. The authors controlled for early death. Duh.

I have an impression

[Anonymous Coward]

must of the fat women are the crazy bitches but then....

Elephants

[Anonymous Coward]

They never forget.

first you have to have a

[Anonymous Coward]

usable definition of what being overweight means. And don't tell me your BMI, because that is a really stupid one.

Re:first you have to have a

[pepty]

Across 2 million people with a median starting age of 55, BMI works just fine.

I'm not fat

[reboot246]

I'm protecting myself with soft, blubbery armor!

Re:I'm not fat

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not fat; I'm a survivalist who carries his emergency food supply with him at all times.

Rather be attractiveduring the rest of your life

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better to be in shape when you are in your teens through middle age for mental health reasons though.

Cholesterol and fats

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty simple really , your Cholesterol is the delivery vehicle and your brain can only burn fats (good ones)
not enough fats in your system your brain starts to shut down non core functions first , eat fats or get dimentia , olive oil butter omega 3 ect. we are are starting to see the results of fat free diets of the last 30 years as dimentia .same as anything else modest sugar intake and a little exercise you'll do well long term ,

Higher Free IGF-1 Levels

[leifbork]

Why the hell can't it be related to higher free IGF-1 levels?

There are studies indicating that obese people have higher free IGF-1 levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

There are also studies saying that high levels of IGF-1 are linked to a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease and subclinical brain atrophy:
http://www.neurologyreviews.co...

BMI is bad, but this is interesting

[VxMorpheusxV]

This study is interesting, but as it notes, most certainly needs further investigation. BMI is not the greatest metric to determine health, and I'm not surprised that those who are carrying some weight will be better over on a number of health markers.

Short-sighted conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Dementia and age-related illnesses are expressions of decade-long nutritional deficiency, specifically a deficiency in micro-nutrients. Being overweight means that you eat more, and consequently you are more likely to have a richer and more varied diet. Similarly, being underweight means you are more likely to have a meagre and insufficient diet, hence more likely to be affected by nutritional deficiency.

Woohoo!!!

[RogueWarrior65]

Pass the donuts!!

My wife says ...

[PPH]

... women who put on some extra weight tend to live longer than the men who point it out.

Re:My wife says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty impressive considering she's inflatable.

High BMI does NOT mean overweight!

[TimSSG]

BMI is NOT a good way to judge over and underweight. Tim S.

Re:High BMI does NOT mean overweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is. Overwhelmingly, yes it is. How many of the elderly people have massive muscles to explain their body weight? My guess: none. In a younger population, how often do people have massive muscles to explain their body weight? My guess: less than 5%. It is a REALLY GOOD judge of over and underweight.

Re:High BMI does NOT mean overweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

BMI has never been calibrated in any meaningful way. Even if it had been established that people with numerically close BMIs actually have something significant in common (not a tested hypothesis), we still wouldn't have any idea what healthy and unhealthy ranges really are. Yes, it's bad for an adult to weigh 400 kg or 30 kg regardless of height and build, but the hard science just hasn't been done yet. Arbitrary numbers are so much easier, and have a lot of staying power.

Re: High BMI does NOT mean overweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

BMI is absurd as a measure. It's dimensions are kg/m^2. We're not living in flatland.

Re:High BMI does NOT mean overweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. Numerically close BMI's have very well correlated to have a lot in common. Almost as much as blood pressure and cholesterol themselves. You might be expecting 100% correlation with disease. The world doesn't work that way. Denying the evidence is like calling the world flat.

Re:Easy explanation: not for competent researchers

[seawall]

  A competent epidemiologist would control for the "They die before they develop dementia" effect.

  Given this is a peer reviewed study I think it hugely likely they controlled for that.

Obesity and OTHER brain problems?

[seawall]

  I wonder if sleep apnea is considered dementia in this context?

  Sleep apnea is highly correlated with obesity at that age and it can give the sufferer a disturbingly
  similar experience to senile dementia when severe and untreated.

Well yeah...

[Totenglocke]

No shit, they don't live long enough to GET dementia. You don't exactly see a lot of fat people at the retirement home - there's a reason for that.

another spurious correlation

[superwiz]

Why is medical reporting so rife with them? They have to pass some science courses before becoming doctors, don't they? Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." Not only does correlation is not causation. Correlation do not imply causation.

Re:another spurious correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is medical reporting so rife with them? They have to pass some science courses before becoming doctors, don't they? Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." Not only does correlation is not causation. Correlation do not imply causation.

First of all, not every study says there is a causal relationship. This is one of them.
It is most unusual for a medical study to state that there is a causal relationship without a detailed explanation of how the causation occurs.
Often the causal factors are not stated because they are known to the intended audience.
I am most certain that you have not been reading medical research journals.

Secondly you seem to be confusing "medical reporting" with "medical journals". One is done by reporters who are not doctors, the other by doctors.
It's like confusing what investment bankers do with what financial reporters do.
If you want to say that the reporter did a bad job describing the study, then I can agree with that, but you didn't.

Thirdly, you didn't even notice that the popular press article said this:
"Any explanation for the protective effect is distinctly lacking. "
Does that sounds like a statement of causality?

Fourthly, in this case the studies outcome was the opposite to the expectations of the people doing the study. That why no causality is stated.
That's also in the linked article that you didn't read.

I confess I'm being disingenuous while trying to be generous. I admit the possibility that you read the articles but simply can't read at a level high enough to understand what you just read.

Please stop saying "Correlation do not imply causation".

Re:another spurious correlation

[superwiz]

The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.

Re:another spurious correlation

[superwiz]

Oh, and as to this:

Please stop saying "Correlation do not imply causation".

The first victim of expediency is usually grammar. As a casual commentator, you should be quite familiar with the concept. Because this:

First of all, not every study says there is a causal relationship.

does not indicate that you took your time to parse precisely enough the sentence

Why is medical reporting so rife with them?

Had you done so, you would see that you were putting forward a counter-argument to a point which had not been made.

Re:another spurious correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.

Not to me it does not.
You need to work on your reading skills.

This is what you said:
"Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation."

The slashdot article is not a medical study.
The bbc.com article is not a medical study
There is a link to the actual medical study and the abstract of that study.

The STUDY and the bbc.com ARTICLE BOTH clearly says they don't know why this happens.
Here's the quote again:
"Any explanation for the protective effect is distinctly lacking. "

You need to work on your reading skills.

Re:another spurious correlation

[superwiz]

The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.

Not to me it does not.

You need to work on your reading skills.

Aha. I'll get right on it. You know... so that I can impress all those who would rather pretend that a clearly stated assertion does not amount to an assertion because that would mean that they lost the argument. I am convinced that if I try just a little bit harder. If I (maybe?) take a remedial reading class?.. then and only then will they'll be impressed. Because if they ever got on a path of trying to defend the indefensible (go ahead... cut n paste this sentence... pretend there is irony because you are clever)... so if they got on a path of defending the indefensible, they'd agree that they erred as soon as a water-tight argument was presented to them. They are never wrong. Just misunderstood. So I'll go ahead and try to understand them better. Getting right on it.

Just one one thing before I do.

Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation.

The slashdot article is not a medical study.

The bbc.com article is not a medical study

I've emphasized the verbs in that "argument" you were making. Reading comprehension. How bout them apples?

Oh, wait, I know what's comming... Let me guess, ok? It's fun. You claim that I make no sense. Then you claim that I am "still" not understanding your point. Then you realize that you can also throw in the (ever so ironic by now) accusation of ad hominem in my direction. Did I get close? Actually, I don't care what you think. Your arguments have proven my point well enough (yeah, yeah... you'll call me "delusional"... I know... it's always someone else... it's never you).

Re:another spurious correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are still not understanding my point.
You said:

Why is medical reporting so rife with them? They have to pass some science courses before becoming doctors, don't they? Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." Not only does correlation is not causation. Correlation do not imply causation.

You are wrong to lambast doctors for making the "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." logic error because medical journals are not rife with that mistake. Plain and Simple, that is not a problem in medical journals.

Re:another spurious correlation

[superwiz]

If you read the original post, you'll see that I took an issue with so many medical findings being reported as having found causality because a correlation was found. It's a fact that this is how they are often reported. Is it the fault of the popular press for stretching the truth or miscommunicating it? Well, it can't be laymen's fault if they so often err on the same side. Even if the medical journals don't make this error, the error still lies with how the laymen reporters are informed. And then the fault is with those who inform them (because they know they are speaking to laymen, they have to pick their words carefully). Oh, and I continue to insist that the word "reduces" is an assertion of cause and not an assertion of likelihood. So the title of the article does, in fact, assert that a causation may be inferred from the discovered correlation.

My guess is that the cause is more indirect

[Opportunist]

I.e. you die of diabetes, heart attack or a stroke before you could get demented.

Toxins

[evanh]

One thing that is well known is that shit like toxic heavy metals, that can circulate indefinitely in the body, tend to be safely captured by body fat and thereby stop being harmful for the duration of entrapment.

Conversely, one can surmise, that such toxins will continue their destructive process if there is little fat to trap them in.

BMI

[Iamthecheese]

This is about being "overweight" by body mass index(yes I looked), as opposed to body fat percentage. As such I'm going to ignore the whole study.You can easily have a higher than average BMI and still be very healthy.

Re:BMI

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about being "overweight" by body mass index(yes I looked), as opposed to body fat percentage. As such I'm going to ignore the whole study.You can easily have a higher than average BMI and still be very healthy.

What you said about BMI is true, but that does not discount the value of the study.
Indeed here are people who have a high BMI as old people due to being well-muscled, but those are rare when compared to the general population.
What you are suggesting is to extrapolate from the exceptions, but the study isn't about just you or me. It's about the general population.

This is a study of 2 million people, so it is about what the average person is like.
It matters because the National Health Board (or whatever they call it) has to decide upon allocating funds - how much for what program.
After reading this study, I would not support a program that intends to reduce the rate of dementia by lowering the BMI of older people.
Yes, there are many other reason for wanting people to not be fat, but dementia reduction isn't going to be one until we know what the heck is going on.

That's the life!

[PPH]

Fat, dumb and happy.

Could be something else entirely

[kmoser]

Maybe the fatter you are, the more diluted (in your body) the Alzheimer's-causing agents become, and the fewer that actually make it to your brain.

Or maybe it's completely random

[Anonymous Coward]

And you might as well read tea leaves to figure out if you'll get OldTimers' disease.

The truth is, "medical science" is too often an oxymoron. It's just a bunch of guessing in a lab coat. If you don't believe me, just look at all the times they've decided any one thing is either good for you, or bad for you, all based, allegedly, on solid, "scientific" research and "observation".

Here's an observation: the damage to your health and your longevity done by paying any attention to what these clowns say is greater than any benefit you're likely to realize even if you can tell which ones are full of shit and which ones actually have a clue as to what the fuck is going on. If you factor in the hours you spend "learning," if you can call it that, what's good and what's bad, you actually have fewer hours of usable life, and you spend those hours worrying.

Sure, my doctor was pissed when I laughed in his face and told him I didn't believe in cholesterol, and sure enough, a recent study has revealed that serum cholesterol is basically unrelated to dietary cholesterol. Turns out animals manufacture their own, and so even if you eat NO cholesterol, your own body will make it, which I already knew for a fact that I personally conducted myself.

My "doctor" (clown in a white coat,) told me my cholesterol numbers were all wrong, and I should have them checked again in a couple weeks. Tired of the bullshit I actually fasted for two straight weeks. No food, only water. Guess what? My cholesterol numbers all went the wrong way, my total number went up, my high density lipids dropped, my low density lipids went up, and I haven't worried a bit about my cholesterol ever since then as I have concluded that "doctors" are over-paid guess-makers. Completely full of shit about anything more complicated than a broken bone.

Might I die 10 or 20 years earlier than I might otherwise from a heart attack? Maybe, but the 10 or 20 years I'll still have before that point I will LIVE, and not cower in abject terror of my ... "cholesterol numbers". I don't fear death and no one should, since it is inevitable, and after it happens, nothing bad can or will happen to you ever again. (I don't mean to your corpse, all manner of gross stuff starts almost immediately, unless it's vaporized... but to the part of you that calls itself, "I". Nothing more happens to that. You simply end. There are no ending credits, there's no 'bright light,' there's no chorus or choir or chortling demons... there's nothing, and it's nothing to be afraid of.) If I enjoy myself now, I won't feel cheated in my final moments like all the morons who strive to stay in great shape, or get "right" with "god," a fictional character from a badly written collection of lunatic ravings.

The good news is there is no "hell," (saving of course New Jersey... a place for which I have no use,) so no need to fear death, or try to prolong life during its most miserable, fucked up stage, just to cling to what's left of life by any means necessary. It's cowardice and stupidity, and it needs to stop. You don't need to kiss the Creation Fairy's ass, you don't need to fear the schmuck in the ludicrous red body-suit with the pitchfork, you just need to enjoy life.

Or not. Be miserable, and worry overly about how to live slightly longer maybe, if that's what it takes to MAKE YOU HAPPY. :)

Best advice I've ever heard: don't sweat the small stuff.

Truest statement I've ever heard: everything anyone has ever told you has been a lie. Including this.

Banana?