NYT: "overweight people have a lower death rate"

[stevecooper]

From the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html

About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. 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.

The paper they're talking about is here; http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 98/17/2028

Anyway, a bit of food-for-thought when it comes to picking your target weight.

[reinhard]

Thanks for the link, Steve.

I saw this article too and am not sure what to make of it (except perhaps to cool it on the self-righteousness, which is always a good idea).

I'd be very hesitant to view this as license to chunk up, however. The causality is still up in the air. So many other studies seem to indicate the opposite (on a smaller scale, it's true). Methodological quirks could yet be exposed.

Bottom line, I don't think this presents any compelling evidence to abandon moderation in eating and exercise. No-s isn't about becoming underweight after all, or any weight, directly: it's about curbing excessive eating. For most of us that will translate to a lower weight, and I'm convinced, a healthier one, too. Plus it's a good in itself: more pleasure, more control. Gluttony wasn't counted a deadly sin merely because it killed you.

Reinhard

[navin]

Until they come out with a study that shows that women are more attracted to fat guys, I'll stick with No-S and exercise.

[rose]

I have this theory that people eat mostly crap, i.e. food that contains very little of the nutrients which are necessary to be really healthy (vitamins, minerals, etc.). The only difference is that "thin" people eat less of it than overweight people. So overweight people can reach the necessary level of required nutrients from the sheer quantity of their food. But thin people who eat less cannot reach the healthy level.

Another possibility is that "thin" people eat _even more_ crappily than overweight people because they are dieting in a bad way (and perhaps even smoking in order to keep their weight down).

In other words, I'd like to know whether the results of this study would be the same in a country/time where/when people eat more healthily and the obesity rate is lower.

[ThomsonsPier]

I have this theory that people eat mostly crap, i.e. food that contains very little of the nutrients which are necessary to be really healthy (vitamins, minerals, etc.). The only difference is that "thin" people eat less of it than overweight people. So overweight people can reach the necessary level of required nutrients from the sheer quantity of their food. But thin people who eat less cannot reach the healthy level.

Another possibility is that "thin" people eat _even more_ crappily than overweight people because they are dieting in a bad way (and perhaps even smoking in order to keep their weight down).

In other words, I'd like to know whether the results of this study would be the same in a country/time where/when people eat more healthily and the obesity rate is lower.

Further to your theory, there is evidence to suggest that modern food production methods give rise to foodstuffs extremely low in nutrients. As such, it becomes necessary to consume large quantities of calories simply to acquire sufficient nutrition even if you do eat healthily.

[stevecooper]

I'd be very hesitant to view this as license to chunk up, however. The causality is still up in the air. So many other studies seem to indicate the opposite (on a smaller scale, it's true). Methodological quirks could yet be exposed.

Quite right. It could be that the normal-weight category has a higher proportion of people using appetite-suppressing drugs like nicotine or crystal meth, or on yo-yo diets. That these people would be more sickly isn't surprising.

Also, of course, it's not saying 'fatter is better' -- rather, people in the 'overweight' category (more than normal, less than obese) have lower death rates. So obesity is still worth avoiding.

One thing that does interest me about this is the presence of diseases for which underweight is a risk factor. It's common to hear headlines communicating "fat people get diabetes", but "slim people more likely to get Parkinson's" or "thin people get more cancer", not so much.

[stevecooper]

I have this theory that people eat [...] food that contains very little of the nutrients which are necessary to be really healthy (vitamins, minerals, etc.).

there is evidence to suggest that modern food production methods give rise to foodstuffs extremely low in nutrients.

You're suggesting that there are a significant number of people in rich, developed countries who are malnourished? Can you explain where this idea comes from?

During an admittedly short ten minutes googling, I was unable to find anything at all on general malnutrition in the US or UK, except a mention on the BBC site that estimated malnutrition in the over-65's to be about 10% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4733278.stm), and a passing reference in the International Journal of Epidemiology that widespread malnutrition was eliminated in the UK in the '50s. (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/496, near end of page, from 'the 1930s were bleak years')

I've seen research that organic vegetables have higher nutriend density that normal, but no evidence that the nutrient levels in normal veg is problematic, or that eating organic veg is healthier. It seems to me that once a critical amount of nutrients is obtained, there is no improvement in health, and that that critical level can be easily obtained in a modern diet.

[rose]

You're suggesting that there are a significant number of people in rich, developed countries who are malnourished? Can you explain where this idea comes from?

No, I am not suggesting quite that. Actually people in those areas are overweight. I was suggesting that this overweight, associated to lower mortality than "normal weight", was related to a poor quality of ingested food, in terms of vitamins and minerals (whether this poor quality is related to eating habits - homecooked vs fast-food, monotonous vs varied, "theoretically healthy" vs fad diets - or to the quality of the food itself - fresh and organic vs canned and processed).

Malnutrition is IMHO a severe and easily observable eating imbalance/deficiency. The studies you mentionned in your first message suggests different causes and rates of mortality depending on the weight of US residents. They are not dying of hunger, nor of any of the easily observable malnutrition effects. Yet obviously the various weight groups are not eating quite the same way/quantity. There must be some imbalance or deficiency, subtler than medical "malnutrition", in modern diets, which causes "normal weight" people to have a higher mortality rate.

People live longer too nowadays in those areas. Accumulation of a slight/medically undetectable imbalance or deficiency over many years may have some side effects which are not (yet) categorized as "malnutrition" by the medical corps, but end up causing a greater susceptibility to some kinds of disease.

I've seen research that organic vegetables have higher nutrient density that normal, but no evidence that the nutrient levels in normal veg is problematic, or that eating organic veg is healthier.

That's quite possible. The only reason I might buy organic food is because it should contain less fertilizer and pesticids. But do people eat veggies ?

It seems to me that once a critical amount of nutrients is obtained, there is no improvement in health, and that that critical level can be easily obtained in a modern diet.

What is a modern diet ?
What is the critical level of nutrients ? (yes, they have determined that level for a variety of nutrients, but they're also finding new nutrients almost daily, which deficiency is a factor to such and such disease).



And a few of the results of my own google search (malnourished + fast-food) - I got curious about malnutrition:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
http://www.mail-archive.com/tionghoa-ne ... 03050.html

[stevecooper]

Interesting! I think you're right that in a developed country, you could work up a nice case of scurvy by religiously avoiding fruit and veg, which isn't that hard to do if you are a lazy cook.

One thing I've noticed is that if I'm on a diet, I am significantly more likely to get colds. I suspect simple 'calorie deficiency' might be a problem; without energy to fight infection, the body simply succumbs more often. Just an unjustifiable theory, of course, but one that suggests that, well, lard might be one of those essential nutrients without which diseases can ravage the system.

I had a hankering to go looking for old-skool recipes, to see if I could find out the kinds of food that were considered pleasing, nutritious, etc in earlier times. The no-s idea of traditional meal patterns got me thinking about traditional cooking for those meals, and I searched out Mrs Beeton's cookery book, a classic British book from 1859. (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/beeton/ ... household/)

What's interesting, actually, is the amazingly unhealthy sounding food; every other vegetable recipe is covered in butter and salt and sauce. All the other recipes involve huge slabs of meat, preferably in pastry. Behold awesome recipes like 'PORK CHEESE (an Excellent Breakfast Dish).' and 'COW-HEEL STOCK FOR JELLIES' and 'BOILED NECK OF MUTTON.' Mmmm!

I expect an addendum to the no-s diet any day now, along the lines of;

"if we are to stay as trim as our grandparents, we have to eat not only when they ate, but what. Why not try a nutritious and slimming plate of pork cheese for breakfast?"