Overweight people live longer

to the "scientists" that authored this study:

"You don't know when it's good or bad. You really don't know, because you don't know what we're trying to do, you guys don't look at the data. You don't know what happened. You really don't know. You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will"

You claim to have been deeply involved in medical research, but are unaware of good data supporting vaccines? That's difficult to reconcile.

Perhaps you have heard of smallpox. Infectious disease. Unique to humans. Killed millions each year. Now eradicated entirely due to a vaccine. I'm not sure what sort of warped "value judgement" you require to decide on the "ultimate benefit" of this intervention. Polio also used to kill millions. Now we're down to 3 countries and a few hundred cases annually. Eradication entirely due to vaccination. Further examples abound (tetanus, diphtheria, measles, hepatitis b, H. influenzae, Pneumococcal...). I'll let you look them up.

I'm glad I come across as idealistic, but medical school and graduate school are well behind me. As much as I value advice from all sectors, I think I'll stick to taking it from people who at least know of some of the most remarkable scientific achievements of the past century.

First off, *no one* is "reasonably muscular" at 5'10", 150lbs. Sorry.

OK. And I bet you could beat these guys in a fight without breaking a sweat, right?

I just saw a study that proves I'll live to be 110, not only because I'm a runner, but also because I'm hung like a horse.

dd wrote:

As much as I value advice from all sectors, I think I'll stick to taking it from people who at least know of some of the most remarkable scientific achievements of the past century.

ah dd.... this thread was a pleasure to read! SprintGeezer loves to hear himself talk (watch himself type?). He may have a few philosophical points worth considering, but as far as they relate to this study and your points.......I really have no idea where he was trying to get to ( Is there any correlation between lack of healthcare check-ups/visits and earl onset dementia?)

Here was a beaut:

"And yes, I did receive vaccinations--to what end, I'm still not sure. Were they worth it? Don't tell me that THAT is a settled issue. All you need to know that it isn't, is look around at how many people are opposed to vaccinating their kids. I know the arguments on both sides, and I am still not convinced that there was any net benefit of the vaccinations, either to society at large, or to myself as an individual. I do not get flu shots every year, but I certainly do get the flu most years, including this year. Know what? It provided a great excuse to sleep for several days straight. I'm back stronger and better than ever. Plus, I was able to read some Flannery O'Connor and some Exupery, things I wouldn't normally have the time to do."

Translation:

1) It is not a settled issue that vaccinations have been more of a benefit than a detriment to mankind's health and well-being (!)

2) this is proven by the fact that there are a group of people who really feel strongly that vaccines are bad for people and unnecessary (see Jenny McCarthy. Also, see: the earth is really 6000 years old and evolution is not true despite all the evidence to the contrary, because, well, lots of people think so)

3) because the flu usually doesn't kill healthy people, getting the flu vaccine, and probably all vaccines for that matter, is a dumb idea, and this is also true because sometimes its fun to get sick and miss work and lie in bed and read. If you didn't get sick, you'd never realize this is fun, and you'd be running around being all healthy and stuff and missing out on the good life of being in bed. It's impossible to read in bed while healthy.

4) this is why trying to cure cancer is a bad idea also. Some of the best days of most cancer patients' lives are the times when they are too exhausted from their disease to do anything, and they just lie there staring at the ceiling. Oh, healthy people are missing out on the good life!

Your old fan and friend, Lance.

Big man sitting pretty wrote:

Haha, suck on this skinny runners:

"Study Suggests Lower Mortality Risk for People Deemed to Be Overweight"

So you've been spending all this time trudging through the miles and I've been watching football, eating burgers, and drinking brews and I will still live longer. How does that make you feel? I guess it's true that life isn't fair.

Trudging through miles?

Last I checked running was enjoyable...hence why I do it.

Also, I can safely say I've been doing all the things you have as well. Probably eating even more than you could because of the calories burned from running.

Taking an hour or two out of your day to do something you enjoy, then getting to sit back and eat whatever the fvck you want without having to worry about it seems like a good deal to me.

Thanks, Lance. Didn't know you had a new handle. The inanity of these boards has gotten me look here much less frequently, but glad to see a few other old-timers still check in. Happy new year,

-dd

Did anyone here actually read the study?

"CHICAGO – In an analysis of nearly 100 studies that included approximately 3 million adults, relative to normal weight, overall obesity (combining all grades) and higher levels of obesity were both associated with a significantly higher all-cause risk of death, while overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, according to a study in the January 2 issue of JAMA."

They are saying that relative to a person's NORMAL weight overall obesity and higher levels of obesity were associated with a high risk of death.

Overweight COMPARED to those two categories and NOT a person of normal weight had a significantly lower all-cause mortality rate.

It's not the study that is the problem, it's how people interpret it!

That's not correct. From the study article (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137&atab=7#RESULTS):

Relative to normal weight (BMI 18.5-25), both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 (BMI 35-40) and 3 (BMI 40+) obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality. Grade 1 (BMI 30-35) obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight (BMI 25-30) was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. The use of predefined standard BMI groupings can facilitate between-study comparisons.

The study claims that overweight (BMI 25-30) has the lowest hazard ratio of all standard groupings. It's accepted that the hazard ratio has a "U" shape, that is being underweight is bad as is being severely overweight. What the study claims is that the bottom of the U is higher on the BMI scale than has been generally accepted.

People are totally missing the point here. This has nothing to do with how bad BMI is (BMI is a statistical measure not meant to be used on individuals only large aggregates). The point is that for old and sick people a little extra weight is healthy, this is not true for fit people in their 20s 30s or 40s. The study was done on dead people, well of course dead people are likely to be old or sick, so no wonder this study concludes what it does.

From the article "depending on where fat is in the body, it might be protective or even nutritional for older or sicker people. But over all, piling on pounds and becoming more than slightly obese remains dangerous"

HOW MANY PEOPLE AGED 100 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER ARE OVERWEIGHT?

Do overweight people live longer?

Great question. BMI is closer to 20 for those who are at least 100 years of age it lookls like.http://www.jacn.org/content/18/4/358.full (You can find a chart in Fig 1 showing weight and BMI- centenarians are close to 20or just over) I always suspected that 20-21 is ideal to live past 100. I only skimmed through the article. 32 centenarians (9 males, 23 females5'9 142 should get me to 110 I hope. {The Japanese average anthropometric values of the centenarians at 20 years of age in 1920 and the elderly at 20 years of age in 1948 are given here in order to appraise the present study’s results. The average values were calculated based on percentile values of body weight and height classified by gender and age. It is assumed that healthy persons fall within a weight and height percentile range of 25 and 75 in the respective groups. The average height, body weight and BMI of Japanese when the centenarians were 20 years of age in 1920 were 150.9 cm, 49.3 kg and BMI 21.7 kg/m2 for females and 162.4 cm, 54.4 kg and BMI 20.6 kg/m2 for males, and the average height, body weight and BMI of the Japanese elderly were 154.0 cm, 51.4 kg and BMI 21.7 kg/m2 for females and 163.7 cm, 55.3 kg and BMI 20.6 kg/m2 for males in 1948 when the elderly were 20 [22].}

yourewong wrote:

HOW MANY PEOPLE AGED 100 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER ARE OVERWEIGHT?

Do overweight people live longer?

I'm about 5'9" and between 150-160 with little fat and quite muscular. I couldn't imagine being close to 200lbs without being either jacked or a slob. I'm very cut and thin the way I am now.

My wife's grandfather just died at age 94. He was probably 100 pounds overweight. He only ate meat, corn, and potatoes. He drank every day and ate bacon for breakfast. No kidding.

But he worked almost to the day he died. He owned a slaughterhouse, then a greenhouse. He never sat still, except to fish. He was German.

"He was German"

well that explains a lot

he was VolkDeutsche--a member of the tribe

remain active, reject jewish propaganda,

don't allow yourself to get fat and soft, honour the heritage...

and you, more than likely, will live a lengthy prosperous Life

Strom jr. wrote:

"He was German"

well that explains a lot

he was VolkDeutsche--a member of the tribe

remain active, reject jewish propaganda,

don't allow yourself to get fat and soft, honour the heritage...

and you, more than likely, will live a lengthy prosperous Life

it was his wife's grandfather, not his grandfather.

White supremacist propaganda? Lovely.

dd--

My activities did not include anything related to vaccines. If your posting on this thread was actually genuine, you would not be surprised that an individual so involved, including yourself, has gaps in their knowledge. The difference between you and I is that I freely admit where I am deficient.

Anecdotally, I almost died as an infant from DTP, apparently it was very tense.

I notice that you have declined to point me in the direction of any comprehensive writing that solidly demonstrates the social utility of vaccines.

This is the problem with so-called "health research" in general. Most researchers are head-in-the-sand types, who rarely if ever consider the big picture, but have instead a very narrow focus. For real scientific validity purposes, outcomes must be defined in a narrowly-tailored, measurable way--the more a researcher "thinks about society", the scientifically worse will be their research.

At some level, the decision about "what is good for society" must be made in the allocation of resources. It has been taken as an article of faith for a long time that simple longevity is an intrinsically worthwhile goal. That mentality is anachronistic, and is thankfully coming under fire from many quarters and in many situations, including but not limited to the "right to die" crowd.

If you ARE legitimately involved in research, I hope that you will gain perspective over the years, and tailor your research accordingly. Also, if you are involved in legitimate research, you will understand that data-mining epi meta-studies such as this are useful only politically and economically. You will also understand that anything involving human behavior is often like a balloon--squeeze on it in one place, and it bulges out another.

That is fine, as it continually gives us reason to continue working, as successfully addressing one problem often results in the production of other problems--but then the choice of which problem(s) to devote oneself takes on an aesthetic dimension. If simple longevity is the issue that turns your crank, then so be it--but if not, it can be safely ignored.

And that's what health researchers often can't grasp--that things they take as articles of faith, that things they believe to be intrinsically good, meaningful, or worthwhile, maybe aren't.

We have so much to do in life, that IMO to even THINK about a "study" such as this, is a poor use of one's time, unless one is somehow directly profiting from the research to a greater extent than one would from any other activity they could be doing.

I wish you well in your continued activities, but make sure to keep your head up and look around sometimes.