Re: Article by Kolata in NY Times

[Guest guest]

While not supported by references, I can hypothesize a plausible explanation.

Looking at weight across the general population may show some degree of

correlation with nutrition. The adlib eater of normal weight may be

deficient of some nutrients that the heavier eater is not.

I am not inclined to put much weight on this study other than to advise

continued diligent monitoring of nutrition intake.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of thin_man02

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:52 PM

Subject: [ ] Article by Kolata in NY Times

Here's an interesting article from the New York Times yesterday (Week in Review

section):

" Why Thin Is Fine, but Thinner Can Kill, " by Kolata

www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24kola.html

(you may have to register, but you should be reading the New York Times anyway!)

From our perspective, it would argue for the more moderate CR of this group.

Here's

some of the article:

" [R]esearchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the

National

Cancer Institute, in a paper about body weight and health risks published last

week,

concluded that the very thin run about the same risk of early death as the very

fat. Their

study showed that 33,000 deaths a year could be avoided if the thinnest 2

percent of

Americans were of normal weight. "

" Almost as intriguing as the study's result is the fact that no one can explain

it. Were the

thin people in the study, with a body mass index below 18.5 (a 5-foot-3 woman

weighing

104 pounds, for example) simply very ill, unable to eat? "

" Not likely, said Dr. Flegal, a statistician at the National Center

for Health

Statistics and the paper's lead author. She and her colleagues looked at thin

people whose

weight was stable for at least three years, for at least five years and for at

least 10 years.

The effect persisted. They looked at thin smokers and thin nonsmokers. The

effect

remained. "

The article hints that there are possible flaws with the study, the original

paper of which I

haven't yet obtained and read.

Thin Man

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I agree. It seems to me there are at least three reasons why thinner

people may have higher mortality, none of which, hopefully, apply to

us:

A) They are already sick, and that is why they are thin, and are

about to drop dead. This issue the study believes it has taken

account of.

Thin people eat less. Eating less exposes people to the greater

risk of not getting the RDAs of important micronutrients. This

should not be applicable to most of us here who check to make sure we

do not have nutrient deficiencies. But the low BMI categories in

nationwide surveys must be littered with these people and the effects

may often not show themselves for a very long time.

C) The 'eat like a horse and never put on weight' syndrome: The

only rational explanation for these people (unless they run marathons

daily) is that they have serious intestinal absorption problems.

Energy can never be created or destroyed, as we all know. So where

is all the energy (calories) these people consume disappearing to?

If they were absorbing it they would be putting on weight. I believe

they are excreting it because they never absorb it. It is also very

likely that the absorption problem is greater for some nutrients than

others. So they may be seriously deficient in some important

nutrients, which may not show up in serious illness until much

later. Again, these people will be disproportinately represented in

the low BMI categories of nationwide surveys.

So these studies need to do more than look at BMI. They need to look

for evidence of nutrient absorption, or excretion. No doubt in the

end people will do such studies.

In this context I remember someone here who was tested for blood

vitamin D content and was found very deficient. When supplemental

vitamin D was taken it made no change in blood levels. It was only

after trying a number of different types of supplement that one was

eventually found that did increase blood levels. A clear case, I

would have thought, of selective nutrient absorption.

Perhaps there are other reasons also. Of course the mice which lived

40% longer were fed exactly the same amounts of all the

micronutrients ............ just 40% fewer calories in the form of

much reduced starch.

Also remember that this is the first and only study that has found

people who are somewhat over weight live longer. We have seen posted

here within the past year other studies that show people with a BMI

of 20 - 22 have the lowest mortality. Even those that INCLUDED the

groups mentioned in A) and C) above. So this is, as far as I

know, THE ONLY study suggesting a BMI of 25 - 30 is better than 20 -

25.

Rodney.

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> While not supported by references, I can hypothesize a plausible

explanation.

>

> Looking at weight across the general population may show some

degree of

> correlation with nutrition. The adlib eater of normal weight may be

> deficient of some nutrients that the heavier eater is not.

>

> I am not inclined to put much weight on this study other than to

advise

> continued diligent monitoring of nutrition intake.

>

> JR

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ]On Behalf Of thin_man02

> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:52 PM

>

> Subject: [ ] Article by Kolata in NY Times

>

>

>

>

> Here's an interesting article from the New York Times yesterday

(Week in Review section):

> " Why Thin Is Fine, but Thinner Can Kill, " by Kolata

>

> www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24kola.html

>

> (you may have to register, but you should be reading the New York

Times anyway!)

>

> From our perspective, it would argue for the more moderate CR of

this group. Here's

> some of the article:

>

> " [R]esearchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

and the National

> Cancer Institute, in a paper about body weight and health risks

published last week,

> concluded that the very thin run about the same risk of early death

as the very fat. Their

> study showed that 33,000 deaths a year could be avoided if the

thinnest 2 percent of

> Americans were of normal weight. "

>

> " Almost as intriguing as the study's result is the fact that no one

can explain it. Were the

> thin people in the study, with a body mass index below 18.5 (a 5-

foot-3 woman weighing

> 104 pounds, for example) simply very ill, unable to eat? "

>

> " Not likely, said Dr. Flegal, a statistician at the

National Center for Health

> Statistics and the paper's lead author. She and her colleagues

looked at thin people whose

> weight was stable for at least three years, for at least five years

and for at least 10 years.

> The effect persisted. They looked at thin smokers and thin

nonsmokers. The effect

> remained. "

>

> The article hints that there are possible flaws with the study, the

original paper of which I

> haven't yet obtained and read.

>

> Thin Man

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

For those who forget it here is the study posted here a few months

ago that suggested the BMI range with lowest mortality was 20 - 22:

Relation between body mass index and mortality in an unusually slim

cohort

M Thorogood1, P N Appleby2, T J Key2 and J Mann3

1 Health Promotion Research Unit, Department of Public Health and

Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK

2 Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, UK

3 Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, New Zealand

PMID: 12540689

It may be relevant that the subjects of this study were a group of

unusually slim, health-conscious individuals. They therefore were

probably less subject to nutritional deficiencies than the low BMI

subjects of nationwide surveys. Again, supporting JR's point.

Rodney.

> > While not supported by references, I can hypothesize a plausible

> explanation.

> >

> > Looking at weight across the general population may show some

> degree of

> > correlation with nutrition. The adlib eater of normal weight may

be

> > deficient of some nutrients that the heavier eater is not.

> >

> > I am not inclined to put much weight on this study other than to

> advise

> > continued diligent monitoring of nutrition intake.

> >

> > JR

> >

> >

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From:

> > [mailto: ]On Behalf Of thin_man02

> > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:52 PM

> >

> > Subject: [ ] Article by Kolata in NY Times

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Here's an interesting article from the New York Times yesterday

> (Week in Review section):

> > " Why Thin Is Fine, but Thinner Can Kill, " by Kolata

> >

> > www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24kola.html

> >

> > (you may have to register, but you should be reading the New York

> Times anyway!)

> >

> > From our perspective, it would argue for the more moderate CR of

> this group. Here's

> > some of the article:

> >

> > " [R]esearchers from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

> and the National

> > Cancer Institute, in a paper about body weight and health risks

> published last week,

> > concluded that the very thin run about the same risk of early

death

> as the very fat. Their

> > study showed that 33,000 deaths a year could be avoided if the

> thinnest 2 percent of

> > Americans were of normal weight. "

> >

> > " Almost as intriguing as the study's result is the fact that no

one

> can explain it. Were the

> > thin people in the study, with a body mass index below 18.5 (a 5-

> foot-3 woman weighing

> > 104 pounds, for example) simply very ill, unable to eat? "

> >

> > " Not likely, said Dr. Flegal, a statistician at the

> National Center for Health

> > Statistics and the paper's lead author. She and her colleagues

> looked at thin people whose

> > weight was stable for at least three years, for at least five

years

> and for at least 10 years.

> > The effect persisted. They looked at thin smokers and thin

> nonsmokers. The effect

> > remained. "

> >

> > The article hints that there are possible flaws with the study,

the

> original paper of which I

> > haven't yet obtained and read.

> >

> > Thin Man

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

--Here's the link for this:

http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/57/2/130

Maco

Message: 4

Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:32:30 -0000

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

Subject: Re: Article by Kolata in NY Times

Hi folks:

For those who forget it here is the study posted here a few months

ago that suggested the BMI range with lowest mortality was 20 - 22:

Relation between body mass index and mortality in an unusually slim

cohort

M Thorogood1, P N Appleby2, T J Key2 and J Mann3

1 Health Promotion Research Unit, Department of Public Health and

Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK

2 Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, UK

3 Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, New Zealand

PMID: 12540689

It may be relevant that the subjects of this study were a group of

unusually slim, health-conscious individuals. They therefore were

probably less subject to nutritional deficiencies than the low BMI

subjects of nationwide surveys. Again, supporting JR's point.

Rodney.