Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

[Guest guest]

At 10:29 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:

Hi All,

Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association in

a

study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared

comparably.

Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

Results After excluding those participants with

missing body weight or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the

analysis. After adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol

consumption, physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs

south), and urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between

BMI and all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those

participants with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the

relative risks of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were 1.65

(95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5, 1.31

(95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for

BMI 20.0 to 20.9, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9, 1.11

(95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for

BMI 23.0 to 23.9, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9, 1.15

(95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42)

for BMI 30.0 or more. The U-shaped association existed even after

excluding participants who were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol

drinkers, or who had prevalent chronic illness at the baseline

examination, or who died during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar

association was observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular

disease, cancer, and other causes.

--So bottom line would be 24.0-26.9 looks best in this snapshot of data.

The interesting factors taken into account in this study, imo, are (1)

smoking and (2) people who die within 3 years (though it's not clear from

the text that the relative risks remain the same when the early-dying

people are factored out). Because we know of the well-demonstrated rapid

increase in diabetes and diabetes-associated morbidity as BMIs go from 19

upwards, one imagines that closer to 24 would likely be more prudent than

closer to 26.9.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 10:29 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:

Hi All,

Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association in

a

study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared

comparably.

Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

Results After excluding those participants with

missing body weight or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the

analysis. After adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol

consumption, physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs

south), and urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between

BMI and all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those

participants with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the

relative risks of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were 1.65

(95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5, 1.31

(95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for

BMI 20.0 to 20.9, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9, 1.11

(95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for

BMI 23.0 to 23.9, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9, 1.15

(95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42)

for BMI 30.0 or more. The U-shaped association existed even after

excluding participants who were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol

drinkers, or who had prevalent chronic illness at the baseline

examination, or who died during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar

association was observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular

disease, cancer, and other causes.

--So bottom line would be 24.0-26.9 looks best in this snapshot of data.

The interesting factors taken into account in this study, imo, are (1)

smoking and (2) people who die within 3 years (though it's not clear from

the text that the relative risks remain the same when the early-dying

people are factored out). Because we know of the well-demonstrated rapid

increase in diabetes and diabetes-associated morbidity as BMIs go from 19

upwards, one imagines that closer to 24 would likely be more prudent than

closer to 26.9.

Maco

[Guest guest]

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

>>in a reliable medical journal. See the below abstract. Men and women

fared comparably.

The same one that published three studies last week on the flawed data

of the WHI?

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>in a reliable medical journal. See the below abstract. Men and women

fared comparably.

The same one that published three studies last week on the flawed data

of the WHI?

Jeff

[Guest guest]

--- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote:

> I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

> appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

>

> ===

>

>

> 1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

> 1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

> 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

> 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

> 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

> 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

> 1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

> 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

> 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

> 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

>

> The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

> were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

> prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

> during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

> observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

> cancer, and other causes.

Care should maybe be exercised when considering the import of such studies.

These

are not CRers. The studied subjects could be lower in weight and eating more to

satisfy greater appetites due to the weight loss, which occurs due to an

uncorrected

confounder. The subjects of the study may weigh less usually due to some

underlying

reason. Longer times are required for more careful exclusion of all

confounders.

See the below pdf-available paper.

Singh PN, Lindsted KD, Fraser GE.

Body weight and mortality among adults who never smoked.

Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Dec 1;150(11):1152-64.

PMID: 10588076

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=10588076 & query_hl=6 & itool=pubmed_docsum

... Prospective ... effects due to age at measurement of BMI, smoking history

and

race ... age 30-54 y and ... age 55-74 y ...men; ... 5062 men ... 1960-1985 ...

years 15-26 ... effects due to antecedent illness were not apparent and a

significant positive, linear relation between BMI and all-cause mortality was

consistently found among middle-aged (30-54 y) and older (55-74 y) men. ...

analyses

of ... years 15-26 revealed that the positive linear trends with all-cause

mortality, were primarily due to excess risk of cardiovascular disease and

cancer

.... Among older men, a significant inverse relation between BMI and respiratory

disease mortality risk ... during ... years 15-26 ... attenuated ... with no

baseline history of respiratory disease. ... PMID: 10588076

-- Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote:

> I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

> appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

>

> ===

>

>

> 1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

> 1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

> 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

> 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

> 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

> 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

> 1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

> 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

> 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

> 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

>

> The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

> were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

> prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

> during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

> observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

> cancer, and other causes.

Care should maybe be exercised when considering the import of such studies.

These

are not CRers. The studied subjects could be lower in weight and eating more to

satisfy greater appetites due to the weight loss, which occurs due to an

uncorrected

confounder. The subjects of the study may weigh less usually due to some

underlying

reason. Longer times are required for more careful exclusion of all

confounders.

See the below pdf-available paper.

Singh PN, Lindsted KD, Fraser GE.

Body weight and mortality among adults who never smoked.

Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Dec 1;150(11):1152-64.

PMID: 10588076

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=10588076 & query_hl=6 & itool=pubmed_docsum

... Prospective ... effects due to age at measurement of BMI, smoking history

and

race ... age 30-54 y and ... age 55-74 y ...men; ... 5062 men ... 1960-1985 ...

years 15-26 ... effects due to antecedent illness were not apparent and a

significant positive, linear relation between BMI and all-cause mortality was

consistently found among middle-aged (30-54 y) and older (55-74 y) men. ...

analyses

of ... years 15-26 revealed that the positive linear trends with all-cause

mortality, were primarily due to excess risk of cardiovascular disease and

cancer

.... Among older men, a significant inverse relation between BMI and respiratory

disease mortality risk ... during ... years 15-26 ... attenuated ... with no

baseline history of respiratory disease. ... PMID: 10588076

-- Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

That begs the question, do you think any journal has an editor qualified to read and grade all the stuff to be published? Maybe they have a board of peers? Maybe they just accept from UCLA, Harvard, etc., whatever THEY want to be pub'd?

Just because some less smart individual gave them the money, and some people need to get their PhD's, does that provide additional sway to the "peers"?

We've seen this data before. Do we use the past data to approve the new pub?

Can any be bought like the good housekeeping seal of approval?

Just wondering what I use as a criteria to grade any pub.

Regards.

RE: [ ] U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

>>in a reliable medical journal. See the below abstract. Men and womenfared comparably.The same one that published three studies last week on the flawed dataof the WHI?:)Jeff

[Guest guest]

That begs the question, do you think any journal has an editor qualified to read and grade all the stuff to be published? Maybe they have a board of peers? Maybe they just accept from UCLA, Harvard, etc., whatever THEY want to be pub'd?

Just because some less smart individual gave them the money, and some people need to get their PhD's, does that provide additional sway to the "peers"?

We've seen this data before. Do we use the past data to approve the new pub?

Can any be bought like the good housekeeping seal of approval?

Just wondering what I use as a criteria to grade any pub.

Regards.

RE: [ ] U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

>>in a reliable medical journal. See the below abstract. Men and womenfared comparably.The same one that published three studies last week on the flawed dataof the WHI?:)Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is better).

So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group opinion to do so.

on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is better).

So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group opinion to do so.

on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

I think what an individual will do has more to do with WHAT they can do, not can they follow some obscure rule which is not all that well proved anyway. Nor do I know where on that U curve I should be.

I believe everyone is different, and trying to force to a particular value derived from "regular" medical data might not apply to CRONies.

I don't really believe I want to look like Saul, Dean, et al, (pardon the graphic).

OTOH, if we are skinny AND healthy, the curve may not be so U shaped as the one with sickly low BMI people in the regular set.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is better).So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group opinion to do so.on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI lessthan 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorableBMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22that is recommended in the files section of the toprevent various types of diseases.It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but thatit is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the highend of the "normal" may be better for longevity.Tony===I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper toappreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.=== Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weightor height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. Afteradjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), andurbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI andall-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participantswith a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risksof all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5, 1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9, 1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <==== 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more. The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants whowere current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who hadprevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who diedduring the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association wasobserved between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,cancer, and other causes.

[Guest guest]

I think what an individual will do has more to do with WHAT they can do, not can they follow some obscure rule which is not all that well proved anyway. Nor do I know where on that U curve I should be.

I believe everyone is different, and trying to force to a particular value derived from "regular" medical data might not apply to CRONies.

I don't really believe I want to look like Saul, Dean, et al, (pardon the graphic).

OTOH, if we are skinny AND healthy, the curve may not be so U shaped as the one with sickly low BMI people in the regular set.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is better).So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group opinion to do so.on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI lessthan 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorableBMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22that is recommended in the files section of the toprevent various types of diseases.It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but thatit is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the highend of the "normal" may be better for longevity.Tony===I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper toappreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.=== Results: After excluding those participants with missing body weightor height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis. Afteradjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south), andurbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI andall-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those participantswith a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative risksof all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than 18.5, 1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9, 1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <==== 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more. The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants whowere current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who hadprevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who diedduring the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association wasobserved between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,cancer, and other causes.

[Guest guest]

At 02:09 PM 2/15/2006, you wrote:

Hard to swallow (pardon the

pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which

would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice).

But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since

it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is

better).

So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group

opinion to do so.

Of course. It does put one more check in the column for every-other-day

fasting/eating, though, because that CR route can be followed while

maintaining a higher BMI, if that turns out to truly seem

desirable.

Maco

on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at

citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI

less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most

favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21

to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the

to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but

that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is

the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body

weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis.

After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south),

and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI

and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those

participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative

risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than

18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants

who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who

had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who

died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable

medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared

comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

>

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

At 02:09 PM 2/15/2006, you wrote:

Hard to swallow (pardon the

pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit portly for longevity (which

would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON alone would suffice).

But it would seem prudent to wait for more studies to confirm this (since

it goes against the prevailing thinking that thin, up to a point, is

better).

So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group

opinion to do so.

Of course. It does put one more check in the column for every-other-day

fasting/eating, though, because that CR route can be followed while

maintaining a higher BMI, if that turns out to truly seem

desirable.

Maco

on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at

citpeks@... wrote:

The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI

less

than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most

favorable

BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21

to 22

that is recommended in the files section of the

to

prevent various types of diseases.

It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but

that

it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is

the high

end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

Tony

===

I have reformated the results section of the referenced paper to

appreciate better the Risk vs BMI relationship.

===

Results: After excluding those participants with missing body

weight

or height values, 154 736 adults were included in the analysis.

After

adjustment for age, sex, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption,

physical activity, education, geographic region (north vs south),

and

urbanization (urban vs rural), a U-shaped association between BMI

and

all-cause mortality was observed (P<.001). Using those

participants

with a BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 as the reference group, the relative

risks

of all-cause mortality across categories of BMI were:

1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.77) for BMI less than

18.5,

1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.41) for BMI 18.5 to 19.9,

1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.29) for BMI 20.0 to 20.9,

1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21) for BMI 21.0 to 21.9,

1.11 (95% CI, 1.03-1.20) for BMI 22.0 to 22.9,

1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.19) for BMI 23.0 to 23.9,

1.00 Reference group - BMI of 24.0 to 24.9 <====

1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08) for BMI 25.0 to 26.9,

1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.24) for BMI 27.0 to 29.9, and

1.29 (95% CI, 1.16-1.42) for BMI 30.0 or more.

The U-shaped association existed even after excluding participants

who

were current or former smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, or who

had

prevalent chronic illness at the baseline examination, or who

died

during the first 3 years of follow-up. A similar association was

observed between BMI and mortality from cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and other causes.

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> Another paper documenting a U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

association

in a

> study that is pdf-available has been published in a reliable

medical

> journal. See the below abstract. Men and women fared

comparably.

>

> Body Weight and Mortality Among Men and Women in China

> Dongfeng Gu, et al and K. Whelton

> JAMA. 2006;295:776-783.

>

>

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/7/776

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

I believe this phenomenon may have been discussed before. Unless such

studies are normalized for adequate nutrition it is probably not

important to CRON practitioners.

It's perhaps logical to assume that skinny ad-lib eaters may not be

getting adequate nutrition and suffer the consequences of same.

I would give it about as much credibility as most of the popular

studies... somewhere between little and none...

JR

Francesca Skelton wrote:

> Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit

> portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON

> alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more

> studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking

> that thin, up to a point, is better).

>

> So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group

> opinion to do so.

>

>

> on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

>

> The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

> than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

> BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

> that is recommended in the files section of the to

> prevent various types of diseases.

>

> It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

> it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

> end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

>

> Tony

>

> ===

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe this phenomenon may have been discussed before. Unless such

studies are normalized for adequate nutrition it is probably not

important to CRON practitioners.

It's perhaps logical to assume that skinny ad-lib eaters may not be

getting adequate nutrition and suffer the consequences of same.

I would give it about as much credibility as most of the popular

studies... somewhere between little and none...

JR

Francesca Skelton wrote:

> Hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Sounds like you have to be a bit

> portly for longevity (which would seem to rule out any CR at all and ON

> alone would suffice). But it would seem prudent to wait for more

> studies to confirm this (since it goes against the prevailing thinking

> that thin, up to a point, is better).

>

> So I hesitate to alter our files; unless there is a majority group

> opinion to do so.

>

>

> on 2/15/2006 2:17 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

>

> The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a BMI less

> than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most favorable

> BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the 21 to 22

> that is recommended in the files section of the to

> prevent various types of diseases.

>

> It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc, but that

> it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is the high

> end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

>

> Tony

>

> ===

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I very much agree with this. And in addition I would add that the

low BMI group will contain many members who are slim simply because

they never have much of an appetite.

My one-mouse, highly unreliable, intuition tells me that these people

are not healthy, even if they are not (yet) exhibiting obvious signs

of disease. And they must account for a significant proportion of

the low BMI contingent.

Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to obtain

longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

Rodney.

> >

> > The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a

BMI less

> > than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most

favorable

> > BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the

21 to 22

> > that is recommended in the files section of the

to

> > prevent various types of diseases.

> >

> > It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc,

but that

> > it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is

the high

> > end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

> >

> > Tony

> >

> > ===

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I very much agree with this. And in addition I would add that the

low BMI group will contain many members who are slim simply because

they never have much of an appetite.

My one-mouse, highly unreliable, intuition tells me that these people

are not healthy, even if they are not (yet) exhibiting obvious signs

of disease. And they must account for a significant proportion of

the low BMI contingent.

Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to obtain

longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

Rodney.

> >

> > The results in the referenced paper indicate that having a

BMI less

> > than 20 is just as bad as being obese (BMI >= 30). The most

favorable

> > BMI is in the range of 24.0 to 26.9. This is higher than the

21 to 22

> > that is recommended in the files section of the

to

> > prevent various types of diseases.

> >

> > It may be that BMI 21 to 22 may prevent CVD, diabetes, etc,

but that

> > it is not the optimum BMI for longevity. BMI of 25, which is

the high

> > end of the " normal " may be better for longevity.

> >

> > Tony

> >

> > ===

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Here it is: It was post #19795.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

> Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

> about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to obtain

> longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

> hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Here it is: It was post #19795.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

> Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

> about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to obtain

> longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

> hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks:

And further, in post #19806, elaborated on this.

Rodney.

> >

> > Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

> > about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to

obtain

> > longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

> > hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

> >

> > Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks:

And further, in post #19806, elaborated on this.

Rodney.

> >

> > Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

> > about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to

obtain

> > longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

> > hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

> >

> > Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

In spite of your intuition about slim, healthy individuals who don't

exhibit signs of a disease and therefore die early, I think that

154,736 people constitutes a " significant " sample size.

Of course, the people studied were Chinese, and we don't really know

the environmental factors to which they were exposed (air/water

pollution, second-hand smoke, parasites, etc.) Differences in genetic

factors and dietary habits may also limit applicability of the results

to European populations. Unfortunately, the abstract does not say how

many individuals were in each BMI category so that we could compare it

with US distributions. I would venture to say that the Chinese don't

yet have an obesity epidemic like we have in the US.

Tony

>

> Hi JR:

>

> I very much agree with this. And in addition I would add that the

> low BMI group will contain many members who are slim simply because

> they never have much of an appetite.

>

> My one-mouse, highly unreliable, intuition tells me that these people

> are not healthy, even if they are not (yet) exhibiting obvious signs

> of disease. And they must account for a significant proportion of

> the low BMI contingent.

>

> Also perhaps connected with this, was a study someone posted here

> about six months ago which seemed to imply that in order to obtain

> longevity benefits it is necessary to experience the sensation of

> hunger. Can anyone remember/relocate that post?

>

> Rodney.