Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

[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.

[Guest guest]

I have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

Adventist men.

Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

This study examines the relationship between body mass index (BMI)

and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-day

Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile

(less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70 (95

percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show increased

mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with low

BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI and

attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included as

a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintile

relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52) at

age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction was

also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for all

endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the other

endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

males. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relatively

large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these findings.

PMID: 1885263

> > >

> > > 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 have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

Adventist men.

Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

This study examines the relationship between body mass index (BMI)

and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-day

Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile

(less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70 (95

percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show increased

mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with low

BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI and

attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included as

a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintile

relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52) at

age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction was

also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for all

endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the other

endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

males. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relatively

large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these findings.

PMID: 1885263

> > >

> > > 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]

Not to sound like a broken record, but if not controlled for nutrition

quality one might expect slightly heavier to do better due to poor

quality of typical diet. The more you eat ad lib the better chance of

getting full nutrition, until you cause some other harm.

I still question applicability to individuals who manage their nutrition.

JR

Maco wrote:

> 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]

Not to sound like a broken record, but if not controlled for nutrition

quality one might expect slightly heavier to do better due to poor

quality of typical diet. The more you eat ad lib the better chance of

getting full nutrition, until you cause some other harm.

I still question applicability to individuals who manage their nutrition.

JR

Maco wrote:

> 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]

>

> I have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

>

> Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

>

> Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> Adventist men.

>

> Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

>

> School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

>

> This study examines the relationship between body mass index

(BMI)

> and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-day

> Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile

> (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70

(95

> percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

increased

> mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with

low

> BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI and

> attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included

as

> a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintile

> relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52)

at

> age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction was

> also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

all

> endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the other

> endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> males.

Don't we want a J-shape versus a U-shape? Or are

they saying we have a simple linear progression here?

Thanks,

-

> While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relatively

> large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

findings.

>

> PMID: 1885263

[Guest guest]

>

> I have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

>

> Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

>

> Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> Adventist men.

>

> Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

>

> School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

>

> This study examines the relationship between body mass index

(BMI)

> and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-day

> Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile

> (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70

(95

> percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

increased

> mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with

low

> BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI and

> attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included

as

> a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintile

> relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52)

at

> age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction was

> also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

all

> endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the other

> endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> males.

Don't we want a J-shape versus a U-shape? Or are

they saying we have a simple linear progression here?

Thanks,

-

> While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relatively

> large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

findings.

>

> PMID: 1885263

[Guest guest]

Hi :

" Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

Rodney.

> >

> > I have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

> >

> > Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

> >

> > Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> > Adventist men.

> >

> > Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

> >

> > School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

> >

> > This study examines the relationship between body mass index

> (BMI)

> > and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-

day

> > Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> > kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI

quintile

> > (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was

0.70

> (95

> > percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> > 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> > 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

> increased

> > mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated

with

> low

> > BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI

and

> > attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was

included

> as

> > a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> > age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest

quintile

> > relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-

0.52)

> at

> > age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction

was

> > also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> > significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

> all

> > endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> > P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the

other

> > endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> > evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> > males.

>

> Don't we want a J-shape versus a U-shape? Or are

> they saying we have a simple linear progression here?

>

> Thanks,

> -

>

>

> > While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> > quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> > mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The

relatively

> > large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> > result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

> findings.

> >

> > PMID: 1885263

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

" Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

Rodney.

> >

> > I have said from day one LEAN and " muscular " is helpful.

> >

> > Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

> >

> > Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> > Adventist men.

> >

> > Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

> >

> > School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

> >

> > This study examines the relationship between body mass index

> (BMI)

> > and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-

day

> > Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> > kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI

quintile

> > (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was

0.70

> (95

> > percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> > 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> > 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

> increased

> > mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated

with

> low

> > BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI

and

> > attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was

included

> as

> > a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> > age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest

quintile

> > relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-

0.52)

> at

> > age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction

was

> > also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> > significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

> all

> > endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> > P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the

other

> > endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> > evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> > males.

>

> Don't we want a J-shape versus a U-shape? Or are

> they saying we have a simple linear progression here?

>

> Thanks,

> -

>

>

> > While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> > quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> > mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The

relatively

> > large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> > result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

> findings.

> >

> > PMID: 1885263

>

[Guest guest]

I have to wonder why "lean" men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve.

I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that inference.

What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?

Regards.

[ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406. Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-dayAdventist men. Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW. School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350. This study examines the relationship between body mass index (BMI)and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-dayAdventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile(less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70 (95percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show increasedmortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with lowBMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI andattained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included asa time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintilerelative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52) atage 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction wasalso seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was asignificant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for allendpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality theP-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the otherendpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was noevidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality inmales. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMIquintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart diseasemortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relativelylarge number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as aresult of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these findings. PMID: 1885263

[Guest guest]

I have to wonder why "lean" men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve.

I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that inference.

What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?

Regards.

[ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406. Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-dayAdventist men. Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW. School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350. This study examines the relationship between body mass index (BMI)and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-dayAdventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile(less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70 (95percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show increasedmortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with lowBMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI andattained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included asa time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintilerelative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52) atage 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction wasalso seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was asignificant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for allendpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality theP-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the otherendpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was noevidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality inmales. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMIquintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart diseasemortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relativelylarge number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as aresult of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these findings. PMID: 1885263

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

Their dietary habits vary all over the lot. About the only thing

they seem to agree on is alcohol (their abstaining from wine does not

help them of course.)

I mentioned here some months ago an individual who was swallowing

literally platefuls of the very worst desserts and was bragging

between successive mouthfuls that: " my blood pressure is above

200 " . I replied that I was not surprised. She is a Seventh Day

Adventist, with a BMI, for a guess, around 30. (Her husband has a

BMI around 20). Quite a few of them eat some meat, milk, eggs. A

very small minority smoke.

Hydrogenated vegetable oil products are not on their recommended omit

list. Nor are the other fats and oils including tropical oils,

coconut etc..

So in summary their eating habits vary enormously.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> I have to wonder why " lean " men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-

smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as

vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner

and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than

most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve.

> I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll

be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that

inference.

> What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?

>

> Regards.

>

>

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

>

>

> Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

>

> Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> Adventist men.

>

> Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

>

> School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

>

> This study examines the relationship between body mass index

(BMI)

> and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-

day

> Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI

quintile

> (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was

0.70 (95

> percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

increased

> mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated

with low

> BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI

and

> attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was

included as

> a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest

quintile

> relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-

0.52) at

> age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction

was

> also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

all

> endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the

other

> endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> males. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The

relatively

> large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

findings.

>

> PMID: 1885263

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

Their dietary habits vary all over the lot. About the only thing

they seem to agree on is alcohol (their abstaining from wine does not

help them of course.)

I mentioned here some months ago an individual who was swallowing

literally platefuls of the very worst desserts and was bragging

between successive mouthfuls that: " my blood pressure is above

200 " . I replied that I was not surprised. She is a Seventh Day

Adventist, with a BMI, for a guess, around 30. (Her husband has a

BMI around 20). Quite a few of them eat some meat, milk, eggs. A

very small minority smoke.

Hydrogenated vegetable oil products are not on their recommended omit

list. Nor are the other fats and oils including tropical oils,

coconut etc..

So in summary their eating habits vary enormously.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> I have to wonder why " lean " men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-

smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as

vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner

and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than

most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve.

> I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll

be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that

inference.

> What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?

>

> Regards.

>

>

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

>

>

> Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.

>

> Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day

> Adventist men.

>

> Lindsted K, Tonstad S, Kuzma JW.

>

> School of Public Health, Loma University, CA 92350.

>

> This study examines the relationship between body mass index

(BMI)

> and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-

day

> Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20

> kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI

quintile

> (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was

0.70 (95

> percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI

> 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI

> 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show

increased

> mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated

with low

> BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI

and

> attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was

included as

> a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality,

> age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest

quintile

> relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-

0.52) at

> age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction

was

> also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a

> significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for

all

> endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the

> P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the

other

> endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no

> evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in

> males. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI

> quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease

> mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The

relatively

> large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a

> result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these

findings.

>

> PMID: 1885263

>

[Guest guest]

The only ref I have are on studies done of vegetarians in Calif, and a few friends who were all thin vegetarians. Averages being what they are, there is a significant number of 7th day vegetarians. But the question remains, since I am not historically part of any "good" group that I know of (except non-smoker), how do I interpret the BMI = 25 is better than the BMI < 25 according to Alan's test site?

> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/>> Will you survive the next four years? Take this test |http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/14/mortality.test.ap/index.html

Here was my response:

Funny thing, Alan, I put in a BMI 25 and I get 4%, andredoing it I entered BMI < 25 and I got 15%.I guess they think your sick if you're below 25.Regards.So someone thinks BMI = 25 is better in some algorithm which expresses the average American. Since some of us have been heavier than that even, what do I draw from that data? The 7 day Adventist's are only a small segment of the total population, as are the Mormon vegetarians, you name it.

In other lifespan estimates I've always fared well, like 96 yo.

Of course these are averages, so the effect on the j part of the curve could be just the math. Where did they get the stats? Death certificates which show a low weight

at death of a man who had been 250# before the cancer set in?

I don't think it tells me anything, certainly not to try to fit some average.

Regards.

[ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Hi JW:I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).Their dietary habits vary all over the lot. About the only thing they seem to agree on is alcohol (their abstaining from wine does not help them of course.)I mentioned here some months ago an individual who was swallowing literally platefuls of the very worst desserts and was bragging between successive mouthfuls that: "my blood pressure is above 200". I replied that I was not surprised. She is a Seventh Day Adventist, with a BMI, for a guess, around 30. (Her husband has a BMI around 20). Quite a few of them eat some meat, milk, eggs. A very small minority smoke.Hydrogenated vegetable oil products are not on their recommended omit list. Nor are the other fats and oils including tropical oils, coconut etc..So in summary their eating habits vary enormously.Rodney.>> I have to wonder why "lean" men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve. > I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that inference. > What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?> > Regards.

[Guest guest]

The only ref I have are on studies done of vegetarians in Calif, and a few friends who were all thin vegetarians. Averages being what they are, there is a significant number of 7th day vegetarians. But the question remains, since I am not historically part of any "good" group that I know of (except non-smoker), how do I interpret the BMI = 25 is better than the BMI < 25 according to Alan's test site?

> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/>> Will you survive the next four years? Take this test |http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/14/mortality.test.ap/index.html

Here was my response:

Funny thing, Alan, I put in a BMI 25 and I get 4%, andredoing it I entered BMI < 25 and I got 15%.I guess they think your sick if you're below 25.Regards.So someone thinks BMI = 25 is better in some algorithm which expresses the average American. Since some of us have been heavier than that even, what do I draw from that data? The 7 day Adventist's are only a small segment of the total population, as are the Mormon vegetarians, you name it.

In other lifespan estimates I've always fared well, like 96 yo.

Of course these are averages, so the effect on the j part of the curve could be just the math. Where did they get the stats? Death certificates which show a low weight

at death of a man who had been 250# before the cancer set in?

I don't think it tells me anything, certainly not to try to fit some average.

Regards.

[ ] Re: U-shaped BMI/mortality curve

Hi JW:I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).Their dietary habits vary all over the lot. About the only thing they seem to agree on is alcohol (their abstaining from wine does not help them of course.)I mentioned here some months ago an individual who was swallowing literally platefuls of the very worst desserts and was bragging between successive mouthfuls that: "my blood pressure is above 200". I replied that I was not surprised. She is a Seventh Day Adventist, with a BMI, for a guess, around 30. (Her husband has a BMI around 20). Quite a few of them eat some meat, milk, eggs. A very small minority smoke.Hydrogenated vegetable oil products are not on their recommended omit list. Nor are the other fats and oils including tropical oils, coconut etc..So in summary their eating habits vary enormously.Rodney.>> I have to wonder why "lean" men raised as 7th day Adventists, non-smokers, non-drinkers, most probably vegetarians, raised as vegetarians, would have any ischemic heart disease. They are thinner and smaller to begin with. That puts them in a different set than most Americans. So maybe they have a different BMI/mortality curve. > I'm not sure what that proves. Can I infer if I get to 20 BMI, I'll be healthier or live longer? I don't see the data to make that inference. > What do they eat that gives some of them ischemic heart disease?> > Regards.

[Guest guest]

I guess that depends on the font used for the 'J'.

I forgot about the hook at the beginning as many fonts

now do without that old-school flourish. I can see

why that made it a point to say it was not a " J-shaped

relationship between BMI and mortality. " I wonder why

they didn't say it was not a U-shaped relationship?

Perhaps they were saying, it's not EVEN a J-shaped

curve, as in there is no hook whatsoever, regardless

of it's length.

-

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

wrote:

>

> Hi :

>

> " Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

> pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I guess that depends on the font used for the 'J'.

I forgot about the hook at the beginning as many fonts

now do without that old-school flourish. I can see

why that made it a point to say it was not a " J-shaped

relationship between BMI and mortality. " I wonder why

they didn't say it was not a U-shaped relationship?

Perhaps they were saying, it's not EVEN a J-shaped

curve, as in there is no hook whatsoever, regardless

of it's length.

-

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

wrote:

>

> Hi :

>

> " Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

> pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well I take a U-curve to mean that it is every bit as bad to be at

one end of it, as at the other.

I take a J-curve to mean that being at the left end of the curve is

not quite as good as being a little further to the right; and being

at the right end is bad news.

But in this case we are talking about no rise at all at the left end

of the diagram. They do not seem to have said that the curve

continues down as far as it goes all the way to the left. That

appears to be a somewhat ambiguous detail. So either it continues

down all the way to the left, OR it goes flat at some point.

Either way, according to this study, there is no increased risk at

the left end of the diagram. (Although we all believe that

starvation will occur eventually at some point. So the curve of

course will be moving up again somewhere below a BMI of 18. Death

from starvation occurs at a BMI around 12 - 14 I think. This

information has been posted here previously, if anyone feels the need

to check).

While I have earlier characterized one Seventh Day Adventist I met -

the one eating the desserts - I did not say and should have done,

that that is not the norm. In general there are a number of studies

indicating that they, at least those of them that eat healthily, live

on average a number of years longer than the north american average.

(Seven years, I believe, from memory).

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi :

> >

> > " Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

> > pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

> >

> > Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well I take a U-curve to mean that it is every bit as bad to be at

one end of it, as at the other.

I take a J-curve to mean that being at the left end of the curve is

not quite as good as being a little further to the right; and being

at the right end is bad news.

But in this case we are talking about no rise at all at the left end

of the diagram. They do not seem to have said that the curve

continues down as far as it goes all the way to the left. That

appears to be a somewhat ambiguous detail. So either it continues

down all the way to the left, OR it goes flat at some point.

Either way, according to this study, there is no increased risk at

the left end of the diagram. (Although we all believe that

starvation will occur eventually at some point. So the curve of

course will be moving up again somewhere below a BMI of 18. Death

from starvation occurs at a BMI around 12 - 14 I think. This

information has been posted here previously, if anyone feels the need

to check).

While I have earlier characterized one Seventh Day Adventist I met -

the one eating the desserts - I did not say and should have done,

that that is not the norm. In general there are a number of studies

indicating that they, at least those of them that eat healthily, live

on average a number of years longer than the north american average.

(Seven years, I believe, from memory).

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi :

> >

> > " Very lean men did not show increased mortality. " ...... seems

> > pretty clear. Not a J-curve. Not a U-curve.

> >

> > Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

>> In general there are a number of studies

indicating that they, at least those of them that eat healthily, live

on average a number of years longer than the north american average.

(Seven years, I believe, from memory).

Seven is correct. They are the longest live group in the US. And, in general,

they dont smoke, drink, eat meat, and are vegetarian. I beleive by their own

estimates about 50% eat meat occasionally and most are lacto or lacto ovo

vegetarians and tend to be more active. A small percent are vegans.

Unfortunately, they also do use a lot of vegetarian " substitutes " , like fake

meat, and fake bacon, which tend to be very high in sodium and also high in fat.

Worthington foods was a 7th Day adventist company.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>> In general there are a number of studies

indicating that they, at least those of them that eat healthily, live

on average a number of years longer than the north american average.

(Seven years, I believe, from memory).

Seven is correct. They are the longest live group in the US. And, in general,

they dont smoke, drink, eat meat, and are vegetarian. I beleive by their own

estimates about 50% eat meat occasionally and most are lacto or lacto ovo

vegetarians and tend to be more active. A small percent are vegans.

Unfortunately, they also do use a lot of vegetarian " substitutes " , like fake

meat, and fake bacon, which tend to be very high in sodium and also high in fat.

Worthington foods was a 7th Day adventist company.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

At 09:44 PM 2/16/2006, you wrote:

>Hi JW:

>

>I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

>them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

I attended a book signing of " The China Study " by T. Colin

, a Cornell Prof, a few months ago.

Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking glowing and

beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day Adventists as

supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that

vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others.

has written a series of papers where he observes bad

outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to mouse

that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour

promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects against the

effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene.

I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact, I've seen

some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. , of

course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same people who

run those " milk mustache " ads.

told me that he'd done experiments with soy protein, and

found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked him if

he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much less

complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the amino

acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to

casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference.

Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I think

they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn them into

girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic affects of

high-dose anabolic steroids...)

Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

At 09:44 PM 2/16/2006, you wrote:

>Hi JW:

>

>I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of

>them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!).

I attended a book signing of " The China Study " by T. Colin

, a Cornell Prof, a few months ago.

Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking glowing and

beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day Adventists as

supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that

vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others.

has written a series of papers where he observes bad

outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to mouse

that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour

promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects against the

effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene.

I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact, I've seen

some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. , of

course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same people who

run those " milk mustache " ads.

told me that he'd done experiments with soy protein, and

found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked him if

he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much less

complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the amino

acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to

casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference.

Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I think

they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn them into

girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic affects of

high-dose anabolic steroids...)

Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

Haven't run across that book yet, but I'm tired of reading (and buying) more books that say nothing. Unfortunately, the average book today presents an hypothesis that can be summed in 1 or 2 pages, expanded into 600 pages by "writers".

Certainly, most of what we know today, we knew maybe 80 yrs ago - my impression from seeing very little new data. I'm found of reading like: Tice 1925, "Practice of Medicine", a binding of the Am Medical Digest.

Vol VI pg 7 discusses endogenous versus exogenous obesity. The exogenous we can remove with a subcaloric diet, exercise, and the use of thyroid extract to raise BMR.

1925.

"Endogenous obesity has a definite pathological basis, it usually being and endocrine dysfunction. ... The treatment of obesity should be confined to the exogenous type."

Not much change.

We already know that some form of a "vegetarian" diet is probably best, and probably bester if we started young. One article claimed after 35 yo, a vegan diet does not confer the same benefits. I believe switching to a vegan diet is not all that easy, about the same as starving for a meat-eater.

It's easier if you are concerned about some bad thing CVD, HTN, cancer you've come to know.

So what would an Eskimo diet, a Okinawan diet, a Mediterranean diet, a china diet do for me now? Do we have any data that says switching to an "x" diet puts on that "better" mortality curve? NO. Can we SAFELY switch our organs to a different environment? I doubt that - I'll need a lot of proof. .

BUT, can I reduce the calories somewhat and reduce the O2 needed to process that extra food? Why not?

While we're at it can I reduce the exercise to some "practical" level now that my knees, ankles, toes are wearing out? I think so. Stretch the life of the old car out by driving 60 instead of 80.

I don't need another book unless it further describes the way we can a method of scientifically defining a set point, based on age, physical condition, etc. Also, the exact amino acid profile for a CRONie using 1600-1800 kcals. Also, the exact fatty acid breakdown, and lets don't confuse the CR req't with common medical protocol/hypotheses for the AL guy.

Regards

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

At 09:44 PM 2/16/2006, you wrote:>Hi JW:>>I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of>them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!). I attended a book signing of "The China Study" by T. Colin , a Cornell Prof, a few months ago. Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking glowing and beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day Adventists as supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others. has written a series of papers where he observes bad outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to mouse that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects against the effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene. I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact, I've seen some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. , of course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same people who run those "milk mustache" ads. told me that he'd done experiments with soy protein, and found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked him if he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much less complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the amino acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference. Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I think they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn them into girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic affects of high-dose anabolic steroids...) Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

Haven't run across that book yet, but I'm tired of reading (and buying) more books that say nothing. Unfortunately, the average book today presents an hypothesis that can be summed in 1 or 2 pages, expanded into 600 pages by "writers".

Certainly, most of what we know today, we knew maybe 80 yrs ago - my impression from seeing very little new data. I'm found of reading like: Tice 1925, "Practice of Medicine", a binding of the Am Medical Digest.

Vol VI pg 7 discusses endogenous versus exogenous obesity. The exogenous we can remove with a subcaloric diet, exercise, and the use of thyroid extract to raise BMR.

1925.

"Endogenous obesity has a definite pathological basis, it usually being and endocrine dysfunction. ... The treatment of obesity should be confined to the exogenous type."

Not much change.

We already know that some form of a "vegetarian" diet is probably best, and probably bester if we started young. One article claimed after 35 yo, a vegan diet does not confer the same benefits. I believe switching to a vegan diet is not all that easy, about the same as starving for a meat-eater.

It's easier if you are concerned about some bad thing CVD, HTN, cancer you've come to know.

So what would an Eskimo diet, a Okinawan diet, a Mediterranean diet, a china diet do for me now? Do we have any data that says switching to an "x" diet puts on that "better" mortality curve? NO. Can we SAFELY switch our organs to a different environment? I doubt that - I'll need a lot of proof. .

BUT, can I reduce the calories somewhat and reduce the O2 needed to process that extra food? Why not?

While we're at it can I reduce the exercise to some "practical" level now that my knees, ankles, toes are wearing out? I think so. Stretch the life of the old car out by driving 60 instead of 80.

I don't need another book unless it further describes the way we can a method of scientifically defining a set point, based on age, physical condition, etc. Also, the exact amino acid profile for a CRONie using 1600-1800 kcals. Also, the exact fatty acid breakdown, and lets don't confuse the CR req't with common medical protocol/hypotheses for the AL guy.

Regards

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

At 09:44 PM 2/16/2006, you wrote:>Hi JW:>>I know quite a few Seventh Day Adventists. (No, I am not one of>them. I enjoy joking with them about religion!). I attended a book signing of "The China Study" by T. Colin , a Cornell Prof, a few months ago. Quite a few Seventh Day Adventists showed up, looking glowing and beatific. Dr. sees the good health of Seventh Day Adventists as supporting his theory that animal proteins are a poision, and that vegetarians (particularly vegans) are healthier than others. has written a series of papers where he observes bad outcomes in mice that are fed whey protein (casein) as compared to mouse that have protein withdrawn. He claims that casein is a tumour promoter, and that, conversely, protein starvation protects against the effects of carcinogens such as benzopyrene. I haven't seen his work replicated by others, in fact, I've seen some papers where people get the opposite result; Dr. , of course, will tell you that those studies are funded by the same people who run those "milk mustache" ads. told me that he'd done experiments with soy protein, and found that soy protein didn't have the same toxic effect. I asked him if he had any idea why, and he thought it was that soy was a much less complete protein than casein. Usually you hear it claimed that the amino acid efficiency of soy protein powder is about 80% compared to casein, which is a difference, but not much of a difference. Bodybuilders have the same kind of superstition, but I think they're afraid that the phytoestrogens in soy are going to turn them into girls. (Meanwhile they take tamoxifen to block the estrogrenic affects of high-dose anabolic steroids...) Anyone familiar with 's work? Any thoughts?