Re: Optimum BMI for longevity (was CRON versus working out for longevity)

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

A study of BMI vs. mortality for over 1 million people found that the

lowest mortality was around BMI of 23. This is just above the middle

of the " normal " BMI range which is between 18.5 and 25.

Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, C, Heath CW

Jr.

Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort

of U.S. adults.

N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7;341(15):1097-105.

PMID: 10511607 http://tinyurl.com/k2jzg

" In healthy people who had never

smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and

mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to

24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. "

Tony

===

>

> " If the height/weight charts say you are 5 pounds too heavy, or even 50

> pounds or more too heavy, it is of little or no consequence

> healthwise-as long as you are physically fit. On the other hand, if you

> are a couch potato, being thin provides absolutely no assurance of good

> health, and does nothing to increase your chances of living a long

life. "

> - Blair, P.E.D., Institute for Aerobics Research, 1997

>

>

> I am not sure I agree but there are studies that back this up.

>

> From

>

> http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth4.1.htm

>

>

> Positive Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

These studies Jeff and Tony refer to dovetail well. With smaller

relative bone size and less muscle mass, it makes sense that a healthy

BMI for women would be lower than a healthy BMI for men. Thus a BMI

of 23 may be optimal for men, while a BMI between 18.5 and 21.9 may be

optimal for women.

Diane

>

> Along with the one Tony posted, the one below says a

> BMI Of 18.5 to 21.9 is best.

>

> Also, data from the Nurses Health Study showed the

> relative risk of a middle-aged woman developing

> type 2 DM over a 14y follow up with a BMI of 23-24.9

> was 300-400% (or 3-4X) greater than women with a BMI

> of 22 or less! Of course, the relative risk for women

> with a BMI over 30 was 40X to more than 90X as

> great as a women with a BMI <22

>

> So, while we can continue to debate the merits of a

> BMI or 18.5 -21.9 vs 23, and the influence of the

> degree of fitness within those ranges, I dont see the

> evidence supporting a BMI over 23, regardless of

> fitness level, for longevity.

>

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

>

> " Impact of Overweight on the Risk of Developing Common

> Chronic Diseases

> During a 10-Year Period

>

> Alison E. Field, ScD; Eugenie H. Coakley; Aviva Must,

> PhD; L.

> Spadano, MA; Nan Laird, PhD; H. Dietz, MD,

> PhD; Rimm, ScD;

> Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH

>

> Background: Overweight adults are at an increased risk

> of developing

> numerous chronic diseases.

>

> Methods: Ten-year follow-up (1986-1996) of middle-aged

> women in the

> Nurses' Health Study and men in the Health

> Professionals Follow-up Study

> to assess the health risks associated with overweight.

> Results The risk of developing diabetes, gallstones,

> hypertension, heart

> disease, and stroke increased with severity of

> overweight among both

> women and men. Compared with their same-sex peers with

> a body mass index

> (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by

> the square of height

> in meters) between 18.5 and 24.9, those with BMI of

> 35.0 or more were

> approximately 20 times more likely to develop diabetes

> (relative risk

> [RR], 17.0; 95% confidence interval [CI],

> 14.2-20.5 for women; RR, 23.4; 95% CI, 19.4-33.2 for

> men). Women who

> were overweight but not obese (ie, BMI between 25.0

> and 29.9) were also

> significantly more likely than their leaner peers to

> develop gallstones

> (RR, 1.9), hypertension (RR, 1.7), high cholesterol

> level (RR, 1.1), and

> heart disease (RR, 1.4). The results were similar in

> men.

>

> Conclusions: During 10 years of follow-up, the

> incidence of diabetes,

> gallstones, hypertension, heart disease, colon cancer,

> and stroke (men

> only) increased with degree of overweight in both men

> and women. Adults

> who were overweight but not obese (ie, 25.0BMI29.9)

> were at

> significantly increased risk of developing numerous

> health conditions.

> Moreover, the dose-response relationship between BMI

> and the risk of

> developing chronic diseases was evident even among

> adults in the upper

> half of the healthy weight range (ie, BMI of

> 22.0-24.9), suggesting that

> adults should try to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and

> 21.9 to minimize

> their risk of disease.

>

> Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1581-1586

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

My take on this is that maybe we should not be looking for an optimal

BMI. But instead look at what may be an optimal biomarker

performance, which might include BMI as one of a total of perhaps a

dozen biomarkers. And it would include HDL etc., carotid IMT, T3,

CRP, IL-6 perhaps, .......... .

But we don't really know what the ideal set of biomarkers is, nor the

ideal overall value for them that is associated with the lowest

mortality. We don't even know whether, as body weight declines, the

biomarkers also decline all the way to literal starvation. If they

do then, of course, that would be less helpful.

The ultimate test would be to know the mortality/longevity data for a

number of points on the range of values for the biomarker set. But

we will not have something like this until someone does the work, and

that may not be for fifty years. But, imo, that is probably what we

need.

In any event, it seems highly probable that 30% restriction is way

better than zero restriction. So perhaps I should not complain.

Twenty years ago next to nothing was known compared with what we know

today.

Rodney.

PS: At the very least I think we know that 'waist-to-hip' is a much

better measure than BMI.

===========================================

>

> These studies Jeff and Tony refer to dovetail well. With smaller

> relative bone size and less muscle mass, it makes sense that a

healthy

> BMI for women would be lower than a healthy BMI for men. Thus a BMI

> of 23 may be optimal for men, while a BMI between 18.5 and 21.9 may

be

> optimal for women.

>

> Diane

>

>

> --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@>

wrote:

> >

> > Along with the one Tony posted, the one below says a

> > BMI Of 18.5 to 21.9 is best.

> >

> > Also, data from the Nurses Health Study showed the

> > relative risk of a middle-aged woman developing

> > type 2 DM over a 14y follow up with a BMI of 23-24.9

> > was 300-400% (or 3-4X) greater than women with a BMI

> > of 22 or less! Of course, the relative risk for women

> > with a BMI over 30 was 40X to more than 90X as

> > great as a women with a BMI <22

> >

> > So, while we can continue to debate the merits of a

> > BMI or 18.5 -21.9 vs 23, and the influence of the

> > degree of fitness within those ranges, I dont see the

> > evidence supporting a BMI over 23, regardless of

> > fitness level, for longevity.

> >

> >

> > Regards

> > Jeff

> >

> >

> > " Impact of Overweight on the Risk of Developing Common

> > Chronic Diseases

> > During a 10-Year Period

> >

> > Alison E. Field, ScD; Eugenie H. Coakley; Aviva Must,

> > PhD; L.

> > Spadano, MA; Nan Laird, PhD; H. Dietz, MD,

> > PhD; Rimm, ScD;

> > Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH

> >

> > Background: Overweight adults are at an increased risk

> > of developing

> > numerous chronic diseases.

> >

> > Methods: Ten-year follow-up (1986-1996) of middle-aged

> > women in the

> > Nurses' Health Study and men in the Health

> > Professionals Follow-up Study

> > to assess the health risks associated with overweight.

> > Results The risk of developing diabetes, gallstones,

> > hypertension, heart

> > disease, and stroke increased with severity of

> > overweight among both

> > women and men. Compared with their same-sex peers with

> > a body mass index

> > (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by

> > the square of height

> > in meters) between 18.5 and 24.9, those with BMI of

> > 35.0 or more were

> > approximately 20 times more likely to develop diabetes

> > (relative risk

> > [RR], 17.0; 95% confidence interval [CI],

> > 14.2-20.5 for women; RR, 23.4; 95% CI, 19.4-33.2 for

> > men). Women who

> > were overweight but not obese (ie, BMI between 25.0

> > and 29.9) were also

> > significantly more likely than their leaner peers to

> > develop gallstones

> > (RR, 1.9), hypertension (RR, 1.7), high cholesterol

> > level (RR, 1.1), and

> > heart disease (RR, 1.4). The results were similar in

> > men.

> >

> > Conclusions: During 10 years of follow-up, the

> > incidence of diabetes,

> > gallstones, hypertension, heart disease, colon cancer,

> > and stroke (men

> > only) increased with degree of overweight in both men

> > and women. Adults

> > who were overweight but not obese (ie, 25.0BMI29.9)

> > were at

> > significantly increased risk of developing numerous

> > health conditions.

> > Moreover, the dose-response relationship between BMI

> > and the risk of

> > developing chronic diseases was evident even among

> > adults in the upper

> > half of the healthy weight range (ie, BMI of

> > 22.0-24.9), suggesting that

> > adults should try to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and

> > 21.9 to minimize

> > their risk of disease.

> >

> > Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1581-1586

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Maco,

Your argument proposing deceptively low BMIs for shorter people is

flawed. BMI is proportional to 1/height SQUARED. So greater height

reduces BMI by the square of the height. Therefore a 7 foot tall

person will have a deceptively low BMI.

For the same weight, a shorter person will have a much higher BMI than

a tall person because the BMI increases by the SQUARE of the height

difference.

As for waist-to-height being a better health indicator than BMI, that

is flawed as well. The waist circumference is limited by the size of

the internal organs. For a hypothetical 6' 6 " person with 0% body fat

and a hypothetical 5'0 " person with 0% body fat, the waist-to-height

ratio will be substantially larger for the shorter person although

there is no fat left to lose.

The waist-to-hip ratio is much preferable, because it indicates

adiposity more accurately.

Diane

>

> Even waist-to-height would be better than BMI, methinks, which we

know is

> inherently mathematically flawed.

>

> For that reason, too, I question whether a previous poster's suggestion

> that women should have an average ideal BMI that's lower than men's

could

> be correct because women, being on average shorter, are already

going to

> have deceptively low BMIs for any given degree of body fat.

>

> Maco

>