Re: CRON versus working out for longevity

[Guest guest]

If my memory is correct The group with the longest longevity in a

study was the modestly fit modestly overweight category. I did not keep

the book so I can not look it up.

said he tried to factor out smoking, but Walford was suspicious

of this outcome in one of his books. He felt that the thin category may

have held some with undiagnosed illnesses.

I acknowledge that these results are counter intuitive.

I think that the best thing a unfit overweight person can do is be

modestly fit. Losing weight would be good as well of course as I doubt

the results of the study too. But this is what got.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

" 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]

As has been mentioned before if these BMI, or weight, or whatever studies are not controlled for adequate nutrition all bets are off. The heavier individuals have more opportunity to get adequate nutrition, the skinny individual not.JROn Sep 29, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Dennis De Jarnette wrote:"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, 1997I am not sure I agree but there are studies that back this up.Fromhttp://www.obesitymyths.com/myth4.1.htmPositive Dennis

[Guest guest]

I posted this last year, but here it is again -- disputing the study

that said " moderately overweight lived longer " :

From the October 2005 " Nutrition Action Health Letter "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_8_32/ai_n15691315

" The average person who is not familiar with the details of

multivariable analysis will not be in a good position to make

judgements about this study (the CDC study by Flegal et al. that says

slightly overweight is best). "

The article points out that when JoAnn Manson, professor of

epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, looked at the

Nurses Health Study data, controlling for smoking by using detailed

cigarettes-per-day data, not just the CDC's smoking-or-not data, she

found that the leanest women still had a slightly higher risk of

dying. HOWEVER, when she looked at women who had NEVER SMOKED, the

leanest women had the LOWEST RISK OF DYING. " The effect of cigarettes

on the risk of disease is so powerful and it's so difficult to control

for factors like the intensity and duration of smoking that the only

way to eliminate the bias is to look at people who have never smoked, "

says Manson. (This also implies that leaner smokers may be less

healthy than fatter ones).

The Nutrition Action article then goes on to describe how the Flegal

report had too few nonsmokers in the part of the study that followed

people the longest to restrict an analysis to healthy nonsmokers.

They also point out flaws in the Flegal study, like short term

follow-up that did not insure that they were studying originally

healthy individuals (ie they didn't screen effectively for occult

disease).

In addition, the article points out that looking at BMI for the older

individuals in the study is tricky because lower BMIs in older people

may indicate frailness rather than leanness. What's more, " depletion

of the susceptibles " may hide harm caused by obestity. " People who

are susceptible to heart disease and diabetes tend to die earlier, so

if you're still obese in your 80s, you're probably relatively immune

to the adverse effects of obesity. " Finally, what researches call

" compression of mortality " kicks in among older people. As you age,

the risk of dying is so great that not much influences it. " Even

cigarette smoking doesn't look like a strong predictor of mortality in

your 80s and 90s " , says Manson.

The article ends by pointing out that given the huge increase in risk

of diabetes, heart disease, gallstones, hypertension, breast and colon

cancer as BMI increases, is it even PLAUSIBLE that being overweight is

protective?

Diane

>

> If my memory is correct The group with the longest longevity in a

> study was the modestly fit modestly overweight category. I did not keep

> the book so I can not look it up.

>

> said he tried to factor out smoking, but Walford was suspicious

> of this outcome in one of his books. He felt that the thin category may

> have held some with undiagnosed illnesses.

>

> I acknowledge that these results are counter intuitive.

>

> I think that the best thing a unfit overweight person can do is be

> modestly fit. Losing weight would be good as well of course as I doubt

> the results of the study too. But this is what got.

>

> Positive Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Blair has worked for years to prove his fit vs

fat " theory. And, for a while was able to produce

data to support his theory. himself was

fairly overweight and beleived his jogging 5 miles a

day (since highschool as he would boast) would prevent

any illness.

Unfortunately, he now suffers at an early age, from

heart disease.

And, the " unbiased " data doesnt support his

contention.

Fatness Is a Better Predictor of Cardiovascular

Disease Risk Factor Profile Than

Aerobic Fitness in Healthy Men

Demetra D. Christou, L. Gentile,

A. DeSouza, R.

Seals, and E. Gates

Circulation 2005;111 1904-1914

We conclude that body fatness is a better predictor of

the general CVD risk factor profile than aerobic

fitness in healthy men. Measures of total body and

abdominal adiposity were consistently and

independently associated with a wide

variety of established CVD risk factors, suggesting

that both of these adiposity

phenotypes may contribute to intermediate CVD risk.

Thus, although habitual physical

activity is an effective, well-established strategy

for preventing CVD, the

important message from the present study is that

elevated body fatness is associated

with an adverse CVD risk factor profile, independently

of aerobic fitness.

The present results provide further evidence

implicating body fatness as a key

public health concern. In particular, our findings

provide additional justification

for CVD risk factor management strategies that

emphasize prevention of weight gain

in nonoverweight/nonobese men and successful long-term

weight reduction in

overweight and obese men. Most importantly, our

results support the position that

habitual physical activity/aerobic fitness should be

viewed as an effective partner

to weight maintenance in the primary prevention of

CVD, not as a surrogate approach.

Association of Physical Activity and Body Mass Index

With Novel and Traditional Cardiovascular Biomarkers

in Women

Samia Mora, MD, MHS; I-Min Lee, MBBS, ScD; E.

Buring, ScD; M Ridker, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2006;295:1412-1419.

Context There are few data directly comparing the

effects of physical activity and body weight on

cardiovascular biomarkers.

Objective To examine the association of physical

activity and body mass index (BMI, defined as weight

in kilograms divided by the square of height in

meters) alone and in combination with cardiovascular

biomarkers.

Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional

analysis of 27 158 apparently healthy US women (mean

age, 54.7 years) at the time of enrollment (1992-1995)

in the Women's Health Study, a randomized,

double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose

aspirin and vitamin E in the primary prevention of

cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Main Outcome Measures The association of physical

activity and BMI with high-sensitivity C-reactive

protein (CRP), fibrinogen, soluble intracellular

adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), homocysteine, low- and

high-density lipoprotein (LDL and HDL) cholesterol,

total cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-1 and B100,

lipoprotein(a), and creatinine.

Results Lower levels of physical activity and higher

levels of BMI were independently associated (P for

trend <.001) with adverse levels of nearly all lipid

and inflammatory biomarkers. High BMI showed stronger

associations with these biomarkers than physical

inactivity. For example, using the reference group of

physically active, normal weight women (energy

expenditure 1000 kcal/week; BMI, 18.5-24.9) and

adjusting for age, race, smoking, blood pressure,

diabetes, menopausal status, and hormone use, the odds

ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for having CRP

>3 mg/L were: for inactive, normal weight women 1.26

(1.15-1.37); active, overweight 2.68 (2.41-2.98);

inactive, overweight 3.11 (2.84-3.41); active, obese

8.25 (7.15-9.51); and inactive, obese 9.86

(8.84-10.99). In similar analyses, the odds ratios

(95% CIs) for having HDL cholesterol <50 mg/dL were

1.20 (1.11-1.30); 2.25 (2.04-2.49); 2.62 (2.41-2.85);

4.21 (3.68-4.81); and 5.27 (4.77-5.84), respectively,

and for having apolipoprotein B100 >120 mg/dL they

were 1.21 (1.11-1.33); 1.86 (1.66-2.08); 2.06

(1.88-2.67); 2.35 (2.04-2.70); and 2.33 (2.09-2.59).

Fibrinogen, ICAM-1, apolipoprotein A1, total

cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol showed similar

associations. By contrast, homocysteine, lipoprotein

(a), and creatinine showed weak or nonsignificant

associations.

Conclusions High BMI was more strongly related to

adverse cardiovascular biomarker levels than physical

inactivity. However, within BMI categories, physical

activity was generally associated with more favorable

cardiovascular biomarker levels than inactivity.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

It is my opinion that the only thing that is reliable

regarding how long and healthy we live is determined

by our eating a diet composed of " healthy foods " that

meet our recommended daily allowances of protein,

essential fats, vitamins and minerals, while consuming

few calories. Animal studies suggest that for humans

the level of CR that is optimum is higher than the

" optimum " determined from human studies. Human

studies do not measure the effects of CR. Studies

done so far, are planned and will follow cannot

achieve the sophistication of animal studies. We are

not sufficiently controlled in our CR practices, the

measurements of the nature of our CR or our methods

used to achieve our CR to allow meaningful results to

be obtained. The " leap " from animal to human

relevance of CR and the levels that may provide

maximum lifespan and health benefits should not be

large. It is obtained that the data thus far on the

nearest evolutionary members of animals to humans are

not convincing that CR will be as beneficial for

primates as they are for other organisms. Primate CR

studies appear to be inadequate due to financial and

logistical constraints. Genetic studies of primates,

including humans, lack the sophistication that is

achieved using lower evolutionary species employed to

study CR.

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

__________________________________________________