Some Extra Heft May Be Helpful, New Study Says
Stop the presses, we have another study which challenges common knowledge! This very carefully done study finds that overweight (defined as BMI 25-30) patients have lower mortality than either “normal” weight or “obese” patients.
The researchers – statisticians and epidemiologists from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – also found that increased risk of death from obesity was seen for the most part in the extremely obese, a group constituting only 8 percent of Americans.
And being very thin, even though the thinness was longstanding and unlikely to stem from disease, caused a slight increase in the risk of death, the researchers said.
The new study, considered by many independent scientists to be the most rigorous yet on the effects of weight, controlled for factors like smoking, age, race and alcohol consumption in a sophisticated analysis derived from a well-known method that has been used to predict cancer risk.
It also used the federal government’s own weight categories, which define fatness and thinness according to a “body mass index” correlating weight to height, regardless of sex. For example, 5-foot-8 people weighing less than 122 pounds are underweight. If they weighed 122 to 164 pounds, their weight would be normal. They would be overweight at 165 to 196, obese at 197 to 229, and extremely obese at 230 or over.
Researchers had a full gamut of responses to the unexpected findings, being reported today in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Some saw the report as a long-needed reality check on what they consider the nation’s near-hysteria over fat.
“I love it,” said Dr. Steven Blair, president and chief executive of the Cooper Institute, a research and educational organization in Dallas that focuses on preventive medicine.
“There are people who have made up their minds that obesity and overweight are the biggest public health problem that we have to face,” Dr. Blair said. “These numbers show that maybe it’s not that big.”
As in all epidemiologic studies, we must examine these results very carefully, and in context of previous research. However, no one can really dispute the methodology used in this study.
Some statisticians and epidemiologists said that the study’s methods and data were exemplary and that the authors – Dr. Williamson and Dr. Katherine M. Flegal of the disease control centers, and Dr. Barry I. Graubard and Dr. Mitchell H. Gail of the cancer institute – were experienced and highly regarded scientists.
So how do we put these results into perspective? Clearly obesity remains a problem. The challenge of defining obesity remains. We have other data to suggest that waist circumference better predicts bad outcomes than BMI. Perhaps many “overweight” patients have acceptable waist circumference. So go back and read this earlier rant – The value of a tape measure. Possibly we should classify obesity not through BMI but rather circumference. Most “overweight” patients have acceptable waist circumference. Thus calling those patients overweight seems a disservice. Labeling patients overweight without supportive data to show that their weight harms them seems unwise.
Dr. Williamson, who is overweight, said that “if I had a family history – a father who had a heart attack at 52 or a brother who developed diabetes – I would actively lose weight.”
But “if my father died at 94 and my mother at 97 and I had no family history of chronic disease,” he said, “maybe I wouldn’t be as concerned.”
Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California, had another perspective.
“The take-home message from this study, it seems to me, is unambiguous,” Dr. Glassner said. “What is officially deemed overweight these days is actually the optimal weight.”
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
6 Responses to Maybe we should have a small spare tire
Dr. Daniel Carras, PhD, DMSc, MD[Defending]
April 20th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
“For example, 5-foot-8 people weighing less than 122 pounds are underweight. If they weighed 122 to 164 pounds, their weight would be normal. They would be overweight at 165 to 196, obese at 197 to 229, and extremely obese at 230 or over.”
The weight numbers and the weight issues all have a certain degree flexibility. Much more than is currently seen by most reports (as this report shows). What this
report doesn’t show is the effects to looked for when being either under weight or over weight. For example, at what point, when under weight does the body start
to consume itself. I personally know people, who were over weight, they began a pill and vitamin diet – they lost weight (a lot of weight) but they look more aged
and gaunt. Something that I’ve seen in my medical studies, too much weight-loss accelerates aging. However, this has been rarely studied, what has been reported is
the significantly reduce calorie diet of mice. Then on the opposing side, there has been little done outside the standard views of weight gain – with the exception of
this study. Here’s the contradiction – that any weight lifter knows, weight bearing exercise (which builds bone mass/density) increases the body’s weight! The point,
while this study is a good starting point – much more needs to be done.
Dr. Sudeep Bansal
April 21st, 2005 at 6:29 am
In all this hoopla about overweight people living longer than those with normal weight one vital fact has been overlooked although published in the article – “the new study addressed the risk only of death and not of disability or disease. ”
So although overweight people might live longer, they may still be predisposed to various disorders such as hypertension and diabetes.
rjh
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I wonder whether they have the right data to analyze in terms of body fat percentage rather than BMI. The smaller studies that I have seen indicate that body fat percentage is more reliable. BMI is more easily used because it is much easier to measure reliably for large studies, and correlates well with body fat. Body fat also correlates much better with the “tape measure” test than BMI does.
Dianne
April 25th, 2005 at 11:25 am
The results of the NHANES III study seem to contradict the results of previous studies on the same issue. Perhaps some confounding factors are involved. Perhaps we are simply better at controlling the health problems of obesity than of being underweight. For example, it is easier to control hypercholesterolemia than osteoporosis. Additionally, there is some thought that the statins may reduce heart disease more than is accounted for by their cholesterol lowering properties. Perhaps overweight people are more likely to be taking a statin, therefore more likely to get the secondary benefits than a normal or underweight person who is not taking the same med?
DB’s Medical Rants » The controversy of being overweight
May 27th, 2005 at 6:55 am
[...] lishment does not like this article. I first commented on the original article in April – Maybe we should have a small spare tire. I also found an amusin [...]
Body mass index
May 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
I don’t disagree that obesity is detrimental to one’s health.
Check out this introduction article on Body_mass_index:
http://www.articleworld.org/Body_mass_index
Content:
1.BMI formula
2.History
3.Use
4.Alternative_tools
5.Guidelines for health