IMHO, the term overweight is just being shown to have been abused to fit an unrealistic standard. Interesting read.
That article was careful to point out that the research doesn’t show any cause/effect link between being overweight and having a higher life expectancy. They don’t know what was causing overweight people to have longer lifespans, which means it could be something that is not caused by their weight.
Quick example off the top of my head would be if they were taking data from the entire world population. Overweight people are more likely to live in industrialized countries with better health care, which increases their lifespan. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it’s an example of how a simple correlation between weight and lifespan doesn’t actually show a causal link. The researchers in that article understand this, and made sure to point it out.
I’ll rather look good and die at 80 than be overweight and die at 85.
This is it. The article makes a point that mortality rate is hardly a measure of health. What good is an extra year of popping pills and thinking about all the stuff you cannot do?
People the world over tend to put on weight as they age…so people that die young for any reason at all would tend to push the result in the reported direction.
Guys, they are talking about the “overweight” category, not the “morbidly obese” category. Someone falling in the overweight range of BMI - 25-30 - is not so overweight that their lifestyle is restricted. An overweight person, as opposed to a morbidly obese or supermorbidly obese person, is still going to be able to get out and have an active life.
If overweight people have a lower mortality rate within certain diseases, it stands to reason that they probably have a lower incidence of that disease, not that a larger portion of them have that particular disease and are taking medications for it.
I’d like to see the study expanded to take a look at morbidity as well as mortality within the different weight ranges. While I don’t think the “normal” weight category needs to be shifted over, I do think there is a larger range of “normal” weight than we currently consider.
I’m pretty sure Sapo meant “the stuff you cannot do” due to old age and the perils thereof, not due to being overweight.
This also does not take into account the notion that really thin people might be thin because of a preexisting health condition.
Actually, it doesn’t take weight into account at all. I think Sapo’s point was that, regardless of how clean you’ve been living, by the time you reach 80-85 you’re not what you used to be anymore and those 5 extra years are not worth it.
I wasn’t addressing Sapo’s point, I was addressing the linked article.
Since you quoted my defense of Sapo, I’m sure you can see where the confusion came from.
Yep. I should have provided better context.
Yes, they did. From the article in the OP (emphasis added):
What I want to know is, why do studies like this use the BMI when it’s not a very valid way to measure how fat you are? You’ve seen the pictures of bodybuilders who are obese by BMI standards. I’d bet quite a few of those overweight people and maybe even an obese person or two had quite healthy levels of body fat.
This is significant. If you’re looking at the effects of anything on life expectancy, you have to adjust for the fact that said anything probably doesn’t happen at birth. If you’re not careful, you can conclude that breaking your hip increases your life expectancy. See here for a little more detail.
Ah. So they did. My bad.
It’s going to be interesting if, at the end of this, the medical community completely changes its definition of healthy weight. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Because it works for large populations. Tell me the BMIs of 10,000 people, and I can make reasonable predictions about the lifespan of that group, or even large subgroups. Most of the high BMIs in there aren’t going to belong to bodybuilders.
This is true, but hardly useful for a study. I’m involved with one right now, and we calculate not based on BMI, but on the Met Life height/weight tables. While those tables have healthy ranges for three different frame sizes, we treat all cases as if they were truly average. We have to. There is no other meaningful way to collect data. Yes, we don’t take body builders into account, but we’re going on the assumption that most people are not body builders. Being that all of our cases are post-op bariatric patients, I think that’s a safe assumption.
And here was me listening to the news today saying obesity causes cancer.
Last week they said ham causes cancer.
I’ve just given up paying any attention to these things.
::lights an asbestos cigarette::
This was pretty much the angle of my OP. I am 6’2" and 270 lbs. Fat by most standards. Until you look at me. You call me fat to my face and I can pick you up with one arm and fling you out the window (it is a one-storey house, you are ok).
Oddly enough, it has always been insurance nurses (the ones I would think with the most interest in rating me as overweight) that have always made a note that I am not and included other measurements (such as chest vs waist measurements) to keep me out of the at-risk category.
The current ranges of normal weight are what they are to suit the needs of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.