Re: Re: heart attack rates vs. BMI

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure what we are trying to find by putting exercise under the microscope. The posted abstract doesn't even mention the more obvious risk factors for heart disease so unless they were controlled for this study deserves a so what.

Exercise is just one factor in this simultaneous equation we call life. Exercise reportedly increases HDL (the good scavenger cholesterol). Applies increased cardio stress short term, but longer term reduces BP and pulse. Exercise consumes energy mitigating against a positive energy balance.

Personal exercise strategy should be personal, based on circumstance, goals, and QOL issues. IMO there is no simple, single target.

Live long and well,

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: heart attack rates vs BMI

Couldn't get the full text but the abstract is interesting:

Br Heart J. 1990 Jun;63(6):325-34.

Exercise in leisure time: coronary attack and death rates. JN, Clayton DG, Everitt MG, Semmence AM, Burgess EH.Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.Nine thousand three hundred and seventy six male civil servants, aged 45-64 at entry, with no clinical history of coronary heart disease, were followed for a mean period of 9 years and 4 months during which 474 experienced a coronary attack. The 9% of men who reported that they often participated in vigorous sports or did considerable amounts of cycling or rated the pace of their regular walking as fast (over 4 mph, 6.4 km/h) experienced less than half the non-fatal and fatal coronary heart disease of the other men. In addition, entrants aged 55-64 who reported the next lower degree of this vigorous aerobic exercise had rates less than two thirds of the remainder; entrants of 45-54 did not show such an effect. When these forms of exercise were not vigorous they were no protection against the disease, nor were other forms of exercise or high totals of physical activity per se. A history of vigorous sports in the past was not protective. Indications in these men are of protection by specific exercise: vigorous, aerobic, with a threshold of intensity for benefit and "dose response" above this threshold, exercise that has to be habitual, and continuing, which suggests that protection is against the acute phases of the disease. Those men who took vigorous aerobic exercise were demonstrably a favourably "selected" group; they suffered less of the disease, however, whether at low risk or high by the several risk factors that were studied. Men with exercise-related reduction in coronary heart disease also had lower death rates from the total of other causes, and so lower total death rates than the rest of the men.PMID: 2375892

I think interesting is that only 5% experienced heart attacks.

Only 844, 9% did vigorous exercise and had < half the the CHD of the others. (231)

8532, 91% did not do vigorous exercise and had only 431 heart attacks.

That's a plus for exercise?

Fun with numbers.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

Actually not trying to prove anything. People need to exercise if they can and where they can.

There is a question of how much, but I think we pretty well covered that one.

The study I posted was something I happened to find: CVD related to BMI. I draw no conclusions for exercise from that study's abstract mainly because I can;t get the full text.

Fall back to:

Hi JW:Now that is interesting, because it appears to be saying heart attack rates are much lower in over weight men who exercise, than it is in those who are of appropriate weight and exercise!!!Do we believe that?Rodney.> For example, et al. (23) report heart attack rates in men with a BMI >= 27.0 of 7.3/1000 man-years in sedentary men and only 1.3/1000 man-years in regular vigorous exercisers. Corresponding rates in men with a BMI < 24.0 were 5.5/1000 man-years in sedentary men and 1.9/1000 man-years in regular vigorous exercisers.> > 23. , J. N., D. G. Clayton, M. G. Everitt, A. M. Semmence, and E. H. Burgess. Exercise in leisure time: coronary attack and death rates. Br. Heart J. 63: 325-334, 1990.

The important point in this quote is that 1.9 is > 1.3, and if you were to believe those numbers you'd want to be >27. But those are two separate groups and in each group there can exist a curve which does not fit the other group. Also it says nothing about the group 24 to 27 BMI. So something else is at work.

The important number is that 7.3/1000 over BMI 27, and 5.5/1000 in less than 24.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From:

Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:05 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: heart attack rates vs. BMI

I'm not sure what we are trying to find by putting exercise under the microscope. The posted abstract doesn't even mention the more obvious risk factors for heart disease so unless they were controlled for this study deserves a so what.

Exercise is just one factor in this simultaneous equation we call life. Exercise reportedly increases HDL (the good scavenger cholesterol). Applies increased cardio stress short term, but longer term reduces BP and pulse. Exercise consumes energy mitigating against a positive energy balance.

Personal exercise strategy should be personal, based on circumstance, goals, and QOL issues. IMO there is no simple, single target.

Live long and well,

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: heart attack rates vs BMI

Couldn't get the full text but the abstract is interesting:

Br Heart J. 1990 Jun;63(6):325-34.

Exercise in leisure time: coronary attack and death rates. JN, Clayton DG, Everitt MG, Semmence AM, Burgess EH.Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.Nine thousand three hundred and seventy six male civil servants, aged 45-64 at entry, with no clinical history of coronary heart disease, were followed for a mean period of 9 years and 4 months during which 474 experienced a coronary attack. The 9% of men who reported that they often participated in vigorous sports or did considerable amounts of cycling or rated the pace of their regular walking as fast (over 4 mph, 6.4 km/h) experienced less than half the non-fatal and fatal coronary heart disease of the other men. In addition, entrants aged 55-64 who reported the next lower degree of this vigorous aerobic exercise had rates less than two thirds of the remainder; entrants of 45-54 did not show such an effect. When these forms of exercise were not vigorous they were no protection against the disease, nor were other forms of exercise or high totals of physical activity per se. A history of vigorous sports in the past was not protective. Indications in these men are of protection by specific exercise: vigorous, aerobic, with a threshold of intensity for benefit and "dose response" above this threshold, exercise that has to be habitual, and continuing, which suggests that protection is against the acute phases of the disease. Those men who took vigorous aerobic exercise were demonstrably a favourably "selected" group; they suffered less of the disease, however, whether at low risk or high by the several risk factors that were studied. Men with exercise-related reduction in coronary heart disease also had lower death rates from the total of other causes, and so lower total death rates than the rest of the men.PMID: 2375892

I think interesting is that only 5% experienced heart attacks.

Only 844, 9% did vigorous exercise and had < half the the CHD of the others. (231)

8532, 91% did not do vigorous exercise and had only 431 heart attacks.

That's a plus for exercise?

Fun with numbers.

Regards.