Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Rodney wrote: > Hi folks: > > " Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean > population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men. " > > February 2006. PMID: 16258057. > > Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50. > > I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the > full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD > in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 > and 22. > > The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the > data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups > examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any > other variable studied including alcohol consumption. > > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. > > Rodney. > Unless the study was controlled for diet quality I suspect the lower BMI individuals may have been deficient in some nutrients. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Rodney wrote: > Hi folks: > > " Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean > population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men. " > > February 2006. PMID: 16258057. > > Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50. > > I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the > full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD > in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 > and 22. > > The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the > data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups > examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any > other variable studied including alcohol consumption. > > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. > > Rodney. > Unless the study was controlled for diet quality I suspect the lower BMI individuals may have been deficient in some nutrients. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. Dont forget this one... "Impact of Overweight on the Risk of Developing Common Chronic DiseasesDuring 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 developingnumerous chronic diseases. Methods: Ten-year follow-up (1986-1996) of middle-aged women in theNurses' Health Study and men in the Health Professionals Follow-upStudy 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 amongboth women and men. Compared with their same-sex peers with a bodymass index (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by thesquare of height in meters) between 18.5 and 24.9, those with BMI of35.0 or more were approximately 20 times more likely to developdiabetes (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 whowere overweight but not obese (ie, BMI between 25.0 and 29.9) werealso significantly more likely than their leaner peers to developgallstones (RR, 1.9), hypertension (RR, 1.7), high cholesterol level(RR, 1.1), and heart disease (RR, 1.4). The results were similar inmen. Conclusions: During 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of diabetes,gallstones, hypertension, heart disease, colon cancer, and stroke (menonly) increased with degree of overweight in both men and women.Adults who were overweight but not obese (ie, 25.0BMI29.9) were atsignificantly increased risk of developing numerous health conditions.Moreover, the dose-response relationship between BMI and the risk ofdeveloping chronic diseases was evident even among adults in the upperhalf of the healthy weight range (ie, BMI of 22.0-24.9), suggestingthat adults should try to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and 21.9 tominimize their risk of disease. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1581-1586 goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. Dont forget this one... "Impact of Overweight on the Risk of Developing Common Chronic DiseasesDuring 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 developingnumerous chronic diseases. Methods: Ten-year follow-up (1986-1996) of middle-aged women in theNurses' Health Study and men in the Health Professionals Follow-upStudy 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 amongboth women and men. Compared with their same-sex peers with a bodymass index (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by thesquare of height in meters) between 18.5 and 24.9, those with BMI of35.0 or more were approximately 20 times more likely to developdiabetes (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 whowere overweight but not obese (ie, BMI between 25.0 and 29.9) werealso significantly more likely than their leaner peers to developgallstones (RR, 1.9), hypertension (RR, 1.7), high cholesterol level(RR, 1.1), and heart disease (RR, 1.4). The results were similar inmen. Conclusions: During 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of diabetes,gallstones, hypertension, heart disease, colon cancer, and stroke (menonly) increased with degree of overweight in both men and women.Adults who were overweight but not obese (ie, 25.0BMI29.9) were atsignificantly increased risk of developing numerous health conditions.Moreover, the dose-response relationship between BMI and the risk ofdeveloping chronic diseases was evident even among adults in the upperhalf of the healthy weight range (ie, BMI of 22.0-24.9), suggestingthat adults should try to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and 21.9 tominimize their risk of disease. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1581-1586 goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 What's the per cent risk at BMI = 25, eg? 15%? I.e., comparable to the last charts? Regards [ ] Optimal BMI for IHD Hi folks:"Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men."February 2006. PMID: 16258057.Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50.I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 and 22. The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any other variable studied including alcohol consumption.Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range.Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 What's the per cent risk at BMI = 25, eg? 15%? I.e., comparable to the last charts? Regards [ ] Optimal BMI for IHD Hi folks:"Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men."February 2006. PMID: 16258057.Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50.I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 and 22. The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any other variable studied including alcohol consumption.Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range.Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Hi JW: They found that for each two additional BMI increments above 20, risk of IHD was increased 12%. I am not certain if that is additive or multiplicative. But for someone at a BMI=24 that is about a 25% increase, and for BMI=26 a 35% to 40% greater risk. But what is interesting is that, at least for this population group, risk of IHD also increases below BMI=20. I find that interesting because I would not have expected plaque to accumulate, or break off more, as BMI falls below 20, than at a BMI=20. Of course as JR says, it might possibly be accounted for by deficiencies in nutrition; or perhaps it could be explained by people who, because they do not absorb nutrients properly never put on weight no matter how much they eat; or perhaps the people in the BMI<20 group who are getting IHD are those whose macronutrient profile includes an excessive amount of cholesterolemic fats; or those who have no desire to eat much because they are unknowingly sick. The latter group they tried to exclude by ignoring deaths in the first three years. It would have been nice to have seen if the same applied to people who would have loved to have eaten twice as much but, by means of unbelievable self-control managed to restrain their intake to 40% less, of very healthy foods! But alas, I think it will be a while before anyone does that study! Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...> wrote: > > What's the per cent risk at BMI = 25, eg? 15%? > I.e., comparable to the last charts? > > Regards > > [ ] Optimal BMI for IHD > > > Hi folks: > > " Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean > population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men. " > > February 2006. PMID: 16258057. > > Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50. > > I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the > full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD > in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 > and 22. > > The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the > data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups > examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any > other variable studied including alcohol consumption. > > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Hi JW: They found that for each two additional BMI increments above 20, risk of IHD was increased 12%. I am not certain if that is additive or multiplicative. But for someone at a BMI=24 that is about a 25% increase, and for BMI=26 a 35% to 40% greater risk. But what is interesting is that, at least for this population group, risk of IHD also increases below BMI=20. I find that interesting because I would not have expected plaque to accumulate, or break off more, as BMI falls below 20, than at a BMI=20. Of course as JR says, it might possibly be accounted for by deficiencies in nutrition; or perhaps it could be explained by people who, because they do not absorb nutrients properly never put on weight no matter how much they eat; or perhaps the people in the BMI<20 group who are getting IHD are those whose macronutrient profile includes an excessive amount of cholesterolemic fats; or those who have no desire to eat much because they are unknowingly sick. The latter group they tried to exclude by ignoring deaths in the first three years. It would have been nice to have seen if the same applied to people who would have loved to have eaten twice as much but, by means of unbelievable self-control managed to restrain their intake to 40% less, of very healthy foods! But alas, I think it will be a while before anyone does that study! Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...> wrote: > > What's the per cent risk at BMI = 25, eg? 15%? > I.e., comparable to the last charts? > > Regards > > [ ] Optimal BMI for IHD > > > Hi folks: > > " Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean > population: 10 year prospective study of 220,000 adult men. " > > February 2006. PMID: 16258057. > > Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb;35(1):141-50. > > I may have posted this study previously. I now have a copy of the > full text. Surprising to me, it found that the lowest rates of IHD > in this large population studied in China occurred at BMIs between 20 > and 22. > > The rise in IHD at BMIs below 20 was NOT explained by smoking - the > data were similar for never-smokers - and applied for all aged groups > examined between 40 and 80; and the result was not affected by any > other variable studied including alcohol consumption. > > Given the profile of the risk ratios it seems likely the optimal BMI > for IHD may be in the lower half of 20 to 22 BMI range. > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.