Re: Skinniness and Mortality

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And in an earlier paper from the same Shanghai study:

" Compared with those [of] normal BMI (BMI 18.5-23.9), the RRs of

death for all causes of death among groups at low BMI (BMI < 18.5),

overweight (BMI 24-27.9) and obesity (BMI > or = 28) were 1.20, 1.12

and 1.61, respectively, among non-smokers after adjustment for age,

alcohol consumption and level of education. "

So, there was a sizeably higher risk of death at lowest BMIs, .....

***BUT***:

" After excluding the numbers observed during the first 5 years of

follow-up, the corresponding RRs became 1.01, 1.12, and 1.75,

respectively. "

This pretty clearly says the risk is no higher at lower BMIs after

exclusion of those who were subclinically sick at time of enrollment.

It also suggests that at some point 'diminishing returns' sets in.

There is no further reduction in risk of death below the reference

range of, in this case, 18.5 to 23.9. Mind you, that is a pretty

wide range, to which anyone who has ever tried to drop their BMI from

23.9 to 18.5 will attest!

PMID: 16185443.

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Here is another paper on this topic which comes to the usual

> > conclusions (round up usual suspects?). But it is interesting

> because

> > it indicates more about the causes of death, especially the

causes

> in

> > those with BMI<18.5:

> >

> > " CONCLUSION: Underweight and overweight both are associated with

an

> > increased risk of death in middle-aged Chinese men who never

smoked

> > cigarettes. The increased total mortality in overweight men is

> largely

> > due to cardio- and cerebro-vascular diseases while the elevated

> risk

> > of death in underweight men is attributed primarily to causes of

an

> > infectious nature. "

> >

> > PMID: 9839739

> >

> > The full text is available free but I haven't yet read it.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

All already in our files..........Especially the previous posts on optimal BMI’s..

on 2/23/07 1:31 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

It also suggests that at some point 'diminishing returns' sets in.

There is no further reduction in risk of death below the reference

range of, in this case, 18.5 to 23.9. Mind you, that is a pretty

wide range, to which anyone who has ever tried to drop their BMI from

23.9 to 18.5 will attest!

PMID: 16185443.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

At the end of your message, you write Thoughts?

Here's one.

It seems more and more clear to me, also considering Bob C.'s recent

confessions, that probably the best long-term strategy enjoying

CRON-associated modifications of the sirtuins, etc., is through EOD

fasting or a modified on/of eating regimen. That modality seems superior

for retaining lean body mass while still generating the CRON effects that

we've come to see as desirable. Probably, similarly, it also conveys

better disease resistance in an isocaloric body.

Maco

At 10:26 AM 2/23/2007, you wrote:

Hi folks:

I am becoming increasingly intrigued by possible links between

skinniness and mortality.

The Shanghai paper, PMID: 9839739, indicated that, no surprise to us,

those with higher BMIs tended to die more from cardio-vascular

diseases. But in their study the higher apparent mortality among

those with especially low BMIs (<18.5) was accounted for by an

increase in fatal infections.

I find this interesting for a number of reasons. First, because of a

previous discussion here (perhaps a year ago?) about data which

suggested slim people are more susceptible to infection. Second,

because of a piece in Dr. Mirkin's newsletter that claimed

considerable muscle mass was essential for good immune function (but

I never saw a reply to my email asking for his sources for this

claim). And now there is this evidence of a more concrete type from

the Shanghai study.

Of course it is possible that what applies to chinese people may not

apply to us. There are a lot of things that are different about

people in China.

But why is it that low BMI apparently results in lowered resistance

to, or ability to fight, infections? Is it lack of sufficient

reserve of lean body mass? Or lack of body fat? Or deficiencies of

nutrients that are vital for good immune function? The last of these

three should not apply to us. But the first two probably do apply to

most of us.

It is interesting that cancer, which one would have thought would

also be elevated where immune function was depressed, does not seem

to be higher. Either in the Shanghai study, or in restricted mice.

Indeed, quite the opposite in the latter case.

In the Shanghai study the fatal infectious diseases encountered most

in slim people were bronchitis, pneumonia, tuberculosis and viral

hepatitis including associated cirrhosis. So what is the connection

between slimness and these diseases?

And is lifting weights a solution? That depends, of course, on what

the connection is.

Thoughts?

Rodney.

--- In

, " Rodney "

<perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Here is another paper on this topic which comes to the usual

> conclusions (round up usual suspects?). But it is interesting

because

> it indicates more about the causes of death, especially the causes

in

> those with BMI<18.5:

>

> " CONCLUSION: Underweight and overweight both are associated

with an

> increased risk of death in middle-aged Chinese men who never smoked

> cigarettes. The increased total mortality in overweight men is

largely

> due to cardio- and cerebro-vascular diseases while the elevated

risk

> of death in underweight men is attributed primarily to causes of an

> infectious nature. "

>

> PMID: 9839739

>

> The full text is available free but I haven't yet read it.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

One thing that we always seem to forget is that total number of

bacteria living in or on the average human consist of more cells than

the total number of human cells making up the human body.

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3015.htm

We have evolved symbiotically with these bacteria. It seems to me

that if we change our eating habits by eating too little or not eating

the right things to support a wide diversity of microflora, our

supporting bacteria cannot thrive, and we will also suffer. See for

example:

Influences of microbiota on intestinal immune system development

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/1046S

When we eat, we nourish not only ourselves, but also a whole universe

of microorganisms that may help us indirectly by stimulating our

immune system, or by fighting pathogenic organisms. Since many of the

thin people die from infections, this is something to consider. I

recently saw a commercial on TV that said that 80% of our immune

system is in our gut. Maybe it is true.

Eat your yogurt!

Tony Zamora

>

> Hi folks:

>

> And in an earlier paper from the same Shanghai study:

>

> " Compared with those [of] normal BMI (BMI 18.5-23.9), the RRs of

> death for all causes of death among groups at low BMI (BMI < 18.5),

> overweight (BMI 24-27.9) and obesity (BMI > or = 28) were 1.20, 1.12

> and 1.61, respectively, among non-smokers after adjustment for age,

> alcohol consumption and level of education. "

>

> So, there was a sizeably higher risk of death at lowest BMIs, .....

>

> ***BUT***:

>

> " After excluding the numbers observed during the first 5 years of

> follow-up, the corresponding RRs became 1.01, 1.12, and 1.75,

> respectively. "

>

> This pretty clearly says the risk is no higher at lower BMIs after

> exclusion of those who were subclinically sick at time of enrollment.

>

> It also suggests that at some point 'diminishing returns' sets in.

> There is no further reduction in risk of death below the reference

> range of, in this case, 18.5 to 23.9. Mind you, that is a pretty

> wide range, to which anyone who has ever tried to drop their BMI from

> 23.9 to 18.5 will attest!

>

> PMID: 16185443.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Maco:

I am not familiar with 'Bob C'. But what can I say? Your suggestion

makes perfect sense. I had quite forgotten about the EOD stuff.

Thank you.

Rodney.