79 replies to this topic

[tunt01]

within a standard population analysis the skinny people are not CRoNies. they aren't really skinny, they are frail.

most likely, they are TOFI's (thin outside, fat inside) - http://www.guardian....ndhealth.health

the slightly heavier individuals just survive disease/flu/infection easier and thus age slightly slower...

[biknut]

Also keep in mind they're talking about people 40 and up.

I'm not sure these researchers are as sophisticated as you guys. All they're really saying is that people that had a bmi of 18.5 to 25 lived on average 5 years longer than people who's bmi was either more, or less. Maybe they're not including more?

One thing I find strange is where it says "There had been an argument that thin people's lives are short because many of them are sick or smoke. But the difference was almost unchanged even when we eliminated these factors."

This is the first time I've heard that thin people were supposed to have shorter lifespans. Where's that come from?

[tunt01]

This is the first time I've heard that thin people were supposed to have shorter lifespans. Where's that come from?

frailty. weak immune systems. susceptibility to disease.

[Ben K]

This is the first time I've heard that thin people were supposed to have shorter lifespans. Where's that come from?

I think it's a reference to this study itself.


I'd like to know more about this. A couple of things I wonder are:

-- How do Japanese diets differ from Americans'? It's possible that a "chubby" Japanese 40-year-old has a better nutritional profile than a slightly skinnier Westerner. Or, on the other hand, maybe the "very skinny" people they studied had relatively narrow diets and were missing some important nutrients.

-- Also, if the heavier people studied were incurring greater medical expenses, maybe their doctors were actually catching more diseases earlier than they would have in skinnier people, who see their physicians less often.

[seekonk]

I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand. There is no evidence these people were malnourished. There is a somewhat unfortunate tendency, on these forums, for people to select the studies they will believe, based on whether these studies confirm their prejudices, in which they have invested a lot (especially CHronies have made a huge investment). It is always possible to shoot down null studies, because there will always be some loophole that can be argued that make them different from you. It is not rational to base your behaviour on a pie in the sky consisting of the expectation that certain slightly different studies that have not yet been done will have a positive outcome. One has to be careful of that.

Edited by seekonk, 19 June 2009 - 09:57 PM.

[Matt]

Theres been a few replies over at the CRS Lists here http://www.caloriere...ad.php?2,193745

[tunt01]

i read the responses.

this guy Brian Delaney is right. thin != CR.

i *think* this guy Bob is kind of wrong. being thin into adulthood actually makes you more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration in extreme heat temperatures. it's why the 'stroke-belt' is located in the South of the US.

i generally think being thin is a disadvantage in extended heat extremes. if you are so frail that your blood flow is terrible, general endogenous heat/energy levels are weak... your body's hypothalumus-pituitary-adrenal axis is probably going crazy as a defense mechanism to deal with temperature extremes. this isn't what is going on in CRONies, per se. but they are probably more susceptible to temperature extremes. in a standard population of people (non-CRONies), i don't see how thin is an advantage unless you are in a very temperate climate.

queue the BMI of residents of San Diego vs. the rest of the US, please.

Edited by prophets, 20 June 2009 - 12:00 AM.

[Matt]

Being on CR definitely does hlep you tolerate hot weather better. I remember a few times in college when it was apparently very warm in the room, but I couldn't feel this at all. So they opened a window and had to put on my jacket lol.

Also Brian did not say thin = CR. he was replying to me, which i said in an earlier post that thin does not = CR.

Brian gave out this link which you should check out
http://en.wiki.calor...y_and_Morbidity

Edited by Matt, 20 June 2009 - 12:48 AM.

[tunt01]

i'd assume a CRONie would respond better to transient amounts of heat. i probably wasn't very clear, but i was trying to imply prolonged exposure exposure in my comment - like survivability through a 2 week heatwave without air conditioning.

!= means "does not equal" in programming/computer language/internet speak, so we are on the same page there, i think.

[seekonk]

Maybe those in the know can answer this question. As far as I understand, daily maintenance and repair of bone is calorie-expensive, and is though to consume a very significant fraction of one's daily calorie budget. That's brute-force calories I am talking about, not minerals and vitamins (which I assume you supplement sufficiently).

Are the long-term effects on bone of CR in active humans known? As we know, bone health is an important limiting factor in longevity in humans. Given that bone cross sections increase roughly quadratically while mass increases cubically with body dimension, lab studies on small animals such as rodents will presumably have very little to say on this issue.

Edited by seekonk, 20 June 2009 - 01:43 AM.

[niner]

Maybe those in the know can answer this question. As far as I understand, daily maintenance and repair of bone is calorie-expensive, and is though to consume a very significant fraction of one's daily calorie budget. That's brute-force calories I am talking about, not minerals and vitamins (which I assume you supplement sufficiently).

That's not something that I've run across. Where did you hear this? Bone is constantly undergoing remodeling, so I could understand some energy expenditure, but "a very significant fraction" sounds like it's overstating it by a lot. Do you have a reference?

[seekonk]

Maybe those in the know can answer this question. As far as I understand, daily maintenance and repair of bone is calorie-expensive, and is though to consume a very significant fraction of one's daily calorie budget. That's brute-force calories I am talking about, not minerals and vitamins (which I assume you supplement sufficiently).

That's not something that I've run across. Where did you hear this? Bone is constantly undergoing remodeling, so I could understand some energy expenditure, but "a very significant fraction" sounds like it's overstating it by a lot. Do you have a reference?

I read an estimate of something like 40% somewhere recently, but I am unable to confirm this. It seems a lot, but one has to keep in mind that bone is a living tissue that absorbs everyday stresses essentially by the mechanism of fracturing on the microscopic level. These microfractures have to be mended constantly, or bone integrity and strength will be lost. I have seen some studies indicating that weight loss through short-term dieting tends to lead to bone loss, but the applicability of this to long-term CR seems unclear.

Edited by seekonk, 20 June 2009 - 12:30 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

some good points brought up at the CR Digest List:

Chubby people live longest: Japan study
> http://www.breitbart...;show_article=1

?

The paper's pdf is not availed.

The report did not exclude the first years of the prospective study, to
avoid existing disease that is not yet apparent. Studies in which the first
15 or so years are not considered are better, I think.


Increase in body mass index category since age 20 years and all-cause
mortality: a prospective cohort study (the Ohsaki Study).
Shimazu T, Kuriyama S, Ohmori-Matsuda K, Kikuchi N, Nakaya N, Tsuji I.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2009 Apr;33(4):490-6. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
PMID: 19223845

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear whether weight gain from early to late
adulthood affects longevity. Furthermore, no study has addressed its
association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in an Asian
population.

METHODS: We prospectively assessed the association between an increase in
body mass index (BMI) category since age 20 years and risk of all-cause,
cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality. Self-reported information
pertaining to BMI was collected from 38 080 Japanese men and women aged
40-79 years at study entry in 1994 after exclusion of participants with a
BMI of <18.5 kg/m(2) at age 20 years or at study entry. We defined six
patterns of increase in BMI category at age 20 years and study entry: stable
normal, overweight and obese, normal to overweight or obese, and overweight
to obese.

RESULTS: During 7 years of follow-up, 2617 participants died. After
adjustment for potential confounders, we observed a significantly increased
risk of all-cause mortality for the pattern of normal weight at age 20 years
and obese at study entry and of stable obese compared with stable normal in
BMI category, the multivariate HRs (95% confidence interval (CI)) being 1.42
(1.08-1.88) and 2.26 (1.45-3.51), respectively. For the pattern of
overweight at age 20 years and obese at study entry, the multivariate hazard
ratio (95% CI) was 1.35 (0.92-1.98). In contrast, we did not observe an
increased risk of all-cause mortality for normal weight at age 20 years and
overweight at study entry, and stable overweight. For CVD and cancer
mortality, these results were consistently observed.

CONCLUSION: We observed an increased risk of all-cause mortality both among
participants who had been persistently obese since early adulthood and
participants who showed an increase in BMI category from normal to obese,
compared with participants with a stable normal BMI category.

-- Al Pater

_________________________________________________


We have better endothelial function, etc; that doesn't tell you how
*thick* or *strong* our blood vessels are. Still, that seems weak: it
might make the vessels more prone to atherosclerosis thru' shear stress,
or increase the risk of haemorrhagic stroke, which is already high in
Jajpan ... Anecdotally, I get WAY less fragility-associated nosebleeds
post-CR (I used to spend half of the days in the winter with at least
one of these), but that might be ON rather than CR (lots of flavonoids,
eg), and IAC is sure unlikely to be the fact that I'm even skinnier now
than before ...

>> Maybe its just simply that thin does not = CRON

Yes, of course it is .

> The report did not exclude the first years of the prospective study, to
> avoid existing disease that is not yet apparent. Studies in which the
> first 15 or so years are not considered are better, I think.

That doesn't apply in this case: they took BMI at 20, prospectively
analyzed for mortality from 40 to 79: that's a solid 20 years. (BTW, I
would suggest that 5 y is plenty to exclude, & tho' a longer-term
exclusion for weight DECLINE would be helpful, due to sarcopenia &
wasting disease, but it would be unreasonable to ask for decades and
decades of change).

It's also worth noting that they "exclu[ded] participants with a BMI of
<18.5 kg/m(2) at age 20 years or at study entry," so it would almost
seem as if the press stories are actually talking about higher death
rates for initially NORMAL-WEIGHT slim folk, not the painfully CR-skinny
(tho' CR is not about your weight IAC, blah blah blah) -- and the
abstract is ambiguous, but COULD be read that way: "we observed a
significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality for the pattern of
normal weight at age 20 years and obese at study entry ". But that might
also mean and normal weight at age 20 obese by age 40 ("study entry"),
which would hardly be surprising. But then, the CONCLUSION is "We
observed an increased risk of all-cause mortality both among
participants who had been *persistently obese* since early adulthood and
participants who showed an *increase* in BMI category from normal to
obese, compared with participants with a *stable normal* BMI category";
I don't see where the massacre of the Kate Moss crowd creeps in.

Full-text access would sure be nice ...
>
>
> Increase in body mass index category since age 20 years and all-cause
> mortality: a prospective cohort study (the Ohsaki Study).
> Shimazu T, Kuriyama S, Ohmori-Matsuda K, Kikuchi N, Nakaya N, Tsuji I.
> Int J Obes (Lond). 2009 Apr;33(4):490-6. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
> PMID: 19223845

-Michael

[Shepard]

being thin into adulthood actually makes you more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration in extreme heat temperatures. it's why the 'stroke-belt' is located in the South of the US.

We have thin people in the South(east)?

[tunt01]

being thin into adulthood actually makes you more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration in extreme heat temperatures. it's why the 'stroke-belt' is located in the South of the US.

We have thin people in the South(east)?

used to

[Shepard]

Lies, all lies. The thin people must have been lost Canadians. This is America, dammit.

[biknut]

Whether it's true or not, just the psychological advantage of this study will probably add at least one year to the life of a chubby person. This study demonstrates there could be a evolutionary explanation for chubby chasers.

I would assume you would live longest with a bmi of 18.5 to 25, but I guess what they're saying is that bmi of 25 to 30 works best.

[Mind]

This is not the first time a study has found people with slightly above normal BMI live longer. If the Imminst search function worked like a search function should, I would be able to find the past discussion. Maybe someone else remembers it. Anyway IMHO it is due to the fragility aspect and having extra energy stores to get through times of disease. This should not be a big factor for CRONies, but could play a small part when it comes to fighting cancer while enduring current treatments (radiation, chemo, other "treatments").

[automita]

relax matt everything will be fine

[mentatpsi]

maybe the people who didn't eat much did so because they couldn't afford to eat a lot, thereby giving them less access to the services the somewhat chubby people had, just a guess. Plus could being really thin tell anything about the individual's lifestyle and emotional status, perhaps they're over conscious of their body image... anorexic maybe?

Anyways, I don't know how one could extrapolate this easily into American Culture since they have different cuisines, which tend to be healthier than what popular Americans cuisine is. I'm interested how that study would turn out in America .

[Matt]

Probably not anorexic, but i know so many people who are quite thin, yet eat complete crap. Most of them must be deficient in many nutrients. My sister for example has a BMI of 19 but has such a poor diet of pre packaged frozen meals. Thats all she eats, everyday. Also certain diseases can cause people to simply eat less because their appetites are decreased. There could be many explanations. What do we know under properly controlled studies? Rat, mice, dogs, cows, spiders, worms, monkeys etc etc... all show better health at low body weights under a CR diet. Humans should be not different, I don't expect humans to be an exception. Clearly we're not, from the CRON studies practically all risk factors are as good as you can get them. The kind of biomarkers and numbers come up after CRON diet that are usually associated with longevity and being 'genetically lucky'.

In the 120 year diet Roy said something like

"this diet is like holding four aces in a poker game with death."

Well I'm placing my bet, and I bet CR is slowing down aging, for me, and other serious CRers out there

Edited by Matt, 23 June 2009 - 12:00 AM.

[Mind]

Just a reminder that slightly "chubby" is a lot different than moderately overweight or obese which can easily slash 3 to 10 years off of your lifespan

[kismet]

Are the long-term effects on bone of CR in active humans known? As we know, bone health is an important limiting factor in longevity in humans. Given that bone cross sections increase roughly quadratically while mass increases cubically with body dimension, lab studies on small animals such as rodents will presumably have very little to say on this issue.

Bone health is not in any way a limiting factor, even though it's certainly important. It's just that fractures (resulting from falls) are a risk factor for mortality, but sarcopenia is a (or THE) risk factor for falls and it is attenuated by CR in primates. It is well-known that CR reduces BMD, but it's also fair to assume that if CR works it will slow down age-related bone loss. Also keep in mind that we have an incredible arsenal to fight osteoporosis and sarcopenia but nothing (sic) to slow aging so far. So it's quite prudent to try to slow down aging even if it means increased osteoporosis risk. 

Epidemiology on the relation between weight and longevity is pretty conflicting, isn't it? We have both positive studies in CRONies and okinawans and mixed studies in other populations...

[malbecman]

This is from the ScienceDaily website:

Can A Little Extra Weight Protect People From Early Death? Underweight, Extremely Obese Die Earlier Than People Of Normal Weight

ScienceDaily (June 29, 2009) — Underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight—but those who are overweight actually live longer than people of normal weight. Those are the findings of a new study published online in Obesity by researchers at Statistics Canada, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland State University, Oregon Health & Science University, and McGill University.

http://www.scienceda...90623133523.htm


From the website ""It's not surprising that extreme underweight and extreme obesity increase the risk of dying, but it is surprising that carrying a little extra weight may give people a longevity advantage," said David Feeny, PhD, coauthor of the study and senior investigator for the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research." ======>Is CR that good for you?

[Mind]

This is the third epidemiological study in the past year to indicate longer lifespan for slightly overweight people. Here is a Japanese study indicating the same.

Still, I am not planning on putting on extra pounds. I still have a feeling it has to do with the fragility factor as people get older and the fact that slightly heavier people have a few more energy stores to combat periods of disease in old age - such as cancer.

[goodman]

now did they just measure weight or did they actually measure body fat?

[russianBEAR]

I've got a super fast metabolism and get blown away by even the slightest breeze.

I'm sooo screwed daamn:) 

[Mind]

Epidemiology on the relation between weight and longevity is pretty conflicting, isn't it? We have both positive studies in CRONies and okinawans and mixed studies in other populations...

I guess it reminds me to take epidemiological studies with a grain of salt.

And it just got more conflicting

Median survival time was over 80 years for male participants and over 87 years for women. African-Americans, on average, had lower survival than Caucasians over follow-up. Age, smoking status, pulmonary function, weight, cognitive function, congestive heart failure history, coronary heart disease history, self-reported health status, the presence of the apoE E4 allele, and most cardiovascular measures and blood measures were associated with all-cause mortality over follow-up. Interestingly, higher weight had a tendency to be associated with a reduced risk of dying from any cause, and was significantly associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular, dementia, pulmonary and infectious causes of death. When mortality was examined according to cause, few factors other than age were associated with multiple causes of death. Multiple risk factors were related to cardiovascular death, while fewer factors were associated with other causes.

Also, I thought this might relate to the rapamycin thread. Although I admit that I am surely unqualified to make any definitive statements on the degree to which inflammation affects the rate of aging (and if this is one of the mechanisms through which rapamycin worked in mice), once again inflammation is indicated as a significant factor:

The authors remark that, other than age, the risk factor most consistently associated with death across all causes was interleukin-6, a marker of immune function dysregulation which is elevated during chronic inflammation. They note that high interleukin-6 levels have been associated with frailty, total mortality, and disability in other studies. Lung and kidney dysfunction also tended to be related to multiple causes of death. "The findings of the common risk factor interleukin-6 support the concept that there is an underlying age-related state of decline that is not disease specific," the authors write. "The importance of inflammation, cognitive function, kidney, and lung function across causes suggests that these systems have less reserve, decline more strongly with age over time or with risk factor exposure, or simply that these systems have fewer mechanisms for adaptation or repair of injury than do other systems."

[Mind]

Not Again! Being overweight is again linked to lower mortality in the elderly. This time in a large Australian study of people over 70.

Based on the animal CR studies it still seems likely to me that extreme longevity is most likely achieved with a lower BMI, however, I know some people (Aubrey) who expect the human longevity gains through CR to be modest (a couple years) at best. If true, then it might not be all that advantageous vs. being a bit overweight, based on recent epidemiological data. That being said, I am still personally aiming for normal BMI or slightly below.

The study began in 1996 and recruited 4,677 men and 4,563 women. The participants were followed for ten years or until their death, whichever was sooner, and factors such as lifestyle, demographics, and health were measured. The research uncovered that mortality risk was lowest for participants with a BMI classified as overweight, with the risk of death reduced by 13% compared with normal weight participants. The benefits were only seen in the overweight category not in those people who are obese.

"Concerns have been raised about encouraging apparently overweight older people to lose weight and as such the objective of our study was to examine the major unresolved question of, 'what level of BMI is associated with the lowest mortality risk in older people?'" said lead researcher Prof. Leon Flicker, of the University of Western Australia. "These results add evidence to the claims that the WHO BMI thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people. It may be timely to review the BMI classification for older adults."

[kismet]

No, most likely it simply demonstrates the short comings of epidemiology and nothing else. Being overweight is probably healthy the same way low LDL "causes" cancer and the same way low total cholesterol "causes" premature death...

(then again *subcutaneous* fat apparently has been associated with beneficial metabolic changes, but people - as so often - lose track of what epidemiology can and cannot prove)

Then again, maybe the benefits are real and being dyslipidemic and fat will turn out beneficial. Guess the hyperlipid people are in for a Nobel.

Edited by kismet, 28 January 2010 - 09:46 PM.