Published this week in the Lancet.
A meta-analysis summarizing 57 studies on the effects of BMI on mortality.
900,000 subjects in total and they excluded deaths in the first 5 years to eliminate the bias of death from subjects already dying (and consequently in many cases often quite skinny due to the wasting associated with many chronic illnesses).
The results?
All-cause mortality was lowest among those with BMIs in from 22.5 to 25.
Above a BMI of 25, every 5-unit increase in BMI translated to a:
I wonder how folks who make their livings as contrarians to the risks of weight are going to spin this one?
Posts
And for those ?lucky? enough to fall below 22.5 BMI, the likelihood of death from lung cancer and other respiratory conditions increases ... the likelihood of this being greater for smokers. A little confusing. A BMI of 18.5 is considered the lower end of the normal range. As a non-smoker with a BMI of around 20, I hope I'm not going to be expected to run out and gain 12 pounds in an attempt to avoid lung problems. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd as a BMI-er of 31.6 who can pass the treadmill test, regularly exercises, eats organic, and indulges in some particular vices infrequently... I'm not sure I'm going to go lose 15 lbs to be in the 'acceptable' weight range.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/smurfp4444
ReplyDeleteIS FOOD OUR NEXT TOBBACCO?
How bout sending this article to the food industry?
BMI is rough- when I was a lightweight rower and my doctor recommended that I gain weight, I still qualified as overweight according to BMI charts. Being a relatively short-and-stocky type, all of my immediate family except for one (who is probably the least healthy of the bunch) fall into overweight or obese (the obese one is my very muscular dad, so that is kind of an outlier). It seems ridiculous, we all exercise everyday, hike mountains all the time (almost every day), and eat just a ridiculous amount of vegetables (3+ heads of broccoli at dinner, 4 bunches of carrots a week, 4 bags of spinach, 3 bundles of kale...).
ReplyDeleteThe fact that BMI does not differentiate between genders, ages, or ethnicities (biased against shorter populations) makes it harder to use as a tool for individuals- it is more indicative of a population (even then, again, biases- for example the Nunavut being 10cm shorter on average than the rest of Canada, inflating their BMI readings).
This fact makes using BMI as a health indicator during my internships (in dietetics) difficult- some very healthy people (especially women) being terrified that they are over 25 BMI, and they don't really believe me that it's often their muscle or stature that is getting in the way of a "healthy" BMI. It looks good as an indicator from a distance, but it makes it hard to explain to people that losing weight at the expense of muscle wasting is a very bad thing- they just see heart disease and cancer.