Creek Running North

I heard about one of these on the radio earlier this week.  I had not heard about the Korean study, and don’t know the particulars.  As for the other, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man your height and age weighing 167 lbs., I would hesitate to embrace the conclusions of this particular study.  All the participants in the study were AARP members self-reporting on their weight and habits.  We all know how precise that method of data collection is.  No one ever lies about their weight and habits, ever, right?

Of course it’s true that being overweight wears the body out quicker.  We all need to get off our asses for a little while each day, and we all need to eat properly.  I’m not really sure these particular studies are credible reasons to panic over our own personal stats, though.  And that’s over and above whether BMI is bunk or not.

There is so much conflicting data on BMI and health that I wonder if it’s that useful for predicting lifespan.  For example, just recently, I read something about men with a lower BMI having less chance of survival in a serious automobile accident (whether or not they were yakking on a cellphone).  I’ve also seen data that suggests that women with a bit higher BMI have less chance of breaking bones in falls (I assume that has as much to do with bone strength as having some excess shock absorption padding).  I’ve also seen studies that suggest that people with a slightly higher BMI have a better chance of surviving many serious illnesses as they have some reserves to fall back on if they are out of commission for a few weeks.  While the data is interesting, I believe that there are so many factors that come into play when it comes to lifespan - genetics, lifestyle, activity levels, diet, etc… that a few pounds either way probably don’t make all that much difference.  That said, I think it best to be as active as we can and find a weight that is comfortable.  As a wellness indicator, I would tend to think that having and maintaining a good blood pressure level might actually be more relevant than a perfect BMI.  jmo, of course.

Chris wrote;

“A study indicates that people whose Body Mass Index is in the overweight range at age 50 have a significantly increased risk of early death.”

I’m sure that, statistically, this has merit. But, as with all things statistical, it is worse than useless for many who satisfy these criteria. Your activity level (which is obviously high), and, more significantly, your comfort with your activity level, is probably (with family history) the most important health factor.

Personal question (feel free to tell me to MMOFB); has weight been an issue for you since childhood?

Rob, why would I tell you to Measure My Old Father’s Belly?

I was not a skinny kid, precisely: stick-figure arms and legs with a slight belly. And as I’ve written before, I spent my late teens and early twenties in a state best described as “emaciated.” I started putting on poundage in my early 30s.

I am maintaining skepticsm about the study. I do think that the self-reporting issue would likely work to decrease the apparent correlation, as people are likely to undercount their weight. and if the study correlated BMI and health, then it’s not unreasonable to talk about BMI in the context of the study, as ill-fitting as it may be to other aspects of body size and health.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other confounding issues, from methodological problems to unanticipated other factors.

It’s an old Latvian curse, and translates about as well as the saying “if auntie had wheels, she’d be a tram”.

My problem with studies like this (more properly, with the newspapers that sound-bite them), is that many people take them seriously. Someone somewhere, who probably has nothing to worry about, ends up panicking and changing a perfectly healthy lifestyle for the sake of a few pounds. I have the same beef about most “science” articles in newspapers. Kinda like the recent “all terror, all the time” news coverage. “Don’t panic, but here’s why you should be REALLY REALLY AFRAID”.

Fuck “normal” anyway. Er, that’s Latvian as well.

Twenty-eight months ‘til you’re 50? And you’re 46 now? Hmmm...do your years have fewer months than mine?

(I’ll be 50 exactly 49 months from today.)

OK, that’s embarrassing.

I always find it extremely frustrating assessing scientific studies on media reports about them.  But my big question with this sort of study is whether or not they controlled for poverty (the media report implies that they didn’t, since it says that they controlled for smoking and illness).  I have very little interest in the result of any study on quality of life and longevity that doesn’t control for poverty.