Older Adults Live Longer With A Few Extra Pounds – If They Don’t Add More
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Change in Weight More Important Than Where You Start
Some overweight older adults don’t need to lose weight to extend their lives, but they could risk an earlier death if they pack on more pounds.
In fact, the nationwide study found that people who were slightly overweight in their 50s but kept their weight relatively stable were the most likely to survive over the next 16 years.
They had better survival rates than even normal-weight individuals whose weight increased slightly, but stayed within the normal range.
On the other hand, those who started out as very obese in their 50s and whose weight continued to increase were the most likely to die during that period.
Overall, the results suggest that about 7.2 percent of deaths after the age of 51 are due to weight gain among obese people, at least among the generation in this study, said Hui Zheng, lead author of the study and assistant professor of sociology at The Ohio State University.
“You can learn more about older people’s mortality risk by looking at how their weight is changing than you can by just looking at how much they weigh at any one time,” Zheng said.
While some extra weight seemed protective in this study, Zheng cautioned that these results applied only to people over 50. His previous research, published in Social Science & Medicine, suggests that being overweight may not be helpful for younger people.
“Our other research suggests that the negative effect of obesity on health is greater for young people than it is for older people, so young people especially shouldn’t think that being overweight is harmless,” he said.
This new study was published online this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Co-authors are Dmitry Tumin, doctoral student, and Zhenchao Qian, professor, both in sociology at Ohio State.
The researchers used data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of Americans born between 1931 and 1941. This study analyzed 9,538 respondents who were aged 51 to 61 when the survey began in 1992. They were re-interviewed every two years until 2008, and the researchers had information on how their body mass index (BMI) changed at each interview and whether they died at any point before December 2009.
Body mass index measures weight relative to height and is often used to evaluate obesity.
Zheng and his colleagues classified respondents into six groups, depending on their BMI at the beginning of the study and how it changed over the 16-year period they were surveyed.
While slightly overweight people (BMI of 25 to 29.9) whose weight was steady had the highest survival rate, those who moved from overweight to obese (BMI 30 to 34.9) were close behind.
“This suggests that among overweight people at age 51, small weight gains do not significantly lower the probability of survival,” Zheng said.
The third highest survival rate among the six groups was normal weight individuals (BMI of 18.5 to 24.9) whose weight increased slightly, but stayed within normal range.
Next came the Class I obese (BMI of 30 to 34.9) whose weight was moving upward.
“You can learn more about older people’s mortality risk by looking at how their weight is changing than you can by just looking at how much they weigh at any one time.”
Next to last were normal weight individuals who lost weight. Although the study attempted to control for illnesses among those studied, it may be that many of these individuals dropped weight because of illness.
The most obese individuals (BMI of 35 and over) who continued to add weight had the lowest survival rate of the six groups.
There weren’t enough people who started out as overweight and obese and lost weight to include in this analysis, Zheng said.
“We can’t really evaluate the effectiveness of planned weight loss on mortality. Even in the normal-weight people in this study, there was no way to tell whether weight loss was planned,” he said.
Zheng noted that the study took into account a wide variety of demographic and socioeconomic factors that may play a role in both weight and mortality among Americans. The researchers also controlled for whether the respondents smoked, whether they had a variety of chronic illnesses and even how they rated their own health. The results stood even after all of these factors were taken into account.
Why is being slightly overweight protective for older people?
“It is probably because the older population is more likely to get illnesses and disease, especially cancer, that cause dangerous weight loss,” he said. “In that case, a small amount of extra weight may provide protection against nutritional and energy deficiencies, metabolic stresses, the development of wasting and frailty, and loss of muscle and bone density caused by chronic diseases.”
Younger people are less likely to get many of the diseases that afflict older adults, which is one reason extra weight is not good for them, he said.
But Zheng said the main message for everyone, including older adults, is that packing on the pounds, especially if you’re obese, can be hazardous to your health.
“Continuing to put on weight can lower your life expectancy,” he said.
Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation to Prevent Fractures in Adults
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific clinical preventive services for patients without related signs or symptoms.
It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment.
The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms.
Summary of Recommendations and Evidence
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in premenopausal women or in men (I statement).
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of daily supplementation with greater than 400 IU of vitamin D3 and greater than 1,000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women (I statement).
The USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1,000 mg or less of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women (D recommendation).
The USPSTF has previously concluded in a separate recommendation that vitamin D supplementation is effective in preventing falls in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls (B recommendation).
Rationale
Importance
Fractures, particularly hip fractures, are associated with chronic pain and disability, loss of independence, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality (1). One half of all postmenopausal women will have an osteoporosis-related fracture during their lifetime.
Appropriate intake of vitamin D and calcium are essential to overall health. The Institute of Medicine has published recommended dietary allowances (Table). However, the benefits and harms of daily supplementation with greater than 400 IU of vitamin D3 and greater than 1,000 mg of calcium to prevent fractures are not clearly understood.
Benefits of Preventive Medication
In premenopausal women and in men, there is inadequate evidence to determine the effect of combined vitamin D3 and calcium supplementation on the incidence of fractures. In postmenopausal women, there is adequate evidence that daily supplementation with 400 IU of vitamin D3 combined with 1,000 mg of calcium has no effect on the incidence of fractures. However, there is inadequate evidence regarding the effect of higher doses of combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation on fracture incidence in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.
Harms of Preventive Medication
Adequate evidence indicates that supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1,000 mg or less of calcium increases the incidence of renal stones. The USPSTF assessed the magnitude of this harm as small.
USPSTF Assessment
Noninstitutionalized, community-dwelling postmenopausal women. The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking about the benefit of daily supplementation with greater than 400 IU of vitamin D3 and greater than 1,000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1,000 mg or less of calcium has no net benefit for the primary prevention of fractures.
Men and premenopausal women. The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking about the benefit of vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium for the primary prevention of fractures, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
Silly Adults Even Kids Know its Wrong to Eat Animals! VIDEO
Thursday, April 3, 2014
The video has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from YouTube users. Nearly every comment praises this child for being an irresistible, sweet little boy with a big heart... See?? Hes only 3, even a TODDLER knows its wrong to eat animals!! What an inspiration!!!
Okay. Fine. Thats your opinion. I, on the other hand, saw it differently. Here is how I interpreted his message...
Little Luiz Antonio is just sitting down to eat his octopus gnocchi, when he begins to question the ethics of eating an animal. After a little back and forth with his mother, Luiz decides we shouldnt be eating animals because theyre cute, and because every living thing deserves to be a winner in life... all of them all at the same time. If theres one thing Luiz is sure of, this is it. It would just be so great if we could all live forever and ever, and we could all live with the animals and pet each other and cuddle. Everyone could be friends. Everyone in the entire world. Well be pen pals and Skype friends and tweet each other and eat grass and well never have any reason to fight. For ever and ever.
Realistically, this is whats going through this little tykes head. Does he sound like an inspiration now? Does he make you want to throw out all your meat and slide headfirst into veganism!? I hope not. Hes a 3-year-old... He has a 3-year-old brain. Is it adorable? Yes. Very. But is it groundbreaking? Inspiring? Life-changing?? No. Get your head out of your ass.
The crux of this argument, what it really comes down to, is whether its human nature to want to be a vegetarian. Thats one of the main points of contention the article brings up. Is it really possible that were naturally vegetarians? Are we herbivorous animals? Is meat-eating just a social construct?
The answer is really very simple. No. No to all three. Big no to all three.
Ive explained my position on vegetarianism before...
- Humans are not herbivores.
- Avoiding animal products will not save the environment.
- Avoiding animal foods doesnt save animal lives.
- The people most likely to adopt a vegan diet are the people who need animal products the most.
- Veganism is a very recent phenomenon.
You should probably read the linked article yourself for a little more explanation. Going vegetarian isnt the answer to your problems, and it wont save the world. If youre really honest with yourself, I think thats pretty clear.
I applaud your intent, vegetarians, but I think you need a reality check.
Dont get me wrong, I do understand the rationale behind vegetarianism. Many vegetarians view cessation from animal foods as a sort of "next step in the evolution of humans". In other words, we no longer have to hunt and gather and rely on animal foods to get by, so we can choose to sustain ourselves on plant foods that are less damaging to the environment. We have plenty of plant food for everyone. And of course theres the compassion factor... we no longer need to carry out the "barbaric", "uncivilized" act of eating something that once had a cute face.
Where the vegetarians go wrong here, in my opinion, is in their assumption that an animal-food-free diet is a healthy diet. If we as a species were ever to decide to spontaneously switch to veganism, we would likely kill off a HUGE chunk of our population over the first few generations. What survives long-term would be, in my estimation, a very small fraction of humans, if any.
Dont believe me? Look what happened to this poor infant, who died at just 11 months... born of vegan parents, this little girl died of vitamin deficiencies from her mothers nutrient-depleted, vegan-borne breast milk.
Okay back to Little Luizs video.
Back to reality land, and that cute little cherub. To set the record straight, I do not have kids. Although I do want to have kids some day, I dont want kids at this particular moment, and I dont claim to be any sort of child-rearing expert. I do adore the innocent, naivety of Luizs mind, though. At the age of 3, Im sure a lot of kids have this same peachy outlook on life, and if I were a parent, Id probably like to preserve this blissful ignorant phase for a long as I could. I also dont ever want to force my child to eat anything he uses to eat. Good nutrition is of the utmost importance to me, but so is letting my child have some autonomy. I want to support his/her in life, not get in the way of it.
But thats neither here nor there. Im all about the tangents today.
To sum this all up, theres just no reason for Luizs thoughts on meat-eating to be taken as an affirmation for vegetarianism. For crying out loud, hes a 3-year-old child.
Its a cute video. Lets just leave it at that.
