Health for life

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.

As I was browsing Facebook the other night, just about to go to bed, I came across an interesting link that fired me up and kept my up far past my bedtime... an article called "Vegetarianism Demystified by a Toddler". It links to a YouTube video, which Ill just embed here for your convenience... voila!



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...

1. Humans are not herbivores.
2. Avoiding animal products will not save the environment.
3. Avoiding animal foods doesnt save animal lives.
4. The people most likely to adopt a vegan diet are the people who need animal products the most.
5. 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.
Are you prepared to kill off most of the human race as some sadistic form of forced "evolution" in the name of veganism? Okay that statement was a little dramatic. But seriously, shit just wouldnt work out. Itd be traumatic. We have physiological, biological needs as humans, and some of those needs are only fulfilled through animal foods. Its not morally wrong to eat animals... its just how life works. There is no life without death and vise versa. Its the circle of life. Like the Lion King.


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.

According to a study, “Mediterranean Diet and Risk of Hyperuricemia in Elderly Participants at High Cardiovascular Risk,” published in the Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, a baseline adherence to a Mediterranean diet (MeDiet) is associated with a lower risk of hyperuricemia, defined as a serum uric acid (SUA) concentration higher than 7mg/dl in men and higher than 6mg/dl in women.

Hyperuricemia has been associated with metabolic syndrome, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, gout, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The MeDiet is characterized by a high consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, olive oil, nuts, and whole grain; a moderate consumption of wine, dairy products, and poultry, and a low consumption of red meat, sweet beverages, creams, and pastries. Due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, the MeDiet might play a role in decreasing SUA concentrations.

Conducted by Marta Guasch-Ferré and 11 others, this study is the first to analyze the relationship between adherence to a MeDiet in older adults and the risk of hyperuricemia. The five-year study looks at 7,447 participants assigned to one of three intervention diets (two MeDiets enriched with extra virgin olive oil or mixed nuts, or a control low-fat diet). Participants were men aged 55 to 80 years and women aged 60 to 80 years who were free of cardiovascular disease but who had either type 2 diabetes mellitus or were at risk of coronary heart disease.

The findings below demonstrate the positive health effects of a MeDiet in older adults:

- Rates of reversion were higher among hyperuricemic participants at baseline who had greater adherence to the MeDiet.
- Consuming less than one serving a day of red meat compared with higher intake is associated with 23 percent reduced risk of hyperuricemia.
- Consuming fish and seafood increased the prevalence of hyperuricemia.
- Drinking more than seven glasses of wine per week increased the prevalence of hyperuricemia.
- Consuming legumes and sofrito sauce reduced the prevalence of hyperuricemia.

Reversion of hyperuricemia was achieved by adherence to the MeDiet alone, without weight loss or changes to physical activity.

Risk of dying from heart disease significantly lowered

Older adults who have higher levels of blood omega-3 levels—fatty acids found almost exclusively in fatty fish and seafood—may be able to lower their overall mortality risk by as much as 27% and their mortality risk from heart disease by about 35%, according to a new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Washington. Researchers found that older adults who had the highest blood levels of the fatty acids found in fish lived, on average, 2.2 years longer than those with lower levels.

"Although eating fish has long been considered part of a healthy diet, few studies have assessed blood omega-3 levels and total deaths in older adults," said lead author Dariush Mozaffarian, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at HSPH. "Our findings support the importance of adequate blood omega-3 levels for cardiovascular health, and suggest that later in life these benefits could actually extend the years of remaining life."

The study—the first to look at how objectively measured blood biomarkers of fish consumption relate to total mortality and specific causes of mortality in a general population—appears online April 1, 2013 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Previous studies have found that fish, which is rich in protein and heart-healthy fatty acids, reduces the risk of dying from heart disease. But the effect on other causes of death or on total mortality has been unclear. With this new study, the researchers sought to paint a clearer picture by examining biomarkers in the blood of adults not taking fish oil supplements, in order to provide the best assessments of the potential effects of dietary consumption of fish on multiple causes of death.

The researchers examined 16 years of data from about 2,700 U.S. adults aged 65 or older who participated in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), a long-term study supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Participants came from four U.S. communities in North Carolina, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; and all were generally healthy at baseline. At baseline and regularly during follow-up, participants had blood drawn, underwent physical examinations and diagnostic testing, and were questioned about their health status, medical history, and lifestyle.

The researchers analyzed the total proportion of blood omega-3 fatty acids, including three specific ones, in participants blood samples at baseline. After adjusting for demographic, cardiovascular, lifestyle, and dietary factors, they found that the three fatty acids—both individually and combined—were associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality. One type in particular—docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA—was most strongly related to lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) death (40% lower risk), especially CHD death due to arrhythmias (electrical disturbances of the heart rhythm) (45% lower risk). Of the other blood fatty acids measured—eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA)—DPA was most strongly associated with lower risk of stroke death, and EPA most strongly linked with lower risk of nonfatal heart attack. None of these fatty acids were strongly related to other, noncardiovascular causes of death.

Overall, study participants with the highest levels of all three types of fatty acids had a 27% lower risk of total mortality due to all causes.

When the researchers looked at how dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids related to blood levels, the steepest rise in blood levels occurred when going from very low intake to about 400 mg per day; blood levels rose much more gradually thereafter. "The findings suggest that the biggest bang-for-your-buck is for going from no intake to modest intake, or about two servings of fatty fish per week," said Mozaffarian.