That should get Rule’s attention.

Have you seen this work, published in Lancet a couple of years ago?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213858718302882

“Association of BMI with overall and cause-specific mortality: a population-based cohort study of 3·6 million adults in the UK”

Some bits picked out of the Summary:

BMI had a J-shaped association with overall mortality

Associations between BMI and mortality were stronger at younger ages than at older ages, and the BMI associated with lowest mortality risk was higher in older individuals than in younger individuals (That one is interesting)

BMI had J-shaped associations with overall mortality and most specific causes of death; for mental and behavioural, neurological, and external causes, lower BMI was associated with increased mortality risk.

It’s a long and involved paper, but interesting. I became aware of it from an article in the July Scientific American about a clinic where the doctor does not use scales.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-if-doctors-stopped-prescribing-weight-loss/

I thought it was a pay paper, but I just managed to get in. I don’t think I’ve invoked my subscription rights, I think I’ve only subscribed for paper. See if you can open it.

Going in Blue Leader.

Peak Warming Man said:

Going in Blue Leader.

No trouble Blue Leader, very little flack over the target, got straight in.
No idea what Jerry is up to in there.

That first diagram is interesting because it shows a basically flat mortality rate between 22.5 and 30 BMI.

That last diagram should be improved by further splitting the bottom category: right now it includes people in the nominal BMI range as well as people who are dangerously underweight. It would be good to divide those.

dv said:

That first diagram is interesting because it shows a basically flat mortality rate between 22.5 and 30 BMI.

That last diagram should be improved by further splitting the bottom category: right now it includes people in the nominal BMI range as well as people who are dangerously underweight. It would be good to divide those.

I really thought that the likelihood of dying was still considered to be terribly close to 1.

Another good diagram

Indicates that optimal BMI is a bit higher for women than for men.

sibeen said:

dv said:

That first diagram is interesting because it shows a basically flat mortality rate between 22.5 and 30 BMI.

That last diagram should be improved by further splitting the bottom category: right now it includes people in the nominal BMI range as well as people who are dangerously underweight. It would be good to divide those.

I really thought that the likelihood of dying was still considered to be terribly close to 1.

Not with Jesus cornhole.

Here’s the paper that was the basis for the 2 and 3 diagrams there.

https://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9

Methods: We examined the association between healthy lifestyle habits and mortality in a sample of 11,761 men and women from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III; subjects were ages 21 and older and fell at various points along the BMI scale, from normal weight to obese. Subjects were enrolled between October 1988 and October 1994 and were followed for an average of 170 months.

Results: After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, race, education, and marital status, the hazard ratios (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality for individuals who adhered to 0, 1, 2, or 3 healthy habits were 3.27 (2.36–4.54), 2.59 (2.06–3.25), 1.74 (1.51–2.02), and 1.29 (1.09–1.53), respectively, relative to individuals who adhered to all 4 healthy habits. When stratified into normal weight, overweight, and obese groups, all groups benefited from the adoption of healthy habits, with the greatest benefit seen within the obese group.

Conclusions: Healthy lifestyle habits are associated with a significant decrease in mortality regardless of baseline body mass index.
—-
A large body of epidemiologic evidence suggests that obesity is an independent risk factor for early mortality.3,4 Though the evidence for the risk of being overweight is mixed, most studies find no increased risk of mortality among overweight people.3–5 The increased risk of mortality associated with obesity is of considerable concern because more than 33% of American adults are categorized as obese (body mass index ≥30).6

By even the most conservative estimates, obesity is responsible for more than 80,000 deaths annually.3 Obesity increases the risk of illnesses such as coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sleep apnea, and several types of cancer.7,8 In addition to increasing morbidity and mortality, obesity is a major financial strain on both individuals and society, with the direct annual medical costs estimated to be in excess of $147 billion dollars.9

Fortunately, regardless of an individual’s BMI, adherence to healthy lifestyle habits seems to decrease the risk of premature mortality.1,10,11 These findings may be of particular importance given that fewer than 1 in 5 Americans who attempt to lose weight are successful in maintaining weight loss over time.12,13

—-

In answer to my previous question, it seems they did not include any underweight people in the study.

Still, it would be good to see these breakdowns into smaller BMI categories, perhaps 2.5 width.

Interesting, thank you Buffy.

On the point about not using scales, there is a point above which measurement is not much help, and only likely to result in the patient experiencing humiliation. Change of circumference (indicated by clothing) is enough to tell whether the intervention is working.

Rule 303 said:

Interesting, thank you Buffy.

On the point about not using scales, there is a point above which measurement is not much help, and only likely to result in the patient experiencing humiliation. Change of circumference (indicated by clothing) is enough to tell whether the intervention is working.

Interesting. Is there more shame associated with body mass than with clothing size? Some people stress about the latter.

My 600 pound life …

poikilotherm said:

My 600 pound life …

…as a land whale.

JudgeMental said:

poikilotherm said:

My 600 pound life …

…as a land whale.

Does this mattress make me look fat?

(It’s a tv show)

once I asked what happens when super large people need a brain scan or something that involves going inside one of those tubes of doom… there were some answers that indicated they have portable stuff.. but the other day I saw a meme type thing that said that large people go to places like sea world where they have extra large MRI machines for the animals.

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Interesting, thank you Buffy.

On the point about not using scales, there is a point above which measurement is not much help, and only likely to result in the patient experiencing humiliation. Change of circumference (indicated by clothing) is enough to tell whether the intervention is working.

Interesting. Is there more shame associated with body mass than with clothing size? Some people stress about the latter.

It’s how tight the clothing feels, not the size,

Arts said:

once I asked what happens when super large people need a brain scan or something that involves going inside one of those tubes of doom… there were some answers that indicated they have portable stuff.. but the other day I saw a meme type thing that said that large people go to places like sea world where they have extra large MRI machines for the animals.

There’s usually a ‘bariatric’ version of most things: Beds, trolleys, ambulances, patient lifts etc etc.

I’ve had to get them brought in on jobs.