Chubby People Live Longer Than Skinny People

Story Here

I think I'll have some ice cream for dessert tonight!!



I know .. I know .. it says 'slightly chubby'.
Just thought you all would like to see this.

Wa-heh! That's good news for me. Now what's the number of the local Pizza Hut.

I don't believe that one bit, what about the increased risk of diabetes and heart disease - the 2 leading causes of death in the US - for overweight people?

Not so overweight people are far less likely to have either of those conditions.

Amazing how Science repeatedly reveal throughout the years how various groups live konger than others. For instance, how chubby people live longer than skinny people, but not only that, but also that skinny people live longer than chubby people aswell!

You can always count on Science.

Just wait a few years and they'll change their mind. They flip flop a lot.

example - eggs are good for you. No, they are bad for you. Wait, wait .. they are now good for you. Hold up ... the whites are good and the yellows are bad ....

I figured more people would be happy reading this thread. Guess not.

reply to post by Nightchild

---

Yeah, it seems like just within the last year someone else released a study on how a calorie restricted diet would lead to longevity. Fat mice, skinny mice and all the supporting info related to humans.

Better hold off on that ice cream!

If people wanted to live really long, they'd follow a CRON diet and the people following that are all going to be very thin I'd say, and definitely no where near over weight.

Generally, increased calorie intake increases rate of aging, so one would think those with lower calorie intake would do better.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by ghaleon12]

Just for the record:

CRON Diet

Thanks for the link.

I think I'll wait till we get more evidence before I start eating sweets again.

I would love to eat everything I wanted just one day.

But weight adds up fast when you are only 5' short.

The study, as you have pointed out, is referring to slightly chubby people vs very thin people.

In other words, a health person(slightly chubby) will out live an unhealthy person(very thin).

Here's a thought. Slightly chubby people are more than likely aware that even a small amount of fat accumulation around the midsection increases their chances of developing chronic disease, therefore, they routinely see their physician to get regular check ups. This would indeed extend a persons life.

Comparatively, very thin people are more likely to assume they are healthy because they believe that weight gain is the major cause of chronic disease, therefore, they don't regularly visit their physicians to get check ups. This allows for a silent attack on the body that, once caught, has developed into stages that are irreversible and ultimately lead to a premature death.

That's one way of thinking of it.

Another thing, many thin people are underweight because of an existing disease that will eventually take their life. They may have hormonal imbalances that inhibit their ability to store fat and gain weight. For example, Type 1 Diabetics typically cannot store fat because of their lack of insulin production. Their diabetes will eventually kill them, not their weight.

Very restricted calorie diets have not shown to increase human lifespan, plain and simple. Scientists are currently studying adult primates to see if CRON increases their lifespan. There are problems, however, with these types of diets.

Firstly, we don't really know why eating less food causes increased lifespan in small animals(insects). Some suggest it is low levels of IGF-1 and Insulin, which indeed to increase the rate of aging when present in high levels. One of the biggest problems I see with very restricted calorie diets on humans is Catabolism, or breaking down of muscle tissue for energy. And the heart, btw, is a muscle.

Gotta go, more later.

-Dev

Oh no, I guess I'm in trouble.

At least I won't be as much at risk for heart-disease or stroke.

I'm underweight because of my metabolism. JUST underweight, though. I think my BMI is 18.4 and normal is 18.5. But BMI doesn't really determine much, anyway. Not as much as body fat measurements and things.

Science is self correcting. So yes, you can count on science. If you don't like the message, you are more than welcome, in fact encouraged, to prove the opposite. And in this case, you're not getting science from scientists, but science interpretations as picked by the media.

So enough with the "we can't trust old wishy washy science" talk. It's not perfect, but it's always improving itself, and it's the best tool we have to figure out how the natural world, including our bodies, work.

I believe there is a more sinister reason for the existence of diabetes (given it is a relatively recent affliction in the scope of human history) - and that is diabetes is caused by all the harmful unnatural additives we ingest in our modern processed foods - namely things like sucrose and aspartame etc.

I believe the number one killer in terms of diabetes is soft drinks (fizzy drinks). Unfortunately, a lot of overweight people tend to live off these things on a daily basis, therefore their diet and lifestyle in general gets blamed for their health problems.. which is true to a certain extent..

..but the real problem is their dependence on foods and drink concocted in a food technology lab somewhere.. ingesting items only a couple of molecules away from being plastic.. that's the real killer.

I think an overweight person would have no problems at all living to a ripe age if they ate as much raw foods as possible, cooked with butter and fat just like the 'old days'. Ever since people went from butter to 'healthier alternatives' like margarine (and other similar spreads marketed as healthy) and drinking Coke and Sprite 'Zero' ("zero" meaning zero sugar, therefore deemed 'healthy' - yet replaced by poisonous aspartame!). Anything with sucrose is evil in my opinion.

Bring back good old butter, cream, fat and sugar!

Ya know why the study is right?

I’ll tell ya.

I’m thin. Not by choice but by demands I put on myself (ok so I guess that is a choice)...

Anyway, I’ll tell ya - it’s hard work and it’s stressful.

Always saying NO to that nice plate of pasta...

I might as well be dead.

See!

FF - Loved the egg post! Oh so true!

There is a reason for this. Two, actually.

First is the media. They get their hands on a strictly observational/epidemiological study that correlates a type of food with some disease and they tout it as evidence of causation. This is not how science works.

Secondly, foods go back and forth, as you mentioned, because of assumptions made by researchers. In the case of eggs, there was originally no fear of this super food. Researchers eventually assumed that, since cholesterol and fat cause heart disease and since eggs are high cholesterol, eggs should be avoided and/or limited to a few per week.

Red meat, butter, coconut oil...these are other examples of foods that have been demonized because of their fat/cholesterol content.

The problem is, the assumption that there are thousands of studies linking fat to cholesterol to heart disease, or the consumption of fat/cholesterol to heart disease, is completely false as there is almost no evidence that supports this hypothesis.

So, now we're allowed to eat eggs, but only the whites because the yolks contain cholesterol. Newsflash, dietary cholesterol has almost no effect on serum cholesterol. Even if cholesterol and fat leads to heart disease, eating dietary cholesterol will not harm you.

The whole idea that eating fat(saturated) increases cholesterol and leads to heart disease is bogus. The medical/health/research community simply assume that researchers in the 50's presented thousands of studies that proved this their hypothesis. Today, there are thousands of studies that have shown dietary saturated fat and cholesterol to be perfectly safe.

-Dev

for just one day? go right ahead. one day a month even. it won't do you the slightest bit of harm if you eat well and exercise the rest of the time. (unless you want to eat rat poison or something, that's not so good.)

all this stuff about this size is healthier than that size or this weight is healthier than that is so stupid. it's pretty straight forward, eat good quality fresh food most of the time and don't spend all day on your backside and you'll live a good quality of life. how long you live after that is just random.

don't eat well because it's healthy, eat well because it tastes good.

don't get off the couch because it's healthy, get off the couch 'cos the outside is more fun.

it ain't rocket science ffs.

Calorie restriction has been shown to increase lifespan in every creature studied, and you don't think that would apply to humans? It is impossible to do a controlled study involving human subjects, which goes with a lot of experiments, hence why they use animals. It's proven and accepted by many doctors that a CRON diet does increase life span. An example is this M.D. who wrote a book documenting many studies supporting health benefits from CRON. books.google.com... saHEITkMLvorasB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
So no, its not "plain and simple". Every creature studied is younger than would they should be for their age. And this does go for humans. People who have elected to do this kind of lifestyle show benefits to their heart. 70 year old people who followed this diet for years have hearts that are on par with that of a 40 year old.

What are the problems with these types of diets, a little general there.

They think that prolonged calorie restriction can trigger genes that slow aging. Or that limiting the calories improves the functioning of mitochondria, so that not as many free radicals are produced. Another thought to explain why CRON increases lifespan is since it slows the rate at which cells divide.
en.wikipedia.org...

Catabolism isn't a problem for people on this diet, for an anorexic person who has no body fat, and has to break down protein for energy, yeah its a problem. People on this diet have adequate protein intake and body fat levels. It's optimal nutrition and low calories. Yes the heart is a muscle, but you're either being misleading or misinformed. Even when body fat can't be consumed for functioning and protein sources need to be used, the body won't choose sources that are vital for living. A calf muscle is a little less important than heart or other organs, so muscles on the extremities go first.

I'd like to see some scientific studies for your side, because they've been doing studies for decades showing numerous health benefits.

Sure, its an "inconvenient truth" for those that want to live long and enjoy stuffing their face, but its the truth nonetheless.


[edit on 25-6-2009 by ghaleon12]

Here's a chart which shows BMI in relation to mortality risk.


link

BMI can be influenced by a multitude of factors. This chart represents millions of people who each have different genetics, environments, and underlying health conditions. Generally, a sudden weight increase or decrease is a sign of disease and/or imbalance.

From the chart, it seems a BMI of 18 would put you at risk the same as someone just obese around 30 BMI. That's pretty significant considering 20 is thought to be healthy. If I remember correctly, they changed the standards for figuring what is healthy, overweight, and obese a few years back. Maybe it was in the 90's. I remember someone trying to argue that people aren't getting fatter. Well that argument is dead in the water by now!


[edit on 25-6-2009 by unityemissions]

reply to post by ghaleon12

---

If one eliminates the symptoms of aging, wouldn't one essentially extend one's life?

I understand that Calorie Restriction with adequate/optimum Nutrition has been shown repeatedly to extend the life of organisms. There is no denying that. The question is WHY?



They think. I'd rather not starve myself in hopes of achieving long life when I know that restricting certain foods does the exact same thing, without restricting calories.

Guess what increases cellular proliferation and division? That's Insulin.

Free radicals? What about glycation? It, along with insulin and oxidation are leading causes of damage, or Senescence(aging). Two of those are positively correlated with sugar. Can you guess which ones?

Insulin and Glycation. Ever heard of AGE's? Advanced glycation end products. Caused by glycated proteins that stick around. There is a reason why they're called AGE's. They are very pro-inflammatory.

So, what we do know, sugar and insulin increase the rate of aging and the rate of chronic diseases, versus what we don't know, why CRON diets decrease aging. I'll stick with what we do know.

-Dev