Being fat in middle age protects against dementia and AD

haidut · Apr 10, 2015

Another study that matches Ray's statements that it is less harmful to be overweight (and even obese) than to be in the "healthy" spectrum of the BMI that is currently being promoted as the main prevention for all diseases.
One feature of obese and overweight people is that they retain much more CO2 than skinny folks and apparently have less endogenous serotonin (they rarely develop asthma).

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-u ... entia.html
http://news.yahoo.com/does-midlife-obes ... 35758.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... entia.html

"... People who are obese in middle age run a lower risk of developing dementia later, said a large and long-term study Friday whose findings challenge the prevailing wisdom. On the other end of the scale, however, being underweight in the 40-55 age bracket was associated with a higher risk, the researchers found. While admitting they were "surprised" by the potential protective effect of obesity, the team cautioned against jumping to conclusions."

"...A BMI of 25 and higher is classified overweight, and 30 and over obese. Anything less than 18.5 is generally considered underweight, though for this study the researchers set the bar at 20. Over two decades, the researchers found, "the incidence of dementia continued to fall for every increasing BMI category with very obese people (a BMI over 40) having a 29 percent lower dementia risk than people of a healthy weight."

"...Just over 45,500 of the total study group developed dementia. "Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI under 20) had a 34 percent higher risk of dementia," added the authors. The underweight category is a wide one, ranging from lean to skeletal, said Qizilbash, who described the increased risk as "significant"."

answersfound · Apr 10, 2015

Ha. Where is Weekend PUFAs? I'd love to hear his take on this.

narouz · Apr 10, 2015

Hmmm...
surprising.
Thanks, haidut!

haidut · Apr 10, 2015

narouz said:
Hmmm...
surprising.
Thanks, haidut!

Have you seen these sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_epidemiology
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... /S276.full

narouz · Apr 10, 2015

haidut said:
narouz said:

Hmmm...
surprising.
Thanks, haidut!

Click to expand...

Have you seen these sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_epidemiology
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... /S276.full

Yeah...that's interesting too.
I wonder how Peat might account for the "paradox"?

haidut · Apr 10, 2015

narouz said:
haidut said:

narouz said:

Hmmm...
surprising.
Thanks, haidut!

Click to expand...

Have you seen these sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_epidemiology
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... /S276.full

Click to expand...

Yeah...that's interesting too.
I wonder how Peat might account for the "paradox"?

The first time I heard about the "paradox" was from Peat himself. In one interview he was discussing the issue of sugar being fattening (for most people it is not) and he said that even if sugar was fattening you'd never hear the medical authorities talk about the protective effects of being fat (or even diabetic) such as higher CO2 and lower incidence of asthma, COPD, lung cancer, etc.

narouz · Apr 10, 2015

haidut said:
The first time I heard about the "paradox" was from Peat himself. In one interview he was discussing the issue of sugar being fattening (for most people it is not) and he said that even if sugar was fattening you'd never hear the medical authorities talk about the protective effects of being fat (or even diabetic) such as higher CO2 and lower incidence of asthma, COPD, lung cancer, etc.

I guess not much comes to mind
with regard to Peat talking about health benefits of being overweight.
Generally, one would think he'd look at it like metabolic under-function.
But then, maybe there are worse things.
Maybe in a scenario of obesity, low thyroid, and high cholesterol
the cholesterol is protective against some diseases...?

jaa · Apr 10, 2015

If you have a BMI under 20, you have very little muscle mass. Perhaps that's a contributing factor? I also imagine people with BMIs under 20 are generally sickly. I also wonder how much is correlation vs causation. I know when my grandfather started showing signs of dementia, he started losing weight as well.

I recall reading that being overweight is also protective in old age because you do not succumb to illness as easily as underweight people who do not have the muscle and fat reserves to live off in times of sickness.

All that said, while dementia is horrible it's not the only thing that kills people. Quality and quantity of life is what matters. I'll take being normal weight with added risk of dementia all day.

Edit: Here is a comment I found on reddit which seems like a possible confounder that would be very difficult to tease out:

"I wonder if they separated out those who were underweight due to diet and exercise and those who are unable to gain weight due to metabolism or inability to absorb nutrients?"

Dean · Apr 10, 2015

narouz said:
haidut said:

The first time I heard about the "paradox" was from Peat himself. In one interview he was discussing the issue of sugar being fattening (for most people it is not) and he said that even if sugar was fattening you'd never hear the medical authorities talk about the protective effects of being fat (or even diabetic) such as higher CO2 and lower incidence of asthma, COPD, lung cancer, etc.

Click to expand...

I guess not much comes to mind
with regard to Peat talking about health benefits of being overweight.
Generally, one would think he'd look at it like metabolic under-function.
But then, maybe there are worse things.
Maybe in a scenario of obesity, low thyroid, and high cholesterol
the cholesterol is protective against some diseases...?

Yeah, I've heard Peat talk about this. Hypothyroidism that doesn't result in being overweight, often manifests itself with disease. I've heard other alternative health "authorities" talk about a disguised "blessing", protectiveness from being fat.

I don't know. I guess it depends if you are more partial to quality of life or quantity. People who's hypothyroidism manifests itself as fatness and metabolic disorder often suffer from quality of life issues, myself included. I'd be pretty inclined to trade in my life-long struggle with underachieving, unhappiness, and everything else that comes with a life lived with physical and mental energy severely lacking for a productive, happy life that was cut a little short with an acute disease.

Blossom · Apr 10, 2015

This is a great topic IMO Haidut! I firmly believe our culture could do with a good reality check on weight issues. It seems so much focus is put on overweight and obese while no one really talks about the real dangers of underweight. Sick people as well as healthy people really do come in all shapes and sizes. It seems the very extremes on either end are what's really harmful or forcing oneself to veer far away from their own natural set point.

jyb · Apr 11, 2015

haidut said:
Another study that matches Ray's statements that it is less harmful to be overweight (and even obese) than to be in the "healthy" spectrum of the BMI that is currently being promoted as the main prevention for all diseases.
One feature of obese and overweight people is that they retain much more CO2 than skinny folks and apparently have less endogenous serotonin (they rarely develop asthma).

It seems like there is a trend for overweights to suffer from diseases such as CVD and underweight from brain problems. I am surprised however that Ray thinks overweight is less harmful, because overweight means (in modern times) more pufa accumulated. And out of all problems, it seems like stored pufa is priority for Ray.

tara · Apr 13, 2015

I hadn't come across to these references to the protective effects of fat (the so-called 'obesity paradox') from Peat, but it doesn't surprise me that he is aware that in yet another area the science shows that reality doesn't completely conform to the dominant discourse.

jaa · Apr 13, 2015

jyb said:
haidut said:

Another study that matches Ray's statements that it is less harmful to be overweight (and even obese) than to be in the "healthy" spectrum of the BMI that is currently being promoted as the main prevention for all diseases.
One feature of obese and overweight people is that they retain much more CO2 than skinny folks and apparently have less endogenous serotonin (they rarely develop asthma).

Click to expand...

It seems like there is a trend for overweights to suffer from diseases such as CVD and underweight from brain problems. I am surprised however that Ray thinks overweight is less harmful, because overweight means (in modern times) more pufa accumulated. And out of all problems, it seems like stored pufa is priority for Ray.

There were also headlines in 2011 that stated a study showed being overweight increased risk of dementia by 4x. I know of no conflicting reports that being normal or underweight increases risk of CVD.

Westside PUFAs · Apr 26, 2015

lookingforanswers said:
Ha. Where is Weekend PUFAs? I'd love to hear his take on this.

I can post 10,000 studies on the negative effects of enlarged adipose tissue (fat). And your point is?

tara · Apr 26, 2015

Westside PUFAs said:
lookingforanswers said:

Ha. Where is Weekend PUFAs? I'd love to hear his take on this.

Click to expand...

I can post 10,000 studies on the negative effects of enlarged adipose tissue (fat). And your point is?

Where causation, and not just correlation (I know there are thousands of these), is demonstrated?

oxidation_is_normal · Apr 27, 2015

How would being fat - in a paradigm where burning fat instead of sugar is bad - be helpful?

tara · Apr 28, 2015

oxidation_is_normal said:
How would being fat - in a paradigm where burning fat instead of sugar is bad - be helpful?

Some fat people burn sugar better than some thin people. Just being fat doesn't itself prove you can't oxidise sugar.
My guess is that part of the answer might be that some people stay thin by undereating, which causes stress and damage of its own that can sometimes be greater than the damage caused by eating to appetite and being fat.
And, consider all the lean fat-burning insulin-resistant VLC dieters.
I don't think this applies to all fat or all thin people, but they might be factors affecting statistics.

haidut · Apr 29, 2015

tara said:
oxidation_is_normal said:

How would being fat - in a paradigm where burning fat instead of sugar is bad - be helpful?

Click to expand...

Some fat people burn sugar better than some thin people. Just being fat doesn't itself prove you can't oxidise sugar.
My guess is that part of the answer might be that some people stay thin by undereating, which causes stress and damage of its own that can sometimes be greater than the damage caused by eating to appetite and being fat.
And, consider all the lean fat-burning insulin-resistant VLC dieters.
I don't think this applies to all fat or all thin people, but they might be factors affecting statistics.

If you look at the body as an adaptive system, you can come to the conclusion that gaining weight is an adaptive response that comes with aging and is the body's desperate attempt to keep metabolism up. If you take a specific person, that person will have higher RMR if they were 20lbs heavier than if they were lighter. Of course it would be best to have that extra 20lbs be in the form of muscle but even if those extra pounds are fat the metabolism still benefits.
Of course, I am excluding people with known endocrine disorders that would lead to gaining weight. The above is meant to illustrate the "natural" gaining of weight as part of aging that we observe happen to 90% of the people around us.
The bottom line is - your body is trying to protect you under all circumstances. However, sometimes the adaptation responses can get out of hand when they continue for too long. If the body senses that a low energy and high stress environment is the norm then it drops all "differentiated" functions and focuses on the primordial function of every living cell - to grow.

oxidation_is_normal · Apr 30, 2015

haidut said:
tara said:

oxidation_is_normal said:

How would being fat - in a paradigm where burning fat instead of sugar is bad - be helpful?

Click to expand...

Some fat people burn sugar better than some thin people. Just being fat doesn't itself prove you can't oxidise sugar.
My guess is that part of the answer might be that some people stay thin by undereating, which causes stress and damage of its own that can sometimes be greater than the damage caused by eating to appetite and being fat.
And, consider all the lean fat-burning insulin-resistant VLC dieters.
I don't think this applies to all fat or all thin people, but they might be factors affecting statistics.

Click to expand...

If you look at the body as an adaptive system, you can come to the conclusion that gaining weight is an adaptive response that comes with aging and is the body's desperate attempt to keep metabolism up. If you take a specific person, that person will have higher RMR if they were 20lbs heavier than if they were lighter. Of course it would be best to have that extra 20lbs be in the form of muscle but even if those extra pounds are fat the metabolism still benefits.
Of course, I am excluding people with known endocrine disorders that would lead to gaining weight. The above is meant to illustrate the "natural" gaining of weight as part of aging that we observe happen to 90% of the people around us.
The bottom line is - your body is trying to protect you under all circumstances. However, sometimes the adaptation responses can get out of hand when they continue for too long. If the body senses that a low energy and high stress environment is the norm then it drops all "differentiated" functions and focuses on the primordial function of every living cell - to grow.

On the other hand, if you look at adipose deposits as a side-effect of a stress response, then it is visible evidence of a long-term stress response. Up to a certain point it could be seen as purely adaptive, but more than a little fat is probably best seen as maladaptive. An efficient system should not need to grow a set of tissues way beyond their original state to keep equilibrium. Therefore, I think in the very least, being fat should not be seen as protective (or the opposite). Again, fat deposits are the effect - and we're interested in the original causes in each case.

Parsifal · Dec 5, 2015

haidut said:
Another study that matches Ray's statements that it is less harmful to be overweight (and even obese) than to be in the "healthy" spectrum of the BMI that is currently being promoted as the main prevention for all diseases.
One feature of obese and overweight people is that they retain much more CO2 than skinny folks and apparently have less endogenous serotonin (they rarely develop asthma).

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-u ... entia.html
http://news.yahoo.com/does-midlife-obes ... 35758.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... entia.html

"... People who are obese in middle age run a lower risk of developing dementia later, said a large and long-term study Friday whose findings challenge the prevailing wisdom. On the other end of the scale, however, being underweight in the 40-55 age bracket was associated with a higher risk, the researchers found. While admitting they were "surprised" by the potential protective effect of obesity, the team cautioned against jumping to conclusions."

"...A BMI of 25 and higher is classified overweight, and 30 and over obese. Anything less than 18.5 is generally considered underweight, though for this study the researchers set the bar at 20. Over two decades, the researchers found, "the incidence of dementia continued to fall for every increasing BMI category with very obese people (a BMI over 40) having a 29 percent lower dementia risk than people of a healthy weight."

"...Just over 45,500 of the total study group developed dementia. "Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI under 20) had a 34 percent higher risk of dementia," added the authors. The underweight category is a wide one, ranging from lean to skeletal, said Qizilbash, who described the increased risk as "significant"."

How can overweight people have less serotonin if this is a feature of animals going into hibernation and if peope with higher adipose tissue get more estrogen?

By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.

Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter

Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...

Rest the rest of this post by clicking here

Being fat in middle age protects against dementia and AD

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads