Can you back up that data?
“Can you back up that data?”
www.junkfoodscience.com has several article that allude to it.
“Lower deaths (lives saved) associated with being “overweight” (BMI 25-30) = 86,094
Yes, you’re reading that right. Being overweight is actually associated with reduced mortality rates. Being well nourished is healthful. In fact, looking at the data on nonsmokers, ages 29-59, those who are “overweight” or “obese” (BMI 30-35) have 66 to 77% of the mortality risk of government-approved “normal” bodies (BMI 18.5-25). For an average 5’4” woman, that means weighing 145 to 205 pounds is the least risky; for someone 5’11”, the lowest risks are at 172 to 247 pounds.
But being underweight, even after accounting for smoking or illness, is 25% more dangerous than being “normal” weight. And it’s considerably more dangerous when compared to either “overweight” or “obese” (BMI 30-35): 89% to 62%, respectively. After the age of 60, being underweight becomes especially hazardous and is the riskiest of all: almost 200% greater risks than those associated with “normal” weights, 266% greater than “overweight,” 145% more than “obese” (BMI 30-35), and even 29% more than the most extreme obesity (BMI >35). In contrast, obesity only reaches the same risks as underweight among younger ages (25 to 59 years) at the uppermost extremes of BMIs over 35, which represents a mere 8.3% of the population. That’s a far cry from the government’s claim that 66% of us are “too fat.”
While the dangers of underweight are significant, they’ve been largely ignored while the risks of overweight have been greatly overstated. The findings of Flegal and colleagues are nothing new, most of us just haven’t heard the facts before. Of all the body weight studies published in the last half century, about 75% find weight to be irrelevant to health and mortality except at the extremes of BMI, according to Glenn Gaesser of the University of Virginia. . .”
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042505D