I think this must be the second or third study to debunk Flegal. The bottom line is that a singly snapshot of BMI is not conclusive of anything.
Using data from three large cohort studies, comprising over 225,000 individuals, the researchers demonstrated that, no, there was no protective effect of being overweight. In fact, there was a small, but significant, added risk for all-cause mortality.
What did this study do that the 97 in that meta-analysis didn't? They looked at maximum weight achieved over the past 16 years in addition to current weight. This helps to account for those people that lost weight due to underlying, perhaps undiagnosed, diseases.
The Asian BMI (body mass index) scale used BMI>25 has the obese market. BMI of 23-25 is considered overweight and a BMI of < 23 is considered normal.
Compared with normal-weight individuals, those who were obese (BMI ≥25) had more than quadruple the risk for severe periodontitis (odds ratio 4.52, 95% CI 1.37-14.95, P=0.012) after adjusting for factors including age, sex, fasting glucose, smoking, and physical activity, reported Supanee Thanakun, PhD, DDS, of Mahidol University in Bangkok, and colleagues.
For overweight study participants, the risk was more than tripled, although the results were not quite statistically significant (OR 3.61, 95% CI 0.99-13.81, P=0.51). Overweight and obese individuals also had more overall dental inflammation as seen on panoramic radiographs than normal-weight people, Thanakun and colleagues wrote online in Oral Diseases.
Eating fruit lowers the risk for type two diabetes, which should not be a surprise, but with the concerted effort to downplay the importance of eating plants in some quarters, perhaps it is.
Among individuals enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), those in the highest quartile of fiber intake had a 30% lower risk for developing symptomatic OA (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, P<0.002) compared with those in the lowest quartile, according to Zhaoli Dai, PhD, and colleagues from Tufts University in Boston.
And among participants in the Framingham Offspring cohort, those with the highest intake had a 61% decrease in risk (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.88, P=0.026), the researchers reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Only 100g of fresh fruit a day is what’s necessary. That's really not very much fresh fruit. A single apple or mango can weigh more than that.
Among individuals without diabetes at baseline, daily fruit consumption was associated with a 12% lower risk for getting diabetes compared to never or rarely eating fresh fruit (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.83-0.93; P<0.001); this corresponded to a difference of 0.2 percentage points in 5-year absolute risk, said a research team led by Huaidong Du, MD, PhD, of Oxford University in England.
The study found a dose-response relationship between fresh fruit and diabetes risk, with each daily portion of fruit consumed linked to a 12% reduction in risk (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.95; P=0.01 for trend). This association was not significantly modified by sex, age, region, survey season, or a range of other factors including smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, body-mass index, and family history of diabetes, Du and colleagues reported online in PLOS Medicine.