Can skinny be fat?

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (6) -

  • Anna

    4/29/2008 5:42:00 AM |

    Very interesting.  I've been paying attention to this issue as the reports have come out the last few weeks.  As a mid-40s female with a BMI hovering around 22 (5'3.5", 125 #), despite losing about 20# 4 years ago with a LC diet, I know I am still carrying more fat on me (and in different places) than I did 15 years ago at about the same weight.  

    What about strength training to build muscle mass  and drop body fat % instead of losing weight?   I don't really want to lose any more weight and I think I have hit the limit of weight loss from carb restriction.  I don't like to restrict calories, nor do I think it is effective for me.

    I've never liked exercise for the sake of exercise, but I think it was those incredibly boring cardio routines that put me off gyms and exercise routines (plus I found it was much easier to lose and maintain weight through carb restriction than through exercise).  

    But I've been reading up on the "slow strength" routines and they seem like a very efficient way to enhance my metabolism and muscle/fat ratios, especially since my glucose metabolism is already impaired.

  • Richard A.

    4/29/2008 2:00:00 PM |

    Maybe another approach for the normal weight obese is to take up weight lifting.

  • Anonymous

    4/29/2008 3:07:00 PM |

    My brother in law liked this post.  He is a former rugby player, 6 foot, 200 plus lbs. in size.  He looks like he is chiseled out of granite with the muscles he has.  I doubt there is more than 10% body fat on him, but he tells me that for years he has been considered obese by the BMI.

  • Zute

    4/29/2008 3:46:00 PM |

    I'm curious why the association it seems most medical people leap to is that it is the obesity causing the issue rather than the obesity being yet another symptom.

    Strangely if you cut out the refined carbs, grains, sugars, excess starches, all the symptoms correct themselves.  Sure, you can do the same thing with calorie restriction but we should know from Keyes starvation experiment that that doesn't really work long term with a high carb diet.

    Is there any real evidence it is the fat causing metabolic syndrome versus the metabolic syndrome causing the fat?

  • Anonymous

    4/30/2008 3:50:00 PM |

    This article pretty much describes me.  5'8" male, about 165lbs and a BMI of 25.  I've always had a problem gaining muscle so although I look normal my body fat was about 23% and I had high triglycerides.  I bought a bowflex and have worked hard to gain some muscle.  I'm now about 21% body fat and there is some muscle gain.  I don't know if I'll ever make it to 15% body fat, but I'm trying.  BMI is pretty much a joke.

  • Anonymous

    5/1/2008 3:03:00 PM |

    BMI is a fairly crude measure.  For the majority it probably has some value.  As others have pointed out it can incorrectly identify some heavily muscled people as overweight whilst suggesting some overweight people aren't overweight.  Perhaps a better indicator of obesity is waist measurement, or the waist to hip ratio.  In particular It doesn't appear to be healthy to carry significant amounts of weight around the middle.  

    Looking at old black and white films or photographs of crowd scenes, its noticeable that most people are lean: much more so than today.  I have been struck by how lean, and healthy, many soldiers look in what must have been harrowing and stressful times.  Maybe it was the more active lifestyle and spartan lifestyles.

    I doubt you could look at many modern day crod secenes and be impressed by how lean and healthy the people looked.  Even the London marathon contained quite a high proportion of overweight participants!

    Paul

Loading
Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

In a previous post I entitled Heart disease reversal a big "No No", I posed a challenge--a dare--to readers to ask their doctors if coronary heart could be reversed.

Here's what I said:

I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.


I know of one person who actually followed through on this challenge and asked his cardiologist whether his heart disease could be reduced or reversed. As predicted, the answer was no. No explanation followed.

But allow me to reiterate: Heart disease is 1) detectable, 2) quantifiable, 3) controllable, and, in many cases 4) reversible.

What if there was a big payoff to your doctor if heart disease was reversed, say $100,000? That's enough to dwarf the payoff from procedures. Guess what? You'd have doctors fighting for your business, a chance to reverse your disease, ads to that effect, champions of reversal emerging. No new tools would be necessary. They could use the tools already available. Then why hasn't this happened? Is the technology unavailable? Are the treatments ineffective?

No, heart disease is a controllable and reversible process with tools that are available today. But there is, of course, no big payoff for doing it. So the financial incentive remains to do procedures, not to reverse the disease.

But I'd like to re-pose this challenge. Ask your doctor if heart disease can be reversed, or at least reduced. I've even posted a Survey at the top left for anyone who tries.

Again, my prediction: Nobody will try it and nobody will post survey results. Why? Despite my rantings (and those of a few others) about the concept of heart disease being a reversible process, in the public's consciousness it remains a death sentence and the only solution is hospital procedures. My colleagues continue to cultivate this attitude and it serves them well financially.

I'll be disappointed if I prove to be right. I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (10) -

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 2:03:00 PM |

    I'm not planning to see my doctor again until I reverse my plaque growth.  My first round of talks with him was not encouraging as he only believes statin drugs can be of help.  Ironically my doctor's age is similar to mine and he also told me he has a similar amount of plaque.  My plan is simply to see him again once I control or reverse my plaque growth and tell him there no reason why he couldn't do the same thing too.

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 2:30:00 PM |

    Interesting.  Recently, my primary care physician and I had a long talk about causing regression of heart disease.  (Imagine that - my doctor actually spent more than 30 minutes talking to me about medicine.)  He took the time to pull out various articles and texts about heart disease and explain the underlying causes.  He noted that his goal for his patients was to move their heart scan score backwards.  His primary tools for doing so are (1) EBT; (2) blood tests using VAP; and (3) medication (primarily statins mixed with niacin); and (4) repeat EBT.  He noted that very few of his patients had regression of their calcium scores but that many of his patients had calcium score increases in the 0 to 10% annual range.  Most interesting to me is that my doctor also has coronary calcification and is a diabetic.  He mentioned that his own calcium score had decreased in the past year by about 3%.  So obviously he must be doing something right, at least for himself.  

    We spoke about Vitamin D3.  He is a proponent of supplementing D3 when the levels are below 30 ng/mL.  He also tested for homocysteine levels and then emailed me to to take a B multi-supplement based on a high homocysteine score saying that it may have benefits both for heart disease and stroke prevention.

    He had not heard of TYP but I would bet that he would be quite open to this approach as he says his goal is "preventive cardiology."  What materials would you suggest I provide him for my next office visit?

    -Russ

  • Nancy M.

    1/14/2008 7:23:00 PM |

    We just had a woman reverse her heart disease through diet: congestive heart failure, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.  Her doctor initially put her on a low fat, high carb diet and she got worse.  She ran into a cardiologist on a plane trip who advised low carb.  She went back onto a low carb diet (she'd been on one previously) and the results of her last echo cardiogram say the damage to her heart is negligible.  Her doctor was formerly skeptical of low carb diets but is now on one and has dropped 20 pounds herself.

    So yeah!  She's pretty convinced heart disease is reversible!

    And to confirm her results, the day after she found out a study came out about insulin resistance and cardiomyopathy.  Insulin-Resistant Cardiomyopathy, Clinical Evidence, Mechanisms, and Treatment Options.
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/51/2/93

    Sadly the study doesn't mention changing your diet to treat it....

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:20:00 PM |

    Interesting!

    Can you tell us who your doctor is? I'd like to contact him myself and congratulate him on trying to achieve regression/reversal. He is truly exceptional.

    In the meantime, just let him know that the Track Your Plaque program is all about trying to gain control over your heart scan score. We might be able to improve his results dramatically just by adding a few bits of wisdom.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:32:00 PM |

    Thanks, Nancy.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/14/2008 8:40:00 PM |

    That's an interesting turnaround.

    Also, perhaps a curious reflection of how motivations can differ between doctor and patient nowadays. You want to save your life, your doctor often wants to save money (i.e., insurance money).

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2008 9:31:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis - I sent a message to your aol account with my doctor's details.  I would be very curious to learn of his reaction to the TYP program.  I suspect he'll be receptive to your approach.

    -Russ

  • Stan

    1/14/2008 11:01:00 PM |

    Of course it can be reversed!   I have done it myself although I cannot prove it now.   I used to experience some mild angina pain in my early fourties, and frequent episodes of rapid heart beat every few months.  It all went away about 6 months on a ketogenic diet, on which I have stayed permanently on, to this day. It never reoccured and my stamina has gone back up to roughly the same level I had in my twenties (I am 51).   It was 8 years ago.

    Best regards to all, this is really exceptional blog. Keep up your good work,

    Stan (Heretic)

  • moblogs

    1/15/2008 12:18:00 PM |

    I won't add to the survey as I haven't asked, but the mantra from the British Heart Foundation down to the doctor is prevention or management. Nowhere in their literature have I seen any mention of reversing heart disease.

  • Anonymous

    12/26/2009 4:30:22 PM |

    Cannot be

Loading