Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Nov-04-09, 13:10
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 17,174
 
Plan: LC Maintenance
Stats: 215/147/150 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 105%
Location: UK
Default Obesity puts swine flu sufferers at greater risk, study suggests

Quote:
From The LA Times
4 November, 2009


Obesity puts swine flu sufferers at greater risk, study suggests

A study in California shows that about a quarter of the people hospitalized for H1N1 complications were morbidly obese, even though less than 5% of the population falls into that category.

By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan


Obesity appears to be a risk factor on a par with pregnancy for developing complications from an infection with pandemic H1N1 influenza, according to the most comprehensive look yet at swine flu hospitalizations.

About a quarter of those hospitalizations have been for people who were morbidly obese, even though such people make up less than 5% of the population. That fivefold increase in risk is close to the sixfold increase observed in pregnant women, according to the report published today in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

When the merely obese are included with the morbidly obese, they make up 34% of the American population. Yet they accounted for 58% of the hospitalizations in the study.

"It makes intuitive sense," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who noted that obese people have a higher risk of many diseases and thus a lower life expectancy. "It should be added as one of the underlying conditions."

The CDC considers adults to be obese if their body mass index is 30 or above and morbidly obese if their BMI tops 40. A person who is 5 feet 8 would be obese if he or she weighs at least 197 pounds and morbidly obese if he or she weighs at least 262 pounds.

Researchers have seen anecdotal reports throughout the course of the pandemic that the obese might be at greater risk of complications from infection, but it has never been clear whether this was a result of obesity or of risk factors associated with obesity.

In the JAMA study, which analyzed data from all 1,088 swine-flu-related hospitalizations that occurred in California from the beginning of the outbreak this spring through Aug. 11, researchers from the state Department of Public Health identified 268 adults whose BMIs were known. Of those, 156 were obese, including 67 who were morbidly obese. Forty-six of those obese adults died, according to the study.

In addition, 19% of hospitalized swine flu patients between the ages of 2 and 17 were considered obese, with a BMI above the 95th percentile for their age. None of those patients died.

The researchers found that two-thirds of the obese patients had a health problem that was previously recognized as an underlying risk factor for swine flu. The most common were chronic lung disease, heart disease and diabetes.

But that still left one-third of obese patients without other risk factors, said Dr. Janice K. Louie, lead author of the study and chief of the state health department's influenza and respiratory syndromes section.

There are many possible explanations.

Some of them are physiological. The lungs of obese patients are compressed because the abdomen presses up on the diaphragm. In addition, the chest wall is heavier, so it's more difficult for the lungs to stay inflated.

Both of those factors make it difficult for blood and oxygen to travel throughout the lungs and fight off infection, said Dr. Lena Napolitano, chief of acute-care surgery at the University of Michigan Health System. She recently published a report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on 10 swine flu patients admitted to the intensive care unit there; of the 10, nine were obese, including seven who were morbidly obese.

The compromised immune system of obese people probably also plays a role, said Dr. David Heber, director of the Risk Factor Obesity Program at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. Scientists believe that people who are obese have a baseline level of inflammation that diminishes the body's ability to fight diseases.

Studies of obese mice help explain why.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill found that 42% of obese mice died when infected with a human strain of flu, while the same virus killed only 5% of lean mice. The lungs of the obese mice failed to produce two crucial kinds of immune cells called cytokines that fight off viruses. There was also a decrease in natural killer cells and T-cells, two other components of the immune system, said Patricia Sheridan, a nutritional immunologist at UNC who worked on the study.

Those results raise questions about whether flu vaccines prompt enough of an immune response to offer any protection to obese people. UNC researchers are studying that, Sheridan said.

In addition to the findings on obesity, the JAMA study found that:

* More than a third of the patients reported nausea or vomiting, and a fifth reported diarrhea. Such gastrointestinal symptoms are observed in fewer than 5% of those hospitalized with seasonal flu.

* Rapid tests for influenza commonly used for initial screening gave false negatives 34% of the time, an unexpectedly high rate.

Since Aug. 11, nearly 3,000 more Californians have been hospitalized with swine flu and 131 have died, Louie said.
http://www.latimes.com/features/hea...0,2242205.story
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Nov-04-09, 13:35
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 8,382
 
Plan: PāNu (-#s 9,10,12)
Stats: 482/368/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 86%
Location: NE OK USA
Default

Quote:
Scientists believe that people who are obese have a baseline level of inflammation that diminishes the body's ability to fight diseases.

Hmmn, wonder if that could have anything to do with the conditions leading to morbid obesity. No, wait! It's all about calories and sloth, I forgot. Well, always nice to see those tidbits slip into articles, no matter...
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Nov-04-09, 13:41
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,509
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

I don't suppose any of those researchers are aware that vitamin d is a fat soluble vitamin and that it gets locked up in fat cells along with the fat molecules that carry it.

So what's the betting that obese mice are as relatively 25(OH)D deficient as obese humans?

Now what happens to lung function in vitamin D deficient populations.

Oh dear me, fancy that, being vitamin d deficient is even worse for lung function than smoking cigarettes.
We've stopped a lot of people smoking because it damages lungs, but who is bothered about them remaining vitamin D deficient even though that has a far greater impact on lung function?

Why is there such a difference between saying don't smoke it's bad for your health and Don't remain vitamin d deficient it's even worse for your health than smoking
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Nov-04-09, 17:47
poke poke is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 64
 
Plan: moderate carb/avoid grain
Stats: -/123/- Female -
BF:?/26%/<22%
Progress:
Default

I have read elsewhere that the interesting thing about the obesity-H1N1 association is that regular seasonal flu does not show a similar level of association. Weird.

Hutchinson, I don't think it's necessarily that people aren't bothered by it, it's just that it takes a while for information to take hold. Especially when there are uncertainties about something, or mechanisms aren't fully understood, or the role it plays in a complex system is not clear, or it's just new enough to most people that they want to wait for more information.

The other part is that it's risky to make official recommendations to the general public too early in the game. The vitamin A supplement and lung cancer and bone density issues are good examples of that.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Nov-04-09, 19:28
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Posts: 2,754
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
I don't suppose any of those researchers are aware that vitamin d is a fat soluble vitamin and that it gets locked up in fat cells along with the fat molecules that carry it.

So what's the betting that obese mice are as relatively 25(OH)D deficient as obese humans?

Now what happens to lung function in vitamin D deficient populations.

Oh dear me, fancy that, being vitamin d deficient is even worse for lung function than smoking cigarettes.
We've stopped a lot of people smoking because it damages lungs, but who is bothered about them remaining vitamin D deficient even though that has a far greater impact on lung function?

Why is there such a difference between saying don't smoke it's bad for your health and Don't remain vitamin d deficient it's even worse for your health than smoking


Glad I read ahead....I was going to reply about vitamin D too!
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Nov-05-09, 04:18
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,509
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
The other part is that it's risky to make official recommendations to the general public too early in the game.
I thought I was a bit slow on the uptake but I've been chuntering on about Vitamin D and MS, cancer heart disease and diabetes for more than 10 years and the original hypothesis goes back more than 30 yrs.

It is not as if using vitamin D poses any risk at under 10,000iu/daily as we all know our skin naturally makes double that amount given a nice sunny day.

It's not as if there is any significant cost involved. <$15 buys a years supply of 360 X 5000iu.

This is a win win situation that health professionals won't budge on because of the potential effect on earnings and treatments performed when/if chronic disease incidence decreases.

Quote:
The vitamin A supplement and lung cancer and bone density issues are good examples of that.
So you have evidence they actually ever used the NATURAL FORM of vitamin A or is it more likely they used synthetic forms of Vitamin A?

Remember the only form of Vitamin D generally on prescription is D2 ergocaliferol. But intelligent people use cholecalciferol.

Only morons or ethically corrupt people choose pay or prescribe the $180 dollar synthetic product when they can buy or recommend the same amount of a more reliable, more effective longer lasting and safer natural form for just $30.

You have to question why health professionals are locked into synthetic vitamins when natural forms human DNA evolved to cope with are readily available.
PS

Last edited by Hutchinson : Thu, Nov-05-09 at 04:24.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Nov-05-09, 05:58
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,106
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/176/160 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 79%
Default

Hmmmm, does Vitamin D make for better health or do healthy people have higher levels of Vitamin D? I honestly don't know. I supplement it right now because it can't hurt and because I live in Michigan, but I'm not a huge fan of supplementation.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Nov-05-09, 07:32
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 8,382
 
Plan: PāNu (-#s 9,10,12)
Stats: 482/368/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 86%
Location: NE OK USA
Default

I used to think supplementation 'shouldn't be required'. Then I realized that if we were truly eating 'well' we would be eating lots of different critters and ALL their organs and stuff made from those, and if we were in cold climate tons of seafood and their fats and if we were in hot climates tons of constant skin exposure to sun. Since I am not going to a highly diverse organ-based grass-fed every-critter or every-sea-critter diet anytime soon, nor am I naked in Argentina, it makes sense that living indoors as a norm, clothes as a norm, minimal organ foods and sea foods, and much higher toxin collection, supplementation is pretty reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Nov-05-09, 07:34
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 8,382
 
Plan: PāNu (-#s 9,10,12)
Stats: 482/368/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 86%
Location: NE OK USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
So you have evidence they actually ever used the NATURAL FORM of vitamin A or is it more likely they used synthetic forms of Vitamin A?

Say more about this?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:39.


Copyright © 2000-2009 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.