Losing weight is bad for you

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8582
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Losing weight is bad for you

Post by shpalman » Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:24 am

... according to The paradox of weight loss: why losing pounds may not always lead to better health in The Conversation by Barbara Pierscionek, Professor and Deputy Dean, Research and Innovation, Anglia Ruskin University.
Many studies have explored the relationship between weight changes and mortality, as well as mortality in obese people with heart disease. These studies often suggest that excessive weight is unhealthy and that people with obesity and heart disease should lose weight.

However, findings from a recent study, of which I was a co-author, challenge this assumption. Our research indicates that significant weight loss – greater than 10kg – can actually increase the risk of early death in obese people with cardiovascular disease.
I was ready to go look to see if the effect was caused by the participants who lost the most weight being the ones who weighed the most in total, or something. And in any case it's always better to not get so obese that the person end up with health problems in the first place. But it's interesting to see if it's not so simple as the problems going away once the person loses weight, apparently numerous individual studies and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate an ‘obesity paradox’, where patients with obesity and established CVD generally have a better prognosis than leaner patients with the same condition (maybe because non-obesity-related CVD only happens for serious reasons?)

But that recent study is https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/202 ... 024-324383 and the abstract says:
Results: Of the 8297 obese participants who had CVD with repeated weight measurements, 43.1% were female. The mean age was 56.6 (SD: 7.2) years. The overall median follow-up of the study was 13.9 (IQR: 13.1-14.6) years. 52.7% of the participants had stable weight change (weight loss or gain<5 kg), 14.2% had large weight loss (≥10 kg) and 5.1% had large weight gain (≥10 kg). Compared with stable weight, only large weight gain was associated with an increased risk of CV death and all-cause mortality (fully adjusted HR (95% CI): 3.05 (1.40 to 6.67) for CV death and 1.93 (1.15 to 3.26) for all-cause mortality).

Conclusions: Among obese individuals with CVD, large weight gain is associated with a higher risk of CV death and all-cause mortality. Further studies are needed to understand the exact mechanisms underlying the associations between weight loss or weight gain and mortality.
So, it says "only large weight gain was associated with an increased risk of CV death and all-cause mortality" and a coauthor is writing in The Conversation saying "significant weight loss – greater than 10kg – can actually increase the risk of early death in obese people with cardiovascular disease".

I also note that there's gaps between the categories, such that someone could have lost or gained 5-10 kg and they wouldn't be in any of these three categories. I'd hope that categories for small weight loss and small weight gain are in the paper. But either Pierscionek is pointing to a real result from the paper which wasn't significant enough in terms of effect size or error bars to mention even in the abstract or, well, f.cked if I know.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina

User avatar
nekomatic
Dorkwood
Posts: 1567
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by nekomatic » Sun Mar 30, 2025 10:51 am

shpalman wrote:
Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:24 am
a real result from the paper which wasn't significant enough in terms of effect size or error bars
“hmm” face
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by bob sterman » Mon Mar 31, 2025 9:57 am

In The Conversation, Pierscionek says...
However, findings from a recent study, of which I was a co-author, challenge this assumption. Our research indicates that significant weight loss – greater than 10kg – can actually increase the risk of early death in obese people with cardiovascular disease.
The paper abstract clearly says...
Compared with stable weight, only large weight gain was associated with an increased risk of CV death and all-cause mortality (fully adjusted HR (95% CI): 3.05 (1.40 to 6.67) for CV death and 1.93 (1.15 to 3.26) for all-cause mortality).
But then later in the paper, in the discussion section there is some weird wording...
The findings from this cohort study of 8297 obese participants with CVD suggest that participants in the large weight gain group had a significantly higher risk of CV death and higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with those in the stable weight group. We observed that large weight loss was more likely to be associated with a high risk of all-cause mortality and there was a positive association between IHD and moderate weight gain from multivariable models after adjustment for age and sex only.
What does "more likely to be associated with" mean? Not "associated with". The only thing they could be referring to is this line from the results...
...large weight loss was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (1.54 (1.11 to 2.13)) after adjustment for age and sex.
Now of course intentional large weight loss is notoriously difficult - so people who lose > 10kg are more likely to have some sort of significant illness which contributes to weight loss and ... errr ... all-cause mortality.

(edited this post due to a daft typo)

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8582
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by shpalman » Mon Mar 31, 2025 12:18 pm

I note it says that "Data are available in a public, open access repository." but that's not particularly helpful if the link is in the non-open access paper.

Is there a graph or something showing all-cause mortality for the various subgroups, >10kg lost, 10-5 kg lost, ±5 kg, 5-10 kg gained, >10 kg gained?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by bob sterman » Mon Mar 31, 2025 12:34 pm

The DOI under the Data Availability Statement is just the main article DOI - there is no obvious link to a data file in a repository.

Could the statement "Data are available in a public, open access repository" just be referring to the fact it's obtainable from Biobank?

There doesn't seem to be a graph / table showing actually all-cause mortality numbers - just hazard ratios.

What we do know...
Of the 8297 participants during a median follow-up period of 13.9 (IQR: 13.1–14.6) years, 332 died from all causes
And weight changes were...

Loss ≥ 10 kg (n=1181)
Loss ≥5 and <10 kg (n=1508)
Loss or gain <5 kg (n=4371)
Gain ≥5 and <10 kg (n=809)
Gain ≥10 kg (n=428)

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8582
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by shpalman » Mon Mar 31, 2025 2:55 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Mon Mar 31, 2025 12:34 pm
The DOI under the Data Availability Statement is just the main article DOI - there is no obvious link to a data file in a repository.

Could the statement "Data are available in a public, open access repository" just be referring to the fact it's obtainable from Biobank?

There doesn't seem to be a graph / table showing actually all-cause mortality numbers - just hazard ratios.

What we do know...
Of the 8297 participants during a median follow-up period of 13.9 (IQR: 13.1–14.6) years, 332 died from all causes
And weight changes were...

Loss ≥ 10 kg (n=1181)
Loss ≥5 and <10 kg (n=1508)
Loss or gain <5 kg (n=4371)
Gain ≥5 and <10 kg (n=809)
Gain ≥10 kg (n=428)
But literally no list anywhere of how many of those 332 were in each of the weight change categories? Is there a way to reverse-engineer the numbers from what they do say?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Losing weight is bad for you

Post by bob sterman » Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:52 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Mar 31, 2025 2:55 pm
But literally no list anywhere of how many of those 332 were in each of the weight change categories? Is there a way to reverse-engineer the numbers from what they do say?
Not easily - because the hazard ratios are from a model that adjusted for age and sex.

Post Reply