Lower incidence of diabetes and obesity living at higher elevations

Obviously being active, eating well, etc - leads to a longer life. Not in dispute.

But in regards to the OP about altitude - if you look at somewhere like Maine or Oregon or California, where people are also active, if they have still a higher incidence of diabetes then there may be something to the altitude thing? Just saying, the NIH tries to normalize these things.

South Carolina has likely the highest diabetes rate. Is it because were all fat (very possible), or at sea level, or does it have something to do with 40% of our population is ethnicities that have a higher incidence of it everywhere? Likely all of these reasons?

If you have a dog you live longer. Is it because of the dog? Probably not - its likely due to lowered stress. The blue zones are in places like Okinawa and Costa Rica - sign me up. Yes there active, but have lower stress vs someone in NYC.

You can normalize studies for age, etc. But its more difficult to normalize for behavior and stress, for exmple.
I am a firm believer in the nuts and bolts mechanism. And trust me, most of my life was statistics and cause and effect. Until the solid research of mechanism is found and validated repetitively, I stay in the "get off my lawn" camp with most all the studies.

So I am not saying yes or no to this, I am merely commenting.

"5. Conclusions
Several variables attempted to explain the inverse association between altitude and adult obesity. However, higher altitude continued to be inversely associated with adult obesity after adjusting for these variables. Various mechanisms were discussed that help explain why higher altitude may lower the risk of adult obesity. In addition, higher altitude indirectly influenced adult obesity, primarily through its relationship with physical inactivity, but also through smoking. Adult obesity was most strongly associated with physical inactivity followed by adult smoking, altitude, average daily sunlight, and average daily precipitation."


I mean this does not completely rule out fat people don't MOVE to higher altitudes because they can't handle it.

A couple months ago the headlines were screaming "Red meat causes diabetes". The study was based on food survey questionnaires. From previous months and years.
 
But in regards to the OP about altitude - if you look at somewhere like Maine or Oregon or California, where people are also active, if they have still a higher incidence of diabetes then there may be something to the altitude thing? Just saying, the NIH tries to normalize these things.
That's what the study gets at, exercise is great, but with hypoxia, it's even more beneficial. Which would lead me to speculate, that even without exercise, there is a benefit to living at a higher altitude.

If you took the population from SC and had them live at 5k feet, maybe they would see some benefits.
 
Last edited:
A couple months ago the headlines were screaming "Red meat causes diabetes". The study was based on food survey questionnaires. From previous months and years.
Was it the "news" (term used loosely), or the NIH? Not saying the NIH can't be full of BS, but the bar for a NIH study to be published is a little higher, at least assuming there are no current events requiring it.
 
Last edited:
Was it the "news" (term used loosely), or the NIH? Not saying the NIH can't be full of BS, but the bar for a NIH study to be published is a little higher, at least assuming there are no current events requiring it.
It was the news. I cannot remember the study. And again agree, NIH has a slightly higher bar, than some of the stuff out of Harvard.

2-4 year (looking into the) past food questionnaires is/are not science.
 
All I know is that lipid metabolism increases with altitude. I can see how that might affect other metabolic processes. Oxygen levels likely play into it. Erythrocytes increase at high altitude and that could have an effect on glucose metabolism.
 
Considering all of these peoples mitochondria probably work the same, IDK how their employment would make a difference?

I'm not a statistician so I don't really understand the details of your observation but it seems the correlation is pretty strong here and the science makes sense.

Just looked up cancer and elevation:

"Humans living at high altitude (HA) are exposed to chronic (hypobaric) hypoxia. Despite the permanent stress of hypoxic exposure, humans populating HA areas have reduced cancer mortality over a broad spectrum of cancer types. In fact, the majority of the physiological adaptive processes at HA occurring in response to hypoxia might be the driving force for reduced cancer mortality at HA."

Since you brought up mitochondria, you should check out Steven Gundry’s Unlocking the Keto Code… he goes in depth on “mitochondrial uncoupling” which he says is the key to health and weight loss.

Certain foods and eating behaviors go a long way towards mitochondrial uncoupling… I started using the methods and foods he described on Jan 3rd of this year, and as of yesterday morning I was down exactly 20 pounds in 23 days. At this rate I’ll lose what I want in about 4 months.
 
Certain foods and eating behaviors go a long way towards mitochondrial uncoupling… I started using the methods and foods he described on Jan 3rd of this year, and as of yesterday morning I was down exactly 20 pounds in 23 days. At this rate I’ll lose what I want in about 4 months.
Those are amazing results! Thank you for the book, I will check it out.
 
Back
Top