Baby boomers near 65 with retirements in jeopardy

The first baby boomers get set to turn 65 with their retirement security in jeopardy

by Dave Carpenter, AP Personal Finance Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- Through a combination of procrastination and bad timing, many baby boomers are facing a personal finance disaster just as they're hoping to retire. Starting in January, more than 10,000 baby boomers a day will turn 65, a pattern that will continue for the next 19 years.

The boomers, who in their youth revolutionized everything from music to race relations, are set to redefine retirement. But a generation that made its mark in the tumultuous 1960s now faces a crisis as it hits its own mid-60s.

"The situation is extremely serious because baby boomers have not saved very effectively for retirement and are still retiring too early," says Olivia Mitchell, director of the Boettner Center for Pensions and Retirement Research at the University of Pennsylvania.

There are several reasons to be concerned:

-- The traditional pension plan is disappearing. In 1980, some 39 percent of private-sector workers had a pension that guaranteed a steady payout during retirement. Today that number stands closer to 15 percent, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, D.C.

-- Reliance on stocks in retirement plans is greater than ever; 42 percent of those workers now have 401(k)s. But the past decade has been a lost one for stocks, with the Standard & Poor's 500 index posting total returns of just 4 percent since the beginning of 2000.

-- Many retirees banked on their homes as their retirement fund. But the crash in housing prices has slashed almost a third of a typical home's value. Now 22 percent of homeowners, or nearly 11 million people, owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. Many are boomers.

Michael Vanatta, 61, of Vero Beach, Fla., is paying the price for being a boomer who enjoyed life without saving for the future. He put a daughter through college, but he also spent plenty of money on indulgences like dining out and the latest electronic gadgets.

Vanatta was laid off last January from his $100,000-a-year job as a sales executive for a turf company. And with savings of just $5,000, he's on a budget for the first time. In April, he will start taking Social Security at age 62.

"If I'd been smarter and planned and had the bucks, I'd wait until 70," says Vanatta, who is divorced and rents an apartment. "It's my fault. For years I was making plenty of money and spending plenty of money."

Vanatta is in the majority. Some 51 percent of early boomer households, headed by those ages 55 to 64, face a retirement with lower living standards, according to a 2009 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Too many boomers have ignored or underestimated the worsening outlook for their finances, says Jean Setzfand, director of financial security for AARP, the group that represents Americans over age 50. By far the greatest shortcoming has been a failure to save. The personal savings rate -- the amount of disposable income unspent -- averaged close to 10 percent in the 1970s and `80s. By late 2007, the rate had sunk to negative 1 percent.

The recession has helped improve the savings rate -- it's now back above 5 percent. Yet typical boomers are still woefully short on retirement savings. Even those in their 50s and 60s with a 401(k) for at least six years had an average balance of less than $150,000 at the end of 2009, according to the EBRI.

Signs of coming trouble are visible on several other fronts, too:

-- Mortgage Debt. Nearly two in three people age 55 to 64 had a mortgage in 2007, with a median debt of $85,000.

-- Social Security. Nearly 3 out of 4 people file to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they're eligible at age 62. That locks them in at a much lower amount than they would get if they waited.

The monthly checks are about 25 percent less if you retire at 62 instead of full retirement age, which is 66 for those born from 1943 to 1954. If you wait until 70, your check can be 75 to 80 percent more than at 62. So, a boomer who claimed a $1,200 monthly benefit in 2008 at age 62 could have received about $2,000 by holding off until 70.

-- Medical Costs. Health care expenses are soaring, and the availability of retiree benefits is declining.

"People cannot fathom how much money will be needed to simply cover out-of-pocket medical care costs," says Mitchell of the University of Pennsylvania.

A 55-year-old man with typical drug expenses needs to have about $187,000 just to cover future medical costs. That's if he wants to be 90 percent certain to have enough money to supplement Medicare coverage in retirement, the EBRI said. Because of greater longevity, a 65-year-old woman would need even more to cover her health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses: an estimated $213,000.

-- Employment. Boomers both need and want to work longer than previous generations. But unemployment is near 10 percent, and many have lost their jobs.

The average unemployment period for those 55 and older was 45 weeks in November. That's 12 weeks longer than for younger job-seekers. It's also more than double the 20-week period this group faced at the beginning of the recession in December 2007.

If financial neglect turns out to be many boomers' undoing, challenging circumstances are stymieing others.

Linda Reaves of Silver Spring, Md., never had much opportunity to save as a single mother raising two sons and a daughter. After holding a variety of positions over the years -- hotel office manager, research analyst for a mortgage company, hospital mental health counselor -- she was still living paycheck to paycheck. Then she was laid off in 2007 at the age of 57.

She entered a training program to learn new skills, but all she has found since is a string of temporary jobs. In her daily quest for clerical or administrative work, she competes against much younger applicants.

Reaves, who turns 60 this month, plans to work until she's at least 70 and then wants to travel, even if she doesn't know where the money will come from.

"I just keep going. I don't really worry about it," she says.

Add this all up, and there's a "slow-burning" retirement crisis for boomers, says Anthony Webb, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research.

"If you have a crisis where the adverse consequences are immediately clear, then people understand that they have to do something," Webb says. "When the consequences will be felt 20 or 30 years in the future, the temptation is that we kick the can down the road."

As a result, he believes many won't change their behavior.

For less affluent boomers, it won't take that long to feel the pain of poor planning. Concerns about financial trouble will hang over many of those 65th birthday celebrations in 2011.

Many seem to view their plight through rose-colored granny glasses. An AARP survey last month of boomers turning 65 next year found that they worry no more about money than they did at age 60 -- before the recession or the collapse of home prices. But in an acknowledgement of reality, 40 percent said they plan to work "until I drop."

Exercise, Vitamin D Reduce Risk of Falls in Elderly Researchers Say Number of Falls, Costs Expected to Rise

By Bill Hendrick WebMD Health News

A federal task force’s review finds that for Americans 65 and older, exercise and vitamin D supplements can help reduce the risk of falling.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reviewed findings from 54 clinical trials to determine the benefits and possible harmful effects of interventions aimed at preventing falls in elderly people.
Task Force Findings

The review of research shows:

* Exercise or physical therapy can reduce fall risk by 13%. This includes exercise for strength, balance, and flexibility.
* Vitamin D supplementation was linked to a 17% reduced risk of falls.
* Other interventions may also be helpful: Homes should be carefully examined to determine if impediments that could lead to falls could be removed or modified.
* Behavioral counseling might help older people better understand the risks and potential consequences of falls.

Yvonne Michael, ScD, and colleagues published their review in the Dec. 21 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The review, an accompanying article, and an editorial all point to the hazards for older people of falling.
Falls Among Elderly Likely to Rise Dramatically

An editorial by Mary E. Tinetti, MD, of the Yale University School of Medicine, notes that falls among elderly people will become even more of a problem than it is now, but that it’s already significant.

Compared with 1984, “today’s typical primary care patient is older, takes more medications, has more chronic conditions, and visits more specialists who perform more tests and procedures and recommend more interventions,” Tinetti writes. “Preventive recommendations are increasingly being imposed on already overburdened providers and patients.”

Falls Lead to Premature Deaths of Elderly

Another report in the Annals of Internal Medicine says recommendations by the task force are needed “because of the anticipated, unprecedented growth of this population in the near future” due to the aging of the 78-million strong baby boom generation.

In the task force review, authors note that between 30% and 40% of community-dwelling people 65 and older fall at least once per year.

“Falls were the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal injuries among persons 65 and older,” cites the task force report. The authors write that estimates indicate falls could lead to medical costs of $43.8 billion by 2020 at the current rate of spending.

Obese drivers face a higher risk of dying in serious car crashes, study finds

By Mary Forgione, Los Angeles Times

Obese drivers are more likely to die in a serious car wreck than drivers of normal weight, a new study says.

Researchers at the University at Buffalo in New York examined drivers' body sizes and the number of car crash deaths between 2000 and 2005 from data in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. The study calculated an increased risk factor of dying at 21% for moderately obese drivers and 56% for morbidly obese drivers.

The lead researcher says crash test dummies that are obese might help. "If they represented our overweight American society, there could be further improvements in vehicle design that could decrease mortality," lead researcher Dr. Dietrich Jehle says in a statement.

Check out this news release that explains the study published online in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

Quick Cure for Tummy Troubles

Quick Cure for Tummy Troubles
by health.com

Try probiotics

There’s new hope for the 20% of the population suffering from IBS, most of whom are women. Research suggests that probiotic supplement can bring real relief for all of the major IBS symptoms like constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

If you know someone that might want to know more about a product like that click on the link below

Make my tummy feel better

Supplement that provides seasonal immune support

New USANA Booster C 600™ Provides Seasonal Immune Support
by: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com

USANA Health Sciences (NSDQ: USNA) recently released a new seasonal product: Booster C 600™. Specially formulated with precise levels of vitamin C in a blend that includes USANA's proprietary Poly C and the most potent species of Echinacea available, Booster C 600 provides extra immune support when you need it most in a convenient single-serving stick pack.

"Our formula was tested by scientists under rigorous standards with proven results," says Dr. Tim Wood, USANA's Executive Vice President of Research and Development. "Booster C 600 has just the right amount of vitamin C, with guaranteed potency, so you can be sure your body is getting the optimal amount of this essential nutrient it needs and nothing it doesn't."

Perfect for busy people who want to perform at their best every day, Booster C 600 provides seasonal antioxidant support in a delicious lemon-berry flavored powder that can be taken straight or mixed with water. It is an ideal complement to other supplements that should be taken regularly to support immune health, such as Proflavanol C100, USANA Probiotic, Pure Rest, and Vitamin D.

Restore the natural balance in your gut

By Rajen M
Wed, Dec 08, 2010
New Straits Times (asiaone.com)

ANTIBIOTICS are drugs that kill all bacteria - this is not necessarily a good thing. While we want to kill off all the bad bugs, these drugs also kill useful bacteria called probiotics (friendly bacteria).

Experts estimate five to 25 per cent of patients treated with antibiotics develop diarrhoea. The bacteria, Clostridium difficile (C,difficile), only become harmful and cause mild to severe diarrhoea when the other bacteria are killed off by antibiotics.

Children and the elderly who have reduced immune function are more at risk.
Solution

Researchers at Imperial College and Hammersmith Hospital in London found that consuming probiotic bacteria, such as those found in yoghurt, kefir and probiotic supplements can help prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotic use, reports the British Medical Journal.

Probiotic supplements contain beneficial live bacteria that help replenish gut flora destroyed by antibiotics. Disruption of the friendly bacteria can result in diarrhoea, gas, candida albicans (a fungus) infection and other gastrointestinal problems.
Reduction

In their study, 135 men and women over the age of 50 were given antibiotics.

They were randomly divided to receive a commercially available probiotic yoghurt drink or a sterile milkshake (without any probiotics). The probiotic drink and the sterile milkshake were given within 48 hours of the start of the antibiotic therapy. This continued twice daily until a week following the discontinuance of the drugs.

The probiotic drink contains active cultures of friendly bacteria called Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus.

esser chance of gastrointestinal problem

12 per cent of those who took the probiotic drink developed antibiotic-associated diarrhoea.

This compares very well with 34 per cent of those that received the sterile drink. Seventeen per cent of those that did not receive the probiotic had C. difficile-associated diarrhoea, while there were no cases of C. difficile among those who received the probiotics. Thus, those taking probiotics were three times less likely to get gastrointestinal problems.
Cost Saving

The researchers acknowledge that the routine use of a probiotic drink by patients receiving antibiotics will result in significant cost savings to hospitals. It will also reduce patient suffering and death.

Probiotics are bacterial cultures contained in yoghurt, buttermilk, cheese, kefir and sauerkraut or in dietary supplements that contain friendly bacteria (such as Lactobacillus, ifidobacterium, Eubacterium and Propionibacterium species) normally present on skin and in vaginal, urinary and intestinal tracts.

These bacteria are essential to the proper function of the vaginal, urinary and digestive tracts.

Mechanism

Probiotics assist immune function by:

* Inhibiting harmful bacterial growth
* Promoting good digestion
* Maintaining proper pH
* Enhancing immune function

Probiotics produce bacteria-inhibiting substances (natural antibiotics) and prevent harmful bacteria from attaching to vaginal, urinary, and intestinal tract mucosal linings.

It also has the ability to suppress H. pylori which has been linked to stomach ulcers and may be useful in preventing acute infectious diarrhoea, urinary tract infections and in restoring vaginal flora. Sadly, our foods, especially commercially-derived meat, is contaminated with low doses of antibiotics that are often used as growth promoters of poultry, chicken, cows and pigs.

Antibiotics often destroy friendly bacteria on skin and in urinary, vaginal, and intestinal tracts. Probiotics can be used to restore the natural floral balance in organ and body systems after antibiotic treatment.
Ancient

The dietary use of living micro-organisms is found in the Bible, Quran and the sacred books of Hinduism.

Soured milks and cultured dairy products such as kefir, koumiss, leben and dahi were often used therapeutically before the existence of micro-organisms was recognised. Elie Metchnikoff, the father of modern immunology, spoke highly about the possible health benefits of the lactic acid-bacteria (LAB) Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus in his writings at the turn of the last century. He wrote in The Prolongation of Life that consumption of live bacteria in yoghurt was beneficial.

Some recent research suggests that locally cultured friendly bacteria are better evolved to live long and well in your gut. This makes sense. Therefore, if you are buying supplements, always get a local one.

Sometimes you might feel like your gut is a war zone

Why Pharmacutical Grade Supplements

Most nutritional supplements are very delicate formulas. Their effectiveness varies a great deal according to the way they are manufactured, transported and stored. Although the laboratories that manufacture them are not required to disclose this information, the FDA classifies supplements into three broad categories:

* Animal Grade/Feed Grade
* Food Grade
* USP Pharmaceutical Grade

Most of the supplements that you buy in the supermarket, or even a health food store, fall into the first two categories. Pharmaceutical grade supplements are usually available only through the prescription of a health care professional.

The secret to pharmaceutical grade supplements is that they are formulated to yield a much higher degree of bio-availability. In other words, your body can absorb them more easily, and this makes a big difference in how they improve your health and enhance the quality of your life.

Cost versus Quality: is there really a difference in Nutritional Supplements?
Let’s take a look at one example of cost verses quality, in the case of amino acids. Most amino acid supplements are manufactured in tablet form, held together by binders and fillers that inhibit digestion. Others contain protein fragments that must be broken down (metabolized) by the body before absorption into a useful form. The real cost of these supplements is the relationship between the dollars spent on them to the effective catabolization of those amino acids into proteins for the body.

For example, an amino acid supplement may cost $.25 per capsule, but contain fillers and predigested amino acids that are limited due to the absence of a proper proportion of other nutrients that are essential for their bio-availability. Your body may be able to effectively catabolize only 10% of the product. This product would have a real cost of $2.50 per capsule. That is to say, it would take 10 capsules to get the equivalent effectiveness of one capsule that was completely metabolized.

Synthetic versus Natural:
Most vitamin supplements found in drug and health food stores do not contain vitamins that are truly natural, but are synthesized predominantly from petrochemicals and less frequently from plants.

There is much controversy concerning the body’s reaction to synthetic vs. natural vitamin supplements. Many believe that the small differences between synthetic and natural are of no consequence. However, clinical evidence and several studies indicate that the body detects the difference and that natural forms of vitamins including A, B-complex, C, D, and E are more easily absorbed by the body and have a more profound effect on deficiencies and disease than synthetics.

Commitment to Quality Assurance & Good Manufacturing Practices

Free Health Assessment

The Health Assessment and Advisor is designed to help you:

* Analyze your nutritional needs
* Optimize your diet and supplement regimen
* Realize your full health potential

Take your free Health Assessment now!

USANA to Sponsor Visa Women’s Ski Jumping Team

Monday November 29, 2010, 4:35 pm EST

Utah company to provide vital financial support to the only women’s discipline not allowed to compete in the Olympics

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. a nutritional supplements manufacturer based in Salt Lake City, today announced it will be the official health supplements supplier of the Visa Women’s Ski Jumping Team. The team that continues to compete on the Continental Cup circuit and has been fighting for inclusion in the Olympic Winter Games has persevered on limited funding.

“There are still hurdles to cross,” says Deedee Corradini, Women’s Ski Jumping USA president. “A recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision has made the inclusion of women’s ski jumping in the 2014 Olympics contingent upon athlete performance at the Oslo World Championships in February 2011. We are grateful for USANA’s sponsorship. We need all the support we can get.”

Ski jumping is the only discipline in the Olympic Games that does not allow women to participate.

“It’s an honor to sponsor the Visa Women’s Ski Jumping Team and to help advance women in sports,” says Dan Macuga, USANA’s Vice President of Marketing. “We hope our financial support of these tremendous athletes will help get them the resources and recognition they deserve. We wholly support the inclusion of women’s ski jumping in the Olympics and we will do our part to get them there.”

Lindsey Van, of Park City, is the sport’s first female world champion and has been jumping for nearly 20 years. “We’ve been waiting for 10 years to be included in the Games. We know we’re ready and we want to show the world in Sochi 2014 what we can do.”

In addition to sponsoring the Visa Women's Ski Jumping Team, USANA demonstrates its commitment to sports by sponsoring teams and organizations such as the Women’s Tennis Association, US Speedskating, USA Luge and many others.

Why Savings Account Rates Are So Pathetic

By RON LIEBER
Published: December 3, 2010
(http://www.nytimes.com)

Because of persistent low interest rates, anyone looking for decent returns that are also safe has had a tough time this year. Most of the best savings accounts, for instance, don’t even top a 1.5 percent annual yield.

Sure, some people have made out nicely in this environment. If you have a hefty mortgage, are able to make your payments and have enough equity, you can refinance into a 30-year loan with an interest rate that begins with the number four.

That still seems like a miracle. But many of the people who qualify for refinancing are already comfortable and the low rates are just a bonus.

It’s older people with not much of a mortgage left who are really getting hurt here. The low interest rates keep payouts for newly purchased annuities low, for instance. Insurance companies have been citing the low rates when trying to raise prices on long-term care policies. (Their actuaries guessed wrong too, but that’s a whole other tale.)

And if you’re living on a fixed income, you may be spooked by the stock market collapse a couple of years ago and have little appetite left for risk and no slack for further declines.

That’s understandable, but the earnings on your savings may not be keeping up with real-life inflation, the kind that includes rapidly increasing health care and other expenses that older people bear the most. And even if you aren’t paying higher prices, it’s still disappointing to earn so little on money you want to be there when you need it.

If this sounds like you and you’re increasingly frustrated, all of this poses a basic question: Isn’t there some institution, somewhere, that can pay just a little bit more? What is stopping that from happening?

There are at least seven things that are getting in the way.

LOWER PROFITS
Here’s the way things are supposed to work and normally do: Banks take in deposits and then lend that money out.

And here’s what’s happening more frequently now: People are doing a better job of spending less than they earn, but any leftover money is going toward paying down debt, not taking on new debt.

So to the extent that banks have deposits, they can’t lend them out in the quantity they used to (or aren’t because of tightened credit policies). Instead, they buy Treasury bills, according to Bill Hampel, the chief economist for the Credit Union National Association. And those don’t pay as they once did because of the interest rate environment. Nor do they deliver the kind of returns the banks would get if they were lending the money under normal conditions.

The resulting lower profits make it harder to raise the rates that savers earn. Meanwhile, lingering losses from loans pose their own enormous pressures.

THE REALITY OF THE FED
If money is so cheap, why can’t financial institutions give us a bit more? After all, banks can just get money from the Federal Reserve and pay close to nothing for the privilege.

Well, at least in theory they can, but only so much and only for so long. “You don’t really want to borrow money like that if you’re a bank,” said Dan O’Malley, who runs PerkStreet, which sets up customers in a checking account with a debit card that can pay back 2 percent in rebates. “It looks bad to regulators, like you didn’t have enough deposits to plan your business well.”

While PerkStreet has been extremely aggressive with its debit card rewards, it does not plan to top the interest rate tables when it introduces a savings account next year. “I don’t think it’s sustainable,” said Mr. O’Malley, who noted that many banks that once topped the charts now pay much less, while crossing their fingers that customers won’t leave in anger. “We don’t want to pump and dump.”

THE F.D.I.C.
RATE POLICE Last year, I wrote about the curious case of Ally Bank. Its troubled parent was the recipient of federal bailout funds, and competitors successfully persuaded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to pressure Ally to lower the rates it was paying to consumers.

Nobody wants a run-in like that with the F.D.I.C. (and regulators of all sorts are probably happy to see institutions paying out less if it means they can become more stable). And wouldn’t you know it? Some of the best-paying accounts right now are not traditional banks or credit unions. Instead, these rates come from Sallie Mae and American Express, both new to the online savings game. Both seem healthy enough to stay out of the F.D.I.C.’s cross hairs.

CREDIT UNION LAGGARDS
It’s a bit surprising that credit unions, which exist to serve members rather than shareholders, don’t pay more. Surprising, that is, until you consider what it really means to serve.

Credit union members putting money into certificates of deposit would love to earn more, and they often do get a bit more than they would from a nearby megabank. But members who are borrowers want to pay less for their loans, and they often do.

“Borrowers are owners just as much as savers are,” said Mr. Hampel of the credit union association.

THE PROBLEM WITH WINNING
But why not just pay us a bit more, even a quarter of a percentage point? Surely there must be an institution strong enough to do that or willing to do it to build good will.

Even in this environment, however, companies may not need all of the potential deposits. Sallie Mae started its savings account and C.D. offering this year to raise money that it could then lend out for student loans. It is offering one of the best rates in the country, a 1.3 percent annual percentage yield, but it’s not alone atop the rankings.

Still, that’s good enough for the company. “We don’t need more than the amount that is coming in,” said Joe DePaulo, Sallie Mae’s chief marketing officer. “You raise deposits to the point where it’s appropriately sized for the investment opportunity you have.”

RATE CHASERS
And if a bank does pay much more than anyone else, it runs the risk of attracting hot money. These are often big piles of cash, which is nice, except that the account owners move it all out again if rates at a competitor become just a wee bit higher.

“If you’re in the 90th percentile, you’re probably targeting rate shoppers,” said Shamir Karkal, chief financial officer of BankSimple, which doesn’t intend to rank quite that high when it introduces a new kind of bank account in 2011.

Mr. DePaulo of Sallie Mae made a similar point. “You have to be worried about overpricing and underpricing and the dynamic on the loan side,” he said, adding that he hasn’t seen any hot money fleeing yet, but is certainly watching for it.

LAZY CUSTOMERS
Many big banks continue to pay well below 1 percent. Why? Because you let them. Sure, it’s a bit inconvenient to open a separate, higher-yielding account and link it to your bank account when you’re not getting all that much more for the privilege. But because many people don’t bother doing that, many megabanks continue on their merry way, paying absolutely pathetic savings account rates.

Look, I’m no apologist for any of these institutions, but I’m reasonably sure that they refer to people who have money in their low-interest accounts as suckers. And if nobody kept money there anymore, they’d have to improve their offerings.

You can eke out a bit more by moving money to smaller banks that offer the new breed of high-interest checking accounts that require you to use your debit card a lot and to sign for purchases. This may require giving up access to a branch, however, which some people are unwilling or unable to do.

Or you can try to earn more on the rewards side, through a bank like PerkStreet or a savings plan like SmartyPig’s, which also requires you to spend money to get the biggest possible return.

My tactic is to keep spare cash at BankDirect, an online bank that pays 100 American Airlines frequent-flier miles each month for every $1,000 I have on deposit. There’s a bit of risk here because you need to redeem the miles to get any return.

But the yields can easily run 2 percent or more depending on the retail price of the flights or premium-class upgrades you redeem your miles for. (The miles have also helped me qualify for lifetime platinum status on the airline, which I will hit in the next couple of days.) Plus, you pay no taxes on the miles you get; that’s not the case for interest you earn.

Yeah, the miles aren’t worth much, and the 5 percent interest rates on savings accounts from several years ago would certainly be preferable. But at least you can fly to a beach free and worry there about when you’ll be able to do a little better.

Every Excess Pound Gained Raises Risk of Death Steady Rise in Death Risk as Overweight/Obesity Increases

By Daniel J. DeNoon WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2010 -- Your risk of death rises steadily with every overweight pound you gain, a huge study funded by the National Institutes of Health confirms.

Even if you don't smoke and are in otherwise good health, your risk of death goes up 31% with every 5-point increase in BMI, a measure of body mass based on weight and height.

Just being a little bit overweight increases death risk. Compared to those with a normal-range BMI of 22.5 to 24.9:

* A BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 increased death risk by 13%
* A BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 increased death risk by 44%
* A BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 increased death risk by 88%
* A BMI of 40.0 to 49.9 increased death risk by 251%

Those figures are for women who do not smoke and who have no underlying disease. The risks are similar for men, note Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, of the National Institutes of Health, and colleagues.

"We conclude that for non-Hispanic whites, both overweight and obesity are associated with increased all-cause mortality," they conclude. "All-cause mortality is generally lowest within the BMI range of 20.0 to 24.9."

BMI measured before age 50 had the strongest effect on death risk.

Being underweight may also increase death risk, but it's not clear whether underlying, undetected disease might account for this finding.

The study pooled data from 19 long-term studies that followed 1.46 million white adults for five to 28 years.

The strong statistical significance of the findings suggest that an earlier study of the impact of obesity on death risk -- which was scary enough -- may have underestimated the problem. That study found that adult obesity cut life expectancy by four years. The new data show that obesity has a much greater effect on life span.

"In our study, there were more than five times as many deaths among participants in the highest obesity categories (BMI of 35-0 to 39.9 and 40.0 to 49.9) than in previous studies, because severe obesity had become more common," Berrington de Gonzalez and colleagues note.

Smoking and chronic disease have an enormous effect on death risk. To isolate the effects of obesity, the researchers calculated death risk for nonsmokers who reported no underlying disease.

The findings appear in the Dec. 2 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.