The "Truth" About Obesity

[weinoo]

This past Sunday's NY Time Magazine cover story, excellently written by Tara Parker-Pope, is entitled The Fat Trap.

Evidently, as hard as it is for many people to lose weight, it's even harder than we think, because those same people's bodies are literally fighting to stay heavy.

“I think many people who are anxious to lose weight don’t fully understand what the consequences are going to be, nor does the medical community fully explain this to people,” Rudolph Leibel, an obesity researcher at Columbia University in New York, says. “We don’t want to make them feel hopeless, but we do want to make them understand that they are trying to buck a biological system that is going to try to make it hard for them.”

So it has me wondering: As science is uncovering new truths about obesity, weight loss and weight gain, is science also getting closer to some new therapies and will it get easier for someone who is obese and wants to lose weight to do just that?

[mm84321]

Science isn't uncovering anything new. All of the seminal research on obesity was conducted prior to the second world war mostly by German scientists. We've known the biology of fat tissue and obesity for over a century. We've also known how one can successfully be treated. We have simply disregarded it.

[SylviaLovegren]

We've also known how one can successfully be treated. We have simply disregarded it.

We have? What's the secret?

[mm84321]

We've also known how one can successfully be treated. We have simply disregarded it.

We have? What's the secret?

Fat tissue is regulated by the hormone insulin. Insulin is secreted in response to dietary carbohydrates. You literally cannot gain weight without carbohydrate. Barring some gross metabolic defect, a diet that restricts carbohydrates, but does not restrict calories, has been shown to successfully reduce the weight of the obese.

The problem with the OP's post is that it presupposes that since obesity is a complex problem, it must too have a complex answer, requiring new technology and science to solve. This is Occam's razor. We must not look for a complicated hypothesis when a simple one will do.

[rotuts]

well look at it this way:

Alton Brown was Fat. why wouldnt he be?

he got thin.

this is it and it very very simple: Fat People put calories in their mouths for reasons other than being truly hungry

there for, when you want to put something in your mouth consider:

smoothies: non-fat yogurt and fresh or frozen dark berries that you process in an osterizer until smooth.

do this as often as you like

its that simple.

the rest is psycho-babble

if you dont swallow it you wont get fat.

just swallow something different.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

Well, the reason people become obese in the first place is varied. It's certainly not limited to emotional eaters or food "addicts". Look at the rates of obesity and diabetes in the poor. Carbs are cheap and plentiful, protein and fat are expensive.

And a surplus of calories isn't really the cause, but rather the effect. They hinted to this in the article the OP posted. When your insulin is elevated, calories are being hoarded into fat tissue, leaving less for your cells to use as energy, thus making you eat more. This is referred to as "internal starvation".

[rotuts]

wrong

'eat more' is eating the wrong things.

yogurt and fresh or frozen berries with no sugar is what you put in your mouth as often as you like,

not available at Jabba juice or macdonalds or any where else:

why: their business model is to get you back as soon as possible

they have no interest in your fatness, just your recurrent wallet.

same as the "diet industry" which is about 50 - 75 billion $$ a year.

if that worked, they would be out of business, but they plan for the next year and more $$$.

your insulin goes up? it goes down? that has nothing to do with what your put in your mouth as a result.

is this easy? no its not.

the yogurt/fz berries you have to make for yourself.

its not commercially available for real reasons: they want you back and they want you fat and hungrey.

[mm84321]

You're misunderstanding me. It's because you are eating the wrong things in the first place that you consume more calories than your body needs.

The business of obesity is very profitable. And yes, keeping you fat and sick is unfortunately in the interest of many industries. But if berries and yogurt work for you, then bon appetit!

[rotuts]

no

its what you put in your mouth that matters. it can be any thing at all. it just cant be more calories than you need and use every day. that being said it has to "provide temporary 'fullness' " then when that passes just do it again.

yogurt and berries just is easy and works well.

if you like something else that does the above, kudos to you.

that being said the tails of this discussion is using up more calories as you eat them

walk around the block? twice? how dull is that.

as you say: the industry has designs on your mouth to keep getting you back for more than you use..

saying you are eating the 'wrong things' and those make you eat more is very convenient. it the philosophy of our days: its just not my fault. Its being done to me. simply putting the problem outside your personal responsibility gets one no where.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

it can be any thing at all. it just cant be more calories than you need and use every day. that being said it has to "provide temporary 'fullness' " then when that passes just do it again.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong here.

[rotuts]

but not fat.

hyperinsulin-emia never made anyone fat.

it's what that made you put in your mouth, which was your choice:

triple burger triple cheese from burger King? extra fries?

I cant imagine any insulin problem Ive dealt with made anyone do that.

and i do not even what to trivialize this problem.

you are after all, what you eat.

insulin doent make you fat. you do.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

Ah, I see. You are of the thought that it's someones choice to be overweight, and that it's somehow a matter of a lack of self control. Blame the individual? It's a pretty tired and ignorant thought.

[rotuts]

not in any way.

one puts in one mouth what one choses. in our society the temptations and 'gratifications' are local and cheap.

not every where in the world has this problem.

these studies have been done for many many years.

since this is about the gullet, take a carefull look at Alton Brown and how he decided himself (underlined) to lose 50 lbs.

that being said, beets me how he decided to do this himself (underllined) which is is the real issue,

physiology is simple: consume more calories that you use or need: you will put down fat and be fat.

why one does this is a completely different matter.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[heidih]

it can be any thing at all. it just cant be more calories than you need and use every day. that being said it has to "provide temporary 'fullness' " then when that passes just do it again.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong here.

I agree. I have spent a lifetime of study in the area. "Calories in versus calories out" is too simplistic. I know many women who have sustained significant weight loss for years and they have had to recognize that they are not like "normal" people. They have to be constantly vigilant and eat far fewer calories than one would expect. They exercise and are nutrition savvy. Many will tell you their "full switch" is broken.

If you look at our topic Cooking for Weight Loss, an underlying theme is decreased starchy carbs and vastly increased vegetables. Many many of the nutrition plans touted as break-throughs in the recent years basically mimic that. What kills the deal and screws up the stats is that it is not a short term solution- it has to be, for most, continued forever.

I saw the news hype about the article and just thought "well duh". There is nothing simple or easy about weight loss if one wants to maintain the loss for a lifetime.

[mm84321]

physiology is simple: consume more calories that you use or need: you will put down fat and be fat.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't address why people are over consuming in the first place, which is the real question you should be asking.

[rotuts]

I never implied that this was simple and has a simple solution.

but physiology in a macro sense say this and only this: consume more calories that you need or use, it will be put down as fat and you will be fat.

why that is, and why one does this, is not medical physiology. its very complex and involves 'satisfaction' 'cheap calories' etc, etc.

the issue is to consume something that is low in calories, and has satisfaction"delicous" that you can repeat over and over again.

its Our Bodies, Our Selves. plus a lot of ways to make you fail, over and over again.

[mm84321]

And the human body is not that simplistic. It is not a machine. You are completely ignoring the role hormones play in fat tissue regulation.

[rotuts]

of course they are over consuming. there is a multi billion $$$$$ industry thats goal is to make it impossible to not want a little more of those Burger Kings or that high fructose coca cola.

its not impossible everywhere in the world.

but you are what you chose to eat.. how to eat differently is a different problem.

Atkins? No Carb? bacon and grease and all that stuff? you bet you will loose "weight"

but the weight you loose is glycogen. the fat you eat as you lose "global weight" goes directly into deposits under the intima of your vascular system.

Caro Load? Ive never seen a fat marathoner. and you bet they carbo load.

[Dave the Cook]

It would be nice to be able to rely on seminal research done 70 years ago, or to attribute obesity to a western abundance of fat-laden foods, or some sort of moral failing. Unfortunately, facts bear out neither assumption. One study done in the 80s (Stunkard et al, "An Adoption Study of Human Obesity," New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 23, 1986) looked at adoptees -- a reasonable method for assessing the effect of genetics and environment (the team had to go to Denmark to find records that included all the pertinent information).

The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.

Gina Kolata further summarizes in her book Rethinking Thin:

It did not matter what the children's adoptive parents fed them; it did not matter whether they set a good example with their diets and exercise habits. The fatness or thinness of children when they grew up had nothing to do with their adoptive parents.

A study published in the same issue of NEJM looked at the another side of the issue: why can some people eat whatever they want and never gain weight? The researcher, Claude Bouchard, monitored twelve pairs of identical twins who were trying to gain weight. Each of them ate 1000 calories more than required for weight maintenance. They did this six days a week for 100 days, amounting to 84,000 extra calories per man. Each should have gained 23.3 pounds.

But that's not what happened. The average gain was 18 pounds -- not too far off the prediction -- but the range was between 9-1/2 and 29 pounds. Some added muscle and some added fat, which seems to account for the difference; it takes a lot more energy to convert food to muscle than it does food to fat. The study also found that each pair of twins tended to gain weight in similar ways, adding fat in the same places on their bodies.

[mm84321]

of course they are over consuming. there is a multi billion $$$$$ industry thats goal is to make it impossible to not want a little more of those Burger Kings or that high fructose coca cola.

its not impossible everywhere in the world.

but you are what you chose to eat.. how to eat differently is a different problem.

Atkins? No Carb? bacon and grease and all that stuff? you bet you will loose "weight"

but the weight you loose is glycogen. the fat you eat as you lose "global weight" goes directly into deposits under the intima of your vascular system.

Caro Load? Ive never seen a fat marathoner. and you bet they carbo load.

Actually, the way it was originally phrased by Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in his Physiology of Taste was "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are". But it's probably more accurate to say that you are what your body does to what you eat. The reason a marathon runner does not store calories as fat is because they burn them through extended cardiovascular exercise. They are not thin because they run; they run because they are thin. Their bodies are primed to burn glucose. It is the same reason the obese are normally sedentary. It is not that they get fat because they don't exercise, but rather their fat tissue hoards energy that they now can no longer expend. A sort of reversed causality to the conventional way of thinking, if you will.

[rotuts]

there are also studies in NEJM and Physiology that suggest excessive calories 'early in life' increase the total number of fat cells themselves. and those never go away. that has never been looked at in a double blind way. if you have " (???) x fat cells " from your 'early years, you will have a much harder time than those who do not. and those extra fat cells are not genetically determined. they are from an excessive caloric early environent.

'everybody' loves a fat baby. that baby is going to have a lot of troubles later in life.

'slim' populations 'south of the border' who live in calorie difficult areas, on 'rice and beans' and food with considerable fiber, when transported 'North of the Border' gene pool and all, well, balloon up as much as anyone with access to cheap excessive calories

Darwin would have understood this clearly: one survives to add to the next gene pool any way one can: calories traditionally scarce will be hoarded in fat if available to be saved for 'lean times'.

anyway I give up.

but we are what we eat.

Bon Appetite

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

Darwin would have understood this clearly: one survives to add to the next gene pool any way one can: calories traditionally scarce will be hoarded in fat if available to be saved for 'lean times'.

You're describing what is called the "Thrifty Gene Hypothesis". That in nature, man would not fatten because of periods of food scarcity. This was basically the work of Kelly Brownell at Yale, and the theory has been disproven. It may be so that man will reserve adipose tissue for times of need, but never, in nature, would man become obese or develop what's known as Metabolic disorder, including diabetes, antherosclerosis, dyslipidemia, etc.

[rotuts]

all the McDonnalds and burger kings ive seen actually exist in nature. down any block.

they are not on the moon.

we will leave that to the Chinese who plan to go there soon and will report back.

in the computer world, garbage in, garbage out.

those 'diseases' you mention are very real diseases, but they are 'diseases' of affluence. its not that complicated. they are, given that 'affluence' will not go away soon, very very difficult to treat.

its lethally complicated.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

there are also studies in NEJM and Physiology that suggest excessive calories 'early in life' increase the total number of fat cells themselves. and those never go away. that has never been looked at in a double blind way. if you have " (???) x fat cells " from your 'early years, you will have a much harder time than those who do not. and those extra fat cells are not genetically determined. they are from an excessive caloric early environent.

It starts even earlier than childhood. Gestational diabetes affects an increasingly large amount of children, and Type 2 diabetes, once only a disease of adulthood, is now being diagnosed to the youth. We even have an epidemic of obese 6-month-olds. You're not going to blame a baby for a lack of will power, too, are you?

[mm84321]

all the McDonnalds and burger kings ive seen actually exist in nature.

they are not on the moon.

we will leave that to the Chinese who plan to go there soon and will report back.

in the computer world, garbage in, garbage out.

Don't be petulant.