The "Truth" About Obesity

[rotuts]

personal fault is not the issue. changing habits that are no longer subject to physiologic control is.

Bittman maybe a year ago (about) had a long article in the NYTimes on the effect of a 10 cent 'tax' / oz. or so on

sugar added drinks.

these studies have already been done on the effect of a 'tax' on tabacco produces.

but its unlikely that a sugar tax on commercial drinks will happen any time soon: its current system is just too lucrative the way it is.

[mm84321]

personal fault is not the issue. changing habits that are no longer subject to physiologic control is.

Agreed. And everyone knows how hard it is to break a bad habit. I'd like to think that humans are able to exude a bit more compassion for one another. We tend to stop judging others once we stop judging ourselves.

Bittman maybe a year ago (about) had a long article in the NYTimes on the effect of a 10 cent 'tax' / oz. or so on

sugar added drinks.

these studies have already been done on the effect of a 'tax' on tabacco produces.

but its unlikely that a sugar tax on commercial drinks will happen any time soon: its current system is just too lucrative the way it is.

I don't think a dime is getting to the root of the problem, and would most likely solve nothing.

[rotuts]

the drug 'war' has long been lost.

consider reading this book

"The Anatomy of Addiction" Howard Markel

its about what the title indicates. It talks about Freud and Halsted. Freud most of us have heard of. If you ever put on scrubs, or a sterile surgical glove, you own those and other breakthroughs to Halsted.

Its about Cocaine. It was at the time a breakthrough local anesthetic. Freud was addicted, as was Halsted.

not so much by personal choice, but as an experimental side effect of their personal study of cocaine.\. Halsted then became also addicted to morphine, because (oddly) it seems that was the accepted treatment for cocaine addiction at the end of the 19th century just substitute morphine.

both were readily available to each, as was nicotine.

[mm84321]

Dr. Gabor Mate is an excellent author on addiction. In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts is a fascinating read.

[rotuts]

got GM on reserve at the Lib. thanks.

"Addiction" was initially though to be a "moral failing" etc etc

then it was thought to be the result of an " Addiction prone personality" what ever that is.

the more interesting question (for me) is why are some people prone to it and others not.

then again 'whats prone' : prone is simple: the addictive agent must be cheap and readily available. its physiologic effect should be a quick as possible, think the derivative of the initial physiological function being very large. and its removal should have devastating metabolic effects.

those that are not prone 'to it' have other things to do, and were not offered discounted samples.

think cocaine then think crack if most of us had supply of crack, and were 'bored' for a brief while, then that would be that.

if youve followed the show on cable called "Hung", there was an interesting line in the first season: (more or less) " """This""" is like cocaine, but its too expensive. """IT"" needs to be like crack. crack is cheap"

you have to see the show to solve that puzzle

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

I think the greatest misconception surrounding addiction is that the substance itself is somehow inherently addicting. But, this is just not true. Why is it that I would be able to smoke a pack of cigarettes, never touch them again, and you smoke a pack and get hooked for life? One does not tend to get addicted to a substance unless there was an imbalance in their system prior to initiation to the drug. This is not only true with narcotics, but studies have shown the same process occurs with sugar in the case of bulimic women. Sugar acts on the opiate receptors in the brain much like certain drugs do. That is why some people can eat one cookie, and others can't stop until the whole jar is gone.

[rotuts]

perhaps

but when those 12 cans of 12 oz soda are on sale for $2.50 (total cost), twice a year ( set youre iPad to reminder mode its like clockwork) the shrewdest fructose bootleggers insist that i have to buy 4 boxes. they do this for a reason. watch those shopping carts leave the store for those weeks.

nicotine is addictive, smoke is not. menthol is helpful to get you started on the right path, but 'skol' or what ever it called might be a better way to go.

crack is the ultimate agent due to ease of use, and a large surface area for absorption (so far, although there are now inhaled narcotics), and cocaine might come next. many studies from long before AlGore invented the internet have shown that pigeons would rather peck for coke over food. many would peck their beaks bloody. yet they dont seem to be lining up at the crack houses or what ever they call them these days.

in the anatomy of addiction several pages speculate but only guess as to how Freud functioned as did Halsted. thats the part that interests me. Freud was addicted to nicotine (cigars ) that thats what killed him but nasal cocaine almost did several times.

it is the substance itself thats addictive, or more precisely its almost instantaneous physiological effect and later withdrawl. just sitting there on the shelve its not so much.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

Certainly, some substances have more addictive qualities than others, but like you said, the mere presence of these substances is not what causes one to become addicted to them. There is always a void that exists prior to one becoming addicted.

[rotuts]

Not if you hear and have heard the Sirens seductively singing there Songs.

Thats why Ms Siren(s) are in Mythology. Its not her. Its her song.

(Note: Im bad with Copy/Paste. I guess Im bad with Caps too Will try harder. Its So Much Work.)

Fructose is sort of the Siren of the Megalomart.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[Toliver]

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?

There was a study (click) where scientists took some of the stomach bacteria ("gut flora") from obese mice and inserted the bacteria into the stomachs of skinny mice. The skinny mice started gaining weight (of course, this made we wonder if they performed the opposite kind of transfer...skinny to obese, would it make a difference, too?).

There was another study (I can't find the link to it) where mice were bred to have no sense of taste. They were given two kinds of water to drink, one plain and one with sugar. Even though they couldn't taste the difference between the two types of water, they kept going back to the sugar water. The scientists theorized that something internal, perhaps bacteria in the stomach, were driving the mice to the sugar water.

So how are Weight Watchers, et al, going to help me fight something biological like this? To say "Oh, just eat right and eat less" smacks of the mythic Marie Antionette response of "Let them eat cake." It tries to simplify what science has found to be quite the complicated problem.

Perhaps science can find a way to counter or block the chemical/hormonal/bacteriological impulses that drive us to eat more calories than we should. I'm all for it. After all, the tools we have now for losing weight don't seem to be working too well.

[rotuts]

Fat Land in an interesting book. It might be at your local library.

Too bad there isnt a ref. to what Alton Brown did and lost 50 lbs and still has kept it off. It wasnt complicated.

[Paul Kierstead]

.. 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.

Actually, what you (and others) are describing is, in fact, quite simple from a dietary point of view. Cur your carbs and eat lots of veg is hardly complex. Easy is, of course, a whole different (and much more subjective) beast as it is all bound up in behaviour and *that* is not simple. But just because it isn't easy doesn't mean the diet has to be complicated. We strive to consider it complex because we don't like to think something so simple (cut your carbs and eat lots of veg) could be so difficult.

[heidih]

.. 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.

Actually, what you (and others) are describing is, in fact, quite simple from a dietary point of view. Cur your carbs and eat lots of veg is hardly complex. Easy is, of course, a whole different (and much more subjective) beast as it is all bound up in behaviour and *that* is not simple. But just because it isn't easy doesn't mean the diet has to be complicated. We strive to consider it complex because we don't like to think something so simple (cut your carbs and eat lots of veg) could be so difficult.

I did not mean to imply that the concepts were difficult, but rather, as you noted, "easier said than done" due to psychological and environmental factors, coupled with the physical aftereffects of having been obese.

[rotuts]

I prefer cut your 'simple' carbs ( not your complex carbs ) Simple is sucrose, and that Siren partner Fructose if contained in High Fructose Cornsyrup. Not of corse fructose found in well, Fruit.

[Dakki]

I think fructose from fruit and fructose from HFCS should be chemically identical.

Of course fructose from sodas and highly processed foods is probably the textbook example of too much of a good thing.

[rotuts]

They are the same. Fructose is metabolized by completely different pathway than glucose. It directly effects fatty acids.

Fructose in Fruit comes with the Fruit. In HFCS it does not. The industry wants you to believe that HFCS is the same as sucrose cleaved: 1 glucose and 1 fructose.

Some people (correct or not ) do not believe this. They state and claim HFCS is more on the Fructosey side of the equation. Processing the starch in Corn favors the fructose over the sucrose. I dont know. But I choose to avoid HFCS if I can.

As Earl Butz said to Nixon: "But its from Corn!" ref "Fat Land"

[weinoo]

Today, the author answered some questions on the Times' blog, The 6th Floor.

The point I think I was trying to point out in the OP, is this which she so simply explains:

I think it’s important to tell people that while it’s certainly possible to lose weight, a number of biological factors that have nothing to do with character or willpower can make it extraordinarily difficult.

Because I think for so long people have tried to make it seem so simple to both lose and keep weight off.

[mm84321]

They are the same. Fructose is metabolized by completely different pathway than glucose. It directly effects fatty acids.

Fructose in Fruit comes with the Fruit. In HFCS it does not. The industry wants you to believe that HFCS is the same as sucrose cleaved: 1 glucose and 1 fructose.

Some people (correct or not ) do not believe this. They state and claim HFCS is more on the Fructosey side of the equation. Processing the starch in Corn favors the fructose over the sucrose. I dont know. But I choose to avoid HFCS if I can.

As Earl Butz said to Nixon: "But its from Corn!" ref "Fat Land"

Sucrose (table sugar) and High Fructose Corn Syrup are metabolically identical (HFCS is made up of 55% fructose to 45% glucose, while sugar is 50/50). The recent ads sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association make it clear that this is a fact. And while it is true that they are equal, the advertisements fail to mention that they are both equally deleterious.

[mm84321]

Today, the author answered some questions on the Times' blog, The 6th Floor.

The point I think I was trying to point out in the OP, is this which she so simply explains:

I think it’s important to tell people that while it’s certainly possible to lose weight, a number of biological factors that have nothing to do with character or willpower can make it extraordinarily difficult.

Because I think for so long people have tried to make it seem so simple to both lose and keep weight off.

I saw your OP as implying that technological advances and scientific breakthroughs would somehow find new treatments for dealing with obesity. But I don't think the answer is to rely on technology, but rather on what we already know, and has been known for over a century.

[mm84321]

really?

I cant say:

"""recent ads sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association make it clear that this is a fact. """

Im always glad to see that commercial 'ads' speak truth to power.

not everyone believe this. but it might be so. I dont think that all FHCS is identical. but I cant back this up. it might be. the CRF cant fined the funds to show that this is so.

I just choose to avoid it. Id also avoid the Plague and Crack.

thats just me.

The point is that they are basing their advertisement on science that supports their agenda, while disregarding the science that would endanger it. They grow corn, but they are better at picking cherries.

[rotuts]

really? they show that science do they? its 'peer reviewed' is it? by other Con-Agras or Agra-Cons?

commercially sponsored 'science' has come close to destroying science itself;

Jerry Mcguire himself as said: " Show Me The Money "

has NEJM retracted anything recently to do to these 'commercial influences'

maybe maybe not. but 'Research 'professionals' ' have been chronically caught 'sucking on the teat that feeds them' much like professional politicians.

I guess they need the money. but they cant just say so.

Edited January 4, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[rotuts]

i promise you this:

if you can get it out of our local Lib or borrow it you will not be able to put down:

"An Anatomy of Addiction" Scrubs or not.

if you buy it, well all bets are off.

also look to "Fat Land" Earl Butz is there and The Pal of All: Richard (Republican Cloth Coat) Nixon.

he's not available North (Eh?) nor South of the Boarder.

He's 100 % ours.

[rotuts]

No. Its not possible. It cant be so:

just now: from Google ( the god of truth ) on their 'news page':

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138993430777580.html

then again, this is that YoBo Murdock, isnt he the guy that cant remember all those cell phone calls?

Cui bono?

maybe you can get the whole article this way:

http://news.google.com/news?gl=us&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ict=ln

then go down about 6 articles.

Who Knew?

Edited January 4, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[Paul Kierstead]

I think it’s important to tell people that while it’s certainly possible to lose weight, a number of biological factors that have nothing to do with character or willpower can make it extraordinarily difficult.

Because I think for so long people have tried to make it seem so simple to both lose and keep weight off.

Aside: I still object to the conflating of "simple" and "easy". Lots of simple things aren't easy.

The difficulty I have with many of the arguments that it is biological factors is history. The obesity epidemic is recent, but I'm not seeing the evidence presented that biological factors have changed. I find it difficult to accept that the problem is biological factors if biological factors cannot explain the quite rapid increase in average body weight. If it is biological factors, it should be able to measure and correlate to the current trend. From what I've seen, it is used only to explain certain cases, essentially edge cases, which to the populate as a whole is not very relevant or useful unless you happen to be an edge case. I'd be happy to see evidence that some change in our biology in the last couple of decades has suddenly made us susceptible to being obese but while there is plenty of evidence of changing diets, I'm not seeing the evidence of rapidly changing biology. This does not mean, of course, that it doesn't exist, but I think that an explanation for this is absolutely required or it tends to significantly discredit the biological explanation for the general populace (again, not just for edge cases; we note obesity is very widespread).

[Mjx]

its a fact that you will absorb all of the protein. . . .

Erm, NO. If your body has no immediate use for it, it will store it. And not as muscle tissue, either.