Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[paigetheoracle]

yeah, when I was growing up, afterschool you got a piece of fruit, glass of water and don't show your face in this house until dinner;)

Big difference today, I am afraid. I have my son in an afterschool program as mentioned earlier in this thread. Not only does he enjoy the ps2 bike, they also have indoor basketball and baseball outside, weather permitting. From what I have seen, at least 1/2 of the kids there, have a weight problem. This program works very hard to ensure that they are getting plenty of exercise. They have regular exercise classes and programs designed to teach the kids proper health and eating habits. I find more is being done here for promoting healthy habits, than in the school system.

 

I know what you mean - adults it seem can stick to extreme diets but let kids eat trash because it is their choice (2 people I know of have gone on the egg diet and lost pounds but how many people are willing to go to such extremes to lose weight? Is it the monotonous diet that causes them to shed pounds as opposed to those who chase tastes and fill with junk? As someone said 'If it's genetic, why aren't we from a fat past?' (overweight family stock)

[Nitack]

Unless you have qualifications not yet proclaimed you are no more an expert then a diabetic is on diabetes. Regardless, it is not relevant to this thread, please start a new one if you wish to pursue this. Those interested in your perspective can freely participate without sidetracking this thread.

 

Well, I have a degree in Government from George Mason University. I am employed as a legislative analyst and am a Federally registered lobbyist for a health care organization. You brought up the constitutionality argument, I only responded to it ;)

 

Nitack, until you can put forth an suggestion as to why some countries are getting obese at a rate 2-5 times the rest of the first world countries then no understanding as to the root cause has been reached, and I believe suggestions to solutions are premature. My beloved Canada is also getting obese, but why at a rate less then half of it's southern neighbor considering the similar diet, technology, and standard of living? I think that this bears investigation. As noted below, you do not.

 

I do believe that bears investigation. That however does not invalidate my belief in the nature of the epidemic.

 

Yes, once reasons, supported by fact and testable to a reasonable degree are identified, suggested solutions would be the logical progression. I know on this one that you will once again state your calorie/exercise theory/solution. This has generally been dismissed by the folks here as unworkable on anything other then a personal scale regardless of the number of times you repeat it. (It is not just me Nitack)

 

Weight and contributing factors are personal and individual. Can any solution be workable on anything other than an individual scale? Frame a solution, regardless of cause, that does not A) require biological intervention (pills, gene therapy) with every obese person and B) does not violate the principle of free will and individual choice (forced exercise and diet). Either we are saying that there is something biologically wrong with obese people, which you yourself have discounted as not possible given the rise of the epidemic. Or we are saying that it is a sociological (choice of food, exercise habits, food chain, etc.) and will require behavioral change, which my theories would fall within.

 

Genetically speaking, Canada is far closer to the US then Mexico as both countries are from the same European stock. This would likely preclude (on the surface) racial genetics as a root cause. Your statements were not ignored, but countered. An important distinction.

 

My statements were agreed with. I discounted genetics originally and you agreed with it. AIYAH!

 

Thank you, but no you do not. At least not according to tone and wording below.

 

You have decided without support of data that your position is true, that we know it to be true, and any other attempt to find answers is "Grasping". This quote seems to sum up the belligerent tone of many of your posts on this subject, while in other posts your "Claim" that you support the search for other causes is obviously not accurate.

 

I know that it is an impossibility according to the laws of physics for a person to add fat with out taking in more Calories on a consistent basis than they use. Disprove that and you prove me wrong. I don't need study data or the latest theory to be able to practically apply a law of physics. Calling it "oversimplified" does not in any way make it wrong. The next step in that process is to determine how to change the balance to using less or equal energy each day as we take in. This is why it is simple, it all rests on a fundamental principle of our universe, and no genetics, conditions, or sociological reasons can invalidate what I have just said. Go ahead *draws a line in the sand* :naughty:

 

Now, part of this thread is about the underlying complications, which is what you are definately interested in. Part of it is about the solutions, which is what I am interested in.

 

I have not been making a personal attack against you Nitack, merely trying to show you the weakness of your position. It fails any test of the scientific burden of proof and yet you proclaim not only cause but solution to boot. Not a single person has agreed that you have found either on anything but a personal scale.

 

Great, you are trying to show the weakness of my position. You have not in any way done so. So far I have failed to see anyone do so. You have said that I am oversimplifying things, but have not shown how. Show me how! Where is the fault in my logic? Where have I gone wrong? I am not trying to dogmatically stick to some individualistic belief, I am trying to discuss and perhaps be enlightened. You do not enlighten some one by saying they are wrong with not showing how though :shrug:

 

My argument is that you should stop proclaiming you have the almighty answer without producing any convincing evidence to support it. My arguments against your proposed solution to your yet to be substantiated cause are reserved for another thread.

 

I never said I had the almighty answer, I just have an answer that you don't like but have yet to show how it is wrong. My evidence is an applied use of the law of Conservation of Energy. How am I misunderstanding that law? How is it not applicable? How does it not directly translate into "eat less/move more"? After all, even that statement is just an altered form of the law of conservation of energy.

 

I think discussing solutions to an unsupported cause is ludicrous until the cause has been substantiated. Of course, this is only my opinion.

 

I can see the snowball rolling down the hill with out seeing who started rolling it.

 

I can see that people are gaining weight and that according to what we all know about the nature of energy, that those individuals had to have taken in more Calories than their bodies used. If they are taking in more Calories than they are using, and we know that to be the fundamental cause of gaining fat, then we also can very easily see the solution.

[pamela]

Paige

I know what you mean - adults it seem can stick to extreme diets but let kids eat trash because it is their choice (2 people I know of have gone on the egg diet and lost pounds but how many people are willing to go to such extremes to lose weight? Is it the monotonous diet that causes them to shed pounds as opposed to those who chase tastes and fill with junk? As someone said 'If it's genetic, why aren't we from a fat past?' (overweight family stock)

I am not familar with the egg diet, but chances are that it is mainly a protein diet with not much else. There are alot of those types of diets out there and sure, people do lose weight. But at what cost? Not getting the essential nutrients from a variety of foods, will cause a variety of health problems.If continual use of these extreme diets persist, they will look pretty svelt in that coffin;)

[Kayra]

I will not quote as it is getting to long.

 

Nitack:

Irrelevant qualifications also do not make you an expert, nor add weight to unsupported claims.

 

You are most certainly entitled to your beliefs as to why we are getting fat.

 

I do not want to frame a solution to a cause I have no confirmation of. I will leave that to you. I did not say the cause was not biologically based, just not based on a change in genetics. I am not stating you are wrong in your conclusion, only that it is unsupported (please present something concrete to support your position) and that many other possibilities have not been excluded.

 

It is true I agreed with your statement about genetics not being the cause, then you came back with "All four countries can be tied back to (at least partially) English or Western European descent.". A clear (and inaccurate) reference to genetics being partially responsible.

 

Your interesting attempts to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove your point about weight loss and gain has been repeatedly refuted and debunked. It is possible to gain fat without increasing caloric input by changing the efficiency of any one of a number of systems involved in fat storage or metabolism. Any of these systems might in turn be affected by some external influence we are not yet aware of. The laws of thermodynamics can only be applied if you have someone in a completely closed system and measure ALL aspects of energy in and energy out. (including temp, fluids, work done, and feces mass and caloric content to name a few). Unless you can provide experimental proof of such then you can consider your references to thermodynamics invalidated.

 

Your failure to see where your arguments lack substance is not an issue I can address. Enlighten: To give information to; inform or instruct. You have been given valid information on what the common expectations are for scientific discourse are. Whether you choose to be enlightened is your choice.

 

Yes you claimed you had the almighty answer. Your application of the law of conservation of energy was invalidated. Since most of your arguments come back to that principle I am hoping you will stop trying to use it, but I have my doubts.

 

 

 

On a personal note to the rest of the readers, am I being to harsh here? Perhaps I should just let this go so we can get on with the discussion. I can be quite an *** when I get in to these type of discussions.

[Nitack]

1. It is true I agreed with your statement about genetics not being the cause, then you came back with "All four countries can be tied back to (at least partially) English or Western European descent.". A clear (and inaccurate) reference to genetics being partially responsible.

 

2. Your interesting attempts to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove your point about weight loss and gain has been repeatedly refuted and debunked. It is possible to gain fat without increasing caloric input by changing the efficiency of any one of a number of systems involved in fat storage or metabolism. Any of these systems might in turn be affected by some external influence we are not yet aware of. The laws of thermodynamics can only be applied if you have someone in a completely closed system and measure ALL aspects of energy in and energy out. (including temp, fluids, work done, and feces mass and caloric content to name a few). Unless you can provide experimental proof of such then you can consider your references to thermodynamics invalidated.

 

1. I was only using that example to reinforce the point already made, not to try to change course

2. Kayra has spoken! You have been invalidated with no actual invalidation occurring... Be humbled mortal! You showed nothing and proved nothing. When asked to actually explain in any way how I was wrong, your answer was tantamount to "I just say so."

 

I tire of this and will just drop it as of this post. You really are missing the point completely and rather than actually consider what is being said you are stuck on what you think is being said. Shouting into the wind is futile...

[cooloola]

pamela - are you advertising a product?

 

Nitack - I would say of the patients I see (in a clinical sense) people stay thin by - pathological processes or smoking. In the long-term healthy is better than thin. Also evidence base is always best practice

and

forget semantics - stick to the scientific discussion (and a degree in government doesn't cut it for me in a scientific discussion.

Give up Nitack.

 

Kaydra and all- a large proportion of the population are suffering liver disfunction (AST/ALT levels, fibrosis and cirrhosis, pharmacological/biochemical therapy, alcohol ingestion above safe levels) therefore alot of people may and are live with metabolic disturbances that lead to obesity and increased morbidity. Other chronic diseases are equally having a rip roaring time, a huge population health disaster, life expectancies will drop in the first world and that will spell the end for many babyboomers.

[Nitack]

and a degree in government doesn't cut it for me in a scientific discussion.

 

A degree in government does cut it for a discussion of what is Constitutionally protected and what is not. Context is key, and we were talking about the constitutionality of an employer requiring exercise while at work.

[Kayra]

Cooloola: Interesting information.

 

Is there a correlation between those people living with liver disfunction and those that are overweigiht?

What I mean by that is: Is this problem more prevalent in those countries that are ahead of the curve in obesity then in those that are not, and to a similar degree?

 

If so, then it could certainly be considered a symptom of the problem.

[HydrogenBond]

One reason people may be getting fatter is due to political correctness. It is not politically correct to call someone fat or use other derogatory terms, because that would hurt feelings. Hurting feelings had been the way to help restrict the over eating behavior.

 

Instead we need to use terms like weight challenged or big boned that are warm and fuzzy. Although you can't say fat or any number of derogatory terms that may hurt feelings, you can say obese. Obese has a connection to genetics. Although this is true, it creates the loose image that fat=obese= genetics and therefore is not subject to will or personal responsibility. When we combine this with a warm fuzzy label to spare feelings and censor the censor we get sort of encouragement and justification.

 

Say you had two people, who are not overweight due to medical reasons, but only due to the feedbag. One person we will treat with political correctness. To do this we need to filter language not hurt feelings. You can use logic, cite reports, etc., but you are dealing with an irrational impulse. So you may have to crank it up an notch and use studies to employ fear, such as of medical problems, diabetes, death, etc. This way you try to override one irrational with a stronger irrational. This can work while also sparing feelings and is the ideal way.

 

The other alternative is the old way, which is not rational at all. You have this nag calling names and hurting feeling. What you have is one irrational person fighting against another person with an irrational impulse, with the nagging directly proportional to the amount of fat. It creates an external barometer. This is a lot easier to do than cite science studies. It is childish meaning anyone can do this. The first way limits the number of helpers who could effectively get the desired result.

 

The sparing the feeling affect, because it is harder to do, tends to shift assistance to the free market where the experts collect. The other way is free, since people are rewarded by the fun of being a butt head. Nobody will charge to insult you, although there may be people who pay for that.

 

But the harder and better way, because it requires talent, has to be bought or leased. Not everyone can afford this constant warm and fuzzy coaching. If the poor people could afford a personal trainer, a nutritionist, the latest natural herbal supplements, a wellness program, the group therapy, hypnotism, drugs, etc., their number would come down, too. Political correctness took away the free and made the corrective measures not available to all. The irrational impulse to overeat is stronger than the volume of talent needed to do it nicely. That is why this industry is projected to balloon over the next decade.

 

We need to keep things in perspective. We are trying to save lives and avoid all the emotional effects of sickness. Sparing feelings so people can overeat does not spare the feelings down the line. The longer we spare up front, the more the fiddlers will cost done at the other end. Sickness does not spare feelings. Although there are mood enhancing drugs to take care of that so we can keep this growth industry open ended.

[pamela]

hydro, i have a compelling desire to down a bag of hersheys kisses after reading your post;)

If I was to call an overweight person fat, I might need to see my dentist for dentures as my teeth would have been knocked out. I agree we should'nt sugar coat the problem, but we most certainly need to be tactful.The importance of health issues should be prominent in both conversation and the media.Persuading someone with health information and kindness, should help bring about change that would address the emotional as well as the physical aspects of their person. Calling names could result in weightloss, but emotional problems such as bulimia and anorexia may develop, and thus harm the body in other ways.

[Nitack]

I have a question for all the people concerned with finding the "cause". Once you find the cause, what course of action is available to fix this at a macro level? I have been accused of thinking too small and at the individual or personal level, so what can you do at the macro level once we identify the cause?

 

Forced or coerced exercise: The notion of employers building exercise into our daily duties or building it into the job was decried. The notion was put forth that it may be unconstitutional (which it is not) but at the very least some people question the ethical implications of requiring people to exercise. So lets just say that this solution is objectionable by at least some of the population.

 

Forced or coerced dietary restriction: This would present the same ethical questions as the exercise option and probably more to boot. Easier to require a certain amount of exercise than to forbid some one to eat only a certain amount of only certain foods. Either way though, you do assault the ability of people to make their own decisions.

 

Pills: With over 50% of the population at least categorized as "overweight" and 34% of the adult population falling into the official category of "obese", a pharmaceutical solution seems to be the way to reach the broadest spectrum of people. However, there is already a very large distrust of the pharmaceutical industry and any such pill would be highly suspect. Additionally, every medication out there has side effects, and many are worse than the condition they treat. This option would also offer a way out that would not treat the cause (whatever that may be), but would treat the symptom (excess weight/weight gain). Lets not confuse this with a treatment for a medical condition like hypothyroidism or PCOS. Medications that treat those conditions treat the source of the issue and those types of conditions can not statistically be responsible for the bulging waste of over half of the population. A pharmaceutical option, is not a cure, but a treatment. We would lock our population into permanent pill popping, at a cost that can't be calculated, and it would not address the real problem. I have yet to see evidence that obesity is caused by a deficiency in the body of artificial compound XYZ.

 

Gene Therapy: If we were to discover that the cause is genetic, and that some people have a gene that is so powerful it can make them gain weight, despite efforts, what will we do about it? Not every genetic defect can be treated with gene therapy, but lets say this one can. Can we really say to a portion of the population "You are genetically defective" and treat them for it? Given the very real probability that this gene would run strong in some populations and not others, are you attacking the epidemic or certain segments of society? Should we be tampering with genetics on such a large scale? We are talking about over half the population here. Would this cross certain ethical boundaries related to designer babies (think Gattaca)? What if a pill can counteract the effects of these genes, are we treating them for a condition or treating them for being who they are at the genetic level? S

 

Specific Food Restrictions: And what if we found that this was a food chain based issue. Processed food, high fructose corn syrup, anything that is not raw (people advocate the raw diets), etc. Is there an ethical issue with dictating who may eat what just as dictating required exercise? Could we even stop it if we found it to be the issue. Do people have the right to make choices which are harmful to their own bodies? Smoking is perfectly legal, are we going to outlaw transfat, or HFCS?

 

Social Changes: And what if the problem does end up being just a manifestation of learned behaviors and societal changes over the past forty years? Show me a smoker who has not been told that it is harmful to their health. Find me an obese adult who can not demonstrate an understanding of a healthy diet and exercise. I think you would be hard pressed in either case. People know the dangers of obesity and what is needed to combat the problem if it is indeed only a matter of simply eating too much and not moving enough. If they are not afraid enough of a shortened life span, or don't have the will power to do something about it, what can be done on a macro level to change that? Can anything be done on a macro level to change that?

 

So, even if the cause is identified, how can we treat the problem at a macro level?

[cooloola]

Kyra - liver diseases are prevalent in the west (especially alcohol/drug abuse fibrotic cirrhotic diseases and Hep C which 10% of americans and australians are presently carrying) Less developed countries have their share of diseases affecting liver function (Hep A, Hep B and Hydatid infestation). however a diet high in proportion of fat will also affect liver function so its a bit like the chiken AND the egg in liver health/obesity.

 

Nitack - Force or coercion is not a pallatable response and won't work. Pharmacology may be of assistance. On social change - fear of a shortenned lifespan doesn't stop people engaging in risk taking behaviours, confidence and ability to change and motivation often lacking. The long range view (one day I might get sick and die) is of less consequence than what is happenning for people here and now. "Theory of Reasoned Action" states that an individual's motivation is to conform with significant others therefore most will eat the food the rest of the family/friends are eating. This is where we need to look for change. Jamie Oliver is attempting to affect change in the homes of lower socio-economic English families by teaching the young mothers (as it is often she that does the shopping and cooking in that group) about good food on a budget and so far he has had some success. We also need to look at the structural factors that restrict the extent to which people can change their lifestyle ie: education, employment, housing, stress.

[Michaelangelica]

Kyra - liver diseases are prevalent in the west (especially alcohol/drug abuse fibrotic cirrhotic diseases and Hep C which 10% of americans and australians are presently carrying) Less developed countries have their share of diseases affecting liver function (Hep A, Hep B and Hydatid infestation). however a diet high in proportion of fat will also affect liver function so its a bit like the chiken AND the egg in liver health/obesity. s.

How many people have hepatitis C ?

How does Liver damage effect obesity?

 

Around one in every 100 people in Australia has HCV.

 

More than 210,000 people in Australia are estimated to have been exposed to HCV infection. Almost half, over 90,000 people, live in NSW. Around 16,000 new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections are estimated to be occurring across the nation each year and, again, almost half of these are in NSW. Around 90% of these new infections occur through blood-to-blood contact between people sharing equipment used for injecting illicit drugs.

 

In the period, 1990 to 2001, there were over 192,000 notifications of HCV positive diagnoses - with over 76,000 notifications in NSW. Men comprise around 65% of the diagnoses, women 35%. Around 65% of people diagnosed are in the age range 20-39 years but an increasing number of people aged 15-19 are being diagnosed.

The Hepatitis Council of NSW - FAQ

 

There is a link between cortisol aproduction and obesity. Not sure how.

[Michaelangelica]

Saw a Grandfather walking down the street with his grankids the other day.

Like most guys his age he had a large "beer gut"

 

He was wearinga T Shirt and emblazoned on it in huge letters was:-

I

BEAT

ANOREXIA

 

I need that T shirt.

[classy_lady]

umm !!! that doesn't sound stupid but still a lil bit hard to believe since it is possible to loose all the weight gain with a good nutrition and workout .so if it is a virus that means that by taking care of ur self u can kill the virus just like a cold .....ummmm.?!

[Nitack]

I am a legislative analyst/lobbyist by trade and review health care legislation from the states. I came across this piece of legislation today and thought it might be of interest to people here. It would require that health plans give a discount (rebate) to people who keep a healthy BMI.

 

Now, Health Plans will not just dole out this money out of the goodness of their hearts, they are businesses who need to make a profit because they report to share holders. What will end up happening is that this bill will allow them to raise rates on everyone in order to cover this rebate, and your obese population will end up paying more for health care premiums. This is not a direct tax, but will work as an indirect one. I personally don't see anything wrong with increasing the premiums for obese individuals, after all, obesity related illness and care accounts for almost 10% of all health care spending. No different than a smoker with higher premiums.

 

Anyway, here is the legislation if anyone is interested in reading.

=============================================

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

General Assembly Proposed Bill No. 5171

January Session, 2009 LCO No. 573

Referred to Committee on

Insurance and Real

Estate

Introduced by:

REP. MUSHINSKY, 85th

Dist.

Connecticut General Assembly - January Session, 2009

 

Statement of Purpose:

 

To promote wellness regimens by providing incentives to individuals who

maintain a healthy body mass index.

 

AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY REBATES.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

 

That title 38a of the general statutes be amended to require an insurer,

health care center, hospital and medical service corporation or other entity

that delivers, issues for delivery, renews, amends or continues in this state

any health insurance policy to offer a rebate or incentive that is in

compliance with the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996,

P.L. 104-191, to individuals who maintain a healthy body mass index at the

time of renewal of such policy.

=============================

Perhaps not about the science related to obesity, but interesting how the debate may take new forms.

[Michaelangelica]

Unbelievable, so the drug companies (Zyprexa) the soda companies (corn syrup) the food industry (MSG and friends), the fast food giants (trans-fats, fats, sugar) all get a free ride and someone who may have a genetic predisposition to obesity gets penalised?

This is what happens when prejudice and "simple answers" (always wrong) replace science.

..............................................................

Why does this happen do you think?

The study evaluated 132 obese adults. All consumed a diet that was consistent in daily calories and participated in 180 minutes a week of moderate-intensity exercise. They also drank a daily beverage containing 39 milligrams of caffeine, but one group consumed green tea with 625 milligrams of catechins, an antioxidant that is the main component of green tea. After 12 weeks, the participants drinking the green tea had greater loss, 4.4 pounds compared with just over 2 pounds in the control group. The green-tea group also had larger declines in total abdominal fat, subcutaneous abdominal fat and triglycerides.

 

How green tea works its magic is not completely understood, but scientists believe it speeds the rate at which fat is broken down in the body. It may also help the body's sensitivity to insulin, lowering the risk of diabetes. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University as well as research centers in Florida and Japan.

Green tea plus exercise speeds the loss of tummy fat | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

interestingly the researches say it also cuts down breast cancer risk (A lot of fat cells in breasts)