Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[paigetheoracle]

Here are a few points to consider on the subject:-

• Snacking as opposed to eating main meals in weight gain (small meals are easier to digest - equally, insufficient sleep means means poorer digestion and increased storage of undealt with materials)
• School runs as opposed to children walking
• Exercise as appetite suppressant versus boredom eating (tight versus relaxed muscles)

[Michaelangelica]

It also shows up in obesity intervention programs throughout the country, where a person's culture, class, education, or even genetics, are overlooked in the dogged pursuit to motivate what too many clinicians see as "lazy Americans" to lose pounds.

It's not as if we don't have the evidence that these factors -- culture, class, education, genetics -- matter. Yet another study just came out by University of Washington researchers who found gaping disparities in obesity rates among ZIP codes in the Seattle area. Every $100,000 in median home value for a ZIP code corresponded with a 2 percent drop in obesity.

Adam Drewnowski, director of the UW Center for Obesity Research, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"If you have this mind-set that obesity has to do with the individual alone, then ZIP codes or areas really should not come into this. But they do, big-time."
. . .
Our judgmental, fat-phobic society seems even more ridiculous when you consider that there is a strong genetic component to weight.
. . .
It's time to stop treating obesity as the problem of a lazy individual.
. . .
Instead of vilifying fat people, this country needs to look long and hard at the roots of our obesity epidemic.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to look at obsesity is to use the conservation of energy. If the food energy input exceeds the energy burn output, we add fat. If genetics or virus could cause fat to appear, irregardless of input, this would be perpetual motion and would solve the worlds energy problem. We could merely pull energy out of the vacuum of space, with DNA and virus.

So someone who has extra body fat, had to have inputted this at one time. It did not appear out of the vacuum of space. To tweak body fat one needs to balance input to output. It is possible that some people's bodies convert to fat so quickly that it does not stay available for quick energy. They may feel tired and hungry due to the loss of quick energy. But the input and output equation is still in affect.

The accumulation of body fat is like hiking with a heavy backpack. If the pack is light, one can keep going much longer. If the backpack is heavy, one may only be able to go a short distance before they get tired. The extra effort needed to go any distance, compared to the light pack, can add up to less total energy output, if one has to take too many breaks. For example, over 4 hours of hiking, the light pack may walk 3 hours at 400 cal/hour. The heavy pack may be only able to walk 2 hours at 500 cal/hour. The heavy pack is more demanding on the body such that fatigue will occur sooner. The net affect, if they both ate 1200 calories at the start, the heavier pack will body fat at the end of the walk.

If the input-output energy curve, as a function of weight was linear, it would not matter. But the body's performance curve slopes downward, such that a point can be reached where there are diminishing returns. An analogy is a weight lifter who is able to press 50lbs, 50 times. That does not mean he can do 500lbs, 5 times. His body may peak out at 200lbs, once. The net affect, is although it takes a lot of energy to lift 200lbs, it doesn't add up to the energy to do 50 lighter reps over 2-3 minutes. If anything the muscles will develop for strength instead of stamina. The heavy person needs extra stength more than extra stamina.

The thermodynamics approach is useful because it gives a rational way to understand the nature of weight gain as function of input-output. There is a tendancy to use irrational connection to DNA and virus, which clouds the energy issue. The diminishing performance curve inherent within the human body is important since weight gain can cause weight gain.

One possible source of confusion is between voice output and energy output. One can create a lot of excitement with the voice, creating the impression that a lot of energy is or was being expended. But this type of activity is very efficient and does not really burn many calories in the speaker. It may cause calories to burn faster in the listener, creating a false postive, that the speaker is also expended the same level of high energy.

For example, one may say I ate only a salad, I went to mall, picked up the kids, did some TV aerobics, etc. and still gained 1 lb. The person hearing this dynamic account almost gets tired, and can't seem to figure out why the person still gained weight. So one adds genetics or viruses to the reasining, because the voice box creates that impression. One needs to use larger instead of small muscles. The trip to the mall could mean parking farther away. Picking the kids at school could requiring walking instead of driving. The TV aerobics might be benefit with staying on your feet the entire time. One would then be using the larger muscles of the legs such that the voice box could rest. One would be too tire to get other to burn calaries for you. Instead one would report higher energy output.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One way to look at obsesity is to use the conservation of energy. If the food energy input exceeds the energy burn output, we add fat. If genetics or virus could cause fat to appear, irregardless of input, this would be perpetual motion and would solve the worlds energy problem. We could merely pull energy out of the vacuum of space, with DNA and virus.

While more or less true, this ignores the fact that the body is not a 100% engine. Much of the fuel (food) we put in can go through us without being stored as fat or used as "quick energy." The human body also has a lot of feedback systems that feed into processes governing metabolism.

Consider the following well documented facts, 1. during periods of high stress, most people gain weight with no change in diet/activity. 2. Healthy people seem to have weight "set points." i.e. eating more or less than usual results in biological feedback to keep weight roughly the same.
-Will

[Michaelangelica]

Coffee inheritance

Their results, published in the journal Twin Research and Human Genetics, suggested that between 41% and 48% of a person's leaning towards one of the food groups was influenced by genetics.

The strongest link between individual liking and genes involved a taste for garlic and coffee.

Professor Tim Spector, who led the research, said: "For so long we have assumed that our upbringing and social environment determine what we like to eat.

"This has blown that theory out of the water - more often than not, our genetic make-up influences our dietary patterns."

The researchers suggested that healthy eating campaigns, such as the government's "five-a-day" fruit and vegetable initiative, might have to be re-thought in light of the findings, as people genetically "programmed" to eat less fruit and vegetables would be more resistant to health messages than thought.

BBC NEWS | Health | Diet choices 'written in genes'

[Michaelangelica]

Your social network seems to influence you weight (another report on this previously)
The reasons for this is not clear
Here is a detailed discussion on some recent research
Health Report - 15October2007 - Obesity and social networks

Norman Swan: And you went to three degrees of separation.

Nicholas Christakis: We had many. Some people we could trace out six, seven, eight, ten degrees of separation, but what we found was that obesity occurred in clusters that were up to three degrees of separation, so for example, my weight was associated not just with my own choices and my own actions, but the choices and actions of people that were up to three degrees away from me.
So my friend's sister's husband, when he gains weight, it's associated with me gaining weight, a clustering of obese and non-obese individuals and a kind of cascade through the network of weight gain.

Norman Swan: So your level of obesity was significantly related to being part of a network.

Nicholas Christakis: Part of a network that gained weight.
And so it's important to be clear about this. First of all, one important thing is we took into account the possibility of birds of a feather flocking together, that happens too. So fit people tend to hang out with fit people and overweight people tend to hang out with overweight people, to some extent.
And in addition, we weren't finding that having someone connected to someone who was heavy, made you heavy; rather what we found is that connected to someone, whether heavy or light, who gained weight, contributed to your weight gain.
So it could be two thin individuals, if one starts gaining weight, then the other might start gaining weight, and it could be two heavy individuals, if one gains even more weight, the other could gain more weight.
And interestingly, we found that not just weight gain but also weight loss spread symmetrically through the network. So both phenomena are occurring

.

Alos0 back to the Theme that started this thread

Norman Swan: So could we be seeing a truly infectious disease epidemic here?

Nicholas Christakis: Yes, that's an excellent question, and there's been a bunch of interesting work looking at potential pathogens that spread from person to person, both viruses actually and also some bacterial pathogens. So a person that has those bacteria, extracts more calories from a packet of food than a person who doesn't.
Absolutely there could be a germ that's spread from person to person that contributes to the obesity epidemic, and so we would really have an epidemic in a biological, not just in a sociological sense.
However nothing in our findings is mutually exclusive with that. That could also be happening; our work wasn't designed to investigate that possibility.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Your social network seems to influence you weight (another report on this previously)
The reasons for this is not clear
Here is a detailed discussion on some recent research
Health Report - 15October2007 - Obesity and social networks
.

Alos0 back to the Theme that started this thread

I personally believe that what we have here is two sociological or psychological issues here. Firstly, plausibility of idea (The way something seems to make sense (germ theory), so we look for evidence to support it: see Strange Claims section for more of this.

Secondly, there is a sociological issue here - habit formation and the company you keep. It may look like germs being spread because that is what you're looking for but this phenomena is more like a 'meme' (see Bristol University's Susan Blackmore's theory on the spread of ideas for definition of this)in that it is a shared idea/response. It is who you hang out with, not disease i.e. bad habits/ the company you keep - recidivist criminals, who move back into the same neighbourhood, when they come out of prison and slip back into old patterns of behaviour because it's easier (pre-programmed), especially as 'old friends' encourage them back into old ways and most of the rest of society tars them with the old brush of villain that they used to wear: It also applies to drinking buddies - so why not foodies?

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

BBC NEWS | Health | Diet choices 'written in genes'

While I would agree with this to some degree, I don't think it's unchangeable. On a personal level I'm not a great fruit eater, usually reaching for carbs as my food of choice but for some reason of late I'm going through the fruit bowl like nobody's business. This indicates genetic habits (like any other) can be broken and isn't set in stone unless you're the one doing it and can't be bothered (stimulated) to change your mind.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

I would say its because most fad-diets (common ones that people pick up from hollywood etc) are not sustainable, so yeah they make you loose some weight for a while, but once you get off it your body bounces back and thinks 'hey I better store some fat in case I dont get to eat properly next month'. Ok I know your body cant 'think' but it makes sense to me

Who says the body doesn't think? Haven't you heard of the holographic theory of mind, that says the same idea can be stored anywhere in the brain as a mini-version of it? So maybe the same idea could be applied to the body as another theory (The Second Brain by Michael Gershon)states - in the way dinosaurs have two brains. Not saying it's necessarily true but it could explain some things and make perfect sense.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

While more or less true, this ignores the fact that the body is not a 100% engine. Much of the fuel (food) we put in can go through us without being stored as fat or used as "quick energy." The human body also has a lot of feedback systems that feed into processes governing metabolism.

Consider the following well documented facts, 1. during periods of high stress, most people gain weight with no change in diet/activity. 2. Healthy people seem to have weight "set points." i.e. eating more or less than usual results in biological feedback to keep weight roughly the same.
-Will

Interesting post. Could the problem then be stress itself?
With regards to the second point homeostasis would seem to imply that there is a genetic component in that people return to a set weight (point of balance for them)i.e. programmed weight level. If it's not genetic then it has to be a learned habit as with children given things/ food to shut them up, rather than attention by good parents (i.e. those interested in their kids as separate, individual beings rather than fashion accessories/ accidents: see Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer, for what that attitude does to dogs, then apply it to humans - it may be a little off the subject but I want to bring in the psychological angle to what is just being considered biologically, in case there is a mental angle rather than just a physical one).