Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Nitack, why do some people gain weight and others do not even though their caloric intake is higher and they are the same or more sedentary that the people gaining weight. I know people who eat like pigs, do very little exercise and stay rail thin. I know others who are very active and eat very little but stay chubby. why?

Great question! First I would like to direct you to a study out of the University of Colorado that was previously linked in this thread. Now we both appreciate the difference between anecdotal evidence, "I know people", and scientific evidence. Read this...
Metabolism alone doesn't explain how thin people stay thin

Metabolism alone doesn't explain how thin people stay thin
August 19, 2008 | John Schieszer

More important factors may be differences in food intake and activity, and the fact that people who gain weight may not truly realize how much they consume

SAN FRANCISCO | Metabolism alone may not explain why some people are fat or thin, according to a study presented at this year’s annual Endocrine Society meeting here.

It is unclear how some individuals remain thin in the current obesigenic environment that promotes significant weight gain in the majority of people. However, researchers with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver say it is not because thin people have a faster metabolism or metabolize their food differently than obese people.

Additionally, those people in no way fall outside of the argument I was making. My argument, put a different way, was that each of us have individual bodies with many many factors that influence our BMR, eating habits, tastes, and the way we process food. No two of us have the same energy needs or expenditures. That is the part of my argument that seems to be getting lost. The next part is this: Once we have a better understanding of our own individual needs and complications, we can change our individual behavior to better match our bodies need, rather than trying to change our bodies (chemistry, genes, etc.) to match our behaviors. If I have a naturally low body temperature (which I coincidentally do) and my body requires less Calories because of it, I can either reduce my Calorie intake to compensate, or increase my Calorie expenditure to compensate.

By the way, that study went on to conclude this...

Unaware of intake
He suggested these findings are important because many thin people think they have a “faster metabolism.” However, Dr. Bessesen said his study shows that is simply a myth. He said primary-care physicians often have a significant number of patients coming in for visits and reporting they are eating less but still gaining weight. But it is more likely that these patients are probably not mentally processing how many calories they are actually consuming.

“Overall, we found no evidence that thin people have a higher metabolic rate on a regular diet or that they burn more energy following a period of overfeeding,” Dr. Bessesen said. “The most important take-home message for clinicians is that people who are tending to gain weight may not be getting accurate information on how much they are eating through biologic mechanisms. So self-monitoring might be an important tool for them, such as keeping food diaries and food records, because they may be eating more than they think.”

Dr. Henry Anhalt, a pediatric endocrinologist in Englewood, N.J., described Dr. Bessesen’s study as an important first step. Until now, he said, most studies have focused on why people become obese and what can be done to prevent obesity. Instead, he hopes more studies like this will look at how normal-weight or thin people avoid obesity in today’s fast-food, “super-size me” culture.

[Kayra]

Originally Posted by Nitack

On this I can actually speak as a relative expert.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

Are only some countries getting fat? According to this report, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf, It is actually happening world wide, in all countries, including your beloved Canada that you seem to think is immune.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

Now you are confusing me, because earlier you said that the focus was to identify the reason why AND possible solutions.

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)

Originally Posted by Nitack

Yes, GB and the US are more drastically affected than say Australia and New Zealand. However that is a very important distinction, which i have tried to make but was ignored, in those four countries. All four countries can be tied back to (at least partially) English or Western European descent.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

That was a very intelligent post and I have read it multiple times. You are looking for more answers, I think that is great and fully encourage it.

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

Originally Posted by Nitack

I get the feeling that there are some that are not satisfied with the answer we know to be true and are grasping for a different answer. Say that Calories in vs. Calories out is "oversimplified" if you want, but I think too many people are trying to complicate the issue because they don't like the implications of what we know to be true.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

I think the answer has already been found, and I am onto discussing the solutions. Instead of letting me run along that line, and discuss what could be solutions to that answer, your response has been to try to shut me up until Kayra has declared the answer found. You dismiss my stabs at solutions with out even being able to show that the answer I believe in is incorrect.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

Your argument is to stop postulating on one theory because you are not satisfied that all others have not yet been flushed out.

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.

Originally Posted by Nitack

The crux of your argument is that the search for a cause may not yet be complete. The crux of my argument is that we have a plausible answer and should further explore that. The two do not have to preclude each other from continuing, but you seem to think that even discussing one is some how premature.

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

[pamela]

Nitack

Now we both appreciate the difference between anecdotal evidence, "I know people", and scientific evidence

Correct if I am wrong here, but aren't the "people", the subjects used in your double blind study scientific evidence?

No two of us have the same energy needs or expenditures. That is the part of my argument that seems to be getting lost

Trust me, no one is missing a word that you are posting.
Supersize this-
There is a much larger problem going on than just being sedentary and eating a few too many calories

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by pamela

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]

Originally Posted by Kayra

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

Originally Posted by Kayra

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.

Originally Posted by Kayra

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.

Originally Posted by Kayra

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!

Originally Posted by Kayra

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*

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.

Originally Posted by Kayra

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

Originally Posted by Kayra

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.

Originally Posted by Kayra

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 ass when I get in to these type of discussions.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Kayra

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]

Originally Posted by cooloola

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.