Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

I do not mean to sound ignorant, but I believe (at least in the United States) this is bull.

I know I gained weight by not doing anything and eating more than I needed. I know in the United States, the culture is 'more food'. The idea is that you pay for quantity, not quality. I only wish I lived in a European country, where the idea was quality over quantity. I'd rather have really good food rather than lots of it.

This virus may exist, but it might just be a coincidence. Maybe fat people just are too lazy to wash their hands, thus more prone to disease.

BTW, I'm legally overweight, so I'm not just making fun of another group of people.

Dannie,

Not all of us think that there is some voodoo cause for obesity. Some of us (like myself) do think that the root cause is not enough movement and too much food intake. I feel that all of the other stuff posted here like viruses, bacteria, processing food, etc, do have a real effect, but they only influence one side of the energy equation (energy in vs. energy out) and do not hold the ultimate answer. Others here feel that there must be some explanation beyond just the energy in vs. energy out theory. Be warned, some people here will call you "simplistic" for daring to state that you feel that this is a problem of lifestyle and there is not some underlying cause that can be scientifically investigated and solved. And for full disclosure, I too am well overweight and got that way through my own choices and maintaining an intake of food that exceeded my daily energy needs.

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by Nitack

Dannie,

Not all of us think that there is some voodoo cause for obesity. Some of us (like myself) do think that the root cause is not enough movement and too much food intake. I feel that all of the other stuff posted here like viruses, bacteria, processing food, etc, do have a real effect, but they only influence one side of the energy equation (energy in vs. energy out) and do not hold the ultimate answer. Others here feel that there must be some explanation beyond just the energy in vs. energy out theory. Be warned, some people here will call you "simplistic" for daring to state that you feel that this is a problem of lifestyle and there is not some underlying cause that can be scientifically investigated and solved. And for full disclosure, I too am well overweight and got that way through my own choices and maintaining an intake of food that exceeded my daily energy needs.

I sympathise with your idea that their is not ALWAYS a direct in v. out scenario; for example, certain birth controls can make women gain weight. Obviously it is no longer that simple scenario 100% - however, I believe that the large majority of people do not even realise how little energy they use. For instance, it is well known that doctors do not always believe their patients who say they 'Eat healthy and exercise but are still overweight'. People underestimate how much they eat and overesetimate how much they exercise, making them believe that there MUST not be a reason for them to be fat other than some disease or virus. I know people who tell me they always eat right and exercise - then turn around and eat a plateful of Cuban food (which, by the way, is EXTREMELY calorie-enriched) and sit in front of a computer all day. They exercise a lot because once a month they do some yardwork for 2-4 hours.

So, yes, they may call be simplistic and negative, but I prefer the more accurate term 'realistic'.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the problems that makes it harder to reduce the rate of obesity, is because science creates too many excuses. All these excuses are created by empirical science. Although empirical correlation may show useful trends in populations, it does not firmly point the finger to you, you or you. As such, if you are part of a population, you get to use the excuse even if there is no cause and effect for you as an individual.

For example, if one made a valid correlation that showed that purple people are more prone to obesity, and I am a purple person, and want to eat more, I can use this excuse and say it is in my ethnic makeup. I am covered by the umbrella. If I start to exercise and get bored I can say, why do I bother, I am purple and purple people have been shown to be bigger than other groups.

If a study could correlate auto exhaust and obesity, I could use that as an excuse to go to the big city for dining. The traffic is particularly bad today, which may explain why I crave two desserts. Empirical science organizes the data in ways where there is plenty of room under a bunch of umbrellas for people who don't belong in the world of cause and effect.

Let me give an example how the umbrella effect works. The family is planning a camping trip. Before we go, we will do a bunch of studies. One study states that particular date shows an increase incident of rain based on historical data over 100 years. A random sampling of camps sites shows there are an average of 0.1 ant hills on each site, which has doubled the risks from last year. If I don't want to go camping, but wish to stay home, I now have two good scientific excuses, which may not occur on that day on that site, when the family gets there. If we didn't have this umbrella, I would have no scientific excuse to stay home. It would look irrational.

[dannieyankee]

I quite agree, HydrogenBond. The main problem with people getting fat is that there is no one really pointing a finger at them and saying 'This is something you brought upon yourself, now do something about it'. All these excuses being generated makes it seem like it is less necessary to fix it, because it's not really your fault.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One of the problems that makes it harder to reduce the rate of obesity, is because science creates too many excuses. All these excuses are created by empirical science. Although empirical correlation may show useful trends in populations, it does not firmly point the finger to you, you or you. As such, if you are part of a population, you get to use the excuse even if there is no cause and effect for you as an individual.

For example, if one made a valid correlation that showed that purple people are more prone to obesity, and I am a purple person, and want to eat more, I can use this excuse and say it is in my ethnic makeup. I am covered by the umbrella. If I start to exercise and get bored I can say, why do I bother, I am purple and purple people have been shown to be bigger than other groups.

If a study could correlate auto exhaust and obesity, I could use that as an excuse to go to the big city for dining. The traffic is particularly bad today, which may explain why I crave two desserts. Empirical science organizes the data in ways where there is plenty of room under a bunch of umbrellas for people who don't belong in the world of cause and effect.

Let me give an example how the umbrella effect works. The family is planning a camping trip. Before we go, we will do a bunch of studies. One study states that particular date shows an increase incident of rain based on historical data over 100 years. A random sampling of camps sites shows there are an average of 0.1 ant hills on each site, which has doubled the risks from last year. If I don't want to go camping, but wish to stay home, I now have two good scientific excuses, which may not occur on that day on that site, when the family gets there. If we didn't have this umbrella, I would have no scientific excuse to stay home. It would look irrational.

WTF are you trying to say??

You have not explained anything having to to do with obesity.

It is Very Simple People!
Burn more Calories than you Ingest!

I

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Racoon

WTF are you trying to say??

You have not explained anything having to to do with obesity.

It is Very Simple People!
Burn more Calories than you Ingest!

I

He actually explained a very good point to this whole debate. This very thread is indicative of the problem. Science has provided us with a wealth of data that suggests that there are mitigating factors which can explain why some people burn less calories or might be prone to eat more than they need.

The problem is that people in general tend to rationalize in order to protect their fragile egos. Science has provided a way for obese people to rationalize out that it must not be their fault because they heard on the radio, or read a blurb in a newspaper that says that some people are prone to weight gain. Those people do not hear "prone" or even "more likely", all they hear is "causes weight gain" and rationalize out that they must be one of those people. They did not understand what was being said, nor did they even confirm that they are part of the affected group. But it is far easier to believe that you are a victim of a biological conspiracy to make you fat, than to own up to your own actions (or lack of) and admit that you made yourself fat through poor choices.

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting how ingrained the 'fat-people are lazy' prejudice is.
I am not saying that over-eating fatty foods and lack of exercise is NOT a problem especially in the States. Oz visitors/tourists there cannot believe the size of restaurant meals-- and we are big eaters.
There are other factors like soft drink in plastic bottles, drugs, hereditary, body's processing ability, epigenetics, that help explain obesity in countries where people are starving.

[Michaelangelica]

Q: In the online audio presentation, Dr. Dana Dolinoy states that the epigenome is responsible for determination of cell type and activity. Does the bisphenol A finding suggest that fetal or environmental exposure to plastics could play a direct role in a genetic propensity toward obesity in humans?
Chantel Smith, Toronto, Canada

Q: Could there be a connection between the increase in plastics in our environment and rising obesity rates?
Randy Grenier, Waltham, Massachusetts

A: We have recently demonstrated that exposure of pregnant mice to bisphenol A (BPA), a building block of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins used to make consumer items ranging from water bottles to dental sealants, significantly reduces DNA methylation in Avy mice (Dolinoy et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 13056-13061, 2007). This results in the birth of more yellow offspring, mice that become obese and have a higher incidence of diabetes and cancer as adults. Thus, there could be a connection between the increase in plastics in our environment and the rising incidence of obesity in humans. However, such an association will not be able to be demonstrated unequivocally until the expression and function of genes involved in human obesity are shown to be altered by BPA.

[Editor's note: For more on the agouti mice, see A Tale of Two Mice.]

Q: If BPA has the same effect on humans as it did the mice in your study, why aren't all human babies born sick and obese?
Anonymous

A: BPA exposure during pregnancy increases the incidence of yellow offspring, but it does not result in all of the offspring having a yellow coat color and becoming obese. Therefore, if BPA has the same effect on humans as it does in mice, it would simply increase the percentage of humans who become obese as the BPA exposure increases. This happens to be the situation found in Western cultures, regardless of whether BPA is the culprit.

Q: How do the exposure levels of BPA in the agouti mice experiments compare to human exposure levels—especially exposure levels in pregnant women?
Dr. Gloria Jahnke, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

A: It is difficult to compare the BPA dose used in our mouse study with that to which humans are exposed, because in humans, the BPA is found in the plasma or excreted in the urine. We can't tell exactly how much of the chemical people ingest. The level of BPA that the pregnant mice were exposed to in our study was five times lower than the maximum nontoxic threshold dose in rodents (Dolinoy et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 13056-13061, 2007). Although this is likely higher than typical human exposure, it produced no significant effects on reproductive outcomes, litter size, or offspring health at birth. It did, however, markedly increase the incidence of mice born with a yellow coat color—animals that become obese and have higher incidences of diabetes and cancer as adults.

NOVA | scienceNOW | Epigenetics: Ask the Expert | PBS

[Michaelangelica]

Chili peppers deliver red hot weight control potential
By Shane Starling, 19-Mar-2009

Related topics: Industry, Antioxidants, carotenoids, Phytochemicals, plant extracts, Weight management

Carotenoid specialist, OmniActive Health Technologies, is moving ahead with its chili extract preliminary research indicates can burn 278 calories more than placebo in exercising subjects before, with dietary supplements manufacturers coming on board.
The Indian company that has done most of its business in lutein and curcumin, presented its Capsimax-branded chili extract at Expo West in Anaheim recently, where it noted a growing body of science backing the thermogenic potential of chili extracts – i.e. the ability to increase metabolic and calorie-burn rates.

Chili peppers deliver red hot weight control potential

Grape polyphenols may protect against obesity: Study
By Stephen Daniells, 18-Mar-2009

Related topics: Research, Antioxidants, carotenoids, Phytochemicals, plant extracts, Weight management

Antioxidant-rich supplements containing polyphenols from Chardonnay grape seed may protect against oxidative stress linked to obesity, suggests a new study with hamsters.
Researchers from the University of Montpellier report that animals fed a high-fat diet but supplemented with the grape seed extract had adiponectin levels 61 per cent higher than animals only fed the high fat diet. Adiponectin is a protein hormone linked to various metabolic processes, and levels are inversely related to body fat levels.

Grape polyphenols may protect against obesity: Study

[Michaelangelica]

Fat Factors

By ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG
Published: August 13, 2006NYT

In the 30-plus years that Richard Atkinson has been studying obesity, he has always maintained that overeating doesn’t really explain it all. His epiphany came early in his career, when he was a medical fellow at U.C.L.A. engaged in a study of people who weighed more than 300 pounds and had come in for obesity surgery.
“The general thought at the time was that fat people ate too much,” Atkinson, now at Virginia Commonwealth University, told me recently. “And we documented that fat people do eat too much — our subjects ate an average of 6,700 calories a day.
But what was so impressive to me was the fact that not all fat people eat too much.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/ma...z+Henig&st=nyt