Slashdot Mirror


Obesity Contagious?

An anonymous reader writes "University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers have found that certain human viruses may cause obesity, and by extension make being severely overweight a contagious condition. 'It makes people feel more comfortable to think that obesity stems from lack of control,' the lead researcher says. 'It's a big mental leap to think you can catch obesity.' But other diseases once chalked up to environmental factors, like stomach ulcers, are now known to stem from infectious agents."

50 of 840 comments (clear)

  1. Common viruses to look out for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    clear cut and easy to remember: "Burger King", "McDonalds", etc.

    1. Re:Common viruses to look out for... by cocoamix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, the dreaded Fat Cow Disease.

    2. Re:Common viruses to look out for... by dstewart · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's odd that the idea that a virus can contribute to, or even be a causation of obesity is so poorly received here. Bear in mind that these are experiments on test animals on a controlled diet, not some survey of McDonalds patrons.

      Perhaps because the linked article was a blog...

      Study on rhesus monkeys and marmosets.

      "In study 1, we observed spontaneously occurring Ad-36 antibodies in 15 male rhesus monkeys, and a significant longitudinal association of positive antibody status with weight gain and plasma cholesterol lowering during the 18 mo after viral antibody appearance. In study 2, which was a randomized controlled experiment, three male marmosets inoculated with Ad-36 had a threefold body weight gain, a greater fat gain and lower serum cholesterol relative to baseline (P 0.05) than three uninfected controls at 28 wk postinoculation. These studies illustrate that the adiposity-promoting effect of Ad-36 occurs in two nonhuman primate species and demonstrates the usefulness of nonhuman primates for further evaluation of Ad-36-induced adiposity."

      --
      Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
  2. New Cartman saying.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not fat, I'm diseased.

  3. People are Obese regarless of Income or Geography by tcd004 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's an interesting report from FP Magazine on obesity as a global epidemic. Interesting to note that obesity seems to occur independent of the financial factors that you would assume cause obesity. Report is a PDF download. tcd004

  4. Funny thing by g8oz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how this virus is so widespread in the United States.

    I'm sure it has nothing to do with the availability of junk food and the national automobile culture.

    1. Re:Funny thing by TClevenger · · Score: 4, Interesting
      We visited London last October (my first trip out of the US.) I was amazed that you could go to any grocery store or drugstore, and many roadside stands, and get an excellent sandwich (not the all-bread-and-lettuce Subway variety, but a REAL sandwich), a bag of chips and a half liter of diet soda for less than the cost of a fast food meal. Also, since you can take the Tube practically anywhere, there's more walking and less driving involved for a good portion of the populace. (We never felt the need for a car the whole trip.)

      Contrast that with America, where many technology parks and shopping centers don't even have proper sidewalks, and where the fastest, cheapest food you can get is at McDonalds, and it's no wonder Americans are fat.

    2. Re:Funny thing by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hence the "automobile culture" remark made by the other guy.

      When I was living in Europe, specifically Germany, people viewed someplace that took half-an-hour away as pretty long and a city 2 hours away as a "trip". It was the norm to be able to work/bike to the local grocery store 5-15 minutes away (for that mode of transport) and get what you need. For work, lots of people took the train, which also required walking.

      Holland is even greater in bike usage.

      Part of the reason that Europe has everything close together is that stores, restaurants, etcetera can be comfortably intermingled amoung the neighborhoods. The only thing I saw zoned "away" from other things was industrial.

      In America, rural zoning tends to be much more isolationist - suburbs are islands to themselves - without a store in sight. It's quite depressing actually. It also leads to the "not being able to walk or bike anywhere" syndrome.

    3. Re:Funny thing by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget that most of Europe's city planning was complete before the advent of the automobile. Older US cities tend to follow the European path more often that not (New York, Philly, Boston, Chicago). Generally speaking, the newer the city, the more likely lots of driving will be required. This is especially true the further west you go (Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles...San Francisco is aberrantly more like east coast cities, but probably because it was the west coast's first real city in the mid-19th century).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Funny thing by dlZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been wanting to visit Europe for some time now, just haven't had the chance just yet. I do make the trip down to NYC pretty often, though. I park my car in Jersey City, and don't touch it again till I leave (we stay are a relative's flat there.) Take the train into the city, and just walk or take the subway to get places. I love it. Where I live, I have to drive to get anywhere and there is no real public transportation. I live in a suburb of Syracuse, NY (about 5 minute drive from the main part of the city.) It's not like a live in a little town or village.

      Where I live I feel like I'm in the minority of people at a healthy weight. In NYC, I'm the norm. But then, there are many restuarants in the city with healthy food that tastes good (we ate at an amazing vegan place this weekend, Angelica Kitchen. It's on 12th St between 1st and 2nd Ave. Worth the wait if there is one!)

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    5. Re:Funny thing by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In America, rural zoning tends to be much more isolationist - suburbs are islands to themselves - without a store in sight. It's quite depressing actually.

      ... and also quite dangerous. The entire economy and even basic survival hinges on those service station pumps never running dry. I don't see how the US could survive another 70s style oil embargo given the incredible suburban expansion of the last 25 years.

    6. Re:Funny thing by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, we should take a cue from the British. They've cleverly designed their food so as to discourage its consumption.

  5. Virus Warning by Mr.Ziggy · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I fully cook it, can I eat fat people without getting fat?

  6. Everything is contagious, in the social sense by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Check out Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

    There are some staggering data in there regarding the extent to which humans mimic the behavior of similar others. For example, there are statistically significant increases in the number of teenage-couples killed in car accidents among those teenage-couples who recently heard about accidents where teenage couples were killed. The increase is not observed in teenage-couples who didn't hear about the recent accidents, and is not observed among singleton teenagers or older couples who have been exposed to the news. These results have been repeated with a wide range of demographic groups, on a wide range of phenomena, and have been found to be consistent and strong. Hmm, notice a rash of mine accidents recently? Yes, I'm sure it's media focus-bias to some extent...

    I really urge you to check that book out if you're interested in the instinct-level mental processes that control us without our being aware of them, or if you want to be..ah...evil?

    1. Re:Everything is contagious, in the social sense by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I definitely believe that in humans, the power of suggestion and the placebo effect are quite powerful.

      That's why, though, that we do double-blind studies, and tests on animals.

      I doubt the animals in the study were susceptible to suggestion - yet the ones with one of the virii did indeed become more obese.

  7. Virus or no by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Virus or no, the truth remains that if you eat less than your daily caloric requirement, you will lose weight. Being unable to control your intake of food DOES indicate a certain lack of control. It's hard to do -- I know this personally. But even if I knew I was infected with a virus I would still lay the responsibility squarely on my own shoulders.

    Despite my attempts to keep this comment civil, I'm sure some will take offense...

    1. Re:Virus or no by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I can believe that for some people it is beyond their psychological abilities to reduce their eating. But lock them in a room and limit them to 1000 calories a day, and they'll lose the weight. They'll also probably shoot you when they get out. Maybe what some of these folks need is a stay in a psychiatric facility where their food intake can be controlled by someone other than themselves, and receive counseling. Somehow I think the idea of chronic overeating as a psychiatric disorder will not go over well, though.
      Actually, I doubt it's beyond anybody's physiological ability, but I think it may well be beyond some of our economic abilities. Let me state, up front, that I am enormously overweight, at over 400 lbs. I can lose weight if I very carefully limit my food intake. But doing so requires an enormous amount of emotional, spiritual, and mental energy.

      The problem is that I don't have the time to put out the energy (of all kinds) that weight loss requires. I work two jobs (one for God, and one for currency) and at the end of the day I'm /tired/, and I simply don't have the energy to ask myself how many calories my dinner has. I just want to eat something and collapse on the account.

      The real bottom line of this article, along with related research into Syndrome X, etc. is that me and people like me are placed at an enormous disadvantage because, due to genetics or a virus or whatever, we are handicapped when it comes to weight loss. It's not that we are physiologically impossible to reduce eating, but that everything in our culture works against it and it just becomes too much damned hassle.

      Our society makes allowances for people with other sorts of handicaps -- e.g. wheelchair ramps. Should we also make allowances for people with lousy metabolisms? For example ... why shouldn't restaraunt chains be required to provide calorie counts on a meal, printed on the menu? All the fast food places already do this, but you have to ask for it, and it's much harder to get this information "on the fly" for non fast-food restaraunts. This information would would be especially helpful if it included the Glycemic Index.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    2. Re:Virus or no by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our society makes allowances for people with other sorts of handicaps -- e.g. wheelchair ramps.

      Except that you can lose weight, someone in a wheelchair cannot grow legs/nerves/bones (or whatever else is preventing them from being able to walk). You said yourself it wouldn't be easy to lose weight, but it is possible. For better or worse, your weight is your responsibility. It is inappropriate for you to expect society to conform to your needs. It's different when someone cannot change their condition, which is why we (try to) make things easier for the lame, the blind, the deaf, and, of course, Pamela Anderson.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Interesting as a possible side cause by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are, as with all things, multiple factors:

    1. Genetics
    2. Environment
    3. Disease

    Someone who is prone to ulcers (genetics) and works as a stock trader on the floor of Wall Street and doesn't eat well/doesn't exercise (environment) and catches the right germ (disease) is more likely to come down with an ulcer than the sheep herder in Wyoming who's only worry is someone using the word "brokeback" to them.

    The same thing could be here. I know people who have struggled with their weight - they exercise, they try to eat well, and yet the pounds don't come off. Perhaps, like ulcers, there can be a simple protein check before dieting and exercise of "OK - looks like you have the virus. Let's clear that up while we change your eating and exercise habits", which will give many people hope before they have to resort to surgery.

    Hopefully it won't just be an excuse for the lazy, like the Wall Street trader who'd rather take a pill for the ulcer rather than taking time out to go relax with their family and loved ones.

    Now, with that said, I'm heading out and getting a whopper ;).

  10. Re:Yea right by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cure to obesity is to eat and live healthier, but it is clear that lifestyle is not the only cause. Many overweight people eat less and exercise more than other people with more ideal weights.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  11. Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for the particle physicists to confirm the existence of the subatomic particle that causes procrastination. I was going to suggest a funny name for it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  12. Limited credibility. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There are actual biological disorders known to cause obesity, so it is entirely possible that some fraction of those may be caused by a contageous pathogen. That is not impossible. Improbable, as the law of conservation of energy prohibits energy being created out of nothing, but not impossible.


    The two most common causes of obesity are compulsive overeating (which is an actual addition and can often only be effectively treated as such), and gratuitous overeating (where the person is just a slob). The latter is rarer than you might think, as being a slob is not much of a survival trait. Addictions, however, are often derived from survival traits. Severely deranged ones, but survival traits nonetheless.


    Now, addictive behaviours can appear to be contageous, as extreme dysfunctions tend to create extreme stress in others, which can in turn cause those others to become dysfunctional themselves. (We're talking fairly extreme cases, here.) As such, any research that theorises pathogens must first eliminate acutely dysfunctional groups. Otherwise, you're going to end up chasing shadows.


    Eliminating acutely dysfunctional researchers who are paid by corporate sponsors to achieve pre-defined results would also be a good idea, but that would eliminate 95% of all researchers, which could cause problems down the road.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. Conservation of energy revoked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, we will have hordes of overweight people going "See, told you so! I'm sick!"

    What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much, compared to how much energy their bodies spend on moving and keeping you alive. End of discussion.

    No matter which disease one may have, you will not catch 25 pounds from taking a stroll through the mall or, say, through breathing thin air. If a disease lowers the energy requirements of the body, the cure is to eat proportionally less.

    TFA isn't clear on this, but I wonder precisely what is suggested being the cause of obesity in 'infected' individuals. Are they saying people simply become unable to control the urge to eat uncontrolled amounts of unhealthy foods?

    So how do you catch 'soccer moms', no bikes as kids, McD dinners and no exercise in school?

    Also strange is the fact that ulcers were commonplace all over the world, due to often being an infectious disease. Yet I wonder why the Europeans haven't 'caught' obesity on the US level yet? It is not like we haven't been mingling with them for, say, a few hundred years.

    1. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much, compared to how much energy their bodies spend on moving and keeping you alive. End of discussion.
      [snip]
      If a disease lowers the energy requirements of the body, the cure is to eat proportionally less.


      For some people "too much" food might be just enough to nourish them. It's not widely reported, but lots of dieting fat people die and/or suffer severe health problems from malnutrition every year. Still fat, yet starved of required nutrients.

      We've tried bullying fat people to "quit eating so much and go for a walk" for decades now. Results have not been stellar. Maybe we ought to try something else. Maybe it might be worth a shot to afford them the dignity of any other human beings, and find ways to help them get thinner.

      It's not like fat people want to be fat. You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance. There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it.

      Something is clearly wrong with these people, whether it's psychological or physiological. Instead of mockingly call them out for being less wonderful than you (when, for all you know, you would fair far worse if cursed with their metabolism), how about we try to find a solution.

      In spite of how much the results of studies like this might displease the "personal responsibility uber alles" crowd, I'm glad studies like this are being done. If there really does turn out to be a viral cause, discovery of it is cause for celebration.

      Science before dogma.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm- I think that we focus too much on weight and not enough on health. If someone is rail thin because they crash diet and are malnourished, that is not healthy...
      But eating fresh non processed foods and getting daily exercise is healthy for anyone.
      Obesity in the US is becoming a public health emergency. Did you see the 6 day series in the New York Times about Type II diabetes? It showed some people who couldn't stop eating junk food, even though it would mean they would lose a foot or go blind...

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    3. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by Archtech · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much... End of discussion".

      Unless you are an expert on human metabolism, you cannot possibly make such an assertion. And if you were, you wouldn't.

      What you overlook is that human beings are animals, and hence complex biochemical factories, not simple heat engines. If you know how much petrol a car engine of a given capacity burns in a given time, you know how much energy it produces, right? (Even this is only broadly true). But animals are very inefficient converters of energy. I forget how much of the energy we use gets "wasted" as heat, but it's a large fraction. (Just as well, or we'd die of hypothermia). Other energy goes into running various chemical reactions, not all of which are necessarily indispensable or even useful.

      As soon as you think about if for a few seconds, it's clear that the body has a lot of discretion in just how it uses the 200 calories you get from, say, eating a bun. These viruses could jam the "make fat" control hard over against the end stop.

      Maybe you think it is fine for one person to eat 2900 calories a day, do little exercise, and stay thin; while another person eats 2000 calories, walks six miles and gains weight. But how is the second person going to control their weight in the long run? The only practical way we have of controlling calorie intake is our appetite. Have you ever tried measuring your exact calorie intake while eating a normal diet? It's far from easy. Moreover, how are people to know how much they should be eating, if it's 2000 for one person and 3000 for someone else of similar size, shape, and exercise habits? We can't all become dietary scientists, walking about with computers and clipboards, weighing every bite of food we eat.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We HAVE solutions. They just aren't quick or pleasant. The solution to gross obesity is to radically alter your lifestyle PERMANENTLY.

      Yes, and the solution to kick heroin is to stop shooting up, but even if you TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, a junkie is still going to need more help then you shouting at them.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by n9uxu8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhmmm...not to be all PC or anything, but I AM fat and there is nothing wrong with me. I eat a bit too much and tend to pray at the alter of convenience a bit too often. It's not a virus, it's nobody's fault but my own, and it's none of your @$*! business (societally-speaking, please don't feel that that is directed at you)!

      I put more miles on a bicyle in a month than I'm betting most of you do in a year, I work out regularly and have developed a liking for yoga. Still fat, but I start a long-term diet program on Monday (after the trip out to see Kevin Smith talk in Indy) which will likely help take off unwanted pounds.

      My point? We're all individuals. Some folks are fat; some are thin. Some folks want to blame someone/thing else for lifes woes; some don't. Some folks are fat for medical conditions beyond their control; some folks are fat because chicken wings is tasty. Whatever...it's individual and statements such as "Something is clearly wrong with these people" piss me off.

      Dave

    6. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry I'm not going to start feeling sorry for a condition where the solution is as simple as 'put down the sandwich.' There's too many people with real problems.

      Quick question: Did you feel sorry for the major Type A personality business person who ended up in the hospital due to a severe ulcer? Was it their fault they got one from working too hard and being too stressed?

      Do you feel differently now that ulcers have been linked to bacteria and not environment?

      How many people here point and laugh at anyone who belives in ID instead of real science, but in this case are basing their comments on their BELIEFS about obesity and not looking at the very interesting science these researchers are doing.

    7. Re:Conservation of energy revoked? by Hoknor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The issue you are missing here is that for some obese people, it's not excess storage, it's missallocated storage. They contract a virus that lives in and feeds on fat cells, so it encourages the person who has a healthy diet and who gets exercise to continue storing nutritional intake as more fat cells instead of as the muscle cells that they would have stored that nutrition as if they did not have the virus. That is what is being suggested by these studies.
        This is also what is leading nutrition experts to question the portayal of obesity in and of itself as a health risk. It's just not the case that being over a certain weight means you are at risk for disease, it's an indicator that you will want to monitor certain things perhaps, but at the end of the day, skinny or fat, if you binge on sugar, you are at risk for diabetes.

  14. Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well duh...

    Look, the cause of obesity is really very simple: the human body (and its ancestors) evolved in environments in which food was scarce, and during that time mechanisms came into being which helped to deal with that scarcity. As a result, it has built-in mechanisms to ensure that there will be sufficient energy store for the body to use for all but the most drastic of food shortages. These mechanisms include the fat store, the tendency for fat to accumulate much more easily than it's used, and an appetite control mechanism that encourages overeating (since who knows when the next meal will become available?).

    Now take the human body and put it into an environment where all the food one could ever want is easily available for the taking (all it requires is a small amount of money). What do you expect will happen?

    Well, duh...the body will behave as it always has: under the assumption that while food might be plentiful now, it's not likely to be plentiful for long, so better stock up now while it can.

    And thus, obesity.

    And the reason obesity is so difficult to deal with, and why sustained weight loss has such a lousy track record (95%+ failure rate), is simple: to fight obesity, you have to fight your own body's instinctive drive to "save up for a rainy day".

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  15. Contrary to what you guys are ranting... by Churla · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't think their study is trying to say 'Cure this virus and cure obesity'. It seems more to point towards reasons that some people invariably gain more weight eating the same foods as others. There are factors of caloric absorbtion, and also factors of metabolisms being capable of breaking down and using fat. Many metabolic processes can easily be affected by contagens in the system.

    What is to say that some viruses might also be affecting this?

    If some treatment can just help a person who has struggled against weight their whole life have a slightly easier struggle without harming their body in a more severe way then more power to them.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  16. Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition... by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's called "intaking more calories than you output."

    Different people output different amounts of energy. Some people burn hundreds of calories just sitting in front of the TV, because they are jittery. Others can work out every day and still just barely keep up with the caloric intake of a healthy diet.

    If staying in shape comes relatively easy for you, I find it quite repugnant to ascribe the failure of less-lucky folk to stay skinny to some moral shortcoming.

    And I'm saying this as somebody who runs 3-4 miles a day and drastically limits his sugar intake. For me, staying healthy is a part-time career that occupies a good chunk of my day. As hard as it is for me, I know for a fact that there are a lot of overweight people who could not possibly live my lifestyle. For one thing, their knees would cruble in a matter of weeks. For another, their various food cravings are a lot stronger than mine.

    Maybe some of them can pull it off, but there are addictive drugs out there which have a better rate of recovery than obesity. Shouldn't we all consider that there may be more treatment required than shouting "stop being so lazy, fatty" at them?

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, we used to run after our food and throw spears at it before we could eat. Or even walk a long ways to find enough berries to nibble on. Now, we just hop in our cars and drive to the grocery store. Gobs of food, AND little or no physical exertion to get it. That's not what our bodies were designed for.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  19. Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin by mo^ · · Score: 5, Funny

    The LaterOn ?

    --
    bah!*@%!
  20. Age is also a factor by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I was in my 20's, I was lean as a rail and I probably kept 3 grocery stores in business single-stomached. Now, I'm 20 years older, 80 pounds heavier, and I eat a tiny fraction of what I did then.

    I don't run 3-4 miles a day, but I'm not a couch potato either. I take regular walks in the good weather, and use the stairs instead of the elevator, but it doesn't seem to help.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  21. Re:Doubtful and absurd: by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people could gain or lose a couple dozen pounds through changes in diet and excercise, this is true. However, there are *also* factors not in the individual's control which may be much larger. More and more the evidence suggests that (for those with no lack of basic protein) excercise causes one to lose weight not because of "burning fat", but because it signals the body to store less fat.

    Ultimately, body chemistry determines what percentage of calories are stored as fat, and what percentage are eliminated. There are cases of obese people starving themselves to death while remaining obese. Sometimes the body just malfunctions.

    It seems like you feel a strong need to force your values on others.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  22. Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin by dthrall · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you had read the article instead of simply scrambling to get the first post filled with nothing but your pre-conceptions and derogatory generalization of the people who live in one particular state, you would have noticed that the study made no attempt to use this as an excuse, but rather proposed that this may be a contributing factor. From TFA:
    "The nearly simultaneous increase in the prevalence of obesity in most countries of the world is difficult to explain by changes in food intake and exercise alone, and suggest that adenoviruses could have contributed," the study said. "The role of adenoviruses in the worldwide epidemic of obesity is a critical question that demands additional research."
    And just to avoid any more of your preconceptions, I am:
    • sitting in Madison right now
    • not overweight at all
    • waiting for intelligent input on the topic
  23. Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition... by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you eat less than your body requires, by definition, you die. Being able to eat less and lose weight instead of starving while fat depends on the ability to get blood sugar out of fat, which is compromised in people with a number of conditions. It also depends on having a low-calorie source of non-energy nutrients, which is often expensive. It also depends on being able to maintain a reasonable blood sugar level without more energy being taken out as fat.

    For people without a medical condition that causes obesity, it is possible to take in fewer calories and run off of fat instead. But there are a number of medical conditions which can interfere with this process, which depends on a non-trivial cascade of signals between different organs (something has to detect that your blood sugar is low; it has to release a hormone in response; the fat cells have to respond to this hormone; they have to produce sugar from fat; the fat cells have to stop pulling sugar out of the bloodstream and storing the energy). This research found that some people are obese because of a particular virus. Of course, most of the people they looked at probably just eat too much, but not everybody.

  24. But the cause of being overweight is OBVIOUS! by NiteShaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, so there are lots and lots of comments here that boil down to "put the cheeseburger down!", but in a stunning reversal, I actually RTFA. True, people should try to eat well, and on the whole I agree that most people should spend a little more time walking (or biking, or jogging, or whatever) and a little less time in front of the television. That being said, the article raises some interesting possibilities. If viral activity could be a cause of weight-gain, I'd rather know about it than simply insist that the guy who's oozing out of the sides of his seat down the aisle from me has no self-control.

    There was a time when illness was "obviously" the result of evil spirits playing havoc on people who were not devout enough. I'll bet at some point there were people standing around the village square commenting on how "if that fool had just spent a little more time praying than [insert sinful activity here], he obviously wouldn't be lying on the ground hacking up a lung and burning up from fever". Just because this line of research goes against what we believe to be common-knowledge isn't really a reason to jump all over it, we can be wrong.

    So, no, it's clearly not an excuse to give up eating well or exercising, but I'm not going to just say there's nothing to this until there's been a bit more study.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  25. Taught early -- in daycare? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife and I put our son into daycare at 3 months. After maybe two months, we changed his formula intake -- 2, 8oz bottles instead of 3 4-oz bottles to try to shift his feeding into the daytime and get him off a nighttime bottle.

    We got immediate "feedback" from the staff about "cutting" his intake. I had to explain to them that it was actually a net increase for daytime feeding (16 vs. 12 oz) and his overall intake was actually up by 4 oz. They politely disagreed and we said we'd change it back if problems arose. After a week it was a non-issue.

    After thinking about it, I realized what the real issue was -- the staff liked to feed him more frequently and we believed they were actually using the feeding as a way to soothe him; the feeding times for the bottles varied quite a bit. By cutting him to two bottles a day, they were "losing" a soothing option.

    It was then that I started thinking about the staff; all of them would qualify as overweight, three of them would probably qualify as obese and one of them probably is pushing the morbidly obese standard.

    I started wondering if the childhood obesity phenomenon couldn't partly be traced to daycare; at an early age, if given the opportunity, the staff will use food the way they probably use it themselves -- as a way to soothe and manage anxiety.

    I'm probably stretching this a lot, but it doesn't seem entirely unrealistic. Kids in increasingly large numbers since the 1970s have been put into daycares, and they've been subjected to food as a behavior modifier -- soothing babies, calming toddlers, and so on. The fact that daycare providers are, by and large, at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder probably also means that the kids are being subjected to the caregivers own poor habits as well.

    I know there are other influences (TV, advertising, parental disregard, etc), but I do wonder if bad food choices in daycare doesn't lay the groundwork for a fairly deep-seated set of food/emotion connections that play out as the child gets older and has more opportunity to make their own food choices.

  26. Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp by WinterSolstice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please don't forget one other major factor -

    Food used to be fairly simple. Thousands of years of grains/meats/herbs combined with moderately low heat on an individual basis. Modern food processing (for those of us that eat in such countries) involves food processes, chemicals, and techniques that we certainly did not evolve for. High fructose corn syrup in almost everything (hamburger buns? WTF?), foods created by superheating and injecting gases, and foods assembled in a laboratory are definately a curve ball.

    I doubt anyone would drink soda if they actually had to form it from its core components. I can handle cooking steak, pastries, etc. I know how to grow/hunt the ingredients for most foods. Where does one hunt the wild aspartame? How do you go about making msg? If you had to do it in your kitchen, would you even bother?

    Also, my pet theory is that humans are designed to be social eaters (sharing the kill, the harvest, etc). Company makes foods better. Ever smell a McDonald's burger that smells as good as a backyard barbecue one? Now, however, a lot of people wolf down their food by themselves in the car, or while working. They don't stop to pay attention to it, and they also frequently ingest several hundred calories of soda while eating.

    Just my two bits.
    -WS

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  27. Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp by corbettw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also, we used to run after our food and throw spears at it before we could eat.

    I had to chase down a hot dog vendor today and throw spears at him before he'd stop to sell me a Chicago dog with everything and an icy cold Coca-Cola. Does that count?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  28. Re:nope by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quitting cold turkey is just as effective as any other method, so even though you tried, your attempt at a witty analogy fails.

    You completely missed my point.

    Telling people to "stop eating and exercise more" appears to be reducing obesity about as well as telling junkies to quit cold turkey reduces heroin use. In other words, almost not at all.

    I'm with the other poster who suggested that all of you shouting "it's fatso's fault that he's fat" without considering the evidence are just as bad as the ID people who refuse to even consider the evidence.

    TFA is about a study which says there might be a viral pathology which is contributing to obesity, if not outright causing it in some cases. Since this shakes up the world-view of some of you, you're stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum over it.

    Sorry if this new science is showing that you might not automatically be better people that those who are fatter than you, but I'm going to side with the guys in the lab-coats on this debate.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  29. or perhaps by Catskul · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..perhaps the anti-roundtuit. For if you get a roundtuit, you are no longer procrastinating.

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Re:People are Obese regarless of Income or Geograp by kraada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and an icy cold Coca-Cola

    I'm surprised that after reading all the comments nobody has said anything about soda. Calories from soda are huge. A 2L bottle of soda runs about 2000 calories. If you have your main liquid consumption from soda you're probably drinking about 2 of these a week.

    Switch over to water (0 calories), and you'll drop 4000 calories/week out of your diet instantly. That's almost 600 calories a day. It will make a difference. Get a Brita if you can't stand the taste of tap water, buy bottled water if you must spend money on your beverages.

    But don't complain to me about being fat and then go grab the Big Gulp of Coke. You won't get any sympathy here.

  32. Re:There's a feedback system. Virus affects it... by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lack of self-control has essentially nothing to do with it. With near-superhuman self-control an obese person might substitute external feedback (i.e. from a scale) for the internal signals and control his weight that way. But that means ignoring continuous gnawing hunger - forever.

    You know, its funny. There are people like this - honestly like this - they have things like Pradr Willis syndrome and are incredibly rare. They're also unfortunate and tend to die at very young ages.

    There are also people like you and me. Heck, I was a chubby kid; I was a fat adult. I was obese, and then some. I enjoyed food and took comfort in the fact that while I was "a bit overweight" at 240+ lbs (I'm 6' tall) I wasn't really any fatter than many of the people around me. Then one day I looked in the mirror and saw that my 38" pants were getting tight, and said, basically, "Hey, I'm fat."

    I started to exercise, watched what I ate (a bit), and I've lost almost 80 lbs. I never thought I was obese, but anyone who can lose 80 lbs (without getting down to a "washboard abs" level of body fat, mind you, just a moderately healthy weight) is, by definition, obese. Or was, in my case.

    For me, and for many, many other people I've met, its purely about self-control and body image. And its something that they, as I, can do something about. Yes, there are some people with severe medical issues that cause their obesity but if you're reading this and you're fat, chances are really really high that its because you're inactive and like eating, not that you've got some rare disorder. Sorry, but that's the truth.

    Pity those who have uncontrollable ilnesses. Don't be an enabler for the vast majority who don't.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!