Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

grrlscientist writes "New research has shown that the skeletal system may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals. This may also be true for humans, and thus represents an important development for the treatment of these health conditions. From the article: 'Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured), that regulates bone formation, but this hormone also protects against obesity and glucose intolerance by increasing proliferation of pancreatic beta cells and their subsequent secretion of insulin. Osteocalcin was also found to increase the body's sensitivity to insulin and as well as reducing its fat stores ... "The skeleton used to be thought of as just a structural support system. This opens the door to a new way of seeing the bones," said Dr. Gerard Karsenty, chairman of the department of genetics and development at Columbia University Medical Center in NYC, who headed the team that made the discovery.'"

Comments

Still have to eat well.

[CannonballHead]

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? It seems that the US really isn't as high as what you'd expect.
 
Stop being a fucking troll and blaming Americans for everything.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[SplatMan_DK]

Sugar? You have sugar in the US?

I would have thought you only had "great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products... ;-)

- Jesper

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Americans only ate massive amounts of sugar, things wouldn't be so bad. The problem is that Americans eat massive amounts of high-fructose corn syrup. If we did eat real sugar, developments like this might help. Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't. So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism.

The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!

Re:Still have to eat well.

[shawb]

I notice a distinct lack of high fructose corn syrup in that data. It simply measures cane and beet sugar. Also such extremely inexpensive calorie laden ingredients such as "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" are missing as well.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[iamacat]

This is true on the most primitive level. However, for a significant number of people "eating correctly" will mean a 1000 calorie-a-day diet of pure protein and in addition to not being obese they will be constantly hungry and lethargic, lose muscle mass and suffer from various diseases associated with malnutrition. They really need medication as well as medically designed diet/exercise program to take care of those genes and hormones.

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Zekasu]

And while you're at it, take away their computers. The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits. That being said, so long as MySpace goes away, I'd still be content, kids sitting at their computers all day reading forwards definitely does not help the obesity problem. (And yes, I realize the example I posted is extreme in any case, if not impossible, but it's just an example.)

Re:Still have to eat well.

[E 99]

The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits.

As none are present to defend themselves, I'd like to point out that neanderthals had larger brains than ours.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd like to point out it's not the size that matter, but how you use it.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Jartan]

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like. Having to eat a horrid diet might give you a healthy body but it's not optimal in any way. Most of the people who have to do it against their wills are still suffering. Substituting mental suffering for physical suffering is not a be all end all cure.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."

Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.

"Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that."

Yes, but you couldn't define "eat correctly" to save your life. It isn't just "eat less".

"Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of their control, instead of just PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG."

You obviously don't know a thing about the subject.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[CptNerd]

..."great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products...

Part of this complete breakfast!

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

"Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't."

You are completely mistaken. HFCS, the kind used as a sugar replacement, has functionally the same ratio of glucose to fructose as cane sugar. It's horrifying effect on insulin levels and its long term destruction of the liver are the same.

"So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism."

Cane sugar does that exactly the same way as HFCS does. The natural regulation mechanism you refer to is interfered with by the long term exposure to fructose. Cane sugar is half fructose.

"The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!"

Yes, the horrible thing about HFCS is that the government subsidizes the cheap and plentiful poisoning of its citizens. Make no mistake, though, if all our comsumption of HFCS were replaced by cane sugar we'd be equally fucked.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."

Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.

Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?

Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?

It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[afidel]

Actually you are WRONG. People who are on only a below needed calorie diet will eventually plateau. The reason is that a bunch of your involuntary calorie usage such as slow muscle twitching and non-instructed nervous actions will cease as your body adjusts to what it considers to be the equivalent of a famine. That is why you must balance a complete, body type appropriate meal plan with the correct amount of cardio exercise. Even then is very difficult for most people to lose and keep off a significant percentage of body fat because evolution has setup all of our bodies systems to maintain body fat as we historically have not had enough calories in our diet.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[justinlee37]

Really? It seems that the US really isn't as high [illovosugar.com] as what you'd expect.

Stop being a fucking troll and blaming Americans for everything.

Those other countries may have a higher per-capita consumption of sugar, but I'd bet my white ass that they also have a higher per-capita level of activity.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

"Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?"

Are you trolling?

Yes, I do. The body has builtin regulation mechanisms to control weight. Neither the body nor the mind desires to be obese, no one sets out to be fat, and the fact is that the body wastes energy that it doesn't need and doesn't desire to store. When the body thinks that it needs to gain weight and is faced with an energy deficit, it goes into conservation mode. In that respect, yes, there is a way to do exactly as you describe. The body lowers its needs in response to starvation.

"Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?"

Of course not, but it's clear I'm having a discussion with an idiot.

"It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing."

But the overeating and overlazing are caused by an underlying hormonal failure, not that fatties are hopelessly inferior to you. No one desires to be obese and the body doesn't naturally either. The body, however, gets tricked into thinking that it is starving when it is, in fact, too fat. When that happens, hormones cause the person to feel lethargic and to constantly eat. That's why obese people cannot control their appetites and cannot find the energy to exercise. You've clearly not experienced this. I have.

Perhaps you'd like to stop being an arrogant, juvenile asshole and read some science on the matter:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm

That article pretty much sums it up, including explaining how wrong you are. Good luck.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, isn't that one of the core laws of modern physics? All that fat has to come from somewhere buddy. You don't just wake up one day weighing 400 lbs.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[LordSnooty]

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like.

I suppose you have a point if your country forces you to pay for the healthcare you'll need as a result of your "eat-what-I-want" diet.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

Conservation of matter has nothing to do with it. Metabolism is highly variable, and fools who believe that weight gain is a simple matter of balancing equations must completely ignore that fact in order to cling to their ignorant opinions. Their arrogance is eventually overcome, however, when they hit their 30's and realize that weight management is far more complicated than they imagined when they were 18.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

Actually it has everything to do with conservation of energy/matter because all that weight comes from someplace, namely the food you're putting into your mouth. Don't stuff your face, you won't get fat!

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

Sugar IS a horrible diet, and whatever "the hell" you feel like eating is very much a function of the diet you have, healthy or not. All the "mental and physical suffering" you imagine occurs from eating a good diet has no basis in fact if you had eaten a good diet all along, while the "mental and physical suffering" that results from obesity and adult-onset diabetes is very real.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[iamacat]

So are you saying that there are no health conditions that cause obesity and require medical treatment in addition to lifestyle changes? Even if that's a tiny minority of obese, millions of people in US are affected.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Desipis]

Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like.
You do realize that a significant change in diet and activity level will actually change what you're body feels like eating right?

Having to eat a horrid diet might give you a healthy body but it's not optimal in any way.
A healthy doesn't have to be horrid. Of course if you're as addicted to sugar/fat as a smoker is to cigarettes, I can see how change might be difficult.

Substituting mental suffering for physical suffering is not a be all end all cure.
A healthy lifestyle will contribute significantly to a better mental state. So not only are you getting a dose of extra fat with that super-sized coke, you're getting a dose of depression and anxiety.

That said issues such as genetics and hormones do affect one's mental state ("will power") as well as the strength of the desires for certain types of food and lack desire for exercise. A person who's body that does poorly at metabolizing fat will require struggle with exercising for fat loss and will use more 'effort' than a normal person.

Of course history indicates that most people are more than capable of keeping a relatively healthy weight and the majority of the problem is caused by modern diets.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

I see you've thought about this in depth. ;-) Have you ever been fat? How much? How old are you? Any history of diabetes in your family? Just curious of your qualifications, if any.

The bulk of any weight gain is water, so I assume that you are suggesting that, if we don't want to get fat, we should avoid drinking all liquids, right? Make sense to me, conservation of matter and all.

Your body has regulation mechanisms that control weight and those include punishing lethargy in times of famine. Anyone who attributes his skinniness to willpower either uses drugs or has never experienced what a body will do when it thinks it is starving. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that weight management has simply to do with conservation of energy clearly has no experience with weight problems. The vast majority of energy consumed in a typical diet is wasted and a body is capable of gaining weight on a diet that all of us would consider difficult to follow. Obese people don't wish to be obese and many eat less than it is assumed they do.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Rob Riggs]

Your response is misleading at best. That table shows only sucrose (table sugar) consumption. Americans get fully 2/3rds of their sugar from high-fructose corn syrup. Reference: http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_ 05/article5.aspx

One needs to be clear whether on is using the term "sugar" to mean "any monosaccharide or disaccharide" or specifically "sucrose" (table sugar).

Re:Still have to eat well.

[daeg]

If any of you are attempting a similar diet on your own (with a doctor or similar overseer), make sure you drink PLENTY of water. Half gallon a day at least. When you go to a low calorie diet, your body should go into ketosis. Ketosis (buring fat stores for energy) is an effective weight loss mechanism but is very water intensive. You can purchase test kits to test your urine for ketosis. Your diet should consist of almost entirely protein (lean sources only, fish, etc), around 5-800 calories a day for normal/moderately overweight. Don't forget a quality daily multi-vitamin or you'll do long term harm (just take note of the contents of th vitamin, some cheap vitamins use very unhealthy binders -- you want something under 5 calories ideally). Small amounts of calcium may also be needed, but most people only stay on such a diet for a few weeks at a time. You may also find laxatives helpful, as all-protein diets can be, uh, hard on your digestive system at first.

(Disclaimer: I'm in the weight loss industry, but you should at least consult your general practitioner prior to pursuing a diet on your own like this. It isn't for everyone, and some health conditions can make such a diet very risky.)

Re:Still have to eat well.

[smittyoneeach]

Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that.

With the caveat that you're otherwise healthy, of course. For example, if your thyroid becomes AFU, so will you.

I'm waiting for the research to show that high-fructose corn syrup wreaks havoc with the human system, in the long term.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[SplatMan_DK]

... along with the "butter flavored spread", which has never been close to anything remotely resembling actual butter?

Re:Still have to eat well.

[smchris]

Just finished reading "French Woman Don't Get Fat" and I think she has quite a bit to say.

The whole mindset that it should be feast or famine is so puritan and self-defeating. Eat everything: bread, butter, fat, wine. Just don't eat a slop pail of it. Don't do it unconsciously. Don't let snacking be the neurotic habit of choice. Take the time to enjoy the satisfaction of quality in moderation instead of the satisfaction of being stuffed with junk. Eat a vegetable, some fruit. And get off your ass as part of your everyday life instead of telling yourself you'll get to the gym someday. Balance your indulgences with your sacrifices within the short term of perhaps a week so you don't _have_ a mound of blubber stored up to deal with. Most of all, the biggest changes you have to make are in your mindset and habits.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[mh1997]

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

I am sick and tired of people suggesting that I have some sort of responsibility and accountability for my actions. We Americans can do, say, and act any way we like without consequences. And if someone does try to hold me accountable, I will sue the hell out of them and whine to my congressman about the need for the government to take care of victims like me.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[syousef]

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Spoken like person who's never had to deal with a weight problem.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[andrewthomas]

People who are on only a below needed calorie diet will eventually plateau.

I'm not sure that's true in all cases.

That is why you must balance a complete, body type appropriate meal plan with the correct amount of cardio exercise.

Unless you're saying that doesn't happen when you exercise, which may be true. If you do exercise, I have concrete data in at least one case that resting metabolism doesn't slow much with diet. I used to be quite fat, and in order to create a workable diet for myself, I've recorded everything I've put in my mouth since June 2006 and every step of exercise I've done, and the results look like this:

Sample data.

The second graph (which I'm putting up in a few seconds, so if it's not there yet, wait a minute) shows a pretty constant metabolism despite averaging between 1300 and 1500 calories per day with a resting metabolism of 2600. It doesn't look like it slows toward the end, and it's still the same now. So a lowered calorie intake does not equal a slowed metabolism. But I did a significant amount of running during that period, so I can't tell if that means your comment doesn't apply to me.

(Disclaimer: I sell the program I wrote to track my diet, so I guess my data needs to be looked at as slightly suspect (although I can provide an annoying-to-fake list of every food I ate during that time). Still, it's true.)

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

If you're in the mood to read then, try this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm

Just because some people don't have weight problems doesn't mean those that do are sloths. Furthermore, people without weight problems don't automatically know why they are lean. Moderation alone isn't the key, at least not for all people.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Cadallin]

As I read it the GP was saying that if you don't do something to maintain metabolic levels (which is to say, add exercise) then the body will reduce its metabolic activity. So yes, you avoided that by adding a cardiovascular exercise regime (running). If you hadn't been running, you would have stopped losing weight.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[innerweb]

Clue Stick Time!!!

What you are spouting off works for a majority of people, not all people. Please go back to studying and learning about how things work in specific instead of using the gross generalizations that organizations like the USDA and the ADA use. Not all people will be at the proper weight without medications or other drastic measures. *NOT* all people are the same. In fact, biologically, no two people are identical, merely very similar.

In a genetically defined system (as each of us are), one minor variation of a gene can cause a person to die from eating peanuts. Another genetic variation can cause your body to store fat while starving to death (the body cannibalizes the other organs first). Another genetic variation causes a person to get drowsy from stimulants, and another causes a person to wake up by taking depressants.

Your kind of ignorance gets people killed. Why? Because it makes its way into mainstream thought and even into the doctors office. It causes people to treat themselves (and other to treat them) for the wrong problem. The reality is what is right for your body's genetics is what you need to do. For some a diet high in healthy carbohydrates is best, for some one low in carbohydrates is best. For others, a diet with no protein is better, and others yet, no nuts (they might be fatal). Anyone who has been in medicine or studying (really studying the research, not just taking classes) bio-research ought to have a firm grasp on that by now. Everyone else who has been around long enough ought to have noticed how different peoples' bodies react so differently to the same foods. Do you think that would be possible if internally we all worked exactly the same? No!

So, forget whatever it is you may have learned that leads you to believe what you have said. It is wrong. It does cause harm. Learn about bio-chemistry and the genetics (and other *uniquifying* aspects) of the human biology. Learn what makes us different, and how that affects us. learn why some people have Seasonal Affect Disorder and others can not sleep at night (not sleep apnia). Then, hopefully, you will realize that most one size fits all solution, rule or concept are rife with peril for some segment of the population. Even the amount of oxygen one person needs is different from another person based upon hemoglobin and myoglobin. All people are born equal is a cool, but entirely incorrect concept.

InnerWeb

Re:Still have to eat well.

[andrewthomas]

I wasn't sure if it was one of those things you read where "the right way to lose weight isn't dieting but eating [magic bean of the week] and exercising instead." But your interpretation is probably the correct one, on re-read.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[MikShapi]

Food is an addictive drug that interferes with thought (and consequently, your priorities), same as with many other drugs.

There is a problem with your holier-than-thou approach, however, as applied to food.

With (illegal) drugs, you can squarely lay the blame with the junkie. You can't really blame him when he's in junkie stage, his brain is past telling him to stop at that point, but you can say he should have been responsible when he still had a working sense of judgement and be right. He chose to do something stupid when he had a functional head on his shoulders, and he carries full responsibility for his actions.

With food, nobody, not even you, can avoid exposure, and that exposure is dictated by our environment way before we make informed conscious choices about what and how much to eat. In modern-day America, many are food junkies long before they reach the point of actively choosing their diet, and are letting their "habit" (in the "addiction" sense) dictate their diet from that moment on. It's not the same for everyone either. Some have a metabolism that soaks up fat like a sponge, others don't. Some had folks that got them on MCD's from age 3, others gave them good food. Couple a few of these wrong parameters together, and some people become mature before becoming hooked, others get hooked before maturity and end up never having sat behind the steering wheel of their diet - they're effectively addicts from zero to the day they die, with a high "will" barrier to cross to get out (which statistically, many of them will not have the means to traverse).

Without any intention of lessening the load of personal responsibility on any individual, some people really never get to a point where they can choose to stop with a clear head, and blaming them is halfway to blaming someone who was born in a coma and stayed in a coma for all his life for being in a coma. If any person's (yours not excluded) sense of judgement is distorted enough by chemicals, liability over his decisions while so becomes a slippery slope you're on the right side of only by chance.

You're not better than many of those people, just luckier, and are thus on very slippery moral ground.
I suggest you tread lightly.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Jartan]

Sugar IS a horrible diet, and whatever "the hell" you feel like eating is very much a function of the diet you have, healthy or not.

Your point being? My entire post was about how we should use science to allow me to eat a horrible diet in the first place. Also your full of it trying to make grandiose claims about how people who've eaten a good diet all along don't wish to eat things that are bad for them. Anyone who's actually ever studied something like diabetes will tell you very clearly: Science still doesn't really understand how human metabolism or hunger works.

The article mentioned here is just further proof of that.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

As though that hateful diatribe contributes anything to the discussion at all. Nice work, AC.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

You are ignoring prior contributing factors to the problem.

If your insulin regulation is out of whack from too much sugar, it interferes with leptin, the hormone that normally controls your appetite. That's why fat people are fat. They don't eat 110% or 130% of what it takes to feel full. They eat 130% of what it takes for a normal person to feel full, and they're still hungry.

If you haven't experienced it, passing judgment on those who have is obnoxious. You are simply much hungrier than you should be nearly all of the time. Pitting your will in a perpetual head on battle against an appetite you can't control is a battle you will lose.

A traditional Japanese diet, South Beach, Atkins, the Low Glycemic Index Diet, and a host of other eating programs address fat loss by addressing the appetite problem. After a few weeks on the program, your blood sugar and insulin levels return to normal, your leptin is able to do its job, and you simply stop being unnaturally hungry. You still eat until you're satisfied, but now that your appetite is normal it does not take nearly as much food to fill you up.

I'm on the Atkins program, and I am permitted to eat as much food as I want. I'm quite full on less than 2000 calories a day. Before I started, it took a lot of willpower to eat less than 3000 calories per day. (Since I'm actually following Atkins as written, as not as sensationalized in the news, I also get a minimum 3 cups of green vegetables per day and exercise.) My tip to anyone trying to get rid of fat: find an eating program that makes you less hungry. Get that, and the fat comes off on its own.

The only way "PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG" works without considering these appetite factors is if you stick the person in a prison cell and only pass in portions they are permitted to have. Otherwise, sooner or later their appetite will win and they'll go on a binge.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

While probably not proof of addiction, there are known chemical mechanisms that occur in response to obesity and bad diet that result in increases in appetite. Obese people having greater appetites is a known fact, and that fact is consistently lost on thin people. Sadly, once someone experiences these increases in appetite, the problems continue even if they diet and lose the weight. A person who is skinny but once had weight problems as an adult is likely to have more trouble with appetite than someone who has never been overweight.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

Once your blood sugar gets out of whack, it interferes with your body's ability to regulate your appetite. It blocks the effects of the hormone leptin. You are always hungry. If you try to eat small portions, you are always starving. You may look like you're stuffing your face, but all you're trying to do is feel satisfied.

Figure out how to get your blood sugar and insulin levels down to normal levels, and your appetite returns to normal all on its own.

I'm positively stuffed on relatively modest portions in the Atkins diet, whereas I would eat like a pig before and still feel hungry.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

Self control is all you need.
This is like saying that a child rapist isn't at fault for raping a little girl merely because he didn't have the self control to keep himself from doing it.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Strange Ranger]

There are no such things as weight problems. Only eating problems.

Try a diet of only water, spinach, berries, nuts, and vitamins. Limit the nuts and berries to a cup each per day.
Fill up the rest of the way on as much spinach as you like.

Don't cheat.

You'll quickly see what I mean.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

When a child rapist has to do just a little bit of raping every day or he will die of a wasting illness, come talk to me.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

Could be argued the mental anguish he has to endure eventually leading to a possible suicide from not giving in to a desire he has is just the same as some fat ass who can't keep themselves from stuffing their face.

For the record, I understand that a few people out there have a legitimate medical condition, but I firmly deny any type of attempt to make the majority of fat fucks out there able to call their lack of self control a medical condition. Sure, a handful of people out there are fucking huge cause of a medical condition, but the rest are just lazy gluttons who don't wanna accept responsibility for their actions.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

Well if a pedophile shoots himself, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But your argument applies to alcoholics, smokers, and drug addicts too. Is it more addictive than food? Hells yes. But you can quit them cold turkey. The obese have to eat every day, just like everyone else. While I'm at it, I doubt most people take up chain smoking when they were 2 or binge drinking when they were 5 - but most of your people started eating the foods that cause insulin resistance and related appetite problems at those ages.

I am continually astonished that you and others like you have no understanding of the experience. Sit down to all of your meals, and eat half your normal portions. Try it for a few months. Then contemplate doing that every day for the rest of your life. Then come talk to me. Until then, you have no grounds for comparison.

I bet almost all of the fat people out there do have a medical condition - something has their appetite out of whack. Now I found something - in my case, Atkins - and I'm just not hungry like I used to be. The only willpower and responsibility involved was reading the damn book. Everything else has been easy. I'm the same lazy glutton who likes tasty food that I always was - but now I know foods to pick which fill me up with smaller portions, and leave me feeling full much longer. I'm not eating less by willpower, I'm eating less because I'm less hungry.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

Whether you are hungry or not means shit it's called self control. If you stuff your face, you're gonna get fat unless you have a l33t metabolism. If all the fatty's out there wanna claim it's not under their control, then so be it, but by giving up responsibility for their actions they should also have to give up the right to make those poor choices in the first place, because they've already proven they're going to make the wrong choice, and then forego the responsibility that comes with making decisions for yourself.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

Obviously you failed reading comprehension.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Hubbell]

http://www.flicklife.com/9ff0e5d1176244fdfb65/UPDA TE_400_pound_7_year_old_Jessica.html
I'm sure you've seen the videos of this girl. So all that is from a disorder, and it's not her (her parents as she is so young it can't possibly be blamed on her, but her worthless parents) fault? Sorry, but when you stuff entire pizzas to your face in a single sitting as an acceptable meal, oh my fucking gawd, YOU GET FAT!

Re:Still have to eat well.

[ivan256]

Ketosis (buring fat stores for energy)

I hate when people (who have done reading on low-carb diets) spout this mis-definition of ketosis.

Ketosis is simply the state of having excess levels of ketones in your blood stream. One of the was that this happens is for your body to convert a lot of stored fat back into energy. Ketosis is the result of burning fat. It is not the process of burning fat, and it is not something you trick your body into doing to burn fat. If you drink enough fluids and lose weight at a healthy pace (instead of really quickly) it is something that a dieter should never experience.

It also makes you smell bad.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[MikShapi]

I wasn't talking specifically about either obesity or weight problems (though they're an obvious place where being a food junkie can lead you).
Good or bad diet can have many adverse affects on standard-weight people as well - from simply bad food that increases your chances of getting cancer (say, deep fried in oil or salty foods), to foods that increase chances of liver failure, to the sheer fact that dropping your calorie intake to about 40-50% of your RDI may very well (albeit the jury's still out on scientific proof) buy you at least another 10 years of life (by which coin, eating them kills you early), if it does indeed turn out that CR works on humans same as it does on every animal ever tested for it in age-related research.

Food addiction is not limited to weight problems - weight is just one (very obvious) indicator of several possible indicators that you're prematurely trashing your body. There's others that are independent of weight.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[daeg]

Sorry, you are correct. The tests test for the presence (and level) of ketones. Higher on the scale, the higher the presence of ketones, and in most people, that indicates more fat converted into energy. There are other causes for elevated ketones, some of which are related to diabetes, thus my insistence that any major diet or exercise plan that is a drastic change from normal routine to at least see a general practitioner.

And in re: to the smelling bad... just glad I don't have to deal with many patients face to face--I'll take your word for it. ;)

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Moochman]

Wow, that was a really fascinating, and thorough, response. The people who skip over AC comments don't know what they missed.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Strange Ranger]

Damn. That was pretty fascinating. The bottom line is that too much of any one thing isn't good for you. Even water.
And... we're still dealing with an eating problem. Not a weight problem.

How about if we replace "spinach, nuts, and berries" with "mixed leafy greens & broccoli, 1 cup beans, and 1 cup fruit" ?
And a multi-vitamin with "Citri-Cal" the really easy to absorb calcium.

Do we have our million dollar diet plan yet?

Re:Still have to eat well.

[DuckDodgers]

And again, you didn't read what I said.

There's something wrong with that girl that's made her way too fucking hungry. Fix the hunger, and she'll stop stuffing her face all by herself. If you just take the food away today, she will continue to be hungry and stuff her face tomorrow.

Some people's bodies process sugar properly. For other people, after a while digesting large amounts of sugar, their body becomes resistant to the hormone insulin. Their body has to release excess insulin to compensate for the resistance. If the trend continues, the body requires so much insulin that external sources are required: that is Type 2 Diabetes. But whether a person is officially diabetic or not, excess insulin in your body blocks leptin, the hormone that regulates your appetite. So one person with normal insulin levels can eat 500 calories and feel full, and another person with high insulin levels can eat the exact same meal and still feel like they didn't eat anything at all.

Protein Power, Low Glycemic Load eating, and Atkins diet all work by taking sugary foods out of your diet for a while. After a few days of that, your insulin levels return to normal. Then your leptin works normally, and *poof* the 500 calorie meal that should fill you up does fill you up. You stop stuffing your face because you aren't hungry. I've lost 15 pounds in six weeks, and except for the first few days when I was adapting to the program, no willpower was involved. I intend to continue until I reach a healthy size, and then basically continue eating this way indefinitely. It looks like I need to cut out sugar almost entirely - but if that's the price of staying thin, it's worth paying.

I said all this up thread, and you've repeatedly ignored it. Once more: Try to picture the worst hunger you've ever experienced, and then imagine feeling that way three hours after your previous meal, every day of your life. I bet that's what that poor 7 year old girl experiences, because her system is so messed up. I bet it's also what so many obese and morbidly obese people experience. In the face of that, simply making yourself stop eating when your stomach feels like you only took one bite is damn near impossible - and that's precisely why simple "eat less" fat loss programs fail for the majority of people. Hundreds of millions of people have tried it, many of them dozens and dozens of times, and sooner or later the constant feeling of starvation wins. Switch to foods that leave your blood sugar levels stable, you stop being hungry, and then you eat like a normal human being without even trying.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[yavins]

Plateau!? I'm sorry but I've never seen a POW soldier held of a long period of time come back home overweight and say "I don't know they never fed me, I must of plateaued". I'm not saying the body doesn't make adjustments when you change the way you feed it but to say that the reason a person is fat is because they plateaued is just an excuse.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[syousef]

There are no such things as weight problems. Only eating problems.

That's pure bunk. Some people's bodies are remarkably good at storing and absorbing calories. You need excercise too. The trouble is if your body is like that the moment you stop eating like a fucking rabbit and exercising like Rocky, you get fat again. How long could YOU keep that up? 6 months? 12 months? 6 years? What if you're hurt? What if you get ill? What if you're broke and have to work 2 or 3 jobs? Think about it.

Another thing. I'm fucking tired of idiots with their own unscientific pet diet that they didn't need because their weight "problem" consists of 3 extra kilos and a bad body image telling me their pet diet will fix it all.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[Reservoir Penguin]

And yet it's possible for obese people to first become unhealthily sin and then starve to death. If there is no food around there is not one thing your Body can magically do to preserve weight, and no amount of hand-waving and politically correct talk can get around the laws of physics. Therefore the only thing you Body can do is to make you take the trip to the fridge more often or get that extra-large upgrade at MacDonald's. And that, is completely under control of one's will.

Pictured?

[woot account]

Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured)

I thought that was Einstein pictured...

Re:Pictured?

[ookabooka]

That's what happens when you model the folding of proteins utilizing distributed computing; someone thinks its funny to hack the client to submit whatever they want. . .

imagine that

[circletimessquare]

that old nice way of saying "she's fat": "she's just big boned", might actually be true?

Ultra Mega Diet

[Citizen of Earth]

may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals.

Y'know what else prevents obesity and type-2 diabetes? Eating less!

Re:Ultra Mega Diet

[Fizzol]

Eating isn't the be-all and end-all of diabetes. There's also significant genetic component. If you don't have the genetic disposition you can eat all the junk and crap you want and not develop diabetes. If you have the genes for it, you can be normal weight and still develop it. Eating less helps but it isn't all there is to it.

Re:Ultra Mega Diet

[chris_eineke]

Eating less!

That's one half of the equation. The other half is to lower your blood sugar level. Get a meter and after every meal (absolutely everything you eat or drink) check your sugar level. If it stays above 100 for a long period time (about 2-5 hours), you have identified something you shouldn't eat or drink. A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy, 800 is like a nuke for your brain. Read an article on Kuro5hin for the whole explanation.

Re:Ultra Mega Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? What the devil are you thinking? A blood glucose between 80-100 is NORMAL. A NORMAL person will bump up to MAYBE 120 after even a bad meal, but rapidly come back to the 80-100 level. If you get below 70, you're running into HYPOGLYCEMIA territory, enjoy your seizures.

800 is indeed a "nuke for your brain" but unless you're a Type I diabetic without ANY endogenous insulin production, or a horribly controlled type II, you're not gonna see that. Hell, I'm not sure I've even seen a fingerstick capable of registering above 550-600!

Respectfully, parent is full of hockey. I'm sure you're an excellent CS student, but you've not had biology for a long time, friend. Don't check your own Fingerstick blood glucose unless you have reason to (ie: a medical condition), but if you're suspicious, then GO TO YOUR DOCTOR. Get a Fasting Blood glucose drawn, not those crap fingersticks. And if you're not satisfied, push for a glucose tolerance test, where you drink RAW glucose, then follow your venous blood sugar levels to see how your body reacts. If it can't keep up with the load, then welcome to the wonderful world of Diabetes. If it DOES, count your lucky stars, go home, and throw out your ho-ho's, Oreo's and Jolt Colas, and try a lovely dose of Moderation In All Things for a change.

Jebus help me...

Hehe, code was "criteria."

I don't think so

[iamacat]

Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

Come on, we all know that fat people and diabetics find themselves unable to bone even when they get a rare opportunity.

Bone hormone?

[edittard]

You mean viagra? (Or as we scientists call it, \/1@gr@ )

You're correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

By far the best method of combatting obesity is exercise and "eating right". That means cut out the fats and sugars as much as possible.

But people don't want to hear that, any more than they want to hear that credit cards don't magically pay themselves off, or that blowing the trust fund on film school won't automatically get them an Oscar-winning gig in Hollywood.

We have become soft. People aren't chasing their food anymore.

Re:You're correct.

[dfghjk]

Except it's not true. The decade's old claim that fats are bad for you turns out to be bullshit. It's the overloading of carbohydrates in the diet, the processing away of dietary fiber, and the abundance of fructose and simple sugars that are the problem. A low fat diet is helpful in keeping total calories down, that's all. Many fats are, in fact, good for you.

Re:You're correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that overloading on the carbs is pretty bad I feel I should say that you're not quite right to be quite so anti-carb. Carbohydrates are "quick release" energy while fats are slower. This means that if you have lots of carbs *and* you eat fats the carbohydrates will be used for energy and the fats will get stored, making you fatter. As in most things, a healthy balance between fats and carbohydrates is the best way to go so that you get that "quick release" energy that the body actually needs as well as some of the slower burning stuff fat, which as you quite rightly pointed out, can be good for you...in moderation.

People have a terrible habit of over doing things. You *need* sugars and salts in your diet, you *need* fats and carbohydrates and lots of other stuff, but it doesn't mean that you should overload on any of them OR cut any of them out. Have a healthy balanced diet and you will rarely go wrong.

Re:What sugar?

[CannonballHead]

Well, I have to agree with you there, real sugar is far better. Even table sugar, though, is processed.. corn syrup is even worse than table sugar. Far worse. High fructose corn syrup is awful.

To the "quit blaming it on Americans" person, I AM American, so I blame Americans for their own health. Instead of blaming the European Union, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or some other random company or government for Americans' bad health. I don't expect the government to make me eat right, nor make companies feed me right. If I can't think enough to look at the ingredients of something before eating it, I apparently am rather stupid. Furthermore, if I expect to be healthy AND eat at MacDonald's all day... well, I may as well believe that Windows ME is by far the best operating system ever produced. It'd be just as logical... :)

Re:What sugar?

[CannonballHead]

In fact, looksie at these links. http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/corn_syrup_diab etes.htm - Corn syrup linked to diabetes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-200 3Mar10?language=printer - Average American consumes, in 2001! ... about 62 pounds of corn syrup per year... no wonder we don't have that much real sugar, we replaced it with a chemical :)

Endocrine Function

[LightPhoenix7]

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs? The original paper from Cell is here: http://download.cell.com/pdfs/0092-8674/PIIS009286 7407007015.pdf.

Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising. The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow.

Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising? I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it.

Re:Endocrine Function

[jguthrie]

Speaking as someone who has lost a lot of weight recently, I have to say that anyone who says "the reason you are fat is because you make bad choices and all you have to do is make better choices and you will suddenly stop being fat" is so clueless about how it works that they're not worth listening to.

If your economic status is above subsistence, there's more to food than nutrition. A lot more. Good food has a strong sensual appeal quite independent of whether or not you're hungry. Also, food has a strong social aspect to it. Going to lunch with my coworkers is something I want to do despite the fact that it screws up my diet. We talk and joke and interact as friends while eating far more than enough food simply to keep oneself alive. Giving that up is difficult.

To be sure, there are strategies for dealing with those issues (and the others that you may run into, I'm just talking about what I find difficult about making better choices in my life) but it's not a simple matter to figure out where your motivations lie and address each issue with workable solutions. You're talking about making major changes in your life. Imagine living your whole life in a major city and then having to choose between living the life you know for a reduced time, or moving to a small town somewhere far from where you live now so that you can live a longer, happier life. Do that and none of your daily habits will work any more. You've got to constantly watch to keep yourself from doing your comfortable old routine. It's no wonder people hope for a pill to make their life better without making any of these scary changes.

Re:Endocrine Function

[happyhamster]

Must some ignorant a$$hole always mention their simplistic eating/exercising nonsense despite numerous scientific articles pointing out that obesity is a complex problem with no single cause for everyone? Get a clue.

Re:Endocrine Function

[dfghjk]

"Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising?"

If such a "magic bullet" existed, then yes they would. Why would anyone simply take it for granted that the problem is simply overeating and lack of exercise? Perhaps those that look for other explanations realize that such a naive explanation is false and useless. Why would the scientific method be discarded in this case?

"I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it."

Yes, of course, researchers are only looking into obesity because of funding. There's no public health concern there. Regardless, why shouldn't there be a profit motive to solve one of the greatest health problems facing society?

"Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising."

Must every slashdot article have arrogant comments trivializing discoveries by saying they are "not exactly surprising"? Of course, such a statement is inevitably followed by a nonsensical justification. Here is yours:

"The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow."

Right, and from that "observation" we should conclude that bones are involved in the regulation of weight. Somehow I doubt you'd make such a statement had the article not already stated it, especially considering your view that obesity is nothing more than a failure of willpower.

Re:Endocrine Function

[FleaPlus]

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs?

Although I also wish that the summary included a link to the original paper, I found the blog entry by GrrlScientist to be a good layman's summary of the research, and was glad it was linked.

Re:Endocrine Function

[dfghjk]

With a comment like that, one would get the impression you were referring to yourself.

When was the last time you were fat, PenGun? If you never were, then what qualifies you to comment on the subject at all? If you were, you'd know better than to say anything so stupidly simplistic. The only people I've known to make this comment, and I've been hearing it for 20 years, are those who are skinny.

Re:Endocrine Function

[scotch]

The only people I've known to make this comment, and I've been hearing it for 20 years, are those who are skinny.

Wow, that's odd. Maybe you should listen to them, then? Some of them, after all, are bound to be formerly-fat. Who are you going to listen to for advice on not how to be a fat-ass: a bunch of waifs, or a bunch of fatties? Take your pick.

Re:Endocrine Function

[dfghjk]

None of them have been formally fat. Not everyone's experience is the same, and those that have none aren't qualified to offer advice. That appears to be the case for all the know-it-all teenagers here.

I'm going to listen to people who've bothered to educate themselves on the subject. That would include myself and it would exclude anyone who says it's "conservation of energy". Anyone with any experience with weight issues knows that's not the case.

Waifs use drugs and starvation to maintain their condition. I'm not interested in anorexia as a solution.

Re:Endocrine Function

[scotch]

I'm going to listen to people who've bothered to educate themselves on the subject. That would include myself ....

Well that's good. If you won't listen to you, who will?

Re:Endocrine Function

[mpe]

Also, food has a strong social aspect to it. Going to lunch with my coworkers is something I want to do despite the fact that it screws up my diet.

Probably the most screwy bit isn't the "with coworkers" bit so much as the whole "mealtime" thing.
Eating by the clock (especially if all meals must be "balanced") is a significent way in which we humans manage to screw up our diets.

Re:Endocrine Function

[dfghjk]

No one would, but then that's not the case, is it? I'm not here begging for information, I'm here slapping down ignorant fools like yourself who think you know everything about weight loss based on never having faced the problem yourselves.

Re:Endocrine Function

[scotch]

Are you stupid? I posted my experience with weight problems in another message which you responded to. I like how you think you're the only one here with valid experience with weight problems. Everyone else is too young or naive or you just ignore what they say when you respond.

How about that wager where you were going to run circles around me? Ready to back up that BS yet?

Re:Endocrine Function

[dfghjk]

Sorry, I can't keep track of which assholes are spewing all the nonsense. Didn't realize you were the one posting the condescending remarks about my physical condition without knowing the first thing about me. Not a big surprise though.

I don't think I'm the only one with valid experience, I just know that anyone that has valid experience, like I do, wouldn't say such idiotic things. If, in fact, you've dealt with obesity and are thin now yet still say what you do, then you are doubly stupid. The only people who deny the existance of metabolic syndrom are those who have no experience with it. Big surprise.

As for running circles, you've proven that you're not only arrogantly ignorant of weight issues but you are a pedantic prink as well. You're welcome to think you're better than me, and it's clear that you do, but be careful what you assume of those you don't know. You know nothing of my physical condition.

Re:Endocrine Function

[scotch]

WHY WON'T YOU RACE ME!!!1!!

I think my job here is finished. See you next time Mr dfghjk.

Re:Endocrine Function

[Kupek]

I'm not sure what your point is. I am a person who says you need to eat right and exercise regularly, but I don't say that's "all you need to do," as if it's easy to do so. The reason so many people are overweight is that doing that for the rest of your life is hard, and as you pointed out, it requires drastic lifestyle changes for most people.

But the inherent difficulty does not change the fact that it is necessary. You can't bargain with your body. If you value being fit, then you have to sacrifice things you may enjoy, such as overeating. (Which, by the way, is not necessary when you go out with friends.)

Re:Endocrine Function

[Kupek]

Eating right and regular exercise does in fact work to lose fat (not "weight"), but it's not a "silver bullet" because the process is long, slow, and requires lifestyle changes. I'm unaware of any medication that is able to aid this process.

Not so hard, though

[localroger]

Actually, having metabolic syndrome myself, I can say that if you catch it in time it responds well to a low carbohydrate diet. You don't need to restrict calorie intake at all, just carbohydrate intake; if you do that you'll find you lose your appetite quickly when you're thinking of eating too much, and your weight settles to a much more reasonable setpoint with no effort or hunger pangs at all.

Also, you cannot eat pure protein; if you are eating low carb, you must eat fat. My blood pressure and cholesterol have confirmed that this isn't unhealthy as long as you aren't poisoning yourself with too much sugar and corn syrup (which is in a lot of foods you'd normally consider healthy, unfortunately.)

Re:Not so hard, though

[nido]

For the audience, localroger wrote a k5 story on his metabolic syndrome: The Great Modern Glucose Poisoning Epidemic.

What's interesting is when you get down into the comments (#18), you mentioned that the condition snowballed after a surgery when you were 28.

In Traditional Chinese Medicine, the fight or flight response is governed by the Triple Warmer (TW) meridian. When one's TW meridian is overactive, it takes energy from all the other meridians (save Heart meridian), but especially from the Spleen Meridian, which is opposite TW on the flow wheel. The Spleen meridian controls the pancreas and insulin production. Your surgery likely caused the TW to go into overdrive, and if you get your TW/Spleen meridians balanced, you could drink fine meads and ales again. :)

A. For the blood sugar to stay balanced, it is crucial that spleen meridian be kept strong. This is done primarily by sedating triple warmer--which drains energy from spleen--and then by directly strengthening spleen. In Energy Medicine, you'll note that there are several ways to do this, and I'd have your daughter use every way possible since what is required with this illness is to literally retrain a deeply held energy habit in her body. To strengthen spleen meridian:

[list of exercises]

Changing the deep habit of a spleen/triple warmer imbalance will not only help keep her blood sugar in better balance, it can help create a new pattern of insulin production in her pancreas. The type of diabetes determines how much the illness can be turned around. If she was born without the ability to create insulin, she will probably always need to have it supplied externally, but even in that situation, the procedures described here will help her pancreas to function more optimally.

-Donna Eden on Diabetes

Donna Eden is a modern mystic who, like the chinese sages of old, can 'see' the bodies energies. She's famous in her hometown of Ashland, Oregon, and had to move away because whenever someone saw her on the street they'd ask about their particular health problem, and she can't turn someone down. I haven't met her myself, but I had a few sessions with one of her long-time teaching assistants some 3 years ago (who can also see the body's subtle energies quite well, though not as well as Mrs. Eden), and I've been doing much better ever since.

The book is a good introduction - most libraries have a copy.

Re:Big-boned?

[Opportunist]

Actually, if I got that right, it sounds more like the absence of a protein that would get you "big bones" makes you obese.

May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[BlackGriffen]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. The only alternative explanation I've heard involves endorphins and whatnot. I've suspected that it may be due to the fact that repairing the damage done to one's body during exercise is metabolically more expensive than just doing the motions, but had no idea whether this was true or not. This possibility, however, is far more interesting and direct - exercise puts stresses on the bones that may stimulate the production of a hormone that aids in the proper regulation of energy metabolism.

Kind of like how certain immune functions cease working in the absence of a gravitational field.

Granted, the root of the problem is energy intake exceeding energy expended, but until one understands better the reasons why a person would eat more than they need it is futile to tell people to just stop.

I've also wondered if part of the problem isn't that the modern, refined, carbohydrates are so concentrated. I mean, I would imagine that the human digestive system is capable of absorbing nutrients down to a certain concentration in the digestive fluids. If the calories are more concentrated, eg the food lacks fiber to give it indigestible bulk, then the body will absorb a larger fraction of the calories. So, another question I have is if it is significant to not just consider calories ingested, but calories ingested minus calories expelled.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[maxume]

People burn off about 1 calorie for about every pound of their body weight when they run about a mile. So running about 3 miles is going to burn off a cookie for most people. I leave it to the reader to decide whether that is insane or not.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Graff]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. The amount of calories burned during exercise is only the tip of the iceberg.

Exercising burns up glucose and puts a demand on your body to change how it processes foods. As a result of these changes your body's metabolism increases not only the rate at which it burns calories during exercise but it will also be elevated for a good amount of time afterwards. This means that you burn calories for the actual exercise done but you will also burn more after you have finished exercising, taken your shower, and sat down at your desk to do some work. Here is an article on this phenomenon.

In addition, by exercising you are telling your body that changes need to be made. Part of exercise is the microscopic tearing of muscle fibers, stress on capillaries and other transport systems within your body, and the release of various hormones related to your exertion. Your body's overall response is to rebuild and bolster these systems. You grow more muscle tissue, your capillaries increase their ability to carry more blood, various organs and cellular structures configure themselves for the next bought of exercise. All of these actions take energy and they put food to a better use than simply turning into fat around your waist.

Finally, now you have more muscle mass, better circulation, and so on. This generally results in an overall higher metabolic rate because your body has prepared itself to provide you with more energy at all times. The higher metabolic rate burns more calories even when you aren't exercising and allows you to exert yourself even more the next time you do exercise.

So there's a lot more going on than the simple "1 Calorie will lift 155 pounds to 20 feet in the air". You body changes with exercise and that is where the real weight loss begins.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[PenGun]

Lift weights. A pound of muscle burns about 50 calories a day just to maintain it's self.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[nacturation]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. One 12oz McFlurry at 560 calories would take just over an hour of jogging to burn off -- the site shows that's for a 35 year old 144 lb female, adjust as appropriate for weight/gender. On the elliptical machines in the gym, I can sustain about 20 calories per minute so this would be a 28 minute intense sweat-soaked workout just to break even after eating one of those!

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Kandenshi]

It's true that exercise doesn't directly burn off THAT many calories, unless you exercise long and hard.

What exercise does do though, is build muscle mass. Muscles (even at rest) use a higher number of calories than fat cells do. So running those kilometers and lifting those weights burns some calories off directly, and then the new muscles you have will continue to burn off calories while you sit on your progressively more muscular butt watching TV.

Trying to lose weight off of pure cardio is difficult, cardio + resistance/weights is the way to go. You don't need to be Mr Universe, but a couple pounds of muscle distributed over your body will do some good.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Eivind Eklund]

I thought that "Exercise will regulate your appetite" was well accepted as at least part of the explanation? As far as I know, exercise will lower appetite for a period for men, especially heavy exercise (weight lifting and similar) is effective. For women, there is much less of an effect, and if they're eating fat heavy, there are studied that show the effect work the opposite direction, see Effects of short-term exercise on appetite responses in unrestrained females. (Though that's only one study.)

WRT calories expelled: What I have been told by an expert is that there is fairly close to perfect calorie absorption, no matter what. It sounds semi-plausible to me - if we had problems with absorption of calories that are fairly easy to digest, we'd expect to get a lot of wind. This happens when we have other things we can't digest - e.g, lactose intolerance, problems with protein digestion.

Eivind.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Eivind]

Part of it is also that muscles burn significantly more calories than fat -- even when resting.

Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".

So, running X miles may only burn Y calories -- during the actual exersize. But it'll *also* let you burn some extra calories thereafter, the extra muscles you build burn calories even when you sleep.

So, a fit person will burn more calories than an unfit person, even when both are watching television.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[boy_analog]

My first reaction to this story is that this might explain why squats and other heavy leg exercises are so beneficial for the entire body. That is, perhaps the stress on the bones releases more of this hormone.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[tuxette]

Fat does not burn any calories at any time.

Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".

This is also why when you starve yourself to lose weight or whatever, the muscles are the first to go. When the body is in starvation and thus survival mode, it gets rid of what expends the most energy first. Bye-bye muscles...

By the way, aerobic exercise is not muscle-building exercise and may, in the long run, break down your existing muscle mass...

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[raddan]

Squats and leg presses (deadlift is another) are, biomechanically, whole-body exercises. They are the so-called "core strength" exercises. Since they activate such large swaths of your musculature, your physiological response to strength training is maximised. If you combine this kind of "core strength" training (where you try to maximise hypertrophy across your body instead of isolate) with endurance work (which promotes mitochondrial density), you essentially turn into a calorie-burning machine. This has been my exercise philosophy for the last three years, and despite having been a 4:26 miler in high school, I can say without a doubt, I am a much more fit person now. Add a balanced diet on top of that, and you're basically doing all that you are capable of doing to ensure your health.

Obviously, the above training regimen won't give you, say, "huge biceps", or an Schwarzenegger-esque chest; for that, you need isolation, calories, and a lot of time set aside to workout and sleep. But this will undoubtably make you strong and healthy.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[blahtree]

That's just nonsense unless you are eating cookies the size of dinner plates.

A medium chocolate chip cookie has around 60 calories:
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item.php?ite m_id=18164&size=2

A 150lb person will burn that off jogging for 8 minutes.
See http://www.caloriesperhour.com/ and try with your own weight and the activity of your choice.

I don't at all disagree with posters below that detail the other benefits of exercise, but I can't let the "exercising enough is impossible" argument slide.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[lamer01]

I think raising your metabolic rate will turn out to be a bad thing in the long term. We are metabolic machines and raising the rate we burn fuel is like putting more mileage on a car. We're going to wear our machinery down faster. I don't think there's any research that shows that very fit people (who work out all the time) outlive regular fit people. Of course, they both outlive obese people but a lot of exercising probably doesn't give any extra advantages and it may very well shorten your lifespan.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[PenGun]

Sweet. I do legs today.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Graff]

First of all this thread is mostly about non-fit people who are exercising in order to become fit. In that context it is far better to raise your metabolic rate in order to become fit than to maintain a low metabolic rate and remain unhealthy.

As for fit people the issue of exercise verses non-exercise gets a bit muddy. One of the benefits of exercise is a more efficient cardio-vascular system, one in which your heart beats less in order to move the same volume of blood than it used to. There have been quite a few studies that link lower heartrate to increased lifespan.

On the other hand there are studies that show that a higher metabolic rate does work to decrease lifespan but the researchers are still working to pin down the mechanisms of this effect.

The best I can say is that if you are not fit then by all means exercise and raise your metabolic rate in order to become fit. If you are already fit then watch your diet and do a bit of exercise, enough to maintain a decent level of fitness.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Eivind]

Sure. Starving yourself while not using your muscles is a perfect recipe for losing muscle-mass. Then, after your "diet" is over, you have less muscles, so less calorie-burn, so you gain the weigth back even easier. Only this time the fat-percentage is higher than it used to be.

You're wrong about aerobic exersize not helping maintain and build muscle by the way. It is true that muscle-mass is most efficiently built with a low number of high-intensity anaerobic exersizes, but that doesn't mean that regularily running the maraton will give you less muscles than sitting still will. That'll do more for your oxygen-absorbtion (heart, lungs) than for your muscles though.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Kupek]

I don't think leg presses come close to squats or deadlifts in terms of the stress they place on your body. I can grind out a 15-rep set, full range-of-motion of leg presses and be breathing pretty hard. After doing the same with squats or deadlifts, I'm happy if I can remain standing, not throw up, and stay conscious. Simply, leg presses aren't a whole-body movement like squats or deadlifts. I'm sitting down and only pressing my legs. In squats, my entire body is bearing the load, and in deadlifts, my entire body is working to raise the bar.

I consider leg presses a leg isolation exercise, and I use it for assistance only.

Re:What sugar?

[ScrewMaster]

Sugar (all the different sugars) are chemicals. All life is composed of chemicals. What you mean is, we replaced one chemical in our diets that was unnecessary and very unhealthy with another one that is just as unnecessary but even more unhealthy.

I thought the going theory

[msimm]

was corn-based byproducts (corn syrup?). Most cookies, like most snacks (in box listed portions of course) are around 180 calories. I run about 1 mile at a 10% grade for just over 10 minutes to burn that. My treadmill has on of those digital counters. Changes the way I think about having a beer or buying that bag of potato chips. But I wouldn't call 1 mile insane, just a bit of a disincentive.

Re:I thought the going theory

[dfghjk]

The only reason that corn syrup is the biggest culprit is that it is corn syrup that is the dominant sweetner. If HFCS were entirely replaced with cane sugar, nothing regarding obesity would change at all. People here fail to realize that, but then, if they can blame HFCS for everything then they have a convenient enemy and don't have to face the facts.

Yes it is true that HFCS is the devil. That doesn't mean that sugar isn't.

Weight management isn't simply a matter of running off the calories you take in. Your body expects a natural diet that is much different than what we eat today, and equating all calories makes any evaluation of diet virtually useless. It's not how many calories contained in a cookie that matters, it's the chemical results that ultimately take place as a result of eating it that do. Of course, it's not one cookie either but the overall diet and its effect on the body over time.

Read here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm

Re:I thought the going theory

[mpe]

Your body expects a natural diet that is much different than what we eat today, and equating all calories makes any evaluation of diet virtually useless.

The whole "calorie thing" is also flawed in that humans eating food is not equivalent to burning the same food in pure oxygen.

Re:What sugar?

[dfghjk]

No, HFCS and cane sugar are equally unhealthy. Both are essentially poisonous to your liver and their effects on your body are the same since they are effectively identical once they hit your mouth.

Claiming the two are somehow different, while popular here, is absurd. HFCS is processed so that is specifically the same as cane sugar; it's fructose content is not higher and its health ramifications are not different.

Re:What sugar?

[CannonballHead]

Yes, scientifically a "chemical" just refers to the chemical compound, even water is a chemical...

But, I think in modern slang, "chemical" refers to an unnatural or synthetic (whether synthetically produced/processed or manufactured) substance...

*shrugs*

Obligatory Eric Cartman quote

[Sodki]

I'm not fat, I'm big boned!

Re:Obligatory Eric Cartman quote

[loudawg]

Apparently all those in denial who used this excuse before aren't so far off after all!

yes, refined carbohydrates are not good

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

I know this from personal experience.

Refined carbohydrates put me to sleep and give me headaches.

Unrefined carbohydrates give me gas.

Engineering tradeoffs?

Re:yes, refined carbohydrates are not good

[Graff]

Get tested for diabetes now.

"Unrefined" carbohydrates (complex starches) give you gas because many of them are difficult to break down and so bacteria in your gut do the job, producing byproducts such as methane gas. This is natural although you may be able to take enzymes to reduce the effect.

Now the fact that "refined" carbohydrates (simple sugars) put you to sleep and give you headaches probably means that you have a bad insulin response to them. This means that you either don't produce enough insulin (type 1 diabetes) or that your cells have become resistant to insulin (type 2 diabetes). When you eat simple sugars they are quickly absorbed into your bloodstream and your blood sugar spikes. Insulin would normally temper the spikes but something is wrong with that system and so you are getting wild swings in your blood sugar levels. This has a ton of detrimental affects upon your health.

I'm not a doctor and there may be other reasons for your reactions but I wouldn't take a chance. Getting tested for diabetes is very simple and worth doing regularly.

In the end it's not the "unrefined" or "refined" sugars which are the problems, it's how our sugar-regulating systems have evolved. Our bodies just aren't built for the sedentary lifestyles we are living. We need to make changes in our activity levels, as well as keeping an eye on what foods we are eating. Simple sugars are just fine when taken in moderation and when combined with a decent amount of physical activity.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

How many "lazy, overeating fat people" have personally told you that they set out to be fat? How many of them would not choose to be lean if given the choice? Why do you assume that fatness is a reflection of their lack of character? Have you ever been fat?

blood sugar levels

[Tumbleweed]

> A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy

40?! You're nuts. If you're below 50, you need to get some orange juice in your body ASAP. Between 80-110 is normal (closer to 80 is better, though). In fact, from the article you linked to, "A measurement of 40 is grounds for an immediate trip to the hospital." Really low glucose levels are more immediately dangerous (easily fatal) than high ones. Consistently high ones will destroy your body in ways you don't want to think about (blindness and limb amputation is common, among many other things).

If you go above, I think, 245 or so, your body goes into 'ketoacidosis' and starts eating itself and the chemical Acetone (nail polish remover) winds up in your bloodstream. I can tell you from personal experience that this feels about as good as it sounds.

Re:blood sugar levels

[slimjim8094]

Ketoacidosis is when your body, which creates acetones naturally, can't clean those acetones out of the blood. So, you get nail-polish breath, which, if medical personnel aren't careful, can smell like booze. That's bad because hyperglycemia can produce mental symptoms similar to drunkenness.

P.S. I'm a NJ EMT-B, and we frequently get calls where policemen want us to check out a drunk, with booze breath and all the mental signs like belligerence. They were really a diabetic at least 10% of the time.
Sorry for the OT

Re:blood sugar levels

[MaceyHW]

You expect a poster to RTFA just because they're linking to it? Pleeease, this is Slashdot.

This just proves once again that the only thing more dangerous than high blood sugar is following medical advice you find on teh internets.

Re:blood sugar levels

[3vi1]

OT: Mods please mod parent informative. It actually is, for once.

Re:blood sugar levels

[Graff]

Ketoacidosis is when your body, which creates acetones naturally, can't clean those acetones out of the blood. So, you get nail-polish breath, which, if medical personnel aren't careful, can smell like booze. IAAC (I am a chemist) so just a little nitpick here.

Ketogenesis is a normal process that occurs in everyone in order to metabolize fats. Two ketones (acetoacetate and acetone) and a carboxylic acid (beta-hydroxybutyrate) are produced during this process, these chemicals are called ketone bodies. Your body normally gets rid of small amounts of these chemicals by either blowing them off through your breath, excreting them, or by further metabolizing them.

Ketosis occurs when you have an elevated level of ketone bodies, it is a fairly normal situation and most people usually have no problems with it. Sometimes the levels rise too high and the presence of excess ketone bodies lowers the blood PH enough that the person enters ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition that should be corrected as soon as possible.

Sorry to get technical on ya but this is "News for Nerds" and all!

Re:What sugar?

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, I know. Sorry to be so pedantic. But it irks me when people refer to food products as "natural" or "real" as if such things don't involve chemistry, but are made of some magically pure unadulterated goodness that no mere chemicals can hope to match.

Re:Big-boned?

[mr_mischief]

I know some people who are legitimately "big-boned".

A girl I knew in junior high and high school had about 20 inch waist, but wore a size 10 jeans and women's large or extra large shirts. Her pants were baggy at the waist, but just barely fit over her hips. Her shirts hung, but anything smaller wouldn't fit over her very broad shoulders. She's never been fat or flabby.

I have a friend who has to do pull-ups with his hands about 2 or 3 inches apart at the most, because any farther apart and his shoulder blades touch. His chest after being in Kuwait and Iraq in the desert heat wearing boy armor for months was still over 50 inches. Even when he's got nearly an fat on him, the guy's much bigger around than most people his height. He does sometimes carry some extra weight, but he's big even when he doesn't.

While it can be used as an excuse by the overweight, there really does appear to b a difference between slightly built people and people with larger frames. Keeping the muscles toned and the fat down to a healthy level is what matters. Height/weight guides and the body mass index are not a true replacement for body fat percentage. They are much easier to get data to compare against, and they work pretty well for most people, which is why they are so popular. The BMI at least gives someone an idea of the range they should be close to, even if they might end up being a little above or below that and be perfectly healthy.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[budword]

I have been fat. Over 300lbs twice in my life. It's because I ate too much and sat on my ass too much. Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie. It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation.

Let me guess, you're a 'healthy' 250 pounds?

[Dan B.]

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.

"You obviously don't know a thing about the subject."
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.

Re:Let me guess, you're a 'healthy' 250 pounds?

[thebdj]

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

There are a few problems with this, and I will now attempt to explain some of them. First, I believe it is a fair to say parents are the root of this entire problem. First, many of them are purchasing more fatty snacks and sugary sodas for their children and not trying to further the notion of a healthy diet. Kids are eating bad foods, and you have to blame the parents for creating this problem. Second, in households where both parents work, you will probably find a lot less cooking, especially healthy cooking. If families are eating out more or eating more pre-packaged meals, this too will result in greater obesity.

At the same time, not many parents are encouraging their children to take on physical activities. Kids are more and more likely to be found in front of a TV or playing video games then ever before. Even I would get out more when I was younger. This extends into many school systems where recess is eliminated by middle school and PE is not a year round activity. You could also probably question the nutritional factors of some school lunches.

Of course, this sort of cycles follows people into adult life. Many single individuals might not necessarily known how to cook for themselves (or at least not cook healthy). They get home from work and want something to eat then not in 30 minutes or an hour. I can cook, but doing it every night is very cost ineffective since I am single. I wind up eating the same thing for almost three days because most items are not sold in proportions that are conducive for cooking for one.

There is another factor to consider: money. You cannot ignore the fact that many healthier foods cost more money. Low-fat items can sometimes run more expensive then their regular counterparts. Even fruits and vegetables (especially fresh) tend to run a bit more. There is a reason why items that are quick to cook and relatively cheap (rice and pasta come to mind) are found in a lot of kitchens. Of course these kinds of carbs are not bad, until you find out in what sort of portions people are eating them.

The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.

Passing the blame to whom? I have never once blamed anyone but my own fat ass for my weight issues. I can factor in a few conditions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a borderline compulsion or addiction. I have tried diets on several occasions, and I will actually lose a fairly good amount of weight for a few weeks, until my metabolism catches up with me. Of course, I could fix this by exercising, but then we get to yet another point, time. Some of us between work, commuting and other responsibilities often have very little time remaining to actually exercise. Some people even lack proper and safe places to exercise, furthering their problem.

You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.

Personally, I do not like people clumping all obese people together. There are several groups, though a few are in the minority. There are those with physical medical conditions, like glandular problems that are a contributing factor in their obesity. There are those with mental medical conditions -- depression and addiction (and others) -- can also contribute. Total, these two groups are probably less than 10-15% of the total obese people. The third groups is the group that needs to just put the fork down. The problem is people do not usually tell them this, so they continue to eat and eat.

This said, I believe people should be more willing to help then to ridicule these people, no matter which group they fall into. I am not going to lay blame here, but I hear far more people who snicker and mock me then people actually offering support. Even when I have made attempts to diet

BMI replaced by waist measure

[G3ckoG33k]

When I visited the doctor the last time they measured my waist, and said (to my great surprise) that 92 cm (36 in) is the recommended measure for men of ANY length.

Well isn't that special?

[some old guy]

More feel-good junk science to feed the rightfully low self-esteem of the Buffet Buffalo population. Many years ago a doctor candidly revealed to me that chronic pathological causes for acute Lardus Assimus account for about 2% of all cases. The rest of the up-right walking hog population is just lazy and eats too much, but doctors can't say that, at least not in public. Life experience tends to confirm this. If you want to be a pig, that's fine, but don't expect any sympathy from the healthy population.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

"Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie."

Whoever said otherwise? The fact is, though, that it doesn't have to be much food to be "too much". There are plenty of thin people that vastly overeat fat ones and yet are totally sedentary. If it were as simple as you say, then that wouldn't exist. There is something biologically complicated afoot.

"It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation."

Yes, and perhaps it was easier for you to lose your weight than it is for others. Not every fat person is diabetic, though it's likely they will all eventually be. Some people get fat young and find it easier, particularly males, to lose excess weight. When I was in my 20's I weighed 260 and eventually dropped that to 190. I'm now 20 years older, weigh 210, work out at least three days a week, and have a body fat percentage of about 12%, yet controlling my weight now is much more difficult than ever.

What is interesting is why some people have so much easier time naturally controlling how much they eat than others. This is how naturally everyone should be and willpower has nothing to do with it. If a body degenerates into obesity we should naturally assume it is not working properly, not that the person has weak character. Instead, we assume the opposite and many feel inclined to post messages on the matter. It is not just sloth that causes obesity.

Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

Actually, you are wrong but it doesn't surprise me that you said that. I'm in my mid-40's and have 12% body fat. I constantly work with my weight but few that know me consider me to be fat. My family, however, has a history of obesity and diabetes, my mother has it, my father died from it, and my siblings are becoming severely overweight. I have a great deal of experience in the matter and I see a doctor 4 times a year to do blood work.

"Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want."

When you grow up, maybe you'll have enough experience to offer and educated comment on the matter.

"You obviously don't like being told it is your fault."

Tell me it's my fault all you want. In 20 years you'll be fatter than me and the attitude will change.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[3vi1]

In 20 years you'll be fatter than me

You purport to be more enlightened, yet you equate age with weight. That doesn't sound like an intelligent argument. The only way your statement could be true is if the problem is actually with today's average lifestyle, and not physical at all.

I don't claim to know more than anyone else about obesity, but I've never seen anyone lose weight naturally unless they ate less/less garbage and/or expended more energy. What magical pill/therapy is there to get around this?

How many people eat and exercise properly yet suffer from signs of malnutrition? How come no one on "The Biggest Loser" or any gym I've *ever* been to has had such problems. This has to be incredibly rare, no? What are these signs of malnutrition? Are they worse than the signs and dangers of obesity? Also, wouldn't the people stop suffering from these symptoms after they got to a healthy weight and could eat more (maintaining their size)? Or, could they maybe avoid them completely by eating more from the get-go, but exercising harder?

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[Dan B.]

Skinny, yes; 18, no, almost double that.

Given the level of effort you put in to maintain a healthy weight, I doubt you will ever have weight problems of the obese kind (and I commend you on that). It still stands however that the basic premise for most people in 'that' Generation is that nothing is their fault. I hate people who can't accept responsibility. Do you see me posting as AC? No, I own up to where I put my words.

I don't have any medical problems and I rarely, if ever, eat take-away. When I do it would be fish-and-chips, and not the drowned in batter and fried variety. I know what's good for me, and I have a fair idea how much energy I require. I'm 183cm (6') and 69kg (150lb) so trust me, in 20 years, I will not be fatter that you.

Every time I see a news story that is 'blah blah 40% of the population is obese' I often wonder where these people are. I don't see them where I live, work and play. The paper keeps telling me they are out there though. Maybe I just don't see that side of the population to have this 'experience' you speak of. Either way, I still believe in what I said/say.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

Weight and age are quite related, not only because of lifestyle considerations but because of hormonal changes. Perhaps you need to rethink that.

Adult onset diabetes takes decades to develop. In that respect, diabetes, and the obesity that is linked to it, are necessarily a function of age. You can't have a condition that takes 30 years to develop when you are only 20 years old.

"How many people eat and exercise properly yet suffer from signs of malnutrition? How come no one on "The Biggest Loser" or any gym I've *ever* been to has had such problems. This has to be incredibly rare, no? What are these signs of malnutrition? Are they worse than the signs and dangers of obesity? Also, wouldn't the people stop suffering from these symptoms after they got to a healthy weight and could eat more (maintaining their size)? Or, could they maybe avoid them completely by eating more from the get-go, but exercising harder?"

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they seem irrelevant to me.

The subject at hand is what is responsible for the body becoming obese, what are the mechanisms, and what makes it hard for people who suffer from it to overcome it without help or drastic measures. The prevailing attitude from skinny, young people is that they are weak-minded and inferior. What a surprise.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

There is absolutely no doubt that we live in a society that refuses to take basic responsibility. That I would never dispute. Furthermore, there are many overweight and obese people who refuse to help themselves.

However, just because that is so is not proof that obesity is caused by simple laziness. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The fact of the matter is that, regardless of cause, some people are predisposed to not gain weight. The claim is that it's genetic and it may be so, but it could also be fundamentally behavioral. I have a friend that in his mid-60's and isn't a pound overweight nor has ever been. He's the rudest, most insulting person towards the overweight that you will ever know yet he's never worked out, never had an active lifestyle, and eats total crap. He believes that his weight is a function of superior willpower, yet he's never been able to kick that two pack a day smoking habit. He's an asshole.

That's how it is with those who don't have weight problems. They believe their experience is the experience of all people. Some people fall victim to the pervasive bad diets in our society and struggle with their weight. They are not inferior to those who don't have such problems.

Anyone who claims that weight gain is a simple function of eating too much has never experienced the problems of the obese. They are wrong and have no basis to appreciate the real facts of the condition. It turns out that obese people aren't so because they gorge themselves; they gorge themselves because they are obese and it is a runaway train. I've posted this link several times already but I'll post it again. It explains things far better than I can:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm

In summary, research shows that an overabundance of fructose in the diet overloads the liver and, over time, causes the area of the brain responsible for controlling appetite to fail to detect that the body is sufficiently fat by interfering with leptin. As a result, the body thinks it is starving and triggers runaway hunger and lethargy. Anyone who thinks they can simply will themselves to overcome that doesn't appreciate the scope of the problem. People in that condition suffer.

Remember, obesity is a growing health concern and casting blame on the weak character of the obese will do nothing to solve it. Eventually we will all pay for the consequences of an aging, fat population.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[drsmithy]

Every time I see a news story that is 'blah blah 40% of the population is obese' I often wonder where these people are.

All around you, they just don't _look_ like it.

That statistic you hear is based on BMI. BMI is, at best, an unreliable indicator for a) whether or not someone "looks obese" (obviously very overweight, rolls of fat, multiple chins, no muscle definition anywhere, etc, etc) and b) whether they're "unfit" (gets puffed running up stairs, does no exercise, etc).

For example, I have a BMI of about 31 (=medically obese). However, I'm 189cm and "built like a tank", so while I definitely have a pot belly, I doubt many people would look and consider me "obese" - especially since I have reasonably good muscle definition on my arms and legs. I cycle a ~25km round-trip to work (without raising much of a sweat) and play a 40 minute game of indoor soccer once a week (again, without feeling exhausted afterwards). So while overweight, I'm not really unfit and I can't think of anyone who has ever referred to me as "obese" or looked at me in that "I can't believe you're so fat" way. However, my weight has been stable at its current level for 5+ years now and short of seriously intrusive dieting (= food I didn't really enjoy eating and feeling hungry 24/7) I haven't been able to lose it (or, rather, I did but it came back).

The "best" my BMI has ever been was 24.something, back in the middle of high school (just under "overweight"). I was about 180cm and weighed around 80kg. At the time, I was cycling ~30km daily (to and from school), training 1-2hrs a day for soccer and/or volleyball, swimming a kilometre ~3 times a week and playing 3-5 games of very competitive soccer and/or volleyball every week. For the last two years of high school, with a similar level of exercise, my BMI rose to (just) over 25. So I would have fit into that x% of the population that was being reported as "overweight", despite being extremely fit and not *looking* at all overweight.

The short version is, a hell of a lot of people are medically overweight or obese, but don't look it because of their body type - they just look "pudgy". That's where most of that "x% of the population is obese" is hiding.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

Country people are even fatter than city people. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.

Fat does run in the family. Only some of it is genetic.

The problem with you and all the other ignorants around here is that you believe there's only one cause of obesity, that it's due to laziness, and that you aren't and never will be obese because you're too good. You'll learn.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

BMI is a total joke. It's curious that an accepted but bogus standard such as that would be used to lump so many people unjustly into the overweight/obese category when the prevailing "wisdom" in medicine is to do the opposite. Unlike other conditions, "overweight" does not necessarily require treatment that has to be honored by insurance.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[Sax Maniac]

I've always wondered about this. My BMI is in the same range and I'm technically obese based on the weight/height charts I've seen. I agree, I could stand to lose about 20-30 pounds. But, if you look at the charts, even if I did so, I'd still be "overweight".

Now, for my height, that charts says I'd have to get down to about 155 to not be overweight. 155? In college, I lost a lot of weight when I was doing a lot running, and I might have hit 160 or 165 or so. I got down to 31" waist. Now, I have big shoulders, and this made me look really thin. Any clothes that fit me in the shoulders would be swimmingly loose in the gut. But, I was still "overweight" compared to these charts. If I barely got to the "not overweight" state, I'd be a skeleton! Really. Which, I think would be impossible for me... as you exercise more you get heavier in muscle. I cruised up to 175-180 with no waist change, all muscle. And I drank a lot of beer.

I remember thinking at the time, oh, I have 10 or 15 pounds to go, but now I realize that was pretty damn thin, and didn't need to lose anything else.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[PenGun]

Babies all of ya ;). I'm 60 lift weights 5 times a week run 4 miles every 4 days, the off day for weights and just generally kick ass.

  It's mostly attitude. Muscle is metabolism and it just evaporates off old people. Luckily weights fix that just fine.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[Kelbear]

Parent is on the money.

Also, overweight and obese are different. Consuming a livable amount of healthy foods and consistent moderate exercise, they can still be considered "overweight" but can be quite healthy underneath the fat if they meet those two requirements. But despite living healthy, they /will/ be overweight. Everyone's body resists fat loss as weight loss continues, and eventually additional fat loss will start producing unhealthy side effects and the fat loss will still be quite slow. Not everyone is cut out to be slim, but the bodyfat itself is not a terrible problem so long as the body underneath is getting a clean intake and consistent exercise.

The difficulty level each person faces can vary, pretending you know what it's like to be in someone else's shoes is foolish and arrogant. Quitting smoking is easy...when you've hardly smoked at all. Nobody can know how much effort is really being put forward by another person. But with that in mind, the only person who does know is the individual, and they have to be the hardest taskmaster of all since they are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[Lehk228]

i worked in a supermarket, yes it is sloth and gluttony causing the excess weight in >95% of cases. take a field trip to your local supermarket and observe the produce, bakery, meat, bread, and frozen foods aisles.

i'll tell you right now where you will see the fewest fatties; the produce aisle.

candida albicans masquerades as diabetes

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

and I seem to have problems with candida albicans.

(Yes, I have been tested for diabetes. Inconclusive results.)

I've been living with this more than twenty years. I don't mind the gas. My wife and kids sometimes complain. Living without simple sugars is fine with me, but the hour and a quarter workout every day to kick me into gear before work is sometimes a frustration when I would prefer spending the time on some project.

Re:candida albicans masquerades as diabetes

[Graff]

I looked around and the only thing that I've seen is that diabetics are at a greater risk of developing problems with candida albicans, not that candida albicans causes diabetic-like symptoms. As far as not being conclusively tested as a diabetic you should get tested periodically, a lot of borderline people later develop diabetes.

Well good luck with it and I hope that avoiding simple sugars does the trick for you. I'm just over the edge of being diabetic (type 2) and have it in control by avoiding carbohydrates as much as possible. I've been following the South Beach Diet and it's kept my blood sugar levels down below 120 mg/dL, good enough not to need any medication.

You might want to try to snag a blood sugar test kit and test yourself periodically to make sure that diabetes hasn't crept up on you. Catching it early is the best thing because every minute you don't treat it is more damage to your body.

The exercise is a pain, I know how you feel about it. I've been trying to walk at least an hour a day to help reduce the blood glucose levels and it helps a ton.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[scotch]

Maybe it's just that some people naturally have more willpower than others? Maybe some people genetically have more motivation than others? Maybe some people are bred to work hard and achieve goals? It's genetics I tell you, which is why the obesity rate in the USA increasing, obviously. Our genes are getting fat.

I'm not as old as you (upper 30s), but I come from a family where everyone has a "weight problem", there is late-onset diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. I've been 40lbs overweight before. It's clear to me as anything in this life is that for the vast majority of people, being fat is a choice. Just like being stupid is a choice, or having a shitty job is a choice, or working hard is a choice, or saving money, or doing drugs, or blah blah blah.

Sure, there are mitigating factors, medical conditions, people need help, people need support, etc.

Here's my support for you: Working out 3 days a week is not enough. Ride your bike to work every day of the year. Every day. Too far? Move or change jobs. Reduce stress. Do you want to be healthy or dead? Run / bike at lunch before you eat at least 3 days a week. Train for a marathon, triathlon or century. Get off your fat ass and walk around at work for 5 minutes at least once an hour. When you get home, don't plant your 12% fat in front of the TV. Eat some vegetables for Christ-Sake. Stop drinking so much alcohol. Quit making excuses, you sound pathetic.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

Your work experience qualifies you for nothing. You have no idea whether obese people are that way because of what they eat or they eat the way they do because of their obesity. All you are observing is a connection.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

"Maybe it's just that some people naturally have more willpower than others? Maybe some people genetically have more motivation than others? Maybe some people are bred to work hard and achieve goals? It's genetics I tell you, which is why the obesity rate in the USA increasing, obviously. Our genes are getting fat."

That is a nonsense explanation driven out of pure ego.

"It's clear to me as anything in this life is that for the vast majority of people, being fat is a choice."

Sure, just as living is a "choice". Doesn't mean there isn't an overwhelming biological drive to choose obesity. There are obese people with unbelievable appetites. It is absurd to think they choose to overeat. The problem is that they are constantly hungry; far more so than healthy people. Saying that their problem is a lack of willpower, that they are choosing to be fat, is bullshit. They do not face the same choice as you; theirs is far harder.

"Here's my support for you..."

I'm way ahead of you and don't need your condescending "support". I'm 10-15 pound overweight for a 45 year old man of 210 pounds. I work out WITH A TRAINER 3 times a week. I do cardio on my days off. I'm on hormone supplementation and am carefully monitored medically. I bet I could not only teach you a thing or two but run circles around you as well. You are not only ignorant; you're a prick to boot.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[Macgrrl]

i worked in a supermarket, yes it is sloth and gluttony causing the excess weight in >95% of cases. take a field trip to your local supermarket and observe the produce, bakery, meat, bread, and frozen foods aisles.

I was recently diagnosed with a liver tumor, while the liver is 'functioning' correctly as far as medical tests go, one of the side effects of the tumor is a sweet tooth - a craving for sugar. I've been concious of the cravings for a long time and have discussed them with the trainer I see, we've tried a variety of strategies to try and address them. It was in some ways a relief to find out there was a medical reason why I was experiencing those cravings - it gives me more ammunition in how to cope with them.

And before you suggest it, the tumor wasn't cased by sugar - it's a known but rare side effect from taking birth control pills.

Re:Big-boned?

[phantomlord]

His chest after being in Kuwait and Iraq in the desert heat wearing boy armor for months was still over 50 inches. In a similar vein, I'm 5'6.5" and have a 48" chest. By doing a low carb diet, I can get down to about 200 pounds in a matter of 4-6 weeks and I'll stay there for months despite keeping myself at a 20-25 carb/day limit. Off the diet, I quickly move back up to (and stabilize at) 225 pounds despite eating fairly healthy home cooked meals twice a day as well as walking 5-6 miles per day. All of my body fat is in my stomach, the rest of my body is pretty lean (which is actually very typical for all males on my dad's side of the family, all the males on my mom's side are as small as petite women despite overeating and frankly, many of them being alcoholics.)

I easily have the biggest chest of any male on either side of the family. However, I used to be tiny like the guys on my mom's side until I was about 7. Around the same time, I was diagnosed with chronic asthma and was on a constant regimen of various steroids (regularly until I was 18, sporadically since because my asthma doesn't kick in as often) to try to control it (likely cause is both parents were smokers). I've always wondered whether there was a connection there regarding my sudden change in metabolism, bone growth and the steroids. My chest definitely started growing beyond my peers pre-puberty. There used to be a gap between the gym lockers and the wall and most of the guys could fit back there but not me, even though I was still thinner than them in the gut.

Also factor in that my dad has a hypothyroid condition. My sister was also diagnosed with it after having a baby and seeing an endocrinologist. My dad's mom's mom had goiters the size of baseballs too. There is obviously a genetic connection in the family, though to my knowledge nobody else has been tested for it. It might, however, explain our metabolic problems with stomach weight and could be the reason why I plateau on weight loss despite sticking to my diet.

Fact is, weight isn't simply a matter of calories in. I was eating about 1000 calories a day for three months while continuing to walk 5-6 miles a day and I couldn't drop any more weight. According to various calculators, I require 2200-2500 calories to maintain my weight. Given the difference, I still should have been losing at least 1200 calories (or a third of a pound) per day.

Nope, get rid of ice cream/potato chips...

[Joce640k]

Humans only use up a small amount of energy by moving around. The problem isn't the lack of movement it's the junk which typically goes into the mouth while watching TV.

Re:Nope, get rid of ice cream/potato chips...

[iamacat]

I have never seen anyone does an hour of vigorous exercise per day and is severely obese. Muscles burn energy even when at rest. Exercise suppresses hunger and makes you not want to eat a heavy meal. Staying outdoors for long periods distracts you from desire to eat junk snacks and restricts access to the fridge. Physical activity alleviates depression, making you want to take better care of yourself.

Not really

[merikari]

No, she/he is both fat and big boned.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[stephanruby]

If a body degenerates into obesity we should naturally assume it is not working properly, not that the person has weak character.

Why? Shouldn't our goal be to reverse that obesity? If someone is obese, we should formulate as many assumptions as we can, so that we can eliminate them as quickly as possible. And if this means that some obese people/children would have to go through a fat camp in order to eliminate the lack of a proper diet and exercise as a possible root cause of their problem, then so be it -- let's keep the eye on the prize. We do want healthy children and adults. Right?

Re:Let me guess, you're skinny and 44? Yes!

[slashbart]

I'm slim, strong, BMI of 21, and an accomplished rockclimber.

Guess what, I'm 44 years old!

Grandparent is absolutely right!

I've been asked several times if I'm on a diet. Well bullshit, It's just that I don't overeat. I don't count calories, but am aware of what I eat, and don't stuff myself. Oh by the way, apart from the climbing, I also use an exercise bike about 30 minutes every day.

I will not allow myself to become like most of my age group, flabby, unhealthy whiners. I'd rather be dead!

Well now you can go back to the fridge and the couch.

Bart

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[cerberusss]

I'm guessing you've stopped taking birth control pills? That could have the side effect losing some weight as well, I noticed this with my girlfriend. As for the sugar cravings, you might be able to fool your brain by buying a can of sweetener and a sack of lemons. Add the juice and the sweetener to water and you've got great sugarfree lemonade.

IGF1

[hesaigo999ca]

I have always said that GH levels that control not only muscle and hormone levels, they also
affect bone....as per our early bodybuilders would show us due to the use of organic GH
as opposed to the synthetic used today. Organic made their bones grow, hence the big gap in their teeth, so because of this, also I would have to agree with this article as I knopw myself from personal experience using insulin, that everything is related at the molecular level to the gh our bodies produce, and which is why they give hormone therapy to obese people and also to aids victims.

Re:Let me guess, you're skinny and 44? Yes!

[dfghjk]

...and since you've never experienced metabolic syndrome, no one has. Furthermore, you never will!

You may claim to be 44 years old, but you think and brag like a teenager.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

You've demonstrated that you're a prick, now demonstrate that you're not ignorant.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[dfghjk]

Where did I say anything about "good enough"?

I don't give a shit whether I'm "way ahead" of you or anyone else. My health is my concern, it's not a contest. I could give a shit about the bragging of someone in their early 20's. They have no idea what they face 20 years down the road.

I am also not an "old fart", I am only old compared to those who have no living experience as an adult yet. Once again, you are barely and adult. Who gives a shit what you think?

Lastly, I don't care what the parent was "telling me to do". He knew nothing of my personal situation, his purpose was to make condescending remarks me just as you are.

And don't f***ing sit on top of me in the bus!

[slashbart]

Well maybe I'm just irritated by all these people that seem to think that its inevitable that you get fat when you get older, or that tell me that with my metabolism I can eat anything.

If I look at the amount of food that those commentators stuff into their body, they always out-eat me by a large amount. Also, the kind of stuff, the deepfried foodoid they seem to prefer is definitely not part of my diet. The funny thing; I am generally taller, and probably more muscular also, so I would need more food to keep those muscles, no ?

I don't brag, I have no reason to brag, this is my life, my body, and I like it this way. Just stop whining when you're overweight, and do something about it.

And lastly, don't sit on top of me in the bus, when you're attempting to sit NEXT to me.

Re:And don't f***ing sit on top of me in the bus!

[dfghjk]

"I don't brag, I have no reason to brag, this is my life, my body, and I like it this way."

You don't? What's this?

"I will not allow myself to become like most of my age group, flabby, unhealthy whiners. I'd rather be dead!

Well now you can go back to the fridge and the couch."

Oh, I see. You're just insulting me, kind of like these...

"Just stop whining when you're overweight, and do something about it."

"And lastly, don't sit on top of me in the bus, when you're attempting to sit NEXT to me."

You're not bragging, just being a skinny person who feels entitled to belittle others who aren't as skinny. That isn't bragging at all!

Too bad you're talking to someone who isn't as fat as you assume. You aren't the only one who works at it. The difference is that you've never had to deal with being overweight at all, so you don't know the difference.

Now as for the appetite thing, perhaps you should read this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm

It explains why fat people have greater appetites. Your marvelous, superior willpower isn't a function of anything other than your natural leanness. A properly functioning body doesn't crave more food than it needs.

I've never sat on a person while getting on the bus but I might make and exception in your case. Of course, I don't really have need to ride the bus these days. That's more for the /.'ers who feel superior in spite of not having earned their first dollar yet.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[scotch]

Yes, I read what you wrote the first time. I'm a prick. And ignorant. Yeah, good for you. What about that little bit of bragging bullshit you posted? Ready to respond to the other half of my post yet - or are you too busy "teaching me a thing or two" and "running cicles" around me in you mind?

Re:Big-boned?

[mr_mischief]

Carrying excess weight primarily around the midsection is a strong indicator of risk for type 2 diabetes. My doctor keeps telling me that focusing on losing weight there in particular will help keep me from ever becoming insulin dependent like my dad.

Yes, to inform idiots like you

[Iowan41]

There are over 2 dozen non-overeating causes known for obesity, yet bigots like yourself continue to spout your bile. It has been shown that obesity is one of the last acceptable prejudices, because it allows the well-off to look down on the poor who cannot afford gym memberships and healthy food, but have to eat the much cheaper starches, which creates insulin resistance.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[zspencer]

Yes, yes I have been. Last August, I weighed nearly 280 pounds. My waist line was approaching 46 inches, and I was sick of it. I then decided to start eating "better." I cut out high calorie, high junk foods, and by January I had dropped to 260. I decided that wasn't enough, and in February began making myself be more active. Not "ZOMG, Run 3 miles a day!" active, but simple, working more exercise into my life (parking at the far en d of the parking lot, walking to the library instead of driving, riding my bike 2 miles to work, hitting the gym 2x a week, playing softball) I now weigh 215, fit comfortably into 38 waist pants, and am quite happy with myself. So yes, I can say that (the majority of) people who are fat, choose to be fat. The choice *not* to do something about it is as much of a choice as the choice *to* do something about it. The fact that it's far easier to simply choose not to do something doesn't absolve people from their own responsibility.

Good one :-)

[slashbart]

This one made me smile, good one, proves that fat people can be funny: "I've never sat on a person while getting on the bus but I might make and exception in your case." Unless you're not fat ofcourse, in which case it just proves that you can be funny.

As for your arguments; maybe my body craves less food than that of an overweight person, that still does mean one HAS to put the food in. I know my wife eats less than she would like to, and doesn't eat some of the things she'd want to, because she likes to be slender more than she likes the food. She used to be chubby by the way, and proves that being overweight can be fixed by lifestyle changes. Same for my father in law by the way.

The other thing: the obesity epidemic is worse in the U.S than anywhere else. This country at the same time has: a very sedentary carloving lifestyle; little free time; lots of eating out at fastfood places; not enough sleep for most of the population! There is obviously no genetics involved since the Americans were not overweight only 50 years ago. The connection seems obvious. Add to this the fact "low fat yoghurt" in the U.S. supermarket would be called normal yoghurt here in Holland shows that supermarkets food labelling doesn't help. Oh one more thing: have you ever considered the meaning of the "Health Food" section in the supermarket? What are they selling in the rest of the place???

As for me personally: I eat no meat, I eat no fried food, I eat no butter or margarine. I eat no candy. No fast food. If there is a low-fat variety of something, I eat that. I exercise, a lot. I sleep enough. Ofcourse I'm at a healthy weight. You won't find anyone with my lifestyle that's overweight. Simple.

Greeting and no hard feelings

Oh, I made 75kEuro last year by the way :-) I once earned some dollars, but that was in the nineties somewhere. I mostly earn guilders and euros :-)

bones are alive!

[peter303]

We often view bones as the skeltons of the dead, but bones are amazing alive and active organs in body. The American who won then lost Tour de France last year had a dead hip joint during the race. Its was supposed to have been excruciatingly painful and most pain drugs were banned by the Tour.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!"

[Macgrrl]

The trainer recommended have a small chunk of cheese - slow release energy and protein. The other recommened option is raw fruit - the fructose (not from corn syrup - from real fruit) is slightly better than sucrose, and the vitamins are good. Apple, Orange and Ginger freshly squeezd juice for example - the ginger accellerates the metabolism.

Heading out to buy a juicer after the next pay packet.