Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.
that old nice way of saying "she's fat": "she's just big boned", might actually be true?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You mean viagra? (Or as we scientists call it, \/1@gr@ )
At the bottom of the
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.
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.)
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
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.
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.
Quack, quack.
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."
> 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.
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.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
"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.
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.
7 /1969924.htm
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/200
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.
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.
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.