Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swine Flu Kills Obese People Disproportionately

Posted by timothy on from the super-size-someone-else-please dept.

Philip K Dickhead writes "Bloomberg is reporting that the World Health Organization discovered a single, surprising characteristic that's emerged among swine flu victims who become severely ill: They are all fat. Infected people with a body mass index greater than 40 suffer respiratory complications that are harder to treat and can be fatal. The virus appears to be on a collision course with the obesity epidemic. WHO officials are gathering statistics to confirm and understand this development. 'It's very likely that if we went back retrospectively and looked at people who did poorly during seasonal flu, what would shake out is that obesity would be one of the risks.' Fat cells secrete chemicals that cause chronic, low-level inflammation that can hamper the body's immune response and narrow the airways, says Tim Armstrong, a doctor working in the WHO's chronic diseases department in Geneva."

49 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. Well... yeh. by yoursurrogategod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being obese is pretty much an invitation for all sorts of problems. I love my steak, fries, chocolate, soda and burgers, I just eat them once every other week in small quantities. It helps when I think of baby carrots and apples as snacks.

    1. Re:Well... yeh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have a simple issue with self control. If I did she'd be dead and I'd be up on murder charges. On the other hand I have a huge problem eating small portions. If I do I literally walk around voraciously hungry.

      [snip]

      Combine this with a desk job and yeah I _could_ try to make time for the gym (which I hate with a passion) but keeping up an excercise routine is to say the least problematic.

      So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.

      Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more. So you have a bad ankle, talk to your doctor to come up with an exercise routine that doesn't involve massive amounts of walking.

      30 minutes a day. That's it. If you can't do that, then yes, it's a self control issue.

    2. Re:Well... yeh. by syousef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.

      Not at all.

      Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more.

      That completely ignores the fact that people feel hunger differently, people lose weight differently, and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week. If weight loss were as easy for everyone as you make it out to be we wouldn't have a problem.

      So you have a bad ankle, talk to your doctor to come up with an exercise routine that doesn't involve massive amounts of walking.

      Yeah because I'd never have thought of that you twit. There are only a handful of things that would work for me. Weight training isn't going to work now is it. That's great for bulking up. One thing that might work is swimming. If I could get to a pool 2 hours a day maybe I'd have a chance.

      30 minutes a day. That's it. If you can't do that, then yes, it's a self control issue

      Dude if 30 minutes a day worked for me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The only couple of times I have lost weight in my life I lived on salad and lean meat/chicken in tiny portions and did AT LEAST 2 hours of heavy excercise a day. Anything short of that doesn't cut it. What's worse is when I've stopped it's taken a couple of months of eating reasonable portions and not excercising as much to put on all the weight I've lost over 6-8 months AND add some more kilos as the body overcompensates. Now you can choose to believe me or not. I'm guessing not. That's up to you. I happen to know for a fact that I'm not lying. Meanwhile I CAN'T keep that up while working 10 hrs a day 5 days a week plus some weekends, spending 3 hours a day in commute, doing chores till midnight when I get home and helping to raise a family.

      See that's the trouble with morons like your good self. You think it's a simple case of self control and even when someone demonstrates that they have self control you're happier to blame the person for not making super human efforts and for having a body that doesn't react in the same way as theirs. You have no regard for their actual situation. You're just eager to place the entire blame on some moral or psychological defect. Ironically it's a "let them eat cake" solution that you offer.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Well... yeh. by sopssa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.

      Not at all.

      Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more.

      That completely ignores the fact that people feel hunger differently, people lose weight differently, and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week. If weight loss were as easy for everyone as you make it out to be we wouldn't have a problem.

      You do understand that the different hunger feeling comes from the fact how much people have got used to eat, right? And also from what kind of food you eat. Carbs burn *fast* in your body, so stay off from bread, rice, potatoes and such. Eat high-protein and high-fat foods like meat, fish and chicken. They often also contain way less calories than the high-carb foods. Start by eating when you feel like so, as you're quite possible taking way less calories in that way anyways. Lower your amounts a bit all the time and you'll notice you dont really need that much food.

      I feel you in that theres sometimes reasons people cant get their motivation up for that, being it work or anything else. I'm myself around the ~30 in charts. But I know the reasons for it and I know that I could make it better, instead of lying to myself that it's somehow not possible.

      The only couple of times I have lost weight in my life I lived on salad and lean meat/chicken in tiny portions and did AT LEAST 2 hours of heavy excercise a day. Anything short of that doesn't cut it.

      See this? That is the answer that I've already said and you've even noticed yourself. Hamburgers, bread and other such high-carb food is bad. Meat and chicken and fish is good. It's there by nature. Google for "low carb diet", go by that atleats 2 weeks and you'll notice how great it is. Then make that your lifestyle.

    4. Re:Well... yeh. by Killer+Orca · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't have to swim for 2 hours to get any weight-losing exercise, I think if you signed up for some night adult swimming classes you would learn a few things that would help, specifically: improving your form, breathing, flip-turns (maybe not an option with your ankle), different strokes, etc. In fact they have even invented weights specifically for water based exercising http://www.saveonpoolsupplies.com/shopping/product.aspx?productid=SKU1217&scode=I9SOPSST&e7=Y&e8=T3335&pcode=101&keyword=T3335 if you want to add variety. Eating less is a harder problem, some people find eating their meals slower helps, not wolfing it down. Don't expect to lose weight after a week either, it can takes months to see an actual measurable and continual change.

    5. Re:Well... yeh. by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week."

      I'm going to call bullshit on this, it's fucking impossible to NOT lose weight in a week if you are "working your ass off", you're certainly not working you ass off if you're not losing even half a pound or 1 pound in 7 days. Losing weight DOES require some amount of willpower and definitely requires a commitment hence (by and large) one is responsible for one's weight.

      One cannot just excuse oneself unless one has a serious medical condition, but even those that are sick (your arthritis in your leg/angle) can do other exercises. For instance when I was lifting free weights and benching you still burn and awful lot of fat without having to move around that much. What matters is expending energy.

      I walked at a leisurely pace 4hrs/day 7/days week and lost 10-12 lbs a month, it's a matter of *commitment* either you want to lose the weight or you dont, if you don't like high intensity you have to make up the lack of intensity with duration of time and distance for low intensity aerobics (like walking).

      The biggest thing is monitoring your appetite, no amount of exercise will help if you're over-eating and taking in more energy then you're burning off. The army did a study a long while back that showed just this: Taking in too much energy negates the weight loss benefits of exercise and you don't have to starve youself either, just limit yourself to 1500-1800 cals/day and keep track of it on a site like http://www.fitday.com/

      The truth is many people who are overweight have never been thin for most of their life and got fat fairly young and developed a victim psychology because of bullying/social prejudice.

      There's only so much you can do to excuse yourself from being overweight.. I agree there are many different body types and some of us store fat easily on the smallest amounts of food, but many of us that store easily barely exercise.

      The real issue though is not paying attention to how energy dense the food you're eating is, most people "wing it" when they eat they don't get rigorous ambout keeping track of the amount of food (see fitday.com), once you get rigorous and can see it on a chart, then you will realize that - yes, you are over eating!

      I realized this when I started tracking what I ate @ www.fitday.com (a great site btw) and it is handy because it will show you the evidence and you can't just deny it anymore.

      Most people live in the fog of their own mind never really looking hard at teh evidence in their own lives contradicting and lending support to the naysayers of "no willpower", the truth is it's more about being aware of your own bad/blind thinking on the matter of how you eat and live that is the root of the problem.

      I know I went through it.

    6. Re:Well... yeh. by torkus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyone who "can not" lose weight is, quite simply, doing something wrong. Sure, they could be part of the .001% of people with a gland problem but let's be serious and talk about the overwhelming majority.

      If you weight (far too many)lbs and restrict your dietary intake you WILL lose weight. It's pretty straight forward honestly. Exercise greatly helps of course. And for the 'my poor ankle' whining comes back around - there are people with NO LEGS that are still healthy. Clearly a bad ankle is not a barrier to avoiding obesity.

      There are a TON of other excuses and all of them are just that - excuses. If you want to be healthy, in shape, or just plain old 'not fat' then make it a priority. If catching the new episode of MTV Real Life Ethiopia or the taste of a big mac are more important than losing weight then, chances are, it will not work.

      As for the story - it's another amusing 'well duh'. Next thing they'll post that old and immunodeficient are more likely to die from the flu (oh, sorry...meant to specify swine flu even though it's nothing more than different strain of flu) and bla bla bla. Of COURSE less healthy people are higher risk. They're also higher risk for ... well most other things.

      Someone get back to me when the swine flu deaths are more than 5% of total flu deaths or when the evil swine flu increases the overall number of yearly flu deaths beyond the usual year-to-year variances. The whole swine flu nonsense is manufactured news.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Well... yeh. by Lunzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're serious about losing weight you should not take dietary advice from some random slashdot poster and see a dietitian i.e. a qualified professional. Low carb, high fat & protein diets are a recent fad. There are other diets which work, and are better for you. A professional will be able to pick something appropriate to your situation.

    8. Re:Well... yeh. by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't expect a serious discussion in response to your post. Although most people on Slashdot are smart and keep up with the latest technology, many have rather medieval attitudes when it comes to medicine.

      Blaming the patient for the condition is one of those attitudes. Illness is like a "sin" to them, so the solution has to have some penance involved. "No pain, No gain" is one mantra of this religious belief.

      Even the medical community has been guilty of this. Ulcers used to be all about stress and lifestyle until one doctor discovered the bacteria that was actually the cause. A simple triple antibiotic "no pain" solution worked while the "painful" lifestyle changes didn't.

    9. Re:Well... yeh. by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind that people are all different.

      Some people can maintain a light weight with no effort all.

      Some people can maintain a light weight with a moderate effort.

      Some people can work hard and maintain a light weight.

      Quite a few people have to put in a huge battle and really not get anywhere with it - or they make progress only to lose ground.

      Look, I suspect that most people, if they worked REALLY hard, could do as well in math as I do. I'm not a complete prodigy or anything. However, I don't consider people lazy if they end up getting 70s on tests that I score in the high 90s on - that's just how it has been for all of my life - I can cruise through tests that most normal people barely pass with a fair amount of study. However, why should they bother trying to reach my level of proficiency at math? They should just spend their time on something they're better at, and learn enough math to get by in normal life. (Yes - I realize that quite a few people who read this post could outperform me in math - that isn't my point.)

      I'm hardly morbidly obese, but I do struggle to keep my weight down. Maybe that means I'll live ten years less than my peers - I'm willing to accept that. I do try to control my diet, but the fact is that unless somebody comes out with some kind of medical advance I'm not going to be average in weight without a huge amount of effort. I'm not sure that effort is really worth it - I'd rather die happy at 70 than suffer until 80. :) And if somebody comes up with better healthy ways to lose weight that don't involve huge amounts of self-deprivation, then that is just a win-win for everybody. Sure, maybe in the meantime I'll statistically cost society more to keep alive than the "average" person, but last time I checked I was paying far more in taxes than the average person and that's just how things work. In the meantime I'll keep working on my health, but if I can refrain from taunting people who weren't developing software in multiple languages in middle school in the 80s perhaps we can get beyond taunting people for having trouble controlling their weight?

    10. Re:Well... yeh. by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, losing weight has little to do with exercise. You exercise to be healthy, you eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight.

      Hacket's Diet. Look it up, follow it, you'll lose (or gain, if you want) weight. It's the meta diet for all diets! With the hacker's diet you learn how your weight is completely arbitrary, you can weigh whatever you want!

    11. Re:Well... yeh. by twostix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should submit yourself to the department of energy immediately.

      Your bodies ability to create matter out of thin air and somehow ignore the second law of thermodynamics by burning more energy than you ingest is nothing short of amazing!

      *Or* you're just making the same tired old excuses that those with some vice *always make*. You claim that your body is somehow special and refuses to burn the energy that you put in well guess what - that means you are going to have to eat 1/4 of what you do now for the rest of your life end of story (unless there's some medical "cure"). OR, you can be continue being fat and whinge about it on Slashdot for the rest of your (more than likely) short life...

      You need to expend more energy than you ingest per day, no amount of moral indignation can change the laws of physics.

      Otherwise if you already are ingesting less than you expend then you are a scientific marvel and for the good of human kind please get make yourself known to some scientists in the relevant field.

      On a side note you're at +5 which means that you've got a pretty general support from the people on here, it's kind of amusing how the basic laws of physics and "personal responsibility" ideals that are usually worshiped with religious fervor around here are kicked to the curb as soon as it's useful to do so.

      Glad to see the highly "logical" slashdot hordes - to borrow a clique, are just as prone to self delusion and excuses when it suits as the masses that are so often looked down upon here for doing exactly the same thing are.

    12. Re:Well... yeh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does anyone else find it kind of suspicious that a killer orca suggests people go swimming?

    13. Re:Well... yeh. by IrquiM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are some conditions that are based on lifestyle. You cannot say that these should not be blamed on the patient!

      --
      This is blinging
    14. Re:Well... yeh. by syousef · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do understand that the different hunger feeling comes from the fact how much people have got used to eat, right?

      No. It's not. When I lost weight and was having a large bowl of salad and a piece of lean chicken or steak (no bread or other carbs) I would always go around feeling hungry. ALL THE TIME. FOR MONTHS ON END. Now after a while your stomach can't take the food. If you eat a little more than you usually do, or if you eat anything with a tiny bit of fat or oil you feel ill the rest of the day. BUT YOU STILL FEEL HUNGRY. That's how it was for me. I kept that up for maybe 8 months. I took an extra day off work every week (Try working when you're hungry to the point of distraction).

      I'm tired of fools who automatically assume every fat person that's had trouble simply hasn't tried hard enough.

      Here are some long term stats for you:
      http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/6/620

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    15. Re:Well... yeh. by adri · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a nerd who has just lost 35kg (thats > 70lb for you americans); I'd just like point out that the resultant physical changes from weight loss and exercise are not unencumbered.

      I'm now angrier; I'm now constantly hungry. I have no energy. I can't focus. I'm not getting the stupidly large amount of calories that my body is used to and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to compensate at the moment besides eating more cheap calories. My work and personal life are suffering all because I decided to put the food down and start jogging.

      And yes, I'm scheduling time to see a doctor and all of those specialists which I'm sure I'll be referred to. The fact still remains - I may look better, but I feel like shit.

  2. Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases by EQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    1. Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually in this case it's a perfectly valid way of looking at it. BMI was created for statistical analysis. And that's what it's being used for.

      With the relatively small number of people that have died as a result of the H1N1 it's much easier to detect whether or not it's accurate for the group. But when doing models of how this is likely to shape out, the BMI is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it. The only other measure that's reasonable to consider is the waste to hip ratio, and that's not really designed for this.

    2. Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or big muscled. According to this site, Hulk Hogan has a BMI of 31.9 The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) has a BMI of 34.3 Both of them fall under the BMI obese category. Seriously, The Rock is not fat.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases by Quothz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.

      Bogus, no; misleading, sometimes. Someone with a BMI over 40 is always fat, however. Even a 7-foot tall, heavily-muscled man cannot achieve that without huge rolls of fat or a stomach full of ball bearings.

    4. Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases by BikeHelmet · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean waist.

      Waste to intake ratio might actually be be another way to chart it. We'd have to do it, to find out. ;)

  3. This is just wrong... by glitch23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Morbid obesity is one of the most common findings turning up in severely ill patients," said Nikki Shindo, who is leading the investigation of swine flu patients at the WHO in Geneva. "It's a huge problem."

    That is just wrong.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    1. Re:This is just wrong... by T-Kir · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like you got the skinny on the whole situation.

      --
      Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  4. Re:Finally!! A Cure For Obesity!! by sopssa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pig flu affects fat persons.. I didn't see that one coming!

  5. Oversensitive, in this case it works by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, the BMI they are recording is over 40 - categorized as "morbidly obese". The only people not actually very overweight that would hit that would be professional weight lifters...

    For just seeing if someone is a touch overweight it's not a great tool. But in this case the observation is perfectly valid.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Cost of subsidies by yoursurrogategod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Makes you wonder just how much this nations spends annually on corn and soy subsidies and just how much we will pay in the future as more and more people become sickly due to the low price of the poor nutrition that they are often offered. What if we got rid of those agricultural subsidies? How will that affect the cost of McDonalds', Wendys', etc. foods?

    1. Re:Cost of subsidies by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Silence! Obesity is caused exclusively by poor character, and our gigantic farm subsidies are there to Protect America's Family Farms(tm), not Archer Daniels Midland.

      How dare you question America? Also, while I'm at it, corn is by far the most efficient source of ethanol, unlike sugar cane, which is for communists.

  7. The story title is wrong ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    It isn't killing them disproportionally - it's killing them in direct relationship to their proportions :-)

    1. Re:The story title is wrong ... by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obesity is something you *can* fix. It's not like cancer or something else where you have little to nothing control over it. You can just do it, if you really want to.

    2. Re:The story title is wrong ... by vivian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Losing fat comes down to a simple equation.
      If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that.
      No amount of "glandular" problem is going to make you put on weight if you are eating less calories than you use in your daily activites.
      So you need to either eat less, or do more ecercise, or both. Exercise helps because as you get fitter and have more muscle, as just having more muscle makes you burn more energy - so in that respect it is easier for a fit person to stay slim, but there is no reason in the world that anyone needs to be fat, regardless of any "glandular" problem.
      Getting more excercise is trivial too. It takes no more 5 minutes to do 30 pushups and 60 crunches - you can do them last thing at night before going to bed.
      Likewise, you can get off the bus/train one stop earlier ( or walk to the next stop along from where you get on) and easily get a 15 to 30 min walk in a day. Losing weight doesnt have to mean hours and hours in the Gym - just a bit of self motivation to be a bit more active in your daily routine.
      One other thing - Diet drinks - stay the hell away from them. Ever see slim people in the supermarket buying diet coke? no - its always the huge people. Diet drinks have less calories, but there's an interesting littlel experiment they did, where two groups of rats were allowed to eat as much as they wanted - one group was given diet drinks, and the other normal non diet drinks. The ones on diet drinks porked up. The theory: The sweetners give your body signals to get ready to deal with a lot of sugar. When the sugar doesnt arrive, your body goes "Holy crap - we're starving! better eat more!"
      So diet drinks may actually make you fatter by making you have a bigger appetite. Here's a not very authoritive link http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/06/its_been_recognized_for_a.php to one article about this - Im sure with a more thorough search the actual paper would turn up somewhere.

      Hopefully this latest news about swine flu will be that final bit of motivation a lot of people need to actually do something about their weight.

    3. Re:The story title is wrong ... by vivian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course the best action is to not drink sugary drinks at all - but if you absolutely have to have that Coke, then have one with real sugar in it - and be aware of the additional calories you are eating. At least it wont make you hungrier, as the artificially sweetened drinks do, according to that study I linked.

      The zero calorie drinks dont give you calories directly - but they apparently do make you hungrier, which in turn makes you want to eat more. Read the link.

    4. Re:The story title is wrong ... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      Artificial sweeteners (and some non-artificial sweeteners like fructose) are believed to do two things:

      1. They cause your brain to expect an insulin response that never comes, thus causing you to perceive that you still need to consume more calories to be "full". If consumed in the form of sugary or starchy foods, this creates more energy than your body needs in the short term, so it stores the excess as fat that never gets used because you never take in too few calories. Fructose is a particularly bad in this regard because it doesn't produce the insulin satiation but it is still metabolized into energy.
      2. They slow down your metabolism, thus reducing the number of calories used by your body, causing the calories you do consume to be more than what is needed.

      The statement about calories in vs. out does hold true, but there are foods that change the amount of energy that your body actually uses (both increasing and decreasing it), which complicates the equation greatly---sugars (both natural and artificial), caffeine, tryptophan, calcium, magnesium deficiency, etc. Caloric intake versus typical calorie use is still a pretty good predictor, though.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:The story title is wrong ... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parent might be a troll, but depression is anything but off-topic. Depression is a major risk factor for obesity. It has often been observed that depressed people are more likely to fall victim to binge eating, which is a major cause of obesity. Depression can also be a symptom of hypothyroidism, IIRC, which causes low metabolism and can lead to obesity. The links between depression and obesity are not completely understood, but it is quite likely that reducing the incidence of depression will also reduce obesity.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:The story title is wrong ... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Informative

      Losing fat comes down to a simple equation. If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that.

      This is widely accepted conventional wisdom about losing (or gaining) weight. And it does just seem right. After all, you're punishing two of the seven deadly sins (gluttony and laziness) in a most fitting manner. People who can't control their lust for food and their own laziness get what they deserve. It is just so.

      Science magazine reporter Gary Taubes published an article the New York Times Magazine titled: "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" He later expanded that article along with others he wrote (including an analysis of the science and politics that resulted in current U.S. Government dietary advice) in a book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:The story title is wrong ... by orasio · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course the best action is to not drink sugary drinks at all - but if you absolutely have to have that Coke, then have one with real sugar in it - and be aware of the additional calories you are eating. At least it wont make you hungrier, as the artificially sweetened drinks do, according to that study I linked.

      You have no idea.
      Lots of fat people suffer from insulin issues, so actually they (us) shouldn't eat sugar at all.
      In my case, I had dieted a lot, and tried exercising, but just reducing intake wasn't doing the trick.
      I started an Atkins-style diet, with a lot more calories than I was used to, and now I am 50 pounds under my original weight, and 40 pounds above my ideal weight.
      I also drank LOTS of diet coke.
      The thing is that fat people bodies work differently. You need to understand _why_ you are fat, and then fight it.
      In my case, it is high insulin production, and after losing 40 pounds I started medical treatment with metformine, which helps me a lot against rebounds.

      That idea of reducing calorie intake seems like a good idea in paper, but I don't think it works in practice.
      The human body is too complex. It doesn't respond well to uninformed direct manipulation. The best thing is to get an endocrinologist, and do as they say.

    8. Re:The story title is wrong ... by fractoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.

      Uhh... I'm pretty sure if you can burn more calories than you consume, while still gaining/maintaining weight, then you could quite comfortably claim the Randi Challenge prize. And then you could sell your body to science for billions.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    9. Re:The story title is wrong ... by HoppQ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, losing weight can be simple, but generally the "exercise more, eat less" argument will fail. If you want to lose weight, keep in mind the following:

      • Increase your fiber intake. Don't eat potatoes, white rise, white pasta or white bread (well, actually, there are fiber rich white breads out there now, so check the nutritional value information if you want some of that). Go for the fiber rich alternatives.
      • Eat small meals, often. You should have small snacks several times during the day (something like one banana is a small snack). Eating a few big meals is bad for you (well, your dentist would have a different opinion, actually, but we're going for weight loss here, taking care of your teeth is easy, xylitol products to the rescue).
      • If you must have sweets (and hey, who doesn't), eat less of them. Even going from a 400g bag of sweets to 200g bag of sweets a week is something that will show in a few months time. Again, it's better to have a sweet after every meal than to try to suppress your sweet tooth and then gobble up everything in one go when that fails.
      • Find opportunities for utility exercise (e.g. walking to the store instead of taking the car, biking to work).
      • Don't torture yourself. If you hate the stuff you're doing for exercise, find some other form of exercise that you can enjoy (or at least, tolerate). The world is full of alternatives when it comes to forms of exercise.
      --
      My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
  8. Karma? by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 3, Funny
    Well, this is just helping back up my ideas.

    I previously believed Swine Flu was created by pigs to get revenge for people eating too much bacon. Now it's confirmed. Can I have a Nobel Prize now?

    --
    Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  9. A reasoned discussion by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would be going to be very politically incorrect here, but people that are medically obese suffer a wide variety of ailments. If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing? Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  10. waste : hip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "waste to hip ratio?" Is that measured in grams of feces per day over number of Apple products owned?

  11. Not all by AlpineR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary: "They are all fat."

    Article: "They are fat. [...] In Canada's Manitoba province, three out of five people treated for the new flu strain in intensive care units are obese."

    If this virus killed only fat people that would be astounding. If it kills more than it's share of fat people, that's still interesting (despite all the "being fat is bad duh!" comments here) but less flashy.

  12. Re:It's called "swine flu" for a reason ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually, step out of America and some of the west, and it is called the Mexican Flu, since that is where it was first detected. Of course, enough evidence has come forth, that it appears that it originated in China, but that is a different issue. That matches up with earlier naming conventions:
    1. Spanish Flu
    2. Asian Flu
    3. Hong Kong Flu

    Or they are labeled by the year (1918 flu, 1956 flu, and 1968 flu).

  13. Re:Darwinism is Finally Back! by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Funny

    I agree. We've used science to keep people alive that just should have died off a long time ago. People like Stephen Hawking, for instance. What a drag on the gene pool he's been.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  14. Hold on a sec, Captain Obvious by brusk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What isn't clear from TFA, and seems to be the crux of whether this is a story or not, is whether this particular flu is affecting obese people disproportionately as compared to similar influenzas. If all strains of flu have the same pattern and are more severe (by whatever measure) in obese people, then there's nothing interesting here. If, on the other hand, the correlation between BMI and severity is much higher for this H1N1, that's a potential clue, one that might tell us something about (a) how this particular virus works, which could be useful in developing treatments for everyone, and/or (b) how obesity affects immune response, which could be helpful in the treatment of other infectious diseases. But, alas, TFA gives only anecdotal evidence so we can't even speculate.

    --
    .sig withheld by request
  15. Genius! by jaypifer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly this is a terrorist act targeting Americans!

    --
    Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
  16. stop using the term swine flu by Eugene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the term itself is misleading, the virus strand might have originated from swine, but the current flu has nothing to do with pigs. The proper term should be Influenza A (H1N1)

  17. Super Lame!! by zmollusc · · Score: 3, Funny

    My only chance is to filter my air through this huge pile of empty pie wrappers!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  18. On the upside... by rekinom · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Swine Flu Collides With Fat Epidemic ...could mean a significant decrease in methane emissions, and possibly even a measurable reduction in global warming.

  19. here's the big secret: by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    eat less

    exercise more

    that's it. that's the magic. everything else is bloviating

    everything else is a giant game of rationalization, victimization, and other psychological manipulations, internal and external

    again: eat less, exercise more. end of story

    cut the fat, in your thinking as well as on your body

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it