Slashdot Mirror
Obesity May Accelerate Brain Aging
natehoy writes "According to the US News and World Report, a recent study has shown a link between obesity and the loss of neurological tissue. The brains of elderly patients who were obese had on average 8% less tissue than their trimmer counterparts. Overweight patients had brains lighter by about 4%. This could have implications for the onset of dementia illnesses such as Alzheimer's. Just one more risk factor to add to the growing body (no pun intended) of reasons to try and stay trim."
Between Obesity and the loss of food in my kitchen.
But seriously - this seems like its leading to a "Overweight people aren't smart enough to care about their health" kind of thing.
I'm going to go chew the fat about this with my doctor.
Do they even TRY to adjust for the fact that fat people avoid getting health care most of their lives (because they're more likely to get tired of getting harassed by their doctor about their weight every time they go in for even a flu shot), drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people), and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts with the consequent lower incomes and inferior health care (because it's a lot harder to get hired)?
I'm not pretending that obesity has no effect on someone's health. But it just irks the hell out of me that these sensational studies always fail to adjust for these sorts of related factors in favor of the sensational (and grant whoring) headline of "Obesity correlates with such-and-such other calamity." I'm sure you could produce a study arguing that obesity makes you stupid too, by simply failing to adjust for the fact that the obese are often geographically concentrated in areas (like the American South) where public education is shit and poverty is high.
Why don't we just say that fat people are worse than Hitler and be done with it? You know, the way we've already done with anyone who dares smoke anything other than marijuana (which is somehow magically good for you), or who eats meat, or who drives an SUV (which some self-righteous asshole will probably link to sudden infant death syndrome in some future study), or any of the hundred other things that are going to kill us all any day now.
Is it any coincidence that the medical profession was once closely linked to the idea that all illness was caused by immoral behavior?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Fat women have always hit on me. Now I know why -- they're stupid!
However, from TFA:
Another possibility is that The brains of overweight people have more receptors for the neurotransmitter serotonin than those of people of normal weight, suggesting that being overweight may be down to more than just eating habits and may have an origin in brain chemistry. Clearly, more study is warranted.
From the New Scientist article on the ssubject of big people with little brains:
Free Martian Whores!
I didn't follow that. Can you type more slowly this time.
I keep getting hungrier and hungrier, and my brain keeps gettting dimmer and dimmer! I was once a sex symbol; now, I am obese-demented superstar. I love stwawbewwy ice kweam and rubbing egg whites in my arm pits. Who am I?
Give up? I'm MARLON BRANDO! (Yes, I know I'm dead, but being dead gives one the amount of time to learn about technology, and then become interested in sites such as Slashdot. So what I'm saying is entirely plausible and you cannot dismiss it).
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Couldn't it be that people who tend to be fat also tend to lose brain tissue as well? That is, I see nothing that indicates that dieting to stay slender would have any effect on brain tissue. (Um..or should I RTFA?) Please, I need more excuses why it's OK for me to eat ice cream whenever I want!
.nosig
I'm a heavy guy and my brain is as sharp as, um, what was I saying?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
This should be obvious. There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.
Or, does brain atrophy cause obesity?
Or does lack of exercise in middle/old age cause both brain atrophy and obesity?
Or does a high fat diet cause both brain atrophy and obesity?
Etc., etc.
I have been overweight for over ten years now and this is the best reason to slim down I've heard yet. I take a great deal of pride in my intelligence, so anything that puts it at risk can not be tolerated.
Trust Your Technolust
So, this finally explains Rush Limbaugh!
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
"Obese People Have 'Severe Brain Degeneration'":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090825/sc_livescience/obesepeoplehaveseverebraindegeneration
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Mod parent up.
The first thing that came to mind from reading the article is that both obesity and reduced brain mass are caused by consumption of carbohydrates.
We can all thank the U.S. Government and the USDA for telling us to eat more carbohydrates, thereby making us obese, sick, and dumb!
I know it's not scientific. But of the 30 + patients that I saw in my uncle's Alzheimers ward, only one was obese. Maybe by that stage they have all gotten thinner because they forgot to eat. But I really would like to know more about the cause and effect here.
. . . that they eat their own brains!
What a ironic twist on the classical Slashdot Zombie paradigm.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Here is a link to the actual publication.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122539667/HTMLSTART
It always bothers me that these aren't provided, we can read the the actual results and not the news version!
No wonder it's all fat people at the back of the town hall meetings acting like assholes, screaming out "facts" that have been proven wrong about health care reform.
posted as AC for obvious reasons...
Couch potatoism might be to blame. Our culture is based on watching TV and being on the computer (sniker) most of the time. Wanna help stem the bad health, go with your kids for a walk or hike. Walk the dog. Get offa the couch.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
By this point, the "correlationnotcausation" tag seems a lot more to me like a whole bunch of taggers are hoping blunt denial will make it so that correlation is not just weak, but completely and utterly worthless as a scientific tool so they don't need to change a thing about their lives.
Call it a hunch.
I mean they have a hard enough time finding a date being obese, but now it's out there that they are getting dumber faster as well that is extremely unfortunate.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
It is not obvious to fat people you insensitive clod!
I admit, I'm overwheight. And uhh ..... uhh .....
What were we talking about again?
If I may offer my opinion as someone who researches cognitive aging and the brain, I think the link (without actually reading the article) is likely due to cerebrovascular factors. People who are overweight often have high or highly varying blood pressure. They also often have arterosclerosis and all sorts of plaque build-up in the blood vessels. Basically their cardiovascular systems in general do not work as efficiently.
The brain is very power hungry. It needs virtually uninterrupted blood flow to function well. People who have reduced blood flow (efficiency) could have lower blood perfusion in the brain. Their neurons may just be slowly starved of enough oxygen and nutrients. People who are overweight are at increased risk for developing strokes, particularly so-called "silent strokes" that might not have apparent effects at first but could over time.
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it. I've seen the brains of older adults who have (uncontrolled or long-term) high blood pressure and by and large, they are not pretty. Their white matter is often pretty messed up. They often have larger ventricles (more brain atrophy) and do worse on cognitive tests.
In any case, being overweight is one of the worst things you can do to your overall health. Maybe not now, but in old age overweight (particularly obese) people are going to have a lot of problems - physical and cognitive. Again, I deal not with individuals as much as with groups of people so everything I say should be taken as "on average."
Dont want to be a fat man,
People would think that I was just good fun.
Would rather be a thin man,
I am so glad to go on being one.
Too much to carry around with you,
No chance of finding a woman who
Will love you in the morning and,
all the night time too.
Dont want to be a fat man,
Have not the patience to ignore all that.
Hate to admit to myself half of my problems
Came from being fat.
Wont waste my time feeling sorry for him,
I seen the other side to being thin.
Roll us both down a mountain
And Im sure the fat man would win.
it sure seems that those who are more active and "vibrant" are also much thinner than those who are much less active and generally overweight. That level of activity does not generally just relate to physical activity from what I've seen. There's far more mental stimulation going on along with that physical activity. So, are they just noticing that less mental stimulation means less brain mass?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
This brings up several complex issues in regards to thought-experiments related to Zombies and zombification.
As we all know, zombies prefer to consume human brain matter. This article informs us that obese people tend to have less brain matter. At the same time, obese people tend to be the lowest-hanging-fruit for Romero-style zombies to eat (Ignore for the moment, if you will, the tendency of african-americans, teenagers, and people who either do drugs or engage in sex as prime targets for being killed in horror movies).
If a zombie had to decide to Skinny McBrain matter, a fast-running, hard to catch but delicious to eat human and Fatty McFatFat, overweight, brain matter lacking flubberking... Which will it go with?
Could we see a pandemic of malnourished zombies? Or perhaps the dynamics of zombie movies needs to be reworked.
One of the most traditional ways to survive a zombie attack is to outlast the zombies. Some zombies (i.e. 28 days later style) have a finite time of existence, until their biological processes break down. Having an extra storage of calories could surely help in a zombie attack. A loss of higher intelligence might actually assist in surviving the attack.
So, to sum it up, being obese will not only make you a less appealing meal in a zombie attack, it might go so far as ensuring that you survive the entire ordeal.
Wow, you obviously read that article with an enormous anti-carb agenda. As a carbon-based life form, your body craves carbohydrates to stay healthy and alive. They simply should not be the only type of energy you consume. Low carb diets are designed to trick the body into a starvation shock. Is the food pyramid carb-heavy? Yes, as the article says and dieticians agree. Should you eliminate carbs from your diet? If you like dying young, then go ahead.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
It should be....
Obesity leads to harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care. Harassment by doctors, getting shit on regularly, drinking more, having crappier jobs, lower incomes, and inferior health care can cause the loss of neurological tissue and accelerate the aging of the brain.
better?
That's quite possible. The article mentions some possible feedback loops, but the overall gist is that there is a correlation between being obese and losing brain function as you get older.
As someone tagged it, "correlation is not causation," and that's a fair accusation of both my choice of headlines and the that of the original article (though the article itself does mention a series of possible reasons for the link).
It could be that reduced brain function leads to overeating or poorer food choices, or a chemical imbalance does, which causes the obesity and the brain function loss.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
There's a fat man
In the bathtub
With the blues
I hear you moan
I hear you moan
I hear you moan
Free Martian Whores!
I wonder if this is related to the effects on the brain of the balance between Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids in the diet. (high-fat Western meat-based diets usually contain more Omega 6, whereas low-far fish based Eastern diets tend to have more Omega 3). I've seen studies that have shown that increasing Omega 3 in the diet (via cod liver oil pills) in school kids can improve their school results - there is a lot of Omega 3 usage in the brain I believe.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it.
Well, if by "the obesity", you mean the fact that their body fat is a higher percentage of total body mass than normal, I think we all agree that that is not *the cause*. I also didn't make the claim that there is only one cause - there could be multiple.
Subject says it all.
It's likely it's not the obesity itself, but rather the non-obese were probably somewhat more likely to exercise, which has positive neurological effects.
Mod Parent up Informative. The correlation between metabolism and oxidative stress is well known. It's obvious that the cells in the body that do not divide (have no opportunity for replicative damage repair) are hardest hit. Search for diabetic encephalopathy as well. I am a researcher in Neuroaging. (Posting anonymously to use my mod points) -sonnejw0
There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.
I'd be very cautious when using the words "clear understanding" with nearly anything in cognitive science. Scientists didn't even pay attention to neurotropic factors in the brain until relatively recently, and if you ignore factors that can cause neural growth (like... excercise - scientists are guessing that excercise is neurotropic since we need to often map out new areas when walking a lot) it's hard to make a statement that obsesity caused by eating too much is the cause of cognitive decline, as opposed to obesity caused by not exercising enough. In fact, I think that if you exercise a lot, obesity almost vanishes as a cause of a lot of problems.
You also have related issues like eating too much / not exercising enough contributes to diabetes, and having high blood glucose levels causes a wide variety of problems, such as damage to small blood vessels and a (likely related) decline in neural function.
But we're still in the stone age when it comes to all this kind of stuff.
My guess is, that sugar can be the link between those two things. Or generally all very pure carbohydrates.
Because they usually not only make you fatter than fat. (It's a common misconception that fat would be generally bad, while it would be OK if there's still too much sugar in it.)
But they also lack the vitamin Bs that you need to digest them... and that your brain unfortunately needs too, to work properly.
Just sayin...
And even if not, you won't hurt yourself by replacing them by wholemeal products and fresh fruits. :) The trick is to make them so tasty that you get used to it, like it by itself, and stop liking sugary and starchy stuff because it tastes too sweet and poor in flavor.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Headlines containing "may" are stupid.
Farts "may" be smelly.
Girls "may" get laid.
Jack "may" run up the hill.
None of this things relate a fact.
BTW, I "may" be obese.
As a carbon-based life form, your body craves carbohydrates to stay healthy and alive.
You are confusing carbohydrates with carbon-based. Carbohydrates, protein, and fatty acids all are organic molecules, i.e. they all contain carbon.
If you like dying young, then go ahead.
Actually, research on the AGEs referred to by the grandparent show that AGEs contribute to the appearance of accelerated aging by making haphazard, uncontrolled bonds between AGEs and various body tissue proteins, causing symptoms like reduced tissue elasticity. So, technically, if you like want to age faster (i.e. die young), you should eat more carbohydrates.
This guy's name is Friedman. He's talking about obese people. He's just trying to keep all the god damned fried foods to himself! FUCKING FRIED-MAN! HE DOESN'T WANT ME EATING HIM!
I was skinny until age 35, then the stress and weight piled on.
If you are over 45 and skinny, then you'll probably always be skinny. Otherwise, be diligent or you to "may" become obese too.
They should also have examined the happiness receptors in the brain. There really could be something to the phrase "fat, dumb, & happy".
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
Fat, dumb and happy, I mean.
It's been well established that obesity is strongly associated with chronically elevated levels of insulin. Could this mean that insulin also accelerates neurological aging?
Complex carbs are good for you.
You are confusing carbohydrates with carbon-based.
No, you're confusing yourself with someone who has the ability to read. Consult your biologist today to find out what happens to any carbon-based organism when it has no saccharides. Luckily for the kool-aid-drinking fad-diet jumpers like you, the human body ends up making its own carbohydrates if you're not eating enough -- but it's taxing on your system. Consult your physician.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
At least we have medical evidence to prove the world is populated by fatheads.
I came to the comments eagerly anticipating all the 'Score 5: Funny' and all I get are Interesting, Informative and Insightful.
Once upon a time, obesity was a sign of wealth. Food was different in those days and only by consuming large quantities of it could you hope to gain the wealthy appearance of obesity.
These days, the opposite is true. Our food is different in its content and in its richness. Average portion offered for sale are larger. And while it's true that people do less physical work, doing some basic calculation associated with calorie intake versus calorie burn and the increase of calorie burn with added exercise will reveal that exercise is not as effective at controlling weight as is controlling intake.
It is my observation that reducing the intake of food is the most significant thing anyone can do when attempting weight control and what's more, there is no "I have no time for it" excuse when attempting to do so. It is also my observation that reducing the intake of food is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. Our habits and expectations are hard to change when ordering or preparing food. (for example, don't we all feel like a cheap-ass for not ordering that double-quarter-pounder meal deal instead of ordering from the dollar menu to get smaller portions?) Further, the content of our most available foods are a lot higher in calories than they have been in the past and this is largely due to increases in highly processed ingredients and preservatives and the like. While other nations have outlawed many of the more offensive ingredients, the U.S. has failed to issue as many restrictions which I believe is one of the most significant reasons that the U.S. is one of the most obese nations in the world today.
So what can we do? The best thing is to buy less and eat less. It takes a lot of effort to eat less, but in time your stomach will shrink and it will actually become difficult to eat as much as you are now accustomed to eating. This helps a lot, but it's the best answer for everyone and often leads to feelings of hunger and tiredness even after the adjustment in intake is made. (Keep in mind that the purpose of expensive and elective gastric alteration surgical is to serve this exact cause but people prefer to make these changes in their bodies rather than to make changes in their self-discipline.) Another thing is to start sending comments to your government representatives about fixing healthcare by fixing the problems with our food! (Imagine national healthcare costs plummeting because we aren't getting diabetes or any of the other health problems associated with obesity with the same frequency. That's what we see in nations with better controls over food content and since we're all the same species, we can expect similar results by enforcing similar rules.)
And before anyone start the criticism or attacks, let me just say that I am obese. I am working on it, but it's damned hard. I'm 200lbs (+/- 5lbs) when I should be 180lbs or less. I own more clothes that I cannot wear than clothes that I can. (I don't want to buy more "fat clothes" because that merely feeds the problem. I want to wear my old clothes.) And to better tie my commentary in with the original story, I feel a LOT less smart than I was when I was operating at my prime weight. And since I have been losing weight, I am feeling a lot more alert and aware than I have in a while and I sleep better and need less sleep as well. The benefits are obvious. And when the main course of action is simply to do less of what is causing the problem, it's not unreasonable or even expensive to pull off. I sure as hell haven't stopped eating at McDonald's... I just eat slightly more than the contents of a kid's meal instead of super-sizing everything.
Consult your biologist today to find out what happens to any carbon-based organism when it has no saccharides.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what happens? Having no carbohydrates in the system is very different from eating no carbohydrates. I'm not advocating the complete removal of carbohydrates from the diet, but you are claiming that a lack of dietary carbohydrates will lead to early death, which is false.
the human body ends up making its own carbohydrates if you're not eating enough
Thank you for making the point that carbohydrates are not strictly necessary in the diet.
-- but it's taxing on your system
We need to compare the relative benefits versus costs. The consumption of carbohydrates for energy through diet requires the body to produce insulin. Elevated blood glucose and insulin levels contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, and proliferation of malignant cells. I would also consider these effects "taxing on the system". Which "tax" is worse?
For the record, I believe that some dietary carbohydrates are beneficial, but not to the insane levels (50-55% of daily caloric intake) recommended by the USDA. If you eat carbohydrates, you need to be aware of the negative effects thereof, and make a conscious decision as to whether the vitamins and minerals contained by the carbohydrate-rich food provides enough benefits to outweigh the damages that the resulting blood glucose and insulin will do to your body.
Please do consult your physician before attempting to increase your carbohydrate intake.
You just don't see obese 80 year olds, and very few 70 year olds. Period. I want to be around that long at minimum. That alone is enough to make me do whatever I can to stay fit.
I'm amazed such a simple observation, noticeable by anyone, isn't highlighted more in the war on obesity.
You stereotypers are all the same...
Researches found that participating in studies causes loss of brain tissue.
For many, just staying away from sugared sodas and fast-food restaurants can be enough to get down to a normal BMI. That's it!
By the way, high-fructose corn syrup is evil.
The "correlation is not causation" maxim is doubly applicable here, because their sample is purposely biased. They only studied 70+ year olds who did *not* show any sign of dementia. But there is a well-established correlation between lower body weight and Alzheimer's:
http://www.understanding-alzheimers.com/articles/Linking-Alzheimers-to-Weight-Loss.html
"The September 2005 study, which stemmed from longitudinal research done on the aging process in 820 members of the Catholic clergy since 1993, found that a decrease in BMI significantly increased the chances of developing Alzheimer's disease. Even maintaining the same BMI was linked to a significantly increased chance of developing the disease compared to those seniors who experienced an increase in BMI."
In other words, it is possible they included overweight people who might otherwise, were they not overweight, have suffered from Alzheimer's. In contrast, they may have excluded slimmer people with reduced brain tissue because these have already started showing signs of dementia.
These are *very* tricky correlations and it is irresponsible to suggest anything like causation.
mmm brains
I saw this quote: "the researchers studied brain images of 94 people in their 70s who had participated in an earlier study looking at cardiovascular health and cognition."
At that point, I said, "Stop. What a useless study." Look at the sample size again... 94?!?!? That has a roughly 10% margin of error built in to the sample size (at a 95% confidence interval). At least they included the sample size! ...and then there's the operative word "study...." That, word (in the singular, no less), gives me all sorts of warm fuzzies.
So, is that 8% (+/- 10%) less brain mass for obese elderly people or a range from 7.2% to 8.8% for obese elderly people, based on this sample and a 95% confidence interval? I'm thinking the former.
In statistics class, this was called by the name "statistical deception." Just because a single study of 94 people says so, don't believe it. It has a roughly 50% chance of being right -- or wrong (at a 100% confidence interval) but so do psychics, horoscopes, and fortune cookies.
Junk science prevails in the popular press. Anything sensational gets front-page headlines -- it gets grant money and sells news. It doesn't matter that the next study contradicts it, the next supports it, the next contradicts that one, and on and on the tennis match goes....
Once this has been peer reviewed numerous times with tens of thousands of people per study, call me. I'll be getting a snack, in the mean time.
Here's a couple of links to refresh people with the term "margin of error:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp
My husband is fat AND has the mind of a 4 year old.
One puts your body in emergency stress mode under a diet-induced starvation shock, leaving your body starving with immense cravings for carbs, and the other is living as an omnivore, like our physical bodies are built to do. I'll go with taking a moderate amount of carbohydrates, because I'm not psychotically suicidal when it comes to health advice.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
They'll have found correlations between obesity and overeating to heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, infertility, catching the flu, VD, hepatitis, cancer, dementia, erectile disfunction, athlete's feet, constipation, diarrhea, sunburn, oversleeping, undersleeping, fridgidity, sexual promiscuity, anxiety, hyperactivity, laziness, depression, bad breath, sharp toenails, agoraphobia, bad taste, being accident prone, tendency to drive too fast, tendency to drive too slow, failure in business, failure in relationships, stupidity, reading gossip web sites, obsessive collecting, loneliness, excessive video game playing, unsociability, dressing unfashionably, bad credit, no credit, inability to hold a job, as well as feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness. And the correlation with feeling hopeless and worthless seems to keep getting stronger.
By 2040, new body/mind/environment computer simulations determine that feeling hopeless and worthless was actually what was helping cause all the other conditions. Fat people who feel happy and optimistic in the long run are actually no worse off than their thinner counterparts. The key to this is apparently treating fat people like thin people, preferably starting at an early age, but it helps at any point in their lives.
The UN World Obesity Study Group, in it's final press release, stated "We had a good run. Our bad. Sorry for all the trouble. Who's up for Dave and Buster's?"
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Finally an insightful comment. I wasn't surprised to see most of ./ rail against any notion that obesity is hugely detrimental for one's health.
In any case, being overweight is one of the worst things you can do to your overall health. Maybe not now, but in old age overweight (particularly obese) people are going to have a lot of problems - physical and cognitive. Again, I deal not with individuals as much as with groups of people so everything I say should be taken as "on average."
Long term weight loss statistics are ABYSMAL. Something like 10%-20% Fat people aren't just lazy weak people who choose to be this way. Some doctors don't even advise you to try anymore - they just recommend stomach banding surgery.
The idea that you can make a couple of simple changes and lose lots of weight is great for building a money milking industry on top of, but it's not particularly true. I would love to see more research on why people metabolise foods differently and why people's hunger drive is so different, and on ways to change it. This would be a lot more helpful than harassing and demonising fat people and constantly telling them they're going to get sick and die sooner.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Similar study in a different wording:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0430617520090804
Diets high in cholesterol also tend to be high in fat, which will lead to obesity without moderation and exercise.
The body naturally produces a balanced and adequate quantity of HDL and LDL cholesterol (except in rare cases), the cholesterol in consumed animal tissue (including dairy) creates an imbalance in the cholesterol levels and will lead to a build up of cholesterol on arterial walls, which can lead to blockage, arterial wall damage and rupture. This happens in the heart, leading to heart disease, and it happens in blood vessels in the brain, leading to vascular dementia and alzheimers. These are diseases resulting from a loss of brain cell function.
... IMHO I believe this may have to do with bloodflow to the brain since obese people would not exercise as much and would have to work harder to get blood flowing to blood poor regions
nt
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In fact, I think that if you exercise a lot, obesity almost vanishes as a cause of a lot of problems.
I think you are confusing slightly overweight with obesity. Because, obesity is just plain bad, no matter which way you cut it. But, slightly overweight people can be more healthy than slim people if they exercise enough (there's a study that showed this, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now). That is, in the short term. In the longer term, it's unlikely that the lifestyle choices that make people overweight will do them any kindness down the road. Especially, when that metabolism slows down with getting older and those slightly overweight people start getting bigger.
Is being an asshole an example of being morally better or genetically better?
Or perhaps you are just biased and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
brain and aging would be the last things that a fat person will give a damn abt.
tell'em that they will loose harmones...n see what happens.. :)
>>I think you are confusing slightly overweight with obesity.
It depends how you define obesity, I guess. If you go by BMI, I'm obese. If you go by body fat percentage, 19% is "acceptable".
But really, what studies have found is that being fat in and of itself is overshadowed by the exercise/lack of exercise factor. I'm not saying it doesn't matter - things like having large amounts of adipose tissue directly produce angiotensin, which will cause your blood pressure to rise regardless of how fit you are (though exercise will obviously help mitigate it). Likewise, diabetes can be mitigated by exercise, as exercise forces muscle cells to accept insulin, which means that it effectively lowers your insulin resistance, like a thiazolidinedione. So a fat person who exercises will be a lot better off than a slightly less fat person who doesn't (and is a lot more likely to have metabolic syndrome as a result).
This is more than just wishful thinking - Case in point:
http://www.alternet.org/story/142232/reverse_aging%3A_easier_than_you_think/?page=entire
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
The idea that you can make a couple of simple changes and lose lots of weight is great for building a money milking industry on top of
Well, actually it was pretty easy for me, and everyone I've recommended this diet to has had similar results - 15-20 lbs dropped in under a month. I myself lost 40 lbs and have kept it off for a year. My weight loss was all without exercise - I didn't want to confound the data, so I avoided all exercise. I also didn't starve myself - I ate whenever I was hungry, and even then was eating 1400-2200 Calories a day. The diet was simply meats, fish, eggs, bacon, cheeses, dairy, some vegetables, minimal low-carb fruits (e.g. berries). For beverages: dry red wine, tea, coffee. Very simple.
I had been taking blood pressure medication for a couple years before this - my highest was 145/95. I eventually had to stop taking the medication - after about 20 lbs weight loss - because I was getting light headed and my blood pressure was dropping too low. Now I'm at normal blood pressure.
After a couple weeks on the diet, you lose all interest in bread and pasta. I don't remember the last time I had a slice of bread, or even bought a loaf of bread.
As for why it's so hard for everyone else to lose weight - all I can say is they're following bad advice. It's kind of disturbing that whether or not you are successful in weight loss can depend on which doctor you happen to have. I have seen doctors recommend the usual AMA/AHA/NIH nonsense about eating low-fat, and I have seen doctors who actually know what they're talking about, know all about the connection between carbohydrate (specifically fructose) ingestion and insulin resistance, ketosis, etc, and make good recommendations.
I have personally gotten both my parents on this diet, and at least three of my friends, and they've all had the same results - minimum 20 lbs dropped in a maximum of a month. Weight loss is actually pretty easy.
hmmm, let's see, what's the level of mental activity of someone playing basketball compared to someone sitting at McDonald's eating BigMacs?
Are you saying that overweight people tend to have a high level of mental activity in their seditary lives? As much or more so than those who are out burning calories, keeping blood flow high, and having "stuff" moving around in front of them and during all of this many different parts of the brain are involved? I guess I missed that and will have to keep my eyes open to catch all that stuff going on with those people sitting around out there.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Well, actually it was pretty easy for me, and everyone I've recommended this diet to has had similar results - 15-20 lbs dropped in under a month. I myself lost 40 lbs and have kept it off for a year.
Come back and talk to me in 7-10 years. It's not impossible but the majority (well over 50% - somewhere between 70% and 90%) don't manage to keep it off for a decade. I've posted links to the few actual medical journal articles that publish this inconvenient (for weight loss industry) truth.
You're also making the mistake of thining that what worked for you will work for anyone. It may not. That it works for your closest relatives is a matter of genetics.
My weight loss was all without exercise
That is actually very unusual. For me to lose weight in my mid to late 20s, I was doing about 2 hrs a day excercise and eating nothing but salad (VERY large bowl, about 3 times a day) and lean meat or chicken (once a day). NO beverages other than water. It was not much fun to say the least. 6 months like that and I lost perhaps 7-10kg (which was nice). As soon as I went back to something more normal I balooned. I remember my first bit of junk food after breaking that diet - a big mac. My body had gotten so use to not having to process fat that I felt ill for a day.
I ate whenever I was hungry, and even then was eating 1400-2200 Calories a day
This old lie. Yeah you're not going to violate conservation of energy laws, but the way your body processes calories will differ from others. Efficiency, rate of burning, the rate at which you process non food related components required in converting that energy (particularly air), the way your body flushes waste (water) all affect your efficiency.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Come back and talk to me in 7-10 years. It's not impossible but the majority (well over 50% - somewhere between 70% and 90%) don't manage to keep it off for a decade. I've posted links to the few actual medical journal articles that publish this inconvenient (for weight loss industry) truth.
You're lumping my diet in with ridiculous diets based on false notions of what causes obesity in the first place (e.g. willpower, simply eating too many calories, etc)
You're also making the mistake of thining that what worked for you will work for anyone
My bad for assuming we all evolved from a common source. As for genes, I have yet to see a gene that completely bypasses the normal functions of the liver and pancreas.
That is actually very unusual. For me to lose weight in my mid to late 20s, I was doing about 2 hrs a day excercise and eating nothing but salad (VERY large bowl, about 3 times a day) and lean meat or chicken (once a day). NO beverages other than water. It was not much fun to say the least.
Funny, my weight loss experience over the last year has been quite enjoyable. Clearly you've invalidated the notion that maintaining a normal weight is a simple matter of reducing calories.
I remember my first bit of junk food after breaking that diet - a big mac. My body had gotten so use to not having to process fat that I felt ill for a day.
That is what you get for following the normal diet advice. Now, try doing what actually works - high fat, high protein diet, keep carb ingestion below 50g a day.
This old lie.
Where was the lie? You didn't seem to cover that. I wasn't saying everyone would eat the same number of calories as me, was I? Obviously someone taller, or more active, would require more calories.
You're lumping my diet in with ridiculous diets based on false notions of what causes obesity in the first place (e.g. willpower, simply eating too many calories, etc)
Yep pretty much.
My bad for assuming we all evolved from a common source. As for genes, I have yet to see a gene that completely bypasses the normal functions of the liver and pancreas.
Well since we all evolved from a common source we should all be capable of becoming olympic atheletes, world class scientists etc. You are implying that because we have common genes within our species we're all born with equal abilities. That is patently absurd.
Funny, my weight loss experience over the last year has been quite enjoyable.
Now that is FUNNY. Weight loss as enjoyment. You should sell tickets. Come one, come all! Lose weight!
You might enjoy the results, but if you enjoy the restrictions you're a saddist.
That is what you get for following the normal diet advice. Now, try doing what actually works - high fat, high protein diet, keep carb ingestion below 50g a day.
Oh for fuck sake. Have you read nothing about the Atkins diet and it's dangers. High fat low carb is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.
You are the one that'll reap the rewards of your delusions.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You might enjoy the results, but if you enjoy the restrictions you're a saddist.
Nope, sorry. Once you're on the diet for a few weeks, you lose all interest in bread/chips/pasta/etc. It really does seem like an addiction to carbs in that respect.
Have you read nothing about the Atkins diet and it's dangers.
Well, I'm not following Atkins, but for weight loss alone it's the best place to start. What I have read of the "dangers" are simply people regurgitating the assumed truths about saturated fat. It's funny how the *exact same* fat that makes up our body and we digest constantly is dangerous when we digest it from another animal. But really it comes down to poor research. You should check out Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes - he's a writer for the journal Science, and in the book he goes study by study through the 150 year history of obesity research. It's a hefty read, and doesn't make any claims about what the truth is, but it gives you an idea of how bad the research is and how unfounded the popular assumptions are. Dietary science is about as scientific as social science.
High fat low carb is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.
[citation needed]
Nope, sorry. Once you're on the diet for a few weeks, you lose all interest in bread/chips/pasta/etc. It really does seem like an addiction to carbs in that respect.
Yeah and I'm addicted to oxygen and water too. Perhaps I should cut those out.
When I lost weight I did cut out all carbs AND all fat and I didn't lose any cravings.
Well, I'm not following Atkins, but for weight loss alone it's the best place to start. What I have read of the "dangers" are simply people regurgitating the assumed truths about saturated fat.
I'm sorry but you're dillusional. If you have a decent GP they'll tell you that the dangers are real.
[citation needed]
Dude, what's the point - you've just stated that you've decided to ignore them.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Yeah and I'm addicted to oxygen and water too. Perhaps I should cut those out.
The slight difference being you don't need carbs to survive.
When I lost weight I did cut out all carbs AND all fat and I didn't lose any cravings.
Well, then you were eating 100% pure protein, and I can understand why you didn't lose any cravings. Fat has a huge satiating effect.
I'm sorry but you're dillusional.
What you have is certainty without evidence - that's called faith, and is the true mark of delusion. You have faith in the opinions of the AMA/AHA/NIH. Myself - I require evidence, reason. I thought there were reasons behind the beliefs about saturated fat, but then I did my own research, and found that the studies supporting this belief confounded their variables and had no basis for their conclusions. Either that, or they simply made up the results.
If you feel like watching a lecture, I just found this one from the University of California: "Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology explores the damage caused by sugary foods." Educate yourself, or don't. Your choice.
Mods you are idiots. How the fuck is parent trolling by asking a question?