Slashdot Mirror
Do Antibiotics Contribute To Obesity?
sciencehabit writes "Farmers have long used antibiotics to make cows, pigs, and turkeys gain weight faster. Now, scientists claim that receiving antibiotics early in life may also make children grow fat (abstract). The researchers believe the drugs change the composition of the bacterial population in the gut in a crucial developmental stage that may have a long-lasting impact."
My horse is currently on Doxycycline for Lyme Disease and she lost ~100lbs in 4 days as a result. So if it can make her lose weight by throwing off her gut's bacteria I can certainly see it going the other way as well.
No.
That's not exactly right. I read NPR's coverage of this earlier today and vastly prefer their title and interpretation of results:
Could Antibiotics Be A Factor In Childhood Obesity?
It turns out that it's a factor but it's likely a small factor quoting an expert from the NPR coverage:
"Although the effect was small on an individual level," Dr. Leonardo Trasande, the lead pediatrician on the study, tells Shots, "we predict that that this rise in body mass would increase the overweight population in the U.S. by about 1.6 percent."
And to summarize, this is not some over hyped stop using antibiotics trash, the conclusion is:
"We're not saying that children with severe infections shouldn't be treated with antibiotics," Blaser says. These findings just reinforce our need for judicious use of them.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
My work here is dung.
Farmers use antibiotics on cows, pigs, and turkeys because they can't digest corn properly which leads to excessive gut bacteria (the corn diet makes them gain weight), and due to the unhealthy living conditions of shoving hundreds to thousands of animals together in a cramped warehouse.
Just what we need... yet another anti-medicine headline. I'll go ahead and invoke the rule: No.
Look, parents... it's not the antibiotics making your kids fat, it's you feeding them too much, then telling them to clean their plate because kids in Africa are starving. It's not the antibiotic-resistant superbugs making your kids sick, it's the day care center and school you send them to with myriad other kids and their bacterial cornucopia. It's not the vaccines giving your kids learning disabilities, it's the school's beancounters putting pressure on the psychiatrist to get those special-education dollars.
It's not that hard to live a healthy and decent life: Do not do anything to excess, and listen to what your body wants. When it wants rest, rest. When it wants exercise, do something active. When it wants food, eat. Do nothing more than what's reasonable, and do nothing less than what's sufficient.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Energy intake in excess of energy used makes any animal (including Homo sapiens) fat.
Reply hazy, try again
[looks at the 280 calorie coke bottle at my desk and two crumpled baggies of Cheddar Jalapeno Cheetos] Yep, That's it. Exposure to antibiotics at an early age. QED.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I'm inclined to agree. IF they do, I can offer a counter-example where they didn't. My son had a series of ear infections during the 1st year of his life and was on antibiotics almost continually from 3 months to 9 months. He also had a serious problem with allergy-induced bronchial infections as well as the odd case of Scarlet Fever. At 23 he's what most people would call "skinny".
To prevent bacterial infection.
I grew up on a cattle ranch, and never thought of using anti-bacterial stuff to get them to grow faster...
To expand on AC's short (but correct) answer, no because there are nations where people take antibiotics more often than they take baths or change underwear, where no prescription is needed, and America is fatter than all of them. U.S. is actually quite strict (relatively speaking) on the use of antibiotics.
And whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why must there be an external source of blame for one's obesity (or poverty or stupidity or...)? You're fat cus you ate too much. Not because the evil industry forced corn syrup on you or the 1% took all the good food for themselves or whatever.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". And for that matter, neither is the singular.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Followed very closely by a diet heavy in carbohydrates, thanks to a failed and scientifically baseless "low fat" dietary guidelines that promote a "low fat" diet high in carbohydrates.
It staggers me to watch fellow parents pour gallons of sugar down their kids throats -- "look, it's low fat and free from high fructose corn syrup!!!!" despite the fact that it contains apple juice as a "natural" ingredient, which is just injected for its fructose content -- it's like HFCS without the corn syrup.
If you don't want your kids to get fat, feed them eggs and sausage. If you want them to get fat, feed them juice, soda, and lots of grains and watch them swell like cows in a feedlot.
I think you just got nailed to the anecdote cross. Next time you'll feel the pain before lighting up the keyboard big boy.
The reason 85% of Americans over age 30 are fat is because (1) they eat too much sugar and (2) too large portions. See the video "sugar the bitter truth".
It seems people keep trying to blame other things (too much TV, too much gaming, too much bacteria or antibiotics) instead of themselves. You weighed 120-140 when you were 18 (less for girls)..... no reason you can't weigh that now.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Each and every individual in the history of the planet when consuming more calories than they expend get fatter.
The opposite is also true. How many Biggest loosers does the world need to watch before they get it.
In the 90s, McDonald's started the "Super Size" program, where you could get tons of extra food for a small extra price. Every other restaurant started following, and soon the portions were massive everywhere you went. A typical restaurant meal is 1000 calories, without dessert. Look at this example.
A decade later, we have an obesity epidemic. Is there really a need for an explanation?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm inclined to agree. IF they do, I can offer a counter-example where they didn't. My son had a series of ear infections during the 1st year of his life and was on antibiotics almost continually from 3 months to 9 months. He also had a serious problem with allergy-induced bronchial infections as well as the odd case of Scarlet Fever. At 23 he's what most people would call "skinny".
Wow, massive sample set there, Elmo, with impeccable use of controls and a double blind study. If you read the actual research, this is talking primarily about childhood obesity so your son's weight at age 23 is particularly useless at this juncture -- he could well be eating tubs of greek yogurt daily for all I know. From the article:
Those who had been treated with antibiotics in the first 6 months of their lives had a higher chance of being overweight at 10, 20, and 38 months of age.
Notice that they don't go into year 23. From another article:
we predict that that this rise in body mass would increase the overweight population in the U.S. by about 1.6 percent.
So at the time of taking antibiotics, this study says that your infant son could have had a slight increase in body weight that would probably not put him into the overweight category. Where he went from there was up to your parenting and his dietary and active habits.
Me, on the other hand, I chained my children to an I-beam in the basement and force-fed them industrial grade lard all day for 10 years until I had to bury them in piano boxes but I didn't give them antibiotics and this proves that antibiotics are not linked to a slight increase in weight.
My work here is dung.
Except that what's being suggested is that antibiotics are a contributing factor, not that they automagically make people fat. It's entirely possible, for example, that those other nations you allude to are simply far enough ahead of the US in other ways (diet and exercise being the most obvious) that it more than makes up for the higher use of antibiotics. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.
It got picked up by people like you to use as a club with which to whack strawmen.
Nearly every kind of childhood snack (soda, corn chips, candy) contains corn syrup in one form or another. I'd suspect that long before anti-biotics.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036886_cattle_feed_candy_corn_syrup.html
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I had some minor surgery recently that involved a course of Amoxicillin. One nice consequence is that it completely straightened out my digestive system; I had been making excessive gas, among other things, and the antibiotic completely ended that. Wonderful stuff.
Life is too short to indulge these anti-everything malcontents. We are not going back to yurts people. Grow up and deal with it.
The researchers looked at data collected from more than 11,000 children born in Avon, U.K., in 1991 and 1992. Those who had been treated with antibiotics in the first 6 months of their lives had a higher chance of being overweight at 10, 20, and 38 months of age.....The differences in weight were small, and there was no correlation between antibiotic use in the first 6 months and weight at 7 years
Clearly it's a preliminary study, and not all variables have been controlled for. They have two other quotes from scientists:
The new data are "not convincing," says Michael Blaut, a microbiologist at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Potsdam, Germany. And David Relman, a microbiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, calls the work "provocative" but says some of the data are "a bit vague and unclear."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Even portion size can be less of an issue if you are eating 20% or fewer calories in carbohydrates. Fat intake will produce a leptin response, making you feel full and not wanting to eat any more.
Carbohydrates, especially fructose (as Dr. Lustig points out in "Bitter Truth) suppresses the leptin response -- you don't feel full, the metabolization process of simple carbs just locks away the energy as fat accumulation and preventing you from using it for energy, making you even more hungry.
I went low carb about 8 months ago and I took the idea of "eat until you were full" seriously, thinking maybe I could knock back a couple of steaks at a time. I couldn't; I lost all interest in eating once the full feeling kicked in.
They NOW think this? Why wouldn't folks assume so from day one? Why would anyone think that feeding something to animals wouldn't have the same effect on feeding it to humans?
Most people in the States?...
If so, that could still mean he's overweight.
It seems people keep trying to blame other things (too much TV, too much gaming, too much bacteria or antibiotics) instead of themselves.
But too much tv/gaming can be to "blame". Just because you "blame" tv/gaming, does not mean you are shifting responsibility off of yourself. At most, all you are doing is acknowledging that a sedentary lifestyle can lead to being obese, regardless of the particular vice a person partakes of (watching lots of tv, lots of gaming, lots of reading, lots of quilting, etc).
Farmers don't give livestock antibiotics to make them gain weight, they give them grains to do that, and then they have to give them antibiotics so that they don't die from the grains. Cows, for example, are ruminates which are designed (or evolved, I guess I should say) to eat grass, not grain, which would kill them before they could be brought to market without the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics makes grain feeding possible, but it is actually the grain, not the antibiotics which leads to the weight gain.
No
Eating too much, especially too much fatty foods, makes you fat.
Instead of blaming arbitrary organizations for society's problem with obesity, how about putting the blame squarely on the people who are eating too much in the first place?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It seems people keep trying to blame other things (too much TV, too much gaming, too much bacteria or antibiotics) instead of themselves. You weighed 120-140 when you were 18 (less for girls)..... no reason you can't weigh that now.
I can somewhat apprciate what you are saying, because I think the only "secret" to maintaining a healthy weight is eating a sensible diet of real food (not fast food or frozen dinners) and being active.
However, to do so requires resisting fairly strong social and economic pressures to a) work as much as possible and b) devote every other minute towards consumption, usually of industrialized foods and sedentary entertainments. These pressures are woven into our economy and reinforced constantly by advertising.
I'm not saying it is impossible or even necessarily difficult to eat well and be active. I weigh less than I did in HS more than 20 years later, having spent most of that time working desk jobs. On the other hand, people who live life "the way they are supposed to" like "normal Americans" are likely to end up overweight.
Stop giving the morbidly obese excuses to continue eating and not exercising!
I used to work with a Morbidly obese man that ate 3 LARGE subs from the local sub place every day. He would also order a full sized bag of potato chips along with it which he wouldn't eat with the subs... he'd finish the subs, then need to go to the bathroom to drop a deuce and would take the chips with him and eat them while he was taking a dump. Not kidding. He would sit in there for 45 minutes crapping, eating his chips and talking to people that came and went from the bathroom as he did. It was insane.
One day I walked by his desk and instead of his usual 3 subs he had a full rotisary chicken and a 2 liter of coke (not diet) sitting on his desk. I stopped in shock and asked "Why do you have a rotisary chicken on your desk?!?" He replied "My doctor has had me on a diet for months and I'm just not loosing weight. I've been sticking to turkey sandwiches, but they weren't working so he told me to try chicken instead. They don't have chicken subs at the sub place so I picked this up at the grocery store." He then proceeded to pick the rotisary chicken clean.
If you're over 200lbs it's either because you don't exorcise or your a body builder. If you're over 250, it's because you don't exorcise and you eat too much (or your an Olympic body builder) STOP EATING
Ok well they do contribute to it if youre already a fatso slob blob and need something you can point your finger at and say "Hey that made me fat! It isnt me or my eating habits or lack of exercise that makes me a obese pig, its that product right theres fault!". Like so many gigantic and disgusting americans already do. Always looking for something else to blame for your problems instead of looking at the fact your problems are caused by you.
Oh and they cause it also if youre some asshole who needs some quick cash flow and will perform a stupid "study" and get the results your backers want to get it.
What the fuck? Since when is pointing out logical fallacies flamebait?
You weighed 120-140 when you were 18
No I didn't, but I'm also 6'3".
Sounds wonderful. I think I'll stick to running, the gym and my kayak.
I can see running in the gym; how do you run in a kayak?
I wish that worked for me. I remember eating 1.5 lbs of hamburger and still feeling hungry. downing steaks like there was no tomorrow. In fact the high protein low carb diet for me almost as bad as no monitoring at all. Low calorie has been the only thing that has any effect on my weight, and it is the hardest one to actually maintain due to the excessive hunger pains, shakes and mood swings along with an easy access remedy to them; to eat.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
There are other things in this particular anecdote which are known to negatively affect weight gain in both children and adults.
(In anecdotes, such contributing factors are often overlooked and/or hidden, which is a big part of the reason why anecdotes, even from people you trust, are hard to integrate with data.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I used to consume copious amounts of cereal. I trimmed back to rasin bran but even that isn't really healthy. I finally went to a oatmeal breakfast as my routine. I have several tupperware containers, and once a week I fill them with a measured amount of plain oatmeal, raisins, and a little bit of sugar. In the morning I add 1 cup of water and microwave for 2 minutes. Matching the convenience of cereal is hard, but my oatmeal packs take most of the inconvenience out of the morning. Even with the sugar, it is more healthy than the cereal I was eating.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Not all antibiotics are the same. Some make it difficult to eat.
The evidence a few years ago pointed to the animals body needing less energy to digest food.
I don't have access to this new study from this machine, so I won't comment on it. Although I would be surprised, we would have seen obesity much early if this was the case.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, and now we have evidence that it might not be just the excess grains.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
indicate obesity is caused by the mouth.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". And for that matter, neither is the singular.
No, that would be datum.
... never had problems maintaining a normal weight, and I love potato chips and ate a ton of it growing up.
Is this study maybe sponsored by the American Corn Syrup Council?
I know when I get deathly ill, I start to lose a lot of weight. And when I die, I lose even more weight! I'll be a star someday, just wait and see!
Most people in the South?...
If so, that could still mean he's overweight.
FTFY
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Have you tried smaller portions and waiting 5-10 minutes before going back for seconds. I can plow through a lot of food if I am really enjoying it. However, if I take a smaller initial amount and then wait a few minutes, I often don't feel like going back for seconds at all.
Ever heard of this?
It's still in its testing stages, but it might explain this phenomenon. Even though it's been in literature for more than fifty years, now, Dutch physicians are conducting a mass study, right now. It seems to be highly effective against pseudomembranous colitis which is caused by an overflow of Clostridium difficile in the gut flora with the only therapy being a high dose of Metronidazol or Vancomycin orally. However, a stool transplant from a healthy donor has been suspected of being at least 80% successful compared to like 40% success rate of the antibiotic therapy. It might even work on Morbus Crohn or Ulcerative colitis.
Considering that the gut flora is responsible for synthesizing many different substances, most of which dispersing into the blood stream affecting bodily functions, it seems reasonable that a change in its natural composition (like administering antibiotics) might affect certain aspects of the human metabolism, probably leading to late-onset effects like obesity and metabolic defects.
yes, the plural of anecdote is data. Multiple reported events is what makes up data.
Perhaps you were unaware that grains are evolved from what is essentially grass seed?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But remember, it's OK if you feel pain all the time, have the shakes, get mood swings and even fainting spells. As long as you look like everyone else while that's happening, you're the picture of health!
I have always harbored a suspicion that there is a correlation.
I took some anti-biotic for a tooth infection a few years ago. Then around the same time my stomach started to feel bloated and I had to loosen my belt. No change in habits whatsoever. Then I got 'heart burn' ie. a stomach ulcer (it never got really bad, but a weird coincidence). Had to avoid coffee for months.
I believe antibiotics wipe out all the good flora and it is never replaced. And on top of that, other bacteria will replace the good flora. That bacteria may be less or more efficient at absorbing fat, or could even be cancer causing.
I'd love to hear if anyone else has had similar experiences.
Gut Flush Now! Gut Flush Now! Apply to the Gut, Gut Flush Now!
(studies have shown that certain side effects could arise such as alien bacterial implosion, complete immune system failure, irreversible obesity syndrome, and other things that affect the heart and lungs after approximately ~5 years.)
Gut Flush Now!
How come these people get to be called "scientists" when all they do is talk crap all day long?
What does that have to do with anything? Cattle can't process corn very well. If you feed cattle a diet that is majority corn for longer than a few weeks, they start to get sick. Which is the main reason why modern factory-farmed beef requires so much antibiotics.
Graphic Weight over Time vs. Smoking over Time
Add new lines for each nation.
Huh, I wonder why French girls are so thin? /Not Rocket Science
You weighed 120-140 when you were 18 (less for girls)..... no reason you can't weigh that now.
Yeah but in KILOS not pounds. That broad generalisation was so utterly wrong that you just lost all credibility.
I wish that worked for me. I remember eating 1.5 lbs of hamburger and still feeling hungry. downing steaks like there was no tomorrow. In fact the high protein low carb diet for me almost as bad as no monitoring at all. Low calorie has been the only thing that has any effect on my weight, and it is the hardest one to actually maintain due to the excessive hunger pains, shakes and mood swings along with an easy access remedy to them; to eat.
You're not alone. I got diabetes at age 36. tried the high fat low carb thing. I was depressed almost to the point of being suicidal and a horrible moody ass to everyone.
I now eat large bowls of salad. I'm talking huge. When I'm able to stick to that I don't gain weight. Losing is still hard. And if I don't stick to it I gain. For me the problem is simple. I call it a broken hunger drive. I can be ravenous half an hour after a large large meal. Not everyone has to deal with that and I say people who think you just eat too much should try feeling like they're starving constantly and see how well that self control fairs.
At 23 he's what most people would call "skinny".
That's what heroin will do to ya, mate.
I remember eating 1.5 lbs of hamburger and still feeling hungry. downing steaks like there was no tomorrow.
For how long? It took me about two weeks to not feel tired and hungry, at which point I began to feel better than ever before.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There have been cases of twins who have quite different health problems despite having (nominally) indentical DNA, same home environment, etc., except that one had antibiotics and the other didn't. The role of intestinal flora is still being studied, but the importance is clear. We rely heavily on symbiotic organisms. Taking probiotics helps, but those won't contain all the organisms you need, so doctors occasionally have done a "fecal transplant", moving some feces from a healthy family member to an unhealthy one in order to reintroduce beneficial flora, with significant health benefits.
So, yes, it's entirely plausible that antibiotics can contribute to obesity, because by taking them, you kill off important intestinal organisms.
On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend not taking antibiotics when there's a serious bacterial infection. My daughter would likely have died without them. Just don't take them indiscriminately.
As I suspected, a little research shows that what you stated is untrue. The problem with a grain diet (whether corn or other grains) occurs when the transition is made too rapidly. Antibiotics are used to allow a herd to be transitioned more rapidly to a corn fed diet (although even the use of antibiotics does not allow for a sudden change over). The problem with changing from a roughage (grass and other similar plants) diet to a grain diet (and back) is that there are different kinds of bacteria in the rumen that help cattle digest what they eat. Some of those bacteria process fibrous food (such as grass), different bacteria process starchy food (such as grain). If a cow is eating primarily grass the overwhelming majority of the bacteria will be those which digest fibrous foods and if the cow is switched to a primarily grain diet there will not be enough bacteria to process the grain before it ferments. In addition, there are problems if there is insufficient fiber in the diet. However, the only problem with feeding cattle a diet that is majority corn is the lack of fiber in the diet, not a problem with digesting the corn. Antibiotics do not have any impact on that.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Stop trying to find excuses and scapegoats about why people are fat and start realizing we live in a society of instant gratification where the food we eat has long evolved past what is necessary to sustain life and instead is focused on trying to deliver a product that is addictive in an effort to make obscene amounts of profit.
"Food" today is engineered to taste better and deliver less nutritional value. Even "fruits and vegetables" are designed to be sweeter and deliver less nutrition. Our society is fixated on "great tasting food" which is only designed to create an addiction to carbs and fat independent of any basic instinct to eat solely to sustain life.
The reason why society is fat is because there is too many quick and easy options for great tasting food that is cheap. People get "hungry" which is nothing more then their blood sugar dropping after being artificially elevated from their last high carb sugar and starch laden meal and so feel inclined to eat another meal under the impression they need to eat. The cycle continues over and over again before people realizing they are eating thousands of excess calories their body simply does not need.
Combine that with the fact that we live in a society where people drive everywhere and most people's jobs are to sit on their asses for 8 - 10 hours a day, then go home and sit on their asses for another 4 hours in front of a television before laying down for another 8 hours, and you can see WHY people are obese.
Its not f*cking rocket science. People are fat because our society has become lazy and glutenous, and I am not above reproach. I've fought being overweight for most of my adult life and its due to a constant struggle between career and lifestyle and the constant deluge of instant food gratification available all around me. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose, but I know EXACTLY why I gain weight and know what I need to do to lose it.
So, stop trying to find blame in something that people can say "See I am fat not because I shove McDonald's down my gullet 8 times a week and barely move 80% of the day, I'm fat because my parents gave me antibiotics".
The biggest reason why people are obese is because they do not take responsibility for their own lives and try to find blame everywhere else. I know it can be hard, but stop sucking back Big Mac's and get up and walk around a few times a week and marvel at how easily the weight can be lost. The problem is trying to establish a lifestyle focus on health in amidst a constant bombardment of cheap and easy outs.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
You might have been doing it wrong -- it's not a high *protein* diet, it's really a high *fat* diet, where carbs are basically traded out for fat. Protein should remain relatively constant at about 25% of the total caloric intake.
I'll admit it wasn't an easy dietary transition -- kicking carbs is kind of like kicking cigarettes (been there, done that); you feel kind of shitty for about two weeks. I know I was kind of sick to my stomach a little (our house had a bout with an intestinal bug in the middle of it, which I'm sure was part of it). I'd be hungry and sit down to eat but be unable to eat much quantity and then feel a weird mix of both fullness and hunger (you want to eat, but you just can't stomach any more).
Part of it is psychological, you get hunger cravings and you want to satisfy your cravings with familiar foods. Part of it is physiological, your body does kind of get hooked on the dopamine response that comes from binging on carbohydrates, especially simple carbohydrates, and your digestive system isn't really accustomed to the change in nutritional balance.
And part of it is quite frankly *practical* -- in the west, we live in a dietary world dominated by carbohydrates. I would go to a familiar restaurant and order a bacon cheeseburger, thinking -- I'll just eat the burger and not the bun or the fries. Well, when you take it all apart, you realize it shouldn't be called a "burger joint" it should be called a "starch joint" -- from a volume and possibly even a caloric perspective, they're really just feeding you a small amount of meat and a large amount of starch -- huge bun, big load of fries.
I've kind of adjusted and will often find myself asking for substitutions -- veggies for starches, and in some cases, ordering two entrees' worth of meat at some places. What's also surprising is that your food costs go up -- if the entire low-carb paradigm is true, it's validated by capitalism -- the highest fat meats are the most expensive (ie, USDA Prime); there's a hidden value associated with fat that makes it more expensive to consume that carbohydrates.
I did it pretty hard core for about 2 years. In 2001 i did hard core calorie restriction and lost 90lbs and went below 200 for the first time since high school. Did low carb after that hard core 10-20 carbs a day for about 2 years and only gained about 15lbs. started to lax on the low carb and went to about 225-230 over the next 2 years. Then mostly gave up.
The calorie restriction is the only thing that works and it depresses the crap out of me because it makes me miserable while on it.
I do have to say that the low carb does make me feel much better. didn't even drink caffeine the whole time as it never felt necessary.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Hunger pains can sometimes be alleviated by drinking a large glass of water. Doesn't last long, but it came in handy back when I was in college, and there were just NO snacks in our apartment.
That said, I really feel for you. Everyone's biology is slightly different. My mother in law does not ever have the "I'm full" feeling of satiety. It's really hard for her to now be eating something, and hard for her not to be offering my family food all the time when we are over.
I ve used antibiotics my whole life, different types and brands, for very specific issues and as prophylaxis. No fatness. But now in NYC I find it is a problem to find them and get reliable antibiotics! Why, with the whole system NAMED, you may get placebos systematically and never know... Of course, if you have a disease eating up body resources and keeping you lean but it gets cured with antibiotics, you would increase weight! You tend to eat more after getting cured, you know... Remember that at least for one Religion it is a sin to kill BACTERIA.
I took antibiotics as a kid all the time. Sore throat? Round of antibiotics. Earache? Round of antibiotics. Fever and a cough? Another round of antibiotics. I took antibiotics all the time until after I graduated from college and got my first job. I am 5' 7" and weighed back then 125 lbs and had a 28" waistline until I was in my 30's. Then I discovered microbrewery beers and fell in love with them. By the time I turned 40, I weighed 170 lbs and had a 34" waistline. I just turned 45 and now weigh 195 and have a 36" waistline. I am now giving up the beers, going on a diet and starting to exercise.
It's the carbs, man. Consuming too many of them is deadly evil. For me it was beers. I see these kids these days, obese and some morbidly obese, and every damn one of them is constantly sucking on a bottle of HFCS soda pop
In Wikipedia they say this about the human digestive system:
In an adult male human, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is 5 metres (20 ft) long in a live subject, or up to 9 metres (30 ft) without the effect of muscle tone
Also:
The average length of the small intestine in an adult human male is 6.9 m (22 feet 6 inches), and in the adult female 7.1 m (23 feet 4 inches). It can vary greatly, from as short as 4.6 m (15 feet) to as long as 9.8 m (32 feet)
Most of digestion is accomplished in the intestines since it comprises much of the digestive system. Your stomach just breaks food down to prepare it for the intestines. Your intestines rely on the right types bacteria to help break down the food so that your body can get all of the proper minerals and vitamins that it needs. If you kill off a lot of that bacteria by taking antibiotics, your body fails to get all of the required nutritional elements from the food so it gives the hunger signal even if you feel full. So you keep eating more and more as you continually gain weight but still don't get the right nutritional elements into your body. Unfortunately things like sugars and processed foods don't have the right nutritional elements in them but your body figures that it will store that energy as fat for later for the famine that never comes.
If your stomach doesn't do its job properly and things aren't broken down enough like when you take antacids or Protein Pump inhibitors, then your intestines cannot get the proper nutritional elements that your body needs from the food so you eat too much again and gain weight.
If your stomach over does it's job and obliterates the food too much (acid indigestion is an example), then your intestines again cannot get the right nutritional elements from the food. The Atkins diet makes your stomach's job easier so that it doesn't obliterate the right nutritional elements from the food. Another way of acomplishing this is through proper food combining.
is patently false. Only patently isn't a strong enough word. Ludicrous and laughable are more close to the truth (sorry if that comes off as rude, but it's true).
What you wrote is sort of correct. Antibiotics do help transition from roughage to a grain based diet and back. However, that is not their primary use in modern factory farming.
In the past, it was common to raise cattle in pasture and grain finish them for a few weeks prior to slaughter. This causes them to fatten up a little before sale. In the present, however, aggressive, grain-heavy diets are now the norm for most of the beef produced in North America. Corn is now much cheaper than it was 30+ years ago, so it can constitute upwards of 80-90% of the feed in finishing yards where in the past it was less than 50%.
A corn-based diet causes cattle's rumen to become more acidic, leading to more acid in the blood. Which isn't a significant problem for short periods of time. But now it is common for cattle to be fed for months on a majority corn diet. When cattle eat a corn-based diet for long periods of time, the increased acidity leads them to develop a condition called acidosis, which leads to significant health problems: liver abscesses, laminitis, and polioencephalomalacia all being common. Increased buildup of starch in the animals' intestines provides a home for many dangerous bacteria to grow, making sudden death syndrom and e coli significantly more prevalent. The solution to this? Pump them full of antibiotics and most of the animals make it to slaughter, even if they are ill.
Beyond that, having large numbers of cattle in industrial feedlots for long periods of time creates massively unsanitary conditions. Industrial feedlots can contain tens of thousands of animals at a time, all in very close quarters with poor sanitation. This increases the risk of common infectious diseases. The solution? Pump them full of antibiotics and most of the animals make it to slaughter, even if they are ill.
Some suggested reading for you:
Overview of common problems with high-grain diet in cattle
Acidosis in cattle.(PDF)
Prevention of liver abscesses by means of antibiotics Sorry, couldn't find a free version of the paper, so the summary will have to do.
From your first link: "When cattle are fed grain, productivity is increased, but fiber-deficient rations can disrupt physiological mechanisms," which supports my comment that the problem is a lack of fiber.
From your second link: "When carbohydrate supply is increased abruptly (i.e., following grain engorgement or during adaptation to high-concentrate diets), the supply of total acid and the prevalence of lactate in the mixture increase. Normally, lactate is present in the digestive tract at only low concentrations, but when carbohydrate supply is increased abruptly, lactate can accumulate;" which supports another one of my comments that the problem is adaptation to the change in diet, not the diet itself.
My original comment was based on resources designed to help farmers raise healthy cattle. I personally know quite a few farmers and while those I know are interested in maximizing their profits, they also understand that their long term economic viability (which includes their sons and/or daughters taking over the family farm someday) relies on raising healthy animals not just getting the most bang for the buck next year. That means that the resources they rely on tell them what they need to know to do that successfully. None of the resources I found which were designed to help farmers raise healthy livestock suggested that cattle had trouble digesting corn (or other grains commonly used as cattle feed). Instead they all suggested that there were issues in transitioning the diet and that it was necessary to maintain sufficient fiber in the diet after making such a transition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Eh, you're changing your argument now. My complaint was with your blanket statement of "However, the only problem with feeding cattle a diet that is majority corn is the lack of fiber in the diet, not a problem with digesting the corn. Antibiotics do not have any impact on that." That is untrue, for the reasons I have laid out. A corn-based diet causes increased acidity in the rumin and increased amounts of unprocessed starch in the intestines, both of which lead to significant health problems. Antibiotics are used to fight both of those problems.
I also think there's an inherent contradiction with what you're saying. You have to make sure that the animals get enough fiber, but if you feed them a majority corn-based diet, it's not possible for them to get enough fiber. So there's a little bit of a paradox there.
We can argue the rest of what you're saying (that it's not the diet itself, but the transition) until the cows come home (heh), the science on that is non-existent AFAIK. It agree that it is likely that with a less aggressive grain feeding regimen cattle wouldn't get the animals as sick. But nobody ever fed cattle on corn-based diets until the last few decades, and they have all been industrial farms operating in the same manner. The science on what would happen if they did push a less aggressive corn-feeding program doesn't exist, and I've never seen anything suggesting that it is solely the adaption to the change in diet, rather than the diet itself that causes the illness. If you have some references for that, please pass them along.
But overall at this point in time that's not the way it's done as far as I know by any organization, commercial or otherwise. Because it is less profitable, and the entire point of moving to a corn-based diet in the first place is because it is more profitable. From the first abstract: "Feeding higher amounts of dietary roughage, processing grains less thoroughly, and limiting the quantity of feed should reduce the incidence of acidosis, but these practices often depress performance and economic efficiency."
You're making unfounded assumptions that the health of the animal actually matters. It really doesn't that much. If a steer has liver abcesses and laminitis, the hamburger tastes exactly the same as from an animal that doesn't. What matters is that they survive to slaughter, and that they have a high enough fat content to achieve high marks from the USDA. Gorge them on corn until they're fat and sick, pump them full of antibiotics so that they survive until slaughter, rinse and repeat. That's how *everybody* does it.
FWIW I grew up on a cattle ranch and have studied this quite a bit. You need to talk to your farmer friends more in depth with about this. You might be confused because the majority of family farms and ranches usually don't finish the cattle themselves. They sell them to industrial operations where the dirty work of finishing, slaughtering, and bringing the animal to market is done. And most farms and ranches feed their cattle through grazing and hay primarily, with processed grains representing a very small percentage of the feed.
This is a near-universal practice now unless you are selling organic, grass-fed beef. And the market for that is very, very, very small.
You are wrong about US antibiotic use. The US is among the top per capita users in the world with only france, italy, greece, and belgium using more.
Since you're making easily found facts up I am going to assume your point is wrong, too. Perhaps there are things in our diet and environment that affect appetite, metabolism, etc.
Man, you really need that seminar!
You seem to be assuming that your graph represents the top 12 antibiotic users in the world, but you're wrong. It's a list of Europe plus US, Canada and Australia. US didn't place 5th in the world, it placed 5th out of a handful of rich, highly regulated Western countries. Any number of Asian and Latin American countries use far far more.
Since you said I'm making up facts, let's go try Google:
keywords -- "China Antibiotic Use". Top result:
"on average each Chinese person consumes 138g of antibiotics per year -- 10 times the amount consumed per capita in the U.S. Meanwhile, three times as many Chinese people are prescribed penicillin compared with the international standard."
Now go try India and Mexico.