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."

Comments

Can make them lose weight so why not?

[Ameryll]

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.

They Do, Just Not By Much

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[cpu6502]

Overuse of antibiotics and antibiotic cleaners is merely creating creating superbacteria. They kill 99.9% of germs, but the 0.1% left behind proliferate and carry their immunity to the next generation. It's like evolution in action..... in your bathroom.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly their interpretation is not what I expect to be hearing soon in my (liberal-biased) community. Instead, I'll hear something like "See? This is one more reason not to use antibiotic cleanser in my bathroom, even when sick!"

Sounds good to me. They're doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

I have two friends who are experts in the area - one who currently research on the effects of antibiotic resistance in medical context, another who is a food microbiologist and worked with research on food preservatives for two decades (and has a PhD on it) and now is a pensioner, but somewhat active. I've talked to both of them about antibiotic soaps. Both says that antibiotic soaps are pointless and very mildly harmful. Just use bleach if you need to sterilize (very little risk of cross-mutations), and otherwise use normal soap. I asked the medical microbiologist about whether this was an effect that was dangerous in the large (as the soaps contribute to creating antibiotic resistance), but he thought thought it wasn't an important source of antibiotic resistance overall, and more likely to be a problem for the families that use it than create an overall antibiotic resistance.

Of course, if you do this just as you're ill, you're doing it just at the time when you're likely to create your own personal antibiotic-resistant strain of something that *do* infect humans, so it's the worst possible time to do it.

And I'll keep my kids far away from the hospital, because they use antibiotics everywhere!"

Reasonable advice if you can keep to it, especially for hospitals in areas where the medical profession is careless about prescribing antibiotics. A hospital is for when you really need it.

Don't get me wrong: I think antibiotics are fantastic drugs - in fact, I think they are the best drugs ever invented. I just think they're being abused in most of the world, and that this is unfortunate - it risks destroying their usefulness, for no benefit whatsoever, and with some immediate harm (an antibiotic cure will upset your natural bacterial fauna). If we keep people from demanding antibiotics when they're not needed (and therefore decrease the amount of prescriptions when they're not needed) because people are afraid of getting fat, that's a good effect.

Sensational journalism is a disservice to the research it presents. Kudos to NPR for trying to keep things level-headed.

I concur. Just be careful in both directions.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[PopeRatzo]

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."

It's not even a matter of the size of the overweight population, IMO. I think it's more a matter of the types of obesity we're seeing. It is common to see people who have gone way beyond "fat" or "obese" and have moved well into the category of comic book science-experiment-gone-wrong fat. I was looking at some family pictures going back to the Eisenhower Administration -weddings and stuff- and some photos from Riverview Amusement Park (which closed in the '60s), and while there are fat people there, you don't see the Jabba-size, extra blubbery, gunt-fat that you see today. People are fat now in places they were never fat before. Rolls on the neck and in the upper-arm and their ankles and along the sides of their heads. Slabs of fat along the tops of the feet that cover the shoes. Chins and jowls that lay outside the collar like blubber lapels. Hands that look like catchers' mitts. Butts bigger around than an innertube from a semi. Curtains of blubber from the shoulder to beneath the back of the armpit that look like they might be some kind of navigation flaps on a deep ocean creature.

If you ride the bus or walk down a busy street in a less-affluent area, you're going to see people today who would never have been seen in 1955 outside of a circus. There's a website where they show pictures from side-shows of the 40's and 50's and the fattest of the fat person exhibitions were smaller than folks you'll see every single day. Go over to Wal-Mart right now and just walk around the grocery section for 10 minutes if you don't believe me.

This isn't normal fat any more. There's something else going on. You cannot get that fat just by having an extra cheeseburger or too many oreo cookies. This is lab-accident fat. Freak fat.

I'm pretty sure we'll learn sometime in the next few years that there are some specific industrial pollutants (some which are probably common ingredients in processed foods) that are causing this strange effect. It can't be from overeating alone. There have always been people who overeat, but there were never the kind of mutant-looking fat people who are so common today.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[alexander_686]

The answer, like all good scientific answers, is maybe – with many different avenues. There is a feedback loop between antibiotics, obesity, and nutation that we are just figuring out.

For a better article, go to the Economist’s “Me, Myself, US”. There are a lot of other good articles out there. http://www.economist.com/node/21560523. The NPR Article is only a small part of the beginning of the bigger question on how we interact with our friendly bacteria.

Feed cows antibiotics and you change their gut flora – change the gut flora and you change how fast they can put on weight.

Or better yet, take a look at fat mice/humans and skinny mice humans – they have different gut flora and thus different nutritional profiles (production of vitamins, storage of fat, etc.). Swap skinny/fat and the gut flora follows. Swap gut flora and the nutritional profile follows.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course by doing so you are killing off the bacteria which are beneficial to you along with the ones that might be harmful. The beauty of your plan is that while you are killing significant numbers of beneficial bacteria every time you use an anti-bacterial agent to wash your hands, you will rarely be killing harmful ones (because they usually are not present, or at least not in sufficient quantity to be a threat). Oh yeah, that's the other thing, by killing off the beneficial bacteria you make your hands (or other body part) a more hospitable environment for the pathogens.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[jellomizer]

Stranger Danger/over protecting kids.
Kids need a lot of exersize more then a healthy fit adult can follow their kids around. However we have became over sensitive on kid safety. That we lock our kids inside and the go out when you the parent wants them too.
Keeping the kids indoors gets them on bad habits and lack of exersize get them to pay less attention in school so they medicate them and become more docile.

This is a new development 20 years or so in the 2,000,000 year old species.

Yes there are other factors too. But if someone is fat they are often poor too. Why are they poor because they are afraid of the world. They are afriad of the world because when kids they were too protected from it. When they start getting fat there are too many idiots out there who think they are helping by insulting them and make their lives harder and reinforcing their fear.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[metlin]

People don't just get fat because a random chemical made them gain weight.

You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics -- people are fat because they eat more and burn less.

Look at people in concentration camps. They were experimented with all kinds of chemicals on them and yet, they look emaciated. The reason? They did not have enough food (the only exception is perhaps the Kwashiorkor syndrome which is caused by protein and nutritional deficiency and water retention, but even they look emaciated -- just with fat bellies and such caused by oedema).

As a society, we've made it incredibly easy for people to consume a lot of calories with very little effort. That's why people are fat. People eat more when they should be eating less, people drive when they should be walking and running, and people do not part-take in any physical activities.

When was the last time you know when people you know played a game regularly? Some friends of mine and I play tennis regularly at a neighborhood park, and we are amazed at just how empty the tennis, basketball, soccer, baseball, and all the other courts are. Even on weekends with great weather.

When was the last time you could get a 4 oz or 8 oz drink? When was the last time you could ask for half or a quarter of the portion size? Last year, when my wife and I came back from traveling in Asia and Europe, we landed in NYC and went to grab some good old American food. I was amazed when the size of the soup and salad that were brought to me was at least 4x the size of a large portion in Asia and Europe.

People are fat because they've become lazy slobs who cannot do portion control and who do not give a shit about getting in shape. Let's stop looking for reasons and excuses and call it for what it is -- gluttony and sloth.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[jandersen]

I was looking at some family pictures going back to the Eisenhower Administration -weddings and stuff- and some photos from Riverview Amusement Park (which closed in the '60s) ...

Yes, I have made the same observation recently. Take Laurel and Hardy - I remember in my childhood how everyone agreed that mr Hardy was unbelievably fat, but looking at the pictures now, he seems almost slim. Things really have gone overboard, and for a long time now.

Another interesting experience - in the last few years I have been growing steadily fatter, and a couple of months ago I got a stern warning from my doctor; I was just on the verge of being diabetic or having metabolic syndrome. That scared the hell out of me, and I stopped eating anything except my three meals a day - no snacks at all. And I lost weight, of course. I have now started snacking again, but still avoid any sweets, cakes etc, and the funny thing is, I still lose weight.

I think the simple explanation is that when you eat sugary products, you keep craving more - the blood sugar level goes up and comes down again quickly, and you keep wanting to stuff your face until you feel sick enough to override the cravings. When you avoid sweets (and I include artificial sweeteners, because they seem to do something similar to you), you normally lose interest in eating when you are no longer hungry; at least that is how it works for me.

My conclusion is that we, in the industrialised world, get fat because sugary luxury items modify our behaviour in the direction of overeating, and that is why we have an obesity epidemy. Now, I am not really saying that sugar is bad in itself - as many of the sugar industry's paid advocates will point out, sugar is natural and a necessary fuel etc; however, the extreme overabundance of oversugared products everywhere IS bad. I mean, just as an example, if you feel a little peckish and you have a bit of change on you, what is easiest: buying a chocolate bar or buying a small bowl of salad? It is not that you lack willpower, when you fall for it, it is simply that these cravings get behind your defences, and you end up having bought the chocolate before you remember that you had decided to avoid that crap. And then you eat it, even though you begin to feel disgusted half way through, because you don't throw out money.

Re:They Do, Just Not By Much

[PopeRatzo]

It's been a running joke among guys that often see 16 y/old teens with near "D" size boobs.

And those are the boys.

Farm Animals

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Farm Animals

[mekkab]

Since 2006-ish I've eaten nothing but locally raised, grass fed beef/chicken/pork. And lots of it. And I'm still fat.

Re:Farm Animals

[Nos.]

Perhaps you should try eating some fruits and vegetables as well.

Re:Farm Animals

[berashith]

yup. the antibiotics are to correct the improper diet, not to cause weight gain. The prophylactic use is just bad, but the fact that these medicines are given to all livestock even when they are not sick yet is only because they will get sick eventually. The feed lots have nothing to do with healthy conditions.

Re:Farm Animals

[demonlapin]

I was 275 pounds on March 13 this year. I'm now at 225 and still falling. If you haven't tried it before, and there isn't a medical reason you should not, I would really strongly recommend you try a low carb plan for a month. Don't even weigh. Just go buy yourself an item of clothing that is just a little too small (cheap end of season deals on t shirts and shorts) and see how much looser it gets in that month.

It's not for everyone, and some GI disturbance is normal in the first week or two. But it works for me, very well, and it works because I'm never forced to be hungry. If I want food, I eat something from my list (which is actually pretty extensive, even with some pretty extreme carb limits of < 10 g/day). My long term plan is to stay off all the sugars and starches, eating a more or less paleo type diet (carbs come from veggies and fruits only), and I'm basically cool with never eating sugar/starch on a regular basis ever again. Why? Because this has transformed my life. I'm 37, I've almost always struggled with weight, and this has been pure magic to me. So if you haven't, give it a shot. And stay away from all the processed crap that is being sold in the Atkins name. It's processed crap. Have a couple of chicken breasts tossed in Buffalo wing sauce and served on some nice green leaf lettuce with a little Ranch dressing instead. That whole meal has less than 5 g carbs.

IAAD, IANYD, this isn't medical advice. Just personal experience. But it's an amazing experience.

Re:Farm Animals

[PeanutButterBreath]

Try cutting out the cupcakes and bread. Go paleo, cut out all grains, eat only vegetables, meat, fatty meat, organ meat, and a bit of fruit. I am fairly sure you'd not be fat after two years on such a diet. Not kidding either so don't mod me funny.

Or keep the bread, eat mostly real* food and get a few active hobbies. If you can get in good enough shape to maintain a high level of physical activity and find ways to make that physical activity enjoyable, you can eat all of the cupcakes you'll want (made with real ingredients, not that processed crap).

All this is assuming no other medical abnormalities.

*Avoid foods made by faceless, profit driven strangers.

Re:Farm Animals

[ceoyoyo]

Sounds wonderful. I think I'll stick to running, the gym and my kayak.

Re:Farm Animals

[chinakow]

I've watched a chicken eat insects, grass, and chicken feed in my friend's backyard. So I can say that at least SOME chickens eat grass. He says it is great because he almost never has to mow his yard now that he has the chickens(eggs are a nice bonus too).

Re:Farm Animals

[metlin]

Actually, diet is much easier than working out.

Don't get me wrong, I hit the gym 5 days a week, do rock climbing, surfing, and assorted outdoor activities.

However, there is truth to the saying that six pack abs are made in the kitchen. Every time I've had a six pack, it's been entirely because my diet has been in check. And when I eat fairly liberally, it doesn't matter how much I work out -- it is always much, much harder.

At the end of the day, it comes down to simple math. You just need to burn more than you eat and bring your body fat percentage to pretty low levels (>10%) for most people to see abs (although, if you are lucky and genetically predisposed, you can see abs at ~12-15% -- but most of us aren't). But sometimes, it's just a lot easier to not eat that bag of chips or only eat a salad for lunch and dinner than, say, run it off.

For instance, a bag of Lays kettle chips is ~200 calories and a regular size chocolate chip cookie is ~180 calories. A bowl of Cap'n Crunch with skim milk? 300 calories. Add some sugar to that, and just having these will put you over 600 calories. That's ONE hour of running at 6mph.

Instead, you can have some egg whites and oatmeal for lunch, two salads, and perhaps some baked lean meat or seafood for lunch and save yourself a whole lot of calories.

I save most of my calories for two things: protein and fat. Since my goal is to lose fat and not just weight, I make sure to preserve my muscle mass when I cut. How do I do this? By lifting more weights and eating more protein. And fat? Well, dietary fat is actually required, and I've found out that I need to take enough fat for sufficient T levels.

When it comes right down to it, carbs are almost not required, and I only save my carbs for my pre-workout and morning meals: the two times of the day when I actually need some energy.

Being active and just eating fairly healthy works for us because we are already in good shape, and have lifestyles where we burn at least as much as we consume. But the problem is, most people already have pretty shitty diets, and on top, they are absolutely inactive. So, for those people, diet is without argument the first step.

Your body cannot "get" fat from nowhere -- it cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. As long as you are burning more than you are eating (i.e. eating below your maintenance calories), you WILL get in shape. You may not be muscular or be toned, but you will certainly lose weight. Unfortunately, if you do not lift weights and eat protein, you will lose both fat and protein -- but doing those two will help you preserve at least some muscle mass when you're cutting down.

Oh goody.

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Oh goody.

[Hatta]

Just what we need... yet another ant-science post.

Did you read the peer-reviewed paper linked in the article? They gave antibiotics to one group of inbred (genetically identical) mice, and witheld them from a control group of mice. The mice given antibiotics early in life had increased fat mass, altered GI bacteria populations, and alterations in genes that control lipid metabolism.

That's not caused by failing to eat well and exercise. These were the same strain of mice raised in the same conditions. Tell me, since you're so sure this can't be true, how do *you* interpret this data?

Re:Oh goody.

[darkmeridian]

Just what we need .. yet another self-righteous poster who didn't bother to read the freaking article. No one is saying that antibiotics are the sole or even the major reason that children are fat. No one is denying that over-eating is a huge reason for obesity. All these scientists have concluded is that, based on their analysis of evidence, babies who were exposed to antibiotics within the first six months of life were more prone to being overweight at 10, 20, and 38 months of age. They only reported this correlation, and cautioned that there was no causal relationship yet.

But no matter. Random Internet poster dude who didn't read the article is going to rail against anti-medicine when it is actually he who is railing against a team of scientists making a scientific conclusion.

oh, That's why I'm fat?

[mekkab]

[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.

Re:No.

[Hatta]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". And for that matter, neither is the singular.

Sugar consumption makes kids get fat

[swb]

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.

Re:Sugar consumption makes kids get fat

[cpu6502]

Fruit juice is a horrible way to get your vitamins. Eat the actual fruit which includes the fiber (also an important ingredient). I'm gonna go eat some fiber right now: Popcorn.

No.

[cpu6502]

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.

US Obesity

[phantomfive]

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?

Brilliant!

[eldavojohn]

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.

Corn Syrup is likely a larger contributor

[sl4shd0rk]

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

Re:No.

[swb]

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.

Grains, not Antibiotics make Livestock gain Weight

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

 

Re:Bulletin!!!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Eating too much, especially too much fatty foods, makes you fat.

Eating does not make you fat. Marriage makes you fat. Compare the waistlines of your single and married friends, and you'll see what I mean.

A bachelor opens his refrigerator, looks at what is inside, and then goes to bed. A married man goes to bed, looks what is in inside, and then goes to the refrigerator.

For the love of god!

[Charliemopps]

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