Slashdot Mirror


Specific Gut Bacteria May Account For Much Obesity

resistant writes "A limited study from China offers the tantalizing possibility that targeting specific gut bacteria in humans could significantly reduce the scope of an epidemic of obesity in Western countries: 'The endotoxin-producing Enterobacter decreased in relative abundance from 35% of the volunteer's gut bacteria to non-detectable, during which time the volunteer lost 51.4kg of 174.8kg initial weight and recovered from hyperglycemia and hypertension after 23 weeks on a diet of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicinal foods and prebiotics.' As usual, sensationalist reports have been exaggerating the import of this very early investigation, and one wonders about that 'diet of whole grains.' Still, there could be meat in the idea of addressing pathogenic bacteria for the control of excessive weight gain. After all, it wasn't too long ago that a brave scientist insisted in the face of widespread ridicule that peptic ulcers in humans usually are caused by bacterial infections, not by acidic foods."

470 comments

  1. Mass-Media Report by resistant · · Score: 5, Informative
    In retrospect, I guess it couldn't hurt to mention at least one mass-media report that doesn't seem too excitable:

    Researchers in Shanghai identified a human bacteria linked with obesity, fed it to mice and compared their weight gain with rodents without the bacteria. The latter did not become obese despite being fed a high-fat diet and being prevented from exercising. The Shanghai team fed a morbidly obese man a special diet designed to inhibit the bacterium linked to obesity and found that he lost 29 per cent of his body weight in 23 weeks. The patient was prevented from doing any exercise during the trial. Prof Zhao said such a loss in an obese patient using this diet was unprecedented. The patient also recovered from diabetes, high blood pressure and fatty liver disease.

    It will be fascinating to see what happens when other teams try to replicate these results with larger, more statistically significant groups than just one individual. ^^;

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
    1. Re:Mass-Media Report by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If this turns out to have any truth to it, it raises two questions in my mind:

      1. Why? What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?
      2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Mass-Media Report by icebike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      Perhaps someone could post this bacteria's susceptibility to Alcohol. Preferably before New Years Eve.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Mass-Media Report by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      Perhaps someone could post this bacteria's susceptibility to Alcohol. Preferably before New Years Eve.

      I've long speculated that gut bacteria plays a role in obesity, but based on my personal experience, alcohol merely exacerbates the problem.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:Mass-Media Report by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has actually been studied quite extensively in the last few years, mostly by American researchers. They've been able to show how that mice fed samples of this bacterium will gain weight drastically. Basically, the bacteria process certain sources of food that we're bad at absorbing and make it easier for us to absorb them. It's believed that there's an immunological mutation (which is otherwise all but harmless) that lets them proliferate excessively in humans (defence against flagella, I think), so one can actually say that obesity is genetic, albeit indirectly so.

      But that all being said, while careful diet control is certainly effective for mitigating digestion-related problems, this study isn't a cure so much as a band-aid. I'm pretty sure anyone would lose weight and eliminate unwanted intestinal flora under the intake suggested.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Mass-Media Report by fifedrum · · Score: 2

      If you feed anyone a special diet they can lose weight. Also note, their diet included "certain Chinese herbal medicines." So sure it worked, it worked just fine. And the media that covered it fell for that hook line and sinker. Including slashdot.

      Now if these results came out of a real double blind study with controls and whatnot (like more than one patient?) this would be an interesting story. Now, it'll just generate diet spam.

    6. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Good question! We'll get to that :)
      2. An engineered retrovirus could pull it off. The danger there is once it's gone it's gone - the virus particles will hang around and prevent it from reestablishing.

      I am not a microbiologist or anything though, so keep that in mind...

    7. Re:Mass-Media Report by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instestinal flora seems to have become something more scientists are looking into. The make up of the flora seems to have large number if influences. We may find even more surprises as more research happens.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    8. Re:Mass-Media Report by somersault · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm pretty sure anyone would lose weight and eliminate unwanted intestinal flora under the intake suggested

      Bingo. "Higher" fat, low carb diets don't make you fat. High carb, low fat diets are way more likely to do so. Worse, "low fat" foods often are packed with sugar.

      I read about gut flora/fauna a while ago and realised that it may not be purely blood sugar levels affecting my mood. After being on a lower GI diet for a few years and taking probiotics, I'm slightly more able to eat "normal" food again without it affecting my mood so much. Potato still causes noticeable differences though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Mass-Media Report by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.

      The NIH is just starting to go there. It may well flip our understanding of how a number of disease processes unfold.

      Researchers found, for example, that nearly everyone routinely carries pathogens, microorganisms known to cause illnesses. In healthy individuals, however, pathogens cause no disease; they simply coexist with their host and the rest of the human microbiome, the collection of all microorganisms living in the human body. Researchers must now figure out why some pathogens turn deadly and under what conditions, likely revising current concepts of how microorganisms cause disease.

      Clearly the microbiota are biologically active - they produce, metabolize and secrete chemicals that interact with the human body. Not surprising that understanding that may help us understand the function and non function of ourselves.

      In a sense, this isn't news. We've always known than humans are full of shit.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Mass-Media Report by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Bacteria in the digestive tract has everything to do with how well you can process food. I rather thought everyone knew this already but I guess I was wrong.

      We also know that modified bacteria can do all manner of transformative magic from making alcohol to cleaning up oil spills. If it is indeed shown that a dietary supplement of bacteria or something like that could make it so that I can look and feel healthy like I was when I was in my 20s and 30s without all the diet and exercise I have to do, then bring it on. Between now and then, I have become a completely different person. I can't eat as much or the same foods and I never needed to exercise before. Before I knew what was going on, I ballooned from 180lbs to 250lbs and went up in clothing sizes along with the weight.

      I literally had to work my ass off. Low-carb and exercise brought me back and now I have to eat with moderation in all things but especially sugary foods, bread and pasta. Oh... to eat pizza again...

      I know all too well what role bacteria plays in the digestive system. Too much or too little of certain buggers make you a flatulent friend indeed.

    11. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this turns out to have any truth to it, it raises two questions in my mind:

      1. Why? What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?
      2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      If this turns out to be true, every MOTHERFUCKER who's ever called someone fat or blamed them for their weight is going to have the shit beat out of them by a mob of angry obese people.

    12. Re:Mass-Media Report by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gut bacteria? Nein, nein, das ist schlechte bacteria!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:Mass-Media Report by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Perhaps someone could post this bacteria's susceptibility to Alcohol. Preferably before New Years Eve.

      blockquote>

      I've long speculated that gut bacteria plays a role in obesity, but based on my personal experience, alcohol merely exacerbates the problem.

      And we of the world are in your debt for your 'sacrifice' in the name of medical research.

    14. Re:Mass-Media Report by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      I read a few articles showing benefits of intestinal flora transplants from one individual to another. For example, this article discusses how it was shown to ease Parkinson's in certain cases (just the abstract, sorry):

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927962.600-faecal-transplant-eases-symptoms-of-parkinsons.html

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    15. Re:Mass-Media Report by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      We can also try to find a substance that affects said bacteria and nothing else, and then flood the stomach with that.

      The danger there is that very few substances we've found affect just the one type of bacteria.

    16. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some bacterium process food, others attack the host, some eat the host-attackers, and some eat the food-processors. Some bacterium release toxins throughout their life cycle.

      > a diet of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicinal foods and prebiotics
      Probably brown rice (1 calorie per gram). Chinese medicinal foods tend to be vegetables (~ .5 calories per gram). Some of these would be common dinner fare thought healthy like bok choi, and some would be enjoyed about as much as medicine, like ginseng. His normal diet was probably heavily based on sweets (4 cals/gram) and fatty meats (3 cals/gram or more). This crash diet would make him miserable enough, but then they added prebiotics and documented the die-off of endotoxin-producing bacteria. The word endotoxin means that the bacteria release toxins when they die. The guy's body was flooded with endotoxins in the first four days. Being also afflicted with other ailments, he most likely experienced the unpleasantness of a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, which is like the DTs.

    17. Re:Mass-Media Report by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's just the diet.

      But as an obese man, I for one welcome my new gut overlords.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    18. Re:Mass-Media Report by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The bacteria plays a roll in the "feeling full" mechanism. It's a symbiotic parasite, usually doing no harm.

      It's not so simple to get rid of.

      Consider helicobacter pylori, the bacteria linked to stomach ulcerations. The discovery is that high acidity of the stomach causes this bacteria to produce a protein that neutralizes the stomach acidity: and creates ammonia as a byproduct. Your body regulates stomach acidity with the aid of a hormone gastrin. So in return, to raise acidity, more gastrin is produces and thus more acidity. This causes the same feedback loop problem seen by a foods with a high glycemic index, and overcompensation results in harm to the body.

      It's fairly widespread, and most of the time asymptomatic.

      Antibiotics show the pitiful development of our medicines. They're more or less equivalent to nuclear bombs in pill form. They'll ravage good and bad bacteria indiscriminately, and may even create mutant bacteria resistant to the drug.

      Really, it may just mean you need to make a dietary change to correct the problem. There's talk about the kinds of food we're eating that influence these bacteria to behave in certain ways, and about how diets low in calorie dense foods can correct this.

    19. Re:Mass-Media Report by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You're right; I was remembering something from a seminar I attended a few months ago and it may've been a bit mushy. I was really convinced that the Enterobacter problem had something to do with the abundance of short-chain fatty acids, but now that I dig into it it's pretty clear that the literature focuses on endotoxins.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    20. Re:Mass-Media Report by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't see what your first part got to do with either of his comment or the /. entry.

    21. Re:Mass-Media Report by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Here's an example, apparently the power-plant inside all our cells was once a separate living organism, and one day squillions of years ago one cell absorbed another without digesting it and through a magic more powerful than mere symbiosis Two Became One and the resulting biology was *significantly* more energy efficient.

      It's entirely plausible that it's simply a case of whatever bacteria processing our gut contents significantly more efficiently and producing something useful to us as their waste product.

      Remember folks, all that poop you produce actually contains a significant amount of unused/unprocessed energy - once it exits your body all them bacteria would die almost immediately if it didn't.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    22. Re:Mass-Media Report by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      If this turns out to have any truth to it, it raises two questions in my mind:

      1. Why? What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?
      2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      Assuming this is true we probably acquired this bacteria hundreds of thousands of years ago because it helped us to build up fat reserves while we were still hunter-gatherers. There is nothing harmful about this bacteria it has been a useful symbiont that has been a key component in human survival for thousands of years, what is harmful is our modern lifestyle. What can we do about it? Exercising more and putting a stop to recreational eating would be a good start for most people. Knowing my fellow modern humans, pigging out on antibiotics will probably be the preferred solution because it's easier than getting on the exercise bike and sweating.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    23. Re:Mass-Media Report by Hentes · · Score: 1

      My guess is that like many other gut bacteria, it helps digestion. Without the bacteria, people become unable to digest certain nutrients. It sounds like a risky thing to try on humans, and could have some nasty longterm effects.

    24. Re:Mass-Media Report by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      If this turns out to be true, every MOTHERFUCKER who's ever called someone fat or blamed them for their weight is going to have the shit beat out of them by a mob of angry newly-skinny people with incredible core body strength.

      FTFY.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    25. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why aren't the religious zealots getting the shit beat out of them by a mob of angry <too many different kinds of people to even bother> people.

    26. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this turns out to be true, every MOTHERFUCKER who's ever called someone fat or blamed them for their weight is going to have the shit beat out of them by a mob of angry newly-skinny people with incredible core body strength.

      FTFY.

      You think I and other fatties like me are going to wait for a fix before beating the shit out of fat hating ARSEHOLES?

      (Actually I've never beaten anyone in my life and I'm not about to start, but you get the point).

    27. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Odds are that alcohol is absorbed by the body before it gets to the large intestine....Unless you intend to insert from the other end.

      Sincerely,

      The Party Pooper

    28. Re:Mass-Media Report by justthinkit · · Score: 2
      --
      I come here for the love
    29. Re:Mass-Media Report by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Thanks. A bit of an eye-opener and a bit of a reminder of what I already understood in a more general sense.

      It is with this knowledge I have to wonder why, outside of a hospital, people are so freaking obsessed with hand sanitizers and stuff. It would seem obvious there is potential for harm in using it all the time. If it weren't for MRSA I wouldn't have added the hospital exception, but thanks hospitals for breeding that for us.... now we can have infections that lead to complications like death and amputaiton. What are we? Back in the civil war era?

    30. Re:Mass-Media Report by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I never use h.s. If appropriate, I wash my hands. That's it. The mass are easily moved to madness.

      --
      I come here for the love
    31. Re:Mass-Media Report by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      um, you could stop feeding it.

      I know, westerners are going to want a pill or vaccine and billions will be spent in research and billions in consumption of pills but really you just need to change your diet.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    32. Re:Mass-Media Report by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it's not a new mystery bacteria. They just believe they've found a new problem it may cause.

      Amikacin takes care of it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    33. Re:Mass-Media Report by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Potato vodka definitely effects my tolerance to stupid people

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    34. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have never tried one, I strongly encourage you to try a low-carb plan. There are a billion to choose from, or you can roll your own. I've eaten ten grams (yes, just ten) or less of carbs nearly every single day since March. I took off on Thanksgiving, my birthday, and a couple of special dinners - about once every other month or so. If you're a Tim Ferriss fan, he takes off one day a week.

      I've gone from 275 lbs, 42+" pant waist down to 195 lbs, 34" waist over the intervening nine months. I don't exercise, not at all, so that's not why I lost the weight. I didn't quit drinking alcohol - I didn't even try to cut back - though I did completely stop drinking beer and limit wine to one or two glasses a week. (Vodka and Diet Coke, in case you were wondering.) I'm 38 and have struggled with weight my whole life. Now I don't. The best part? I'm never hungry. Never. If I want food, I eat until I'm stuffed. And I still lose weight.

      Typical daily diet: work days I have some bacon for breakfast, weekends it's more likely to be a bacon-and-cheese omelet with a little sambal oelek (Google it). Lunch is usually a chicken breast however the cafeteria is serving it - fried chicken, for example, is just fine if you don't eat the breading. Dinner, I usually do pork chops, steak, or lamb, though I'll occasionally have soup or a salad. Full-fat dressings like ranch, Caesar, or vinaigrette are on the menu. So are unbreaded chicken wings with Buffalo sauce (it's just butter and hot sauce). Avocados are a good part of a salad, and because I grill so much I often will cook asparagus or green beans on the grill. Mashed cauliflower is a decent replacement for mashed potatoes if you remember to add a lot of garlic and to cook it down so it's not too watery, and I like to put some ranch dressing in the mashed cauliflower too - gives it the creamy texture you want. I eat some squash/zucchini, and I keep pickles and some heat-and-serve sausages around for snacking. If you live in the South or have easy access to a Latino market you should be able to get pork skins (aka chicharrones) as a replacement for potato chips. I like to get a pound of ground pork breakfast sausage (like Jimmy Dean or similar), cook it like ground beef, then melt an 8 oz package of cream cheese into it. Scoop that up and put it on pork skins - yummy!

    35. Re:Mass-Media Report by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Bacteria are important in our digestive system for two reasons: To extract vitamins/minerals from food more efficiently (bacteria eat it and poop out things we can better use), and to break down things we normally couldn't break down. Perhaps if the bad bacteria wasn't efficient, it would cause us to be hungrier (as we aren't getting enough vitamins/minerals) and eat more, which would in turn cause weight gain due to the vitamin/mineral to fat/carbs/etc ratio being so shitty in regular food.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    36. Re:Mass-Media Report by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      1. Why? What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?

      You have to consider your gut bacteria as symbiotes. You give them shelter and food, they do many things for you. The biggest known impact of gut bacteria is on the immune system : specific bacteria can drive allergies up or down.

      On the weight gain, there is the obvious production of butyrate, a short chain fatty acid you absorb and count in your calories uptake. There are certainly less known actions, such as the promotion or inhibition of some nutrient absorption by the gut, growth factor production, and so on

      2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      There are too many bacteria species in your guts, some of them we do not know, and the mixture is specific to you. Antibiotics will wreck subtle equilibrium. You'd better bet on diet (less carbs!) and probiotics.

    37. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. Weight gain is controlled solely by caloric balance. Hunger is what's controlled by many things, often mis-controlled. Fat people overeat. That's all there's to it. If you gain weight, you eat too much. Oh, you still feel hungry? Well, too fucking bad for you, but that's sometimes what it takes to lose weight.

      I can surely understand that the obese simply eat as much as needed to satisfy their hunger, and it turns out to be too much, the weight gain cumulates, and they end up lardasses. They'll have to eat less to lose weight, and it won't be pleasant, because they will be hungry all the time. Again, tough shit, sometimes I can feel horny all day and yet I'm not running around the neighborhood raping everyone and blaming it on hormones or something.

    38. Re:Mass-Media Report by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?

      The desire of the Chinese to sell more "traditional Chinese medicinal foods", I'd imagine.

      Perhaps I'm too cynical, but this line screams "marketing scam" to me.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes sense, as these bacteria are closely coupled to the conversion of chyme to bits that would pass through the intestinal wall and then into the blood.

      Looks like we're found the bacteria that causes metabolic syndrome!?!?! Sample size of 1 or 2 is slim, but, imagine if this pans out!

    40. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the link between this bacteria and weight gain?

      Simply put, the human body is shit at digesting half the crap we eat. Without the bacteria in your gut, you wouldn't get a whole lot of nutrition from your food.

      Belief that bacteria has nothing to do with what you eat is probably due to the whole calories in calories out bullshit, which would probably be slightly realistic if we ate nothing but calories. I think Kc's on the periodic table of elements next to Fu and Bs.

    41. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The mice in the control group weren't given any bacteria, only the media that the bacteria would normally be grown in.I find this to be a poor control since the introduction of ten trillion bacteria, daily, could also produce the result. They need to show that the outcome is specific to the bacterium in question and they haven't done that.

    42. Re:Mass-Media Report by Sussurros · · Score: 1

      And it seems likely that alcohol is more closely connected with selecting sexual partners.

      But jokes aside alcohol does have calories, the absorbtion of alcohol interferes with the conversion of other food types to energy rather than fat, and it inhibits the absorbtion of nutrients so you have to eat more to get the same level of nutrition. Drinking alcohol regularly has to have an effect on body weight.

      --
      I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
    43. Re:Mass-Media Report by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?

      You do not want to encourage antibiotic resistance in this genus!

      Link

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    44. Re:Mass-Media Report by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      The link between bacteria and weight gain is of valid scientific study.

      The stuff about Chinese medicine is complete nonsense.

    45. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not politic to say it, but some parts of the world are a mess of terrible science, especially in the health field. Russia's pretty bad, likely due to the remnant of Soviet meddling in the science culture, but Asia as a whole is even worse. A survey of studies on alternative medicine done across Asia shows a whopping 98% confirmatory result. If you exclude one of the island nations, it rises to 100%, meaning no experiment involving alternative medicine ever failed during the period surveyed. EVER.
        That simply does not happen in good science, even when you're testing things that aren't squishy and near statistical noise. That's how warped things are over there.

    46. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thing is based on one (1!) individual? What is this doing on Slashdot?

    47. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except obesity research indicates obesity really has very little to do with "feeling full." Obese people generally eat the same amount as individuals with normal BMIs because they feel full with the same amounts of food. There's also very little evidence that they're significantly hungrier than normal weight individuals. (The very small percentage of people with BED are the exception to the rule -- but even they describe their binges as being caused by as "cravings," not "hunger.")

      What we need to be looking for is something that alters metabolism. My money's still on hormones, not intestinal flora. That said, both endocrinology and GI are horribly underrated specialties -- particularly when it comes to obesity research.

    48. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll ravage good and bad bacteria indiscriminately, and may even create mutant bacteria resistant to the drug.

      "May"? They *do* create resistant strains as a result of the ability of bacteria to evolve so fast. Resistant mutants are more likely to survive than bacteria that are susceptible. Eventually you only have resistant strains and those are able to inject their resistant genes into other bacteria, even of other types.

    49. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Likely Vector for this in humans is via pus in Milk

    50. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a contractor for NIH/NIAID. I can attest these articles and discussions generate great interest from those who research systems biology (figuring out the system as a whole, rather than looking at individual parts). The fact cats have bacteria that can affect the mind (making mice more careless to benefit the cat, and therefore, the bacteria), and that these bacteria affect human minds as well is clear evidence that bacteria in general can make us do things (overeat?) that benefit a specific "civilization" within our bodies.

    51. Re:Mass-Media Report by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Most fat people actually suffer from gland problems.

      Their hand glands deliver too much food to their mouth glands, which in turns comes to rest on their big fat ass glands.

    52. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stole my link, and pun, and made an even prettier post out of it, congratz on the +5.

    53. Re:Mass-Media Report by xxdinkxx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it turns out that the guy uses alcohol to grow. It also grows on anything unhealthy. So, it's baked kale chips for you.

    54. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.

      The NIH is just starting to go there. It may well flip our understanding of how a number of disease processes unfold.

      Researchers found, for example, that nearly everyone routinely carries pathogens, microorganisms known to cause illnesses. In healthy individuals, however, pathogens cause no disease; they simply coexist with their host and the rest of the human microbiome, the collection of all microorganisms living in the human body. Researchers must now figure out why some pathogens turn deadly and under what conditions, likely revising current concepts of how microorganisms cause disease.

      Clearly the microbiota are biologically active - they produce, metabolize and secrete chemicals that interact with the human body. Not surprising that understanding that may help us understand the function and non function of ourselves.

      In a sense, this isn't news. We've always known than humans are full of shit.

      Is NIH standing for "Not Invented Here?"

    55. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?"
      Phage therapy. Maybe this will kickstart use of phages in the west.

    56. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take coconut oil and olive oil mix 50-50 in a small jar then add a few drops of poison Tea Tree Oil. I've been using that since August and it cured me of dementia. I had been diagnosed extreme dementia in early 2011. NOW I remember actors names back to 1970, and other memories just suddenly surface without my even trying. I wrote it up here => http://tinyurl.com/teatreeoil60 (that's my age, 60). The Tree Oil magnifies up all the great qualities in those other oils. When I take a spoon of it in less than 5-10 minutes my neck cramps all pop loose. It's a very amazing combination, VERY VERY AMAZING. Coconut Oil is a powerful anti-microbial so, since doctors had stopped giving me the antibiotics I needed TAKING A SOUPED UP COCONUT OIL KILLS MANY GERMS. Yellow Onions kills bloodborne parasites. I'M DOING BETTER WITHOUT DOCTORS!!!!!!!! Four weeks ago our power was waning down & up so I fixed a frozen pizza, right? Okay, ate it and some hours later was slapped around HARD. The microwave must not have been enough electricity to heat the pizza enough to kill either E. Coli or Mad Cow. I had muscle fibers in my chest TWITCHING. Then I was plunged into the most AWESOME FEVER A PERSON COULD HAVE. I was sapped of all strength so for a day I was unable to reach my new "tonic" on the kitchen shelf. But I got some finally then my son brought over some food and his vist tired me out to where THAT DAMN GERM SENSED MY TIREDNESS AN HIT ME THE FEVER AGAIN. But since I had gotten the Tea Tree Oil in me it only lasted maybe 5-10 minutes before it was blasted to death. So my tonic kills both Good & Bad critters I suppose. I am losing some weight but, I can't walk out or drive. Apparently the Pizza also contained the germ boogers for ELEPHANTIASIS (Elephant Man). My foot is swollen too big for socks and shoes. A week or so later thinking I was recovered I fell while working on a shower rod, my chest landing across the tub side. And many other injuries but, no need for doctors. I stood up and went on. Bad bruises + lost skin several places, bruised fist. SEEMS I PUNCHED HELL OUT OF THE WALL ON THE WAY DOWN. Unable to walk for days, plus now my LEFT foot also bunged up. Now both feet don't fit shoes or socks. If you are a kind man send me some sandals pleez. 7272 South Barrens Road Roanoke Virginia. They need to be right wide. MY FEET ARE PUMPED UP, LIKE THE HULK. HAHAHAHA I won't ask for socks. I don't think anyone sells American sized socks any more. I've been searching for large socks for 10 years. At this new size I may as well wrap a towel and sew toghether.

    57. Re:Mass-Media Report by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I can't pretend to fully understand it, but the article does go into some explanation of the mechanism by which the bacteria causes weight gain. The rough gist of it from what I can tell is that it produces a toxin that interferes with insulin production, thus causing a whole host of problems.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    58. Re:Mass-Media Report by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      The article suggests that the researchers developed a diet that causes the intestines to become a inhospitable place for that particular bacteria, which is how they eliminated it from the test subject.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    59. Re:Mass-Media Report by Drewdad · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora "Though people can survive without gut flora,[4] the microorganisms perform a host of useful functions, such as fermenting unused energy substrates, training the immune system, preventing growth of harmful, pathogenic bacteria,[2] regulating the development of the gut, producing vitamins for the host[citation needed] (such as biotin and vitamin K), and producing hormones to direct the host to store fats. However, in certain conditions, some species are thought to be capable of causing disease by producing infection or increasing cancer risk for the host."

    60. Re:Mass-Media Report by somersault · · Score: 1

      Effects.. or affects? I suppose both add up to the same meaning in this case :D

      --
      which is totally what she said
    61. Re:Mass-Media Report by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      What you describe could arguably be called "getting old". My weight increase coincided roughly with the thinning of my hair in my mid-20s and getting a job that involved a desk. Remedied by diet restriction and exercise. No cure for the hair yet, though.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    62. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good bacteria in your gut helps your body process foods more efficiently.
      Eating good, whole grains, foods with less processing, foods free from insecticides nurture these good bacteria which in turn ....etc.
      When you don't process foods efficiently, problems occur, like say the way starches and sugars get handled. Others too, let's not dwell.
      You can get fat, diabetic, poor immunity and all the other stuff you hear about from eating crap. What can you ?
      Some basic stuff for survival everywhere; stay away from crap with corn syrup, white sugar. bleached flour. Whole grains for bread whenever you can. Steel cut oats, when you can, old fashioned when you can't. Free range meat, not shot up with a buncha hormones & antibiotics when you can, lean meat when you can't. Cut vegetable oil with olive oil. Leave Canola for machine oil, many,including me, have trouble digesting foods made with it and get all farty. (save the ozone,too) Use real butter. Dairy from reputable dairys. Do most of your shopping around the outside aisle of the grocery store. Drink at least as much plain water as you do coffee ,soft drinks, and alcohol. And do enjoy some nice malty beer. Don't stuff yourself. Move your body.
      Your body will grow the bacteria needed for your diet if you eat like people are supposed to eat.

    63. Re:Mass-Media Report by skids · · Score: 1

      Likely probiotics and prebiotics for a competing, more benign, microorganism, or an engineered strain of the bacteria that out-competes the normal one and does not do whatever it is the normal strain hypothetically does to cause obesity. The latter would require figuring out the causal link.

    64. Re:Mass-Media Report by skids · · Score: 1

      Intestinal flora seems to have become something more scientists are looking into

      Better late than never. I'm surprised every year that the CMP doesn't include a stool sample, and so rarely are you ever asked for one when reporting gastroenterological symptoms.

    65. Re:Mass-Media Report by drwho · · Score: 1

      I'll be interested to see if it can be replicated in a scientific community where fraud isn't so rampant.

    66. Re:Mass-Media Report by drwho · · Score: 1

      Funny! But Bacteria is a noun, and as such is always capitalized in German. Never mind the fact that the word is 'Bakerie'. Good try, though!

    67. Re:Mass-Media Report by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Hand sanitizer is "more" than soap. More is better. Therefore hand sanitizer is better than soap. The logic is simple right? Now go supersize my value meal please. :)

    68. Re:Mass-Media Report by nobodie · · Score: 1

      As the husband of a Traditional Chinese doctor, the basic foundation of the practice has to do with the balance of the body, especially as relates to the digestive function. Many of the traditional diagnostics relate to the digestive tract and the digestive organs. While my wife is trained in acupuncture, and uses it for supplementation, her primary focus is Herbology, which can do amazing things. You aren't going to see any real testing of what she does in the west though because it does not work with a single active ingredient, rather with complex interactions of some rather powerful natural products. (and let's not talk about the animal rights aspects of bear gall and rhino horn, etc: these products all have less destructive replacements, besides their primary use for old men to get an erection when they really just need to get a life). I showed her TFA, she said, "hmmm, about time."

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    69. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 2

      Odds are that alcohol is absorbed by the body before it gets to the large intestine....Unless you intend to insert from the other end.

      Sincerely,

      The Party Pooper

      Not to spoil your fun; but I've heard that is actually done, and is VERY dangerous.

      Like the time I tried mixing vodka and Gatorade. It works; but is RIDICULOUSLY dangerous! I went from cold sober to throwing-up drunk in less than 30 minutes and about 6 oz. of my (much larger) drink. The Glucose in the Gatorade and the alcohol bond together, and (I think) they pass straight into the bloodstream.

    70. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 1

      We can also try to find a substance that affects said bacteria and nothing else, and then flood the stomach with that.

      The danger there is that very few substances we've found affect just the one type of bacteria.

      ...and my (limited) research has uncovered that Enterobacters are naturally antibiotic (at least beta lactam) resistant, and that even strains that are not resistant, become so. The article I read also said that antibiotic therapies for Enterobacter are tricky to come up with, have to be individually tailored and titrated, and are generally a pain.

      So, it seems like an antibiotic therapy will not be easy to do. But changing the gut pH with that specialized diet (which worked QUITE well against the Enterobacter, BTW) seems to have done the trick.

    71. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I'm a contractor for NIH/NIAID. I can attest these articles and discussions generate great interest from those who research systems biology (figuring out the system as a whole, rather than looking at individual parts). The fact cats have bacteria that can affect the mind (making mice more careless to benefit the cat, and therefore, the bacteria), and that these bacteria affect human minds as well is clear evidence that bacteria in general can make us do things (overeat?) that benefit a specific "civilization" within our bodies.

      Very interesting; except I take exception to your veiled suggestion that the Enterobacter causes overeating. It was suggested in the study that the link was increased insulin resistance due to Se-enriched Polysaccharides, not overeating. That's an insult, period.

      Fortunately, this study may be the first evidence that obesity is not caused by "lack of willpower", or even "bad genes". Your attitude doesn't help matters.

    72. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specific Gut Bacteria May Account For Much Obesity.

      There might be something to this but as we should have learned from people being easy gainers, medium gainers and hard gainers there are a myriad of reasons people are obese so no one should go overboard on this report.

    73. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's not a new mystery bacteria. They just believe they've found a new problem it may cause.

      Amikacin takes care of it.

      Really? I read that Enterobacter is hard to kill with Antibiotics.

      Therefore, respectfully, "Citation, please."

    74. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The Likely Vector for this in humans is via pus in Milk

      Thanks. I will never drink another glass of milk again.

    75. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Effects.. or affects? I suppose both add up to the same meaning in this case :D

      Actually, it might be "Potato vodka effects definitely affect my tolerance to stupid people."

    76. Re:Mass-Media Report by romons · · Score: 1

      Some people are more prone to infection than others. In particular, the elderly, those on chemotherapy or taking radiation, etc. However, most folks are not like this. In fact, I've heard tell that allergies and asthma have been linked to keeping kids too clean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    77. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Likely Vector for this in humans is via pus in Milk

      Not likely, actually. Almost all milk consumed today is pasteurized.

    78. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still a pudgy little fatboy Jorge Bastida. There's no escaping what you are. A blimp.

    79. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Glucose in the Gatorade and the alcohol bond together, and (I think) they pass straight into the bloodstream.

      Alcohol passes straight into the bloodstream in the duodenum - and no, it doesn't bond with glucose. Why would that make you drunk faster, anyway? It would just be one more thing to break down.

      Don't believe everything you read.

    80. Re:Mass-Media Report by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Amikacin. Ask for it by name. :)

      Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 December; 22(6): 985-989

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185706/

      and ... more information here.

      I'm not sure what more I can provide.

      If you'd prefer, you can do what most people do, and check Wikipedia. It's even referenced in there, with more citations.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    81. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The Glucose in the Gatorade and the alcohol bond together, and (I think) they pass straight into the bloodstream.

      Alcohol passes straight into the bloodstream in the duodenum - and no, it doesn't bond with glucose. Why would that make you drunk faster, anyway? It would just be one more thing to break down.

      Don't believe everything you read.

      I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.

    82. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.

      Oh, you experienced alcohol and glucose bonding together? Tell me more. Or just go back to school.

    83. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't take advice from blackmailers, like you, fatboy http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928

    84. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An eye-opener's watching fatass erroneus attempt blackmail http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928

    85. Re:Mass-Media Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't take advice from blackmailers like you fatboy http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928

    86. Re:Mass-Media Report by macs4all · · Score: 1

      > I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.

      Oh, you experienced alcohol and glucose bonding together? Tell me more. Or just go back to school.

      Of course not. I experienced the effects of same.

      And, perhaps it is you that needs to go back to school.

      Tip: They may not have taught this at the "school" you attended,, but there is often an abundance of acid in the stomach, where the Glucose (Gatorade) and the ethanol mixture ends up after ingesting same...

      Obviously, your initial statement that alcohol and glucose do not combine was completely, utterly incorrect. Exactly how that makes you drunk faster may have more to do with the way Gatorade affects the absorbption of water than the formation of Glycosides, but It. Does Work. I have never gotten so profoundly intoxicated so fast before or since. Since I am not a chemist or a medical doctor, I freely admit I may be entirely wrong about the mechanism involved; but I am here to tell you that I am not wrong about the (admittedly subjective) results of the "experiment".

      Try it if you don't believe me. But please be careful...

    87. Re:Mass-Media Report by dywolf · · Score: 1

      There's still something to be said for not cramming a gallon of food into your gut at every sitting. IE, the "put down the fork" school of thought.

      Full feeling or not, at some point you just have to recognize just how much stuff you're cramming in there.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    88. Re:Mass-Media Report by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Hand sanitizer is generally LESS than soap, its just alcohol (plus carrier), instead of the normal soap plus antimicrobial.

      Im also pretty sure we would be better off with more alcohol sanitizers in lieu of antimicrobials, since I dont believe a bacteria can become resistant to alcohol. I kind of wonder why alcohol isnt used more instead of antibacterial agents in soaps, actually.

    89. Re:Mass-Media Report by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The reason, I think, is because alcohol is absorbed by the skin and will result in intoxication. This problem has been identified long ago among small children as their low body volume makes them more vulnerable to the effects.

      No. What we need is a comfortable middle-ground in which we are not excessively dirty but not so clean that our immune and digenstive systems remain healthy.

    90. Re:Mass-Media Report by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Most of the population, has been thoroughly convinced the mantra "Eat Less Exercise More". The believe that the number of calories put in your mouth minus the amount expended during exercise is the absolute determinant of your end weight.

  2. I see what you did there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...one wonders about that 'diet of whole grains.' Still, there could be meat in the idea...

  3. My own studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    My own studies suggest that the Crunchwrap Supreme is responsible for obesity.

  4. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    Why can't there be multiple issues? We do have the people that overeat, but there's more that a few people that have had problems with obesity and no one quite understands what the real cause is. There can always be multiple causes and multiple solutions (or not one single solution).

  5. In other news... by Kergan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Scientists will soon discover that this gut bacteria is hugely successful at metabolizing fructose...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up! This is the best video on youtube by far. I myself am already seeing results. I eat high fat and high-carb (all the tasty goodness), but I'm doing my best to avoid sugar, or combine sugar and carbs with as much fiber as I can. Not gaining, and even slowly losing weight. Eliminating sugar is the one thing that has worked for me.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm --- Pure Corn Syrup! ---

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for sharing, this was mind blowing! This is also fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc

  6. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are people hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    FTFY. Please, let's try and have at least one science article free of politics and anti-$country rhetoric.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  7. We Are Just Hosts by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    From the point of view of gut bacteria, we are just hosts serving their purposes as transportation and food suppliers. If they can get more food by releasing the right kind of chemical signals into our system, they will. This is a real life example of the way the fictional Goa'uld parasites treated their human hosts. But bacteria are not aliens, they are actually derived from the same ancient ancestors as us.

  8. NOTHING WORSE THAN SEEING A FAT CHINAMAN !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, a FAT CHINAWOMAN, that's all right !!

  9. Now get yer ass in gear! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I don't onow about this study in particular, but they did find certain strains, not normally found in rats, which stimulated a nerve which lead to stress, which lead to overeating and abdominal fat.

    Just getting rid of that particular bacteria (there are hundreds, not just one "bacteria") fixed it.

    Gut fuana is the latest study area. There are many quasi-stable configurations, some better than others. Each island of stability could be seen in terms of chaos theory and strange attractors, or various local minima in the multidimensiional gradient descent space of the environment, if you will.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. excuses by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're not fat because of "genetics".

    You're not fat because of bacteria in your gut.

    You're not fat because of ANYTHING except long term consumption of more calories than you burn.

    Burn more calories than you consume, and you'll lose weight. One of the ways to do this is via exercise, which raises your base metabolism. The other way is via portion control, good breakfasts, and consuming low glycemic index foods.

    1. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's introduce something into your gut that throws off the horomones which control your hunger response. See how well you cope when you go around all day feeling unsatiated no matter what you eat.

      Not saying bacteria is all of it, but it's damn well within the realm of possibility. Maybe science will find a fix for this "weak will power" that many people get chided over, and at least we may have one reasonable solution to the obesity problem without having to hear so much bitching and criticism over it.

    2. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, not that you need it. I eat all the junk food I want (and its a lot, and i love it) and i exercise to keep the weight off. Just burn as much as you take in. I hear people say things about thyroid, high metabolism and other bullshit, but your thyroid can't violate math, chemistry, physics, physiology (pick whichever one you want to cite) . This whole "epidemic " is a USELESS discussion. I'm 6' and ~155lbs so I'm pretty skinny, and people always talk about what a high metabolism I must have... they're not listening when i talk about running 50 miles every week, on top of other workouts. There is no magic cure, because there is no disease (except for laziness, excuses and stupidity).

      Flame away...

    3. Re:excuses by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Were you actually puffing out your chest and thumping it while writing that bit of holier than thou or did it just read that way?

    4. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're not fat because of ANYTHING except long term consumption of more calories than you burn.

      You got any evidence to back that up? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. And "nutrition" is the junkiest "science" this side of psychology.

      > Burn more calories than you consume, and you'll lose weight.

      This doesn't explain how some people are able to eat a lot of calories without gaining weight. Nor does it address the claims of the study.

      I have known a few fat people who do eat well and exercise regularly. I have also known many skinny people who eat very poorly and don't exercise. Your simplistic explanation does not address that.

      But hey, prevailing common sense trumps scientific study, doesn't it? That's why the earth is still flat, the sun orbits around the earth, and ulcers are only caused by stomach acids.

    5. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ... but .... science doesn't allow for self-righteous victim blaming! Those sick children clearly died for their sins and lack of faith!

    6. Re:excuses by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      I forget the name of the recent female surgeon general who said the only diet that works is "Eat less, move more." No starvation diets, sensible portions eaten regularly, else your body goes into 'starvation mode' and saves/retains every calorie. Supposedly,it's an evolutionary trait from when a human might go weeks without food.

    7. Re:excuses by rodarson2k · · Score: 2

      You're not fat because of ANYTHING except long term consumption of more calories than you burn

      If you consume a million twinkies encased in a metal cylinder, you won't gain an ounce. You have to absorb the nutrients. The bacteria are most certainly a factor in how the nutrients get processed and eventually absorbed. With the right engineering, the metabolome could be designed such that you could eat forever without becoming obese. There's more than one way (or even two ways) to solve any problem.

      It may be a colossal waste of human and natural resources to do that engineering, but that doesn't justify your point at all.
      Try to be factually correct.

    8. Re:excuses by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You got any evidence to back that up?

      The laws of thermodynamics back up the GP's statement.

      This doesn't explain how some people are able to eat a lot of calories without gaining weight.

      He didn't claim that everyone's metabolism was the same, some people have tapeworms, some don't chew their food properly, none of that alters the basic physics.

      I'm old enough to remember the last of the Chinese famines. A famine is a catastrophe that all to often befalls large populations, and all too often is a direct result of government policy. Why the hell are westerners all worked up about an "obesity epidemic"? The fact that it is even possible is a good thing, the fact that we are free to stuff our face until we explode is also a good thing. Food abuse, like drug abuse, is a personal "problem" it's not a social engineering problem, I don't need (or want) a war on either kind of coke.

      Don't get me wrong, people selling food have some responsibility for their product, I'm all for educational mandates that say you must list the nutritional content,etc. I'm also strongly in favor of health regulations and random kitchen inspections by the health authorities. For example, I know smokes are bad for me, it tells me on the pack but I still buy them. The educational aspect of that is a great example of responsible fact based regulation that still acknowledges the consumer as an adult.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well some of us don't mind being hungry and further more don't consider hunger to be an unavoidable command to eat. Personally I prefer to run on empty, I think more clearly and feel less tired.

    10. Re:excuses by FirephoxRising · · Score: 2

      You are correct, however, as a person who has lost 30kg and kept it off through diet and exercise, I know that I have to eat less and do more than many people I know. I would be very happy to be able to change my gut bacteria and be more relaxed than I have to be now. I train 12-14 (hard) hours a week and am constantly aware of my kilojoule intake. It would be nice to not have to fight every day to maintain a healthy weight. My brothers did not put on weight easily on the same intake and I was more active than they were as kids, but I am more prone to weight gain than they are. Targeted antibiotics followed by a re-seeding with less efficient bacteria resulting in less energy being released from food would be great. I get pissed off sometimes when I see the amount of crap others can eat and then sit on their arses all day and not gain weight. I like the other results of my lifestyle, I'm fit and strong and complete Tough Mudders, but it would be nice to be able to relax sometimes.

    11. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, I know smokes are bad for me, it tells me on the pack but I still buy them.

      It sounds like you lack the will power to stop smoking. Or is it more complex than that?

      Everyone tells themselves little lies like "I can quit anytime I want" while looking at someone else's problem and passing it off as a character flaw, but we're all fucked over by things outside of our control.

      You smoke in the face of overwhelming evidence that it will kill you (and degrade your quality of life in the meantime) because, face it, you're addicted and you can't just quit. It's not a flaw in your character any more than fat people are flawed. Do you really think they want to be objects of scorn and pity?

    12. Re:excuses by nanospook · · Score: 1

      environmental chemicals, food additives, air pollution, genetics.. the question to ask is what and why it's an epidemic. What is an epidemic? Is is obesity, lack of energy, lowered IQ, metabolic disorders? It's easy to say just exercise and control the portions but that is downstream and doesn't eliminate what is causing the situation to spiral out of control in the first place. Not just at the moment but a whole life time of wiping your ass with bleached toilet paper (for example) :)

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    13. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, glad to see that it's just that easy.

      The calories that you burn is not a simple equation, you know. It depends in part on the calories that you consume, what other biologically active compounds are also present with those calories, how much sunlight you get, how much you have exercised in the last few days, how much muscle mass you have, and other factors, some of which we don't even know about yet. The body usually handles this with a biological feedback system involving leptin, ghrelin, and other hormones.

      In fat people, the feedback system is broken. They eat too much because the body never says stop. The belly is full, and the tank gauge reads empty. Even if they knew when to stop, the hunger would still be there, telling them to eat more. To make the problem worse, the specific foods that they eat, or the metabolites of those foods, either from the body's own digestion or from the gut bacteria, may themselves affect appetite. Gliadin, present in large amounts in the wheat ubiquitous in the American diet, can stimulate appetite to the tune of 100-400 calories a day. The food you eat may make you more hungry.

      So yes, thermodynamics is in play. But the "burn" equation is not so easily solved as the "eat" equation.

    14. Re:excuses by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      More important than thermodynamics is what determines what type of energy form food is transformed into. Let's say a brain needs 5g of glucose for a given period of time, let's further make the simplified assumption that feeding the brain is the main determinant of food consumption. If one person's body stores 90% of sugars into fat and only provides 10% of intake for glucose what do you think their body type will be like compared to somebody whose body converts only 20% to fat? Are they likely to be bingers or grazers?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    15. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit eating carbohydrates. You'll drop weight like a rock and you won't be hungry.

    16. Re:excuses by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Stop eating carbs. Cut them out completely. You won't get hungry. You'll probably lose more weight. I've lost 35kg in nine months without any exercise at all.

    17. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems all the fatties with mod points who won't hit the gym have modded you down.

    18. Re:excuses by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I eat a low card-high protein diet now, but it'd be nice to change gut flora and enjoy desert without thinking about it wouldn't it?

    19. Re:excuses by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Nothing wrong with your math.

      Your knowledge of human physiology, on the other hand....

      Sure, for some people it's that simple. For others its like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking, or a smoker to just stop smoking, or a meth addict to just stop taking the stuff.

      Yeah, some people, maybe most, can do that. Some people can even shoot heroin without getting addicted to it. Probably most people could lose weight if they were just willing to focus on it. (I'm down 55-60 lb from my peak, from technically obese to normal. Halfway into that a friend asked me how. I told her "just stay hungry".) Some can't, not without causing severe damage in other ways.

      And a few years ago, doctors were saying you don't have ulcers because of bacteria in your gut, you have them from eating acidic/spicy food.

      --
      -- Alastair
    20. Re:excuses by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, of course. If they come up with gut flora that neutralize the negative effects of carbohydrates, I'll be first in line. I don't have much of a sweet tooth, but I love peanut butter and jelly sandwicheas.

    21. Re:excuses by Kergan · · Score: 1

      You got any evidence to back that up?

      The laws of thermodynamics back up the GP's statement.

      You're epically wrong... Not all calories are equal: some are easier to metabolize than others, requiring less calories to process. And some can only be metabolized by your liver, e.g. fructose:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

      Why the hell are westerners all worked up about an "obesity epidemic"? The fact that it is even possible is a good thing, the fact that we are free to stuff our face until we explode is also a good thing. Food abuse, like drug abuse, is a personal "problem" it's not a social engineering problem.

      It's less a personal problem than it is a food industry problem. Sure, drinking coke or fruit juice is personal choice, as is eating processed food, but you just try it: try to intake no fructose at all for a week. Unless you eat each meal at home, and do nearly everything yourself from the raw ingredients, it borders on the impossible.

      Moreover, it's a society problem, in the sense that obesity is tied to fatty liver, diabetese, high blood pressure, etc., all of which contribute to healthcare spending.

    22. Re:excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, would you mind volunteering as a control subject to be infected with the specific gut bacteria that supposedly "causes" obesity? It would be helpful if we could disprove the results of the paper by having someone have a high incidence of this bacteria and yet not appear to gain weight.

    23. Re:excuses by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Let's introduce something into your gut that throws off the horomones which control your hunger response. See how well you cope when you go around all day feeling unsatiated no matter what you eat.

      Unsatisfied and hungry are two very different things, that people can't seem to wrap their heads around. Hunger can be abated by eating a rice cake and drinking a big glass of water. But that does not leave you satisfied. Large portions, sweets, and fats leave you satisfied. People need to stop looking for a magic "I feel hungry" bullet and realize that many many people over eat because it makes them feel good, and that's dopamine. Richard Simmons is one of the few who gets it. He wants people to feel good, and if you feel good through exercise and endorphins, or hugs and dopamine, then you are less likely to eat a gallon of ice cream because you have the blues. Sure there's genetics and gut bacteria and hormones, but the fact is that we are (in America) fatter than ever before, and those things have not changed. What has changed is our access to cheap food, and lack of exercise since we drive everywhere and watching TV has replaced a walk in the park. Not everyone if pre-disposed to be skinny, sure, but no one is pre-disposed to be obese.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    24. Re:excuses by kimvette · · Score: 1

      That's because you haven't experienced hormonal or food intolerance causes for the unsatiated feeling. You have to experience it to understand.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    25. Re:excuses by romons · · Score: 1

      The obesity epidemic started when Richard Simmons became popular. There is a direct correlation. Coincidence? I think not!

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  11. Eating less by stevegee58 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've found that the "eating less" diet really had significant efficacy in weight reduction.

    1. Re:Eating less by Quakeulf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Occam's razor applies. The only thing that directly affects your weight is what you put into your mouth. Genes and anything else is bullshit. You won't get fat by eating only leaves of salad every day for your entire life no matter how fat your parents are. STOP BELIEVING THERE IS A SECRET BEHIND OBESITY, THERE ISN'T.

    2. Re:Eating less by sjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, much the same way shut the fuck up and hop cures a broken leg.

    3. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Occam's razor applies. The only thing that directly affects your weight is what you put into your mouth. Genes and anything else is bullshit. You won't get fat by eating only leaves of salad every day for your entire life no matter how fat your parents are. STOP BELIEVING THERE IS A SECRET BEHIND OBESITY, THERE ISN'T.

      Stop fucking blaming the patient! You know why 90%+ of diets fail long term? Because it's FUCKING HARD TO LIVE LIKE THAT ALL YOUR LIFE. If you don't have a weight problem, and if you feel full and satisfied after a normal meal, you will just never understand the INTENSE agony of constantly being hungry and feeling hungry 20 minutes after a FUCKING LARGE MEAL, Yeah sure, if you can live like a buddhist monk and excercise like fucking Rambo for the rest of your life, you can lose weight. You know what though? Most people aren't fucking superhuman. FUCK!

    4. Re:Eating less by rajafarian · · Score: 2

      I can feel the joy of countless obese people knowing that they can now enjoy all the potatot chips and twinkies that they want to eat.

    5. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. if you think life is this simplistic, think again. There are many reasons why some people just want to eat more than others and they have to starve to keep lower weight, and others do it without effort(like me). There are reasons why some people are big and others not. Different kinds of methabolism is true as well. Now you are just ignorant, as simplistic answers to any problem are always wrong. The more ignorant you are, the simpler is world around you.

    6. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Occam's razor applies. The only thing that directly affects your weight is what you put into your mouth. Genes and anything else is bullshit. You won't get fat by eating only leaves of salad every day for your entire life no matter how fat your parents are. STOP BELIEVING THERE IS A SECRET BEHIND OBESITY, THERE ISN'T.

      Stop fucking blaming the patient! You know why 90%+ of diets fail long term? Because it's FUCKING HARD TO LIVE LIKE THAT ALL YOUR LIFE. If you don't have a weight problem, and if you feel full and satisfied after a normal meal, you will just never understand the INTENSE agony of constantly being hungry and feeling hungry 20 minutes after a FUCKING LARGE MEAL, Yeah sure, if you can live like a buddhist monk and excercise like fucking Rambo for the rest of your life, you can lose weight. You know what though? Most people aren't fucking superhuman. FUCK!

      Fucking hard to have a fucking large meal?

      I can't help but thinking of the millions of starving people. That's hard. Not being able to resist eating five pizzas a day isn't hard, that's just mental illness.

      It's possible to live while being hungry. Especially if you already had a fucking large meal 20 minutes ago. You should try it some time.

    7. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's FUCKING HARD TO LIVE LIKE THAT ALL YOUR LIFE.

      We live in an often depressing world, however we have found cheap and easy medication for depression in sweet and fattening food.

      you will just never understand the INTENSE agony of constantly being hungry and feeling hungry 20 minutes after a FUCKING LARGE MEAL

      You are eating the wrong types of things or have a serious medical condition (very slim odds on the medical condition)

      Most people aren't fucking superhuman.

      People are no different than 50 years ago, we just have different comfort foods available. Obesity has gone up because availability has gone up and cost has gone down.

      If you really find it difficult to eat less food and better food, it really only takes a few month to re-train your body. It can be a very tough time because you body is used to what it is getting but it is worth it. Obesity is rarely a medical problem, but rather a self-control problem. Once you re-train your taste and body, the self-control becomes a non-issue.

    8. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how hard it is to have to work while you are hungry day round. I do; I tried to keep my food intake low for years, eating 3 small meals each day mostly salad and vegetables. The whole day you have pain in your stomach, you always think about wanting to eat something to make it go away, it is almost impossible to concentrate like that. And your energy is really low, having to sleep when you come home from work.

      Luckily, I saw a documentary on the BBC; I now have two non-consequtive days a week where I only consume 600 calories. And the other days I don't have to care about my diet. I am doing this now for the last 4 months, I lost 27 kg already. Now I am only hungry on those two days, and I have a lot more energy as well. It can be hard at times those two days, but it is much better than having hunger every single fucking day.

      I did find out that if you loose that much wait in a short amount of time and you are not on a fat-free diet your cholesterol goes through the roof, don't worry too much about that this is because you are actually processing an enormous amount of animal fat. Only if you are on a fat-free diet you can compensate for this, but I didn't change what I eat, just a lot less on those two days.

      According to my doctor, however reducing your weight is more important than having a temporary rise in cholesterol, so any way you can keep a diet for the rest of your live is great. My sugar level is also up, strangely enough my blood sugar is higher after a fast day compared to after a normal day. My doctor is checking my blood level every 3 months, just to make sure nothing goes really pear shaped. My blood pressure and liver function have improved substantially though.

    9. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they can't. Twinkies are extinct!

    10. Re:Eating less by jelizondo · · Score: 2

      You are entirely WRONG.

      I have raised cattle and pigs, they eat only greens and grains and they do get FAT.

      And don't tell me it doesn't apply because we're humans and they are animals; we are animals and actually pigs are used for medical research.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    11. Re:Eating less by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If indeed you are a perfectly proportioned human being, how much effort do you put into that? How much is your willpower tested?

    12. Re:Eating less by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Maybe because diets arent a long term plan for healthy living? Eating right and more importantly DOING SOMETHING TO BURN ALL THE CALORIES YOU HAVE EATEN, will definitely make you lose weight. A mcdonalds cheeseburger doesnt make you fat because it has like 400 calories and people will eat 4 of them in a single meal plus fries and a huge soda with sugar in it, then sit around and do nothing. Proper excercise and eating also makes you LESS HUNGRY. And yes, it is hard, no one is forcing you to do anything tho, you can stay fat. People these days just want a quick fix for everything and are unwilling to put the time and effort it takes to achieve real goals.

    13. Re:Eating less by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      The human body is probably designed to work like that being as we are originally hunter/gatherers. I often find having a day with low caloric intake makes me feel more "fresh" and less bloatedlike.

    14. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it really takes a superhuman ability to go hungry. When I have to be concentrated on a project, I cut my caloric intake down to 500-600/day and go hungry -- usually for a month. Does wonders to my body weight and concentration. It's agony for the first week, smooth flying thereafter, but it gives a rather unique clarity of mind and makes me quite productive. I do engineering literally to take my mind off hunger.

    15. Re:Eating less by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I can feel the joy of countless obese people knowing that they can now enjoy all the potatot chips and twinkies that they want to eat.

      Warning: Made with olestra and sorbitol, may cause diarrhea and weight loss

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    16. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found eating healthier to work better in terms of weight reduction. Limit your sugar intake whenever you can. (And this does not mean using aspartame or sucralose, those are poisons.) Limit your normal carbs to under 100g per day. Maximize your fiber whenever possible. Take a daily probiotic. (Not yogurt, stronger.) Easy stuff.

    17. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be so snide to say that. I'm an example that contradicts that.
      There's no secret, however it's more complicated than x in = x out.

    18. Re:Eating less by Kergan · · Score: 1

      STOP BELIEVING THERE IS A SECRET BEHIND OBESITY, THERE ISN'T.

      Actually, there is are rather solid reasons to believe there is a culprit:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    19. Re:Eating less by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      That's almost as stupid as saying your car will get better gas mileage if you just put less gas in it.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    20. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HORSE SHIT. How the fuck would you know whether I have a medical condition, or what I eat you presumptuous piece of shit. People like you make me sick. Get your head out of your own arse. When's the last time you starved yourself and lived on salads and lean meat? Cause I've done those things and it FUCKING SUCKED and any weight loss was slow and temporary. People like you just want to believe that you are somehow superior and do all the right things. It's not fucking true and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Ever heard of Sydnrome X/Metabolic syndrome?

      I can eat any kind of large meal and still be hungry 20 minutes later. YOU try living like that you BRAINDEAD DIMWITTED DIPSHIT.

    21. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making no sense. You say "stop blaming the patient" and then proceed to explain that you lack the willpower to ignore something trivial as hunger. Learn some self control.

    22. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK!

      Dude.... go have some carbs, you're getting angry!

    23. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For many people to get from being overweight require them to go hungry for the rest of their live every hour of the day. See how you can take something like that. We are not talking about just feeling peckish. We are talking physical pain in the stomach, feeling noxious, not being able to concentrate because you van only think of eating something, for the rest of your live.

      Many people just have a very efficient gut, able to extract much more calories from a meal, those people should eat almost nothing and therefore must be hungry all the time.

    24. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to disprove this paper's conclusion, we need human volunteers to be infected by this gut bacteria who don't gain weight as a consequence. Can we count on you to volunteer?

    25. Re:Eating less by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      But where does all the energy come from, then, and how much greens and grain do they get? You cannot possibly become fat unless you have a massive intake of something edible. Fat just doesn't spontaneously spawn from nothing.

    26. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunger passes if ignored. You get used to eating less. If you are consistent.

      Takes some minimal amount of willpower of course. Weak people who are slave to their urges will be fat.

    27. Re:Eating less by jelizondo · · Score: 1

      You won't get fat by eating only leaves of salad every day for your entire life no matter how fat your parents are.

      Your contention was that eating leaves of salad you won't get fat, now you claim that if you eat enough you will. Make up your mind.

      What you do with pigs and cows is to keep them in a pen (lack of exercise) and feed them lots (oversize me!), then they get fat eating greens and grain.

      A penned calf takes 8-9 months to get to around a 1,000 pounds at which point you can sell it; a free range calf takes 15-16 months to reach that weight and it has little fat and a lot of muscle, thus the meat is not tender.

      Same with humans with no exercise, anything you eat turns into fat because that's what the body does, any nutrient not spent is turned into fat for storage.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    28. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't get fat by eating only leaves of salad every day for your entire life

      Yeah, because you'll die of malnutrition from lack of protein and digestible carbohydrates.

    29. Re:Eating less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that hard to say no to corporate garbage intake. Just don't partake and get your food from the outside aisles of the supermarket. That's where ingredients live.

  12. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by rabtech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    Why can't there be multiple issues? We do have the people that overeat, but there's more that a few people that have had problems with obesity and no one quite understands what the real cause is. There can always be multiple causes and multiple solutions (or not one single solution).

    It's more than just that. Controlled studies where volunteers spent a couple weeks locked in a research facility eating only the precisely measured meals given to them by researchers showed variations in weight gain/loss, even after accounting for muscle mass, overall health, and amount of exercise the volunteers engaged in. Some participants lost weight, some stayed relatively the same, and some gained weight.

    A persistently (and severely) restricted diet will eventually overcome all other factors and force you to lose weight, but it is obvious that some people absorb way more calories from the same meal than others. If the gut bacteria are breaking down certain complex carbohydrates, starches, etc that would otherwise go undigested, they could easily account for the difference.

    In fact, in a famine or food-poor situation, such bacteria would be evolutionarily selected for, as they would give the carriers a leg-up, allowing them to stay healthy and non-malnurished while their neighbors starved.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  13. YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was right, it has nottin' to do with with eating 10x a week at McHooterKings...

  14. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the other end of the spectrum, some people with tapeworms can eat enormous amounts of food without gaining weight at all. Which just goes to show, you can't assume all humans to be equal.

    Much like with the rich and the poor, it seems the thin like to pretend that it's all down to their virtue and resolve, and the fat like to pretend that it isn't.

    I know that I'm thinner and more fit than I deserve based on my lifestyle, which makes it hard for me to judge others who may do more work for less results.

  15. Calories? by nnnnnnn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Search the article for "calories" and not a single mention. If you eat more than about 2000 calories, you're going to gain weight,less- you lose weight. I don't see any way the subjects in the experiment lost weight without lowering their normal calorie intake.

    1. Re:Calories? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it too outlandish to consider that perhaps having a certain bacteria could cause you to metabolize foods differently, resulting in weight gain regardless of diet and exercise?

      Really -- it's not that outlandish an idea. Of course a good diet and exercise are splendid -- but the fact is there are millions of people who do diet and exercise see very poor results compared to others.

    2. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true. Giving the same foot and the same work (ex. walk 1 mile, ...), in a controlled studies have shown that some people will gain wight while others lose. What they are talking about in this paper has been known before. Some bacteria brake down food more; so your body takes in more of the calories that would be junked out. Some bacteria release thing that make you feel hungry; so you feel hungry. If you have both types (there are over 50 that do this), you will have a harder time not gaining wight. My dad drinks water all day and eats at most once a day a meal less then 500 calories. He does not lose wight.

    3. Re:Calories? by eWarz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is false. My wife can eat 1200 calories on a given day and still gain weight. I can eat 3500 calories in a day and still lose weight. The issue is the level that your body is able to break down certain foods. Example: Eat a 2000 calorie meal. Just because the meal is 2000 calories doesn't mean that 2000 calories go into your body. Certain fats, proteins, etc. don't break down in each person the same way. One person might get 1800 calories from that meal, another person 1300. Also, insulin levels and the like prevent you from burning fat.

    4. Re:Calories? by nnnnnnn · · Score: 1

      People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me? Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories. How can you eat less than 2000 calories and not lose weight. A calorie is the amount of energy in the food that is measured through burning in a bomb calorimeter. Your body can't extract more calories from a 500 calorie Big Mac than 500 calories. If all you eat in one day is 500/1200 calories, where are the extra calories that are needed for basic body functions coming from? Are certain people more efficient at using calories than others? By a factor of 2, only needing 1000 calories? Or by a factor of 4, only needing 500 calories?

    5. Re:Calories? by Fned · · Score: 1

      "Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories."

      That's a measure of caloric intake, not output. And it's an average, not an extreme low end.

    6. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol you're wife is quite a fatty, i laughed after i looked you guys up

    7. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you are more active than your wife?

    8. Re:Calories? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me?

      Yes. They're deluding themselves about how much they're actually eating.

    9. Re:Calories? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      2000 is flat out wrong anyway. it's something closer to 10 calories per pound of weigh. So for a 200 pound male it would be about 2000. for a 100 pound female it'd be closer to 1000. for a 500 pound obese person it takes closer to 5000 calories to sustain the extra fat that they have on them.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:Calories? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      This is false. My wife can eat 1200 calories on a given day and still gain weight. I can eat 3500 calories in a day and still lose weight.

      Maybe she's eating sweets or fruit juice and you're not?

    11. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not regardless of diet. Perhaps it means that some people have to eat less than others to not gain weight but the basic principle still applies; if you gain weight and don't want to, eat less.

    12. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they are not being consistent. There are so many buffers in the body that almost randomly hold on to different substances, mostly water, that eating 1200 kcal per day three or four days in a row may not do any difference at all to the total weight. Water weighs quite a lot but contains no energy at all. If someone were to eat 1200 kcal per day for a month and still hadn't lost any weight I would agree that something weird was going on.

    13. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we call Calories are measured by literally burning food items in a 100% oxygen atmosphere and measuring the heat produced by that combustion. It may turn out that this has very little to do with the energy the body derives by digesting that food. If I consume a meal that has been measured as producing 1350+ Calories (think Big Mac meal) when burned in a Calorimeter yet am able by digestion to realize only 500 of those calories, I may be able to eat 2 Big Mac meals a day and remain slim. You, on the other hand, may also eat 2 Big Macs meals a day, realize 1000 Calories in each and get fat.

      The difference may be intestinal bacteria, genetically based digestive efficency, something else entirely or a combination of all of the foregoing.

      I've known for most of my life that I apparently digest food more efficently than other people. As an actual example, while in Army basic training I had to limit my breakfasts and eliminate lunches completely because I was gaining weight while dozens of other recruits were eating as though they'd never see food again and were also losing weight.

       

    14. Re:Calories? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I agree with you...to a point.

      If you look at the caloric value of food, the values that are given are theoretical maxima. Fat has 9kcal of energy per gram. The value is calculated using a bomb calorimeter, and I'm relatively sure that it works at a higher efficiency than the human gut. Given that, you can know ahead of time how much energy you're getting from the food under best case conditions. The digestive system can only introduce thermodynamic drag on the system. So a person with the right kind of gut flora is getting closer to 100% of the value on the package. But that still means that if you're careful, you should be able to figure out how to eat less that what you output and lose weight.

      So thermodynamics still rules the roost here, we just need to understand better how efficient some people are versus others, what sort of hormonal feedback loops are present (if you always feel hungry, it's going to be hard to limit your intake—people aren't robots) and what sorts of nutritional side effects this has.

      I personally feel like this is an obvious result. Your gut bacteria must obviously have an impact on how many calories you can absorb—people on lots of antibiotics end up losing a lot of weight because they can't digest anything. Without those bacteria, you'll starve to death. To discover that some bacteria are more of an influence in obesity than others was just an obvious conclusion waiting for supporting data.

    15. Re:Calories? by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

      People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me?

      Yes. They're deluding themselves about how much they're actually eating.

      Or you're wrong about what causes obesity.

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
    16. Re:Calories? by russotto · · Score: 1

      1200 calories so low that you can't help but lose weight on a diet that restricted, no matter what other factors are involved. If someone is claiming to eat only 1200 calories a day and not losing weight, either they've learned to photosynthesize or they're not really eating only 1200 calories a day.

    17. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their weight is too tight?

    18. Re:Calories? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me? Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories. How can you eat less than 2000 calories and not lose weight. A calorie is the amount of energy in the food that is measured through burning in a bomb calorimeter. Your body can't extract more calories from a 500 calorie Big Mac than 500 calories. If all you eat in one day is 500/1200 calories, where are the extra calories that are needed for basic body functions coming from? Are certain people more efficient at using calories than others? By a factor of 2, only needing 1000 calories? Or by a factor of 4, only needing 500 calories?

      The reason is that the body needing 2000 calories is a very very rough approximation (very rough multiplicative factors to BMR and linear approximations from BMR data that is never shown to be linear). You can easily survive on 1000 calories a day if you don't exert yourself.

      It is also believed that the body has a mechanism for decreasing calorie expenditure. Feeling sluggish and tired are probably symptoms of the body trying to minimize calorie expenditure.

      So, assuming we need 2000 calories every day and that this value is not affected by any other factors is the error here.

    19. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember that if you exercise before your body can store the sugars in your diet as fat, you have a good chance of rerouting those and burning them before they get turned into fat. So WHEN you eat and what and how much and what bacteria are probably all variables in this equation, in addition to all the chemistry side effects of various disease states, genetic makeups and other physical conditioning factors. What about how good the circulation is in your mesenteric arteries/veins that go gather the food up? Or maybe we should be talking about what the cells are doing in all the various parts of your GI tract, or what your liver is secreting... there are so many factors here that just saying "eat more, exercise less" is really too simplistic to be of any value. Let's also not forget that studies should at some point serve to point in the direction of understanding some sort of model to use as an abstraction, however complex that model might be.

    20. Re:Calories? by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. Though people eating so little usually suffer from severe lethargy and a host of neurological/psychological problems, they don't necessarily lose weight. (Let me state again: you're simply incorrect. You aren't aware of all the variables.)

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
    21. Re:Calories? by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

      (BTW, I also know you're either not obese or you're obese and you've never successfully stuck to a very low-calorie diet for any length of time. Almost certainly the former, since the idea that somebody can eat 1,200kcal/day and not lose weight is so utterly foreign to you. That means that you're likely eating 2500kcal+/day. Probably the former For five years I maintained a ~1000kcal/day diet - average, never going over 1500kcal in a given day - and managed to gain 50bs of fat over that time. Yes it is possible for people to subsist off a piece of bread and an egg for breakfast, a can of tuna for lunch, and a small dinner. It's just very, very unpleasant.)

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
    22. Re:Calories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe this was modded insightful. What fucking garbage. I mean, 500 calories per day is a joke, but 1200 is certainly plausible. My wife used to count calories, and boy was it hard for her to stay under her calorie target, and she watched EVERYTHING. She would measure shit out in cups to make sure she was counting the right amount of calories.

      Perhaps you are the deluded one.

  16. priorities: fatso vs starving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A bacterium which breaks down undigestible nutrients into digestible nutrients, and instead of thinking about how we can use this to improve the health of the 1 billion malnourished individuals in the world, we think about how to eliminate it just to help out the Common American Fatty?

  17. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gut bacteria and other factors can change things up to a small degree, but you'll never get around the basic physics of your metabolism. Expend less energy than you consume, and you will gain weight. Expend more than you consume, and you *will* lose weight. You cannot gain weight if you don't consume enough food to keep your body running anymore than you can continue driving a car on an empty tank.

    That said, there are some drugs that prevent certain types of "nutrients" from being digested (e.g. Lipitor makes it more difficult for your body to digest fats) which is an effect that may be replicated by some natural things (e.g. gut bacteria).

    But really, it's no shock that people are fatter today. We have a diet that is primarily based on very calorie dense, processed simple carbohydrates. Pretty much *everything* you buy has added simple carbs (SUGAR) which is just not how things used to be. This is a double edged sword because everything you eat has more calories, and is less filling (because simple carbs are 2-3x more calorie dense than proteins and fats.

  18. Fun Facts by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.

    http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm

    We are quite litterly crawling with bacteria and other shit. Their very critical to our health.

    Now what is scary is we have GMO companies that want to produce cows that produce milk with GMO bacteria for us to be their perfect little labratories...

  19. Re:Mass-Media Report: Inflamation by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many things which travel through the gut don't cause a problem because the Cilia protect the digestive tract wall. When Cilia get damaged as with Crohn's Disease, then infection or inflamation can occur.

    If the Enterobacter growth is enhanced by some items in the diet and suppressed by others that would not be surprising. If the Enterobacter or a product from that bacteria causes inflamation that causes the Pancreas to screw up the insulin production and regulation, that too would not be surprising.

    It is only recently that investigation has begun to accelerate on what the effects of different bacteria in the gut are doing and why. Great article with potential for good results.

  20. Re:Bull Shit. by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. You're making a lot of sense here. :3

  21. I know one thing we can do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exercise and eat healthy food. This is affordable and works wonders for physical as well as mental health.

    This method has worked well, and will continue working well despite whatever relationships between gut bacteria and obesity future studies may find.

    1. Re:I know one thing we can do by edibobb · · Score: 1

      Exercise and don't eat too much food. It comes down to input vs. output. If you double your food intake, you will almost certainly gain weight. People don't like to hear that they should eat less, however.

    2. Re:I know one thing we can do by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Exercise and eat healthy food. This is affordable and works wonders for physical as well as mental health.

      This method has worked well, and will continue working well despite whatever relationships between gut bacteria and obesity future studies may find.

      In other words, you are a gym snob.

      What about the millions that never exercise, eat like hogs, and still remain thin?

      You do realize, of course (of course you don't), that the scientific community has known for about 60 years that exercise does not cause weight reduction, right?

      And there was a lot more to this specialized diet than simply "eating healthy food". It was specifically formulated to modify gut pH. You won't find that metric in any list of "healthy" foods.

      While there are many benefits to exercise and "healthy eating", weight loss is not strongly tied to either.

  22. Yup, diaria will definitely cut your weight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need to do is select an e.coli without too many other side effects.

  23. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    I think you've got it all wrong. Having more guns in the hands of "good guys" would really be all we need to make the world safer.

    Oh, wait... what were we talking about again?

  24. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Truth. There are dozens of potential pathways. My sister fell incredibly ill with a body-wide infection that near killed her in 2002. Like everyone else in my family she'd *always* been one of those people who could eat anything she liked and gain no weight. She's 5'10", was slim to the western celebrity ideal, and had done a little modeling. Her gut shut down and only after months of care could she come home - she left the hospital after four months with damaged kidneys and weighing more than when she went in, and over the next three years she continued to gain. Now she struggles to keep under 280lbs and she eats less than a quarter her previous diet. The rest of us eat freely and we're rake-thin - and by freely I mean we're all around the 5k calories a day mark while she's struggling to stay under 1500.

    What happened? Logically I can only guess she began using more of the food she ate towards stored energy, or lost the ability to expend energy as much, or a mix of both. Maybe my brother and other sisters waste a lot of our energy intake, maybe we expend a lot by the nature of our metabolisms. Maybe my sister's gut bacteria died and whatever organism pushed changes in dietary absorbtion up had a chance to flourish at the expense of a 'healthier' flora. Maybe damaged organs change the ratio she stores vs expends.

    What I'm getting at is "I thought it was over consumption of calories" like the gp suggested is a far too simplistic a suggestion - calories in vs calories out is obviously a valid equation at the root level, but calories put in the mouth do not equate to calories usable by the body and *that* does not equate to calories actually used by the body. I overconsume and I'm thin and metabolically healthy by all standards I've ever needed to be tested for. It's about as useful a suggestion for reasons of obesity as "I thought life was consumption of oxygen". Yeah, there's a link, but.... no.

  25. This is topic nothing new by tuxgeek · · Score: 2

    Funny seeing the subject of gut bacteria in a /. forum.
    Just last week I was reading an article on the Mercola.com site, link here:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/18/mcbride-and-barringer-interview.aspx

    Gut bacteria has much more to do with overall health in general that most people think.
    Weight loss being linked to having all the right bacteria in the gut is also a bonus

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    1. Re:This is topic nothing new by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      While what you're saying is true, many of the claims on that page are difficult or impossible to substantiate. The mention of fibromyalgia in particular is a good indicator that you're reading trash, since it has no concrete medical definition. Steer clear.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:This is topic nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If mentioning fibromyalgia is a good indicator that you're reading trash, I guess all of these publications should be thrown out, too.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=fibromyalgia

    3. Re:This is topic nothing new by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Wow, miss the point much? Fibromyalgia is a catch-all term for a large number of uncharacterised diseases and disorders. It's not wrong to claim it exists, only that it's sufficiently well-understood to say that a single form of treatment can cure it.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  26. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Princeofcups · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    Why can't there be multiple issues? We do have the people that overeat, but there's more that a few people that have had problems with obesity and no one quite understands what the real cause is. There can always be multiple causes and multiple solutions (or not one single solution).

    And all those obese people eat too many calories, no matter what else is going on. Not everyone is designed to be skinny, sure, but there's a difference between being Samoan and being an American lard ass.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  27. Yes, Lustig seems to be spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another data point here in support of Lustig's results concerning fructose. Eliminating sugar started the process of shedding weight for me when nothing else was working, and the weight loss continues.

    It's really hard to find processed food that hasn't had sugar added in one form or another, so I'm not surprised that there is an epidemic of obesity. The epidemic is created by the food industry's obsession with sugar (it's cheap).

    The parent's suggestion that the intestinal flora might be contributing to the problem through fructose metabolism is certainly possible.

    1. Re:Yes, Lustig seems to be spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When hot dogs are made with sugar, you know something is wrong with the food industry. And following Lustig's advice is easy: If it has Sugar or HFCS in the ingredients list, or sugar in the Nutritional Value list, don't buy it. if it has a good amount of fiber, then buy it. And then, limiting portions when you eat will become easier, and so will being active (since you will feel more energized as well).

  28. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by houghi · · Score: 1, Troll

    There are indeed multiple causes.
    1) Eating to much
    2) Not moving around enough

    I am overweight, yet I do not blame anybody but me. I do not exercise enough and I eat to much and unhealthy. When I bought my car, it started. Instead of walking to the bus/train each day for about 20-30 minutes and then from there to work. Instead of walking to the stores two or three times a week, which took another hour per time, I walk 20 meters to my car, sit in it and then walk 20 meters to my office.

    Untill just a few years ago, the majority of people did not have a car. That means that they had to use other means to get around. Each one of them means more walking.

    We are lazy. Even moving our arm up and down to brush our teeth is too much, so we use electric devices for that. If you need to go one or two floors up or down, do you walk or take the elevator?

    So please stop finding excuses in some rare disease that somebody might have. Move around more and eat less and you will be thinner and healthier. Again: I am overweight and I am not going to look for excuses. If I want to get healthier, I must eat better and exercise more.

    And those few you are talking about? I am sure that if they would have exercised more and eaten healthier, they would have no issues with whatever is causing their obesity.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  29. Re:Bull Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Also, exercise is a shitty way to lose weight. Really. It isn't going to compensate for eating too much shitty food.

  30. Re:Bull Shit. by kdataman · · Score: 2

    This is bull shit. You cannot escape the laws of thermodynamics.

    If you eat more calories than you burn, you get fat.
    If you burn more calories than you eat, you get skinny.

    It isn't that simple. I eat whatever I want and don't workout much and I haven't been able to gain weight ever in my life, and I have tried. I lived off of fast food lunches for several years when I was single but for some reason my body doesn't respond to the calories. I don't have high cholesterol or high BP and the doc says I am healthy - just skinny. I have met several people like me, and others that I know that (if they ate what I ate) would balloon up rather quickly.

  31. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Zenin · · Score: 1

    Sure, there can be dozens of factors.

    Yet, 99.999% of the time obese people are eating processed sugar and fat by the pound.

    Whatever fad diet of the month, whatever "ground breaking" research, they grab onto it all...but they never, ever drop the candy bars, cookies, cheese, cake, bacon, etc. It's an addiction, no less disgusting and debilitating then crystal meth.

    Yet, what do their friends and families do? They send them endless gifts of candy, cookies, cheese/salami baskets. Are you people that fucking insane and heartless?! Would you send gifts of whiskey to an alcoholic friend?! What is wrong with you people!

    ---

    It's a simple and tragic combination of sugar/fat addicts who have a hard time quitting, and a society that thinks it's OK to constantly pressure them to take another hit.

    The only valid way to view someone eating a candy is to imagine someone shooting heroine into their veins.

    --
    My /. uid is better then your /. uid
  32. Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    They aren't all slender because they don't eat - they eat like horses. But its a lot less red meat (as in a LOT less), almost no dairy, and tons of rice and veggies.

    1. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      almost no dairy

      That's not really a choice for them. Less than 10% of adult Chinese are lactose tolerant.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      There's a difference in the size of FOOD portions and everything inbetween to.

      Some people complain how others can eat so much and others complain that they eat a lot but still doesn't gain weight but for instance over at the university there's a fat couple and they can be eating like a chocolate bar and then go buy some potato chips and then go buy yet something else. They are likely afraid of artificial sweeteners to and go for the "good natural stuff!"

      And they are fat.

    3. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      A fat olympic lifter at the gym also didn't eat any pasta or potatoes (or whatever) with his food made of vegetables and meat because he thought it was necessary to skip that to be able to eat enough of the rest or whatever.

      And he likely thought that was a good meal.

      And it is.

      The thing is just that he also bought a jar of ice cream and bought the 1 kg bags of winegums because they was cheaper than the 250 gram bags or whatever and eat that after his workout.

      Maybe he felt the need for that energy but that explains why he can't stomach the potatoes or pasta and have no need for those calories but he's already eaten a lot more of much shittier food.

    4. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      They are likely afraid of artificial sweeteners to and go for the "good natural stuff!"

      Artificial sweeteners are bad for you, and a surprisingly large number of people in the general population are allergic to them. Aspertame gives me a migraine, for example... last time I accidentally consumed it, the headache lasted 3 days and left me barely able to get out of bed for long enough to eat or go to the bathroom.

      If you're going to go for a "low calorie" substitute, use a natural one like agave. But avoiding sugars as a method to lose weight is a myth... on its own it will never be enough to lose weight. You need to have the right balance of foods in your intake, and having a certain amount of natural sugar is part of that. The real problem is not getting enough fat (and substituting carbohydrates for the fat intake). The body is *much* more efficient at turning carbs into glucose than it is fat, and excess glucose in your blood is what causes the body to start storing it in fat. Couple that with the fact that fatty foods are more filling than the same number of calories from carbs, and the math *should* be easy....

    5. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fat. I also have multiple sclerosis. My neurologist said to absolutely avoid ALL artificial sweetners, so, guess which one they think is more dangerous? $.02

    6. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

      If you're going to go for a "low calorie" substitute, use a natural one like agave.

      Agave syrup is mostly fructose. Ain't nothing "low calorie" about it. It's not a sugar substitute, it's sugar, period.

      There's a traditional Mexican preparation whose name escapes me at the moment. They ferment the agave, then distill it: this process removes all of the harmful sugars, and leaves only the healthful components. You should check it out when you get a chance.

    7. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I know my artificial sweeteners quite well. Still consume them though I would do better without them.

      The allergic part I can't comment on. Aspartame I don't notice at all.

      As someone else have pointed out agave isn't a low calorie alternative. Wikipedia mention 92% fructose and 8% glucose for the hydrolysed product.

      "But avoiding sugars as a method to lose weight is a myth..."

      You're just making a joke of yourself. Putting more energy in than out make you store the additional energy, and viceversa. The issue with the sugars though isn't as much that they make you fat (in the case of fructose it actually do have additional negative effects compared to glucose or starches but anyway) as in that they are deficient of all nutrients and as such completely useless. If all you eat is 1500 kcal of sugar per day you won't get fat but it's not a healthy diet and it's a complete failure regardless. But also likely easier to over eat / consume your daily food intake with sugar rich products / especially drinks because they are so easy to consume / eat. It's harder to eat 3000 kcal of kale.

      "natural sugar is part of that" bs.

      "The real problem is not getting enough fat (and substituting carbohydrates for the fat intake)"

      I never said that. I said they likely was afraid of artificial sweeteners. As in they enjoy all this sweet threats but then also get sugar filled sodas on top of it all for even more sugar, fructose and higher calorie intake whereas an artificially sweetened soda would at least not had contributed to their massive energy intake.

      I don't get why you brought fat into anything. All I said was that they was fat.

    8. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by spooje · · Score: 2

      I hate to burst your bubble but I lived in Beijing for four years and there were plenty of fatties all over the place.

      --
      Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
    9. Re:Go to mainland China. Try to find a fat man. by russotto · · Score: 1

      They ferment the agave, then distill it: this process removes all of the harmful sugars, and leaves only the healthful components.

      Alas, fermented sugar is 7 calories per gram. But I agree that's the best use of agave syrup. They have another version where they leave in only the unhealthful components and it tastes licking a racing tire after a wreck; I'm not sure if this is a Mexican joke on gringos or if they play it on other Mexicans as well.

  33. GO AND FUCK YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do YOU feel hungry 20 minutes after a fucking huge meal?
    Do YOU have any injuries that make excercise difficult?
    Do YOU have any one of the conditions you so readily dismiss.

    Laws of thermodynamics MY ARSE. Not everyone's body has the exact same efficiency. Your body is not a closed system, unless you're so ANAL you've never TAKEN a shit in your life.

    You go fucking run 30 miles a day you fucktard, and see how long your body lasts. Care to do that at age 80 you miserable excuse for a human being. Fat hating disguised as science is revolting. GO AND FUCK YOURSELF.

    1. Re:GO AND FUCK YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, what a hateful lard-ass. good thing anyone can outrun him.

    2. Re:GO AND FUCK YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's hard, just as it's hard to get rid of any other addiction, but listen: I'd consider it normal to be able to cope with being hungry -- cope as not pulling your hair out, not biting your nails, not overeating, and not sleeping all the time. I'm not saying it's easy. But what you're saing is that you want it to be easy. Well, sorry, maybe if the research pans out, they'll make it easier for fat people not to feel hungry all the time. In the mean time, just accept being hungry as a fact of healthy life, if you must. No different then people dealing with any other affliction (amputation, loss of various senses, etc.). I can sympathize because I've been around addicts and yeah, if it were easy to turn around, there wouldn't be so many.

    3. Re:GO AND FUCK YOURSELF by germansausage · · Score: 1

      If you can't run then swim. If you can't swim then walk. The system may not be closed, but all the inputs are in your control. Nobody is forcing you to eat. Feel hungry if you don't eat? Then be hungry. Everything else is just making excuses.

  34. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gut bacteria and other factors can change things up to a small degree, but you'll never get around the basic physics of your metabolism. Expend less energy than you consume, and you will gain weight.

    That's very oversimplified to the point of being almost wrong. The problem is that your metabolism varies depending on how much energy is available. If you cut your calorie intake to try to lose weight, your cells slow down their metabolic rate to compensate, and you're still expending no more energy than you consume. When the system is calibrated correctly, people keep a fairly constant weight no matter how much or how little they eat. When the system is calibrated wrong, people can't lose weight no matter how little they eat. There are things you can do to improve your odds, such as starving yourself for one day every few days so that your body does not adjust to the reduced calorie consumption, but that only goes so far.

    And although you are correct that consuming sugars and starches instead of fats and proteins makes this problem worse, high protein diets are hard on your kidneys, heart, etc. So that's not a fix, either. The right fix is to figure out why the whole system is out of balance and fix it.

    --

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

  35. Bits from comprehensive study from Common Sense: by drankr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Overeating junk and sedentary lifestyle account for the obesity epidemic. Beyond these two facts, there's nothing important, or even interesting, to be learned about the obesity epidemic.

  36. Re:Bull Shit. by compro01 · · Score: 2

    Where do "the laws of thermodynamics" state that efficiency doesn't matter?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  37. When I was young, I was skinny as a rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I literally ate 10,000 calories a day and didn't gain an ounce. I drank a full 8 pack of 16 ounce pepsi bottles every day, ate a large bag of potato chips and a pound of cheese every day. This is on top of a large breakfast, lunch, afterschool dagwood sandwiches, huge supper with seconds at every meal. After dinner I would eat chips, more cheese, other snacks and popcorn loaded with butter. For breakfast I would eat a stack of 10 pancakes, a couple of boiled eggs, a 6 egg omlet, toast, sausage, bacon, a huge glass of milk, and with everything slathered with butter and bacon grease. Lunch was a box of chocolate donuts and a huge cocolate milk shake, dinner was steak, mashed potatoes, green beans. If I ate at a fast food restraunt it was 10 cheese burgers and a couple of large fries.

    I was 5 foot 8 inches tall and I maintained less than 110 pound weight for most of high school.

    And it wasn't because of my activity level either. I was a complete, couch potato when I was a teen ager. I just sat around reading, or playing video games on my computers.

    Once I hit 30 years old I started gaining weight. No matter how little I ate I kept gaining weight. No matter how much I increased my activity level I kept gaining weight. Now I keep my food intake down to less than 1200 calories a day and try to walk everyday.

    Glad to know that there might be a treatment to help me out soon.

    1. Re:When I was young, I was skinny as a rail by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I can confirm this. But I was less sedentary then you. However caloric intake does not correlate linearly or causaly with obesity. It can but its not a 1:1 for certain 100% thing.

      6kcal MRE's twice a day. 3 bottles of Dr Pepper, and a whole pizza per day. Shit should have killed me.

      At 30 I can barely eat 1lb of high protien low carb, and drink water all the time and I can gain weight. Allot has to do with water weight it seems, some has to do with activity levels which are much more sedentary now.

    2. Re:When I was young, I was skinny as a rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did I get modded down? Did I post a fact that didn't fit with your bizzare view of reality so you just silence me?

    3. Re:When I was young, I was skinny as a rail by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Welcome to slashdot, where wars are won with moderation. Sometimes its hard to get our point across here. God only knows. Its probably not even relating to you or the fact that you had an informative story in your own thread, someone somewhere is arguing about the science of calories and here you are collateral damage because your evidence does not fit their bell curve.

    4. Re:When I was young, I was skinny as a rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! You TRY to WALK everyday! With so much exercise it seems impossible that you would gain weight!

  38. You expect 6-month olds to exercise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no shortage of studies that show you're wrong. Exercise is healthy for many reasons, but burning off calories is not one of them, that's urban legend.

    Here's a simple fact that even non-scientists should be able to understand. To "burn off" the calories from a single regular beefburger would require you to run energetically for at least 10 miles. Do you think that makes burning off calories through exercise a normal and reasonable part of weight control?

    No it's not, and that's why normal people who are not in training for the marathon manage to keep their weight down anyway. We have a built-in negative feedback system that ensures that we don't absorb what we don't need.

    Unfortunately in some people that process is broken, and we're trying to find out why. To blame their lack of marathon-level exercise is ridiculous. Do you realize that we have an epidemic of obese SIX MONTH OLDS? Are you expecting them to run 10 miles a day too?

    Seriously, you need to stop repeating urban legend.

    1. Re:You expect 6-month olds to exercise? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Well, we know why it's broken. Hoarding energy confers a significant survival benefit during times of famine.

      What's under investigation now is how it's broken.

  39. If this is true could you fix this by by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    First giving the patient a dose of antibotics and then once most of the bacteria are dead then give them a fecal transplant that contain a better mixture of gut flora?

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:If this is true could you fix this by by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy (worst wiki article but sufficient)

      It is the best way to cure Clostridium Difficile (CDI)

      Seems like you probably already knew this and were just looking for someone to post something about it =)

    2. Re:If this is true could you fix this by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to play with antibiotics if you're trying to flush your system. There are already bowel cleansing products for that. (Anyone who has had a colonoscopy knows that.) You also don't need a fecal transplant for better gut flora. You might have in the 1800s, but in the 2012s, you can buy the bacteria in a health store. They call these probiotics.

    3. Re:If this is true could you fix this by by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Your right on all your points, I was mislead by another article to believe that for CDI it was a specificaly endorsed treatment.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365524/ (states that its not the norm, but is effective)

      Here is a study saying its a very effective treatment and people in the medical field are looking into it.

      http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(11)01634-9/abstract

      I am not a doctor, or medical professional. I cant source the original article that lead me to believe it was the norm, but appearently its not. Thanks for the informative response.

    4. Re:If this is true could you fix this by by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I would also like to point out for fecal transplantation I dont think they use antibiotics either.

  40. Autoimmune arthritis diseases by Mondo1287 · · Score: 1

    There is a growing movement blaming autoimmune arthritis diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, on gut flora. http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2012-rst/6933.html

  41. Good plan, but not for those results by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, that doesn't work for everyone. It sounds great when it works for YOU, but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight. I exercise five days a week, two hours a day, and I'm not talking light exercise. I don't eat sweets, I don't drink, I control my carbs, I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins... I *love* veggies and eat them every day, both salads and side dishes, and I *still* have trouble controlling my weight. Yeah, I'm strong and have stamina and flexibility -- all important targets for my undertakings -- but the fat wants to hang around regardless. I have *never* been "cut." Kinda sleek looking like a seal back in my teenage days, pretty big through the chest and shoulders, but even then I carried extra weight (i'm talking fat) on my thighs and ass. And I was active as hell. Caving, swimming, martial arts, biking, dragging musical equipment from gig to gig, rope climbing, pushing lawn mowers... I hardly ever sat still.

    Today I have students that are so cut, so defined, so obviously on the extreme low end of the body fat range it would make you cry... and if that didn't do it, watching them wolf down $15 worth of McDonald's poison surely would. I can't eat that crap at *all* or my weight takes right off. Not that I really want to, but still, the message is clear: What makes me fat doesn't make you fat, and so forth.

    Everyone's experience is not the same. Metabolism, infection, allergies, immune system fuckarows and Darwin knows what else...

    "Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.

    I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone identifies one (or more) independent factors that drive fat retention. I've suspected it for years.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by PRMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins

      Sounds like you may need to eat MORE protein. As far as I can tell, and I'm not a scientist or dietician, all the diets that work have a combination of more protein and less carbs. I cut my carbs down to 125 g per day and I lost 70 lbs in 9 months. But I greatly increased my intake of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, etc. Any time I get hungry, I eat one of those and I feel full immediately.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Cederic · · Score: 2

      greatly increased my intake of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, etc. Any time I get hungry, I eat one of those and I feel full immediately.

      I was about to post that I can just keep eating those, but on reflection you're right. Those food types do make me feel full up.

      It doesn't stop me wanting to eat more though, and even they tend to make me feel full long after my body's had enough food. I just don't generate/receive/notice the right signals.

      (I'm also comfort eating a lot of carbs, so stress is the single biggest cause of any excess weight I'm carrying at the moment, but that's a different story. Unfortunately comfort eating leads to feelings of guilty, which cause stress, which leads to..)

    3. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law of conservation of energy is just that. It's the law. Don't eat you lose weight. How many fat people do you see when food is short? Starving people are not fat. I'm sorry but that is the law.

    4. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by mspohr · · Score: 0

      Eat less.

      You will lose weight if you take in fewer calories. This is basic thermodynamics.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by microcars · · Score: 3, Informative

      greatly increased my intake of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, etc. Any time I get hungry, I eat one of those and I feel full immediately.

      I was about to post that I can just keep eating those, but on reflection you're right. Those food types do make me feel full up.

      Proteins take longer to digest so that's why you feel "full" longer. And it doesn't take a lot either.

      --
      I like microcars
    6. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      my wife was in that category . we eat well, she walked regularly and could not lose weight.

      stopped dairy, especially milk and lost 20 pounds in 6 mos. I'm still amazed at how fast she lost the weight.

      She hated it too, because she loved milk.

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    7. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but humans aren't calorimeters. In first world countries, people eat when they are hungry, and stop when they're not hungry. Crappy sugar based diets (bread is sugar) screw with your hunger hormones, and people get fat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin#Satiety

    8. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      energy in=energy out, sure. But how much of the energy in gets lost to inefficiency?

      When I weigh less than 170, I can eat 3000 calories a day and not gain weight. If I manage to top 190, suddenly the same diet starts packing on more pounds and, worse, I can't get under 210 even reducing my calories to 1400.

      If need to double my daily excercise routine at the same time, the weight slowly comes off, but as soon as I get back under 190, suddenly I start dropping a pound a day.

    9. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      try cutting out everything in the "bread and grain" section of the food pyramid. Stop eating bread, rice, potatoes (except sweet potatoes), all baked goods, pasta, anything in that part of the bs food pyramid. And of course never ever drink any juice of any kind. Also don't eat dried fruit. You can eat flax seed raw or roasted, but nothing ground up into powder/flour. It goes without saying don't ever eat any junk food of any kind. Don't eat any vegetable oil of any kind except maybe good olive oil and organic coconut oil.
      It's important not to "cut down" on breads etc and instead cut them out completely to end the unnatural addiction.
      Organic nuts will give you important good fat. Also eat grass fed meat. Eating good fat is important. (not from supermarket meat or vegetable oil)

      If this (permanent) change in diet doesn't lead to weight loss than you are simply lying.

    10. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Conservation of energy... In an isolated system. The body isn't an isolated system. You only consider the input to the system, you aren't considering the outputs.

      And outside of the physics angle, it's unhelpful to look at it that way. Whilst for sure over-eating is the fundamental cause, the implication that it's a matter of conscious willpower is wrong. The difference between well proportioned and fat people is not willpower. Mostly those well proportioned people aren't even trying. They are just lucky to have a body and/or subconscious mind that doesn't prompt them with hunger feelings as often and/or jumps in earlier to tell them they've eaten enough. It's a random physical attribute such as the colour of ones hair, not something to be proud or ashamed of.

      Maybe this research will better explain this difference, and maybe it won't. But the difference is there.

    11. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, no one is arguing that starvation will leave you fat; eventually, you'll burn it. Unfortunately for simplistic reasoning like yours, the fat isn't always the first thing to go. It can be muscle tissue, organ tissue, etc. and there are many questions of various low level nutrient shortages that arise with extreme low calorie diets as well.

      There are few subjects as rife with misinformation as diet; part of that is because we don't know what works for everyone, part of it is because there's an entire industry preying on those who are looking for various one-button solutions in that information vacuum. Not to be confused with the disinformation glut.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    12. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      I hear crap like yours from women everyday and it is bullshit. If your body metabolizes 1800 calories and you only consume 1700 you *must* lose weight. Are you slow at metabolizing? Tough shit. Then constitantly eat less. That's it. Period.

      Want strength? Eat *more* and lift heavy things.

      Want more endurance and are willing to make your matabalizim EVEN slower than it already is? Then and only then should you take up running. Cardio will NOT help over time in weight control. Cardio forces your body to become more efficient so it can go further with less. Running will cause your at rest body to go from using 1800 cals a day to using 1700. And that is NOT what you want.

      Those dudes that eat crap and stay ripped are eating 3000 cals a day and metabolizing 3000 cals a day. It doesn't matter a whole lot if its pure lard or pure starch. If they can metabolize it and turn the food into heat+workdone then they will not gain weight.

      Slower metabolism? Eat less.

      You can increase your metabolism by lifting heavy things but only if you are able to build the required muscle. If you are't developing larger mussels then lifting is almost as bad for weight control as cardio.

      Stay off the cardio. Build muscle. And fscking EAT LESS.

      Eating less alread? No, that's where the bullshit comes in, you are not. Learn basic 2nd grade math then start counting every single calorie you consume. That 1 cal form half a can of diet coke? Write it down. You'll soon figure out that you are eating too much. Keep counting and... wait for it... eat less.

    13. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Protein leads to muscle growth (among things), which leads to greater caloric consumption. Protein + Exercise + Controlled caloric consumption is basically what you need to do to lose weight.

    14. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by peragrin · · Score: 2

      That works for at max 4 weeks. and then it comes back.

      when you eat less your body slowly adjusts it's metabolism to compensate.

      It is why you lose weight quickly in the beginning of a new diet and taper off the more you go.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    15. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins

      Sounds like you may need to eat MORE protein. As far as I can tell, and I'm not a scientist or dietician, all the diets that work have a combination of more protein and less carbs. I cut my carbs down to 125 g per day and I lost 70 lbs in 9 months. But I greatly increased my intake of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, etc. Any time I get hungry, I eat one of those and I feel full immediately.

      Lucky you. I've recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and I have young kids that I would like to see on their own two feet (plus I need my eyes for my hobbies) so motivation is high. I cut down carbs and I feel like SHIT. Within a week or 2 I'm an old man that needs a nap at lunchtime, has headaches etc. I tried to go higher protein and it only made me hungrier. Lost 15kg...promptly put it all back on in less than half the time just eating more normally, I do a lot of salad an protein, but that's only part of the solution....and it's making me hate every waking moment that I'm not distracted with something else.

      I can eat a huge meal and 20 minutes later I'm hungry. That doesn't change with what I eat. Occasionally I have a day that isn't like that, but it's not linked to mood or food intake. (Every doc I see wants to either have me band my stomach or see a shrink because of course there's no possible way a hunger drive like that could be physicalogical - I must be nuts).

      FUCK THE WORLD.

    16. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by mspohr · · Score: 2

      I lost 22 pounds in 6 months just by eating less. That was a year ago and the weight has not come back. I didn't change my activity or the type of food I ate (I don't eat junk food).
      Just weigh yourself daily and if your weight starts to go up, then eat less. Simple.
      Different people have different metabolism but everyone will lose weight when they eat less than the calories they burn... basic thermodynamics.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    17. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Change your posture.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    18. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your metabolism can only adjust so far, and it's not actually all that far. If that weren't true, then people wouldn't starve to death, their metabolism would just keep adjusting until they could live on practically nothing.

      Restrict your caloric intake to, say, 1500 calories per day, and you'll lose weight, and you'll keep losing it as long as you maintain that. Include some strength training to avoid also losing muscle tissue. When you reach your target weight, increase your intake to normal, but weigh yourself daily and monitor your weight tend, if it starts trending upward, reduce your food intake slightly. Continue tuning your intake until you are at the weight you want and staying there. Once you've got that figured out, continue weighing yourself daily and adjusting if the trend lines go too far out of whack.

      Easy, right? Well, no. Controlling calorie intake is not easy. It takes a fair amount of work to track what you're eating, and a lot of discipline. Technology can help, though, a lot. Use a smartphone app to log everything you eat and the exercise you do. Get a Wifi-enabled scale (I have the Fitbit Aria) and stand on it every morning, then use another tool (I use the trendweight.com web site) to track your trend lines.

      It works. I was at 240, and am now at 200, where I've been for a year. I've decided that I really need to be about 180, so I'm going to get focused on lowering calorie intake again starting after the holidays. I target a 1000-calorie daily deficit, which is pretty danged steep, but results in a consistent two pounds per week of weight loss, so I should be down to 180 by mid-March, late March at the latest.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by node+3 · · Score: 1

      "Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.

      Actually, it has almost nothing to do with controlling body fat, which is the exact disconnect you are pointing out, beyond directly affecting the body's energy balance.

      By far, the most important factor in body fatness is caloric balance. It doesn't matter all that much if your calories or healthy or not, or whether you exercise or not. If you overeat on "healthy" food, you will get fat, and if you undereat on junk food you will get skinny. There are other factors, like you point out, but for the most part, they mostly just fine tune the details.

      Those kids that are wolfing down $15 of McDonald's are burning off those calories and/or not eating a whole heck of a lot the rest of the day. It's not out of the ordinary for a teenager to burn off 3,000 calories per day (through activity and growth), and it's also not uncommon for a middle aged adult to burn less than 2,000 (almost entirely due to sitting all day at work, at home, and in the car). That's about 1/3 of a pound difference in fat gain/loss *per day* on the same food intake. It's got very little to do with basal metabolism, but with activity.

      And a little-known fact: fat people have higher metabolisms than skinny people, all else remaining equal. The reason for that is that your body needs to burn calories to maintain your fat mass. Just lying in bed all day, a fat person will burn more calories than a skinny person (though muscle burns more than fat, so there's a certain variability here where a lighter person *can* burn more than a heavier person, it's more of a second-order variable).

    20. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, try a very-low-carb diet. Easy. Really easy. No hunger. It's infinitely easier than the other way. I've done your way before, and I blew back up. This way works because I don't have a problem with eating like this for the rest of my life.

    21. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I hear crap like yours from women everyday and it is bullshit. If your body metabolizes 1800 calories and you only consume 1700 you *must* lose weight.

      Two words: fluid retention. I'm male, and until recently I weighed 169 before breakfast and my blood pressure was about 139/84. Then, I was put on a combination blood pressure/water pill. Less than a week later, my blood pressure was 125/79 and my morning weight was 160.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    22. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by rycamor · · Score: 2

      Dunno why this was moderated 0. It's fairly sound advice. At the age of 45, I lost 40 lbs this way, going back to the shape I was in my 20s, even though I did not put forth any effort to restrict or count calories, and I only exercised 15-20 minutes a day. Everyone I know who has done this has experienced good results. I will say that I think different people have different ratios of the above that are optimal for them. Some need more meats and fats, others need more vegetables and fruits.

      It's a variation of the old Atkins diet, now called Paleolithic, or Primal, or "whole foods". I think it is just a question of connecting the dots: for most foods, do what involves the least amount of change from the natural state and you are likely doing what is optimal for the body. Get away from the industrialized food chain as much as possible. Why buy vegetables that might have been picked two states over, endured a train ride and a truck ride, then packaging and setting on a cold shelf for a week when you can go to a farmer's market and buy something that was picked today or yesterday? Why buy orange juice that has been sitting in a vat for 90 days, denatured of all flavor, then has flavor added back via industrial "flavor packs", when you can buy fresh oranges and juice them yourself? Or better yet, just eat the oranges. Why buy meat that has been raised in a completely unnatural state from what the animal has historically experienced? (Cows are not naturally grain eaters).

      For the most part, the only type of food processing that I think does make sense is the ancient fermented food arts, which led to cheeses and various types of fermented vegetables, which have been shown to beneficially affect gut flora.

    23. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      Protein leads to muscle growth

      If you exercice. Otherwise no body builder would even show up in fitness clubs. You would find them only at restaurants

    24. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you eat reasonably, exercise a lot, it makes me feel better.

    25. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I cut down carbs and I feel like SHIT. Within a week or 2 I'm an old man that needs a nap at lunchtime, has headaches etc.

      Yes, this is not easy, you need some time to get used to this new diet, but time will come where you will be able to spend a day without much carbs Your body just need to learn again how to burn fat.

    26. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Maybe that fat is good for you? Given your level of activity, there may be a reason why the system that is your specific body works that way. Who knows, if you could make that extra reserve disappear suddenly maybe you'd get sick or start malfunctioning in unknown ways.

      IMO being cut is an idea; being agile and healthy is real.

    27. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to eat more meat. Which means you'll be ingesting more antibiotics thanks to our meat industry. Only easy way to solve this is probiotics. (Unless you have a farm of your own or trust the premium meats that say they don't do antibiotics.)

    28. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      The law of conservation of energy?

      You're an idiot. The human body isn't a simple machine where an easily accountable amount of energy going in will produce a given amount of work.

      Most people can do the simple experiment of eating exactly the same thing this month as they did last month with the same amount of activity. Make one change - this month divide that daily food intake into 8 equal parts and have 8 small meals at even intervals throughout the day. Same energy in, same energy out, and you WILL lose weight.

      In my own case, I was forced to experiment radically. I was diagnosed with diabetes. What tipped me off to go to the doctor was that I had lost 50 to 60 pounds even tough I was cramming my face with all the carbs I could lay my hands on.

      After the diagnosis, I went after the disease with a vengance. I consumed fewer calories, ate only high quality foods, and exercised daily till I was ready to drop. I took my prescribed meds. And I kept meticulous records showing my wonderful drop in blood sugar, substantial decrease in daily calorie intake, and substantial increase in physical activity. I showed up at the next appointment, 3 months later, with a ream of charts and graphs to show that I had done everything I was supposed to do.

      My A1c number dropped from 12.9 to 6.1. I was in control of my diabetes.

      One problem - despite the fact that I took in fewer calories, did more work, and maintained extensive records to back that up, one of the medicines prescribed had weight gain as a side effect.

      I had radically reduced my caloric intake, radically improved the quality of food I ate, radically increased the amount of exercise I did and I still GAINED 40 pounds.

      Anyone who makes simple references to the law of conservation of energy in this context is a person completely incompetent to speak to the subject. Please, AC, STFU until you have half a clue what you're talking about.

    29. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by swillden · · Score: 1

      Seriously, try a very-low-carb diet. Easy. Really easy. No hunger. It's infinitely easier than the other way. I've done your way before, and I blew back up. This way works because I don't have a problem with eating like this for the rest of my life.

      I've tried low carb. I do lose weight with low-carb, but I suffer more. I really like bread.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    30. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Fat people are starving, and carrying around their food stores.

    31. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by seyfarth · · Score: 1

      Well, fyngyrz, you should feel proud to be doing well. If you have strength, stamina and flexibility, you are doing great. I would guess that your blood pressure is normal and you are non-diabetic. If so, then a little fat is a superficial thing. Health is what matters. It is unfortunate that you need to watch your diet so carefully, but it is well worth it.

      I certainly hope that we learn a way to cope well with Syndrome X.

      --
      Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
    32. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by seyfarth · · Score: 1

      Hang in there. I have a bit of the type 2 myself. I lost about 30 pounds fairly quickly. It's tough giving up so many great foods. I highly recommend stevia as a sugar substitute. I use the white powder refined form. I also eat barley instead of rice. I eat Ezekiel bread. I have found that barley and Ezekiel bread don't affect the blood sugar much. Lately I have been a little off the wagon, probably because I miss the carbs. I have been eating small amounts of carb treats, but my stupid body wants a lot of it....

      Good luck

      --
      Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
    33. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Eat less.

    34. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, I should have said that.

      Exercise without proper protein consumption is far worse for weight loss than with. But then, protein consumption without exercise is also basically useless.

    35. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      I can attest to a very similar experience. While I didn't have 70 lbs to lose, cutting carbs and replacing it with meat, eggs, cheese and vegetables made a huge difference. But it's a long term thing -- I don't see how it'll work for anyone who wants to lose a few pounds in a week.

    36. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I lost ALL the weight in a few months by controlling by carb intake and overall food quantities. Now my stomach has shrunk and I'm just not as hungry anymore. Works.

    37. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Cut out wheat gluten. Srsly.

    38. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The difference between well proportioned and fat people is not willpower.

      Except when it is.

      Agree that this is an important study. However, the fact of the matter is eating more "fruits/herbs/veggies" and less of the processed/meaty stuff is an act of the will - one that will almost certainly cause weight to drop in overweight people. (spoken as one myself).

    39. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have three friends and a brother who all cut carbs, but in a newer diet that's less atkinsie. In the last year, they've lost a combined 450+ pounds between them, They all agree on one key thing:

      Bacon is your new candy.

    40. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The body has control mechanisms for what to do with energy, whether to store it as fat or expend it as energy. Children don't grow because they overeat, they overeat because their body is in growing mode and demanding more food. Sometimes the body decides it is going to store fat no matter what. Gary Taubes mentions an experiment where they starved some animals that normally would be putting on fat for the winter. What did the animals do? They got fat by burning up their own muscle tissue, and eventually they died of heart failure (muscle tissue weakened) but still fat, they died starved and fat. There are researchers who notice this problem, like the German doctor who went to America in the middle of the depression and was shocked that many children were obese. Why? Bad/wrong kind of nutrition. Pasta and bread is food for poor people, but it causes the body to make more insulin which signals fat cells to open up to remove all that excess sugar from the blood. Eating fat on the other hand doesn't mess with your insulin so nstead the body will tell you that you have energy to move around more (brisk walk, clean up the garage, whatever) and that you are satiated. None of this violates your energy law, it is just that the machine has a chip that decides whether to use the gas to run the engine or charge the batteries. Anyway this is all tentative, it is hypotheses, etc. but the eat low fat and exercise idea hasn't worked for most people. Personally I find high-fat-low-carb works really well. Which gets us into all the hypotheses about fat and heart disease, but that's another issue, you can see the alternative ideas around that if of interest.

    41. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omega-6's are your enemy. Guess again on the phrase "bacon is your new candy".

    42. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orowheat Healthfull 10 Grain Bread.
      (per slice)
      Total carbs...16g
      Dietary fiber...4g
      Net carbs...12g
      Its probably the lowest in net carbs you will find out there. Done and done.

    43. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Certain types of stomach surgery (bands, bypass) can cure type 2 diabetes. Google it.

      It's risky of course so you might prefer the risk of this instead: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/25/news/la-heb-diabetes-extreme-diet-06252011

      --
    44. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I cut down carbs and I feel like SHIT. Within a week or 2 I'm an old man that needs a nap at lunchtime, has headaches etc. I tried to go higher protein and it only made me hungrier.

      Sounds like you're doing it wrong - either not eating enough fat for your body to go into ketosis, or you're getting too many carbs despite what you may think. Are you mowing down on peanut butter, pecans, and other nuts or just eating a few a day? If you're eating more than a small handful, or more than one tablespoon of peanut butter, you are getting too many carbs and going into and out of ketosis, which will cause ongoing headaches. What is happening is your brain keeps switching from using glucose and using ketones for fuel.

      Cheeses - do you mean soft cheeses like feta, cream, and American? Or, do you mean hard cheeses like cheddar, romano, and parmesan? If you mean soft cheeses, you're doing it wrong. Soft cheese = high carbs.

      Cream and milk: are you having more than a couple ounces? For some people, enough cream to make a light coffee is enough to get them to hover in and out of ketosis. Eliminate milk and all cheese from your diet for a week and see what happens.

      As far as eating a huge meal and feeling hungry 20 minutes later even though you know your stomach is full - I had this problem for years. My whole life actually, until I tried an elimination diet. I also had ongoing problems with migraines (3-4 migraines per week for about 10 years, about 1 a week prior to that). As it turns out I have a soy intolerance (and mild allergy - turns out my dry skin was hives). Eliminating soy from my diet adjusted my appetite and satiation signals. I now know what it feels like to be satisfied after eating a modest meal, and not be hungry immediately after eating, and what it's like to go months without a migraine. I usually cheat though, but now that I know it's soy causing the problems I can deal with the hunger without overeating.

      Do an elimination diet - try eliminating soy first, then try gluten, etc. - try to isolate each major allergen because you might have an intolerance to one of them. You might be surprised. If this is the problem it would be great because it will get rid of the overwhelming feeling that you're not getting enough to eat. Another possibility is your diabetes might be throwing off your appetite/satiety signals. Going no carb and getting your body to turn to metabolizing fat consistently has supposedly cured people of diabetes, so if it is your diabetes throwing those signals out of whack, doing atkins properly might fix that for you, and help you feel less of a need to eat so much.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    45. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by kimvette · · Score: 1

      The law of conservation of energy is just that. It's the law. Don't eat you lose weight. How many fat people do you see when food is short? Starving people are not fat. I'm sorry but that is the law.

      When your calorie intake is below a certain threshold (variable based on body type, genes, etc) your metabolism will slow way, way down, which can actually cause you to plateau. This is why doctors and dieticians are recommending "cheat" or "splurge" days where nothing is off limits because it keeps your metabolism up by keeping your body from going into that "starvation mode."

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    46. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      As a formerly fat person, my trick was getting rid of the carbs. I can behave almost any way I like if I don't eat carbohydrates. Is that willpower? Not really. I found what works for me. I reach satiety with these foods in a way that a standard eat-less diet doesn't. And once the hunger signals go away - that terrible, gnawing pain that every overweight person knows - then the old saw about "nothing tastes as good as thin feels" actually starts to be true.

      I have told a lot of people about how I lost weight, and quite a few of them have told me that they just couldn't imagine eating like this. Fair enough; we each have to live in our own bodies. I hacked my body to get to a goal. It's not willpower, it's finding something that worked for me. I personally think it would work for just about anyone, but I understand that some people just can't do it mentally. That's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of needing to do something else.

    47. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told I should go gluten free, it would help me lose weight. All it did was make me crave sweets. Everybody is different. You need to do what works for you. For me it was fixing my low (although the numbers were within the normal range....barely) thyroid. Iodine, garlic, cinnamon...it also fixed my high cholesterol without the statin my doctor wanted to put me on.

    48. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I eat reasonably and exercise a lot, why does it make YOU feel better? I'm a tad confused. :-)

    49. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Make one change - this month divide that daily food intake into 8 equal parts and have 8 small meals at even intervals throughout the day. Same energy in, same energy out, and you WILL lose weight."

      No necessarily. Smaller meals are digested better so you're more likely to absorb even more calories. Plenty of weightlifters use the small meals but often approach to bulk up.

    50. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restrict your caloric intake to, say, 1500 calories per day, and you'll lose weight, and you'll keep losing it as long as you maintain that.

      This is true for heavy individuals. This advice is not good for people that are relatively lean and trying to get leaner (aka trying to get a six pack).

      For people in the leaner categories, regular refeeds (high carb / low fat days) with weight training will be necessary. Check leangains or ultimate diet 2k (terrible name) for two such diets.

    51. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side, you'll be the one to survive in a famine; not unthinkable as it sounds, for anyone who's mulled over the implications of our population size+reliance on fossil fuels+over-reliance very few strains of plants.

    52. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the body is quite clever at surviving: A good chunk of the weight lost during starvation is muscle mass unless you take in just enough protein (not too much or too little) to get into and remain ketosis.

    53. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that doesn't work for everyone. It sounds great when it works for YOU, but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight.

      Only if you're doing it completely wrong. Which would not be surprising, considering the world is FULL of misinformation and outright lies about how to get fit and lose weight, even among supposed "experts."

      I exercise five days a week, two hours a day, and I'm not talking light exercise [staticflickr.com].

      Yep, you're doing it wrong. WAY too much exercise.

      Let me guess: hours and hours and hours of cardio? Try weight lifting, 3 days a week, 45-60 mins a stretch.

      I don't eat sweets, I don't drink, I control my carbs, I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins...

      There's a big problem. Eat more protein.

      I *love* veggies and eat them every day, both salads and side dishes, and I *still* have trouble controlling my weight.

      Eating vegetables has nothing to do with weight loss. You need X amount of vegetables to get your vitamins for the day, and that's it. More != better.

      Yeah, I'm strong and have stamina and flexibility -- all important targets for my undertakings -- but the fat wants to hang around regardless. I have *never* been "cut."

      That's because you've never had any muscle to speak of. Until you build muscle, you will always be fat, and even if you starve yourself down to a rail you'll never be "cut." You need MUSCLE.

      Caving, swimming, martial arts, biking, dragging musical equipment from gig to gig, rope climbing, pushing lawn mowers... I hardly ever sat still.

      Too much intensity, shitty diet = not enough muscle building

      Aerobic exercise must be used SPARINGLY as a weight loss tool. It destroys muscle, which is the exact opposite of what you need to be doing, which is BUILDING muscle. You build muscle through weight lifting, not aerobics.

      Today I have students that are so cut, so defined, so obviously on the extreme low end of the body fat range it would make you cry... and if that didn't do it, watching them wolf down $15 worth of McDonald's poison surely would. I can't eat that crap at *all* or my weight takes right off. Not that I really want to, but still, the message is clear: What makes me fat doesn't make you fat, and so forth.

      Wrong. If those students don't build some muscle, they will end up fat too.

      When I go to McDonalds I order a Big Mac, a double quarter pounder, a fountain drink, and a large McFlurry. I am 28 years old, 5'8", 180 lbs, with a 31" waist and 44" chest. That's why I can do that and not get fat. There was a time where if I ate in such a way I would get fatter and fatter. That was before I added about 50 lbs of muscle.

      "Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.

      Correct. There's a lot more to "exercise" than "go run on a treadmill for a while" or "go lift some weights." Exercise is a SKILL that is as difficult and time consuming to learn as any other skill, say, computer programming, or juggling.

      I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone identifies one (or more) independent factors that drive fat retention. I've suspected it for years.

      See above, and also, how is your sleep patterns, and how much stress do you have in your life? For maximum health and easier weight loss, get a FULL nights sleep each and every night. If you need an alarm to wake up, you're doing it wrong. The more stress you're under, the fatter you'll stay.

    54. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of rubbish. People change, and can change. I was overweight - significantly so - and often plagued by constant feelings of hunger. I ate more than the average person needs to and used far less than I should.

      Then I made a conscious decision to change. I controlled what I ate and put a lot of effort into my exercise regime. Through hard work and willpower - not some genetic fluke - I built up to a 100km/week running regime while still controlling the food I ate. Over time, I taught myself and my body to control itself. Not even trying? I try a hell of a lot more than most, as do all the well proportioned people I see out on the track, or in the gym.

      I can't tell you how many people give me expressions of amazement at how I'm so thin or can run so much or whatever, while they sit there stuffing their faces and sitting on their asses. It's not genetic, it's not random, it's a conscious decision. Stop making excuses.

      And if the "physics" consideration doesn't suit you, take another look. Take a look at photos of people from concentration camps, or prisoners of war captured in the Stalingrad Kessel. There are no random fat people - they all used more than they consumed and thus lost weight.

    55. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it tastes nasty. I've yet to find a multi-grain "health" bread that I like.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    56. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

      The law of conservation of energy?

      You're an idiot. The human body isn't a simple machine where an easily accountable amount of energy going in will produce a given amount of work.

      Most people can do the simple experiment of eating exactly the same thing this month as they did last month with the same amount of activity. Make one change - this month divide that daily food intake into 8 equal parts and have 8 small meals at even intervals throughout the day. Same energy in, same energy out, and you WILL lose weight.

      Actually yeah there is an exceptional amount of correlation between what you eat and a few variables about you and your resulting weight. BMR can be reasonably reliably derived from age, sex, weight, height. If people really were so radically different you couldn't actually create a regression from the data (or the coefficients would be small or align by chance). There are lots of things which can affect weight gain but they are all needfully small compared to your caloric input vs your BMR + the energy you use day-to-day.

    57. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably"

      Vague. Specify, in calories per day. Any more than 1500 and "reasonable" is not going to lead to weight loss.

      "exercise a lot"

      Vague. Specify what this means. Hit 80 consecutive full pushups, 20 pullups, and 200 squats. On a 1500 calorie diet.

      I've met plenty of people who say, "I exercise and I eat reasonably and I'm still not losing weight!" When I delve deeper, I find out they don't push themselves nearly far enough in diet or exercise to lose weight.

    58. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I was told I should go gluten free, it would help me lose weight. All it did was make me crave sweets. Everybody is different. You need to do what works for you. For me it was fixing my low (although the numbers were within the normal range....barely) thyroid. Iodine, garlic, cinnamon...it also fixed my high cholesterol without the statin my doctor wanted to put me on.

      Lucky you spared the statin!

      Low thyroid cause many problems, as there are thyroid hormones receptors in almost every place of the body. One of the consequence is a high cholesterol, but fixing the high cholesterol without addressing the low thyroid is just fixing the biology report, not the real problem. And since statins destroy muscles, it also create new problems

    59. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angiogenesis. Google it and watch the Ted talk.

    60. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      You would be thermodynamicists always give me a swift pain with this trival over simplified conceptualization. Saying "Energy in = energy out" as if it is a profound solution to the problem of obesity, in a system with as many feedback loops and mechanisms as a human body has make as much sense as trying to control the speed of a modern computer controlled fuel injected car by restricting how much gas you put into it.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    61. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Zenin · · Score: 1

      it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight.

      Possible? Sure.

      Typical? Common? Not in the slightest.

      The reality is that such cases are exceedingly rare, fractions of a single percent rare. Yet despite the fact we're talking about 1 in 1000 cases of obesity, the vast majority of obese people grab onto this "I'm just big boned" myth. They dismiss diet/exercise as "failed" because they've decided to believe something else is to blame. Thyroid, food allergies, now gut bacteria, there's always some reason it's not diet and exercise.

      The fact is the vast majority of obese people are addicted to high calorie food. No different then if they were shooting smack into their veins, addicted. And just like any addict they will grab onto any excuse they can so long as it means they don't have to give up their habit.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    62. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well preportioned people may not try but they were likely taught good habits or they never learnt bad ones.

      But most 'well preportioned' people i know, like myself, notice the last months weight gain and then modify our behavours to maintain our good preportions. Its not a long slog when you dont have far to go.

      I think you'll find you have greater control than you beleive. Move into a flat with all thin people. Copy their regiment and a few years down the track I'll bet things have turned a corner.

    63. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The trick is called calorie cycling. Low-to-zero carbs for 6 days of the week. Very very high carb on the 7th day of the week (call it "cheat day").

      If you permanently remove carbs from your diet, your body goes into long-term ketosis, which is hard on the kidneys (some kids with epilepsy go on such diets to reduce their seizures, but they end up getting kidney stones). Your body also goes into "starvation mode" and starts trying to save every carb that it can.

      In contrast, going high carb once a week "resets" the body so it thinks it's not starving. Think of it as a weekly Thanksgiving.

      This also lets you have your bread still, you just have to wait until your cheat day.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    64. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      That's why you eat super-low-carb for six days a week, and then super-high carb on the 7th day ("cheat day"). It prevents your metabolism from adjusting by essentially giving you a weekly Thanksgiving. My wife has been on this diet for over a year, and she loses a consistent 1-to-1.5 pounds per week (except when she takes a "cheat week" and then she gains about 2 pounds per day)

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    65. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gary Taubes mentions an experiment ...

      I don't believe a single thing Gary Taubes says. The guy is a hack with an axe to grind, and he has a proven history of misrepresenting what his sources tell him to suit his agenda.

      Forget Taubes and the other popular authors who are more interested in selling books than scientific truth. Go straight to the research instead.

    66. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins

      Sounds like you may need to eat MORE protein. As far as I can tell, and I'm not a scientist or dietician, all the diets that work have a combination of more protein and less carbs. I cut my carbs down to 125 g per day and I lost 70 lbs in 9 months. But I greatly increased my intake of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, etc. Any time I get hungry, I eat one of those and I feel full immediately.

      I can anectodally attest to the same results with low-carb, high protein, high fat diets (slightly self-modified Atkins diet in my case). But now I wonder if those results were actually from gut pH changes that reduced/eliminated (temporarily) an unknown Enterobacter colony, rather than the carbohydrate restriction. I say that, because in the (admittedly statistically insignificant) test group of one, the "pH changing" diet consisted of significantly high carbohydrate foods (the "whole grains" part).

      By the way, which way did the pH get pushed? Up (more Alkaline), or Down (more Acidic)?

    67. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Omega-6's are your enemy. Guess again on the phrase "bacon is your new candy".

      Sugar-based "candy" isn't particularly good for you, either; but that is rather not the point...

    68. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      What is happening is your brain keeps switching from using glucose and using ketones for fuel.

      Citation, please.

      Excuse me; but Ketones are a "combustion byproduct", not "fuel". Your brain lives on glucose, period. The only reason why low-carbers are interested in putting themselves voluntarily into a state of Diabetic Ketosis (which was originally deemed a Bad Thing, which is why they came out with Ketostix to detect it) is that it is a reliable and simple indicator of "fat burning" when combined with a low-carb diet.

      But, I have never heard that you can run your brain (or body) on Ketones. That's like filling your gas tank up with sewage and expecting to drive to the store.

    69. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by swillden · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. My experience is that consistently eating less calories than I burn, regardless of the composition of those calories, leads to steady, continuous weight loss. I think I'll stick with that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    70. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      As far as eating a huge meal and feeling hungry 20 minutes later even though you know your stomach is full - I had this problem for years. My whole life actually, until I tried an elimination diet. I also had ongoing problems with migraines (3-4 migraines per week for about 10 years, about 1 a week prior to that). As it turns out I have a soy intolerance (and mild allergy - turns out my dry skin was hives).

      Your problem is simple: You (like many others) have a Gluten intolerance. The problem is finding and eliminating ALL of the sources of Gluten. Your symptoms are classic Gluten intolerance (migranes, dry skin). The "hives" (a histamine reaction) are also a clear sign of an allergy.

    71. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The law of conservation of energy is just that. It's the law. Don't eat you lose weight. How many fat people do you see when food is short? Starving people are not fat. I'm sorry but that is the law.

      Once you get beyond a certain "tipping point", you are correct. What I have called "Caloric Accounting" does take over.

      However, did you notice that you had to cite an out-of-normal example of "eating habits" (starvation) to make your point? That is a clear sign that there are indeed other factors at play, but those factors are "swamped out" by the sheer lack of caloric intake vs. caloric requirement.

      You really need to look at some of the studies regarding how the body adapts to lack of food. It turns out you have to really, really REALLY restrict food intake (down to a few hundred kCalories per day or less) to achieve ANY substantial weight loss.

      It's called "evolution". Might want to look it up.

    72. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      energy in=energy out, sure. But how much of the energy in gets lost to inefficiency?

      When I weigh less than 170, I can eat 3000 calories a day and not gain weight. If I manage to top 190, suddenly the same diet starts packing on more pounds and, worse, I can't get under 210 even reducing my calories to 1400.

      If need to double my daily excercise routine at the same time, the weight slowly comes off, but as soon as I get back under 190, suddenly I start dropping a pound a day.

      That's a very interesting data point, albeit anecdotal (all data starts out being anecdotal). I would submit that it is "insulin resistance" that is changing, but I'm not sure exactly why.

    73. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      > The difference between well proportioned and fat people is not willpower.

      Except when it is.

      Agree that this is an important study. However, the fact of the matter is eating more "fruits/herbs/veggies" and less of the processed/meaty stuff is an act of the will - one that will almost certainly cause weight to drop in overweight people. (spoken as one myself).

      You did notice from the Chinese study that the diet was HIGH FAT, didn't you?

      Take your misguided obesity prejudice somewhere else. We're busy here.

    74. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      And if the "physics" consideration doesn't suit you, take another look. Take a look at photos of people from concentration camps, or prisoners of war captured in the Stalingrad Kessel. There are no random fat people - they all used more than they consumed and thus lost weight.

      As I said to another poster, "Caloric Accounting" DOES work; but only if you push yourself so far outside the "norm" that you swamp out the other variables that you dismiss outright. (BTW, running 100kM/week is NOT in the realm of practical for most people. You have OCD).

      Concentration Camps? Yeah, that's a practical example.

    75. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Make one change - this month divide that daily food intake into 8 equal parts and have 8 small meals at even intervals throughout the day. Same energy in, same energy out, and you WILL lose weight.

      That's because you are reducing the Glycemic Load at any one feeding. What you are doing is working within your increased insulin resistance as a Type II Diabetic (as am I). This is an effective way to manage insulin levels, which is why you are losing weight.

      I wholeheartedly agree that caloric restriction (Concentration Camp "examples" notwithstanding!) and exercise are largely ineffective ways of weight reduction in the Type II Diabetic. It all comes down to reducing the insulin response, because (as you probably know) insulin is actually the substance that causes fat storage.

    76. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      "Make one change - this month divide that daily food intake into 8 equal parts and have 8 small meals at even intervals throughout the day. Same energy in, same energy out, and you WILL lose weight."

      No necessarily. Smaller meals are digested better so you're more likely to absorb even more calories. Plenty of weightlifters use the small meals but often approach to bulk up.

      But they aren't trying to build fat, you idiot. Try another profession. Nutrition clearly isn't your strong suit.

    77. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      None of this violates your energy law, it is just that the machine has a chip that decides whether to use the gas to run the engine or charge the batteries.

      Exactly!

      Gary Taubes mentions an experiment where they starved some animals that normally would be putting on fat for the winter. What did the animals do? They got fat by burning up their own muscle tissue, and eventually they died of heart failure (muscle tissue weakened) but still fat, they died starved and fat.

      Boy, that ought to poke a hole in the balloons of the "Diet and Exercise" goons. But, just like the "Eating fat causes high cholesterol" myth, it Just. Won't Die.

      Pasta and bread is food for poor people, but it causes the body to make more insulin which signals fat cells to open up to remove all that excess sugar from the blood. Eating fat on the other hand doesn't mess with your insulin so nstead the body will tell you that you have energy to move around more (brisk walk, clean up the garage, whatever) and that you are satiated.

      Again, spot on! It's about insulin, and insulin resistance, pretty much "period". The Chinese study in question was addressing the increase in insulin resistance caused by certain Polysaccharide compounds excreted by the Enterobacter. Oughta be a damned clue, eh?

    78. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I lost 22 pounds in 6 months just by eating less.

      Yeah? How much less? You don't mention that part. And scientific studies have repeatedly shown that you have to get to (and remain at) nearly starvation levels for that to work as a long-term solution.

    79. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Your metabolism can only adjust so far, and it's not actually all that far. If that weren't true, then people wouldn't starve to death, their metabolism would just keep adjusting until they could live on practically nothing.

      Actually, they can. It's really rather amazing. I'm not inclined to do your research for you; but look it up.

    80. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Seriously, try a very-low-carb diet. Easy. Really easy. No hunger. It's infinitely easier than the other way. I've done your way before, and I blew back up. This way works because I don't have a problem with eating like this for the rest of my life.

      Maybe you don't; but I sure do. I would love to know how to avoid the crashing boredom that I experience on carb-restricted diets. The urge to "cheat" becomes overwhelming. Also, it becomes a real PITA to "grab a quick burger", or to "go to lunch" with your co-workers. Believe me, I have tried to find ways around it, like using low-carb Tortillas in place of bread for fast-food (tearing apart the sandwich and rebuilding it on the tortilla), etc. And low-carb does work for me. I just can't stand to eat like this forever, and that's what it will take.

      Got any ideas?

    81. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Orowheat Healthfull 10 Grain Bread. (per slice) Total carbs...16g Dietary fiber...4g Net carbs...12g Its probably the lowest in net carbs you will find out there. Done and done.

      Not even close. I can buy low-carb bread in the normal grocery store that tastes/feels pretty good and has half of that "net carbs" per slice.

      Then there are low-carb tortillas. Several brands and flavors, and most have 3-5 grams of "net carbs" per tortilla.

    82. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 0

      try cutting out everything in the "bread and grain" section of the food pyramid. Stop eating bread, rice, potatoes (except sweet potatoes), all baked goods, pasta, anything in that part of the bs food pyramid.

      BS is right!

      When I was first diagnosed with Type II Diabetes, I did some research into insulin resistance and the glycemic index, and drew up a "modified" Food Pyramid. It was basically upside-down from the "USDA-Approved" one.

      When I took it into my Dr., he said "You should Patent this." Probably an overstatement, but just goes to show how the USDA is NOT YOUR FRIEND when it comes to nutritional suggestions.

    83. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by macs4all · · Score: 0

      And a little-known fact: fat people have higher metabolisms than skinny people, all else remaining equal.

      Citation please.

      And of course, all else, such as insulin resistance, is not typically equal.

      So now what?

    84. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by mspohr · · Score: 1

      It really wasn't hard and didn't require any suffering or starvation.
      22 pounds of fat is about 90,000 calories. Over 6 months, this works out to about 500 calories a day. So... I ate about 1500 calories a day instead of 2000. Basic thermodynamics.
        A 1500 calorie diet is not starvation. I ate three meals every day. I didn't eat junk food or desserts. I didn't have second helpings and I ate enough at each meal to feel "full". I was hungry before meal time but at no time did I feel "starved". I didn't change my activity level.
      It was relatively easy.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    85. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by kimvette · · Score: 1

      No, it's soy. Not everyone is gluten-intolerant.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    86. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your metabolism can only adjust so far, and it's not actually all that far. If that weren't true, then people wouldn't starve to death, their metabolism would just keep adjusting until they could live on practically nothing.

      Actually, they can. It's really rather amazing. I'm not inclined to do your research for you; but look it up.

      I have. By everything I can find, the maximum range of metabolic efficiency is only about 30%, even across individuals. For a given individual, the amount your metabolic rate can adjust is much smaller, perhaps 15-20%. Note that this is BMR adjustment, and BMR is only about 70% of most peoples' total caloric burn.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    87. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by kimvette · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

      When glycogen stores are not available in the cells, fat (triacylglycerol) is cleaved to provide 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule in a process known as lipolysis. Most of the body is able to use fatty acids as an alternative source of energy in a process called beta-oxidation. One of the products of beta-oxidation is acetyl-CoA, which can be further used in the Krebs cycle. During prolonged fasting or starvation, acetyl-CoA in the liver is used to produce ketone bodies instead, leading to a state of ketosis.

      During starvation or a long physical training session, the body starts using fatty acids instead of glucose. The brain cannot use long-chain fatty acids for energy because they are completely albumin-bound and cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Not all medium-chain fatty acids are bound to albumin. The unbound medium-chain fatty acids are soluble in the blood and can cross the blood–brain barrier.[3] The ketone bodies produced in the liver can also cross the blood–brain barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into acetyl-CoA and used in the citric acid cycle.

      The ketone body acetoacetate will slowly decarboxylate into acetone, a volatile compound that is both metabolized as an energy source and lost in the breath and urine.

      skipping down. . .

      Diet

      If the diet is changed from a highly glycemic diet to a diet that does not provide sufficient carbohydrate to replenish glycogen stores, the body goes through a set of stages to enter ketosis. During the initial stages of this process, blood glucose levels are maintained through gluconeogenesis, and the adult brain does not burn ketones. However, the brain makes immediate use of ketones for lipid synthesis in the brain. After about 48 hours of this process, the brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly use the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs, thus avoiding the depletion of the body's protein store in the muscles.[9]

      Ketosis is deliberately induced by use of a ketogenic diet as a medical intervention in cases of intractable epilepsy.[7] Other uses of low-carbohydrate diets remain controversial.[10][11]

      You're welcome.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    88. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      The alternative (well, the complement) to low carb is high fiber. Carbs mainly do their damage by spiking up your blood sugar, which causes your body to overreact with the insulin. This puts your fat cells in storage mode, where they'll stay until insulin levels drop (which can take hours), even if the rest of your body has burned through what's available in the blood and is dying for some calories to burn. Eating your carbs with lots of fiber slows down their absorption, preventing the nasty sugar spike and subsequent hormonal insanity.

      So, you don't need to give up bread entirely. The stuff you need to give up is anything that's been sweetened with any kind of sugar (which actually includes some bread - particularly fast food burger buns) or anything that's had the fiber removed (so stick with whole grains). The rest is all fine in moderate amounts.

    89. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbs mainly do their damage by spiking up your blood sugar, which causes your body to overreact with the insulin.

      Not all carbs are created equal. Simple carbs like sugar and starch have a high glycemic index, but complex carbs don't have this effect.

    90. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law of conservation of energy? You're an idiot. The human body isn't a simple machine where an easily accountable amount of energy going in will produce a given amount of work.
      ...
      I had radically reduced my caloric intake, radically improved the quality of food I ate, radically increased the amount of exercise I did and I still GAINED 40 pounds.

      Yeah, but even if you change your rate of absorption, metabolism, and work, you can't gain more than you take in (unless it's water). It's physically impossible. That's what the GP is trying to say.

    91. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Fiber and veggies (which is really just more fiber and/or cellulose) help too.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    92. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      You attribute to the GP more benign motives than I do. I've seen too many people say too many times "You wouldn't be fat if you'd just push away from the table!"

      (Fucking DeBakey actually said that in a TV interview many, many years ago. I'll never forget it.)

      It's simply not true. The human body is too complex to take such a simplistic view. It's easy to find case after case where person A takes in fewer calories, eats better quality food, and exercises more than person B. Yet person A is fat and B is stick-thin. The fact is, we nearly all take in more calories than needed to maintain weight. Whether we get fat or not does not depend on the number of calories anywhere near as much as it depends on how efficiently our particular body chooses to store them as fat. That's a completely different discussion from any I've ever seen started with a cite of the law of conservation of energy. People who start off with cites like that generally don't have the foggiest clue about what makes people fat.

    93. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It's called metabolism, and it varies between people. It varies in a single person over time. Most people are overweight because they're still in the habit of eating like teenagers even though their metabolism slowed way down after they stopped growing.

      There are a few things you can do to affect your metabolism, such as exercise, but the simple fact is that for most normal, healthy people, the majority of the calories you take in are burned just to keep you warm and the excess gets stored as fat. You have to know how much you burn on average.

      Your metabolism is what you have to work with. If you're taking in more than you're burning, you can expect to gain weight. The simplest way to halt or reverse this is to cut back on calories and to exercise so your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" and reduce your metabolism even further.

      None of this is particularly controversial and it's well researched. But people insist on believing they are different from everyone else and can't lose weight this way. The truth is that glandular conditions and other things that interfere with the process are pretty rare, and while what you eat does make a difference, the amount of calories taken in is by far the most important factor.

    94. Re:Good plan, but not for those results by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Sure as hell there exists no large and generally accepted body of scientific evidence "that you have to get to (and remain at) nearly starvation levels for that to work as a long-term solution". It's the law of conservation of energy: the body consumes a baseline of energy and if your energy uptake is below that baseline (which is still far from starvation), it has to burn fat to make up for the deficit. Pulling up the baseline (regular exercise) also works. All medically/dietary sound weight loss programs work on this basis. As opposed to the high-profile dietary fads that work by disrupting your digestive system or metabolism.

  42. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that nobody not on a strictly regimented diet or suffering from an eating disorder only eats as much calories than they need.

    Human biology heavily pushes people towards moderate over-consumption. In fact, going under the amount of calories you require will cause significant fatigue and pain.

    Calories in, calories out. For a slim person, however, the calories are coming out in their waste, because their body does not digest it the same way it does in fat people. That is, in fact, what the summary said.

  43. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

    Outrageous claims require some solid evidence.

    Please provide properly peer-reviewed studies supporting your viewpoint.

  44. This bacterium didn't exist 30 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magically, this wee bug only came into existence about 30 years ago when the new food pyramid came in and told everyone to eat carbs, eh?

  45. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of asking OP for an explanation you should be explaining how your "no exceptions" interpretation accounts for the fact that ruminants can digest (ie extract calories from) cellulose yet humans and most other animals cannot cannot survive on such a diet and will starve.

  46. Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So here's a correlation confound. Your gut bacteria is a big function of the kind of diet you have. This is advertised heavliy by the yogurt people: live-culture yogurts to help get you "regular", yucko. So people who eat more yogurt will have more acidophilus and lactobacilli. Those who eat meat (and particularly poorly cooked meat) will tend to have bacteria associated with those meats. Beef-eaters may have more e. coli (Jack-in-the-Box infected burgers, anyone), chicken-eaters may have more salmonella than others, and pork could mean many bacteria and even trichinosis (worms) or brain-monsters.
    .
    So since your meat-eating habits may influence your bacteria, cutting down on meat will simultaneously improve your dietary intake and change your gut bacteria. This creates the confound. Is it the bacteria that created the bad health, or was the bacteria another symptom of the bad health that came along with the unhealthy diet?

    1. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably, but not 100% of the time.

      I speculate we may be able to increase the good kinds of bacteria by eating foods with them, like yogurts, or other fermented foods, or raw foods.

      Bacteria that survive and inhabit our gut will probably correlate with what we eat, so raw meat = raw meat bacteria. There is very little science done on this, and I think allot of the hooopla is that this Chinese study is one of the first "experiments" to see if they could prove it was a specific pre-existing strain contributing directly to obesity. How can you eliminate complex carbs from your diety completely? I imagine once a host has a specific strain it would be hard getting of and they outcomepete our normal bacteria.

      We get most of our bacteria from our mothers, during breast feeding, and then from your family or "tribe", then from our geo-political association. Everyone gets usually a little sick when they travel and eat in foreign lands. But it wont kill you (99.999% of the time). Some people have good immune systems and dont really show it. Some people leave active duty in the army from overseas, come back home, go to McDonalds and get really ill because the junk food is completely foreign to their systems again (after 10 years), including the bugs, and ingrediants. Think severe diahrea for a few days. Allot of times doctors will put kids on formula with biotics or feed kids oatmeal if they get sick allot. I am one that needed to eat bacteria to have it replaced when I was a child.

      The reality is our body is more like a mobile rainforest then most are willing to admit and understand. Having a cosmopolitan set of microbes is probably a really good thing in the long run.

      Hell Native Americans died from small pox and all kinds of diseases that the Europians really more or less just sorta lived with and carried around. Turberculosis was a fashionable disease in Europe before modern times. Allot of highly infectious diseases are not a big deal with decent immunity and a healthy diet and lifestyle to counteract. Like, the flu, some people can get over it in a few days without hospitilization. Some don't.

      I don't advocate living a completely antibiotic free lifestyle blahblahblah, just that we underestimate the value of our little bugs, and overestimate the damage they cause usually. (Minus some nasties, which, well, you just got to avoid outright, or you get naturally selected).

    2. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yogurt is crap. Maybe a billion or two active cultures per cup. At that rate, you'd need to eat a dozen cups to equal what some stronger probiotics contain. Once you eat those dozen cups of yogurt, the amount of sugar and carbs you'll be consuming will harm instead of benefit you. Also, most yogurts only contain one or two strains of lactobacillus max. There are dozens of proven beneficial subspecies of lactobacillus you'll be missing out on.

    3. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since your meat-eating habits may influence your bacteria, cutting down on meat will simultaneously improve your dietary intake and change your gut bacteria.

      Your confound doesn't matter to anyone unless it has to do with reality. Do you have any studies suggesting that cutting down on meat improves your gut ecosystem?

    4. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if I've got more E.coli bacteria in my gut? That's a bacteria which lives there. Salmonella OTOH doesn't, that's an outsider. So, cook your chicken and pork. Nothing unhealthy about meat there. Of course overdosing on meat, especially fat meats, causes heart diseases which are far more dangerous to us than an occasional bacterium.

    5. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and allot of store bought yogort is no were near as good as we'd like to believe. There are some good brands though =) and incorporating some into your diet if you like dairy, or dairy agrees with you doesnt always hurt. Think of it as longterm maintenance and replacement. I look for the ones that specificaly mention no addatives and lactobacillus acidophilus. But by no means is this a magical cure all, just one tiny part of a bigger puzzle to consider.

    6. Re:Diet influence: bacteria is a second "symptom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck science, this guy deduced how shit happens without reseaching it.

  47. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try and follow this:

    1. Humans shit.
    2. Human shit has calories in variable amounts.
    3. Humans excrete in other ways as well (breathing, sweating, pissing, hair removals, etc.)

  48. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by compro01 · · Score: 1

    So the laws of physics prohibit differences in efficiency?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  49. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you've misunderstood the GP. Yes there is a set number of calories in a meal, but you don't automatically absorb 100% of the calories available. If you are unable to completely digest the meal, let's say only 70% of it, then the remaining 30% passes through your system and is wasted. People with this bacteria are more easily able to digest complex foods, so instead of wasting 30%, they would waste only, for example, 15% of it, requiring the body to either use the extra 15% of the calories or store them as fat.

  50. I'm not fat by drewsup · · Score: 1

    I'm infected!

  51. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

    He, along with many others in here, are saying that more end up being taken out than going in. In simpler terms, you'd shit out some undigestable matter instead of it being absorbed and kept in your body, since the bacteria might be what's making it digestable.

  52. You might not want to start scoffing at this yet by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

    This study is not an isolated case regarding the issue of bacterium-mediated weight gain.

    There have been several studies which clearly indicate that there appears to be a case for "(at least some) people have excess weight due to 'which bacteria inhabit their gut' " or something approximating that.

    Yes folks, I said DUE TO, ie caused by the bacteria not the other way around (in at least one case, administering a certain bacteria caused not just scientifically significant but visibly large weight gain on the exact same diet, at least in rats).

    As yet there's no conclusive proof (ie several repeated tests independently verified) with hard science numbers (not to mention something of an explanation why/how this works) and, and no magic cure for fatness, but science is nowhere near laughing this off as 'mere crackpottery'.

    There's VERY OBVIOUSLY something going on here with certain bacteria and (at least) some overweight people, and scientists (all over the world, not "just someone I've never heard of in China") are turning up results from a variety of research projects (all with slightly different angles) all pointing in the direction of "this is starting to smell just like That Stomach Ulcer Thing".

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  53. As someone whe has had AS since 16... by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

    I think there is alot of merrit to this. Some claim AS is largely due to a "leaky" gut, and can say ive always had lower intestine "issues". Especially when I was 16 and first started getting pains in my hips and neck. Alot of the times when I get an outbreak of aches an pains is usually when my lower intestine issues flare up as well. Then rapid weight loss afterwards. Ive lost 10 in one month before (and I eat well, steaks, potatoes, vegies, with an occasional whataburger or bk whopper). I've tried different diets, but none really seemed to point to anything I could determine from a diet perspective (wheat, cave man, veganisim), but im pretty sure its due to the micro fauna in my gut its always a warning before a flare up.

  54. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    What you are missing is that a meal that is 500 calories for person A who does not have these bacteria may be 750 calories for person B who does have these bacteria.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  55. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The human gut is not 100% efficient. We excrete after all.

    Different people's guts have different levels of efficiency, and are variably efficient at breaking down different inputs.

    Until you understand that, your "laws of thermodynamics" posts are pointless, so STFU.

  56. How much bacteria per mouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the mice became obese after being inoculated with several kilograms of this bacteria, then this "news" is no real surprise. Bacteria, though small, can weigh as much as anything else in a large aggregation. *Anything*.

  57. Nutritionfacts by haeger · · Score: 1

    A page about nutrition and what science has to say about it. All videos have links to the original research so that you can check that the good Dr isn't making shit up.
    There are a few videos about endotoxins and their effect. Feel free to have a look.
    http://nutritionfacts.org/index.php?s=endotoxins

    The guys solution is probably not what most people have in mind.
    So far I haven't seen anyone well researched refute the guy.
    This was the video lecture that got me interested in what he had to say: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  58. GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has anyone looked at GMO consumption and obesity? Just compare citizens of USA and people in UE (where GMO is rather forbidden).

    1. Re:GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tons of GMO brand high fructose corn syrup filler addative in everything doesnt really provide much nutrition, but I wouldnt say its a main factor, it might be contributory.

      Americans do eat allot of cheap food, its not 100% a GMO problem, but GMO's like people eating the cheap low nutrition food, because their good money crops.

    2. Re:GMO by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Has anyone looked at GMO consumption and obesity? Just compare citizens of USA and people in UE (where GMO is rather forbidden).

      Yes. As a matter of fact some do:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

      As you may imagine, the food lobby was all over this on the spot, and critics abounded the minute the research became public.

  59. Thanks haeger, looks interesting. by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

    I had kind of given up looking at this stuff the last few years and accepted things the way they are, but this looks to follow alot of the alternative AS healing methods. Will read and watch. : )

  60. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC you responded to here.

    "The problem is that your metabolism varies depending on how much energy is available. If you cut your calorie intake to try to lose weight, your cells slow down their metabolic rate to compensate, and you're still expending no more energy than you consume."

    ^^ No, it really is that simple (the difficult part is correctly measuring the values). Of course, you can really screw things up if you try to starve yourself, but if you stick to a reasonable calorie deficit you'll be fine. Your body isn't going to start slowing/shutting down organs because you have a 500ca/day deficit.

    Also, this is why diet+exercise is more effective than diet alone. No matter what, it takes at /least/ X calories to do Y exercise (more if you are out of shape). It will also force your body to increase its metabolic rate far longer than the exercise itself as it works to repair the damage to tissues done during the exercise (which is why weight lifting is a good compliment to cardio for weight loss).

  61. And if interested in meds I take enbrel entracept by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

    50 mg, once a week. 4 shots in a box: $1400! If I had no insurance I would be completely cluster fucked. Enbrel is a COX2 inhibitor, it blocks a specific gene in the immune system that is linked to intestinal and arthritic conditions (chrons, RA, AS, and a few others). HLA118 If I remember correctly. I seriously think its directly related to my gut issues, what I cant determine is if its controllable via diet, or if its more like ulcers or a mcirobial "bloom" of some sort.

  62. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Zenin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What outrageous claim?

    How to not be a fat ass: Eat less, move more.

    This is hardly a fringe position. I only add the suggestion to it that rather then start with crazy fad diets (that have zero "peer-reviewed studies"), that people start simply by not eating trash like pure sugar and pounds of cheese. If you need a "peer-reviewed study" to convince you that not eating complete shit is a good thing, you're already beyond hope.

    And I add the advice to those who have fat friends and family, to stop giving them "gifts" of complete shit such as candy and pounds of cheese.

    None of this is the slightest bit outrageous. But ya know what is outrageous? You and your ilk that demand "peer-reviewed studies" before you'll even consider the idea that chowing down on donuts and brie might not do wonderful things to your waist line.

    --
    My /. uid is better then your /. uid
  63. Eat a lot more vegetables... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    ...and more fruits and beans, and a limited amount of nuts, seeds, and whole grains. Eat a lot less of everything else. See Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live" for the details. Or for a slightly different approach, see the book "What Color is Your Diet" by David Heber, MD, PhD, founding director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition, and dietitian Susan Bowerman, MS, RD. Or the book "The Pleasure Trap" by Doug Lisle and ALan Goldhamer. A great graph here:
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

    This is not to disagree that people vary, including in bacteria and their gut. But the basics are that leafy green vegetable have the least calories per amount of volume in the stomach, followed by fruits and beans. Fill up on those, and there is just not room for high calorie foods.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Eat a lot more vegetables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the basics are that leafy green vegetable have the least calories per amount of volume

      How are those calories calculated? Are we subtracting the cellulose that some people's gut flora can break down into gut busting farts and shorter chain digestible carbs?

    2. Re:Eat a lot more vegetables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leafy green vegetables, citrus fruits, and beans are three of the most common triggers for many people with irritable bowel syndrome. Nuts, seeds, and whole grains are fairly common triggers as well. Filling up on those is not an option for everyone.

      For me, white flour, white rice, fish, meat, and fermented dairy products like yogurt, kefir, and aged cheeses, are the only things I can reliably eat without triggering IBS episodes. Vegetables for me are safest when cooked into oblivion, and even then, broccoli, cauliflower, and other cabbage-type vegetables are horrendous offenders. Potatoes are fine in small doses; sweet potatoes, squash, carrots, and other starchy vegetables don't seem to cause problems. I can eat roasted nuts in small quantities but never raw ones (farewell, my beloved walnuts). Seeds, and things with lots of seeds (cucumbers, strawberries) are completely out of the question.

      My suspicion is that gut bacteria have a lot to do with it. I seem to lack the ability to process fiber properly, or at least to process most kinds of fiber. Attempting to do so results in severe abdominal pain, hours of diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and even at one point (when I tried a diet like what you're recommending) weight loss so drastic that my doctor started testing me for every kind of cancer he could think of.

    3. Re:Eat a lot more vegetables... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      You might want to look into vitamin D deficiency. Your body uses vitamin D to help regulate the inflammatory process, both to start it up and, more importantly in this case, to shut it down.

      Example anecdote: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/irritable-bowel-syndrome-ibs/824836-vitamin-d-helped-my-ibs-read-please.html

      Note that what that person called "high dose" vitamin D may actually be closer to what people really need because the RDA may be 5X-10X too low for many adults; see:
      http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

      So, your restricted diet style may be compensating for vitamin D deficiency, and so put you at risk of getting other nutrient deficiencies? With that said, I could also readily believe your gut bacteria has adapted to such a diet and complain if you changed it.

      However, you may also have something like a sulfur-related allergy that might lead to problems with brassicas like cabbage (which may be somewhat independent of other issues). Even if you can't eat the fiber, you might also want to look into vegetable juicing to at least get the phytonutrients. There are also powdered formulations of phytonutrients, but I doubt they are as good.

      You might want to also consider a pro-biotic of some sort, perhaps even something like "Primal Defense" if your doctor OKs it (that particular one is a bit controversial, so do your own research on it, and there are certainly less controversial ones). Gross as it may sound, you could also look into "fecal transplants".

      Good luck!

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  64. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Onco_Rx · · Score: 1

    Lipitor does not make it difficult to digest fats... It reduces you body's ability to make cholesterol, but has no effect on fat digestion.

  65. Eat a lot more leafy greens to fill the stomach by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    See my comment here about feeling full by eating a lot more leafy greens: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42372385

    Dr. Joel Fuhrman recommends making salad dressings from ground up nuts or adding things like avocados to get healthy fats into there. I agree good fats help in feelign full too. Joel Fuhrman talsk about the body's "appestat" that controls when we stop eating and how the main determinats are whether the stomach is full (fiber) and whether their are enough nutrients (supplied mostly by veggies).

    That said, I know what you mean about comfort food. It is a hard habit to break if at allt -- and it just goes to show that health is a social thing. Good luck.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  66. Everything is to blame .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ... except for the person. Why blame the person for eating like a pig instead of in moderation, when you can blame whatever crap pharma claims to sell you "the next best pill"?

    Stop eating like a pig, exercise your lazy azz and you will see results without hurting your health (with chemicals/drugs).

    1. Re:Everything is to blame .... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      And be like me, needing a knee replacement at 45, still be over weight and when cutting calories and "dieting" feeling nothing but sleepy, grump and deprived. Sorry getting up of your lazy azz and stopping eating is not a solution.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  67. The China Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The China Study

    Hint: Press Refresh (F5) once, and you can actually read most excerpts from the book for free!

  68. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    If fat people absorb more they should only experience fatigue and pain at lower consumption levels. Assuming their moms aren't making them clean their plates. But instead of seeing them eat 2 meals per day they are more likely to be eating 6.

  69. Re:Bull Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's making a lot of sense, in the same way that people who claimed the earth was flat made a lot of sense. It seemed right.

    But science has a more exacting methodology than simply believing what seems to make sense. When a hypothesis is found to be inconsistent with observed facts then the underlying theory has to be rejected, and that's the case here.

    Of two people who eat exactly the same thing, one may be skinny and the other obese. That blows the parent's theory right out of the water.

  70. Re:Bull Shit. by istartedi · · Score: 1

    This is like saying that my Ferrari beat your Yugo because I pumped more gas into it.

    Never mind hunger. What if you feel like you're going to pass out after you run a mile? What if you feel like you're going to fall asleep after two hours at the desk? You find that calories allow you to run 2 miles, or get through 8 hours of work. Alas, there is a side effect. What do you tell the overweight office worker who is in this situation? Quit office work and climb transmission towers?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  71. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And again I ask - if fat person eats a 500 calorie meal and gets a magical 250 extra calories, what is the precise pathway that they have violated the laws of physics and created a net energy gain?

    In your world we should put fat people on bicycle generators and get more power out than food in. We'd solve global warming and unemployment in one fell swoop, and probably the obesity epidemic too

    Do you even think about what you've typed?

  72. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

    Your claim that "99.999%" of fat people are eating processed sugar and fat by the pound.

    This is an outrageous claim.

    And your claim that weight gain is caused exclusively by diet is not proven either, I'm afraid.

    Give us proof rather than petulant attacks on other people.

  73. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem you're running into is that such information doesn't fit into the right-wing "personal responsibility" worldview.

    There is a culture of victim blame going on, and in that culture fat people MUST be blamed for their condition.

    It's very much like the blame placed on poor people for being poor.

  74. Re:Bull Shit. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    You're naive. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the toilet cistern overflows because there is too much water going into it. Someone who actually understands the problem (a plumber) would point out it's because the ballcock is faulty.

    The issue of obesity is not one of physics, nor of willpower. It's of understanding why some people's sense of saity works well, and other people's doesn't. Lots of people have theories, every diet fad puts forward a new one. But as yet no one knows for sure. It remains an area of science where there are huge unknowns.

  75. China tests obesity theory on mice by PPH · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, in related news, North Korea is conducting large scale human tests by feeding segments of their their population nothing but skinny mice.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  76. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Lennie · · Score: 1

    Or maybe because we eat certain things these days our digestive system adapt to how to process the food we give it. Could that maybe be the reason ?

    And I wouldn't be surprised if it is really hard for our digestive system to switch back to the previous mode.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  77. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by codewarren · · Score: 1

    You didn't fix "falicy"?

    You must also be from the U.S. ;)

  78. Diet specifics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was trying to understand more specifically the human test diet, described as "composed of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicine and prebiotics (WTP diet)."

    A PDF supplement ( http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ismej2012153x1.pdf ) has more details, but is still cursory. Baseline food was "4 cans of gruel per day as staple food contract prepared in the form of cooked porridge." They include cursory nutritional info but not the grain used for the gruel. Bitter melon (presumably the "traditional Chinese medicine" part of the diet) was administered to "markedly modulate the human gut microbiota," inhibiting the growth of many strains of bacteria in the gut. Then prebiotics, presumably, were used to replace some of the beneficial bacteria suppressed by the bitter melon.

    The omission of specific details on what the person consumed, the quantities, and the time intervals, seems so glaring that I am surprised that this study was published. Primary school science projects require more rigorousness. Granted, a study of one person is pretty limited in itself, but even that experiment can't be reproduced based on the published study.

  79. Take me to your leader.. umm my bacteria? by nanospook · · Score: 1

    Here's a really good layman's article at the Economist mag on this topic.. I read it back in August and haven't stopped thinking about it every time I see someone who is obese but still is chowing down in defiance of his own situation.

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:Take me to your leader.. umm my bacteria? by nanospook · · Score: 1
      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  80. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    Except that bipolarism defines US culture more than any other, everything comes down to us and them.

    Let's not let PC stupidity get in the way of truth,

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  81. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fat people - and I do recognize that this is an unproven hypothesis, but then again so is the conventional wisdom that low-fat diets are the way to lose weight - eat more often than skinny people because they're hungrier. They eat because they're gaining fat. They do not become fat because they eat too much; they eat too much because they are becoming fat and growing horizontally rather than vertically. Kids don't grow because they eat a lot - they eat a lot because they're growing. Eliminate the carbs, eliminate the insulin release, and the vicious cycle that causes the body to store energy as fat instead of using it for energy goes away. All of a sudden, your body is using all the energy you eat instead of trying to store it, you're more full on less food, and the weight falls off: 75 pounds in 9 months, in my case, with no exercise. Miraculous. Heavenly. I'm 38 years old and I weigh less than I did when I was 18. Extra bonus: because restaurants load up on carbs on everything (they're cheap and they taste good), you end up eating a lot more meals at home - cheaper, usually better, and definitely you know exactly what went into it.

  82. give this bacteria to starving people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems so basic that people in countries where they are starving to death in large numbers, that they could benefit from this bacteria. It's just too bad there is so much small minded thinking in this world.

  83. I Knew it... by lordfoul · · Score: 1

    It is everybody's fault, but mine.

    1. Re:I Knew it... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      Just like cancer.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  84. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say it's actually 1000 kcal. A normal human body might only be able to process half of it. This bacteria maybe uses say 250kcal but excretes stuff that the human body can readily process, making the total caloric value 750.

  85. Re:Bull Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you eat more calories than you burn, you get fat.
    If you burn more calories than you eat, you get skinny.

    Oh look, it's the AC who's so perfect he doesn't shit.

    Or maybe he's just so backed up it's spilling out on the keyboard.

    I think you've missed a few terms in your equation in there.

  86. Feed the bacteria what YOU choose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >and one wonders about that 'diet of whole grains.' ...but we can eat all the junk food we want...

  87. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    How about this. We'll have researchers lock both of us in chambers for a few months.

    In your chamber you'll be given 2000 calories per day of sawdust.

    In my chamber I'll be given 2000 calories per day of restaurant food.

    Care to predict the outcome? After all, a calorie is a calorie, right?

    Now, repeat the experiment but with termites, and note the different outcome.

  88. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uh, if you actually extracted all the mass-energy of a french fry with 100% efficiency you could wipe out a city with the fire coming out of your mouth...

    Since your digestive system is somewhat less efficient than an active galactic nucleus, you'll have to settle for a few paltry calories, and the number will vary by individual.

  89. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Yet, 99.999% of the time obese people are eating processed sugar and fat by the pound.

    99.999% of the time people with a healthy weight are eating processed sugar and fat by the pound as well. Could it be possible that there are other factors involved beyond diet, or for that matter factors that influence diet?

    Your body is a unique machine. How it reacts to what it eats depends on how it is built. What it chooses to eat depends on how it is built. How it reacts to being called a "fat ass" depends on how it is built.

    Telling an obese person to lose weight is kind of like telling the average person to do better in math - they're just not built for it.

  90. The state of investigating digestive system .... by sparkeyjames · · Score: 1

    Diseases and ailments is pathetic. I have had digestive system problems since I was 25 and am now over 50.
    The last digestive system guy I visited who was highly educated from a good medical school (UofM) said and I quote..
    "You just have a rotten gut". Yes I blinked. I wanted to ask how much he paid for his medical education. But I just
    walked out shaking my head.

    It took the guy that proposed that ulcers were caused by bacterial infections 5 plus years to put his idea and his
    research data into the medical communities awareness. If the medical community is that resistant to new ideas what other things
    have been missed due to not thinking outside the box or being forced by ridicule to withdraw a sound idea from publication.

  91. Modern nutritional knowledge sucks by miniMUNCH · · Score: 1

    If we stop and think about it, our present 'course' regarding human nutrition is incredibly stupid. On one side, here we believe evolution and natural selection, and the influence of genetic diversity and specificity of human health... and yet we just throw this all out the window when it comes to nutrition (and other aspects of human health). The human physiology evolved, and the GI tract developed, to east certain foods (handle certain groups of fats, proteins, etc.) and use bacteria to help with digestion and aspects of protection from 'bad' bacteria. And now we are taking antibiotics orally, sterilizing so much of our food. When are modifying foods into 'food-like' chemicals and swallowing them regularly. I mean, I'm a PhD chemical engineer... if I just mixed up some vegetable oils, ran some reactions on those oils, poured them into a cup and said, "here, drink this..." Would you? Hell fucking no! I wouldn't drink it myself! Well, we are generally allowing large food conglomerates to do exactly this... we have no idea on the long term human health effects of consumption of modified oils and so many other processed and synthesized foods. Every single food we eat has a pharmacological effect on our body and triggers hormone responses such as insulin release, etc. (don't believe me, just ask someone with a severe food allergy); we need our healthy GI track bacteria. What science has been done generally supports that GI track bacterial flora population 'health' is very ,very important for overall health. "Good bacteria' break down simple sugars (so we absorb them all), fight 'bad' bacteria that can release toxins/enzymes into our GI track, blah blah blah... lot of reasons. It is good that this gaining momentum because a lot of doctors don't know shit about this unless their medical school made them learn it and a lot of us regular people just don't have the inclination, time, or necessary background education to really study in this area. For now... I recommend everyone try to do some reading in the area of basic human biochemistry and the biochemistry/microbiology of the GI track and food digestion. Frankly I need to do more myself. I did a lot of reading a couple years ago when I got really sick, and had all kinds GI tract and allergic issues for a while... learned some of what I noted above and lot more. I'm pretty much all better now... but, honestly, my primary doctor didn't have clue what was wrong... figured out a lot of it on my own, did see a specialist who was 'mildly' helpful, and sort fixed myself. oh yeah... Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Happy New Year everyone!

  92. Anything to avoid getting out your chair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything to avoid getting out your chair. Right?

  93. Re:Bits from comprehensive study from Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overeating junk and sedentary lifestyle account for the obesity epidemic.
    Beyond these two facts, there's nothing important, or even interesting, to be learned about the obesity epidemic.

    There's a bit more to it... Regarding the sedentary lifestyle, here's an anecdote: doctors noted, almost a century ago, that patients who stay in bed all day long lose weight faster than those who excercise extensively. Excercise made patients hungrier... As for the obesity epidemic, google "Sugar the bitter truth" and, upon viewing it, check how much sugar is present in your fridge.

  94. A lot of these insensitive clods... by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 2

    Tend to blame the victims. Most modern processed foods are full of inflammatory poisons (HFCS, artificial sweeteners, hydrogenated oils)

    Paleo and Atkins work for some, not for others. Blaming people for being fat is like blaming people for being poor and uneducated.
    Additionally, fast foods today aren't as healthy as they were years before (HFCS, hydrogenated oils, soy, fillers, artificial colorings, and other carcinogenic preserves using benzenes,) no longer using animal fats, and quality foods aren't subsidized while healthcare is. Juice feasting and lots of water works for many , Paleo and Atkins works for some, but have a crouton and you blow up like a blimp from the "carb starving".

    The societal equation is wrong. Food is medicine, when used properly.

    People who are struggling with this should at least consider the documentaries : "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead" and "Forks over Knives" and watch the tons of videos on YouTube that show people transforming their lives and regaining control.

  95. Re:Bits from comprehensive study from Common Sense by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    Funny, common sense doesn't always mean right sense. This is one of those cases. If your someone whose body happens to crave right around the right amount of food then you are lucky. If not then it'd be nice to find out why.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  96. Re:Bull Shit. by Kergan · · Score: 1

    No, mod it down.

    He's making no sense. Calories are not processed the same way within the body. Metabolizing some require more calories than others. And metabolizing at least one, fructose, can only be done in the liver.

  97. Is Obesity Contagious? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BRFSS_obesity_1985-2006.gif

    Look at how it takes hold in Mississippi, then spreads out from there to "infect" other states.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  98. Re:Bull Shit. by Kergan · · Score: 1

    The issue of obesity is not one of physics, nor of willpower. It's of understanding why some people's sense of saity works well, and other people's doesn't. Lots of people have theories, every diet fad puts forward a new one. But as yet no one knows for sure. It remains an area of science where there are huge unknowns.

    Indeed. There's pretty solid and damning evidence against fructose, though:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

  99. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was the over-consumption of cats, myself.

  100. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's why dieting is not helpful as a principal measure for losing weight. The body will compensate. To the degree where you are sitting listless in a corner and being cold, burning calories at a minimum.

    That's why the only helpful thing is exercise. The body can bullshit all around with your metabolism, but 500kcal of mechanical energy are 500kcal of mechanical energy. Metabolism can't play the optimization game while cranking out power.

  101. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Godziraaaaa!

    Oh wait. It was a Chinese study, not a Japanese study. You confused me.

  102. You are lying to yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are lying to yourself or badly mismeasuring your food intake.

  103. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if that were true, simply adjusting your intake will work. It does not matter if you absorb more energy than the average person from a certain meal. You can adjust your intake to compensate.

    Fatigue and pain? Is that another way of saying you're lazy and weak?

  104. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your claim that "99.999%" of fat people are eating processed sugar and fat by the pound.

    This is an outrageous claim.

    Or alternatively, it is hyperbole. You don't need to take everything you read literally. Read "99.999%" as a very high proportion, and "eating processed sugar and fat by the pound" as eating far too much processed sugar and fat.

  105. Re:Bull Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the toilet cistern overflows because there is too much water going into it. Someone who actually understands the problem (a plumber) would point out it's because the ballcock is faulty.

    there must be a koan in here somewhere.

  106. Re:wrong wrong wrong by AndyKron · · Score: 1
  107. *sigh* more junk science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's thermodynamics, you idiots. If you consume more energy than you expend, your body stores it as fat. It's that simple.

    Fucking christ.

    1. Re:*sigh* more junk science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its not that simple. Cravings are not just "your fault". Its a complex combination of biological processes and hormone signaling caused by doing things like eating too much sugar in your diet. I'm not saying people aren't at fault. I'm saying that they are influenced by sugar (specifically fructose) and its been scientifically proven. You can change though by just cutting the sugar/fructose and adding more probiotics to your diet.

  108. oh dear... by Tom · · Score: 0

    Sure, give the fat people more excuses, that'll work like charm.

    Look, anyone with even a passing interest in obesity has known for at least a decade that the problem is a non-trivial mix of genetic factors, lifestyle and eating habits. In the west, however, where issues such as food supply don't enter the equation, the main problem is psychological. Simplified: In order to stop being a fat pig, you would need to change something in your life. More sport, healthier food, less food, less sugary drinks, whatever it is, it requires mental energy to change. Once you have gone down the road to being fat far enough, your primary source of mental energy is - high-energy food. So you are basically fucked unless you can also change your motivational circuits at the same time. Good luck.

    Why am I angry at this article and every other who thinks that things are simple and implies a single causation? Because it plays right into the weakness of those trying to (and failing) get back to being a human being. You know, instead of a big blob of fat tissue with a human core hidden somewhere deep within.
    An excuse gives you an opportunity to fail without feeling bad about yourself. Which increases the likelihood of failing.

    But the facts are that pretty much every(*) obese person is entirely reponsible for their state. I'm not saying it is easy to change, but the causes are a) internal and not external and b) within their control.

    (*) unless you have a medical statement from an actual doctor diagnosing one of the very few and very rare actual medical conditions that cause obesity, that includes you. In other words: 99.99% of the obese population.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  109. Contribute to the Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, American Gut gives you an opportunity to participate and to compare the microbes in your gut to those in the guts of thousands of other people in the US and elsewhere.

    American Gut - what's in your gut?

  110. So an experiment? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Say you and an person who "eats like a pig" both consume the same amount of calories and expend the same amount of work per day for a month, would you be willing to accept the change in weight results as definitive proof as to whether it is the person who is at blame or some other factors?C

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  111. Absolutely it is! by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows infants were giving a choice of inherited genetics and environment before birth.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  112. Re:Bull Shit. by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of kids in poor areas of the world who wish they had it like this, then.

  113. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    "'The endotoxin-producing Enterobacter decreased in relative abundance from 35% of the volunteer's gut bacteria to non-detectable, during which time the volunteer lost 51.4kg of 174.8kg initial weight and recovered from hyperglycemia and hypertension after 23 weeks on a diet of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicinal foods and prebiotics.' "

    Which translates to "If you don't eat fatty foods you won't get fat"

    But hey blame it on the bacteria, that has to be easier than a diet of "whole grains" and prebiotics.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  114. Re:Bull Shit. by Kergan · · Score: 1

    You seem unaware that childhood obesity is just as rampant in developing countries than it is in developed countries. For precisely the same reason, too: it's cheaper to buy processed food -- which contains just about everything you ought to stay away from if you plan to stay healthy.

  115. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by servant · · Score: 1

    Western mentality doesn't do well with something that isn't 'one cause - one outcome - one 'cure' '

    That has brought us lots of good science and technology, but nature doesn't seem to be quite so 'limited'.
     

    --
    ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
  116. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

    I can probably explain what happened to your sister (and help her). I can also bet she's suffered pretty severe psychological/neurological changes as well (though she might hide them from her family). If you want to start a conversation, ping me at dbharris@eelf.ddts.net

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
  117. Long term vs short term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always found that an evening of serious drinking will result in crapping myself completely empty the next day. So there is that.

  118. Re:Bull Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad doctors don't prescribe 30 miles of running per week. If you did that, you wouldn't be fat. End of story.

    LOL. Tell you what, I'm not overeating, I'm carbing up for the marathon I'll run next year.

    What's that? It don't work that way? Well

    If you eat more calories than you burn, you get fat.
    If you burn more calories than you eat, you get skinny.

    Ain't it that simple?

  119. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

    Oh bullshit. I've actually been to other countries and I have yet to go to one where you don't have people who aren't in violent disagreement with other people. There's nothing about Americans that makes them magically more this way than any other. People are people. The only difference between the US and other countries is that we give crazy levels of news coverage for these differences. It's good business airing grievances.

    --
    Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  120. Re:Bits from comprehensive study from Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck science, fuck solving the problem, this guy needs to feel good about himself and take credit for his metabolism, that changes everything.

  121. That's good looking-out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew that China was generous enough to spend time, money, energy, and precious medical resources on what is essentially a problem only in the West in general and in the United States, in particular?! That is real white of them!

  122. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the earth gets less sunlight it will get colder. No other factors, vulcano ash cooling? A myth.

  123. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, fatigue and pain is another way of saying that you are tired and are hurting. If you haven't been there you should shut the fuck up about things you don't want to understand and enjoy your illusion of superior willpower.

  124. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat people need to eat less.

    Getting rid of a bacterium may make "economic"sense, but it doesn't make any other kind of sense.

  125. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    I didn't say anything about violent disagreements. Those happen everywhere. We're talking about the general tendency towards everything being split into an either or camp.

    I love it when Bush said "you're either with us or you're against us" and Canada basically said, whatever.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  126. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Generally, when we talk about calories in terms of nutrition we are not talking about the amount of energy in the food like we would talk about when we talk about fuels such as gasoline. The term calories when used in nutrition is actually kilocalories AND it refers to the amount of energy that can extracted by the digestive tract. So, this study (and several previous ones) have observed that some people can extract more calories from food than the normal amount that is calculated. So, to rephrase my original example. Person A, who does not have these bacteria, can extract 500 calories from a meal that Person B, who has these bacteria, can extract 750 calories from.
    Now the question is, are you stupid, or just deliberately obtuse?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  127. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And your claim that weight gain is caused exclusively by diet is not proven either, I'm afraid.

    Try going to a third world country some time and see how many fat people you see, even among the "well to do."

    I spent a year and a half on a coalition base in Afghanistan. Every time you saw an obese lard ass walking around, guess what nationality? American.

    America: land of fat asses with excuses.

  128. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by cavebison · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?

    Possibly the media. All the time in the news or those morning shows, the headlines are exactly that. "Is there poison in everything we eat, OR are we all just paranoid?" etc etc.

    Perhaps, eventually, people just start thinking there is only ever an either-or case to everything. They start to think logical thinking means deciding which of any two propositions is "true".

  129. How about we just start eating healthy food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It worked for me.

  130. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep coming up with excuses, fatty

  131. Re:Bull Shit. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Very insightful link. Ninety minutes well spent. The comparisons between the liver's breakdown of HFCS and ethanol were a bummer though.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  132. Re:Bits from comprehensive study from Common Sense by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    That, and it's relatively uncommon.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  133. If I had Mod points you wouldn't be reading this by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    The moral of the story is YMMV. If you limit intake of these "modern processed foods", limit or eliminate (shudder) alcohol consumption, eat nothing with added sweeteners, and eat healthy, low calorie foods that do the best job of filling you up, your body's biochemistry will eventually revert to a healthier system that makes keeping the weight off easier. Help yourself out by keeping only healthy things around the home and office to eat. They will taste better the hungrier you become. It is much more difficult for some than others, and there is no substitute for willpower.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  134. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Crafty. Well done.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  135. Try the "4 hour body" diet by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    My wife had a similar problem, ate reasonably, exercised a lot, wouldn't lose weight. I know you said you tried to control carbs, but the 4 hour body diet worked for her, so maybe it would work for you.

    Six days a week, high-protein, mid-fat, very very low carb. Try to zero out carbs if you can (two glasses of dry red wine are as close as you should get to carbohydrates of any sort). However, on the seventh day ("cheat day")...very high carb, mid-fat, low-protein. This tricks your body out to prevent it from going into equilibrium. It's like a weekly Thanksgiving, sorta. Also, eat at least 30g of protein every morning (including cheat day) within 30 minutes of waking up - that is a hard and fast deadline, you MUST eat at LEAST 30g of protein and it MUST be within 30 minutes of gaining consciousness.

    I had my doubts, but this diet has worked miracles for my wife, and she didn't even need to exercise anymore. She no longer counts calories, either. It's also working miracles for my mom; she's losing weight, blood pressure and cholesterol are down...doctor told her "whatever you're doing keep doing it!!" Doctors used to say that fat was the source of evil calories but I really think that carbs are the real evil calories.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  136. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    It's not that high-protein diets are hard on you. It's that ketosis is hard on you, and you enter ketosis if you don't consume enough carbs. Rather, you should be saying it's the low-carb diet that's hard on you, which is why the best diet I have seen recommends a weekly cheat day where you consume MASSIVE amounts of carbs to prevent your body from going into ketosis during the rest of the week when carbs are severely restricted.

    As a bonus, this weekly Thanksgiving also prevents your metabolism from going into equilibrium, so you continue to lose weight for a long time, albeit slowly.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  137. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    My wife was on 1200 calories/day and 1 hour of intense exercise per day. She cut out sugar and all processed food, went to wheat bread, fruits. She was barely able to maintain her weight.

    She switched to high-protein diet 6 days a week, high carb on the 7th day. No longer counts calories. No more intense exercise. She's losing a consistent 1 to 1.5 pounds per week.

    Call me crazy, but the "fat diet" that she found actually works. It works for her, it works for her uncle, and it works for my mother (weight down, blood pressure down, cholesterol down).

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  138. Can some humans digest fiber better than others? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Good point, AC! Certainly cows and termites can break down fiber with different gut bacteria (and different gut architecture).
    http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/547cellulose.html
    "Animals such as cows, horses, sheep, goats, and termites have symbiotic bacteria in the intestinal tract. These symbiotic bacteria possess the necessary enzymes to digest cellulose in the GI tract. They have the required enzymes for the breakdown or hydrolysis of the cellulose; the animals do not, not even termites, have the correct enzymes. No vertebrate can digest cellulose directly."

    That said, somehow I doubt humans could do it because we are not multi-stomached ruminants, but it would be great to see more science studies about it. Maybe you will be proven right and some humans with the right bacteria can do it better than other?

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  139. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by romons · · Score: 1

    There are probably lots of reasons for overweight. However, your sister's experience of gaining weight after massive doses of antibiotics could be related to the killing of your family's favorable biotics while in the hospital. I'm guessing that there are different strains of bacteria and yeast that typically inhabit the gut, that use different nutrients. We need them to help digest food, but they are symbiotic, and take what they need from the food. If that includes something that we also need, that makes the body believe that it isn't getting enough food, and that causes it to crave more.

    It is a well known phenomena that obesity is 'catching'; that people who hang with fat people get fat. Some of that may be psychological, but it may also be related to passing on gut bacteria to others.

    My own experience is that I was 'cured' of overweight by pancreatic disease. I eat as much or more as I used to eat, but I don't gain weight. For whatever reason, I don't digest more than I can use after my surgery. Now, isn't that strange? I went from 280 to 220, and have stayed there for a year. My digestion patterns are completely different, which is annoying, but the secret is probably pancreatic enzymes, which are now released at sub-optimal times, thus screwing up my ability to digest food. If that can happen to me after surgery, it can certainly happen to people as a simple genetic variation. Some people don't digest everything they eat, like me, but they don't require surgery for it to happen.

    Another thing I'd like to say is that folks who don't have this problem simply can't understand it. They say things like 'well, I can stop eating when I'm still hungry, why can't you'? They can't really understand the situation where one just can't stop thinking about food. Their definition of 'hungry' is different. For example, there is a genetic disease called Prader-Willi syndrome, which cause the body to believe it is starving ALL THE TIME, and which causes gross overweight in its victims. If that can happen, it shows that there are ways to trick the brain into thinking it is hungry when it should not be. This problem is way more complicated that a simple-minded 'energy in = energy out' approach is capable of understanding.

    --
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  140. Re:I though it was over consumption of cals. by romons · · Score: 1

    Everybody gets high blood pressure as they age. It takes time, but nearly everybody in western society gets it. Now, why is that? I suspect that obesity is similar, in that it takes a while for some people. It is very fast in others (witness child obesity rates), and for some, it never happens because they die of something else before it occurs.

    My guess is that there is some long-term chronic disease of western society that causes this, and people have different susceptibilities to it. It could be any number of things, but 'being a lard ass' probably isn't one of them. That is a symptom, not a cause.

    --
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  141. There weren't obese people in concentration camps by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Nobody can get fat (or energy) out of nothing -- or almost nothing -- as it would be against laws of physics. Just count calories and lower drastically the amount of calories you eat on average day, until you start losing weight. It is as simple as that.

  142. Human body can't work against laws of nature by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Human body cannot get energy out of nothing. Human body has to maintain body temperature which is usually above the surrounding temperature and this takes constant energy. And if you eat nothing or just little, the body has no other choice than start getting the energy by burning fat and other human tissues.

    However, it is worth to notice that excessive eating doesn't always has to cause obesity. For example, if you have malabsorption, a large portion of the energy that would have been available in the food, just goes directly through your intestine. That is not against laws of nature. However, getting energy out of nothing, is against laws of nature. You cannot store more energy as a fat, than the amount of energy your food has (and in reality your body has to create heat etc and cannot store all that energy as fat).

  143. Losing weight is easy by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Being obese or uneducated are things that people are typically able to change. Very poor people in third world countries might not have possibility of going to school, having libraries etc, but even they can choose to just eat less and lose weight.

  144. Erroneus FATASS, attempted blackmail's illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 especially after you libeled people before it.

  145. Erroneus FATASS: Want some PIZZA? LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  146. Erroneus FatASS: Want some PIZZA? LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  147. Erroneus - attempted blackmail = illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 especially when you also libeled those you threatened with it beforehand.

  148. Erroneus FatASS: Want some PIZZA? LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  149. Erroneus, attempted blackmail = illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 especially when you also libeled those you threatened with it beforehand also.

  150. must be magic calories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then where are these magic calories coming from?
    Are you bad at math?

  151. john b wilcox/erroneus = expert on eating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

  152. erroneus/john b wilcox did it help make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the man (err, fat monstrosity) you are? When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

  153. An eye opener on john b wilcox/erroneus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy Lord you're FAT: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

  154. Erroneus/john b wilcox = expert on being FAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.