Slashdot Mirror


Gut Bacteria In Slim People Extract More Nutrients

Beeftopia writes "Researchers discovered that inserting gut bacteria from obese people into mice without gut bacteria led to the mice becoming obese. Gut bacteria from slim people inserted into the same mice did not lead to mouse obesity. The researchers concluded (abstract) that gut bacteria from the slim people were more efficient at extracting nutrients from food than those of the obese."

212 comments

  1. FIAF. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a FIAF thing..
    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fiaf-whos-fat-is-it-anyway.html

    It's not that they're better at extracting nutrients, it's that they influence the body to expend more or less enery. The nutrient extraction is a side effect.

    I do wish researchers would read the relevant literature before jumping to conclusions.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:FIAF. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check his citations. They're proper peer reviewed papers. His conclusions make sense and fit the data.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:FIAF. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Well the conclusion for non scientists is obvious. There's going to be a market to extract Julia Roberts' gut bacteria and reinject them into a bunch of fat one percenters for millions of dollars a pop.

    3. Re:FIAF. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah, i doubt the authors of the Science study above read any relevant literature at all.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    4. Re:FIAF. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Will the recipients of her gut bacteria be required to marry Lyle Lovett?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:FIAF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i doubt the authors of the Science study above read any relevant literature at all.

      Seriously, they didn't even cite that 6-year-old blog post from a veterinarian! They probably don't even know how to use an internet! How did they get published in such a high profile journal?

    6. Re:FIAF. by smaddox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd be surprised what kind of crap gets published in Science and Nature - and any other peer reviewed journal, for that matter. My favorite is lasers that don't actually lase. We see those all the time.

    7. Re:FIAF. by Gninnaf · · Score: 2

      I think they might have it backwards. If the gut bacteria is more efficient more nutrients are extracted which can be converted and stored by the body making you fat not slim.

    8. Re:FIAF. by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Of course it is a French thing. Those thin scientists at the French Institute Alliance Française have come up with a way to make Americans thin... But to what end?!

    9. Re:FIAF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd be surprised what kind of crap gets published in Science and Nature - and any other peer reviewed journal, for that matter. My favorite is lasers that don't actually lase. We see those all the time.

      No, I wouldn't be surprised, I've seen it and lived it (including the non-lasing lasers you speak of!). Sad thing is that I'm about to reject a paper I'm currently reviewing not because of the science (which is sound) but because it's so poorly written as to be almost unreadable. The problem is that there are people who learn how to wave their hands really well and make lots of friends who help pass this tripe through the peer review process, and many decent scientists who don't write "too good."

      [sigh]

    10. Re:FIAF. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd be surprised what kind of crap gets published in Science and Nature

      certainly it's garbage compared to a blog post by a veterinarian.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    11. Re:FIAF. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Better a vet with an encyclopedic knowledge of biochemistry than an anonymous coward.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:FIAF. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Or just not waste time/effort on anon trolls.

    13. Re:FIAF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better a vet with an encyclopedic knowledge of biochemistry than an anonymous coward.

      At least anonymous coward posts are peer reviewed.

    14. Re:FIAF. by RMingin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gut bacteria feed themselves, not you.

      More efficient or effective gut bacteria eat your lunch before you can.

      While in our overfed society, having hyperactive gut bacteria keeping you thin would be good, fatties would be laughing in a major disaster, since they'd get to enjoy more of that roadkill dinner they scavenged, and they'd have longer reserves for the initial disaster and the ensuing survival training course.

      Now if we could just toggle between two sets of bacteria, we'd have a pretty ideal setup!

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    15. Re:FIAF. by niftymitch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well the conclusion for non scientists is obvious. There's going to be a market to extract Julia Roberts' gut bacteria and reinject them into a bunch of fat one percenters for millions of dollars a pop.

      Units are incorrect:
            millions of dollars a poop.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    16. Re: FIAF. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fuck Lyle Lovett, whoever the fuck that is. And fuck you too.

      Isn't that what TechyImmigrant was getting at?

    17. Re:FIAF. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I do wish researchers would read the relevant literature before jumping to conclusions.

      Good God, that type of thinking could alter not just research, but the very institutions that sponsor it as well!
      Won't someone remember those brave souls that labor on... hoping for tenure and a nice comfy grant?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    18. Re:FIAF. by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      They looked at mice and concluded about bacteria? Bacterial toxicity can also greatly affect the host weight without saying anything about the health of said bacteria.

    19. Re:FIAF. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. Thanks for that.

    20. Re:FIAF. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised, no.

    21. Re:FIAF. by sd4f · · Score: 1

      I had a tough time comprehending the summary of this article, because my brother has a PhD in Biochemistry, and he told me this years ago, but he said fatties (being both of us) have more efficient gut bacteria. Your comment clears up the perspective problem.

      In any case though, the summary appears to have spun it around the other way, suggesting that skinny people have more desirable gut flora because it makes out more efficient to sound like more miles to the gallon. Sure being a fatty isn't a great thing in the first world, but this whole issue is an evolutionary trait since gut bacteria is inherited from your mother. It sort of now sounds a bit like a eugenics idea, but going the other way around.

      The worst thing I had was I went on a ski trip with some friends. A few of them would have been half my weight, and quite a bit shorter than me (i'm 189cm and 120kg). We had three days of the slopes, all ate the same food, including portion size, and I'm the one who put on weight.

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

      Gut bacteria digest the food that you cannot, which is a surprisingly large percentage of what we eat.

    23. Re:FIAF. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 0

      Just curious. Are there a lot of fat one percenters? I suppose that's classist of me, but I do wonder what the stats are. And if there aren't very many, how did the one percenters come by their already 'good' gut bacteria popluations? I think the research points to a low-fat diet favoring the establishment of the good kind of bacteria, and once established, they out compete the bad kind - even in the presense of higher fat diets.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    24. Re:FIAF. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that too. I think I read somewhere else, that gut bacteria are a natural part of our digestive system, and that the 'fat-making' kind are just better at getting food ready to be absorbed by the body. In other words, it's not that the 'thin-making' bacteria are eating our lunches, but just that they make it harder for us to eat them. Either way, it points to the 'fat' bacteria being better at their assigned job in the human digestive system - and evolution being behind the curve in catching up the overabundance of food in (some) modern cultures. Or maybe the 'thin' bac's are an evolutionary response to overabundance...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    25. Re:FIAF. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Some bacteria break down cellulose into things you can digest. Are you cattle, by any chance?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:FIAF. by Optali · · Score: 2

      This reminds me to Mustard Oil... this oils is used by hundreds of millions of people in India without any issue...
      Somebody set up an experiment with rats and the rats died, conclusion: Mustard oil is poisonous and became forbidden in most Western Countries. It can be found but it includes a warning "for external use only".

      A second study found no toxicity in humans, but that mustard oil happens to be toxic for rats... which is rather obvious being that there have been no health concerns raised in India.

      You may also want to recall that our cosy aspirin is deadly for cats but not for dogs or humans (in normal doses I mean).

      I would therefore take the conclusion with a whole truck load of salt because in fact it only demonstrates that when you inject alien gut bacteria into mice their guts will stop working correctly. Mice are not omnivores evolved to eat cooked food like us so that I would mark this study with a big WTF?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    27. Re:FIAF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't sound like guesswork on their part

      "Differences in body composition were correlated with differences in fermentation of short-chain fatty acids (increased in Ln), metabolism of branched-chain amino acids (increased in Ob), and microbial transformation of bile acid species (increased in Ln and correlated with down-regulation of host farnesoid X receptor signaling)."

  2. Oh look the d word by trdtaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "However, the diet was also important for creating the right conditions for the lean twin's bacteria to flourish. A bacterial obesity therapy seems unlikely to work alongside a a diet of greasy burgers."

    Guess what, proper diet still required. /surprise.

    1. Re:Oh look the d word by alen · · Score: 1

      lesson?

      don't eat junk food. crap like soda acidifies your stomach more than it needs to and kills good bacteria

    2. Re:Oh look the d word by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      lesson?

      don't eat junk food. crap like soda acidifies your stomach more than it needs to and kills good bacteria

      I'd suggest eating more beans and lentils, but we've already argued about global warming today.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Oh look the d word by FrankSchwab · · Score: 0

      However, the diet was also important for creating the right conditions for the lean twin's bacteria to flourish. A bacterial obesity therapy seems unlikely to work alongside a a diet of greasy burgers.

      Having read TFA, there is precisely zero evidence to support this statement. Simply a restatement of the current mythology surrounding diet and weight.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    4. Re:Oh look the d word by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Funny

      lesson?

      don't eat junk food. crap like soda acidifies your stomach more than it needs to and kills good bacteria

      I'd suggest eating more beans and lentils, but we've already argued about global warming today.

      Don't forget about the latest "super-foods" like quinoa and the like. But I digest.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

    6. Re:Oh look the d word by Immerman · · Score: 2

      No? How about the very next paragraphs:

      Keeping both sets of mice in the same cage kept them both lean if they were fed a low-fat, high-fibre diet. Mice are coprophagic, meaning they eat each other's droppings, and the lean twin's bacteria were passed into the mice which started with bacteria that should have made them obese.

      However, a high-fat, low-fibre diet meant the mice still piled on the pounds.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Oh look the d word by zippthorne · · Score: 0

      Quinoa? Isn't that just some kind of dirt-flavored grits?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Oh look the d word by smaddox · · Score: 2

      And you're basing that on..... what? Maybe you're right, but I've never seen any evidence that suggests that this is true.

      Sodas are bad for you because they contain ~32 grams of sugar per 12 oz can, AND people regularly drink several cans in one sitting. That much sugar is extremely bad for you. To learn why, watch this video.

    9. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping both sets of mice in the same cage kept them both lean if they were fed a low-fat, high-fibre diet. Mice are coprophagic, meaning they eat each other's droppings, and the lean twin's bacteria were passed into the mice which started with bacteria that should have made them obese.

      So, if you have two girls and only one cup, as long as one of them is not a fat chick, then eventually you'll have two skinny chicks?
      There could be a serious market for this shit...

    10. Re:Oh look the d word by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

      If you drink something acidic, the total acidity level of your stomach will be more than if you drink water.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    11. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you have two girls and only one cup, as long as one of them is not a fat chick, then eventually you'll have two skinny chicks?
      There could be a serious market for this shit...

      No, but if you felch a skinny faggot you might lose weight. There's a market for that, too.

    12. Re:Oh look the d word by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You should argue it out with the ELEM (Eat Less Exercise More) crowd. They say you are wrong, and greasy burgers do not make you any more fat that a diet of strictly tofu and whole grain rice.

    13. Re:Oh look the d word by niftymitch · · Score: 2

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

      The stomach is not the interesting local of pH.

      Further down the gut is where pH becomes an issue for sustaining
      the bacteria mix in the gut. Poo does not exit at a pH of 3 or lower.
      It is clear to me that the pH profile through the gut is important. Small
      intestine bacteria is likely different from large bowel bugs.

      As these bugs live and die they release "stuff" to be taken up by the
      body and other bacteria. In addition the nutritional profile is modified.
      Consider Vegemite and Marmite and note the folic acid in Marmite
      as well as useful quantities of several other vitamins, even in small servings.

      The starvation of the body for many nutrients can cause extreme caloric
      intake to satisfy some trivial nutrient content. Niacin in corn is one
      critical and common food need that is solved by nixtamalization
      and mitigates pellagra. Scurvy and pellagra. are the most well known
      nutritional deficiency related problems ... many more exist and more
      remain to be understood.

      It is also true that gut pH is an issue for cattle fed corn. The side effect
      has been countered by antibiotic abuse....

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    14. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beans and lentils are carbon neutral... oh yeah... I propose we set up states where methane can be burned off as we expel it. It would be very green.

    15. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

      If you drink something acidic, the total acidity level of your stomach will be more than if you drink water.

      So acidity *add-up* ? ... Really ?

    16. Re: Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The karma from eating meat weighs you down, measured on the scale as increased pounds.

    17. Re:Oh look the d word by khallow · · Score: 1

      If the acid of sodas matters anywhere, it'd be the teeth of the mouth. And those 32 grams of sugar would matter for much the same reason (mouth bacteria digesting sugar and generating teeth-eating acids as waste products).

    18. Re:Oh look the d word by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Whate quinoa food is that?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    19. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait wait wait. A factual post? Who are you, and where is khallow's corpse?

    20. Re:Oh look the d word by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      If you mix something less acidic with something more acidic the total resulting solution will be *less* acidic due to dilution. Your stomach however will produce some more acid in *extremely* short order to regulate it's pH so you don't... yknow... DIE.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    21. Re:Oh look the d word by antdude · · Score: 1

      I have been telling farters that. They caused the global warming. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    22. Re:Oh look the d word by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

      If you drink something acidic, the total acidity level of your stomach will be more than if you drink water.

      That last statement is correct, but your stomach will still be less acidic than if you drank nothing, so it doesn't support the original statement that drinking soda makes your stomach more acidic as drinking anything less acidic than stomach acid will always make your stomach less acidic. There are a bunch of reasons why drinking lots of soda isn't a good idea, but acidifying your stomach isn't one of them.

    23. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey gp, don't let this guys facts mess up your skewed view of biology.

    24. Re:Oh look the d word by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      PH of a very acidic soda = 2.522, PH of stomach acid = 1.35

      Don't blame the soda for having an acidic stomach.

      If you drink something acidic, the total acidity level of your stomach will be more than if you drink water.

      So acidity *add-up* ? ... Really ?

      No. But volumes of liquid do ya dumbass troll. A can of acidic soda will vastly increase the overall impact of "acid in the stomach" because there's lots more of it than normal.

    25. Re:Oh look the d word by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I understand the chemistry. your chemsitry analysis is correct on teh face of it. But, similar to the other guy, something is at work when I drink soda.
      Its purely anecdotal, and i dont know the mechanism at play, but i dont drink sodas because i get heartburn directly afterword, even if the soda was all I had.
      simiarly i no longer enjoy tomato sauces for same reason, stomach no likey tomata sauces, or other acidic foods.

      (well thats not strictly true..-I- still enjoy my italian...i just come prepared with a bucket of Tums before commencing the gorging)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    26. Re:Oh look the d word by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Quinoa is like so last year. Stevia is where it's at.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Oh look the d word by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That last statement is correct, but your stomach will still be less acidic than if you drank nothing

      True. If you drink nothing for a week or so you're very unlikely to have peptic ulcers for the rest of your life.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:Oh look the d word by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      s/a market/an app/

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Oh look the d word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't, the GP poster makes a great point, stomach acidification is irrelevant to the discussion of why soda is bad for you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_acid

      Stomach acid is around 0.1M HCl, with a Ph of 1.5-3.5.

      http://uk.ask.com/question/what-is-the-ph-of-coca-cola

      Coke (as an example soft drink) has a Ph of 2.5-3.5

      So it's the same, or a little less acidic than stomach acid, which means it has *no effect* on stomach acidification, not one little bit.

      It will fuck up your teeth though, and the high sugar content is a way to get type 2 diabetes.

    30. Re:Oh look the d word by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's only a "factual post" because we both happen to agree on the claims made in my post. Normally, agreement just isn't there.

    31. Re:Oh look the d word by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Acid reflux is the stomach acid coming back up and harming the esophagus. Some foods can stimulate that reaction, but it's not actually the food acid causing the damage.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    32. Re:Oh look the d word by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      This is a biochemical reaction, not a chemical reaction. Your stomach isn't a vat of acid waiting for various foods to fall in it. Hydrochloric acid is (usually) produced when there is something to digest. I'm not certain if it even produces acid when you drink water, but presuming it does, it will be less acidic than when you drink something acidic, and both will be worse than when your stomach is not having food introduced.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    33. Re:Oh look the d word by OdinOdin_ · · Score: 1

      > If you drink something acidic, the total acidity level of your stomach will be more than if you drink water.

      Total volume would increase, the PH would increase towards 7 (go from 1.35 to maybe 2.123) making the overall acidity lower.

      So the term would be more correct to say the acidity level is lower (just like taking alkaline stomach salts to ease indigestion).

      The exact amount of change depends largely on the relative volumes involved, the dynamics of how they mix, but that is largely irrelevant for drink as everything ingested is usually with a high water content already.

  3. Another excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So now instead of saying 'I have big bones', one can say 'I just got veeeery hungry gut bacteria!'?

    1. Re:Another excuse? by pirix · · Score: 1

      It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

    2. Re:Another excuse? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Laziness and/or lack of discipline is the reason for being over weight. While it may be more difficult for people who are "naturally fat" (such as myself) to get fit and toned, putting in the required effort does in fact work. Not only that, you will have a better body than people who are "naturally skinny." I used to weigh 300 lbs @ 6'6" before I started doing martial arts. It's only been a year and I'm down to 235. I pound the crap out of the skinny guys (all in good fun of course). The key to getting fit is finding a physical activity you enjoy, and try to be the best at it. I don't eat well because I want to lose weight. I do it because I want to be good at martial arts.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    3. Re:Another excuse? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      You just have to get used to being 7/8ths miserable 9/10ths of the time, and you can suffer your way to being attractive in a matter of a few years! Yeah sure, its all 'no pain no gain' but your average human can only take so much self inflicted punishment before saying 'screw it, I just want to be comfortable for a day or two'. And then you loose all that hard earned progress. .

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    4. Re:Another excuse? by pirix · · Score: 2

      Actually, yes. I didn't say it was THE reason, I said it was a reason. You're suggesting that there's only one reason for being overweight. The study referenced above disputes that argument. Please note that I am in no way saying that leading a sedentary lifestyle and eating too much or the wrong things are also causes of obesity. Obviously they are, and major ones. But the data seems to suggest that it's more complicated than that.

    5. Re:Another excuse? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      AKA, why I went on a ketogenic diet and haven't been hungry since. Doesn't work for everyone, some people just can't do it. But if you can, it's magic.

    6. Re:Another excuse? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      An interesting follow up question would be, assuming you already have the bacteria well installed in your gut, are there any things in a modern diet besides fat that causes them to be less successful (than the other gut bacteria) or even die out? How do they respond to long-term trace levels of Roundup or neonicotinoid pesticides? HFCS? Ammonia or cyanide from processed meat products? Substantial sodium levels? How about any number of preservatives or other additives found in typical modern Western processed foods? Heck, even ice-cold water?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    7. Re: Another excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I think you're right, but also wrong. Most good habits are difficult to start; bad difficult to stop. I smoke. I'm quitting. Some days I just want to be comfortable instead of miserable 7/8 of the time, but if I do, I'll backslide. It's worth it. I also used to have a hell of a time with mornings. Now I don't, unless I allow a few sleep-in days, and then I backslide. NOT worth it.

      The word "predisposed" is one classy bitch, but some things are worth the effort, or misery, to combat.

    8. Re:Another excuse? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to sound insensitive. I agree there are many reasons why it can it can be harder for some people to lose weight. I know I have to work very hard at it, and I will never be as thin as some people. At the end of the day, I have never met an obese person who ate healthy and exercised. You can always try harder. That's the one reason we have control over, and the only one that matters. Maybe there really are reasons that make it impossible to lose weight. Probably more often than not it's simply a matter of will, and how badly you want it.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    9. Re:Another excuse? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! I knew if I kept reading I would sooner or later find someone with fingers jammed into their ears singing "LA LA LA LA, I'm better than they are because they're fat" and you are the first! Honestly I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far to find it.

      You see, some people have other things to do.

      So good for you that your free time, personal interests and gut bacteria aligned in your favor, but you might want to can that 'lazy' talk. Consider, Sammo Hung is also fond of the martial arts and though he is in good shape, that shape is round.

    10. Re: Another excuse? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your body has no minimum requirement for nicotine. How would you do if you needed to smoke exactly 2 cigarettes a day, no more, no less.

      I suspect you'd be doing a lot more of that backsliding and your misery would be increased manyfold.

    11. Re:Another excuse? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. I'm still quite round myself (and I like it that way). I realize I will never be as skinny as some people who never have to lift a finger. Although I think you will find quite a few women who prefer a man with some meat on their bones. ;) That doesn't mean I can't still be healthy. Being healthy and fit has nothing to do with your size, and everything to do with how you choose to live.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    12. Re:Another excuse? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Hello, Drkstr1. Now you have. Over the last 10 years I ate very health and exercise extensively at one point for 3 years getting in 4.5 mile jogs 5x a week. and was still 5'10" 220lbs with a belly. I had found a drug at the time that helped get me below 200lbs (effedrin?SP?) but it was taken of the market (my conspiracy side says because it actually worked. sure a few unhealthy people couldn't handle it but...) I tried monitoring ketones for about 5 years. It helped but the weight still came and the satisfied feeling was never there. Eventually gave up. I'm still active but do exercise less. Now that I'm in my 40s, without a breakthrough similar to this story I doubt I will ever be below 200lbs again and still in the obese range for BMI.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:Another excuse? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Laziness and/or lack of discipline is the reason for being over weight.

      So which are you then? lazy or undisciplined (martial arts fail?)

      The opening to your previous post certainly sends a different message than you intended. I agree that healthy is quite possible even for someone who is deemed overweight. Personally I have always been overweight, even when I used to have time to bicycle 10-20 miles a day (easily exdhausting friends who were near their ideal weight and so deemed 'healthy').

    14. Re:Another excuse? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Laziness and/or lack of discipline is the reason for being over weight.

      So which are you then? lazy or undisciplined (martial arts fail?)

      I am both of those things. I agree my choice of words were poor. When i say over weight, I was really meaning obese, such as I was not so long ago. It definitely detracted from my point, which was to say that A) It wasn't until I had a reason to really want it that I was able to start living a healthy life style, and B) There are some advantages to being a big guy who eats well and exercises.

      Having a night to sleep on it, I suppose I should consider myself lucky that my only excuse was my own lack of will. It was inconsiderate of me to think that everyone is so lucky.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    15. Re:Another excuse? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's only been a year and I'm down to 235.

      Come back and let us know what your weight is after 5 years.

      Many people can lose in the short term on diets and or exercise. Even out to a year. Few keep the losses in the long term.

      It's way too early to be smug at only a year.

  4. Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm thinking increasing usage of Hand sanitizer is killing our gut bacteria. Is there any correlation to this ?

    1. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alcohol is hand sanitizer number one

    2. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking no.

    3. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm thinking increasing usage of Hand sanitizer is killing our gut bacteria

      So you're the reason the bottle says "for external use only" on it...

    4. Re:Hand Sanitizer by hduff · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking increasing usage of Hand sanitizer is killing our gut bacteria. Is there any correlation to this ?

      I blame it on Jenny McCarthy.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    5. Re:Hand Sanitizer by transporter_ii · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. It's antibiotics. Blaming it on hand cleaner is like running your AC, but complaining about how much charging your cell phone is running up your electric bill.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/health/antibiotics-may-help-make-you-fat-studies-show-958812

      Could antibiotics make you fat?

      Two studies this week suggest that using antibiotics may save people’s lives, but could also change their metabolisms. Put together, the studies suggest that taking antibiotics might alter digestion to help people absorb calories from food they normally would be unable to digest.

      Every human carries pounds of microorganisms that we couldn’t live without. They break down food and extract nutrients like Vitamin K for us. Antibiotics will kill some of these beneficial organisms, which is why so many doctors now tell patients to eat yogurt after taking a course of the drugs, to replace some of the good guys.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    6. Re:Hand Sanitizer by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Not unless you are using it very wrong.

    7. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you aren't supposed to eat it

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It can certainly upset the ratio among hundreds of bacteria species in the gut.

      Another recent study showed blood cholesterol went way up in fat people who ate (fatless) meat, while it did not for vegan volunteers. They traced it to gut bacteria that processed carnitine and turned it into something that got absorbed and turned into cholesterol. Eat a lot and these bacteria multiply. The red meat itself may be a major cause of cholesterol, thus making "eat lean" not as good as you might think.

      Another study found certain gut bacteria actually stimulated a nerve that went to the brain that induced stress, which in turn leads to abdominal belly fat, which in turn correlates with both heart disease and Type II diabetes insulin resistance in cells. More research on this chain is sorely needed too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah good 'ol vitamin k.

    10. Re:Hand Sanitizer by metlin · · Score: 1

      There are any number of factors that could contribute to weight gain, but the most important of them all is poor diet.

      As long as your diet is in order and you are active, your body cannot magically consume more than what you're putting into it. Calories in vs. calories out.

      Ultimately, no matter what the other factors are, you are not going to gain weight by eating less. Sure, how your weight loss occurs, the distribution etc may vary based on genetics and other factors. But that it will occur is indisputable.

      I went from extremely active (i.e. rowing and rock climbing almost every single day) to being lethargic (desk job, lots of drinking) and gained ~35 extra lbs. This happened in my mid-late twenties, and I found that it significantly affected my metabolism.

      Getting my diet in checking and getting back into an active lifestyle (back to rock climbing, rowing, lifting, and running 3-4 days a week), I have noticed an increase in my own metabolism, and a change in terms of what I crave.

      Given my level of activity, I sometimes go into a buffet and pile on food because otherwise, I won't recover well enough, and risk injury (not to mention, I actually lose weight). Of course, people who do not know me well enough make fun of me and ask if I am "not on a diet anymore".

      I am always on a diet, but I like to think of it as a lifestyle -- because no matter what I eat, I watch my macros and track every morsel. And when I go over or under, I compensate. Eat too many carbs today? Eat less carbs tomorrow and more fat and protein. Go over my calories for the day? Run an extra few miles to compensate. Not enough protein this week? Make myself a few extra protein shakes. Drop in my squats or bench? Eat more. Drop in the size of my arms? Eat more, lift heavier.

    11. Re:Hand Sanitizer by eulernet · · Score: 1

      many doctors now tell patients to eat yogurt after taking a course of the drugs, to replace some of the good guys.

      As long as I remember, doctors always recommended to eat yogurt to rebuild the bacteria guts.

      However, there are 2 big problems with yogurts:
      1) they contain lactose, which is not as good as people believe. For example, if you have arthritis
      2) some of them contain bifidus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifidobacterium, and bifidus is used to fatten porks

      To rebuild guts bacteria, I read on a french site that you need to eat:
      1) less meat
      2) less dairy products (but more goat's and sheep's milk)
      3) more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts
      4) vegetable oil (preferably olive oil, walnuts and canola)
      5) less saturated fat
      6) and very little sugar

      About the antibiotics, I'm pretty sure that they are the cause of my gluten intolerance (I'm also allergic to lactose, with temporary side effects).
      When I was younger, a lot of illnesses were treated with antibiotics, and since they randomly kill species of guts bacteria, they change our metabolisms.

      I also believe that because our vegetables are heavily spread with pesticides, we need to peel them before eating.
      And from what I think, it's the skin that contains the most nutrients.

    12. Re:Hand Sanitizer by jamesh · · Score: 1

      There was a theory that hand sanitizer (or just excessive washing) causes microtrauma on the skin of your hands, which allowed food that you handled (eg gluten) into your body and your body could build up an immune response which becomes coeliac disease. That sounds a little far fetched but still vaguely plausible. Hand sanitiser killing gut bacteria sounds even more whacky.

    13. Re:Hand Sanitizer by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Could be any number of things... May be related to some bacteria symbiosis that is out of whack... Antibiotics could mess it up, or something that we usually don't consider infectious or harmful might decimate intestinal flora and leave us 'generally less healthy' to different degrees in each person.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    14. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could antibiotics make you fat?

      Very unlikely. We eat antibiotics only to cope with severe infections - something that doesn't happen every year. Even if our internal bacteria needs weeks to recover - we'll be normal most of the time.

    15. Re:Hand Sanitizer by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Studies show even taking antibiotics as a kid can make you fatter as an adult. You ever wonder why they give cattle antibiotics? I always thought it was to keep the cows from getting sick in the sorry conditions (factory farmed) cattle have to live in. May be some part of the equation, but they also do it to fatten them up:

      The nontherapeutic use of antibiotics is ingrained in livestock and poultry operations because producers believe that chickens, cows, and pigs—particularly those that are not healthy to begin with—gain weight faster when these drugs are added to their feed.*

      Some parents of kids -- especially those not healthy to begin with -- insist that the doctor give their kids antibiotics. A very large percentage of doctors will, even though they know they aren't needed.

      * http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    16. Re:Hand Sanitizer by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      1/ Eating makes you fat.

      2/ Buying a car makes you fat

      There is really not much else to it.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    17. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      HFCS.

      OK, probably not. But I'm avoiding it. Correlation is not causation but there's an awful lot of correlation going on.

    18. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotally, my metabolism's gone out of whack since I had to take two courses of powerful antibiotics for a serious infection about a year ago.

      I've put on 15 pounds and my, uh, digestive output hasn't been the same either despite no changes in diet and a modest increase in physical activity.

      I'd sign up for a fecal transplant now if I could, as I'm pretty sure wiping out my gut flora had something to do with that.

    19. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ironic because last year they were telling us it was Air Conditioning that was making us fat.

      What will it be next year?

      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=2120381&page=1#.T-M8FStYshc

    20. Re:Hand Sanitizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really isn't that simple. I know lots of people who eat and drive cars who are still thin, so your statements clearly don't account for people being fat, there really is more to it than your over-simplification.

  5. Mind over Matter by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I decide how much to eat and when, thus maintaining a healthy BMI and I get out and exercise frequently.

    BTW it's Friday, time for my customary run to the beer fridge.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Mind over Matter by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It isn't quite as easy as you might indicate.

      I'm 40 and eat a better balanced diet than when I was 20. I exercise, but weight has gradually increased over time. I was at the bottom end of normal for what BMI charts say I should have been @ age 20. I am now about 15 lbs into the "overweight". My doc says I am fine because I have more muscle, but he wants me to hold the line.

      I made some changes to exercise, working out 5 times a week in the morning and cutting out all soft drinks and after dinner snacking. I dropped 5 lbs in two weeks. i was hydrating a lot so it wasn't water that caused the drop.

      After two weeks, same diet same exercise I dropped 5 more pounds in two weeks. I was feeling great. I was hoping for another 10. But guess what? Two months later, same diet same exercise I didn't drop a single pound. I am not sure how to explain it. It is like my body reached a certain point and compensated for the caloric drop by going into a lower metabolism rate.

      When I was 20 I couldn't gain weight no matter what. Now, I know that 160# is a place that my body just doesn't want to drop below. I understand that I could increase exercise more or cut out even more food... but is it worth it?

      I am convinced that BMI might be a guideline, but it isn't gospel. I can still run a mile at a good clip and keep up with the kids. What am I gaining by dropping into a somewhat arbitrary scale if I am healthy already?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations and thanks for letting us all know you're not like those fat lazy people with no will or self control, since everyone who has weight issues clearly did it to themselves.

    3. Re:Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BMI is a guideline, but it's a poorly applied one. The scale is designed for comparing nursing home patients who are completely sedentary. If you walk a couple miles a day you're officially too active for BMI to make much sense.

    4. Re:Mind over Matter by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      BMI is a guideline, but it's a poorly applied one. The scale is designed for comparing nursing home patients who are completely sedentary. If you walk a couple miles a day you're officially too active for BMI to make much sense.

      I have people trying to argue with me all the time, regarding how much BS the BMI calculation is when they are an NFL nose tackle, capable of benching 500 lbs, but the numbers can't distinguish them from a fanboi who dines on Cheetos and Pepsi morning, noon and night.

      Total agreement, that's why Aerobic activity is included with BMI for a valid measure.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Mind over Matter by smaddox · · Score: 2

      If you really want to lose fat, supposedly strength training at ~80% your single rep maximum is the way to go. There's been some research that shows it's the most effective workout for weight loss. Depending on your current body type, you might add more muscle mass than you lose from fat, though.

      Also, cut out as much sugar (particularly fructose containing sugars) from your diet as possible.

    6. Re:Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm 40 and eat a better balanced diet than when I was 20. I exercise, but weight has gradually increased over time.

      I hope you realize that "eat a better balanced diet than when I was 20" and "I exercise" are merely indicators of the relative healthiness of your lifestyle, and in no way indicators that you have an objectively healthy lifestyle. If you used to eat fast food 5 times a week but cut it down to twice a week, that is still too much fast food. Same with exercise -- it is possible to do what many people consider exercise and accomplish practically nothing.

      BMI isn't gospel. But neither is "eat better" or "exercise".

      If you still live within the norms of American diet and activity levels -- i.e. most people wouldn't consider you a bit of a health nut -- the explanation for your lack of weight loss may simply be that you are consuming too many calories and not getting enough physical activity. Running one mile at a good clip may be an indicator that you are not drastically out of shape, but that is about it. Most people can't do it, but most people are drastically out of shape.

    7. Re:Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it is relative. That is the point of the OP. His relative healthy lifestyle is improving. His weight in increasing.

    8. Re:Mind over Matter by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I seem to have hit the reverse effect. About 10-20 years ago, I put on quite a bit of weight, but my weight has been the same for years (~ 200 pounds and I am 6'0) , despite not worrying about what I eat and without a significant amount of exercise.

      I don't understand what is going on, but I am very happy to not have significant weight gain for the past decade.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re: Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law of thermodynamics is only statistical. Local violations occur all the time. Relatedly, the universe is the ultimate free lunch, and dark energy disproves the law of conservation of matter and energy. In conclusion, stop using science to validate your inner meanness.

    10. Re:Mind over Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - you've convinced yourself that your diet is 'good enough' and your level of exercise is 'good enough'. Your body does not break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. When you stop losing weight, it's time to raise the bar.

    11. Re: Mind over Matter by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why is there no -1: airy-fairy nonsense mod?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. fat guys ... by vivek7006 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We need more butt fucking with thin women to spread gut bacteria!

    1. Re:fat guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're close, but wrong. Think about it a little more.

    2. Re:fat guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got very close to how I imagined how one's gut bacteria got into someone else's gut in the first place... French Ass-Kissing?

      Or did some researcher do the effective equivalent by packaging the bacteria ( along with its nutrient medium aka excreta ) in a gelatin capsule?

      I wonder if this study was the result of a dare to get someone to eat someone else's $#!+.

    3. Re:fat guys ... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I think you might want to revisit your anatomy class.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:fat guys ... by hduff · · Score: 1

      I think you might want to revisit your anatomy class.

      To get tips on advanced sexual techinues?

      That's why we have the Internet and Google.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    5. Re:fat guys ... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      So where is that guy who always talks about eating out people's assholes? The ONE TIME he would be on topic...

    6. Re:fat guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much in it for the guy doing the poking I guess, but if he has multiple partners, you could call it a form of pollination.

    7. Re:fat guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how would that benefit a fat guy who is not involved in bisexual threesome?

    8. Re:fat guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're willing to fuck their arsehole with your tongue. I've heard rimming (the act of licking around the arsehole) is quite pleasurable for the receiver, but I've never been willing to test that out.

  7. Ayn Randius Greedatoria by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I'm chubby because I have socialist bacteria in me? I'm gonna hafta swallow a little Fox News TV for the buggers.

    1. Re:Ayn Randius Greedatoria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, same story as usual: you're fat because you have no self-discipline keep putting food into your greedy mouth.

    2. Re:Ayn Randius Greedatoria by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What are you, my wife?

  8. Extracting nutrients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If gut bacteria extracts more nutrients, doesn't this mean that the body would absorb more calories and gain weight?

    1. Re:Extracting nutrients by PPH · · Score: 2

      From my understanding of the article, more efficient gut bacteria convert food into forms more readily burned and less stored as fat.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Extracting nutrients by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's what I was curious about. Obviously, there's something more going on here, because it's not the amount of food you eat, or even the type, that determines if you get fat, it's what sort of surplus or deficit you're running after the food gets digested that ultimately matters.

      And more efficient or less efficient bacteria would only dictate how much food you would have to consume to absorb a certain number of calories, not how much of it winds up being stored as fat.

  9. My new motto by Subacultcha · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not fat. I'm just more efficient at extracting nutrients than you.

    1. Re:My new motto by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I'm not fat. I'm just more efficient at extracting nutrients than you.

      Therefore you should eat less as your very efficient metabolism means you waste less

      Good for you.

      I have one of those darn inefficient metabolisms and eat like a chowhound without gaining a pound.

      are you going to do anything with that 50lb sack of sugar?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re: My new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      backwards

    3. Re:My new motto by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Informative

      You might wat to brush up on the reading skills. Skinny people have the more efficient bacteria.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:My new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it true that you consumed a ten-pound bag of flour when no other food was available?

    5. Re:My new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might wat to brush up on your sense of humor skills...

  10. Who is really healthy though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are the thin people actually healthy or are they just... thin. When they hit old age will they have the energy to climb a flight of stairs, or will their gut bacteria be eating it all?

    Obesity is supposed to be adaptive, right? What if the conditions for which it's adaptive (long periods of little food) occur? Who will be the better survivors. Don't think it can't happen here. We're just one Monsanto fuck-up, a war, and dictatorship away...

    1. Re:Who is really healthy though? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Obesity isn't supposed to be adaptive. Humans evolved during a time when we couldn't know when our next meal was coming and so we go to be very efficient at storing the excess fat. The problem is that people generally eat 3 times a day, or more, regardless of whether or not they're hungry. And when they do eat, they tend to eat more than what they need to survive.

      In the conditions we evolved in, the effect over all is that we wouldn't wind up obese because we wouldn't get to over eat endlessly, at some point we'd spend a period starving and burn the calories.

      Also, our ancestors spent a lot less time with butt planted in chair, if the wanted to sit, most of the time they would just crouch. Even today, it's common for people in the developing world to crouch for long periods of time.

    2. Re:Who is really healthy though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, our ancestors spent a lot less time with butt planted in chair, if the wanted to sit, most of the time they would just crouch. Even today, it's common for people in the developing world to crouch for long periods of time.

      But in some primitive societies, if you were any good at trapping or fishing, or had enough luck with large game, you could also afford to be a "lazy ass" by modern standards. (Just sit there biding time waiting for the game to come to you.) And if you lived in a place with the right climate, edible plants would be around for the picking provided that they're not over-harvested. In such cases the only things that would honestly keep you busy is doing stuff to impress the ladies or perhaps trying to intimidate the tribe on the other side of the island by building stone monuments or whatever.

    3. Re: Who is really healthy though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tasks like getting water from a stream require more energy, or vacating one's bowels while squatting.

    4. Re:Who is really healthy though? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I take it you're not a hunter and don't do any fishing. Even in the 21st century we don't really have the luxury of biding our time if we're depending upon that next deer for sustenance. The only reason why hunters obsess about the rack size on that deer is because they have alternate sources for food.

      Likewise, a fish finder will give you an indication that there are fish there, but if they're not interested in biting, it's a moot point.

  11. What other factors ... by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

    Curious but not entirely unexpected. We are only beginning to understand the microbiome, but clearly it is important.

    I wonder if cold weather might affect our gut bacteria too. I have unintentionally lost a good deal of weight in a short time in a cold, dry environment (at least 30 pounds in three months), but regained it when returning to a hot, humid climate. Of course, the cold weather also burned more calories - but I also ate a good deal more than usual. More notably, I note that people living in hot, humid environments often tend to put on weight more than those in colder climates - but there are likely many other factors.

    1. Re:What other factors ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting you are looking at climate when the difference is really the location and its other cultural differences. In the past, I've noticed the exact opposite: lots of fat people in cold climates (in Western countries) and lots of skinny people in the tropics (in the developing world). But you see the correlation breaks down if you look further and notice lots of fat people wherever they are given sedentary lifestyles and a surplus of food, versus lots of skinny people wherever they are physically active or have less food.

  12. Re:My new motto ... is bass ackwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not fat. I'm just more efficient at extracting nutrients than you.

    I conclude fat people do not know how to read and comprehend.

  13. I hit 190 and stay there by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    even with 200+ miles on a bike a week I won't go below that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      even with 200+ miles on a bike a week I won't go below that.

      Math doesn't argue, you're taking in what you burn in Calories. You are not keeping that weight on by inhaling too much air.

      When I rode a road bike I was always around 165. Now I'm about 190, but don't get that level of aerobic workout anymore. But I remember well how much I ate and how I went to bed hungry so I wouldn't be towing a 5 extra pounds of lard up some of the California hills.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by pepty · · Score: 1

      math doesn't argue: if you lose a significant amount of weight (~10% of your bodyweight or more) your basal metabolism drops and your appetite increases: you will burn fewer calories for a given activity level. You undergo hormonal changes related to those experienced by people who are starving. You have to keep the weight off for six months to a year or more before your body considers your situation to be "normal" again. During that time you will burn fewer calories at a given activity level than someone who is identical to you except that they never gained/lost that weight. So yes, there is a reason it's hard to lose more than a little weight, and it's even harder to keep it off.

    3. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try a keto diet, try alternating diets every couple of months to break plateaus. Calories in vs calories out is like saying "2+2 is 4" it's true but it's uselessly obvious, you have to realize that we were hunter gatherers before we were farmers and 10000 years of evolution isn't going to change the fact that our gross physiology is optimized to handle lots of fat, some protein, and a little bit of carbs.

    4. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by metlin · · Score: 1

      Math doesn't argue, you're taking in what you burn in Calories. You are not keeping that weight on by inhaling too much air.

      This. As long as you're in a caloric deficit, get enough protein (~1g/lb of lean body mass), and engage your muscles (I prefer to lift + rock climb + row), then you will shed the fat.

      As long as you're engaging your muscles and giving them enough protein to recover, your body will simply burn the fat.

    5. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by metlin · · Score: 1

      Here is the simple solution:

      1. Calculate what your TDEE is (not just your BMR), based on your level of activity. As you lose or gain weight, make sure you calculate your TDEE.accordingly.

      2. If you eat more, burn more. As simple as that. It comes down to how anal you are (e.g. even if it's 2 am at night, I try and run off my excess calories for the day), but basically ~3500 calories = 1 lb.

      3. So, now, if you're gaining weight, then, cut your calories until your weight is stable. Then decrease by ~500 calories a day (either by eating less or by burning more) and you will see a drop.

      4. You won't see your weight drop instantly -- what typically happens is that you'll see a "whoosh". Your weight will remain unchanged for 3-4 weeks, and then it suddenly drops by a lot.

      5. Staying active -- i.e. lifting regularly, doing cardio, and generally being not lethargic -- helps raise your TDEE.

      6. Consuming enough protein to make sure your body can heal itself and can keep the muscle mass (~1g/lbm) will mean that when your weight drop, it's mostly fat loss and not fat and muscle loss.

    6. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpler idea: starve yourself on two non consecutive days a week by eating only 500 (600 for men) calories.

      That is it, no other rules.

      For me it is much easier to follow then normal continues dieting where I am hungry all the time, with this I am only hungry 2 days a week.

      Interestingly a calorie restrictive diet like this has health benefits beyond those from just loosing the weight. When your body gets really hungry it starts to repair its cells instead of simply replacing them by cell division, this may help you from preventing cancer for longer. Also when you're hungry you become more alert and feel more fit, you will actually grow more neurones and may prevent Alzheimer's for a longer time.

      Watch "eat fast and live longer" before you start this diet it will give a good incentive to do this.

    7. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you're in a caloric deficit,

      This is always true eventually, conservation of energy and all. But what it takes to be caloric deficit for different people can vary a lot, and that has a big impact on the practicality and long term effectiveness of a regiment.

    8. Re:I hit 190 and stay there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math doesn't argue because it knows it doesn't have the answers to this question. Math is smart enough to understand when a situation has many variables. You should learn from Math.

  14. Conclusion Makes No Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    So the mice became obese after being injected with gut bacteria from obese people. But the mice that were injected with gut bacteria from non-obese people did not. Or put another way, before the injection the mice were not obese, and after the injection the mice were still not obese. Since those mice experienced no change whatsoever, it makes no sense to conclude that the non-obese bacteria is more efficient at extracting nutrients. If that was the reason for the change, shouldn't there be some difference after the injection of the non-obese bacteria?

    1. Re:Conclusion Makes No Sense by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The difference is not "more efficient than normal mouse gut bacteria" but "more efficient than obese human gut bacteria." If the mouse gut bacteria and the non-obese human gut bacteria have equal efficiency then you wouldn't expect a change in the mouse weight.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  15. Correlation is not causation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh, goody, it's another one of those dumb-ass "it's not my fault" articles that tries to excuse fat fucks for being fat fucks.

    Here's a clue: it's not your gut bacteria, you're not big boned, you don't have an impossibly rare medical condition: you eat too much and never exercise.

    Stop trying to find bullshit medical reasons, take on some personal responsibility, eat right, exercise daily, and you'll find that - gasp - it really was your own fucking fault!

    OK, so we've determined that the gut bacteria in a fat fuck is different from that in a healthy person. Great. Have we demonstrated yet that it isn't just the bacteria has adapted to living in a fat fuck? Because my money is on the bacteria adapting to its surroundings rather than the other way around. Give it too many nutrients (overeat) and it'll stop wasting as much energy extracting nutrients. Do the opposite, and it'll have to adapt to survive.

    Or, to put it another way: correlation is not causation.

    1. Re:Correlation is not causation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. You useless post deserves to be -1.

    2. Re:Correlation is not causation... by dfsmith · · Score: 2

      Here's a clue: [rant deleted]: you eat too much and never exercise.

      To quote the article:

      Mice with the obese twin's bacteria became heavier and put on more fat than mice given bacteria from a lean twin - and it was not down to the amount of food being eaten.

      Next please....

    3. Re: Correlation is not causation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a bet - the parent was posted by a self-hating fat fuck!

  16. And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by dmt0 · · Score: 0

    And how do you cultivate good bacteria?
    Don't eat junk.

    1. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And how do you cultivate good bacteria?

      Don't eat junk.

      Stardocking.
      Google it.

    2. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      Get a transpoosion.

    3. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Buy some yogurt?

    4. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'll work, until you eat some bread with commercial thermophile yeast in it, that will suppress the microflora. And than you've got antibiotics in your milk. Than any time you combine food that takes long time to digest with sugars, you get fermentation, that destroys it again. Many other factors. Basically you need to have a pretty good diet overall to keep you gut microflora in good shape.

    5. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Stardocking.
      Google it.

      Is that a new show on SyFy?

    6. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I was joking, I meant the bacteria *in* the yogurt, not necessarily after you eat it.

    7. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god no! Don't google it!

    8. Re:And how do you cultivate good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how ricing my PC is going to make me lose weight.

  17. Read the paper, it's not just correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By careful work with mice, their experiment does indeed demonstrate causation. It was a very clever series of experiments, which is probably why it was accepted into the journal Science. Step back a bit and think: how likely is it that reviewers for Science--probably some of the world's top scientists--missed something as basic and as obvious as correlation != causation?

    By the way, this subject seems to generate an angry, viceral reaction for you. Why is that? Does your self-worth revolve around feeling superior to fat people?

    1. Re:Read the paper, it's not just correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By careful work with mice, their experiment does indeed demonstrate causation.

      Bullshit it did. It showed that moving fat fuck bacteria into a mouse can make the mouse gain weight. Which is nice to know, but it doesn't demonstrate the same fact in people and it also doesn't demonstrate that you're not seeing a feedback effect, just like you do with antibacterials and bacteria.

      I suppose I shouldn't be surprised your fatass brain can't grasp this, but I'll try anyway: you have gut bacteria. Some of it is very efficient at extracting nutrients, some of it isn't. In a fit person, only the efficient ones can survive, because there aren't enough nutrients for the inefficient ones. In the fat fuck, both can survive, but the inefficient ones probably outbreed the efficient ones because the more efficient ones have to lose something in the process.

      So you move fat fuck bacteria to a mouse, it doesn't extract as many nutrients, allowing the mouse to gain weight. Great - sounds plausible.

      But does that mean that it's the bacteria making the fat fuck fat? Fuck no!

      It's the sedentary lifestyle and the poor eating habits. Period.

      And that very well could drive a feedback loop, making it easier for someone who is fat to stay fat. Which still makes it entirely their fault for becoming fat in the first place and not stopping the feedback loop before it really started.

      By the way, this subject seems to generate an angry, viceral reaction for you. Why is that? Does your self-worth revolve around feeling superior to fat people?

      Don't worry, I already know I'm superior to fat people, because I have self control. No, what gets the angry reaction is our culture of "feel good, not-my-fault"-ism where we try and deflect personal responsibility for everything and blame anything and everything we can for our own failings. "Oh, it's not my fault I'm fat, it's my gut bacteria!" Bullshit. Take responsibility for your own poor life choices.

      You know what would be an interesting example of correlation? The correlation between the "self esteem" movement and obesity, because you can bet there is one.

    2. Re:Read the paper, it's not just correlation by NoZart · · Score: 1

      i am slightly overweight. i live a sedentary lifestyle. i feel pretty good about myself because i don't feel the pressure to conform to some arbitrary comicbook idealisation of what "looks healthy".
      and i don't feel the need to belittle people living another lifestyle.

      you have good self control? good for you. now go work on stuff like "respect" and "not being a douchebag about things" because that's where you are sorely lacking.

    3. Re:Read the paper, it's not just correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the sedentary lifestyle and the poor eating habits. Period.

      ...and you can say this without feeling like your logic was simply made up in order to bring the conclusion right back to where you want it? Interesting...

  18. Backwards conclusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be reversed? Seems to me that obese people could be extracting more energy from their food, leading in part to their obesity. Thin people might be getting less caloric content which would contribute to their thinness.

    tl;dr

    I'm still not clear on how the gut bacterial transfer helps decide matters.

  19. So obese people should eat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So according to the article obese people should essentially start eating and drinking yogurt as opposed to say greasy cheese burgers? I couldn't agree more.

  20. Parasites keep you thin. by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    It has long been recognized in farming that parasites keep animals thin. Same for people. Gee!

    1. Re:Parasites keep you thin. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Intestinal flora are NOT helminths.

  21. evolutionarily by stenvar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In evolution, one of the biggest threats to humans was starvation. So, what we consider a fat-causing problem these days probably used to be a big evolutionary advantage at some point.

    1. Re:evolutionarily by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Through most of human history, being plump was considered attractive. Food was hard enough to come by that most people were thin. Being fat meant you were well fed, and thus affluent. So people considered obesity to be attractive, thinness to be unattractive. The reversal came about only when average productivity increased to where nearly everyone could afford all they wanted to eat, and affluence was exhibited via other ways - like luxury cars, designer suits/dresses, rolex watches, Apple products, and current-gen 3D video cards. Well ok, maybe not the last one quite yet.

    2. Re:evolutionarily by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Laugh at fatties now, but only they will survive the Apocalypse.

    3. Re:evolutionarily by symes · · Score: 1

      This is a good point - we have to be careful about how we interpret observations. Science can be easily swayed by social norms, if we are not too careful.

    4. Re:evolutionarily by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Through most of human history, being plump was considered attractive. Food was hard enough to come by that most people were thin. Being fat meant you were well fed, and thus affluent. So people considered obesity to be attractive, thinness to be unattractive. The reversal came about only when average productivity increased to where nearly everyone could afford all they wanted to eat, and affluence was exhibited via other ways - like luxury cars, designer suits/dresses, rolex watches, Apple products, and current-gen 3D video cards. Well ok, maybe not the last one quite yet.

      This is still true among North Koreans. Being told you have lost weight is considered an insult - that you're poor.

    5. Re:evolutionarily by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Probably true for Summo wrestlers as well, but I don't know that for sure.

    6. Re:evolutionarily by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      No, obesity wasn't considered attractive. Having some fat, not being a scarecrow, etc, were considered attractive, but obesity to the point where one couldn't even move without mechanical assistance has never been the standard for attractiveness. Michelangelo's "Venus de Milo", Botticelli's "Birth of Venus", and most other artwork of Venus and other ideal figures of beauty are quite far from obese. Even many of the "Mother Goddess" figures from the Upper Paleolithic aren't obese, merely very obvious in their fertility attributes (very large hips, obviously pregnant, large breasts) or exhibiting signs of nutritional stress causing the large buttocks (steatopygia.) EG the Venus of Dolni Vestonice.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:evolutionarily by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      This isn't some superficial function. This is all about reproductive fitness. If you can't afford food when food is scarce, your reproductive fitness is lower - you may not be able to support that child. If you can't afford to be or control yourself to be thin when the health risk is an overabundance of food, than you may not be able to successfully raise that child, too.

      When it comes right down to it, visual indicators of reproductive fitness are considered attractive.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  22. Learn to toss salid anyone??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what your telling me is if I want to loose weight all I need to do is get a skinny Girl(s) and start tossing some salad???
    Momma always said eat more salid.

    Being Slashdot a sticking to diet is probably statically more likelyr???

    1. Re:Learn to toss salid anyone??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me again. On a more serious note this might explain why sometimes when a skinny dates a fatty on of the persons weight changes in the direction of the other. Keeping another persons gut flora out of your body when your living with them is probably neigh imposable.

    2. Re:Learn to toss salid anyone??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I atrocious spelling resulted in weight loss, you'd be anorexic.

  23. Don't they have that backwards? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    If gut bacteria from slim people actually extracted more nutrients from food, bacteria would need less food to extract the calories and nutrients from that food (since they are more efficient) than the gut bacteria from fat people. This makes no sense since it is well documented that slim people can eat more food and not gain weight than fat people can.

    This only stands to reason that the gut bacteria from FAT people extract more nutrients from food and are more efficient, extracting more calories from that food, thus leading to needing less food before the fat people become, well, fat....

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Don't they have that backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, gut bacteria in fat people are simply picky and select the healthiest nutrients like protein/fiber and leave sugars/fats to the fat guy. Imagine having a full gut of bacterial bodybuilders. Try to carry any protein past them into your blood if you dare.

    2. Re:Don't they have that backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing the gut bacteria with the human. If the gut bacteria extract a lot of energy from the food, they use that energy to multiply. The energy isn't released to the human. They are helping you digest food, but they are also competing with you for the energy. If they get more, you get less.

  24. The perfect symbiotic relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thin women who throw up to stay thin, are wantonly throwing away great bacteria that others could use to stay thin also!

    Bag it up and sell it off, it's the right thing to do.

  25. Dr Pepper Ten is cheaper than Dr Visit by tepples · · Score: 1

    Sodas are bad for you because they contain ~32 grams of sugar per 12 oz can

    Dr Pepper Ten has less than one-tenth of that. I drink diet soda because it's cheaper than prescription stimulant or NRI medication.

    1. Re:Dr Pepper Ten is cheaper than Dr Visit by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Now we know you're lying.
      No one drinks Dr Pepper Ten.
      That *hit is nasty.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  26. Awesome by Anarchduke · · Score: 2

    So if I cut open a skinny person and eat their entrails, I will lose weight?

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to eat it without cooking them first, then maybe, you'll probably want to take a course of anti-biotics first though, to clear out your own resident gut bacteria. That said you can get their gut bacteria without killing them.

  27. Wouldn't it be the other way around? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Is fatness a sign of inefficiency or efficiency?

    If I went back 50 thousand years and saw two guys... a fat guy and a skinny guy... which would I assume was more prosperous? The association of fatness with poverty, ill health, etc is a modern association born of our great resources.

    A man that needed 10,000 calories a day simply to survive could live in our society rather easily. However, 50,000 years ago he'd be a dead man.

    Today, the standard of health is not what it was in our genetic past. That is not to say that the standard is wrong or that people that are skinny are TODAY healthier. However, implying that the fat people have less efficient digestive systems implies that somehow people are getting fat while extracting less from their food. Well... how did they get fat then?

    Its possible I'm reading the wrong things into this and they're implying that the fat people NEED to eat more to get their base nutrition which leaves them with excess empty calories which leads to obesity. However, the experiment said they fed both sets of mice the same food. Which means Mouse 1 got fat on food X and Mouse 2 did not. Well where did those extra calories the skinny mouse got go if not into fat? Me thinks the little stinker pooped them out which doesn't seem like efficiency.

    Possibly the solution here is to have a LESS efficient digestive system. Lots of dieting drugs effectively do that. I think there was one that made it hard for people to metabolize fat. It worked apparently... but had the unfortunate side effect of causing people to lose bowl control as an oily mess exploded from their rectums. I tried to put that both accurately and maturely... but... its not easy.

    Look, I'm just pointing out the logical incongruity here of saying that a more efficient digestive system leads to a skinny mouse. That makes no sense.

    In any case, great research... I await the bacterial transplants that will let us all eat like pigs while still looking smoking in our bathing suits.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Wouldn't it be the other way around? by ledow · · Score: 2

      "However, implying that the fat people have less efficient digestive systems implies that somehow people are getting fat while extracting less from their food. Well... how did they get fat then?"

      Think of the word "efficiency". The useful energy they get from their food is less than the thin people. Thus, there is a lot more "waste" - both fecal waste and unwanted things making it into the body but NOT being used for energy (e.g. fat).

      It's not that they aren't eating the same things - it's that the thin people are able to digest smaller amounts of food to extract the same energy and thus avoid the by-products. In modern food, there's an awful lot of unnecessary fat. If you are processing that directly into energy, or not eating it, then you aren't storing it. If you aren't, then you're storing it as fat and therefore also need to eat more to get the same energy back. Which you also store as fat. And so on.

      If you were suddenly thrown back into the stone age and/or trapped on a desert island, what you want is to have a gut that turns most of what you eat into energy (fat is not energy, except indirectly and at a later date, and at great cost - else fat people would be able to run marathons with their energy stores) with almost no waste. Efficient.

      About the only advantage of fat storage is heat insulation (e.g. being thrown into an ice age / mountain environment), but that's actually not as good as just being able to get more energy out of the food you DO eat (because then you eat less, so your food store lasts longer, and you generate more internal body heat from it). You do lose lots of weight very quickly if you go to the Arctic, and it's something we've only been able to do very recently because of the available clothing and shelter and most importantly high-energy foods. Do if you look at the people going there or living there, they are NOT obese.

      Fat is not a directly useful energy store. So in terms of efficiency, generating fat is a waste. It's what your body does only in the presence of excess nutrients that it can't process and serves little useful purpose because, archaeologically, we never had exposure to, nor a need, for that much energy in our food. It's basically an overload of a system that has never been able to get that amount of energy for a sustained time historically. Fat helps a little if you have a single binge (e.g. killing a large animal) followed by a fast and the food would otherwise go off, but it's not a good use of the energy otherwise.

      Efficiency is quite important, both in antiquity and modern days. If you can eat less now and get the same energy from it, your food stores last longer, and you need to "hunt" less, which gives you time to do other things. And let's not get into the efficiency of trying to "hunt" or "forage" with fat stores that are classed as obese.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be the other way around? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      "Think of the word "efficiency". The useful energy they get from their food is less than the thin people. Thus, there is a lot more "waste" - both fecal waste and unwanted things making it into the body but NOT being used for energy (e.g. fat)."

      Except for what are they actually getting from the food that fat people aren't?

      Do they have more energy? Are they using those calories for something? Because if they're just pooping the calories out that's not actually processing the food. That's just passing it through the digestive tract. By that logic, human beings are amazingly efficient at digesting cellulose. We don't metabolize it at all. It just passes right through our digestive system untouched.

      So if you had a cow eating grass... and getting fat off the grass. And you had a human being eating the same grass. Which of the two is more efficiently processing the grass?

      See, I would think it is the cow. It is after all getting something from the grass. And it is building up a reserve of energy in its body. Where as the human being is likely just making himself sick if anything.

      So going back to the skinny people, what are they getting from the food that the fat guy isn't? See, we have evidence that the fat guy is getting FAT. That's calories right there being stored in his body. That's the point of fat in the first place. It is a store of energy.

      So if the skinny guy is not only getting all the energy the fat guy is getting but EVEN MORE then where is it all going?

      See the problem?

      If guy A and guy B are eating the SAME amount of the SAME food and one gets fat and the other doesn't... how are you to say the fat guy has a LESS efficient digestive system.

      Lets back out again and think about this in an evolutionary context. 50,000 years ago which of the two people would likely have superior survival traits? The one that gets fat or the one that doesn't?

      I'll point out that this tendency to get fat seems to be an extremely common phenotype. It is expressed in most animals and humans amongst them. Which implies it is a survival trait. Which means the skinny gene is likely not a survival trait.

      That's speculation but I find it compelling.

      That fat slob eating pizza today would have been a different specimen 50,000 years ago. First, there would have been a lot less food. Second, there was no means to preserve food besides eating it and getting fat. Third, we lived much more physically active lives meaning we built up muscles and so while you might get fat there would be a lot more muscle under the fat. Sure, we all died at 30 from something but by the standards of most animals of our size and activity that's pretty good.

      As to what I'd want were I cave man, you seem to forget that we're opportunists by nature. We're not carnivores or herbivores but rather opportunist omnivores that will eat just about any high quality food source whatever its source. Furthermore, we not only can eat a varied diet but we MUST eat such a diet. Cows can eat grass all day. Wolves can eat meat all day. Omnivorous like ourselves, need lots of things.

      Consider what that means in an evolutionary context. We were hunter gatherers with a strong emphasis on the gathering. Even much of our prey were more gathered then anything. Shell fish for example aren't so much hunted as picked off the beach. And this behavior is unlikely to give you a constant source of energy especially not from any one source. Rather, you'll get little bits in varying concentrations and being able to store what you've eaten will be a big deal.

      We survived the ice age. The shelters made by people living in the ice, making homes out of mammoth bones and leather have been unearthed. There are fat times and lean times. You down a big animal and eat very well for as long as it lasts. And then its all gone or started to rot. And you might not get very much for some time. You'd rely on your gathering at that point. Eating roots, insects, whatever. And then you'd get lucky and get another big animal

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Wouldn't it be the other way around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe your question was answered in the BBC article which said:

      Overall it seemed those from a lean twin were better at breaking down fibre into short-chain fatty acids. It meant the body was taking up more energy from the gut, but the chemicals were preventing fatty tissue from building up and increased the amount of energy being burned.

      That is, the lean mice were more efficient at producing energy from food, but even more efficient and burning that extra energy and not storing it, thus keeping them lean. The extra calories were not just "pooped out", which actually contradicts the premise that they were more efficient at extracting the calories.

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be the other way around? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they weren't used or stored... so where did they go?

      The lean mouse did not have more energy then the fat mouse. And the lean mouse didn't store excess energy like the fat mouse. So... where did it go? If their ability to store fat was inhibited then that means the energy WOULD have been stored were the mice able to do so... but they couldn't so the energy was either wasted somewhere or excreted.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  28. Not a big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I read and saw a story about people who had a certain kind of cancer of the stomach and that a procedure destroyed the cancer, but also killed the bacteria in the gut, and in order to best restart their digestive system, they needed to eat ....a healthy person's poop. (Later they developed coated pill that was tasteless, and had everything properly needed to restart the bacteria in their gut. Now you tell me thin people absorb more nutrients and so less is stored and because its all absorbed, they feel full faster, fat people's guts absorb less, so more is stored, and they must eat more in order to feel 'full'.

  29. NOT NEW AT ALL. wake up dice! by gagol · · Score: 1

    Heard it on radio last year, not news. Also, gut bacteria is responsible for serotonine production (depression and food could be related)

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
    1. Re:NOT NEW AT ALL. wake up dice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you question Slashdot's editor's standards.

      Downvote this man!

      Oh.. it's already been taken care of.

  30. Finally an argument for ass-to-mouth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honey, its only so you can become as thin as your friend!

  31. No, I am not getting fecal transplant by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    No, I am not getting fecal transplant. Thank you.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  32. Wow, bacteria, eh? by intnsred · · Score: 1

    Great news! I can blame it on the bacteria!

    Because I thought I was fat from eating calorie-laden, fat-riddled, corporate-processed junk food and sitting on my ass all day.

    1. Re:Wow, bacteria, eh? by whodat54321b · · Score: 1

      Now we need to see about a parasite that just eats fat to complete the circle. I think they were discovered not that long ago, but follow up research isn't easily obtained yet. http://www.bentspud.com/2009/12/01/fat-eating-worms-offer-hope-for-obesity-sufferers/

  33. Fat shaming is effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to make fat people slimmer, fat shaming is effective. I doubt any kind bacteria makes people fatter. They're fat because they eat more than they spend.

  34. There's been more research on friendly flora by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    the last few years, with good reason.

    Medical intervention with antibiotics kills-off intestinal flora, and antibiotic levels in foods have risen over the last decade.

    The surface area of the digestive tract is around the size of 2/3rds a tennis court. This is an interface that has barely been studied, and most of the immune system in the form of the lymphatic system nodes is down there.

    It is a fact that fecal transplants have had a remarkable impact on the health of recipients that faced chronic illness. Once people get over all the potty humor and attempt some serious objectivity, it becomes very clear that intestinal flora is VERY significant.

    This study calls into question some long held assumptions about diet, weight, and the additives we put in our foods. This is really just the beginning of a new era in medicine, hopefully big industry and special interests won't fuck it up too badly.

  35. Or more accurately, Fatass's guts just dont bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course efficiency is going to drop like a stone if you have limitless raw resources to burn through. Most Fat Fucks and American have never been hungry a day in their lives.

    People really only need to eat once every day or so to keep their bodies fully functional.

  36. A solution is in sight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly I just need to approach a whole lot of slim girls and offer to rim their asses. I'm up for that!