Slashdot Mirror
Woman Suffers Significant Weight Gain After Fecal Transplant
Beeftopia (1846720) writes In a case reported in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases, a woman suffering from a drug-resistant intestinal infection gained 36 pounds after receiving a fecal transplant from her overweight daughter. Previous mouse studies have shown thin mice gain weight after ingesting fecal bacteria from obese mice. The woman previously was not overweight. After the procedure, despite a medically supervised liquid protein diet and exercise regimen, the woman remained obese. Her doctor said, "She came back about a year later and complained of tremendous weight gain... She felt like a switch flipped in her body, to this day she continues to have problems... as a result I'm very careful with all our donors don't use obese people."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Figure out which bacteria the obese patients have in common that the thin ones don't, and figure out a way to eliminate it.
How about a physically fit persons shit? I can donate a corn/jalapeno rich stool to any underweight or obese testers, hungry for a tasty change. I've been told it smells a bit like roses too.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Only eat at places run by skinny people.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
What in the name of god is a fecal transplant?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Yes.
After every meal, eat a skinny person's shit, and thereby retch up the food you've just eaten.
So, don't take any shit...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Yes. http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-to-weight-loss-might-be-poop-transplants-fro-1265888152
This is why you never go ass to mouth.
Being ill takes a lot of energy, being healthy again but still eating and exorsizing to the same level could result weight gain.
I would think a search though the data should start to answer this question. Or relationship with our gutflora is more complex than can be summed up. There may be lots of changes in peoples that could be made this way. More collecting of before and after facts (even things like concentration, strangth, dexterity) should be considered.
I was born with bad genes.
I will try anything to lose weight, except do exercise or cut down on food. If there's a new surgery to replace my fat generating parts, sign me up!
Now you have me wondering if we can make dumb people smart, and mean people nice. We may achieve world peace through fecal transplants.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You poop into my butt hole and I poop into your butt hole...
back and forth...
forever.
She wasn't overweight when she had a persistent intestinal infection and gained weight after it was cured. She might well be eating more simply because it doesn't cause her discomfort anymore, or her body uses fewer resources because it doesn't have to fight an infection, or her colon has become better at absorbing the nutrients in her food because it's no longer infected.
Worth looking into, but if your conclusion is that the bacterial composition in the colon makes people fat, you're getting ahead of yourself.
I know its a joke, but not really. At the end of the day, humans are just fairly complicated machines, or even just a big complex chemical reaction.
Pretty much everything we do comes from either training/uprising, or from some biological system or another. As time goes, we'll figure out all of the later...and statistics will take care of the former.
Will be a very boring world probably, but...
Huh. I wonder if a whole host of problems people have after major medical events can be attributed to a change in gut fauna triggered by antibiotics. My body has just been different after my emergency appendectomy.
Salad tossin; it's how you lose weight!
no text
I thought they were all lazy bastards, if they eat more calories then they burn in a day that's how weight gain occurs. How is this possible my world is crumbling! How will I make fun of all dwarf planets orbiting the aisles of my local Walmart if it's not really their fault?
dude the summary...
After the procedure, despite a medically supervised liquid protein diet and exercise regimen, the woman remained obese
More evidence to support my hypothesis that gut flora plays games with us. All it takes is one bacteria secreting a chemical that makes us feel like crap if we don't eat the sugars or whatever it craves and secreting something else that makes us feel good when we do.
Maybe resisting that sick feeling and staying on course means the rogue organism will starve to death?
There are gut flora organisms which can't be cultured outside the gut, or even outside certain portions of the gut. We don't know what a lot of them do, but there are something like 2kg (~4lb) of them in each of us. Being quite small, each of us is vastly outnumbered on the scale that war against these beasts is basically genocide (How To Make A Vegan Explode -101).
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
So that's the definition of 'humanitarian.' I always wondered about that.
If a fat person eats skinny people shit will they lose weight??
I don't know about that one, but having worms in your intestine can make you lose weight for sure.
See picture. It's just like a big bowl of yummy pasta!
The presence of gut bacteria with such high efficiency (they ones that make you fat by being too good at their job) won't be counter-acted by the presence of the less efficient variety.
What this means, though, is that I can no longer feel the familiar sense of derision for fat people. Their obesity really may be a product of their microecology, rather than their laziness and hedonistic eating habits. Now I have to feel pity for them instead.
I guess I can still feel superior to them, since I still am physically fit compared to them...I just can't feel like this was the result of superior decisions any more.
Oh well, there are plenty of other ways to save my fragile ego.
Why boring? We've established that psychopaths are far more successful in modern society, so obviously the first thing anyone who wants the best for their children should do is have them engineered for psychopathy. Empathy is for the weak. Should make things *extremely* interesting...
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Or it could be that the bacteria break down the nutrients that reach the intestines better so that it eases their absorption by the gut. It is well known for example that termites can only digest cellulose tanks to microbial flora.
s/tanks/thanks/g
Point taken. I stand corrected.
Couldn't resist :)
kapow!
I tried that with rice cakes once. It didn't work.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
the important question is did the procedure solve the intestinal problem?
best. comment. ever. top lel. 10/10.
I laughed out loud when I read your post.
Yes it's dumbfounding how far off someone can get when the damn cliffnotes-like-answer was posted bluntly a few sentences from the beginning. More worrying is that the individual then thought they had enough grasp to then "teach" this profound understanding to others, steering pockets of society in the wrong direction.
hsmith if you read this, please stop teaching others what you think you understand. damn.
All you fucking scientists that on one hand say that only calories count, and all fat people are in fact faggots.
"Scientists" don't say that, dipshits on the internet say that.
Ain't that some shit!
"as a result I'm very careful with all our donors don't use obese people."
As a result of one case? Without more proof that this was not a one off and is not related to something other than the transplant? I didnt read the article butthis is kind of how junk science comes about.
So don't take shit from fat people
We've established that psychopaths are far more successful in modern society, so obviously the first thing anyone who wants the best for their children should do is have them engineered for psychopathy. Empathy is for the weak
No, game theory tells us that sociopaths do well in a society that is primarily composed of non-sociopaths, but do not do so well in a society where they are the majority (and that society also doesn't do well as a whole).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Here's a link to the actual study.
In brief:
Woman weighed 136 pounds, daughter weight 140 pounds. After transplant from daughter to woman, she didn't return for 16 months (according to my reading of the article). The woman had gained up to 177 pounds, while the daughter gained up to 170 pounds.
So this is more a case report than an study. Journals are used for communication between professionals. This doctor is saying, "hey, something weird happened.....it might be a coincidence (there is a lot wrong with this woman), but keep an eye out for anything similar."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Which other diseases can you have with an unfortunate fecal transplant? Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, or Crohn's disease? Parkinson's disease can apparently be seen from the intestinal track 20 years before the symptoms come apparent.
BUT YOU Decide that maybe it is a good idea to shove some sterilized shit into someone gut
The whole point of the exercise is that it's unsterilized.
Also, only the gullible believe in "colon cleansings". You could get the same effect a lot cheaper by taking 2 bottles of Fleet, and you'll be clean as a whistle inside, but it won't improve your health.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Now you have me wondering if we can make dumb people smart
No, but you can make smart people dumb. Toxoplasmosis is spread via feces. It infects about 11% of Americans, and about 30% of people worldwide. It is correlated with lower IQ, and diminished curiosity. Infected rodents lose their fear of cats.
"See picture [ytimg.com]. It's just like a big bowl of yummy pasta!"
Thank you so much. I choose to believe that picture is of pasta carefully prepared by medical professionals, no matter what you say.
Fecal transfers, for people who give a shit.
There does seem to be a correlation between certain bacteria in the gut and obesity.
Part of the problem in determining what is cause and effect here is that most gut bacteria can't be cultured artificially in the lab. That ofc. means they can't really be studied.
Some gut bacteria are known to be beneficial for their host (Koalas can only survive eating the eucalyptus leafs they live off because of their gut flora. One of the first duties of a young Koala being carried by it's mom is to eat her poop to innocculate it's gut with the bacteria). So changes in metabolism due to bacteria in your gut are not only in the cards, but there is known precedence for it.
The role of the gut flora in health and illness is a pretty knew and hot research topic.
it's easy to test this hypothesis.
kill all gut bacteria from fat people and see if they thin in some cases.
and since in the usa almost everyone takes massive doses of antibiotics for even bad hair day, i think this is debunked with readily available data already.
I think you're confusing mental circuits with behavior. Successful people in today's society have reduced mental capacity to be inhibited by things like empathy, but they still (at least in many cases) do not act solely out of self-interest. There's always one group of people that thinks by simply ignoring the feelings of others they can reap their 'deserved' rewards of dominating society, but they are building a large-scale psychic tension that harms society, and ultimately, whatever these few egomaniacs have built for themselves.
top believing in science. Trust in logic and reason instead. (they r mutually exclusive).
This is true. Science is empirical, which means truth is a function of evidence. Rationalism is based around logic. The problem with empiricism is that your truth is only as good as your ability to measure it. The problem with rationalism is that it's easily possible to have a rational truth or system of truths that do not describe the real world.
some bullshit research made up by someone with an agenda to 'prove something scientifically'
Science doesn't prove things. It doesn't try to prove things. At best you can rule out alternative theories. But I'm sure you know better.
Great troll though. All of this talk about faggots has got me a bit turned on; mind if I stop by for a quick rimjob? Don't give me that look; I just want to help you lose weight...
Yes, it's worth looking into, but this particular story is not an all-else-equal observation. She did not just change the flora in an otherwise healthy gut.
I don't disagree - but we've got how many thousands of years of civilization under our belts? And the psychopaths are still on top.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society to provide even anecdotal experimental evidence for your claim? Theory is nice and all, but is notoriously inapplicable to human behavior.
Also, of what concern is that to the parents who can afford to have their children "enhanced"? All they have to do is ensure that most people can't afford "upgrades" and their children will make out like the bandits they were designed to be.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And I think I'm just about done with this world now.
Perhaps she mistook fecal matter for Bon Bons and underwent several dozen "transplants" per day.
So all those people who have been telling me to "eat shit" have just really been concerned about my health. Boy, have I completely misinterpreted that phrase!
There's a difference: people on the top are often psychopaths, but being a psychopath doesn't get you an automatic place on the top. There's only so much room there.
...Well, I'm not eating for the rest of the day.
Here's the Youtube video from which that image is from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We have the solution to world hunger!
The mass has to come from somewhere. That person might have had gut issues that allowed her to stay thin on a diet that'd represent a significant surplus over that of a normal person. Now with a proper working gut, food's being digested that was passed through before. So she ballooned.
That she however didn't slim down on a supervised medical diet, is just not possible. She probably cheated during that.
More excuses for fat people to keep stuffing themselves, because clearly their obesity is caused by anything but their diet!
I'm just about to have lunch, thanks.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society to provide even anecdotal experimental evidence for your claim? Theory is nice and all, but is notoriously inapplicable to human behavior.
I am not at all providing this as any evidence for the GP's claim, I'm just mentioning one of my favorite books by Frank Herbert; "The Dosadi Experiment". A planet full of sociopaths makes for a dangerous environment.
Now you have me wondering if we can make dumb people smart, and mean people nice. We may achieve world peace through fecal transplants.
That sounds like a load of crap...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
At the top perhaps, but there's *always* an "above my current position"*, and psychopathy seems to help with the climb. Sadly.
* Well, at least until you've become god-emperor.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You may find this article informative.
Calorie measurements of food are just estimates, the particulars vary. The gut bacteria of fat people absorb more of the available energy than that of skinny people, but our measurements of the calories in food aren't necessarily the max amount that could be absorbed.
To put it simply, fat people get more calories from the same food than skinny people, regardless of how many calories the label says the food has.
'Amount of empathy' is a scale. People at the bottom complain about everybody else. People at the top don't understand what everybody's complaining about. Most of us are in the middle, doing both things.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, according to TFA, she was overweight prior to the treatment, with a BMI of 26 (which is borderline overweight). So yeah, I think your explanation is probably the likely one.
What you're saying is absolutely correct and totally meaningless because you can't answer this question: how many calories do you burn every day?
We have estimates of what a normal healthy person burns on a daily basis but every person is different. I'm somebody who will, over time, gain weight, because what feels like the right amount of calories turns out to be more than what I actually need. On the bright side for me is that overall I seem to be near average in terms of what my body burns on a daily basis. So I can do the simple math of calories in and calories out and manage to lose or maintain weight. It sucks to have to do it, and I get lazy about it, but in the end, it's possible for me to do it.
For others, it's much harder. Their metabolism may be unnaturally low to begin with. As they try to diet, their metabolism can react and push them to burning fewer calories, having less energy, etc. It makes it very difficult for them to control their weight.
What's interesting about this article is that it provides a very good indicator for something that may be a factor in why this is harder or easier for people. That the biome in your gut could make a huge difference in your ability to maintain a healthy weight. There could be any number of factors at play there. Perhaps some microbe makes you hungrier so that it can get more energy? Perhaps obese people are able to extract more calories from food because of what's in their gut?
So yes, you are correct, but it's very hard for somebody to know exactly what their body burns and exactly what they put into their body.
Yeah, if you kill off all the existing gut microflora first. Some bugs are better than others in breaking materials down into absorbable nutrients. If you've got bugs that are particularly poor at breaking down stuff, you're going to have a had time gaining weight. If you've got much more efficient bugs, you're going to have a hard time losing weight.
The kinds of bugs living in the digestive tract varys widely from person to person.
No, game theory tells us that sociopaths do well in a society that is primarily composed of non-sociopaths, but do not do so well in a society where they are the majority (and that society also doesn't do well as a whole).
Please check your source on this, I do not think you can conclude that based on game theory, or even a reasonable application of game theory. Alternatively, how do you reach this conclusion?
That's the point, isn't it? There are no primarily psychopathic societies because they are unsuccessful -- they die out too quickly to create records.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's correlated with *increased* curiosity. Hence the loss of fear.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The obvious problem is that the transplant reduced her willpower.
The fact that a huge percentage of obese people 'suffer' from gut bacteria that split fibers into carbs is known since nearly 20 years. (I know it that long, so I guess the 'scientific community' knows it even longer)
I believe a doctor who is transplanting such bacteria should be aware of that ... and at least test the source first.
Playing dumb later is even worth.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
>It's just like a big bowel of yummy pasta.
There, fixed it for ya.
Your evidence please? I mean, it could be, just possibly, that we have never had such a society at all. A ridiculous claim, I know, except that psychopaths probably mostly all realize that non-psychopaths make much easier prey, and why would any predator want to leave a society of prey to join one consisting only of fellow predators who will have no one to prey on but each other?.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
http://youtu.be/8fgub5zkBVk
Perhaps that's why he said "game theory tells us."
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society to provide even anecdotal experimental evidence for your claim? Theory is nice and all, but is notoriously inapplicable to human behavior.
Lord of the Flies.
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
I know its a joke, but not really. At the end of the day, humans are just fairly complicated machines, or even just a big complex chemical reaction.
We are all just biological containers for our poop bacteria overlords.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There's quite a bit of animal data from controlled studies. You're right, this is just an anecdote, but it does suggest that the same things might be effective in humans.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Fiction need not apply.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
*sigh* Only idiots up vote links to business insider.
Prison? The psychos kill each other leaving the docile to just watch cuz they're no fun.
You do not gain 18 Kg of lipid tissues in short time with eating borderline normally. You have to eat way more than you need. It may be that some people have so inefficient guts that they metabolize their food badly, but the law on matter and energy conservation are still valid > when you get fat that quickly it is because you eat far more than you need and you do ntoyhing to rein yourself.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If a fat person eats skinny people shit will they lose weight??
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/curvytofat/?src=cb-dl-created
Yep, maybe the people who keep insisting that it is simply a matter of calories in vs exercise should do a study on the calories present in the waste of skinny people vs fat people. It could very well be that skinny people have less efficient digestive systems and more food is passing through undigested than with obese people.
I am not going to take any shit from you.
Then obviously fat people need to eat even less food than originally thought and much less than skinny people. The answer to weight gain is still diet and exercise even if the same diet doesn't work for two people. If you are able to pull more calories out of the same amount of food you may need to supplement with vitamins to get the needed amount but eating less is still the answer if you are over weight.
I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean, but mine just means, "hey, that reminds me of this great book!". As I said.
we may never know which came first.
Sorry, was meant to reply to the parent of your post.
No, game theory tells us that sociopaths do well in a society that is primarily composed of non-sociopaths, but do not do so well in a society where they are the majority (and that society also doesn't do well as a whole).
Your assumption of rational decision making is foolish. "I got mine, fuck you" means that the consequences are irrelevant until after they have already occurred. "Tragedy of the Commons" has a name for a reason.
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society to provide even anecdotal experimental evidence for your claim?
Congress?
sociopath check
dysfunctional check
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
I used to have a girlfriend who pronouned "bowl" that way.
You sound fat. Stop defending your gluttony and greed.
He LITERALLY does eat. L2Grammarz n00b.
This could be the first time that the opinion of someone who drinks poo is relevant, Drinkypoo. Carry on!
>> Now you have me wondering if we can make dumb people smart
> No, but you can make smart people dumb.
And, possibly, fat.
Occasionally, we might learn of a beach deemed improper because of the danger of getting fat.
This is middle ages technology
it's amazing how medical science is so advanced
and yet it still is learning simple things.
The AMA and doctors have the state sponsored monopoly on preserving and advancing medical science.
Sometimes I wonder if this is a good bargain.
Could you provide me some statistics that support that, please?
Way to deny the existence of free will. Saying that everything we do is just a function of nature vs. nurture doesn't account for the idea of volition. And if we don't have a choice over what we do, the entire concept of ethics and justice becomes nonexistent. You don't put asteroid into jail for killing someone(as unlikely as it may be) because an asteroid doesn't have a choice. We put people in jail for murder because, at some point, they made a decision to murder another person. If murder is simply a function of nature and/or nurture, the person can't be held accountable for their crime, and thus they cannot be justly punished.
Sure, there is a lot than can be accounted for by nature/nurture, but that view of humanity is incomplete. Accounting for the ability to choose is what completes it, and we need to keep that in mind in order to not throw meteorites in jail and otherwise maintain the possibility of order and sanity in society.
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
That was my point exactly: This anecdote provides too little data to say that it suggests a particular cause-effect relationship. It leaves room for that explanation, but there are several other (I'd say more) plausible explanations for the observed symptom under these circumstances.
The recommendations for healthy eating and weight loss are all over the place. There are myriads of dietary approaches, often contradictory, and even the targets for weight, body fat, etc. are inconsistent. Actual science for once instead of jumping to conclusions again and again would really help. If people start swallowing shit pills instead of probiotic yogurt and in a couple of years it turns out that it was all for naught, there's going to be a real shit storm.
Even if it's delivered to your location via... stool pigeon?
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Probably referring to the Prisoner's Dilemma which is a payoff matrix that results in trusting players doing better than rational players.
Certainly, we should all be celebrating the diversity of gut flora brought to all shores of all nations by all shores of all other nations. Let us not permit this minor incident to instill in anyone the virulent notion that "obesity epidemic" is but a poorly chosen metaphor for the lazy stupid fat citizens of the US who should be replace by vibrant immigration.
Seastead this.
She's full of shit.
What? Full of Shit?
Free will is an illusion and the 'ability to choose' is a legal and social construct. You are wrong.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society...?
Jeeze, all of 'em. Try to understand how irrational people are, one of the things that make psychopathic charisma so effective. It's why the whole concept of economic and most social studies are a complete fraud. If the world wasn't ruled by psychopaths, we would be at total peace with each other, with little more bickering than who gets to have the car on Friday night. I consider that pretty good evidence of your 'psychopathic society'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Oh no, that's where you're wrong. The republicans wear the red noses for hire. The democrats are the charismatic, and very deceitful psychopaths, playing the weakling like everything is out of their control and therefore must 'compromise' with the other side.
OK, so here is the obvious thing. If you have a life saving procedure that kills all the bacteria in your gut, and you then suffer horribly because your gut bacteria is gone (and the list of ailments is long), instead of more, highly invasive and dangerous, procedures, doctors are giving people a pill which contains the bacteria of another persons gut. They used to give them feces (poop) but most people would object, so they process it, remove the water and the smell, and then turn it into a coated pill. You taste and smell nothing. And the recoveries have been immediate and permanent. But people are becoming fat because donors might be overweight. So they screen to avoid that. Ok Doctors, here's the BIG FAT hint. If some people are getting fat after ingesting someone else's gut bacteria, then the problem isn't in screening, the problem is a component of the gut bacteria. Find out what that component is, and remove or restrict it, and then both the donor, *and* the contributor will be skinny. OBESITY is a HUGE problem. If its caused by gut bacteria, then FUCKING FIND THE COMPONENT IN THE GUT BACTERIA AND FIX IT!!!!! Instead of weight loss programs, diet and diet and diet and diet and exercise till you're muscles are burning and your body is breaking and you still can't take off the weight, change the gut bacteria. There is a component in gut bacteria that is *HIGHLY* suspected in causing autism. For hundreds of years doctors didn't believe that bacteria could live in the gut and believed stomach ulcers ware caused by too much acid (overproduction). It wasn't until they heard the words "heliobactor pylori" and saw evidence did they start to believe (and many still didn't for years). There is a component in your gut that can cause autism, there is a component in your gut that makes you fat, and there are bacteria that can live in hydrochloric acid and thrive. Research the problem, find the problem, fix the problem.
Toxoplasmosis is spread via feces....
It's correlated with *increased* curiosity.
Ahhhh, it all makes sense now.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My first thought was.. how much did they stuff in her??!?!
That's some heavy shit.
Thats already an issue. Lots of people don't end up in jail because of "they had mental issues!! omgomgtheyarevictims!" or they did what they did because they had a tough childhood and somehow its a factor that reduces their sentence.
The most we discover, the worse it gets. You have the ability to choose, of course. But what do you think makes your choices, beyond outside factors/uprising + hormones/biology/etc.
Hell, how well you slept last night probably affects your choices more than free will ever did.
You're saying that you have no right to seek justice, or even care at all, if someone tortues and/or murders your family, simply because that person had absolutely no choice in the matter, no more than a rock can stop itself from falling. Just making sure you understand the logical implications of your determinism here.
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
> I am not going to take any shit from you.
Fine. See if I give a shit!
Chechnya is run by a psychopathic culture. Result: violent and underdeveloped country. Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Same. The lucky ones have oil, that's about it.
Except the physical amount of food they need to eat is so small that eating the "right" amount leaves them feeling ravenous all the time.
The feedback mechanism from their stomach is out of touch with their intestines.
Imagine if you suddenly only needed 3 table spoons of food per day to keep your body running and anything else was stored as fat.
You'd feel terribly hungry all the time.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's the delivery method, stupid! The shit hit the fan, is all.
Truly it is! There is a lot of noise recently about healthy gut and its profound influence on almost every aspect of our health. Good!
Back in the days of my biotechnology college education I learned a profound truth that I forgot for many years after that [partially because I went off doing physics and chemistry instead], until my own health got damaged due to unbalanced gut flora. A truth that most people on Earth are not aware off. And then I remembered....that this is not the planet of the apes, nor the planet of the mammals, birds, reptiles or whatever. This was, is, and will forever be the planet of the microorganisms! All the rest of life is just an overlay on top of the microbial ecosystem. The microbs are everything. Without them there is no complex life possible on any level. They determine or have profound influence on almost everything about life.
Perhaps at the quantum mechanical level, but that has nothing to do with human behavior. Human behavior is determined at a much higher level of abstraction that includes ethics, morals and the consequences of our actions.
Yes. Politicians have been feeding us shit for a long time, and it seems to have slowly made most people dumber and more apathetic.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Invoking the "murder your family" argument is equivalent to Godwining the discussion. You are trying to make an emotional appeal that overrides logical consideration.
That being said, in the "no free will" worldview - which I do not necessarily share - laws and punishments are part of the equation. Even if a person has no free will in the sense that his decisions are considered to be predetermined given his circumstances, law and punishments are part of the circumstances and will affect the decision. Even without self-determination, whether something is forbidden / punishable will affect the outcome. However for that effect to be in force the punishment must also be implemented. So while "justice" might not really be an applicable concept, laws, punishments and the concepts of right and wrong certainly are.
If anything, considering human decisions to be deterministic makes for a more cold-blooded judicial system. If you think that a person, given exactly the same circumstances, might act differently on different occasions because of self-determination, then you can't really write off that person as a lost cause. If, on the other hand, you believe that given the same situation the person will make exactly the same decision, then your only choice is to make sure the same situation never arises again. Sometimes this can be accomplished through non-violent means. Sometimes not.
Kind of like a superpower being able to live on a small energy intake. Must have been an awesome trait 100 years ago. Something to export to third word countries?
Yes, links have been established with increase of antibiotic use and increase in weight. When I read the summary this was the first thing that came to mind as the likely cause.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...
Your logic is flawed. Let's assume for a minute that people's actions are predetermined. That means you are still free to do whatever you want, but someone with perfect information about the universe and your brain is able to tell in advance what you will want to do. It doesn't matter for you, you couldn't even tell the difference because you just do whatever it is you want to do, whether you had "free will" (whatever that means) or not.
In that case, if our actions are predetermined, locking up criminals still makes perfect sense. We don't lock up criminals out of revenge, we lock them up to reduce crime. The fact that people know they can be locked up for certain crimes may deterministically keep them from wanting to do that crime. And people who have been punished, may be (hopefully) less likely to do it again. And of course society is safer during the period they are in jail. You might say "it's not fair, because they couldn't help it", but that doesn't matter. In fact, the existence of punishment may actually help a lot of would-be criminals by keeping them from becoming a criminal in the first place.
Animals are often killed after attacking humans. Not because we are angry at them, or because we fell it is "just", but simply because we don't want that kind of animals around. Makes perfect sense, whether they have free will or not.
Really, what's the difference in "justness" between punishing someone who, out of "free will", killed a man or someone who killed a man because his brain happened to be wired that way? In both cases, we consider him to be bad person and we hope the punishment will prevent more murders in the future by that person or others.
Why do we punish children? Because we want them to learn the consequences of their actions and grow up to be responsible people. In a way we're just programming them.
Those doctors seemed to think it was rather funny :-)
Imagine if you suddenly only needed 3 table spoons of food per day to keep your body running and anything else was stored as fat.
Is this 3 tablespoons of uranium? If you aren't referring to a nuclear reaction, then what you claim is thermodynamically impossible. Using real food data, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were referring to pure fat, which has the highest energy density of all our nutrients. Here you go: 3 Tbsp of butter would be 300 kcal.
The metabolic rate for a comatose patient is above 1,000 kcal/day. Someone who is awake will burn more than that.
So, no, you're wrong.
Look here, brass tacks, thermodynamically: Heat Transfer and the Human Body
Take a body surface area of approximately 1.9 m^2, an ambient temperature of 21 C (~70 F), and an effective clothed skin temperature of 30 C (86 F). Therefore we end up integrating (2.6 * (30 - 21) * 1.9 watts) over a period of a day, which yields ~3.8 megajoules/day == 917 kcal/day == 917 food Calories/day.
Furthermore, the preceding calculation is for a human-sized rock that perfectly converts energy to thermal energy, not a biological organism relying on inefficient metabolic processes and which also has to power movement like a human does, etc.
Yes, there are differences between people in intestinal absorption of food nutrients and so forth, but there is a fixed lower limit after which thermodynamics applies. What is far more likely is that these people who claim they are failing to lose weight are consuming more caloric energy than they believe they are.
You'd feel terribly hungry all the time.
That's probably true, given the effect of leptin secreted by extra fat cells (remember fat cells multiply but then they stick around even if you lose the weight). However, that has no bearing on the violation of thermodynamics inherent to these "I ate nothing but 1,000 kcal a day and I gained fat!" claims. That's impossible.
I read this at Taco Bell right after I ate lunch. Bad timing. Gee, thanks.
So, thin people have fat/greedy bacteria and vice versa?
Requiem for the American Dream
So in essence the guy bacteria determine obesity levels. Perhaps they are too efficient at extracting nutrient.
Also can't point to any society with 100-foot-tall people to see their difficulties, even though we know what it would be due to the cube-square law.
You're only saying that because of the chemicals in your brain.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
**And unless the god-emperor has a cat
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Toxoplasma is not really a great example, it's correlated with slightly higher IQ if anything.
A better example is iodine deficiency which causes cretinism-> much lower IQ.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
And now that I search on that: http://www.medicalnewstoday.co... ... According to researchers from the University of New South Wales in Australia, when weight is lost, the majority of it is breathed out as carbon dioxide. Their paper is published in the Christmas issue of The BMJ. Prof. Andrew Brown and Ruben Meerman reported widespread misconception regarding how weight is lost, finding physicians, dietitians and personal trainers all equally guilty of not knowing. ... The results suggest that the lungs are the main excretory organ for weight loss, with the H20 produced by oxidation departing the body in urine, feces, breath and other bodily fluids. On average, a person weighing 70 kg will exhale around 200 ml of CO2 in 12 breaths each minute. The authors calculate that each breath contains 33 mg of CO2, with 8.9 mg comprised of carbon. A total of 17,280 breaths during the day will get rid of at least 200 g of carbon, with roughly a third of this weight loss occurring during 8 hours of sleep. ..."
"Majority of weight loss occurs 'via breathing'
I've heard stuff now and then from Andrew Weil on breathing, and breathing well is at the core of Yoga, but your anecdote helps me make a better connection to all that. It may indeed apply very broadly. Thanks!
I've heard in general exercise is great for health (gets the lymph moving to boost the immune system, to begin with), but in general it does not affect weight loss much because people who exercise more tend to eat more after a workout as the body tries to compensate. However, I can wonder if changes in breathing patterns somehow work around that issue?
I would be curious if you had any good tips on what people can do to improve their breathing along the lines of what worked for you? Are they different than, for example, these exercises suggested by Dr. Andrew Weil?
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/AR...
BTW, one other thing missed in so much discussion here and elsewhere on weight is the psychological aspect. People can talk all they want about calories in and calories out, and even ignoring how the type of food and gut bacteria make a difference (as well as your point on breathing). However, as Dr. Joel Fuhrman talks about, we essentially have an "appistat" like a thermostat for hunger, and what seems to control when it shuts off is how full we feel (in terms of physical bulk of fiber and such in the stomach) and also the amount of phytonutrients and micronutrients in the food. If you are not getting either (and the Standard American Diet tends to be lacking in *both*) then it is a continual psychological battle where your body is constantly telling you that you are not finished eating because of the lack of fiber and lack of good nutrients. So you keep eating junk (like processed white bread or sugary drinks), always searching for nutrition. The calories make you fat, but your body still thinks (correctly) that it is missing something, so it goes on trying to make you eat. And studies show that 95%+ of people on diets that focus on calories restriction fail in just a few months for this psychological aspect. We only have so much self-discipline. It is generally only when we change the nature of what we eat that we change our weight. Then we are using our self-discipline for only a short time (a few weeks) to change our eating habits and related taste preferences. After that, low-nutrient junk food generally is not so appealing. See also:
"How to Escape the Pleasure Trap"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
Although, your point on breathing certainly is another angle on that. As is the general issue on gut bacteria, since both of those affect how much of our food's energy is burned (without really changing much else) or how much is collected or goes through the gut. So, I'm
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
That reduces blood flow to the brain as well as other vital organs. That clogging is typical on the Standard American diet, which causes arterial inflammation in multiple ways including sugar spikes and then supplies "bad" fats to repair them (as opposed to "good" fats which we absolutely need). Sadly, the first obvious symptom of clogged arteries may be death from a heart attack or stroke. Even when people detect clogging in the heart and put in stents to temporarily (ofter a few months) deal with it, stents do nothing for clogs in your brain or liver or elsewhere.
Check out the writings of people like Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, or Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn for a better way to eat that will also improve your brain power to be a better software developer.
In essence, the advice is eat more vegetables and fruits and beans, eat healthy fats like from avocados and nuts and/or free range pasture-fed animal products, get enough iodine like from seaweed and vitamin D from sunlight or supplements and B complex depending on other food sources, get extra micronutrients from seeds, eat whole grains meaning you can see the actual whole grain like a barley kernel in your food, eliminate most refined and processed foods including stuff made with white flour and processed sugar and especially processed meats with additives, eliminate synthetic additives like synthetic colorings and synthetic flavorings, avoid food with bromine in it as in many dough conditioners for breads, and so on. In general, eat a variety of foods of a variety of different colors (the colors reflect different essential phytonutrients). There are lots of nuances, and some things may not work well for everyone depending on your gut bacteria and genetics and lifestyle, so it may be a bit of a learning curve for what works for you. Most of that battle is actually won or lost in the supermarket, because once food is in the home, it is almost certain it will be eaten in reverse order of healthiness for various psychological and adaptive/evolutionary reasons.
See also this advice for if or more likely when you do fail a "stress test" for your heart and your cardiologist tries to rush you into getting a bunch of stents:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
"The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions. Trying to figure out how to pay for ineffective and expensive medicine by politicians will never be a real solution. People need to know they do not have to have heart disease to begin with, and if they get it, aggressive nutrition is the most life-saving intervention. And it is free."
Sitting for long times is also problematical. Look into at least a standing desk, and maybe a treadmill workstation. Exercises and good breathing is important for health too, even if the connection to actual weight loss is more complex.
Good luck on possibly a very long journey towards wellness. One I've been on now for many years, but with its ups and downs, wins and losses, forward movements and setbacks. A natural reaction to excessive stress is also to eat more because in the past stress meant future meals are less certain so it was good to fatten up when you could. Over the long term, the social, psychological, community, and even spiritual aspects of this entire process become very important. It's not easy to become well in our culture, with so many highly-paid people working for processed food companies whose job is to catch
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
In between the biologically driven mechanisms and the psychologically conditioned behaviour, lies an arcane layer of ineffable stupidity that inexplicably seems to guide our most incredible actions (that's ALL of us, for those who would contrarily argue this out of personal insecurity) with variable frequency.
I suspect we will eventually establish a link between this element, and the condition of and degree to which a given individual is full of fecal matter.
Perhaps this will enlighten us to a greater, more effective extent than psychological and biological studies have thus far?
What, you actually believe these people are for real? That's funny!
Maybe you should take a trip down memory lane with the Royal Family..
Get that shit off slashdot.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Wonder if it's some genetically modified bacteria Big Pharma slipped in somewhere to sell more weight loss products. Maybe a GMO Candida fungus instead, which will later result in a "Last of Us" scenario.
Far more likely some people have bacteria flora within their digestive tract that is far more efficient and breaking down food ie releasing more nutrients while consuming less themselves. So when people continue to consume food at the same levels they start to put on weight. Likely the bacteria might be more effective at breaking down cellular walls of vegetable matter releasing those nutrients for consumption. Initial entry source might be from foods contaminated by ruminant faecal matter. So people that fill themselves up on vegetable matter in order to fill full without weight gain might find themselves now tricked into gaining weight.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
There are (though they are changing now) psychopathic headhunter societies in places like new guinea that have lived for tens of thousands of years by murdering members of other tribes, mainly as a rite of passage, although also for cannibalism. They have outlived all other collapsed civilisations, like the mayans, aztecs, romans by keeping to themselves and keeping their population down so that they do not exhaust their resources. Although kuru, or creutzfeld-jacob disease is endemic there, schizophrenia is completely absent for reasons which are inexplicable which does tend to point to them being physically and mentally healthier than most developed countries.
And people laughed when the aliens were doing all of the anal probes.
Can I get fries with that patty?
I can't cite you an example of an entire society of psychopaths but I can point at one psychopathic member of a society- YOU. I guess your point stands huh?
I AM figuratively an asshole! Maybe you do know how to grammerz, bruh. Good job!
I think thi post is full of shit!
Your quibbling, missed my point, or are intentionally treating an hypothetical example as an actual example.
First- surely you are not suggested that every person who eats the same meal absorbs exactly the same amount of calories into their system, right? Because that's crazy on the face of it. It will be on some kind of distribution curve.
So given three people who eat "1500" measured calories of food, one might absorb 1000 calories, another might absorb 1450 calories, another might absorb 2000. In some extreme cases, some might absorb 750 calories or 3000 calories. (There are already examples in this discussion of people who can get 250 calories from a serving of brocolli while others only get 100 calories).
The last person could only eat 750 calories worth of food per day and not gain weight. They'd probably need to take vitamins to meet their nutritional requirements. And they'd be eating so little physical food that they would feel like they were starving all the time. Whenever they ate like "normal" people, they would gain weight even if they exercised.
Perhaps if your last statement reads: "I ate only the amount of food that most people absorb 1,000 kcal from each day and I gained fat!"
Last factoid: I'm in the reverse case. I can eat heartily and I do not gain weight. Plenty of butter too. My weight only varies by the liquid I just drank and the food I just ate. I have a friend who must eat heartily or he loses weight because he has a kidney problem. He can't gain weight even when gorging. His body is terrible at absorbing calories from food.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
well, only if the person in question has access to food and keeps eating it.
on the other hand, if she had a faulty digestive system before and then kept just eating the same way after fixing it, it's not that hard to conceive that she gained weight.
and god forbid it being her fault of course. it's never the fatties fault that the fattie keeps eating and eating and eating and doesn't count the calories or how many cokes there can be in a day..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Your quibbling, missed my point, or are intentionally treating an hypothetical example as an actual example.
It's not quibbling. Your type of claims are ubiquitous across the internet: people who claim they consume less energy than would be required to keep an equivalently-sized, perfectly-metabolizing, immobile rock above ambient temperature, and they still claim they are running an energy surplus sufficient for lipogenesis. I mean, it must be either that or God is sending angels down from heaven to load them up with fat, right?
First- surely you are not suggested that every person who eats the same meal absorbs exactly the same amount of calories into their system, right?
I'll let you carefully reread my last post and decide for yourself. Hint: you really don't have to read between the lines.
The last person could only eat 750 calories worth of food per day and not gain weight.
That person would lose weight due to their energy deficit. Are you somehow alleging that these people can extract more energy from food than can be obtained by fully combusting it in a bomb calorimeter (i.e. the gross energy)? That's the same magical thinking you exhibited before. For reference, I refer you to the difference between gross energy and available energy in macronutrients.
Once you start claiming that you are gaining weight when you are consuming less than your RMR (which does not vary substantially across studies), or, hell, claiming that you are consuming less gross energy available in the mass of food you have consumed than it takes to keep one of those "magic rocks" above ambient temperature, then your claim is absolutely tantamount to magical thinking.
Try it for yourself: calculate your BMR, calculate that mass equivalent in gross energy available in pure fat (just to make it easy to weigh out). Consume it as your sole caloric input. It is impossible to gain weight, presuming you are not pouring said food into a non-metabolizing corpse. Yes, literally impossible in this universe.
So, when someone has a scenario where they believe they have consumed less than their metabolic expenditure (which is, of course, greater than their RMR) in caloric input and yet they claim they gained fat, which claim do you believe has been falsified: thermodynamics, or the amount of caloric input they believe they have ingested? We already know it's not the metabolic energy expenditure that's incorrect.
Perhaps if your last statement reads
No. My statement stands as written. If you choose to disbelieve thermodynamics then you're welcome to your false religion.
LOL! I keep thinking of that zombie fungus that some insects get that tells them to go drown themselves....
Perhaps your stomach does have some influence over your food craving...
"I dunno, but my gut tells me that I need to eat those donuts!" :)
Last point- I agree there are people who gorge/binge eat and say they or not or that they are dieting and who then gain weight. And that's probably the most common case because food diaries work so well.
But I am saying there are plenty of metabolic disorders which cause weight gain. And it's a fact that some stomach bugs help us digest certain foods (such as seaweed) which are indigestible for anyone lacking those stomach bugs. And heredity plays a strong factor in weight gain via several factors.
And so it's not unreasonable that some people are just screwed when it comes to weight gain.
(this was meant to go out last night but it got caught by the 5 minute restriction and then I forgot about it and went to bed. lol).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So all those people who have been telling me to "eat shit" have just really been concerned about my health. Boy, have I completely misinterpreted that phrase!
And it wasn't "and die," it was "and dye!" They were also concerned about your physical appearance! Wow, I've really have met a lot of nice people :)
Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI was 33 when he won Mr. Universe. BMI is somewhat useful in statistical analysis, but rarely relevent for a single case with no other information.
From Genesis 41:20-21:
The lean, ugly cows ate up the seven fat cows that came up first. But even after they ate them, no one could tell that they had done so; they looked just as ugly as before. Then I woke up.
It was just a dream... B-)
I don't like to quote something possibly over-used, but "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
To adequately prove psychopaths don't thrive in a primarily psychopathic society, we'd have to run several experiments where varying groups of people try to form a society with a range of ratios between normal and psychopathic people.
I'd hate to be the one normal guy in that group!
There is some evidence to support this. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki (Australian science presenter and MD) produces an excellent series of podcasts, and a couple cover exactly this topic. The presumed mechanism was transplanting intestinal flora/fauna that were more efficient at converting non digestible material (eg, cellulose) into something the body could use.
In some (many, probably) cases it's primarily the fault of the person, who is simply eating too much.
In other cases (far more than was previously thought, and far more than people like you are likely to ever accept) it's not the fault of the person, for whom eating less and exercising more is not enough.
In your mind, it's almost always the fatties fault. In reality, the picture is more nuanced. But that's not something you (and people like you) are likely to accept since it gives you less reason to feel superior.