Sewage Bacteria Reveal Cities' Obesity Rates

benonemusic writes A new frontier in data mining: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts surveyed bacteria from human waste in the municipal sewage systems. Surprisingly they found different proportions of bacterial species in cities that correlated with obesity rates in those municipal areas. The researchers believe that these bacterial samples can yield city-level information on other diseases as well. Hopefully this isn't just a messy case of spurious correlation.

Comments

Gut flora

[flaming error]

Health problems, including obesity, may be caused by what's in (or missing from) gut bacteria.

Re:Gut flora

[gewalker]

Yes, but if you want to know how obese a city is you now have a new choice. A) Analyze at remains from the sewer B) Analyze photos from Facebook or C) Spend 5 minutes at the local Walmart.

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

The news here for me isn't "here's a way to analyse a city's obesity rate", it's just yet another piece of evidence for "obesity is caused primarily by gut fauna". This would seem to add up with the obese population's assertion that losing weight is incredibly hard, while the non-obese population asserts "just eat less, it's trivially easy". The only way these two assertions can add up is if the two populations have some very different environmental factor going on. Gut fauna making obese people absorb much more of the energy from their food would seem to add up as just that kind of environmental factor.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but, perhaps what a person eats shapes their gut fuana to best digest their diet. If you spend years eating only twinkies and ho-hos...

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

Health problems, including obesity, may be caused by what's in (or missing from) gut bacteria.

Sorry, no. Obesity is not caused by bacteria (or genetics, or "conditions"). Obesity is caused by consuming more energy than you actually use. Hunger queues may be affected by bacteria, but those are something you can adjust to. The actual weight gain, however, is nothing more complicated than eating more than you need to sustain your body.

Honestly, how a site full of self-professed science geeks keeps ignoring basic thermodynamics continues to blow my mind...

Re:Gut flora

[Austerity Empowers]

Analyzing the local Walmart is probably going to demonstrate an example of selection bias.

Re:Gut flora

[ColdWetDog]

Wrong... (and I think you were trying to be amusing but - ) Facebook and Walmart suffer from from the fact that they are not necessarily a representative sample of the population. Everybody takes a dump and the vast majority of them end up in the sewage system. This technique gives you an excellent and easy to obtain* series of sample.

Furthermore, IF this pans out you have a powerful method for screening for the DNA sequences associated with obesity on a population wide basis. And possibly other diseases with a mixed environmental / genetic basis.

And, IF fecal transplants turn out to be safe and effective you have a potential treatment pathway.

Who would have predicted that the road to the good life of a rich, skinny ski resort inhabitant would basically be a shit sandwich?

* as long as somebody else does it.

Re:Gut flora

[cfalcon]

No one fucking spends years eating twinkies and goddamned ho-hos. Every thin person I know eats random fucking bullshit, and every fat person tries every fucking thing on the planet to lose the weight and monitors their intake. Posting as AC was wise in your case- you have jack shit to add except the same random bullshit that idiots have been spewing while a huge percentage of the population spends more time, willpower, and money trying to lose weight than ever before, all while everyone is gaining weight.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

Well, I'm in the 'just eat less' camp. I acknowledge that it may not be easy for everyone, but I can hit whatever weight target I choose simply by making dietary choices.

Make no mistake, I am not claiming that is is always easy - "what, you say I have to stop drinking?", but it is always doable.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

It may also affect the efficiency of energy transfer and storage which would be my first guess.

Re:Gut flora

[Billly Gates]

Health problems, including obesity, may be caused by what's in (or missing from) gut bacteria.

Are health problems caused by the wrong flora? Or does the wrong flora grow as a result of health problems?

Science 101 in any freshman level course emphasis this for good reason.

I tend to think it is the lader as Americans eat more fast food in larger quantities. But of course that is causation too.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

And here we have it! The first desperate attempt to keep the blame on the obese person! I knew it wouldn't take long.

Haters gotta hate but women and black people are off-limits now, so what're they going to do?

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

It is not always doable, at least long term.

Try this: Hold your breath. When you are just about to pass out, take a quick shallow breath. Just enough to not feel like you're passing out. Don't stop, not even for a day, ever. Let us know how that's working out for you next week.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put on weight, you eat more than _your_ body needs. The amount of calories needed depends on your body and your activity level. Someone who runs around all day and takes the stairs and will burn more calories than someone who sits on their butt all day and always uses the elevator.

Don't just monitor your intake, reduce it until you find that point where _your_ body loses weight. That point exists for everyone, go find yours. That might mean you need to eat less than other people if your gut flora is more efficient. If I eat like my body would like me to, I'd be at least 30 pounds heavier. Since I've been there and don't like it, I don't eat that much. In the end It comes down to willpower.

So far all people I have seen trying but unable to lose weight said they don't eat more than others, but if you watch them they do. Here a bit extra, there a larger serving, soda instead of water, a snack during the afternoon... Everytime I ask them to stick to what I eat and match my amount they complain about being hungry and needing something to eat. Well, I feel some hunger to, but I don't act on it. That's where the willpower comes in.

Re:Gut flora

[Opportunist]

Unfortunately the human body is not your average ICE. It doesn't "just" work on basic thermodynamics.

It all starts with the fact that we not only consume "fuel". We actually consume quite a bit of stuff we cannot process. We actually MUST consume that stuff for without we start to get reeeeeally messed up. I dimly remember a NASA experiment where they tried to reduce astronaut food to the nutritious stuff. You know, to eliminate ... erhm ... waste. Guess what: Astronauts still shit. Because it didn't work out. The test people got REALLY sick. Sure, they got all the nutrition they needed, But I guess human can't really work if he doesn't poop.

Which gets to part 2 of the problem: We shit stuff that is still quite nutritious. Ask your local fly population. Our "waste" is not just waste. There's quite a bit of stuff in there that could still be "digested".

In a nutshell, the human body is not the best kind of engine. I'd actually be interested in how good our energy conversion rate is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is really, really shitty, even compared to the engines we build. And I'm not even talking about us using a good deal of the energy we consume just for heating. I'm talking about the energy we consume that goes out right our exhaust without us actually using it sensibly.

And then there's of course the different metabolisms that will have different effects on different foods. Because 1000 KJ from one food source is by no means the same as 1000 KJ from another. And even the same food eaten by two different people will not be metabolized in the same way to the same efficiency.

Sorry, but the law of thermodynamics alone won't cut it.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why you don't steal food from fatty.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"Try this: Hold your breath."

What an absurd comparison.

I can reach, and maintain, most any weight goal I choose. I have done this. As I said previously, it is not always *easy*, but it is always doable.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

The point being that "you" doing it may be very different from someone with different gut bacteria doing it. The amount of willpower needed for you to keep your food intake at a suitable level may be fairly high, but still doable. Meanwhile, the level of willpower needed for someone with different gut fauna may be more comparable to sjames' example - beyond that of the typical person.

Re:Gut flora

[circletimessquare]

or the kind of gut bacteria you have is caused by certain eating patterns, that also cause obesity

what you call a cause is more likely another effect of a deeper cause

yes, gut flora could be manipulating feedback mechanisms that cause you to eat more, but that's reaching. they effect nutrition only in specific ways

i see this "gut flora may cause obesity" idea as another example of people desperate to point blame elsewhere for their inability to keep their weight down

and i'm not saying it is their fault. for 99.99% of our existence, the problem has always been hunger, not too much food. such that our psychology and metabolism simply have no control valve for this brand new bizarre problem of too much food

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

" Meanwhile, the level of willpower needed for someone with different gut fauna may be more comparable to sjames' example - beyond that of the typical person."

I grant that it might be possible for the situation you describe to exist, but honestly I believe we have a "culture of failure", e.g. "math is hard", when it comes to personal health.

I read about endless reasons why we will fail to lose weight et al, and I cannot help but consider that we are the victims of our own expectations - we believe it to be hard or impossible so it becomes so.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

So you claim that some people can eat nothing and still put on weight? If you can prove that, you'll have solved world hunger.

  If you don't then you admit that there is a point for everyone where the amount they eat is not enough to cover their energy needs and they will lose weight. That point is different for everyone. Find that point, go below it until you have reached your target weight. During this process that point will move as your body tries to get more efficient. That means reducing intake further.

Been there myself, didn't enjoy it, stuck to it anyway until target was reached. I still need to limit intake to prevent gaining it back. The latter is the part that is hardest since there is NO END to it, you have to stick to the reduced intake FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE and that's where most people fail.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

I asked you to try it for a week. You're asking others to try it for the rest of their existence. How long DO you think you could try my suggestion for and how happy do you expect you'll be doing it?

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

Honestly, my bet is that you're falling victim to the same thinking that makes people think that depressed people should "just feel happy". That is, if you can't see the issue on the outside, it can't possibly exist, or can't possibly be serious.

Given the mounting evidence that gut fauna is different in obese people, and the very strong correlations between both time periods in which we used antibiotics and obesity, and between geographical areas in which we use antibiotics and obesity, I'd say that this has a good chance of explaining why we have a huge issue in the western world with obesity being out of control, and people seemingly being unable to do anything about it.

Re: Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

So, fat comes from something other than stored excess calories? Are you making it from thin air, or do you just have no idea how metabolism works?

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

Name any period of time in modern history that any society has found long or even medium term weight loss to be easy.

I'll bet that if you find one, it will have been during a famine.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

You asked me to try something incomparable for a week. What you suggest is not remotely similar to the discussion at hand.

Moreover, I'm not asking others to do *anything*. That's a projection on your part.

Last, but not least, comparing caloric intake to oxygen intake is absurd. Stupid. Ridiculous. Dumb. Words fail me.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[cfalcon]

Cool, I got modded troll for speaking the truth. Hell, in high school, two brothers- the fat one ate almost exactly half of what the thin one ate. In his 20s, the thinner brother finally had to start paying attention to what he ate (not literally "twice what a normal person would think a meal is"), but he's definitely not fat to this day. The fat one did weight watchers and other shenanigans, and still struggles to have a reasonably body to this day. Yes, he was eating "more than he needed", but you fucking know what? He's essentially been hungry his whole life, and the "amount of food his body needs" is QUITE clearly an amount that he ends up in constant hunger over.

That's the important part about all this. Did you know that the blood of two normal weight men, one who lost weight YEARS ago, and one who never had any tendency towards fatness, have vastly different levels of the hormones linked to satiety and hunger?

Yes, of course you can lose weight by eating less than your body needs to maintain its current weight. But that's never NOT been the case, and "starve yourself thin" is not why thin people are thin. They aren't starving. That's the point. There's very clearly triggers. Assclowns can mod me -1 all they like- it's very clearly the truth.

What about the study where they tried to get inmates to gain weight by overeating, and none could? If you think it's as simple as food consumed, you're willfully blind to reality (presumably, a reality which benefits you in some way, or at least you believe that to be the case).

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

I asked you to deny a basic biological drive 'just enough' but not too much. That sure does sound like dieting.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"Name any period of time in modern history that any society has found long or even medium term weight loss to be easy."

I at no time said anything was "easy". You're projecting. Again.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

OK, name any time where there was a culture of success around weight loss. That is, where the normal expectation was that the weight would come off and stay off.

Good luck!

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

I'm sorry, but you are trying to claim that the biological need for calories is the same as breathing. I think this is Absurd. Ridiculous. Stupid. Pick your word, I think it's silly.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[cfalcon]

Thanks for posting as AC to pile on with the current groupthink. Studies show a lot of things, including:

> Thin inmates who overate to try to gain weight could not.
> Hormonal levels from the blood of men who lost weight and kept it off for years versus ones who never had any weight issues are vastly different- the thin guys have to avoid food for days to generate hormones like the formely fat dudes live with forever.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some weight loss.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some massive weight gain.

Studies DON'T show that diet and exercise can lose weight and keep it off- not because they lose effectiveness, but because almost no one can keep the diet and exercise regime up. Obviously, you can starve weight off. But thin people are clearly not people who have made a habit of undernourishing themselves- almost no one does that.

You are all going to feel very fucking stupid as the science evolves on this. Good thing you all post as AC and can hide behind "-1 as disagree", "downvotes", and social media tricks to suck the dicks of the other groupthinkers, along with other assorted bullshit. Twenty years after obesity is solved medically, your old comments will look so unbelievably backwards that your best bet will be to pretend you never said them.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive? Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive?"

Are you deliberately trying to look ridiculous?

"Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat."

You're demonstrating your own foolishness. Nobody dies because they forget to eat. Forget to breath (silly as that may be) and you're dead. Attempting to equate these two things is just *stupid*.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[CrimsonAvenger]

This whole business reminds me of the arguments over whether ulcers were caused by stress or bacteria.

Turned out to be that some were caused by the one, and some by the other (about 1/3 of ulcers can be "cured" by taking the appropriate antibiotics).

Maybe, by and by, we'll find that some obesity is caused by the wrong gut bacteria, and some by bad habits.

Disclaimer: I've been moderately overweight. And I've been thin. Never was much trouble going from the one to the other and back.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the other way around: Gut fauna comes from what we eat.

Take seaweed for example, what we need to break it down comes from the seaweed itself, especially since everything is already in a state of being digested even before we even eat it.

If you eat a lot of sugar, gut fauna that consumes sugar will reproduce quickly. To make things worse, some fauna leach out chemicals that trigger our hunger, others feast on the those that we would otherwise use to maintain our nourishment, keeping them from entering our bloodstream.

Transplanting fecal mater just speeds this up a whole lot either way, but it's not a permanent solution as the recipients eating habits (and the rest of their lifestyle) can change how hospitable their gut is.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

Oddly, there have been a very few people who actially could forget to breath and die, but that was the result of an injury.

If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional.

Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry (and a bit weak) 24/7 even though food is at hand, I suggested a drive you may have experienced.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional."

I am sorry, but I maintain that living 'just a little bit hungry' (a temporary condition necessary to reduce weight) is not the same - in any reasonable measure - as not breathing. To attempt to equate the two things is to venture into the theater of the absurd, and there is no point in going there.

"Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry"

What possesses you to think that this is the case? This is *exactly* what I described as 'not easy', but 'doable'.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't do this, but many people (not all!) have some weight issues to varying degrees.

As for being able to do it. It's a matter of wanting and therefore motivation. That motivation can come from different sources. Wanting to like what you see in the mirror, wanting to look good for someone you like, wanting to feel good by not carrying extra weight around... or If your doctor tells you 'get your weight down to X or else life will suck' can be a strong motivation.

I know people who never had weight issues and still don't so they don't have to do what I do. Lucky them. I'm not one of them so I need to put in the extra effort which is not always enjoyable.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put on weight, you eat more than _your_ body needs. The amount of calories needed depends on your body and your activity level. Someone who runs around all day and takes the stairs and will burn more calories than someone who sits on their butt all day and always uses the elevator.

Don't just monitor your intake, reduce it until you find that point where _your_ body loses weight. That point exists for everyone, go find yours. That might mean you need to eat less than other people if your gut flora is more efficient. If I eat like my body would like me to, I'd be at least 30 pounds heavier. Since I've been there and don't like it, I don't eat that much. In the end It comes down to willpower.

So far all people I have seen trying but unable to lose weight said they don't eat more than others, but if you watch them they do. Here a bit extra, there a larger serving, soda instead of water, a snack during the afternoon... Everytime I ask them to stick to what I eat and match my amount they complain about being hungry and needing something to eat. Well, I feel some hunger to, but I don't act on it. That's where the willpower comes in.

Here's the part that you people keep missing: a lot of fat people have overly-efficient digestive systems and a lot of skinny people have inefficient digestive systems. We do not digest and absorb every calorie that we consume, quite a bit of it gets crapped out and that amount varies per person.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds. For some, it has to be to a greater degree, not just "I could eat", or "Gee, must be nearing dinner time", but unable to concentrate on anything else because your abdomen feels like it's caving in.

You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds."

I can't comprehend why you believe this.

"You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself."

I do not know what delusional affliction you have to think this: reaching and maintaining a target weight for me is an ongoing challenge.

What I deny, categorically, is that this is something outside of my control. Gut flora, heredity, environment, you name it, are *all* secondary to my own personal drive and motivation.
A.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

"Try this: Hold your breath."

What an absurd comparison.

I can reach, and maintain, most any weight goal I choose. I have done this. As I said previously, it is not always *easy*, but it is always doable.

A.

I've learned a variety of methods to solve partial differential equations.
As I said previously, it is not always *easy*, but it is always doable.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

What you don't get is that you got off easy. Others, not so much. For many, eating normally for a human being is a sure recipe for weight gain.

As soon as they lighten up a bit on the crazy diet they start gaining again. It might take a year to lose but it'll only be a couple months to gain it back.

Re:Gut flora

[mcrbids]

Some 10 years ago, in response to rising blood sugar levels, I lost almost 60 pounds. Although I have an annual 10 pound cycle, (gain in the winter, lose in the summer)

In all that time, there has not been a single day that wasn't filled with angst about eating too much. Satiety is rare, and must be paid for with future deprivation. Most of my family has no idea, only my wife is really aware of the constant struggle I fight.

I would happily transplant fecal material if it would help with this.

Re:Gut flora

[ArsonSmith]

I can reach, and maintain, most any weight goal I choose.

Two happy cookies for you. I can as well and I've gone through the effort and dropped over 100lbs and swore I would keep it off for ever, but the gpp poster is right. It felt like I was holding my breath. People would say you look great, doesn't it feel better? I would reply in a normally pissed off state that it felt fucking hungry. I was not happy though kept it well for nearly 5 years. I have now put most of it back on. My mood is generally better though now I have the old stigma of being fat.

Ohh well, life sucks. Sure would be nice if I could find a way to be both happy and fit.

Re:Gut flora

[disambiguated]

TFA says "the microbiome can influence, and be influenced by, a range of characteristics such as weight, disease, diet, exercise, mood and much more." So they acknowledge the causation can go both ways.

But it gets even more interesting. According to a Ted talk I saw about this the other day, there are apparently two different ways that our gut microbes might cause obesity. One is related to what you said:

Which gets to part 2 of the problem: We shit stuff that is still quite nutritious. Ask your local fly population. Our "waste" is not just waste. There's quite a bit of stuff in there that could still be "digested".

From the Ted talk:

When we take the microbes from an obese mouse and transplant them into a genetically normal mouse that's been raised in a bubble with no microbes of its own, it becomes fatter than if it got them from a regular mouse. Why this happens is absolutely amazing, though. Sometimes what's going on is that the microbes are helping them digest food more efficiently from the same diet, so they're taking more energy from their food, but other times, the microbes are actually affecting their behavior. What they're doing is they're eating more than the normal mouse, so they only get fat if we let them eat as much as they want.

So apparently some microbes allow you to extract more energy from your food so you put on more weight for a given amount of calories. But other ones might affect your appetite somehow. There's more in the talk, and it's not just mice: there's research in humans as well.

Re:Gut flora

[ArsonSmith]

And this is about as idiotic as saying, "To get better gas millage just put less gas in your car. You'll burn less gas and so get better gas millage."

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

You asked me to try something incomparable for a week. What you suggest is not remotely similar to the discussion at hand.

Moreover, I'm not asking others to do *anything*. That's a projection on your part.

Last, but not least, comparing caloric intake to oxygen intake is absurd. Stupid. Ridiculous. Dumb. Words fail me.

A.

Umm, yeah, comparing oxygen intake to caloric intake makes a lot of sense.
Just because you don't understand the analogy does not make it stupid.

Nonetheless, I'll try to help.

Your body reacts to oxygen starvation by making you feel pain, even if the starvation is voluntary.
This is because your body needs oxygen to survive and your body will feel pain from low oxygen before you have run out and died.
You body stores only small amounts of oxygen, so the pain comes quickly - less than a minute for most people.
The OP is making the claim that it is so unpleasant that you will not be able to voluntarily continue the practice for any length of time.

Your body reacts to caloric starvation by making you feel pain, even if the starvation is voluntary.You body will feel pain long before you have run out of food and died. However, because your body stores a significant amount of food, that pain does not come immediately, nor is that pain as severe as that from oxygen starvation.
For all people, the pain from starvation comes long before the stored food supplies are nearly depleted.
For some people, the pain from starvation comes before the bodies attempt to use the stored food. Their signal system is damaged.
For those people, caloric restriction is very unpleasant. In order to lose and maintain a low weight, they have to remain in a state of experiencing the starvation pain for the rest of their lives.

The analogy is comparing the signal systems of oxygen starvation to that of food starvation.
Few, if any people could voluntarily practice oxygen starvation for any length of time.
Yet, there is the belief that people with obesity problems should have no problem with suffering a similar, although lower level, pain for the rest of their lives.

Re:Gut flora

[jc42]

...

Who would have predicted that the road to the good life of a rich, skinny ski resort inhabitant would basically be a shit sandwich?

* as long as somebody else does it.

Heh. Funny, but probably not at all accurate. If it turns out that gut bacteria really do explain a major part of a person's weight, effective treatment is unlike to be as simple as "eat shit". Rather, the specific species responsible for various factors related to weight gain/loss will be identified and cultured. Then various controlled combinations of the effective species will be combined in capsules ("pills") and sold at part of the treatment. These might be expensive, at least at first while they're covered by patents.

Treating such pills as "shit" is about as accurate as saying that, since animals wastes are a common food source for the plants we eat, eating vegetables or fruit is the same as eating shit. Not exactly, since the plants (and the composting microorganisms) do significant chemical reorganization "(metabolism") between the shit and the consumed plant organs.

One of the more fun examples is the common commercial mushroom, Agaricus bisporus, whose preferred culture medium is decaying feces of the common grazing animals ("bull shit"). This is fairly well known, of course, and jokes are made about the connection. But nobody seriously considers eating such mushrooms the same as eating shit. Some people are even a bit lax about cleaning them, understanding that by the time they're harvested, the growth medium looks (and smells) more like good, rich topsoil that like cattle manure, because that's effectively what it is.

Turning gut bacteria into medical weight-problem treatment tools will be a bit more complicated than just letting the source material compost; it'll entail separating out the micro-organisms, figuring out what effect each has on its human host, and growing the useful ones in cultures. This will take a while, and the end results won't look (or act) much like a "shit sandwich".

But people do make scatological jokes about mushrooms, and they will do so for medical packages of cultured gut bacteria.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you are trying to claim that the biological need for calories is the same as breathing. I think this is Absurd. Ridiculous. Stupid. Pick your word, I think it's silly.

A.

oh, yeah, the biological need is exactly the same.
Your brain will die without glucose etc in exactly the same amount of time as it'll die without oxygen.

The only difference between the biological need for oxygen and food is that the body can store a great deal of food.

Re:Gut flora

[Riddler Sensei]

The thing about a statement like this is that, regardless of how correct it may be, it is completely, and flaccidly, useless.

Let's switch the analogy to something like a CPU scheduler.

Say that we have an OS and it habitually lags ass. Tasks quickly begin to accumulate within our OS, CPU utilization drops precipitously, and we eventually hit a deadlock. This is a front and center problem. All of the project's developers have been shuffled into the main hall to address this one issue, because if this doesn't work then we have nothing.

The hall is buzzing with discussion. People are pouring over profiles and usage patterns. Real progress is being made. Then, suddenly, from the back of the hall comes a booming voice.

"It's tasks in, tasks out. We're just taking in more tasks than we're finishing." ...

You'd be able to hear a pin drop. Okay, yes, technically. But...and?

Re:Gut flora

[suutar]

I'm sure that has some effect, although intuitively it seems likely that unless your diet is _really_ weird (I mean you're actively avoiding some element that some strain of flora needs but you don't), any strain of gut flora is going to be able to find enough food in your food to keep afloat. Oral antibiotics, on the other hand, are at their most concentrated when the intestinal flora encounter them, and given what we've already seen in terms of resistant bacteria in the wild, they could easily weaken one strain to a level where other, more resistant strains can take over the territory. And if that other strain is one that converts hard-to-absorb calories (like complex carbs) into easy-to-absorb calories (like sugar), well, suddenly you may be getting a bunch more usable calories from the same amount of food and seeing your weight start climbing when you haven't changed behavior.

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

As for being able to do it. It's a matter of wanting and therefore motivation. That motivation can come from different sources.

That, and exactly what you are being asked to do. If your body absorbs 80% of the glucose in food (thanks to bacteria in your gut that break down starches into glucose), while an average human only consumes 60% (thanks to a lack of those bacteria), you are being asked to eat a significantly smaller amount of food. The result is that even if you have motivation, and more willpower than the other person, you may still not be able to control yourself, as you are being asked to control a greater urge than they are. You are being asked to keep your stomach less full than that less efficient human.

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

It sounds very similar to me. You're suggesting people limit their need for carbon (which their body will burn and form CO2 with), he's suggesting that they limit their need for oxygen (which their body will use to burn carbon and form CO2 with). I'm not sure how much more similar you can get.

Re:Gut flora

[Smauler]

There are plenty of excuses.

I'm 6'6", had a 6 pack when I was 20, and weighed 100kg, and was pretty fit with a low fat index. I was easy BMI then (100/2^2, 25), but BMI was irrelevant, because I was relatively fit and active. I'm still easy to calculate BMI, but weigh 115kg or so now. 5kg more, and I hit obese.

Now, I would like to lose a little weight, but I put on a bit of muscle in my 20's. I don't think I could ever hit a decent BMI.

I eat/drink probably about 2000kcal/day, but I'm not that active currently. I used to do physical work regularly (and ea a whole load more), but don't currently.

I know that if I eat a lot, I will get huge. I don't.

Re:Gut flora

[Smauler]

For many, eating normally for a human being is a sure recipe for weight gain.

No, it's not. Really, I don't know how you think this.

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

Read the research on gut flora, for example. It's all over google.

OH, and ulcers aren't due to agitation and the Earth isn't flat.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"What you don't get is that you got off easy."

So you claim.

I suggest that it is just as hard for me to lose weight as it is for you, I simply do not succumb to the 'fail mentality'.

A.
( who is, make no mistake, several pounds over 'target weight' )

Re:Gut flora

[WillKemp]

Maybe, by and by, we'll find that some obesity is caused by the wrong gut bacteria, and some by bad habits.

Maybe, but i doubt it's as simple as that. I think the dogma that obesity = excess fat is severely confounding our understanding of this issue. One thing i never see discussed anywhere is the contribution to obesity made by fluid retention - which i suspect is considerable.

Everyone seems to assume that excess flesh is fat, but that's not necessarily the case. The body can retain fluid in response to environmental contaminants of various types and most people live in ever more toxic environments. If you seal people into houses with electronic equipment, furnishings, carpets, etc, all of which have been drowned in flame retardants - volatile organic compounds which have been linked to many different health impacts - it seems likely that at least some of them will end up with some degree of fluid retention as a result.

Antibiotics flame retardants, and shit food are probably the three main contributors to obesity. Wrong gut bacteria is one product of antibiotics use.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

4 tablespoons of sugar in their coffee. Snacks at their desk all day. Cheese on their homemade chili. Coke whenever they eat out. Buckets of high-caloric beer every weekend. Eggs and lots of bacon for breakfast...

Re:Gut flora

[sjames]

And you present no evidence whatsoever, not even a reference that could be looked up on google.

And you do so as a comment to an article that further strengthens the evidence that it is actually harder for some people than it is for others. What's it like living in the dark ages with the leeches and inquisitors?

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"It sounds very similar to me."

Except in one case you'll die within minutes, and in the other you can survive for weeks*.

Attempting to equate the two does nobody any favors.

A.

* http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Re:Gut flora

[FirephoxRising]

Sorry, but it is like that. I have struggled with weight since I was 6. I ate a good diet, no junk and I was active, riding my bike to and from school, playing sports etc. But, I could not, and still cannot eat a "normal" diet without quickly gaining weight. When I was finishing my degree, fourth year was very hard and time consuming, I didn't exercise much and ate badly, by years end I was 136kg. I am now 99kg, which is OK s I'm 1.9m tall and have put on muscle. I run 50km a week, hit the gym 4 days a week, I have completed 3 Tough Mudders (the last one in 2:25) and I'm really fit, strong and healthy. But, I am also CONSTANTLY watching my food and limiting it. I am always hungry. I can't relax the eating, or the fat will quickly return. At work I was talking about this with a friend who said that I must be eating much more than I think. I challenged him to do what I do and eat only what I eat. He couldn't keep up with me, despite me still having "love handles". He also only lasted 3 days on my diet before being busted with chocolate cake at the cafe and a stash of peanut m&ms. I have seen dieticians and specialists, I am really healthy, they just say that I'm really efficient with food, I get everything out of it! I would do a fecal transfer if it meant that I could be normal and relax my routine to something like a healthy normal person.

Re:Gut flora

[FirephoxRising]

Yes at its most basic it is more energy in than out. But some people can gain weight on a normal healthy intake, they have to eat a reduced amount to remain stable. They need to eat even less to lose weight. The amount they need to eat to lose lots of weight faster may be very small and unless very carefully designed and supplemented, may not be healthy. They will also need weight-bearing exercise of they will lose a lot of muscle. They will be hungry, all the time. Some people are fat because they eat too much and bad foods. Some are really good at getting energy out of food and have to eat what I'm guessing would be too little to keep you healthy to lose weight. I know people who lost fat easily just by cutting out the crap and walking. I know others (I'm one of them) who eat only healthy foods and not much of them and still struggle. I also know people who cannot gain weight, despite living on about five times my daily food intake, eating junk and sitting around.

Re:Gut flora

[WillKemp]

I can reach, and maintain, most any weight goal I choose. I have done this. As I said previously, it is not always *easy*, but it is always doable.

A.

Your medal's in the mail.

Re:Gut flora

[FirephoxRising]

If this is true, then why hasn't my weight-gain-tendency changed after 12 years of only healthy food, exercise, being fit and healthy? Surely I should be "cured" of my fat-bugs and can now eat normally? No? Not for me buddy, I am and have always been healthy, all the tests are great. I just put on fat really easily. I eat 5MJ a day and exercise hard. I will still put on fat if I cheat, even a little.

Re:Gut flora

[WillKemp]

Sorry, no. Obesity is not caused by bacteria (or genetics, or "conditions"). Obesity is caused by consuming more energy than you actually use.

Citation? And what part does fluid retention play in this? None, according to your theory. I think you're wrong.

Honestly, how a site full of self-professed science geeks keeps ignoring basic thermodynamics continues to blow my mind...

If you're so smart, explain the thermodynamics of fluid retention.

Of course, if you were really as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't post a/c.

Re:Gut flora

[Alrescha]

"Your medal's in the mail."

Well aren't you helpful.

Look, if I could go delete the entire sub-thread, I would. It was clearly not useful for anyone, and I try not to get dragged into such things.

I was, at least, sincere.

A.

Re:Gut flora

[WillKemp]

Fair enough. It happens sometimes!

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ohh well, life sucks. Sure would be nice if I could find a way to be both happy and fit."

It is easy, with a little effort and practice. And, you don't have to go hungry.

1) Get (at least) your recommended 150 minutes of decent cardio per week. (this alone will not burn off all of the extra calories that you're taking in, but it will improve things in general)

2) When you're hungry, fill up on vegetables, and honestly work to avoid excessive carbs, fats, etc..

It really isn't rocket science. The craving for sweets and fats is a learned response that abates when the diet is changed to more healthy foods.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazi's did a study on several million people. They put them all together in camps, then didn't feed them. They all lost weight. No ones genetics seemed to get them out of it.

What you are spouting is what is called fat logic. The best part is that there are people out there that used to be fat, and can recognized that shit. So when they see it they get all angry.

I have tracked my eating for the last 6 years, I found that it is all calories in calories out. Has nothing to do with what I eat or how healthy. In fact, my most drastic weight loss was when I ate nothing but fast food and at restaurants for every meal, because they have calorie counts on their web site, and I just ate to my limit then stopped.

Physics doesn't give a shit about your anecdotal evidence. You know your story about some fat ass eating half? Well that is because he was sneaking food when people didn't see him, drinking a gallon of fucking soda or something.

The evidence is in the weight, because physics doesn't lie. If I put 5 gallons of water in one tank, and only 2 gallons in another, the tank with 2 gallons aint going to have 5 gallons of water in it just because I want it to.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

>Honestly, how a site full of self-professed science geeks keeps ignoring basic thermodynamics continues to blow my mind...

Says the smug jerk who doesn't know whether to use cue or queue. How you ignore basic spelling blows the mind.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

So, technically correct while ignoring all variables?

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

When feeling hungry, drink water man! No hunger no more and absolutely no willpower required.
This also helps me when I don't have enough money for food.

Re:Gut flora

[CBravo]

They might have to do with the large usage of anti biotics.

Re:Gut flora

[blue trane]

"there are examples of linear partial differential equations whose coefficients have derivatives of all orders (which are nevertheless not analytic) but which have no solutions at all: see Lewy (1957)."

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

Re:Gut flora

[sackvillian]

One thing i never see discussed anywhere is the contribution to obesity made by fluid retention - which i suspect is considerable.

I'm somewhat stunned that you don't think the medical community would notice that. Fat is famously less dense than water, so if obesity was caused by water retention rather than excess lipids (within adipocytes and elsewhere) then there would be a noticeable difference in density.

To evaluate it, all you need to do is have people of various sizes jump in a pool and try to float. My guess is that more fat, the more buoyant. You seem to be implying the opposite.

Re:Gut flora

[circletimessquare]

because that's your metabolism

not some magic bacteria that instruct your body to store fat

that's what i think

but who cares what i think: have you had your gut flora analyzed? you should

because you are the perfect test case: does gut flora makeup cause weight gain? or does metabolism/ psychology cause gut flora changes and weight gain? your body has the answer. if you have "fat inducing" gut flora, there you go, i'm wrong. if your gut flora is the same as a skinny person, then your metabolism is the culprit as i suspect

Re:Gut flora

[SigmundFloyd]

Everybody takes a dump

Strict dieters and fasters do that less often. So, selection bias there too.

Re:Gut flora

[Opportunist]

And I was trying to tell you that it doesn't work that way. It really does not. The only thing that actually IS correct is that there is an absolute maximum of KJ that you body could technically metabolize: The amount of KJ you stuff in. Of course, since there's no way to create energy.

It's also true that it is likely (note: not certain, just very likely) that if you consume a multiple of what is the normal amount of energy you need, you will end up with that energy being stored. That's likely. But not certain.

In between those two extremes there are people who can stuff 20 hamburger greaseballs into their body and won't gain a pound and others who can't. I've even see such things develop over time where people who COULD do the 20 hamburger stunt suddenly gained like 50 pounds in a year because something changed in their metabolism.

Face it, we know jack of how our body really works. Yes, there are general guidelines, but very few really hard facts.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like another fat person making excuses. Imagine if you spent 1/10th of the energy making up bullshit excuses and ignoring the simple math of calories in vs calories out and applied it to self control.

Fat people are fat because they are lazy slobs who consume too much food and exercise too little. QED.

Re:Gut flora

[beelsebob]

Except in one case you'll die within minutes, and in the other you can survive for weeks*.

Attempting to equate the two does nobody any favors.

Okay, so there's a difference in scale. That only means that there's a difference in scale of how much you limit it.

That doesn't mean that the concept is fundamentally flawed.

Note - don't actually try the breathing thing, it'll cause you to gain weight (breathing out is the only significant way your body expels mass - all that fat is turned into the carbon in the CO2 you breath out)

Re:Gut flora

[epwpixieqneg1]

"If you put on weight, you eat more than _your_ body needs" - it is not necessarily true, although there is correlation. The big issues is "What one eats?" And if the food is alcain or acidic to the body, or the pH ( the potential of Hydrogen ) level of the food intake. No more and no less. And by the way, ANY ONE can prove him/her self by eating only greens, beens and nuts for about 2-3 months. If such, statements are provocative for you you, as would be for me, can educate your self via the move for alcain live-stile diet, a long movie but has tons of good info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Gut flora

[eric_harris_76]

Going to Walmart will skew the results, because it's a non-representative sample.

I hope.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

No one fucking claims that starvation doesn't result in weight loss. Not the posts you responded to, and no one I've ever heard. The only people who claim that are the "fatlogic" subreddit, one of the many hateful subreddits that uses strawmen to justify what idiots already believe.

Go back to reddit, and take your junk logic with you.

Re:Gut flora

[nightsky30]

Agreed. Correct portions, less calories, healthier foods, and adequate exercise all contribute to fitter people, and all of those factors require willpower to make good decisions. The soda mention also brought to mind those individuals who think they can guzzle "diet" soda or eat other "diet" foods and lose weight. If the regular product a junk food company sells is bad for you, chances are the diet product is bad for you too, just in different, more hidden ways. Not only are people not trustworthy enough to limit themselves to 1 diet serving, but the artificial chemical crap that goes into some (but not all) diet foods is horrible for your body. People are better off just eating healthier, not substituting with the "diet" version of junk food.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe is what I hear from anyone I actually talk to who has lost weight and kept it off. People who never tended towards fat to begin with don't use these sorts of words. I wish you were modded "+5, Reality". And yes, one day science will solve it.

Re:Gut flora

[seeland]

Don't just monitor your intake, reduce it until you find that point where _your_ body loses weight. That point exists for everyone, go find yours.

Cool, I'll get right on that. Oh wait, I did. To get to the upper end of a healthy body composition for me I had to consume 1300-1400 calories a day. Do you know how it feels to never eat more than 1400 calories a day? Yeah, its miserable. Weak, lightheaded, hungry. I feel fine eating low calorie for a couple days but after that it catches up with you. I weighed and portioned my food. I was obsessed with food all day long, kept thinking about food. I was terrified of eating *anything* in a restaurant or any snacks or baked goods of any kind. I was of course also obsessing about macro nutrients too. Stepping foot into a restaurant was a terrifying experience because I couldn't control the food. I was coming close to developing an eating disorder. And I wasn't losing weight past a BMI of 24.6. (I know BMI isn't great, but I calculated my body fat a couple different ways and the BMI is pretty accurate - remember, I was obsessed). I was also exercising regularly (though I tired extremely fast). I ate like that for over a year and I just couldn't take it anymore. I switched to 1500 calories and I gained 5 pounds. I then stopped calorie counting and I gained 5 more back to my setpoint weight which is mildly overweight. I feel terrible at this weight, physically. I don't gorge myself or anything like that and I am *always* "watching what I eat" and limiting my calorie intake as much as possible without becoming obsessed like I was. People around me have even commented on how little I eat. If I lost 20 pounds I'd be happy. That isn't even a lot to lose. I've been experimenting with fermented foods for gut flora.

I don't know why I gained weight because I was always a perfectly healthy weight and I ate almost whatever I wanted. One day I just started packing on the pounds.

Though I do have a few health issues that have gotten worse in the last couple years.

Re:Gut flora

[ArsonSmith]

OK, those are done. What else do I need to do?

Re:Gut flora

[FirephoxRising]

I'd love to test this. I will once the technology is more mature. If it is just a fixed metabolism, then that sucks! You're supposed to be able to "change" your metabolism through diet and exercise, speed it up. I hope it is the bugs, then a course of nasty antibiotics followed by inoculation with "good" inefficient skinny bugs will change it. It does look like it may be so, some of the preliminary studies show weight changes with no change in kilojoule intake, after changing the bacteria.

Re:Gut flora

[WillKemp]

I'm somewhat stunned that you don't think the medical community would notice that.

I don't know why you're stunned. The medical industry's not very smart. There's a lot of things that seem like they should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but which don't get picked up by the medical industry for decades. They're also almost entirely driven by what makes profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Over prescription of antibiotics anyone?

Another example is biopsy. It's been glaringly obvious to me for decades that the worst thing you could do to a suspected cancer is to chop into it - but chopping into it (biopsy) is the first thing quacks normally do when they suspect a lump could be carcinogenic. And, guess what, research has finally found that biopsy (along with other standard procedures) can lead to metastasis (Juratli et al 2014). And it's usually the metastasis that kills people. It doesn't bear thinking about how many people have been killed by the so-called "treatment".

In a couple of decades, maybe someone will think of doing some research into the role of fluid retention in obesity - unless they already have, but you didn't bother citing it.

Reference
Juratli, M A, Sarimollaoglu, M, Siegel, ER, Nedosekin, DA, Galanzha, EI, Suen, JYand Zharov, VP 2014, 'Real-time monitoring of circulating tumor cell release during tumor manipulation using in vivo photoacoustic and fluorescent flow cytometry', Head Neck, 36, 1207–1215. doi: 10.1002/hed.23439

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put on weight, you eat more than _your_ body needs. The amount of calories needed depends on your body and your activity level.

The number of calories you shit out is the wildcard. Dried dung has enough energy that we burn it as fuel. That's a lot of energy, and you can't just leave it out of your equation.

The difference between a 'naturally' skinny person and a skinny-by-diet person is that the former has more flammable poo.

Re:Gut flora

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual weight gain, however, is nothing more complicated than eating more than you need to sustain your body.

...or not shitting out the excess.

Fecal matter is over 50% bacteria by mass. Gut flora that reproduces just slightly faster can mean 30%-50% more fecal matter production because of exponential growth. The more mass you shit, the more food you can eat without gaining weight.

Big data + big dootie =

[Anonymous Coward]

Magic!

Bottle sewage, not spring water

[nbauman]

I always knew Perrier was missing something.

Re:Bottle sewage, not spring water

[Anonymous Coward]

I always knew Perrier was missing something.

Are you sure about that?

Can't they just measure sewage volume?

[randomhacks]

It's my understanding that obese people eat more and therefore produce more poo. Surely this would be easier.

Re:Can't they just measure sewage volume?

[jc42]

It's my understanding that obese people eat more and therefore produce more poo. Surely this would be easier.

I wonder if this is true. We seem to be seeing claims that different people eating exactly the same food will sometimes lose or gain weight. Strictly controlled studies seem to be in their infancy, but the implication seems to imply the opposite: Some people's digestive systems (gut bacteria and all) effectively turn more of the input into digested "food", leading to weight gain and decrease in fecal output, while others digest less of the input and produce more output. The former store the excess as fat; the latter stay thin or lose weight. There's an implication that "efficient" digestion leads to weight gain and decreased fecal output, while inefficiency produces weight loss and increased fecal output. (Mass is generally conserved, right? ;-)

I suspect that it's actually more complex than that. But most of the comments here do seem to be aimed at blaming people for (presumably intentional) weight gain or loss. For us to say anything with scientific validity, we really should dispense with attempting to place blame, and rather try to document the details of just how the whole process works. Once we have better understanding of the scientific details, maybe we'll be able to give people medical advice that actually helps them reach and stay at whatever weight they'd prefer.

In this case, the summary's snide comment about spurious correlation is probably right on. What is generally believed about weight gain/loss is mostly based on mythology (or marketing ;-), not science, and has been proven wrong so often that it's odd that people even pay attention to claims on the topic any more.

Re:Can't they just measure sewage volume?

[suutar]

Not always. Some obese people eat less (which means less poo), but they process it more efficiently (which means even less poo).

Re:Can't they just measure sewage volume?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would certainly account for the extra bacteria if there is simply *more* of it being flushed, as opposed to similar volume in higher concentrations.

Mercy!

[hyades1]

Please, for the love of god, do NOT test Walmart's sewers.

Re:Mercy!

[Opportunist]

Judging by how the people in there are, I'd guess testing that stuff could show a lot of drugs nobody even DREAMED could exist.

Re:Mercy!

[hyades1]

I heard that when five WoW's (Women of Walmart) accidentally manage to synchronize their steps, seisometers as far away as Tierra Del Fuego register the disturbance. Also, dogs howl and cows stop giving milk.

Re:Mercy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Women and 'minorities' are off limits, but there's still fatties, right? Right?

Also it's 'seismometer'.

Re:Mercy!

[Opportunist]

Nigger is a nono. Chick doesn't work anymore either.

But I think we may still slap around the butterballs.

Re:Mercy!

[hyades1]

1. Yes.

2. I know. We call these minor omissions "typos". I tend to make them when I'm in a hurry, because my right index finger contains a transplanted tendon and doesn't work very well.

Related stories

[Twinbee]

Just recently we had a story on a woman who gained weight after a fecal transplant: http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Swapping the bacteria in our mouth may also prevent bacteria by killing off the Streptococcus mutans, perhaps the main contributer of tooth decay.

I really think this relatively new area in science could help if we pursue it carefully.

I'm affraid the data is ...

[Laxator2]

... complete crap.

Sorry, had to say it.

Shouldn't be a mystery here.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the causes of obesity is poor diet, and overconsumption of highly processed foods. It would stand to reason that in areas where this is a problem the guy bacteria present would be of the type that is best suited to break down this type of food. Assuming that there is some type of direct correlation between weight and the type of bacteria is probably missing what's really going on.

I always thought. . .

[Idou]

That data mining required you to wade through shit, but this is ridiculous. . .

Re:I always thought. . .

[Mr D from 63]

Well, it certainly is a shitload of data to analyze.

Re:I always thought. . .

[messymerry]

Ok, I've read enough. I think I will just skat on out of here.

Free lunch

[Ainu]

Likely what they are seeing is diabetics expel extra sugar in their urine. A lot of bacteria feed on sugars so we're probably seeing certain species taking advantage of the free lunch.

There is other evidence

[SuperKendall]

I read a recent story where someone who had a fecal transplant (which affects gut flora) suddenly had a dramatic weight gain as a result.

It seems like that could work the other way also, as a really quick way to get thinner faster...

Re:There is other evidence

[ebrandsberg]

The opposite has also been observed (http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-to-weight-loss-might-be-poop-transplants-fro-1265888152). As someone who is married to someone who has struggled with her weight for all her life, and has done everything including a strict 1000 calorie diet with very little results, I KNOW there is more to it than "just don't eat as much". The people that don't have the issue or haven't lived with it don't understand the issue, and assume that "it is their fault".

Re:There is other evidence

[phantomfive]

IF you're talking about this story, there were problems with that study (beginning with the fact that it wasn't even a study, and the doctor presenting it didn't expect it to be taken as one).

Re:There is other evidence

[JonathanR]

I wouldn't be surprised if the metabolic wastes of the internal gut flora played a significant role in what nutrients get digested and absorbed and what otherwise would pass through. Perhaps a significant proportion of the nutrients we absorb is not from food, per se, but from the metabolic wastes of gut flora.

Re:There is other evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a recent story where someone who had a fecal transplant (which affects gut flora) suddenly had a dramatic weight gain as a result.

It seems like that could work the other way also, as a really quick way to get thinner faster...

The transplant cured her chronic diarrhea which was caused by her lacking certain gut bacteria causing her to be unable to put on weight.

Re:There is other evidence

[beelsebob]

Indeed, it's not beyond reasonable to expect that for example a bacteria that takes fibre and breaks it down into nice short sugars exists. That bacteria, were it to inhabit your gut, would cause you to greatly increase the amount of energy you actually absorb from most foods.

Re:There is other evidence

[Smauler]

More efficient gut flora is _always_ going to result in weight gain. That's the point of gut flora.

Re: There is other evidence

[jhoger]

That person had chronic diarrhea before the transplant. Not surprising that she gained weight when that was solved.

Re:There is other evidence

[WillKemp]

As someone who is married to someone who has struggled with her weight for all her life, and has done everything including a strict 1000 calorie diet with very little results, I KNOW there is more to it than "just don't eat as much".

Have you considered the possibility that at least some of the excess weight is fluid rather than fat? The body seems to retain fluid in response to conact with environmental contaminants. In my case (and i'm not really fat), i get fluid retention from breathing in the fumes pumped out by computer cooling fans - presumably mainly flame retardants. It has other effects than just fluid retention (cough, headache, etc) and different computers have different effects - presumably because they use different classes of flame retardants - but the fluid retention is quite noticeable and can happen quickly.

All electronic equipment seems to be drowned in flame retardants before it leaves the factory, as does furniture, carpets, etc. Flame retardants are volatile organic compounds which may also be persistent pollutants, and have been linked to an array of different health impacts. Some have been banned (e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and dibrominated phenyl ethers (DBEs) - banned by the EU in about 2005) but they just keep replacing them with other ones, which have unknown effects. Brominated flame retardants seem to be being phased out because of health concerns, and replaced with fluorinated ones- which i supect may prove to be worse.I believe brominated flame retardants were developed to replace chlorinated ones - again because of health concerns.

Anyway, i think fluid retention caused by environmental toxins merits investigation to determine its role (if any) in obesity.

mhm

[fisted]

At least that data is pretty much anonymized.

Re:mhm

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it is anonymized. Perhaps we should add a monitor on our outgoing sewer lines, so we can tell who is expelling extra sugar!

You can also tell...

[Anonymous Coward]

How racist someone is by whether or not the poop is white or black. A self-hating black person will always flush their poop when it is black or brown, but rarely when it is white.

The obivous conclusion

[radarskiy]

If obesity is purely a moral failing, then gut flora must be purely a moral failing too.

Re:The obivous conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

That is also how the release, of the gas they make, is looked upon.

I'm convinced

[Snufu]

scientists will get the the bottom of this.

Hopefully this isn't just a messy case of spurious

[thegarbz]

Hopefully this isn't just a messy case of spurious correlation.

Good work raising doubt on the link between sewage bacteria and obesity only a month after posting a story on bacteria's role in
weight control. This one seems somewhat obvious to me.

Correlation of antibiotic use and obesity

[si3n4]

major co-incidence today as my PBS station was putting on it's fundraiser series of every diet plan guy in the world. So much fluff to info, but one person was arguing this same viewpoint (gut biota and tendency to be obese) and showed a startling pair of maps - one with the level of antibiotic prescription and the other with the level of obesity. Startling overlap. Google "antibiotic obesity map" Theory being that the use of antibiotics disturbs the balance or microbes and set more of the population up for obesity. Since the idea is that different bacteria feed on different foods this comes back to skipping refined cards and sugars and eating more vegetables - basically the same kind of prescription they all end up with - and trying to skew the population faster with probiotics. On thing I do now is that every thin person out there is not a paragon of good eating and exercise and not every fat person is a pig with their head in the trough. I was never a skinny person but got progressively more massive with age until one doctor finally thought to test my thyroid which was pretty much crapped out. On the synthetic stuff now and slowly morphing back to - well, something thinner.

Re:Correlation of antibiotic use and obesity

[QRDeNameland]

One simple yet undeniable observation that supports the role of antibiotics in obesity: antibiotics fed to livestock reliably fattens the animals. Of all of the environmental changes of the past 40-50 years commonly cited to explain the enormous rise in obesity rates in the Western world, the fact that antibiotics reliably fatten animals make them one of the more plausible factors, in my opinion.

The Real Poop

[fyngyrz]

Sewage Bacteria Reveal Cities' Obesity Rates

No shit?

Re:The Real Poop

[rs79]

Bit of a chicken or the egg problem here - how do they differentiate from bad gut flora causing obesity and people who eat way too many carbs have bad gut flora because of it?

Re:The Real Poop

[fyngyrz]

how do they differentiate from bad gut flora causing obesity and people who eat way too many carbs have bad gut flora because of it?

It's not a problem. If they can get rid of the bad gut flora, then they just observe what happens, that's all.

If the person goes back into a state where eating those carbs or volume of food in general does not result in weight gain/maintainance, then the flora were the cause, not the consequence. If the weight stays on / continues to increase, then it wasn't the flora.

The thing to note here is that some metabolisms allow some people, regardless of level of activity, to eat and eat and eat and they don't gain. We know this. So we also know there's some kind of metabolic difference. The thing research is looking for is what that difference is.

If (and it's a big if) those with slower / more efficient metabolisms can be brought into the same metabolic ranges as those without, then there are major health benefits to be had, assuming there are no other side effects, of course.

Re:The Real Poop

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit of a chicken or the egg problem here

If you eat both the chicken and the egg, for sure you will tend to obesity...

Re:The Real Poop

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a too many chicken tendies problem. Change your diet to a vegan one and you will see a pronounced change in your gut flora make-up. I am not saying you should be vegan, this is just a simple test to prove the theory.

Ulcers

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone, including everyone in the medical profession, used to think ulcers were caused by "stress."

Bzzt! Most ulcers are caused by a bacterium, helicobacter pylori, and now are routinely cured with medicine.

Everyone turned out to be wrong.

So, which bacteria are the good ones?

[Theovon]

(a) The linked article doesn't list the good and bad species. Does the original? Is it behind a paywall?
(b) How can I order some probiotic pills with just the right good ones?
(c) Why are probiotic pills so limited in the species included?

Re:So, which bacteria are the good ones?

[NetFusion]

There are studies that have shown that it is extremely difficult to change you gut flora by simply ingesting a probiotic pill. What little life makes its way through the hostile environment of the stomach finds a world with very few free niches to colonize and no preferred food sources to live on. The more effect way is to just eat the kinds of foods the life you want to live in your gut thrive on. All life comes covered with the microbes necessary to digest itself and return it to the soil. You are what eats what you eat. If you want to get healthy microbes in your diet, eat non pasteurized fermented foods like sauerkraut.

Re:So, which bacteria are the good ones?

[messymerry]

That's what suppositories are for... ;-)

Re:So, which bacteria are the good ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat Kimchi

Re:So, which bacteria are the good ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent modded funny? This is true. See http://www.vsl3.com/

Suprious correlation...

[RogueWarrior65]

Should be mandatory reading for...well...everyone.

Re:Thats cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just unzip, and you'll have your upper decker in about 15 minutes.

Re:Thats cool

[penguinoid]

The real question is, who gives a shit?

Re:Hopefully this isn't just a messy case of spuri

[Kongming]

More like, "spoorious correlation".