Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Author |
Message |
Chuck Forsberg WA7K #1 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
- 1 - 1. FOREWORD This is a summary of information on the causes and treatment of overweight I've gleaned over the years from forays to the Med School library and from other sources. I hope this summary provides useful information on obesity. 2. BACKGROUND Adipose Cell: There are two types of adipose (fat) cell, White Adipose Tissue (WAT) and Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT). Set Point Theory: A biological servo system controls energy expenditures, fat cell receptors, appetite, and other physical characteristics to return the body to a constant weight (set point) after periods of starvation or overfeeding. Rats and pigs are commonly used in adiposity research because their fat mechanisms closely resemble those of humans. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measure of the percentage of fat to total body mass. BMI is used as a height and bone- density independent measure of adiposity. Morbid obesity: Obesity severe enough to directly limit the victim's health or quality of life. Refactory: Adjective indicating the condition reasserts itself, precluding long term relief. Adipocyte Hyperplasia: Excessive number of fat cells, as much as ten times normal. 3. TYPES OF ADIPOSITY One source of obesity is overeating from emotional stress. Experiments with controlled overfeeding of lean subjects demonstrate an increase in body metabolism that restores normal weight when overfeeding ceases. In a 1986 Dutch study, some men who experienced many life events in a short period showed a gain in body mass. A year later this weight gain had disappeared in almost all subgroups, EXCEPT the subgroup that tried to lose weight by dieting; those who dieted gained yet weight. Adiposity 101 - 2 - My area of interest is chronic adiposity, in which the subject is heavier than average most of his life. 4. THE BIOLOGY OF ADIPOSITY 4.1 Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) generates heat (thermogenisis) by burning calories without physical motion. 4.2 White Adipose Tissue (WAT) Obesity results from an excess of white adipose tissue (WAT). WAT cells are not simple storage tanks. These are active, living cells. They destroy DHEA and Growth Hormone. They convert hormones to estrogen. White Fat cells compete with lean tissue for nutrients, interfering with normal muscle development. The fact that reduction of fat cell numbers (see below) causes permanent fat loss while weight loss techniques that do not reduce the number of fat cells are temporary suggests that fat cells themselves enforce the "set point" in many situations. 4.3 Preadipocytes > Fat Cells White fat cells begin life as PREADIPOCTYES. Adipose tissue from {*filter*} humans contains a pool of tiny precursor cells (preadipocytes) which can be converted to adipocytes (fat cells) in the presence of glucocorticoids and insulin. (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1987). The future adiposity of suckling pigs can be predicted by measuring the ability of the suckling's {*filter*} to differentiate preadipocytes into full size fat cells in a test tube. The preobese sucklings had low levels of fetal growth hormone and high levels of triiodothyronine. 4.3.1 Size and Number of Fat Cells Is obesity caused by an excess number of fat cells or by gross enlargement of a normal number of fat cells? The answer to this question has heavy implications for the possible success of various weight loss strategies. Adiposity 101 - 3 - As reported in a 1983 Nova program, fat cells can expand to about twice normal size. Obese subjects have up to ten times as many fat cells as normal. A study published in the Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Obesity showed that obese subjects who had lost weight in a combined diet/exercise program had fat cells 25 per cent smaller than those of trained athletes who had half the fat. In other words, the dieters had twice as many fat cells as the athletes. 4.4 Fat Cell Receptors Fat cells gain and lose weight by passing lipids through receptors. One type of receptor removes lipids from the {*filter*} stream and another type allows the body to access the energy stored in the fat cells with a resulting loss of weight. Geographic distribution of fat, including "love handles" that do not respond to extreme dieting, is believed to result from local variations in these receptors. No diet or exercise has been shown to have geographic specificity in fat reduction. The numbers and efficiencies of the two receptors change with repeated dieting, promoting weight gain. 4.5 Muscle Fibre Type The April 19 1990 Lancet reports that skeletal muscle fibre type is directly correlated with BMI. Lean subjects have more "slow fibers" well endowed with mitochondria that use fatty acids as energy source. Corpulent subjects have more "fast fibers" that cannot burn fat for energy. (See EXERCISE, below.) (1D-5) (1D-7) 5. THE ROLE OF GENETICS The conclusion of current research is that individual differences in Body Mass Index (BMI) are mostly the result of genetic factors. Two studies published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine illustrate the point. In "The body-mass index of twins who have been reared apart", the rearing environment was shown to have no effect on BMI. In other words, if you're fat, it wasn't because your mother fed you too many cookies and it wasn't because Adiposity 101 - 4 - your father didn't make you exercise. In "The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins", 12 pairs of identical male twins were overfed and kept sedentary under close supervision. There was a 3 to 1 ratio in weight gain between the easiest gainer and the slowest gainer. Those who gained the most fat gained less muscle than those who gained the least fat. Ten of the 12 pairs of identical twins gained almost identical amounts of weight. This study is interesting because of its sample selection. None of the subjects had any history of obesity whatsoever, not even in their families. One can but imagine what that 3 to 1 spread would have been if subjects with a history of weight problems had been included. The appearance of these papers in the May 24 1990 New England Journal of Medicine prompted several submissions questioning the papers' findings. These letters and the authors' replies are printed in the Oct 11 1990 edition. The Sep 1990 Science News reported a very wide difference in the amounts and types of tissues added in response to overfeeding. The thin people actually added more weight than fat people did, but the thin people added weight mainly as lean tissue instead of fat. Data from "lean hungry" types that gained little weight were excluded! The obese (and pre-obese) differ from lean persons in other ways. Muscle cells do not burn fat. DHEA and growth hormone levels are low. Fat cells spontaneously multiply when those of lean persons do not. These factors are described elsewhere in this document. Obese and lean persons do not share the same genetic heritage. 5.1 The Role of Maternal Environment What one's mother does or eats during or immediately before pregnancy affects one's BMI. The May 1990 METABOLISM reported that changes in the rat sow's diet during early pregnancy had a permanent effect on pups' lipid metabolism. An Aug 5 1990 BBC broadcast reported that the size of a baby relative to the size of the placenta had a greater correlation on {*filter*} {*filter*} pressure than the combined effects of weight or {*filter*} consumption. As reported in the Health InfoCom Network News Volume 3, Adiposity 101 - 5 - Number 36 December 5, 1990, Dr. Bernard Silverman of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago says a study of 124 children whose mothers were either diabetic before pregnancy or became diabetic during it showed: Children at normal weight at age 1. Many were obese by 6 to 8. At 8, the median weight was 71 pounds for boys; normal median - 56 pounds. Median for girls was 68 pounds; normal medium 55 pounds. Some researchers say the pre{*filter*}s' obesity may be due to excess insulin in the amniotic fluid surrounding them during gestation. Mothers who experienced caloric deprivation in a critical portion of pregnancy during the 1944 Hungriwinter in the Netherlands bore sons, 2-3 per cent of which were obese at age 19, more than twice the normal 1-2 per cent obese at that age. 5.2 The Role of Baby's Diet A Case Western Reserve University rat study (4P-17) compared rat
... read more »
|
Wed, 22 Sep 1993 19:22:59 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #2 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote: > Some obesity related health problems are the result of > discrimination against obese patients by the medical > establishment. Insurance companies discriminate against > obese individuals, even those with no history of health > problems. Insurance companies are forbidden to test > applicants for HIV antibodies, a right of privacy not > afforded to overweight applicants who are compelled to > measure and report their weight.
There you go again with that "medical establishment" stuff. Obese people are "discriminated against" on an actuarial basis (they don't live as long, they cost more in terms of medical expenditures, have more complications, stay in the hospital longer, etc, etc.). Insurance companies are *not* forbidden in most states to test for HIV (I myself was tested recently when I got disability insurance). Obviously pressure groups can use politics to pass laws forbidding insurance being written according to actual risk, giving preferential treatment to those who carry the risks. This should be recognized, however, as a transfer of wealth from the average customer to the exceptional one (obese or whatever). Quote: > The obese often get substandard medical treatment. In one > case, symptoms of allergy induced asthma (post nasal drip) > were attributed to obesity for several years. I have also > heard reports of marginally overweight women humiliated by > male doctors. Similar abuse was reported in a 1983 Nova > program. The AMA and regulatory bodies should survey the > incidence of such abuses.
Obesity is a health risk. It is modifiable through changing one's behavior (it's not easy, but it can be done). Thus it is the duty of the physician to advise the patient about that. Of course it should not be done in a humiliating manner. Diagnosing diseases as being obesity related when they aren't is incompetence. The AMA has nothing to do with making surveys (I'd toss out any snoop from there who came around my place). The only regulatory bodies that have any such power are the licensing boards, and they have neither the funds, personnel nor inclination, being tied up with far more difficult problems. The answer is for the person who is so humiliated to change to a more sensitive doctor. Quote: > Controversy abounds about the efficacy of rapid vs slow > weight loss. Some studies addressing this issue are flawed > by sample selection problems. Subjects on 1200 calorie and > 800 calorie VLCD type diets had the same ratio of fat loss > to lean tissue loss. Diet induced metabolic slowdown was a > direct function of the amount of weight lost and nothing > else. (International Journal of Obesity 1989, pp 179-181)
This has been my experience. One should state it more accurately that in most experiments, metabolic rate is proportional to the lean body mass at a given time in a given individual. It is impossible to lose fat alone without losing some lean tissue, but some of the extreme starvation diets (much less than 800 cal) can produce too much lean tissue loss and lower the metabolism too much. Exercise is an excellent way of increasing LBM and also burning up calories. Quote: > Weight rebound induced by reducing diets is clinically used > to add fat to underweight patients who cannot gain weight by > overeating.
This is a very stupid thing to do. I can think of only a few instances where adding fat at the expense of lean tissue would be done, and even in those the wisdom of it is questionable. This is a well known problem with anorexics. They starve off their lean tissue and then have such a low metabolism that they gain fat easily. Quote: > My personal observations suggest weight rebound is most > likely when the fat cell size is severely reduced. How long > the fat cells remain without the triglycerol that prevents > them from dividing controls the amount of adipocyte > hyperplasia, not how quickly a diet brings the fat cells to > that state of stress. Thus, losing weight slowly does not > reduce weight rebound compared to rapid weight loss.
I don't follow this. How did you measure your cell size? Did you control for lean body mass? Quote: > Dieters need {*filter*} to suppress the excessive amounts of LPL, > glucocorticoids, and runaway fat cell proliferation > triggered by severe weight loss.
Could you document this? I've never seen any increase in LPL when dieting. Quote: > "I can see little reason for intake restriction to receive > continued support, wither as a subject of research or as an > accepted therapy for obesity. {*filter*}letting as a therapy for > pneumonia was abandoned about a century before penicillin > was discovered. It required a modicum of courage and good > sense on the part of practitioners who turned away from the > practice, but there is no reason to believe their patients > suffered from this lack of therapy."
There are only three possible approaches: intake restriction, output enhancement, and efficiency alteration. I would agree with the statement that voluntary intake restriction looks like it will succeed only in a few people. Perhaps, though, some brain peptide could be found to alter the desire to eat more than we can burn up in our normal activities, which would be a valuable I agree things look bleak for enabling most obese patients to lose weight. However, there are people, some of them right here on this net who have gone from being morbidly obese (more than double their ideal weight) to a normal weight and gotten fit through diet and exercise. Furthermore, some of these people have kept their weight down over a long period of time. So I don't want people to assume that it can't be done.
|
Sat, 25 Sep 1993 00:13:13 GMT |
|
 |
Chuck Forsberg Wak #3 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Keywords: fat obesity diet ethics Lines: 1187 Organization: Omen Technology, Portland - 1 - 1. FOREWORD This is a summary of information on the causes and treatment of overweight I've gleaned over the years from forays to the Med School library and from other sources. I hope this summary provides useful information on obesity. 2. BACKGROUND Adipose Cell: There are two types of adipose (fat) cell, White Adipose Tissue (WAT) and Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT). Set Point Theory: A biological servo system controls energy expenditures, fat cell receptors, appetite, and other physical characteristics to return the body to a constant weight (set point) after periods of starvation or overfeeding. Rats and pigs are commonly used in adiposity research because their fat mechanisms closely resemble those of humans. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measure of the percentage of fat to total body mass. BMI is used as a height and bone- density independent measure of adiposity. Morbid obesity: Obesity severe enough to directly limit the victim's health or quality of life. Refactory: Adjective indicating the condition reasserts itself, precluding long term relief. Adipocyte Hyperplasia: Excessive number of fat cells, as much as ten times normal. 3. TYPES OF ADIPOSITY One source of obesity is overeating from emotional stress. Experiments with controlled overfeeding of lean subjects demonstrate an increase in body metabolism that restores normal weight when overfeeding ceases. In a 1986 Dutch study, some men who experienced many life events in a short period showed a gain in body mass. A year later this weight gain had disappeared in almost all subgroups, EXCEPT the subgroup that tried to lose weight by dieting; those who dieted gained yet weight. Adiposity 101 - 2 - My area of interest is chronic adiposity, in which the subject is heavier than average most of his life. 4. THE BIOLOGY OF ADIPOSITY 4.1 Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) generates heat (thermogenisis) by burning calories without physical motion. 4.2 White Adipose Tissue (WAT) Obesity results from an excess of white adipose tissue (WAT). WAT cells are not simple storage tanks. These are active, living cells. They destroy DHEA and Growth Hormone. They convert hormones to estrogen. White Fat cells compete with lean tissue for nutrients, interfering with normal muscle development. The fact that reduction of fat cell numbers (see below) causes permanent fat loss while weight loss techniques that do not reduce the number of fat cells are temporary suggests that fat cells themselves enforce the "set point" in many situations. 4.3 Preadipocytes > Fat Cells White fat cells begin life as PREADIPOCTYES. Adipose tissue from {*filter*} humans contains a pool of tiny precursor cells (preadipocytes) which can be converted to adipocytes (fat cells) in the presence of glucocorticoids and insulin. (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1987). The future adiposity of suckling pigs can be predicted by measuring the ability of the suckling's {*filter*} to differentiate preadipocytes into full size fat cells in a test tube. The preobese sucklings had low levels of fetal growth hormone and high levels of triiodothyronine. 4.3.1 Size and Number of Fat Cells Is obesity caused by an excess number of fat cells or by gross enlargement of a normal number of fat cells? The answer to this question has heavy implications for the possible success of various weight loss strategies. Adiposity 101 - 3 - As reported in a 1983 Nova program, fat cells can expand to about twice normal size. Obese subjects have up to ten times as many fat cells as normal. A study published in the Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Obesity showed that obese subjects who had lost weight in a combined diet/exercise program had fat cells 25 per cent smaller than those of trained athletes who had half the fat. In other words, the dieters had twice as many fat cells as the athletes. 4.4 Fat Cell Receptors Fat cells gain and lose weight by passing lipids through receptors. One type of receptor removes lipids from the {*filter*} stream and another type allows the body to access the energy stored in the fat cells with a resulting loss of weight. Geographic distribution of fat, including "love handles" that do not respond to extreme dieting, is believed to result from local variations in these receptors. No diet or exercise has been shown to have geographic specificity in fat reduction. The numbers and efficiencies of the two receptors change with repeated dieting, promoting weight gain. 4.5 Muscle Fibre Type The April 19 1990 Lancet reports that skeletal muscle fibre type is directly correlated with BMI. Lean subjects have more "slow fibers" well endowed with mitochondria that use fatty acids as energy source. Corpulent subjects have more "fast fibers" that cannot burn fat for energy. (See EXERCISE, below.) (1D-5) (1D-7) 5. THE ROLE OF GENETICS The conclusion of current research is that individual differences in Body Mass Index (BMI) are mostly the result of genetic factors. Two studies published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine illustrate the point. In "The body-mass index of twins who have been reared apart", the rearing environment was shown to have no effect on BMI. In other words, if you're fat, it wasn't because your mother fed you too many cookies and it wasn't because Adiposity 101 - 4 - your father didn't make you exercise. In "The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins", 12 pairs of identical male twins were overfed and kept sedentary under close supervision. There was a 3 to 1 ratio in weight gain between the easiest gainer and the slowest gainer. Those who gained the most fat gained less muscle than those who gained the least fat. Ten of the 12 pairs of identical twins gained almost identical amounts of weight. This study is interesting because of its sample selection. None of the subjects had any history of obesity whatsoever, not even in their families. One can but imagine what that 3 to 1 spread would have been if subjects with a history of weight problems had been included. The appearance of these papers in the May 24 1990 New England Journal of Medicine prompted several submissions questioning the papers' findings. These letters and the authors' replies are printed in the Oct 11 1990 edition. The Sep 1990 Science News reported a very wide difference in the amounts and types of tissues added in response to overfeeding. The thin people actually added more weight than fat people did, but the thin people added weight mainly as lean tissue instead of fat. Data from "lean hungry" types that gained little weight were excluded! The obese (and pre-obese) differ from lean persons in other ways. Muscle cells do not burn fat. DHEA and growth hormone levels are low. Fat cells spontaneously multiply when those of lean persons do not. These factors are described elsewhere in this document. Obese and lean persons do not share the same genetic heritage. 5.1 The Role of Maternal Environment What one's mother does or eats during or immediately before pregnancy affects one's BMI. The May 1990 METABOLISM reported that changes in the rat sow's diet during early pregnancy had a permanent effect on pups' lipid metabolism. An Aug 5 1990 BBC broadcast reported that the size of a baby relative to the size of the placenta had a greater correlation on {*filter*} {*filter*} pressure than the combined effects of weight or {*filter*} consumption. As reported in the Health InfoCom Network News Volume 3, Adiposity 101 - 5 - Number 36 December 5, 1990, Dr. Bernard Silverman of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago says a study of 124 children whose mothers were either diabetic before pregnancy or became diabetic during it showed: Children at normal weight at age 1. Many were obese by 6 to 8. At 8, the median weight was 71 pounds for boys; normal median - 56 pounds. Median for girls was 68 pounds; normal medium 55 pounds. Some researchers say the pre{*filter*}s' obesity may be due to excess insulin in the amniotic fluid surrounding them during gestation. Mothers who experienced caloric deprivation in a critical portion of pregnancy during the 1944 Hungriwinter in the Netherlands bore sons, 2-3 per cent of which were obese at age 19, more than twice the normal 1-2 per cent obese at
... read more »
|
Wed, 22 Sep 1993 07:22:00 GMT |
|
 |
Chuck Forsberg WA7K #4 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
- -> -> Some obesity related health problems are the result of -> discrimination against obese patients by the medical -> establishment. Insurance companies discriminate against -> obese individuals, even those with no history of health -> problems. Insurance companies are forbidden to test -> applicants for HIV antibodies, a right of privacy not -> afforded to overweight applicants who are compelled to -> measure and report their weight. -> - -There you go again with that "medical establishment" stuff. Obese people -are "discriminated against" on an actuarial basis (they don't live -as long, they cost more in terms of medical expenditures, have -more complications, stay in the hospital longer, etc, etc.). -Insurance companies are *not* forbidden in most states -to test for HIV (I myself was tested recently when I got disability -insurance). Obviously pressure groups can use politics to pass laws Your mileage may vary in other states, but in Oregon one can be refused health insurance for overweight. I have been told that health insurance companies in Oregon can not insist on an HIV test. None of the insurance companies I applied to asked for an HIV test, all required a weight test. -forbidding insurance being written according to actual risk, giving -preferential treatment to those who carry the risks. This should -be recognized, however, as a transfer of wealth from the average -customer to the exceptional one (obese or whatever). There is a deeper issue here. If it is allowed to discriminate according to weight, then fairness demands all risk factors be included, including race. - - -> The obese often get substandard medical treatment. In one -> case, symptoms of allergy induced asthma (post nasal drip) -> were attributed to obesity for several years. I have also -> heard reports of marginally overweight women humiliated by -> male doctors. Similar abuse was reported in a 1983 Nova -> program. The AMA and regulatory bodies should survey the -> incidence of such abuses. - -Obesity is a health risk. It is modifiable through changing one's Missed the point here. The above paragraph did not concern treatment for obesity. It described instances of intellectually lazy doctors failing to properly diagnose a common health problem in a patient that happnes to be fat, because that patient is fat. - -> Controversy abounds about the efficacy of rapid vs slow -> weight loss. Some studies addressing this issue are flawed -> by sample selection problems. Subjects on 1200 calorie and -> 800 calorie VLCD type diets had the same ratio of fat loss -> to lean tissue loss. Diet induced metabolic slowdown was a -> direct function of the amount of weight lost and nothing -> else. (International Journal of Obesity 1989, pp 179-181) - - -This has been my experience. One should state it more accurately -that in most experiments, metabolic rate is proportional to the -lean body mass at a given time in a given individual. It is impossible -to lose fat alone without losing some lean tissue, but some of the -extreme starvation diets (much less than 800 cal) can produce -too much lean tissue loss and lower the metabolism too much. Exercise -is an excellent way of increasing LBM and also burning up calories. Missed the main point again. Reduction of lean body mass accounts for only a portion of the reduced metabolism. Please read the paper in International Journal of Obesity 1991, 15, 7-16 for details. - - -> Weight rebound induced by reducing diets is clinically used -> to add fat to underweight patients who cannot gain weight by -> overeating. -> -This is a very stupid thing to do. I can think of only a few instances That is precisely the point of my original posting. - - -> My personal observations suggest weight rebound is most -> likely when the fat cell size is severely reduced. How long -> the fat cells remain without the triglycerol that prevents -> them from dividing controls the amount of adipocyte -> hyperplasia, not how quickly a diet brings the fat cells to -> that state of stress. Thus, losing weight slowly does not -> reduce weight rebound compared to rapid weight loss. - - -I don't follow this. How did you measure your cell size? Did you -control for lean body mass? This was a summary of what I've learned from my research on the subject. I've listed the most pertinent articles in my original posting to allow the reader to investigate for oneself. - - -> Dieters need {*filter*} to suppress the excessive amounts of LPL, -> glucocorticoids, and runaway fat cell proliferation -> triggered by severe weight loss. -> - -Could you document this? I've never seen any increase in LPL when dieting. The main paper appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 15, Apr 12 1990. If you have data from your personal experience, might you share it with us, along with a complete background? - -> "I can see little reason for intake restriction to receive -> continued support, wither as a subject of research or as an -> accepted therapy for obesity. {*filter*}letting as a therapy for -> pneumonia was abandoned about a century before penicillin -> was discovered. It required a modicum of courage and good -> sense on the part of practitioners who turned away from the -> practice, but there is no reason to believe their patients -> suffered from this lack of therapy." -> - -There are only three possible approaches: intake restriction, -output enhancement, and efficiency alteration. I would agree -with the statement that voluntary intake restriction looks like Where did "voluntary" come from?? That is a fundamental misquote one should NOT have made after reading Bennett's paper. Bennett's paper covered many forms of diet restriction, voluntary and otherwise. If you have access to a good library, do try to read the article by William Bennett in the Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, (book length issue on Human Obesity). -- "Many such [diet] programs proffer treatment as though it were established as effective and safe. Nothing in the results published by research programs authorizes anyone to make such claims." -William Bennett, Harvard Medical School Health Letter
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1993 18:05:55 GMT |
|
 |
Bob Ya #5 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote: > Obesity is a health risk. It is modifiable through changing one's > behavior (it's not easy, but it can be done).
The failure rate is 95%, with many who try this method winding up worse off than before. Clearly this is not the answer. I'm not saying I have the answer or anything, just that I know failure when I see it. Quote: > There are only three possible approaches: intake restriction, > output enhancement, and efficiency alteration.
I would say a fourth approach is to find out more how the whole thing works and take it from there. If I may be permitted the artistic license to quote Mr. Spock, there are always possibilities. Actually, the terms "output enhancement" and "efficiency alteration" seem particularly ill-defined to me. Where does "generation of heat" come in? There's deliberate heat generation (brown fat thermogenesis, which has only been know about for a decade or so -- my own favorite area of bariatric research). And there's exercise, what I suspect you meant (at least in part) by output enhancement. Quote: > I would agree > with the statement that voluntary intake restriction looks like > it will succeed only in a few people. Perhaps, though, some > brain peptide could be found to alter the desire to eat more than > we can burn up in our normal activities, which would be a valuable
The last part here, Gordon, suggests that you view intake restriction -- whether voluntary or brain peptide-assisted -- is a useful approach. It might even be construed that you believe that overeating is most people's problem, tho you certainly did Not say that. I believe that research shows that fat people don't eat more than thin people, and often eat a lot less. Other than the quite real issues of binging or "food abuse", intake restriction looks to me like a time-honored formula for failure. For all the research that shows obesity is a health risk, has the underlying assumption that it is a Cause, rather than just a (very obvious) marker for something else, ever been proven? Best Wishes --
Payphone ripoff? Californians call Pac Bell at 800/352-2201, M-F, 8-5. From elsewhere try the FCC's enforcement division at 202/632-7553.
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1993 12:31:30 GMT |
|
 |
Michael A. Covingt #6 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
My personal approach to weight control is the following: (1) Bring eating habits roughly within the normal range, i.e., eat only when hungry (or plan on eating a reasonable quantity of cooking.net">food and eat only that). In my case I never actually worked out a diet, I simply stopped allowing myself to eat because of stress, anxiety, etc. or any cause other than hunger. (Or to eat only very small snacks under such circumstances.) (2) Then treat weight control as a side effect of a general increase in exercise. My main goal is to be (reasonably) fit and well exercised, rather than to lose weight. Weight does tend to go down when this is done, however. But then, I was never more than about 30% overweight. I really don't know what life is like for people who weigh, say, 300 pounds. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri, 01 Oct 1993 12:17:52 GMT |
|
 |
Edison H.W. Wo #7 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote:
>> Obesity is a health risk. It is modifiable through changing one's >> behavior (it's not easy, but it can be done). >The failure rate is 95%, with many who try this method winding up worse >off than before. Clearly this is not the answer. I'm not saying I have >the answer or anything, just that I know failure when I see it. >... >> I would agree >> with the statement that voluntary intake restriction looks like >> it will succeed only in a few people. Perhaps, though, some >> brain peptide could be found to alter the desire to eat more than >> we can burn up in our normal activities, which would be a valuable >The last part here, Gordon, suggests that you view intake restriction -- >whether voluntary or brain peptide-assisted -- is a useful approach. It >might even be construed that you believe that overeating is most people's >problem, tho you certainly did Not say that. I believe that research >shows that fat people don't eat more than thin people, and often eat >a lot less.
Well, thermodynamics doesn't lie, though: if you don't put cooking.net">food into your system, you don't gain weight -- you lose it. Behavior modification is an important part. The best example is the class of people suffering from anorexia nervosa. The principle reason why restriction of input does not work for most {*filter*}S is that the number of fat cells is relatively constant for {*filter*}s -- stop eating and each fat cell loses mass, but it's very difficult to reduce the actual number so as soon as the body starts taking in more calories after the diet is over, the cells grow again... This works for children and adolescents much better (hence, anorexics actually do lose weight!-) because their fat cells are still multiplying; if they restrict their intake, they can minimize their growing population of fat cells. Of course, the balance between starvation and obesity can be very tricky in someone undergoing metabolic shifts... It's very easy to dismiss prevention of obesity with objections of malnutrition, but if one considers that the amount of nutrition available today is greater than ever before and that obesity is greater, then, just maybe we should think a little more closely about cause and effect... (Of course, it doesn't do much good to take away the cause if the effect is done!-) Edison Wong -- - - 0 0 o o | > > === <=> \_/ Inquiring minds want to know: just how did he do that???
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1993 00:42:52 GMT |
|
 |
Bob Ya #8 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote: > Well, thermodynamics doesn't lie, though: if you don't put cooking.net">food into > your system, you don't gain weight -- you lose it. Behavior modification > is an important part. The best example is the class of people suffering > from anorexia nervosa. Thermodynamics may not lie, but isn't that irrelevant? Just because starvation makes people lose weight doesn't prove it's a good method to use. (One could same the same about, say {*filter*}-letting or amputation, and this would be obvious.) I wouldn't hold anorexics up as an example of anything healthy. But there is no doubt that starvation causes One speculation of mine about the increased indidence of adiposity in developed countries is the disruption of the light/dark cycle which is provided by electricity. I suspect that brown fat thermogenesis is heavily influenced by the brain's notion of "time of year". (Kindly note that this speculation is clearly labelled as such.) --
Payphone ripoff? Californians call Pac Bell at 800/352-2201, M-F, 8-5. From elsewhere try the FCC's enforcement division at 202/632-7553.
|
Fri, 01 Oct 1993 13:49:24 GMT |
|
 |
Chuck Forsberg WA7K #9 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Apparently some posters have not benefited from a careful reading of my original posting. There is, for example, evidence that intermittent starvation causes some individuals to increase their number of fat cells. Again, I ask that people at least read Bennett's paper before continuing this nonsense. -- "Many such [diet] programs proffer treatment as though it were established as effective and safe. Nothing in the results published by research programs authorizes anyone to make such claims." -William Bennett, Harvard Medical School Health Letter
|
Fri, 01 Oct 1993 22:09:02 GMT |
|
 |
Annick Anssel #10 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
I suspect that brown fat thermogenesis is Quote: >heavily influenced by the brain's notion of "time of year". (Kindly >note that this speculation is clearly labelled as such.)
{*filter*}s have virtually ni brown fat deposits. Even babies only have a very small amount
|
Sat, 02 Oct 1993 13:10:26 GMT |
|
 |
Edison H.W. Wo #11 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote:
>> Well, thermodynamics doesn't lie, though: if you don't put cooking.net">food into >> your system, you don't gain weight -- you lose it. Behavior modification >> is an important part. The best example is the class of people suffering >> from anorexia nervosa. >Thermodynamics may not lie, but isn't that irrelevant? Just because >starvation makes people lose weight doesn't prove it's a good method >to use. (One could same the same about, say {*filter*}-letting or amputation, >and this would be obvious.) I wouldn't hold anorexics up as an example >of anything healthy. But there is no doubt that starvation causes
I wouldn't hold up anorexics as an example of healthy behavior either, but my posting was meant to show that behavior modification does work quite well (After all, any diet that works, succeeds by starvation. The question is what happens after the starvation!-). However, efficient metabolism of adipose tissue cannot take place without sufficient carbohydrates to burn. Anorexics compensate by converting protein to carbohydrates to burn off fat. So, cutting out almost all your carbos will make it difficult to burn off fat...(unless you're starving at the level of an anorexic!-). BTW, amputation may sound silly, but people still have stomach surgery and liposuction to reduce adiposity... -- - - 0 0 o o | > > === <=> \_/ Inquiring minds want to know: just how did he do that???
|
Mon, 04 Oct 1993 08:24:48 GMT |
|
 |
Chuck Forsberg WA7K #12 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
-question is what happens after the starvation!-). However, efficient -metabolism of adipose tissue cannot take place without sufficient -carbohydrates to burn. Anorexics compensate by converting protein to -carbohydrates to burn off fat. So, cutting out almost all your carbos -will make it difficult to burn off fat...(unless you're starving at the I can see it now. The SUGAR DIET. (Sugar is carbohydrate, no?) -- "Many such [diet] programs proffer treatment as though it were established as effective and safe. Nothing in the results published by research programs authorizes anyone to make such claims." -William Bennett, Harvard Medical School Health Letter
|
Tue, 05 Oct 1993 17:45:43 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #13 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote: >But then, I was never more than about 30% overweight. I really don't >know what life is like for people who weigh, say, 300 pounds.
Not fun. That's the threshold for being a freak. Little kids ask their mothers about you on the street. You don't fit into an airline seat or behind the wheel of your car. Getting off a sofa is a struggle. You can't buy clothes in a regular store. You are subject to fungal infections between your skin folds (& they smell bad). You are stereotyped as sloppy and lazy. The only women that will look at you also weigh 300 lbs. It's a real bummer, I can tell you.
|
Fri, 01 Oct 1993 21:08:58 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #14 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
Quote:
>> Obesity is a health risk. It is modifiable through changing one's >> behavior (it's not easy, but it can be done). >The failure rate is 95%, with many who try this method winding up worse >off than before. Clearly this is not the answer. I'm not saying I have >the answer or anything, just that I know failure when I see it.
How many regular contributors do you suppose there are on this newsgroup? Will all those who have weighed 300 lbs or more please raise their hands? Now all those who have lost more than 100 lbs of that and kept it off for at least 4 years keep their hands up, please. I don't see very clearly with all this smoke, but there seem to be at least 2 hands still up (myself & Mr. {*filter*}). Maybe a few more will emerge from the gloom yet. I know success when I see it. The problem is the 95% statistics are accrued from people who present to obesity researchers. These are people who almost always have failed to be able to lose weight on their own after many tries. Those who can lose and keep it off by diet and exercise don't show up at obesity clinics where this sort of data is gathered. It would take a huge population study to find out what percentage can lose on their own. We probably should do the study to try to find out what is responsible for the success cases if we can. Quote: >> with the statement that voluntary intake restriction looks like >> it will succeed only in a few people. Perhaps, though, some >> brain peptide could be found to alter the desire to eat more than >> we can burn up in our normal activities, which would be a valuable >The last part here, Gordon, suggests that you view intake restriction -- >whether voluntary or brain peptide-assisted -- is a useful approach. It >might even be construed that you believe that overeating is most people's >problem, tho you certainly did Not say that. I believe that research >shows that fat people don't eat more than thin people, and often eat >a lot less.
Fat people eat more than they burn up. That is the only certain thing. A lot of fat people like me (I consider myself a fat person even though I currently am not overweight) definitely have a problem controlling our intake. Most of my relatives on my father's side are also obese. Yes, we do eat a lot. I can easily eat 3500 calories a day and not feel too full. At that rate, I'll gain more than a pound per week. My fat relatives and I can eat like there was no tomorrow. The question is why do we do it? In my opinion, (backed by plenty of research) we have a genetic predisposition to obesity. Our brains tell us to eat and get fat. Probably there was a good reason for this type of body to evolve in Northern Europe (as elsewhere) as such people do very well in famines. I am also aware that there are people who can eat 3500 calories a day and never gain an ounce. (I'm jealous). Research has shown that certain people will turn any extra calories into fat while others will burn it off (recent Canadian twin study) and that this ability is genetically related. I am not saying that our being fatties is a vice. Most people who are thin are not thin because they are practicing self-control but because they have no desire to eat any more than they burn off. We do. If we aren't fat, it is because we have to continually be obsessed with dieting and exercise. It is no wonder than most people have lapses and relapses from such a regimen. But no one can tell me I am happier fat and not worrying about what I eat. I've been both places. Some people, however, may be better off fat than continually failing, which can be worse for health and self-esteem than obesity. I also recognize that there are fat people (especially women) who eat very little. Often these are people who get very little exercise and have low lean body mass, however. What is absolutely certain is that if you put any person in the hospital and control completely what they eat, you can cause them to lose weight. Quote: >For all the research that shows obesity is a health risk, has the underlying >assumption that it is a Cause, rather than just a (very obvious) marker for >something else, ever been proven?
Surveys of reduced obese have documented in almost every case improvement in objective measures of health such as lower {*filter*} glucose, {*filter*} pressure, {*filter*} lipids, etc. The fact that so few obese in these studies stay reduced long term makes it harder to make statements about their outcome. Most people feel that it is positive, however.
|
Wed, 29 Sep 1993 23:45:26 GMT |
|
 |
Chuck Forsberg WA7K #15 / 20
|
 Updated Adiposity 101 (long)
-The problem is the 95% statistics are accrued from people who present -to obesity researchers. These are people who almost always have Unfounded assumption?? -failed to be able to lose weight on their own after many tries. Those -who can lose and keep it off by diet and exercise don't show up at -obesity clinics where this sort of data is gathered. It would take a How Many who regain their weight don't show up either? -huge population study to find out what percentage can lose on their own. -We probably should do the study to try to find out what is responsible -for the success cases if we can. A good point. Be sure to normalize for the biological factors that distinguish the chronically obese from normal subjects. -per week. My fat relatives and I can eat like there was no tomorrow. This puts you in a minority of fat people. The research cited indicates obese individuals do not eat more than average, and many eat less than average. -Surveys of reduced obese have documented in almost every case improvement -in objective measures of health such as lower {*filter*} glucose, {*filter*} -pressure, {*filter*} lipids, etc. The fact that so few obese in these -studies stay reduced long term makes it harder to make statements -about their outcome. Most people feel that it is positive, however. The fact remains: no controlled intervention study has shown long term health improvement resulting from dieting. For each long term dieting success there appear to be several unfortunates who end up fatter and less healthy for their efforts. -- "Many such [diet] programs proffer treatment as though it were established as effective and safe. Nothing in the results published by research programs authorizes anyone to make such claims." -William Bennett, Harvard Medical School Health Letter
|
Wed, 06 Oct 1993 15:40:40 GMT |
|
|
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 20 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|