Obesity and ... Chemicals

[nadinbrzezinski]

Let the articles do the talking (and crow will be at the end for those who want it)

These data suggest a role for toxicology in the etiology of obesity. This role has received additional support from a recent review (Baillei-Hamilton, 2002) that presents a provocative hypothesis to explain the global obesity epidemic: chemical toxins. This article presents data showing that the current epidemic in obesity cannot be explained solely by alterations in food intake and/or decrease in exercise. There is a genetic predisposition component of obesity; however, genetics could not have changed over the past few decades, suggesting that environmental changes might be responsible for at least part of the current obesity epidemic. Indeed, the level of chemicals in the environment is purported to coincide with the incidence of obesity, and examples of chemicals that appear to cause weight gain by interfering with elements of the human weight control system—such as alterations in weight-controlling hormones, altered sensitivity to neurotransmitters, or altered activity of the sympathetic nervous system—are noted. Indeed, many synthetic chemicals are actually used to increase weight in animals. This article provides fascinating examples of chemicals that have been tested for toxicity by standard tests that resulted in weight gain in the animals at lower doses than those that caused any obvious toxicity. These chemicals included heavy metals, solvents, polychlorinated biphenols, organophosphates, phthalates, and bisphenol A. This is an aspect of the data that has generally been overlooked.

----------

Thus, the data on the fetal basis of adult disease, along with the above-referenced chemical hypothesis of obesity, add significance to examination of exposure to environmental chemicals as likely candidates to be tested for an effect on obesity. Chemicals having endocrine-disrupting activity rise to the top of the list as most act via receptors linked to activation of transcriptional activity. The state of the science in the area of endocrine disruptors, including data on their mechanism of action has recently been reviewed (Damstra et al., 2002). This World Health Organization- (WHO-)sanctioned review clearly shows that endocrine disruptors, especially those with estrogenic activity, act via alterations in gene expression and that many of these changes are imprinted and remain even into the next generation. The focus of endocrine-disruptor research around the world has been on the reproductive, immune, and nervous systems as evidenced by the WHO review. There has been little information of the possible direct effect of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on fat cell differentiation or physiology. Neither has there been an attempt to link effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on the immune or nervous system with effects on fat cell metabolism via alterations in hormonal or nervous system control of adipose tissue.

----------

As with any article, this one also asks more questions than it answers. For example, why are the effects of NP only partially inhibited by the estrogen receptor antagonist ICI182,780? It would have been helpful if the effects of estrogen were measured in this system and the effects of ICI182,780 tested on the estrogen response. Measurement of the estrogen receptor in these cells across the differentiation process would also be helpful. Since these analyses were not done, it is not clear if the effect of NP and OP in this article or that of BPA in a previous article (Masuno et al., 2002), in which ICI182,780 was not tested, mediated their effects via an estrogen receptor. In light of the potential impact of this research, answers to these questions must be forthcoming. Other questions relevant to this article include consideration of the use of serum that contains steroids in the cultures and the use of plastic culture dishes and their impact on the data.

There are also other, more global questions that need answers: Will these results extrapolate to the in vivo situation in rodents and other animal models? Will the results shown with high concentrations in vitro be replicated in vivo with low environmentally relevant concentrations? Will humans be sensitive to the in utero exposure to environmental estrogens with regard to the development of adipocytes? Will toxicology and environmental health sciences play a major role in addressing the obesity epidemic via reduction in exposures to environmental chemicals in utero and throughout life? Will this area of research be a fruitful area for intervention and prevention studies of obesity? Only time and more research will tell, but the door has been opened by the novel work being highlighted.



http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/76/2/247

Abstract

Xenobiotic and dietary compounds with hormone-like activity can disrupt endocrine signaling pathways that play important roles during perinatal differentiation and result in alterations that are not apparent until later in life. Evidence implicates developmental exposure to environmental hormone-mimics with a growing list of health problems. Obesity is currently receiving needed attention since it has potential to overwhelm health systems worldwide with associated illnesses such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Here, we review the literature that proposes an association of exposure to environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals with the development of obesity. We describe an animal model of developmental exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a potent perinatal endocrine disruptor with estrogenic activity, to study mechanisms involved in programming an organism for obesity. This experimental animal model provides an example of the growing scientific field termed “the developmental origins of adult disease” and suggests new targets of abnormal programming by endocrine disrupting chemicals.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC0-4MV750S-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1099965918&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=70ce8ca18d2f699c3a3dd5c86f054684

Obesity continues to rise in the United States and throughout the world. Both leptin from fat cells and insulin from pancreatic B cells are created in direct proportion to body fat. Obese persons have higher levels of these two hormones than lean individuals. Recent studies show that another hormone, estrogen, also has a similar affect.

When estrogen receptors in the hypothalamus of rats were destroyed, female rats ate more food, burnt less energy and became obese. Research suggests a link between estrogen and obesity, especially the dangerous accumulation of abdominal fat linked to cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes mellitus, and certain cancers. The abstract was submitted by Deborah J. Clegg, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Obesity Research Center, at the University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, to the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society on August 20, 2007. Her findings will assist scientists in developing new hormone replacement therapies.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Estrogen-Link-to-Obesity&id=1668125

And I do not expect most of you to read this either... that is the truth...

Now back to my hidey hole and waiting for the expected sniping and the it is just calories in calories out... easy mantra to repeat and believe... and yes ghosts are real and so are UFOs...Carl Sagan was so right, and we now live in an age of warlocks and witches...

[Hekate]

1. 5th Rec. KnR my dear.

dang typo

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Thanks and I am so tired of the bullshit

Though bobby had a good idea... put this in book form for the general population.

After all and I admit it, readying all that crap requires a dictionary for most folks.

Hell, so many books, so little time... I started research on one on the history of labor... the newest one I could find was written in the 1970s... and technically that is much more up my alley.

[medeak]

3. and obesity virus

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070820/obesity-virus-more-bigger-fat-cells

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Let's start linking them

Common Virus Boosts Fat-Cell Production -- and Makes Fat Cells Fatter
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Aug. 20, 2007 - Infection with a virus linked to human obesity ups fat-cell production and makes fat cells fatter.

"Infectobesity" is the term coined by Louisiana State University researcher Nikhil Dhurandhar, PhD, and colleagues to describe the phenomenon. Their research strongly links a common human virus -- adenovirus-36 or Ad-36 -- to human obesity.

Previous research showed that nearly 30% of obese people, but only 11% of lean people, have been infected with Ad-36. Monkeys experimentally infected with Ad-36 gain significant weight.

Link up one post

[medeak]

9. obesity virus test here

http://www.obesityvirus.com/doccontent/obesityvirus/testkitorderform.aspx

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. THanks I will ask the doctor and I will suggest this to my sis

[FirstLight]

4. Chemicals in everything CAN'T be good for us...

Not just the byproducts of toxins that lurk in the groundwater - but the toxins injected into our meat, the grains that are altered, etc. Mass production of food is the worst thing to happen to our society.

The rates of cancer, diabetes, hypertension, etc aren't just rising in the past 50 years because we are less healthy (not working in the fields or moving much anymore and eating empty calories) I agree it has to do with the chronic pollution we have been exposed to on a mass scale...

and yet all I CAN do is try to eat healthier and move more, the rest is a crapshoot I suppose.
(dammitt, and it gets harder to lose the weight after 40! ack!)

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. If this was just the US... yeah sure it would be our diet

but no... right now there are 1 Billion world wide who are obese....

DDT was first deployed in 1937...

Reap, sow and all that...

[FirstLight]

10. I agree, it isn't just the US...

and the chemical connection in our lives (and our foodstuffs, soil, etc) is EVERYWHERE.
Also, that the pollution of the air in china can harm those on the the west coast, etc. We are all connected, and the planet has been our dumping ground for a couple centuries - and growing exponentially with all kinds of new and exciting lethal mixtures being added and invented every year, Yuummmm!

Makes me want a new planet, man.

but yes, reap sow...you're right... what can we actually DO about it though? ...really?
I would love to fix it, but it seems like yet another inevitability of the state we are collectively in as a planet....screwn

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Well this is the first step

the fact that they are finally asking the questions...

Personally we have gone as organic as we can in this household... so at a personal level we are doing what we can.

But as a mass of population... here is the catch 22... all these chemicals created the green revolution. On a very positive assessment, before climate change, the world has a carrying capacity for four billion people. Our current population is at least 2 billion over that. So stopping this like that will lead to massive starvation of a degree humans have never seen.

In my view it will happen anyway, as these chemicals are highly dependent on oil and we are running out of it.

On the bright side... I am willing to bet that nature will evolve and adapt, it is highly sneaky... now does that mean humans will survive? I don't know... but given the last bottleneck was 600 breeding individuals strong... we got a pretty good chance.

[On the Road]

12. If DDT Were Responsible

obesity should have increased in Africa and East Asia following the introduction of DDT, while declining in Europe and the US after being banned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. DDT was the first in a long family of chemicals to be introduced

you do remember the effect it had on eggs right? And now we are finding out that CURRENT generation of chemicals are doing this in vivo while in-utero. Read the articles posted in the OP. Don't ask me questions, just read them.

If need be, get an online dictionary... the etiology of obesity is related to the way these hormones block receptors in utero chiefly and later in life.

[On the Road]

29. I Don't Doubt That Pesticides and Other Chemicals Can Cause Weight Gain

and you posted on another thread an experience with the dramatic effect that medication can have on weight gain regardless of calorie intake.

However, on a global scale, the patterns of changes in obesity wouldn't seem to correlate well with the changes in chemical environment, suggesting that toxins are not the primary driver of these large-scale changes.

Areas the like former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and mainland China tend to have fewer controls on pesticides and industrial pollution, and as a result went through periods where toxins in the environment increased were very high (and may still be). To my knowledge, none of those areas had a general increase in obesity during or after those times.

Increases in obesity have happened most significantly in the US and other industrialized countries after chemicals like DDT were banned and exposure to various toxins would appear to have stabilized or actually decreased.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. If you want to think they are minimal so be it

the leading science does not agree.

That's ok. Chemicals are not the only factor, but they are a significant one.

And exposure to various chemicals has not decreased or stabilized.... you heard of industrial agriculture?

I know, I know, I know, silly stupid me, it is just calories in, calories out... and we should not ask what else is going on... really too threatening to some folks.

[sheldon]

80. What's really threatening is the fact

that most people have almost no clue that the diet they've been trained to eat is killing them and making them fat while it's at it.
Many of them actually have an idea, deep down that what they are eating is WRONG. But they get suckered into eating highly processed foods, and find them very hard to give up.

[upi402]

7. woosh

Is the noise when I read stuff like this;
"why are the effects of NP only partially inhibited by the estrogen receptor antagonist ICI182,780?"
And I really liked ICI182,780. Tastes like chicken.

But I agree with what I follow. I'm just too tired to slog through it all now. I think I read that estrogen is in softeners. This is also often found in canned food lining. Campbells and Progresso soups were tested, as I recall. Boys estrogen levels were found to be high, as I recall.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Why I try to post things in simplified English and get

beaten to a pulp by the bullies who go it is only food in, food out crowd.

Two say they are scientists, so this should not be over their heads...

Oh and translation, they do not know why one of the places where this chemistry takes place, it is not full, but just partial.

Perhaps I should do what Bobby suggested and do a popular book on this...

[Chemisse]

27. Calores in/calories out makes nice simple sense

Too bad our bodies are far more complex than that.

[sandnsea]

14. My hunger has always coincided with my cycle

Every single week was different, in fact. It's about time they started studying hormones because there's no doubt in my mind they have a huge affect on all kinds of things and most definitely hunger.

[Missy Vixen]

20. Oh, yeah

There are two or three days a month that I will eat every bit of chocolate I can find. The rest of the month, I can ignore it. I want salt and fat and caffeine. I'm also hungrier than at any other time, too. The rest of the month, no problem. Our bodies crave nutrients during that time, but in my experience, it's stuff I don't typically eat or drink any other time.

A former researcher at the University of Washington did a study on menstruation several years ago during which she proved that a woman's body rids itself of toxins during that five days per month. I'd love to know what the hormone spike we also feel does to the body as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Guilty as charged

and the chocolate... it is mostly a niacin craving last time I checked

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Somehow popping a naicin supplement

just doesn't seem like it would satisfy those cravings, you know? When I need chocolate, I find it better to just have chocolate - otherwise I find myself eating much more of everything else, trying to satisfy that craving. A bit of nice, dark chocolate is probably the better choice!

[JerseygirlCT]

67. And menopause...

am wondering what the hormone connection is with that... and with varying levels of HRT.

I didn't really gain weight around my middle in the past - or a little, along with more of it in my butt and hips and thighs.

I'm now seeing it around my waist and higher even. Nothing's different - if anything I eat more carefully and exercise more. But there it sits.

[unc70]

16. I have posted about AD-36 for years. Soy might be another factor

As I have posted repeatedly, I think that the impact of AD-36 has been significant, particularly when you look at morbid obesity and its spread over time on a county-by=county basis. Likely aided somewhat by insects -- think pink eye.

There is a growing body of research that implicates the addition of soy to many prepared foods and the increased use of soy in infant formula as a risk factor in several areas. My confidence level is lower on this research than on the adenovirus work, but it still looks like a possible issue. Its characteristics are too close to those of DES to be ignored.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Oy soy.... It does have some benefits

let me go ahead and do some links to articles since that is the only thing that gets these people to go HMMM... maybe

ngestion of foods with high protein content is well known to suppress appetite and food intake in humans 14. Among the three macronutrients (carbohydrate, fat, and protein), protein has the most suppressing effect on food intake. In addition, dietary protein has been shown to induce higher satiating and thermogenic effects and greater weight loss than carbohydrates 15-17. In a randomized trial in overweight and obese subjects, consumption of high protein (25% of total energy) in ad libitum fat-reduced diets for 6 months produced greater weight loss and body fat loss, compared to consumption of high carbohydrate (12% of total energy) 15. These effects were not related to changes in fat intake since the amount of dietary fat (30% of total energy) was maintained constant during the intervention. Similarly, in a 4-week randomized dietary intervention trial of male obese hyperinsulinemic subjects, a high protein hypoenergetic diet (45% protein, 25% carbohydrates, and 30% fat) also induced greater weight loss and resting energy expenditure, compared to a high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet (12% protein, 25% carbohydrates, and 30% fat) 16. In a recent 12-week trial conducted in healthy adult subjects, increasing the amount of dietary protein content from 15% to 30% of total energy while maintaining the carbohydrate content (50%of total daily caloric intake) in the diet resulted in sustained losses in weight and body fat 17. The favorable effects on body composition in this study appear to be due to sustained decrease in appetite and ad libitum caloric intake induced by the high-protein intake. More recently, Batterham et al examined the effects of dietary protein on satiety and the responses of gut hormones, particularly the gut hormone peptide YY (PYY), a known inhibitor of food intake in humans and rodents 18. These investigators showed that high-protein intake induced an increase in plasma PYY levels and marked satiety in normal-weight and obese human subjects. Furthermore, in studies of obese Pyy null mice, which were selectively resistant to the satiating and weight-reducing effects of protein, exogenous administration of PYY in these animals reversed their obesity. These findings suggest that modulating the release of endogenous satiety factors, such as PYY treatment, plays an important role in mediating the satiating effects of dietary protein.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/articles/PMC1838825/

But on the down side, there is a link (suspected) with cancer

Helferich and colleagues demonstrated that – like estradiol – dietary genistein stimulates the growth of estrogen-responsive tumors. They also found that dietary genistein interferes with treatments, such as tamoxifen, that target estrogen receptors in breast tumors. (About 70 percent of women with breast cancer have estrogen-responsive tumors.)
“The resolution of this paradox may lie in the timing of estrogen administration,” Helferich said. Exposure to genistein, an estrogen, before puberty causes mammary gland differentiation. “A differentiated cell undergoes less proliferation and therefore is less likely to progress through the cancer process,” he said. “However, if the estrogen is administered to an animal after the development of an estrogen-responsive tumor, the growth of this tumor will be stimulated,” he said

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516133004.htm

But of course this is up for debate leading to my other working theory, diets are truly dependent on where we grew up (as in ethnic origin)

"Historically, breast cancer incidence rates have been four to seven times higher among white women in the U.S. than in women in China or Japan. However, when Asian women migrate to the U.S., their breast cancer risk rises over several generations and reaches that of U.S. white women, suggesting that modifiable factors, rather than genetics, are responsible for the international differences. These lifestyle or environmental factors remain elusive; our study was designed to identify them," said Regina Ziegler, Ph.D., M.P.H., a senior investigator in the NCI Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090324131442.htm

Oh and sorry to be linking mostly to studies, but this is what some folks seem to want.

[Missy Vixen]

28. Those with thyroid disease should be avoiding soy

It's Kryptonite to the thyroid hormone replacement med we take...

[undergroundpanther]

18. I think

The chemical manufacturing companies already know what thier pollution does to people.They act like they didn't know,or some other plausible deniability shit and people will believe them.
Remember "tort reform"? It's goal is to get legal immunity to chemical companies,polluters,and drug companies and pretty much any company who's production hurts people.

http://www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-facts/stories/cala.php

Ever notice most cleansers do NOT list the chemical ingredients?

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/rtk/righttoknow.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/wellness-articles/industrial-water-pollution-is-a-serious-issue-and-can-harm-your-health-1415795.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. No there is something actually called unintended consequences

but now that this research is being done... you will see a ramping up of an obfuscation campaign a la ... global weather change and many folks, even here on this site, gladly cooperate and serve the role of useful idiots....

[Johonny]

21. Not to pick on this but

This can't be the total answer either. General populations live in the same area and yet have totally different weight distributions. Often based on different cultural factors. I think the "problem" is more complex. Problems often have more than one cause.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Nobody said it was

but some folks actually deny that this even can have a role. And are just stuck in an old mantra... a simplistic one, calories in, calories out, which up to ten years was the accepted mechanism, and if you go to your doctor, and you have an obesity problem... well chances are he\she will tell you go on a diet. (And while you can do very well to go on one, it is time to ask why we have an epidemic) I have to put this disclaimer here for those who claim that any of these articles say that we all think you can eat anything, because hell you can't do a thing about it;

And this is the leading edge

Other elements:

Genetics.

Viruses.

Diseases.

and just the top of the list.

Now you raised an important question what about the area you grew up in. and I don't mean you, but where did your family come from? I suspect, not that I have seen any research on this, (well beyond the Pima Indian Studies and Eastern Asian diets vs western diets) that you and me, and every other human evolved to eat a particular group of foods. And when we are taken out of that and given diets that are "alien" we can have interesting effects on weight and general health, even perhaps allergic reactions. I could not point to articles, because I don't think too many folks have looked at that. But for god sakes, my particular ethnic group has a higher incidence of Ty Sachs... why not evolve to eat a certain diet? Human evolution has not stopped. Just a thought.

So no, nobody is claiming that there is only ONE factor... unlike what some folks believe...

[TicketyBoo]

31. My mother dieted her whole life

and died fat.

I kinda decided, "Why bother? I'm gonna eat what I want, and to heck with it."

But when I was diagnosed with diabetes, I did start paying more attention to what I eat.

Certainly, it is more complicated than calories in, calories out, or Mom would not have died fat, because she was a dedicated dieter, weighing or measuring everything she ate, and going hungry much of the time.

The myth of the "jolly fat person" is just that — a myth.

[sheldon]

81. Too bad she never discovered

a raw, plant-based diet. She could have eaten her fill and found her ideal bodyweight very quickly.

[TicketyBoo]

92. If only it were that easy.

It isn't. Gastroenteritis pretty much precludes a "raw, plant-based diet."

There really is no "one size fits all" diet, and I wish people would stop assuming that what works for one person will work for all.

[sheldon]

95. I suggest you look into it

Before you suffer the same fate.
Raw, plant-based is very nearly a "one size fits all" diet. Far more so than any other, from what I've seen.
The health benefits are amazing. I've seen it firsthand.

[Johonny]

32. You seem like a very earnest person

But you also seem to be a prime target for junk and unproven science. You quote Sagan but I'm not clear you understand Carl Sagan the scientist too much. A lot of your post reflect a lot of reliance on very shaky or unproven science that perfectly hits something you very much want to believe. I respect that you keep your mind open to new ideas, but you might want to scale back on holding these beliefs too firmly until the scientific fact really warrant them. Yes estrogen mimicking drug may play a role in obesity, but it's not clear at all that they do play a major role.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Thanks for proving my point

that you can lead the horse to water, but hell some horses will never drink from that water.

What I posted on the OP are PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, ARTICLES.

You are aware what standards these articles need to meet (that is the studies) before they are even considered for publication?

But for some people this is so damn threatening that it does not matter if it comes from a scientific journal or not... this is bunk... I get it. Why I also call these folks the equivalent to global weather change deniers.

Oh and yes I do understand what Carl Sagan meant. Thanks for proving the point.

Here is a hint of the process for this "bunk science."

First you need the question of course, what is going on? We call that a hypothesis...

Then if you decide to actually do a study you need to first design your experiment. Then you need to submit your design to the ethics committee, whether you use humans or not you still need to. After that get a grant... do your study for at times fifteen years or so (in a few cases longer)... and then look at all the data you collected and see if your hypothesis actually matches the data. Chances are, no matter how well designed the study was done... your data will match some of it, but you will have some surprises along the way.

Now after you do all that, you need to actually write your article and send it to the proper journal where OTHERS in your field go through it and decide whether the study meets the requirements for publication. By the way this goes back all the way to Boyle and other peers of the British Society who actually wrote the first articles that would be considered modern science. Admittedly the review process has gotten all that much tougher since oh the 17th century.

Now I would say that your comment is a reflection on you, not me.

Oh and here is a free clue. You think there is only Nature as a journal? Nature is the best known, but you honestly believe that is the only journal;?

Jesus age you guys are shown the ACTUAL leading edge science and you call it bunk? Telling.

[JuniperLea]

58. I think you miss the main point...

This is not a "major role" in anything... just another brick in the new wall of information out there.

This person's story of weighing food and constant dieting is becoming closer to the norm than not. I know I cannot eat more than 1000 calories a day or I will gain weight. My normal body temperature is 1.2 degrees cooler than "average." I eat a lot less than virtually everyone I know just to stay "normal." My body doesn't burn as much energy to stay warm, and I can tolerate a lot lower temperatures than most.

No two people are the same. You really can't make blanket statements.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. This is a great post for so many reasons. I wish I had more time.

Thanks Nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I copied and pasted into my notebook

:-)

[mahina]

26. I can believe that, for sure.

Wondering what to do about it now though, since minimizing exposure going forward isn't enough.

[FarCenter]

30. If you don't like conservation of energy, try conservation of mass

Unless you are being fed intravenously, your only intake of carbon atoms is through the mouth.

You excrete carbon atoms in feces, urine, and sweat. You also breath them out as CO2.

Fat contains carbon atoms. Carbon atoms are essential for the biosynthesis of fat in your body.

The only way to get fat is to consistently take in more carbon atoms through your mouth than you excrete or breath out through the above pathways.

There is no nuclear reactor in your body that changes other elements to carbon.

The physicists' laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy are not in danger of being overturned by biologists.

---

Added note:

Also for the females, carbon atoms exit the body in vaginal secretions, menstrual fluids, placenta, amniotic fluid, and babies.

For men, sperm and semen are probably too small to matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. And nobody said they were... but in biological systems they are not as simple

as in a calorimeter.

And that is the fucking point.

Not that this matters to the energy in, energy out school of thought. It makes them be so much more smug and superior... instead of asking the proper scientific question WHY?

[FarCenter]

39. It is the same as in a calorimeter

Energy in - energy out = energy to storage as fat.

The problem is in properly accounting for the energy in and energy out. Energy in is fairly easy to accurately measure. But energy out is more difficult, since it consists of basal metabolism, activity, heat loss, losses due to conversion of substrates such as fat to metabolic inputs, etc. Plus energy out as undigested food.

Chemicals can affect metabolic rates, and they can affect the autonomic system functions that cause hunger or other physiological conditions that affect psychological conditioning to eat and drink. Thus, for some people, changes to the biochemical processes in the body make it very difficult to exercise rational judgements as to what and how much they should eat.

But they don't miraculously change physics. And unless those people eat less, excersizer more, or take drugs that modify metabolism, they will stay fat.

One thing that I haven't seen much on is how changes in digestion and absorption of nutrients affect body weight. It is possible that your body adjusts digestion and absorption to only take up enough calories to maintain a specific weight. If thin people eat more calories than they need to maintain weight, they simply excrete them. Conversely, fat people extract more calories from their food before they reach the point of excreting the balance. This is certainly true of episodic overeating, which is why an extra 3500 calories at Thanksgiving doesn't result in an extra pound of fat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Well if this makes you happier and that much more smug,

it is...

Never mind all the studies done show that it is NOT that simple and you are ignoring hormones, genetics and the rest.

Have a good fucking life, feeling that much more superior. The wonderful life of warlocks and wizards is for you... in your absolutist thinking

PLUNK.

Jesus age, I knew that even PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES FROM ACTUAL JOURNALS would still be too complex for the simplistic thinking crew who still refuse to ask the PROPER SCIENTIFIC QUESTION WHY?

Welcome to my ignore list.

Far less painful than this

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Scout]

41. i DID eat less and i DID exercise more ... and my certified, professional, personal

trainer told me that i had to EAT MORE or i would not start to burn the fat i had.

cutting calories and increasing exercise does NOT ALWAYS lead to fat loss.

get it?

[Gwendolyn]

43. That's probably because you were on a starvation diet.

Your intake was so low your body rebelled and went into hoarding mode, increasing its efficiency at latching on to every shred of fat. My guess is that your personal professional trainer explained that to you while switching you to a diet that was more reasonable yet was still in the energy deficit range. What you describe happens to a lot of people who are impatient, or unaware of how dangerous or inefficient very low calorie diets are. Still doesn't change the validity of the other person's post though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Another absolutist going into my ignore list

after all no matter whether they are shown the ACTUAL peer reviewed data or not, it matters little

bye bye.

[Gwendolyn]

47. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCnkAMfl5c

[boppers]

105. Ignorance of peer review will not help you.

Responding to critics will.

[Scout]

51. what i'm saying and you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that

the people who say you are fat because you eat too much and don't exercise are FULL OF SHIT.

i DIDN'T eat too much and i DID exercise, and i did not lose weight.

i know full well that starvation diets don't work, that is why i keep telling those calories in-calories out simpletons that they are full of shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Not worth it, this is someting some folks need to believe

for their own egos. Does not matter how much actual peer reviewed articles they are shown, or that the science is now telling us that the old common sense it is just what you eat and how much you exercise well it is not that simple. It violates also their ability to bully and cajole those who for many reasons, some from overeating mind you... have weight issues.

It is just that it used be all who are overweight or obese should eat less and exercise more. Increasingly we are finding it is not that simple. And for some reason this is threatening and they come with all kinds of responses that are common sense based, but far from leading edge science. Hell many doctors are still where they are... since this is leading edge.

That is why I am increasingly putting these simpletons on ignore... the willfully ignorant, don't care about their actual background, are proud of it.

Now stop eating and exercise more... that is all you will hear from them. It is almost a defense mechanism.

[Gwendolyn]

59. I'm willing to acknowledge that people are very often dismissive and unfair.

Absolutely. Some people who talk about calories in/calories out think in very simplistic terms, I agree. But I would say that at least some of the people who post here and buy it are still very well aware of the myriad of factors that affect a person between the in to out phase, which include hormones, HFCS, chemicals/pollution, medication, etc... and that none of it is simple or easy at all.

The poster you responded to struck me as that kind of person. Your comparison doesn't seem to work because you were still dieting and exercising. Just not correctly.

And the fact is some people ARE overweight because they overeat and don't exercise. Like much of my family, some of whom are chronically obese. They're bon vivants, enjoy life to the max, and don't care. They'd be the first to laugh and admit it, and at the same time offer you an amazing meal and a nice glass of wine.

[Missy Vixen]

73. They'll just bring up the fact that concentration camp victims lost weight

Of course, we all know that people in concentration camps were healthy. They were thin!

:sarcasm:

[boppers]

106. As a person who made that correlation....

...and a person who has spent the last 5 years closely monitoring the topic, please see my post about side effects.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Or other starvation situations

yep.

[boppers]

89. There was a very large scale study conducted on this.

A very unethical one, I might add.

Turns out that when several million people are put on severe calorie restricted diets, and worked hard, not a single one of them was still obese after a while.

However, many did die of starvation, eventually, and many also died before losing much of the weight, usually from existing weight-related conditions.

I'd guess your trainer was trying to prevent the hardships of making that transition, as it can be medically dangerous.

In summary, your statement:
"cutting calories and increasing exercise does NOT ALWAYS lead to fat loss." is not true. It *always* leads to fat loss. ALWAYS.

Unfortunately, if you do it wrong, the side effect is death.

[Scout]

134. deleted

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I've no doubt that chemicals cause obesity.

Sugars and fats, mostly.

[sheldon]

93. Exactly....

The vast majority of fat people are that way because they eat junk.
The only real food (if their diet even contains any) they consume is cooked into oblivion, and rendered practically useless.
It's a lot like politics, even with all the information and evidence right at our fingertips, people are woefully ignorant.

[dixiegrrrrl]

38. Fascinating. And logical.

Thanks.
kicking

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I'll post the other issues related to this fro the PEER Reviewed articles

that the simple thinking people still refuse to acknowledge. After all peer reviewed is bunk if it threatens a world view.

:sarcasm:

[G_j]

44. thanks

I had read an article on this a little while ago.
This is an important subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. It is just part of the puzzle

and we are truly in a catch 22... not like we can stop industrial agriculture right now, without facing the greatest starvation in human history.

Now here on Genetics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7048788&mesg_id=7048788

[G_j]

48. a puzzle

that is crucial to our health.

& thanks for the genetics piece also.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Oh you welcome and my ignore list

is just growing. I have had it with the bullies

:-)

[G_j]

50. not only

bullies, but dummies with an aversion to scientific research.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Or very simple "common sense" answers

well at one point bleeding was the common sense remedy for things like fevers... humors, humor balance and all that.

:-)

[juno jones]

65. Yep. Hand washing used to be considered 'bunk' or 'woo'

back in the day as well.

Funny that.

Thanks for the articles!

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. You welcome, and I am actually toying with the idea of

changing subject matter for book research from labor to this....

We need this in simple language, since I know for most folks this is WHOOSHHH....

But even with peer review articles the usual suspects are having a conniption

:-)

Not unexpected anyhow.

[dhcave]

54. Old article from The Onion

This reminds me of an old article from The Onion; Scientist discover "Eat the whole god damned bag of chips gene"

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. You are making fun of PEER REVIEW leading edge sccience

by the way there IS a fat gene, technically called FTO Gene. I even posted a thread on that aspect this morning.

Oh and welcome to DU... I think.

[dhcave]

60. Not at all

Peer review is as important to the process as experimentation. Just throwing in a little light hearted sarcasm.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Then my apologies

it gets really bad round these parts.

[JuniperLea]

55. Those with low self-esteem love to condescend with the base "rule" you cite...

Please note the irony quotes.

I'm sick of the condescension, but put that with the fingers in the ears and the singing of the old mantra of how lazy fat people are, and you have a giant neon sign with a flashing red arrow that reads, "I'm better than you are, neener neener neener."

That's all they have.

No two human beings are exactly alike. Anyone who thinks this set of "rules" applies to everyone is just ignorant... and probably suffering low self-esteem too... that's generally the reason people become bullies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. And right now that ignore list is growing

I am so damned tired of the condescension. Hell a poster called peer review articles, spearing in scientific journals... bunk science. That says more about the poster than I ever wanted to find out.

But this is one of the few remaining targets, socially that is, to bully... I mean it is socially acceptable in a society that thinks air brushed anorexic women are the model of health and beauty.

[JuniperLea]

61. Exactly...

Pathetic as it is, bullying people who have curves and worshiping those who look like death warmed over is absolutely socially acceptable.

I keep looking at those old photos of Marilyn Monroe... I'm damn proud to be that size... she would never make it in Hollywood today unless she was a comedienne. I bet most of those high-end designers don't even make clothes in her size!

This is screwing with the minds and bodies of our young people. There is nothing beautiful about seeing the outline of bones and joints... when you see ribs on a woman's upper chest, there's a problem. I wouldn't let my dogs look like that. One good illness, and there's nothing left for the body to use.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. There is a movement starting to push back in the UK

about models against size zero. Heard of it this morning and this is one of the reasons. Even the models are getting tired of it, I think.

[JuniperLea]

64. Good!

It's about damn time! Between Coco Chanel giving us the OK to become tanned and the resulting increase in skin cancer, and Twiggy bringing us waifs on the verge of starvation, fashion hasn't served us very well in the past.

[Gwendolyn]

115. You look like Marilyn? You mean you wear a size 8 dress and weigh around 118 pounds?

Of course you should be proud to be that size. It's a good healthy size to be.

Marilyn would absolutely make it in Hollywood today. There are plenty of stars who are her size and even more volutuous. Marilyn had big boobs and a tiny waist, but she was far from "big." During the time that she blew up to her heaviest at what was rumored to be 140 pounds, she was abusing pills and alcohol. One would hardly call THAT healthy.

[JuniperLea]

119. She was a size 14...

When not being starved for a movie...

[Gwendolyn]

120. That's not a size 14.

At 5'5" inches, she would've been quite a bit bigger what's depicted in those pics to fit into a 14. At her height she'd have had to weigh around 180-190 lbs and she never did. That's documented. The photo in the link below is of Nigella Lawson, who is a beautiful woman at 5'7" and a 12-14. She does not, however, look like Marilyn.

But think about what you're saying anyway. You're admitting that no one would've allowed her in front of the camera when she weighed in the 130ish range. It's not as if the public was any more accepting back then.

http://www.film.com/features/photos/2/18185493

[JuniperLea]

122. How do you figure?

I'm only one inch taller, a size 14, and nowhere near 180-190!

The advertisers, not the public, decide... and no, at 130, she wouldn't be in TV or print ads today.

[Gwendolyn]

124. An inch taller than who, Nigella or Marilyn?

I'm going off the size 14 ladies I know who are about the same height as Marilyn. I'm 5'6" and a little under 130. I wear a size 6-8. To get into a size 10 I'd have to weigh about 140-150. But it's difficult to judge because individuals have different levels of muscle mass which make the diff. Those pics of Marilyn remind me of my mother who had similar measurements and height, and also had that little belly. She was nowhere near a 14 either. In the 50's, women were smaller than we are today. That's documented as well.

In any case, we know for sure Nigella wears a 14, and yes, she's deliciously attractive.

Back then, I think it would've been the studio that called the shots. Marilyn starred in movies at her 118-125 weight range, and there are lots of actresses who work today at similar weights. Modeling is where the really insane freakishness is so prevalent. But we did have the anomaly Anna Nicole Smith, who soared to celebrity with Guess ads, and she was a zaftig lady.

[JuniperLea]

125. I'm 5'6"

At 10 lbs more than you, I wear a 14. I'm very, very hourglass shaped, with very thin arms and legs... when I gain weight, like while having babies, I always say I have the marshmallow with toothpicks body type:) Clearly I was meant to be smaller, due to my frame.

[Missy Vixen]

74. JuniperLea, IMHO

You wrote upthread that your body temp is lower than the norm. IMHO, YMMV, but please make sure everything's okay with your thyroid.

Thanks,
MV

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. self delete

[mahina]

69. I'm starting on Dr. Simeon's HCG protocol next Tuesday.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

94. Should be very interesting.

I've read up on it, have not tried it.

[Liberation Angel]

70. k&r

[bertman]

71. Damn, Nadin, you seem to be off your meds today. I usually view your postings as

reasonable and logical, but all this talk of bullies and dummies and ignore lists is a bit over the top, don't you think?

If you keep putting everyone on IGNORE who expresses disagreement with your opinions, pretty soon you'll only be hearing from sychophants and you'll be in danger of turning into the kind of person who thinks his/her perspective is the only one with validity--in other words, a Republican.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Except these "opinions" are based on peer review

science.

Now if that is off my meds, well then you do not understand HOW science works either.

And Carl Sagan was right... we are in an age of witches, warlocks and magical thinking.

And yes, we do have bullies on this site, and bullying the obese or fat people is still socially acceptable. After all, it must be a moral failing ... :sarcasm:

So what meds do you recommend? After all this is science I am talking about, not morality.

By the way there was a time when bleeding people was cutting edge... and washing hands was woo.

[bertman]

130. I do understand that peer-reviewed scientific evidence is often refuted years later when

it's discovered that it was reviewed by peers who had a particular slant in mind--even though they were •GASP• scientific 'types'. Not all 'science' stands the test of time.

That said, I agree that there is evidence that some chemicals do alter the body and cause weight gain and obesity. I also think there is evidence that some people just do not have the discipline or understanding or training to make good eating choices and lifestyle choices so they become obese. I think that the mental state of some people makes them prone to overeating in search of some psychological 'comfort', thus they become obese. Depression--there's another reason.

There are many reasons that people become obese, including being raised in an environment where food is stuffed into their body by family members and friends because it's a cultural/societal need to see well-fed, 'healthy' children. Those 'healthy' children don't look 'poor' but they sure do get BIG when they grow up and continue in their same consumption patterns.

Saying that a person may be responsible for his/her own obesity is not bullying by my understanding of the word. It may not be what an obese person wants to hear from someone--or what you want to hear from someone. But it is stating a fact. Which is not bullying. It's simply stating a fact that someone else does not want to hear.

Perhaps you are freighting with animus the comments that challenge your position on the causes of obesity, when those comments are not intended to be hurtful or accusatory, but are stated as an opinion.

I would recommend resistance training or yoga or walking or biking instead of meds. Or any number of other physical activities that make us more aware of our bodies and how they feel and respond, and that make us move our selves.

Cheers.

[boppers]

72. Another "magic" solution, it seems. Or, rather, a grab bag of them in this thread.

People who overeat because of toxic exposure.
People who overeat because of hormone reactions.
People who overeat because of genetics.
People who overeat because of better food absorption.
People who overeat because of diets high in easily processed foods.

Whatever could all of these have in common? What could be the common thread, the unifying factor, that explains all of the different possible causes found, yet all having similar results?

It's a mystery, I guess.

[Missy Vixen]

75. Nadin never said anything about overeating as a result of chemicals, hormone reactions and genetics

You're not listening, are you? What she's talking about is the effects on the body if any of these things are ingested in our food.

Reading comprehension is always a good thing.

[boppers]

85. Water is a chemical, for starters.

Basic science education (and reading the OP) also helps.

Oh, and nadin mentioned a "Fat gene", up thread. The OP itself talks about hormone reactions, chemical effects, etc. Also note that I referenced the thread as being a grab bag, not just the OP.

All of the sources are showing that different things are possible sources for people/animals consuming (and thus retaining), more food than needed.

That's overeating.

[Missy Vixen]

88. In other words, you're not even willing to look at the studies she cited

Of course not. After all, you're too interested in shaming and blaming. Those with metabolic issues have already mentioned on the thread that they were eating a low-calorie diet and working with a trainer to no avail. Then again, to actually admit that there may be something in the body causing problems besides the food would mean you all would lose your moral high ground, wouldn't it?

If there is genetic material in the body that predisposes anyone to weight gain, wouldn't it be a good thing to find out how this happens, and if there's any method at all of minimizing the effect?

Nadin's also mentioned more than once the proof that the water table in the Western US has JP-5 in it. We can't go without water, so we're ingesting a substance that has a range of harmful effects. I'm sure this is no problem, either.

:sarcasm:

[boppers]

90. No, I gave the studies a look. Interesting ideas about causes.

I currently live on roughly 600-900 food calories a day. I'll generally eat a meal every day or so, depending on what's in the meal. Sometimes I'll go 2-3 days without eating solid food, if I've stored a lot of calories up.

It's an appropriate caloric intake for *my* body, *my* metabolism, *my* activity level, *my* biological makeup. Both of my parents struggled with obesity, so I had to figure out how to avoid it. Turns out that my system is fairly efficient at harvesting calories from food, so I have to eat much, much, less than others, in order to avoid overeating.

There's no moral "high ground" on this, only pragmatic experiments and results. If people don't want to customize their food intake for their personal medical/physical state, and are willing to accept that it's their choice to do so, great. That will make them "obese", or "thin", or whatever, but it's not a moral decision, it's basic science.

This stuck out from your post, though:
"If there is genetic material in the body that predisposes anyone to weight gain, wouldn't it be a good thing to find out how this happens, and if there's any method at all of minimizing the effect?"

*Aw, HELL NO* is my first reaction. We don't need to find ways to minimize the side effects of consumption, if anything, we need to minimize consumption. We'd want to *maximize* the effect, so more humans could eat less, and thus need less farming, need less animal consumption, etc.

We shouldn't be trying to minimize resource exploitation, quite the opposite, actually.

[sheldon]

77. Garbage in, garbage out.

You are what you eat. 98% of obesity problems can be solved very simply.
The hormones/genetics/chemicals arguments have some merit, but only for a small fraction of the population.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. That is why the world health organization is asking what the hell is going on

after all we only have 1 billion people who are obese. That is one seventh of the world population.

Yep, it is all just our imagination... and peer reviewed science is bunk... welcome to my ignore list

[boppers]

86. "Cherry Picking" peer reviewed science has its problems.

Not understanding the topic, or having a distorted view of the topic, is one side effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Please do point out where in these peer reviewed articles is

overeating mentioned....

Or is this just too troublesome to your precious mind?

Though you said one thing that is correct, the mystery is what is going on... WHY do you think they are looking at the pathogenesis and etiology of obesity? Why do you think NIH is funding these studies? I know they are troublesome to the moral argument crowd.

bye, bye PLUNK

[sheldon]

82. Have you noticed?

That people want to blame anything but their own failed eating habits?
Nutrition education is SERIOUSLY lacking. This problem vastly overshadows ALL OTHER factors.

[boppers]

87. Movie theater popcorn (sans "butter") + Soda = 3 Quarter Pounders with 12 pats of butter.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-movie-popcorn19-2009nov19,0,4003634.story?track=rss

Education is sorely lacking (not just in nutrition), and I'd be willing to bet good money that obesity, and a lack of education, are very tightly correlated.

Hence, people "counting calories" without understanding caloric absorption, or going on insane fad diets with little scientific grounding, or blaming any number of other factors besides "Hey, I'm eating too much for my particular physiology!".

[boppers]

84. One of your sources on overeating: "female rats ate more food, burnt less energy..."

From your own article references. It's kind of, ya know, in the OP.

Why do I think they're looking at obesity causes? Because it's a serious health crisis, with a great deal of contributing factors. For many different discovered reasons, people are apparently eating themselves to an early death and countless health conditions.

Too bad nobody can figure out a solution, being such a complex mystery and all.

[whoneedstickets]

91. Some points Nadin..

I wasn't going to chime in on this, because you really seem to be in a fighting mood on this subject, but I wanted to make a few points regarding your peer reviewed articles.

1. The ezine article refers to a public presentation that has not been peer reviewed. If you find it in a journal I would gladly read it.

2. The first link to the toxicological sciences article is a review article (in a good journal) of the findings of a paper that appeared originally in The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine (not a good journal). It appears that J Alt Comp Med is peer reviewed but it is FAR outside the mainstream medical journals and not what I would consider the kind of research outlet upon which to hang a major medical argument. Also in the same journal (and edition) that your article is cited are papers on acupuncture as a cure for cocaine addiction, a funky paper on 'altered states of consciousness', one on the medicinal use of Japanese herbs and an interesting paper I plan to study on closely on "the Effectiveness of Botanically Derived Inhibitors in the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia" -- or Male pattern baldness.

But your third paper is in a quality journal (Reproductive Toxicology). It likely to have had quality peer reviewers and deserves some attention. I have access to Sciencedirect and read the paper. There are a few points to discuss.

The key point to make in this debate is that the DHS mice (the ones with the developmental predisposition to obesity) did display a tendency to eat more and to be less active (see figures 4 ambulatory activity and fig 5 feed consumption in the paper). The authors note this that this difference was not statistically significant. HOWEVER, the problem with the research as it stand is that they had an N of 16 mice --two groups of 8! If one examines the ambulatory activity figure the non-DHS mice appear to be about 30% less active in the first 5 minute period and about 10-15% less in the second 5 minute measurement period (before both groups settle down to about the same activity). In a practical sense this means DHS mice were, on average, about 20% less active over a 10 minute time span (half the observed time). The lack of significance of this figure is almost certainly a function of the low power (small N) of the experiment. With a larger sample size a 20+% activity difference between groups would certainly have been found to be significant (assuming reasonable in-group variance).

In figure 5 DHS mice consume about 10% more food than non-DHS control mice! This too is 'not significant' in the study. Again, the problem is low power. The authors make the claim that these small differences (like eating 10% more is small?) couldn't account for the change but I find that completely unsupported by their own statistics. It is generally bad science to make a claim about the importance of your variable or factor without adequate control of confounding factors. In this instance the authors are hiding behind a low power experiment to make a claim of non-significance for standard explanations while they advance some genetic determination.

Interestingly the power of the experiment was too low to actually exhibit the main effect of the study. The difference in the weight between DHS and control at 6 months (about 18%) is not significant (see Table1)! Practically seems quite large, but the N is too small.... I would have not reviewed this paper well were it in my field.

I'm sorry to tell you that the results of the study that YOU cited and sent us to read seems to support the energy equation models you reject. Or at least provides no significant evidence to reject the current model. DHS mice ate more and were less active. End of story. The study does provide some biochemistry suggesting some other physiological differences in hormone and blood glucose but this merely notes the presence of the DHS condition and the possibility of early onset disease. They identify no causal mechanism at the biochemical level. They seem to suggest that the DHS mice have different base metabolic levels but do not actually attempt to test this proposition.

Now that you're probably about to put me on ignore, I should say that both appetite and activity level probably are factors caused (or exaggerated) by the DHS status of the mice. In mice, who can't consciously regulate their behavior with regard to food and exercise, the result is weight gain.

Could it be that humans have a similar developmental predisposition? Yes, certainly. Chemicals may be causing developmental issues that predispose some people to want to eat more and be less active. They may even have slower metabolisms too. However, humans have the ability to regulate these things just as we might regulate our sexual urges or our impolite bodily functions.

The upshot of this is that people who are predisposed to weight gain may have a double whammy of eating urges and inactivity that will be hard to overcome. But it doesn't invalidate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Yes, people who are thin without effort (i.e don't have eating urges and have naturally more active lives and metabolisms -- BTW I'm about 25-30lbs overweight myself) may smugly believe they are paragons of virtue. People with weight problems will face a constant battle against their own nature but its one that can be beaten with determination diet and exercise in the same way that alcoholics fight their disease.

Edit for grammatical error.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

96. This whole thread went over your head.

QUOTE: People with weight problems will face a constant battle against their own nature but its one that can be beaten with determination diet and exercise in the same way that alcoholics fight their disease. UNQUOTE.

Oh, so being fat is an addiction like alcoholism? Diets don't work. Yes, lots of people eat junk food, and too much of it and do not exercise. BUT many millions of people have metabolic problems caused by toxins in their food and water. Thirty or forty million people in the US with undiagnosed thyroid problems, plus the diabetics, and various other autoimmune problems...those are not RARE problems. If diets worked we wouldn't have so many fat people.


Let me quote from an interview with Dr. Kent Holtorf:

Long Term Weight Loss for Thyroid Patients: Hormonal Factors That Affect Diets

http://thyroid.about.com/od/loseweightsuccessfully/a/we...

Mary Shomon: You have said that you feel that two key hormones -- leptin and reverse T3 -- are playing a key role in regulating weight and metabolism. Can you tell us a bit about leptin, first, and what it has to do with weight loss challenges?

Kent Holtorf, MD: The hormone leptin has been found to be a major regulator of body weight and metabolism. Leptin is secreted by fat cells and the levels of leptin increase with the accumulation of fat. The increased leptin secretion that occurs with increased weight normally feeds-back to the hypothalamus as a signal that there are adequate energy (fat) stores. This stimulates the body to burn fat rather than continue to store excess fat, and stimulates thyroid releasing hormone (TRH) to increase thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and thyroid production.

Studies are finding, however, that the majority of overweight individuals who are having difficulty losing weight have varying degrees of leptin resistance, where leptin has a diminished ability to affect the hypothalamus and regulate metabolism. This leptin resistance results in the hypothalamus sensing starvation, so multiple mechanisms are activated to increase fat stores, as the body tries to reverse the perceived state of starvation.

<snip>

Mary Shomon: How do you treat leptin resistance in your practice?

Kent Holtorf, MD: Treatment can be focus on treating the elevated leptin -- leptin resistance. An elevated leptin also indicates, however, that the TSH is an unreliable marker for tissue thyroid levels, as the TSH is often suppressed, along with significantly reduced T4-to-T3 conversion. In short, if your leptin is elevated, you have reduced tissue thyroid levels. Also, almost all diabetics are leptin resistant, which has been shown to reduce T4-to-T3 conversion in diabetics by as much as 50% without an increase in TSH, making it very difficult for type II diabetics to lose weight.

<snip>

My favorite part

All those trainers and health gurus that never had a weight problem who tell you to do just as they do don’t realize what a disadvantage it is for people who have had a long-term weight problem. Of course, even these trainers would not even be able to maintain their weight with a metabolism that is 20 to 40% below normal.

We test the resting metabolic rate in our thyroid patients and find it inversely correlates with the reverse T3. The higher the reverse T3, the lower the metabolism, with many such individuals having a metabolism that is 20 to 40% lower than expected for their body mass index (BMI). Nobody believes how little they eat, and they are made to feel like failures -- despite doing everything right. Until their metabolic abnormalities are addressed, diet and exercise will certainly fail to achieve long-term success.

[whoneedstickets]

97. I hardly think so.

And I very much doubt that every overweight person is suffering from a metabolic disorder that reduces their BMR by 20-40%. Some are. My post doens't preclude that possibility. IT does however directly deal with the PEER reviewed article that Nadin cited.

POINT OF FACT. The paper you cite includes this:

"Thus, to have a reasonable chance of losing weight, these patients can either try and reduce calories by 500 to 600 calories a day (just to keep from gaining weight), exercise for an hour or two a day (just to keep from gaining weight) or normalize the thyroid and metabolism."

So conceivably they could reduce calories by 300 and exercise for an hour a day to maintain weight without metabolic modification. This is entirely possible (I've done it).


****

I was avoiding getting nasty but your tone provoked it. If you are fat it is your fault. It is something you can control with will power and a lot of attention. Like someone dealing with drug dependency or diabetes ( I have a friend with Type II, on insulin, who has about 6% body fat because he WORKS his ass of at it).

[Manifestor_of_Light]

98. You just do not get it?

Nadin has worked so hard to present science to people and they refuse to believe it.

I hope you never have a dead thyroid/dead adrenals/dead pancreas/leptin resistance, etc.

I've been on a very low calorie diet and medically supervised, and exercised and I did not lose weight. I was starving, my body was in starvation mode. I had a blood sugar crash after I skipped breakfast to get some blood drawn, and then I realized that the very low calorie diet with exercise was a scam.

[whoneedstickets]

108. Oh I get it you're one of those science haters..

you know the folks who live 40 years longer than people in the 1600's, who love their electrical appliances and cruise the internet who have all realized the truth that science is bunk. Perhaps we should go back to Tarot cards or vision quests for our knowledge. Spare me. I get it. I don't get people like you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Actually you do not get people who are part of a silent epidemic

again this is one of those that is part of the adult metabolic syndrome... which is not that rare...

But even if the research came out and wiggled it would still be rare... :sarcasm:

Oh and Jesus age it is us who have been pushing for a scientific understanding of what is going on... not the magical thinking that has dominated things for years.

Oh and here is another one for you. THere is now research that if you happen to be insulin resistant, not that rare by the way, the National Institutes of Health traditional diet of high carb, low fat, don't work... primary evidence suggest they need to do more research.

Wait, isn't that the diet recommended by the US Government? Oh yes it is... so even THE COMBO of what you eat affects how you will lose weight. And that is what is so complex and fascinating. Now I am not going to ask you to apologize, don't expect morally superior people to do that, but plunk, join the rest of them. That is the other reason why I am sending so many to ignore, general lack of social graces.

[whoneedstickets]

114. I'm willing to grant that metabolic influence are present in determining weight...

I'm even willing to accept (and am intrigued by) the studies that might show an environmental (as opposed to genetic -- though that may exist too) fetal/developmental cause. I am suspect of knee-jerk anti-science arguments though.

Here is my position on metabolism.

The weight equation as governed by thermodynamics is

Calories Consumed - Extraction Loss*Calories Consumed - Energy Expended in Activity - Base Metabolic Rate = Change in Weight

Calories consumed is obvious, measurable and controllable.

Extraction loss is a measure of how inefficient we are at extracting calories from our food. It may well be that some people are more efficient at wringing energy from the food they eat. But given that this would be a massive evolutionary advantage I suspect the difference is small.

Activity is obvious, measurable and controllable.

BMR is the key issue. How much energy do you consume just existing. There certainly will be variation here too. BUT, like extraction, a lower BMR would seem to be so advantageous that it would be evolutionarily selected and so variation would be constrained.

IT may well be the case that BMR interacts with Activity (some gene that controls BMR makes you less active) and Consumption (the same gene makes you want to eat more). I could see how this combination might be evolutionarily preferred in some environments (frequent food scarcity) and it would certainly be a disadvantage when trying to hold down you weight in a modern society.

BUT all that said. BMR is only one component. In extreme cases it might make a 20%, difference in your non-activity centered caloric use (so instead of 2000 cals/day someone might need only 1600. So if you ate a normal diet you would put on about 3/4 lb per week of body mass. But even this predisposition is not determinative. If you figured out you had a low metabolic rate you could overcome it through effort and planning. Watching your intake, getting exercise. 30-40 minutes of activity/ day would probably mean you could eat like a 'normal' person and not gain.

Loosing weight, once it is on, is of course really tough because you need to put yourself in caloric deficit on a consistent basis. It is pretty easy to exceed your requirements by a few hundred calories/day (that's one extra soda or candy bar) but to maintain a -200 level deficit each day (about 1/2 lb per week) requires a lot of attention and determination. If you're 20lbs overweight you would have to do this for the better part of a year. Its tough, I know.

Might it be that determination and willpower are also genetically linked to the same factors that reduce BMR and natural activity levels. Perhaps, but frankly I read all this 'it's in my genes' stuff as an attempt to avoid responsibility for your own body and choices. No, it isn't fair that you (or whomever) has this gene or factor, but neither is it fair that some people are intelligent while others must work harder to achieve the same scholastic or career accomplishments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. And we are fiding out that something

is making FTO genes express themselves more often. And it is not just available food.

We are finding out the pathogenesis of obesity may very well be in utero imprinting.

We used to believe, even ten years ago that it was simply homeostasis and calories related. And nobody, unlike the claim of many, has said homeostatic balance has been repealed... just that it is not the sole and only explanation... and it is just that much more complex than energy in energy out...

But that's ok... I know that I found some science and you will find some science and we will go back and forth until the cows come home. Why? Some of this is what we have done to OUR ENVIRONMENT and we still have people who deny the global weather is changing. Well this is where that research was back in the 1970s... so stay tuned.

[whoneedstickets]

117. Another article for you

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=122106_obesity_microbe_link.htm

This refers to a study in Nature .... now THERE is a peer reviewed article. Single most prestigious publication in the world.

Point of the article: Gut microbes may impact caloric absorption leading to variation in energy taken from various foods. But note as the authors do that what you eat and your activity level are the main determinants of body mass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. As I said we can play this game all day

global weather change is still denied in some quarters, and we both know it was fought tooth and nail way back in the day...

Have a good day...

[boppers]

132. Ah, the fickle hands of ... evolution?

"It may well be that some people are more efficient at wringing energy from the food they eat. But given that this would be a massive evolutionary advantage I suspect the difference is small."

It could be an advantage in times of food rarity.

It could be a disadvantage in times of great food availability, if the people ate the same as others, and got sicker (obese) because of it.

[boppers]

101. "Diets don't work"?

This is where theories fail.

Eating 300 live children a day is a diet.
Eating nothing but rocks and stones is a diet.

A "diet" is what a person eats.

[boppers]

100. Aw shizznackers. Real science.

Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Two points

1.-I am not rejecting energy... what I am saying is that there is more to this than just energy.... that is the imagination of people. I know eat less exercise more, and you fail to do such is a moral failing. Here is the point.... IT IS NOT THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. If it was we would not have all the research into this. By the way I wish it was and nobody has said... there is nothing you can do and for god sakes don't diet (though traditional diets don't work but that is another rant)

2.- I am not in a fighting mood, I am just DONE with the eat less exercise more crowd who take this as a religion. PERIOD... because it is NOT THAT FUCKING SIMPLE... and why we have the science being done.

3.- Thanks for the review, at least you bothered and you understood the studies. And at least you are not calling it bunk science like the people who are now on ignore and will remain there until DU goes away, I go away, or they are pizza'd...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

99. More information about messed up hormones & slow metabolism.

Testosterone for Women
Contrarian Endocrinology: Testosterone for Women
by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA

In this series of articles, I will attempt to bring clarity to two common myths about endocrinology. The first myth is the notion of the exclusivity of "male" and "female" sex hormones. While it is true that men have higher concentrations of testosterone and lower concentrations of estrogen and progesterone than women, all of these sex hormones play vital roles in both sexes. The second myth I will dispense with is the notion of "good" and "bad" hormones. Some hormones such as DHT and testosterone have been demonized and blamed for all sorts of health problems, but the fact is that every hormone plays a vital balancing role in the body. Rather than be labeled as "good" or "bad", each hormone has an optimal equilibrium level in the body with respect to the other sex hormones. It is when your sex hormones are out of balance—out of their proper ratios then you may manifest health problem, not just because of any one solitary "villain" hormone.

Testosterone is widely known as being the male hormone, yet it has been so villainized by society that even its medical use in men has been made into a social taboo for many years. However, now not only has testosterone replacement therapy became more accepted for use in men, more and more doctors are now also prescribing testosterone for women. In this article I will outline the benefits for testosterone use in women for increasing libido, mood, energy, skin quality, and most importantly to Mesomorphosis readers – body composition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testosterone and Female Body Composition

A women in her late twenties, came to see me complaining about her difficulty in losing weight. After taking a medical history , it was very difficult to tell what the basis of her problem was. She was working out daily, with a balance of aerobic exercise and weight training under the guidance of a qualified personal trainer. Her diet was a basic low carbohydrate/ high protein diet. Even more perplexing, she had been taking a caffeine/ephedrine thermogenic stack and had previously experimented with some diet drugs as well. Something was obviously wrong. I did blood tests to check all of her hormone levels. When the results came back, all of her hormones were in the normal range except for, you guessed it, testosterone! She had very low free testosterone level. It was equal to that seen in a postmenopausal women. This was an obvious source of her fat loss problem .

While the role of testosterone in maintaining muscle mass and losing body fat may be obvious to bodybuilders and athletes, it is a basic hormonal fact that is often absent in the medical community. It is known that many women begin to gain fat rapidly about ten to fifteen years before the menopause and also after. The connection between low to absent testosterone production and the deterioration of a healthy body composition is rarely made. Most women are often only given estrogens and progestins as hormone replacement therapy, but not testosterone.

I have found in my medical practice that giving women estrogen and progesterone and not testosterone makes it almost impossible for them to lose weight/fat.

With the scourge of increasing obesity in the USA, one would expect the medical community to pay closer attention to these issues. Yet the connection between sex hormones, and body composition is highly controversial.

Why is there such a controversy? Why is a hormone commonly used by farmers to fatten up livestock given to postmenopausal women at risk for obesity? Many doctors point to a recent study showing that when postmenopausal women given estrogen actually gained less weight than those not given estrogen (Espeland, et al, 1997). In this study 875 women were either put on .625 mg of oral estrogen a day or a placebo for three years. So does this mean that estrogen is actually a good fat-loss agent? Hardly! In this study, in spite of the publicity it was given, the authors note that when you control for lifestyle factors such as physical activity the effects of estrogen replacement therapy were insignificant.

From my clinical experience I have found that on the average when a young woman goes on birth control pills a 3-5 pound gain in fat mass can be expected, and at menopause with oral estrogens 4-8 pounds of fat mass gain can be anticipated - especially when oral estrogens are used. A recent controlled study showed that oral estrogens caused a gain in fat mass and loss in muscle, with a decrease in IGF-1 levels (O'Sullivan et al, 1998). This study is more consistent with my clinical observations.

So why isn’t testosterone more commonly given for weight loss in women? The medical community actually commonly believes testosterone causes obesity. This is due to a number of studies linking upper body obesity /abdominal obesity in women to elevated testosterone levels. Once again, this is a case of blaming one hormone as a "villain". In these women, they do in fact have higher than normal testosterone levels but their whole hormonal system is out of balance. Not only do they have high testosterone levels, but they also have poor insulin sensitivity as well as high insulin levels. Often these women have a metabolic problem of insulin resistance—which is associated with obesity. There is no serious evidence that testosterone replacement therapy for women will result in greater body fat – in fact the opposite is true.

With the social stigma against testosterone and anabolic steroids in general, and it is difficult enough to get a study approved on testosterone in men. Imagine how difficult it is to get a human use committee to approve a study on testosterone in women! However, there is one study that helped to illuminate the potential for androgens to help women lose fat. Lovejoy et al, in 1996, compared the effects of nandrolone decanoate and the anti-androgen drug spironolactone on body composition in obese, postmenopausal women. The dose given the nandrolone group was low – 30 mg every other week. All women in the study were put on a calorie restricted diet (500 calories below lean mass maintenance), and were told not to change their exercise habits. After nine months, the women receiving nandrolone lost an average of 3.6 percent of their bodyfat while the placebo group lost only 1.8 percent and the spirolactone (an anti-androgen) only .5 percent. Nandrolone doubled the rate of fat loss over the placebo and the anti-androgen group barely lost any fat at all – the role of androgens in fat loss is clearly demonstrated. Even more impressive, the nandrolone group actually gained an average of roughly four pounds of lean mass in spite of the calorie restriction while the placebo and anti-androgen groups lost over two pounds of lean mass. Nandrolone also did not produce insulin resistance as androgens have been previously believed to do.

Lovejoy’s group were impressed by the ability of nandrolone to produce increased muscle mass in spite of overall weight loss. Keep in mind that dose was fairly small and only given every other week, and that these women were put only somewhat extreme calorie restricted diets without being put on a weight training program. Imagine the improvement in body composition had these women been put on a balanced exercise program and were given a high protein diet in addition to their nandrolone!

Despite the positive result, the authors cautioned against using nandrolone decanoate as a weight loss therapy. There was a mild abnormality of blood lipids and a slight increase in abdominal fat in the nandrolone group. While these side effects were minor, I believe that if testosterone was used in this study instead of nandrolone, these effects would be smaller or non-existent. I also think that daily use of a testosterone gel would be more effective than a bi-monthly shot, since the gel would keep testosterone at a more physiological and consistent level whereas injections lead to huge up and down fluctuations.

It is clear to me, both from my clinical practice and from research, that testosterone is vital for women to preserve their lean mass and to prevent obesity. Not only will testosterone help mobilize body fat and negate some of the fat storing effects of estrogen, it is also extremely effective in building lean mass in women - even at small doses. Hormone replacement therapy that only includes estrogen and progesterone but leaves out testosterone is a curse of many a women’s fat loss program. This is not only a concern for postmenopausal women. Young women should think twice about using birth control pills. Birth control pills elevate estrogen and progesterone levels while drastically lowering testosterone levels. This is reason why many women experience large gains in fat as well as a decreased libido when using birth control pills.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy, Mood, and Libido

Far from being the cause of irritability and "roid rage" as widely believed, I have found that restoring testosterone levels to normal can tremendously improve energy levels and mood in women.

Estrogen is sometimes believed to be energizing, but most women do not feel much of an "energizing effect" from estrogen. Natural progesterone can have a calming, relaxing effect on women, but the nasty synthetic and potent progestins like Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) or the more potent, nornorethindrone can actually cause irritability, aggressiveness, and even acne.

Libido is one area of use for testosterone in women that is starting to gain larger acceptability. One pharmaceutical company (Unimed) is close to getting a testosterone gel for women approved for use as a libido enhancing drug. While the thought of horny postmenopausal women may cause you to snicker, I believe that libido is a serious medical issue. The infamous study on sexual dysfunction funded by the Ford Foundation and the U.S. National Institute of Health showed that low interest in sex was the number one cause of sexual dysfunction in women (Laumann, et al, 1999, JAMA , Feb., 10, 199, Vol 281. No 6p537-544). Restoring a healthy libido in women can help bring back the spice in marriages, relationships, relieve stress and depression, and even improve body composition through increased sexual interest and activity. Testosterone is the primordial hormone for promoting both a sexy body and a better sex life.

Testosterone and Skin

Do you have dry and thin skin? This may be a sign of lack of oil production from your sebaceous glands. A lack of oil production can be related to a decline in testosterone . Also thinning, atrophy , or inflammation of the the introitus (the vaginal opening) can be from a hormone imbalance. Even painful intercourse can be due to the lack of estrogen and testosterone. I have treated young and older women with testosterone creams to thicken the vaginal entry so that they may be able to enjoy sex without pain. Using small and balanced doses of T gels and creams I have improved the quality of aging skin without the side effects of acne, hair loss or masculinizing effects.

The role of testosterone on skin condition is often ignored, even though this should be of obvious concern to anybody using testosterone to improve overall physical appearance. Normally it is believed that testosterone can only worsen skin by causing breakouts of acne. However, low testosterone levels can only lead to worsening of skin conditions as well. Restoring testosterone to normal levels can make skin look much thicker and smoother than it was before.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protocols for Female Hormone Replacement Therapy

Many women come to my office complaining of lack of energy, sex drive, and weight gain. They have been to other doctors who have told them that these are inevitable effects of aging and they should just learn to live with them. However, I have found that providing these women with a "hormonal makeover" can have profound effects on their lives. For postmenopausal women, I begin by placing them on "start up" small dose of a testosterone cream or gel (usually at .25 to 1 milligram every other day in the am applied to the neck area behind the jaw for best absorption capacity, or the inner non sun exposed area of the upper arm hangs next to the chest wall). The dose is individualized over time.

Next, I may redo their previous hormone replacement program. If they are currently on Provera, I immediately switch them to natural progesterone which I believe is far safer. Most postmenopausal women are on Premarin, which is an odd blend of estrogens derived form pregnant horse urine (pregnant mare urine). I reduce the dose of estrogen, and change them over to a natural bi-estrogen or a natural transdermal estradiol compounded formula. This change is significant, as one study showed that Premarin caused an increase in fat mass and loss of muscle in postmenopausal women while transdermal estradiol had no significant effects on body composition (O'Sullivan, 1998). I also encourage women to increase their intake of fiber, and phytoestrogens by taking a black cohosh containing formula and other plants that have estrogen like effects. Soy products are a must.

The goal of this program is to give women back an optimal balance of sex hormones similar to the one they had in their youthful days. Testosterone levels and sometimes progesterone levels can be restored with natural hormone replacement therapy. Balanced and safe estrogen levels can be obtained from a combination of estrogen production from the aromatization of the testosterone they are using , from phytoestrogens such as soy, black cohosh, and a small dose of natural estrogen. Once this natural balance is restored, women can often break the weight loss plateaus they previously reached and can reverse the loss of muscle and bone mass that occurs with age.

For younger women I am more hesitant to give any hormonal therapies, especially if they wish to someday have children. This is not to say that pre-menopausal women cannot benefit from higher testosterone levels. I have been using the prohormone 4-androstenediol (4-adiol) in selected women who are not wanting to have babies. It has a high conversion rate to testosterone and does not directly convert to estrogen. Since 4-adiol is short acting, I believe it can be used safely in women without causing much side effects or shut down pituitary production of the gonadotropins, if used infrequently. The only problem is that most 4-adiol products are made for men with 100 mg capsules, whereas doses for women should be anywhere form 10 to 50 mg. There are now available 12.5 mg lozenges of 4-adiol in the sublingual cyclodextrin form. Women could take 1/4 to 1/3 of a lozenge intermittently to raise their T levels.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

While traditional "female" hormones progesterone and estrogen may have a role in preventing heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and osteoporosis, I believe testosterone replacement therapy in the near future will have a much larger effect on women’s lives. In fact testosterone replacement therapy may soon become more widely practiced by women than men.

I also believe that testosterone and other androgens may have a critical role treating some types of female obesity - the estrogen dominant type. Precious little research has been done in this controversial area, but it is obvious that a major reason why women have more difficulty losing fat than men is due to their lower levels of testosterone. Since testosterone can not only help mobilize fat but also build muscle, women can attain higher resting metabolic rates.

This is in stark comparison to most diet drugs that result in loss of muscle and usually the return of lost body fat once drug use is ceased. While androgens will obviously have some side effects in women, hence the controversy, however these side effects are likely less than the often life threatening effects of Phen-Fen and other diet drugs. Testosterone as a treatment for obesity is probably much safer and actually more effective in the long term than liposuction. I really hope more research is done in this area, as I believe androgens are crucial in the war against the rapidly evolving plague of obesity in this country.


I hope the medical establishment can soon move away from the concept of the ancient and antiquated model of male hormones are for men and female hormones only for women into a universal concept of optimum hormonal balance of all the sex hormones in both sexes. I really hope to see more studies on testosterone replacement therapy as testosterone becomes more accepted. As controversial as this is, the medical establishment is just as rigid in its approach to male hormone replacement therapy. I hope to help change this with my next article, which will deal with the controversial area of progesterone and estrogen replacement therapy for men.

[boppers]

104. Oh, so it's "messed up" hormones at fault, now,

Yeah.

Ever dealt with a drunk who blamed the bartender, his wife, his car maker, road planners, his kids, and the time of night for being drunk?

Yeah.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

129. False analogy. Millions of people have metabolic problems. These are medically documented.

You are assuming that everyone who is fat is eating too much and not getting enough exercise. That starting assumption is wrong. Yes, many people get no exercise, and eat too much and eat too much non-nutritive food, but also many people exercise and eat properly and cannot lose weight.

Did you read anything that Nadin and others have posted about obesity being caused by a variety of factors? Did you read what these doctors have said about patients who cannot lose weight because their hormones are messed up? These problems are NOT UNCOMMON. Where did these doctors say that eating right and exercising less would help them lose weight? They did NOT say that. They said the patient's hormones had to be evaluated comprehensively and then supplemented, to lose weight.

Nadin has been talking about messed up hormones due to pesticides, chemicals and toxins in our environment that we ingest and they mess up our immune systems, especially autoimmune diseases where the body attacks a gland and kills it. Examples of this are Hashimoto's disease (autoimmune hypothyroidism) and diabetes. If you knew anything at all about autoimmune diseases, you would know that they are quite widespread and prevalent.

Read up on metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance.

Overview of Hashimoto's Disease:
http://endocrine-disorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/overview_of_hashimotos_disease

QUOTE: More serious complications of chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis may include total heart failure, muscle failure, bone degeneration, and substantial reduction of bone mineral density. An often overlooked complication of Hashimoto's is depression.

Complications include "total heart failure". That's called DEATH. I almost went into a coma after I was taken off thyroid by an incompetent doctor, after four years. I was within a week of going into a coma and DYING from lack of thyroid. You think this is frivolous stuff?


How Many Americans suffer from thyroid disorders?

According to statistics by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and other medical organizations, approximately twenty-seven million Americans are experiencing a thyroid disorder. This includes the estimate that about half of these cases remain undiagnosed.
Thyroid Disease the most common Endocrine Disorder

When compared to the AACE statistics for Americans who experience diabetes, which is approximately sixteen million, the number of people with thyroid disease exceeds that by more than 40%. This makes thyroid disease, the most common endocrine disorder (problem affecting hormone glands) in the USA. Approximately 80% of thyroid disease is experienced by females and women are five times more likely to develop hypothyroidism (an under-active thyroid) than are men. When all combined, about eight out of ten thyroid disease cases (80%) are hypothyroid conditions with the other two out of ten (20%) being hyperthyroid conditions. As many as two out of ten people who develop diabetes will also experience the onset of a thyroid disorder.

Read more: http://thyroid-disorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_many_americans_suffer_thyroid_disorders#ixzz0XSTASGRN

http://thyroid-disorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_many_americans_suffer_thyroid_disorders

Quote from Dr. Kent Holtorf, M.D.:
All those trainers and health gurus that never had a weight problem who tell you to do just as they do don’t realize what a disadvantage it is for people who have had a long-term weight problem. Of course, even these trainers would not even be able to maintain their weight with a metabolism that is 20 to 40% below normal.

We test the resting metabolic rate in our thyroid patients and find it inversely correlates with the reverse T3. The higher the reverse T3, the lower the metabolism, with many such individuals having a metabolism that is 20 to 40% lower than expected for their body mass index (BMI). Nobody believes how little they eat, and they are made to feel like failures -- despite doing everything right. Until their metabolic abnormalities are addressed, diet and exercise will certainly fail to achieve long-term success.

Quote from Karlis Ullis, M.D.:
I also believe that testosterone and other androgens may have a critical role treating some types of female obesity - the estrogen dominant type. Precious little research has been done in this controversial area, but it is obvious that a major reason why women have more difficulty losing fat than men is due to their lower levels of testosterone. Since testosterone can not only help mobilize fat but also build muscle, women can attain higher resting metabolic rates.

This is in stark comparison to most diet drugs that result in loss of muscle and usually the return of lost body fat once drug use is ceased. While androgens will obviously have some side effects in women, hence the controversy, however these side effects are likely less than the often life threatening effects of Phen-Fen and other diet drugs. Testosterone as a treatment for obesity is probably much safer and actually more effective in the long term than liposuction. I really hope more research is done in this area, as I believe androgens are crucial in the war against the rapidly evolving plague of obesity in this country.

[boppers]

133. You are assuming that people are fat for reasons other than eating too much.

Perhaps my assumption is wrong. Perhaps yours is.

Either way.

[eilen]

102. My friend switched to organic foods

as much as she could, stopped meats that were not grass fed, organic, stopped dairy, sugar and processed foods. She went on an extensive herbal regimen and cleansing/detox to rid herself of all fungi, virus and bacteria. She also exercised quite a bit--but very easy exercises designed to move lymph-- stationary bike for 15 min, mini trampoline for 10-15 min, jogging in place, and some calisthetics-- nothing very exhausting-- throughout the day. She also had a course of colonics (part of her detoxing) and had body work done every week (reiki and lymph massage) as well as using some machine (I can't remember which one but I admit I am skeptical of them). She also switched to filtered water using a Brita filter. Granted, she started doing all this to rid herself of breast cancer.

She lost 35 lbs. She does eat less probably d/t the amount of herbs she takes. Her diet is primarily vegetables, fruits and whole grains. One can argue she has drastically cut her calories. She now does drink whole fat milk but it is from cows who are organically fed grass/pasture, not given estrogen shots and it is raw. She found a source and takes a ride every week or so and purchases it directly from the farmer.

She is an extreme example. I don't know if I could follow her regimen, it is time consuming. She doesn't work full time. She does prepare foods for her family that they prefer to eat but does try to sneak in all the healthy stuff. She is singular in her ability to make large changes like that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Anecdotally, we have switched, not to that extreme

to organic, but I still do a lower carb diet. And at least I found my hunger levels have gone down.

This is anecdotal, and it could be very well be the placebo effect.

[winyanstaz]

103. K & R......

Well some of us "witches"/psychics/New Agers/Pagans/Hippies/alternative religions and paths have been saying for many years already that the growth hormones in the food is causing the obesity. We have been calling for years for the removal of the many other chemicals in the food supply which are causing the health problems of many.
I am glad science is catching up with us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Actually the effects of growth hormones is minimal

it is the other things of industrial agriculture like insecticides.

And you witches, pagans etc, should understand the true catch 22 of the situation.

Lets just say that TOMORROW we removed all elements of industrial agriculture like oh insecticides...

The rosy scenario to the carrying capacity of the earth (as far as human are concerned) is four billion. In reality it is probably half that. What is the current population? six billion and growing. Well that means a few billion need to starve to death. That is the cold math. And that is the catch 22. Why silly shit like oh... birth control even in places like the US and Europe should have been encouraged a long time ago.

[winyanstaz]

121. We are what we eat and as long term studies have not had the time to be proven....

I would say it is a deadly combination of all those things..growth hormones as well as chemical pesticides.
Just so you know...there are ORGANIC based pesticides that can do the job. There is no reason billions have to starve to death. Mother nature is abundant. It is the silly humans that waste and steal and control the food distribution and mess with the food chain that harm the planet.
And also just so you know...pagans etc are for birth control...and for a woman to control her own body.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Organic based pesticides are not that efficient

and the end of the age of oil for multiple reasons, will bring starvation at levels not seen in human history. It will start in the usual places, but those who think it will not touch the US or other industrialized economies is dreaming.

One reason I am actually happy I don't have kids. On a very worst case scenario, shall we say dystopian, it will be hell on earth

[winyanstaz]

126. that is strange...you have a link to prove that?

As organic farms use them very successfully.
I have also used them along with natural preditors (like ladybugs) in my own organic gardens and I grow a good garden.
There are also a lot of wild plants with properties that repel insects that we havent even begun to utilize..such as yarrow and pearly everlasting that both have bug repellent qualities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Some links

http://www.ibiblio.org/london/agriculture/general/1/msg00095.html

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20169621

This is on energy use

http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=59

Of course this is on plant yield and the ugly side of monoculture

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5995.cfm

Oh and this is the problem with the green revolution, it provided the calories for human populations to explode, but once the green revolution crash (and the end of oil is coming).. well then.

On the bright side, pesticides will go away (oil based mostly), and our monoculture practice in the midwest will have to come to an end as well. The down side is... what I pointed to. Worst case scenario half of the world's population will starve to death, unless we find a new way to keep the land that productive. Truly this is the side of it that nobody expected in 1950.

[winyanstaz]

128. Well the first link I found to be about comparing two pesticides...

One organic and one not organic and the worst case seemed to be that you had to apply the organic more often.
In the second link they are comparing one study done between two farms.
We all know where dependence on fossil fuel has taken us in the third link....and that it must end. The title in that link says it all...
"Scientists Estimate That Pesticides are Reducing Crop Yields by ONE-THIRD"
I think the last link is wrong because, in the long run, the biggest loss to the world will be because of the food that has been engineered and which we now find is poisonous because of their tinkering around with the plant dna.
I believe many more will starve to death due to that fooling around with nature than will die because we go organic.
And if we do not turn to organic only we shall surely all die.
We simply cannot keep putting more chemicals into our food, water, air and food supplies. It is killing us all.
I do appreciate the links though and that you are a civil debater/poster that obviously can think..even if we do not fully agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. You need to apply them more often

hence you need more, therefore they are less effective.

And we will stop putting the chemicals in our food for one simple reason. We are running out of oil and they are oil based. So that is coming. But before that happens we need to find out several ways to avoid the worst case...

1.- We need green energy, and that ain't looking good unless we went fully nuclear (at this time)... after all as efficiencies grow in things like solar cells they get that more efficient, for example. But that will take time.

2.- We need a way to make the land just as productive, and we need to change a lot of our practices, such as the monoculture.

We do not disagree in the fundamental that the chemicals need to go. I am just realistic that to get from here to there we need to do a lot of work to avoid the worst case scenario. I'm also cognizant that starvation will come to regions of the world, as well as climate change refugees.

[rasputin1952]

107. The addition of chemicals, whether intentional or not...

has not only increased the incidence of obesity, but cancer, diabetes and a host of other maladies.

One need not have a PhD in chemistry to understand that adding certain things to the food chain, where they do not naturally occur, will inevitably have some form of interaction with function.

All of this comes down to money, preservatives create the situation where food lasts longer; additives "enhance" a food; pesticides create more food per acre. There is always a cost involved on the human body, we were not "designed" to take in toxins and get away free. To be sure, not everything is "bad", but if one acquires symptoms from additives or other chemicals, it is a bad thing. Bovine Growth Hormone showing up in beef/dairy products is a prime example of how things can affect us, yet it is completely avoidable; mercury and lead are avoidable as well, but we allow these things to enter the food chain...and at our own peril...:(