PDA

View Full Version : Research: Fat bodies = small brains and dementia (and muscular bodies = big brains?)


Adam PR Taylor
November 25th 04, 04:09 AM
Google tells me that no one has posted this before, and I must say I
am surprised. (I will leave it up to another to wind up SSFA)

The first two apply to the former (Fat bodies = small brains and
dementia), and the last to the latter (muscular bodies = big brains)
for a bit of comparitive humour of dubious validity.

From:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6889334

<quote>
"Women who are consistently overweight or obese during adulthood may
be at increased risk for a decrease in the volume of certain areas of
their brain -- according to a study from Sweden

Obesity is related to poor blood flow, high blood pressure "and
cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases," Dr. Deborah Gustafson,
from Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Goteborg, said in a statement.
"These conditions contribute to an unhealthy vascular system, and
therefore, to a higher dementia risk."

[snip]

The team calculates that for every 1-point increase in BMI, the risk
of losses in the temporal lobes rose by 13 percent to 15 percent.

<quote>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While having a wee look-see around some databases, I found these gems,
which also have not been posted here.


Fat chance: genetic syndromes with obesity
M-A Delruea and JL Michauda*
Clinical Genetics
Volume 66 Issue 2 Page 83 - August 2004

"The majority of obesity syndromes can be distinguished by the
presence of mental retardation. We performed a systematic search of
such syndromes and reviewed the literature with a focus on
distinguishing clinical features, the characteristics of their
obesity, and the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. We predict that
the study of these conditions will shed light on common forms of
obesity."


Brain Size Scaling and Body Composition in Mammals
P. Thomas Schoenemann.
Brain, Behavior and Evolution. Basel: 2003. Vol.63, Iss. 1; pg. 47

"Brain size scales with body size across large groups of animals, but
exactly why this should be the case has not been resolved. It is
generally assumed that body size is a general proxy for some more
important or specific underlying variable, such as metabolic resources
available, surface area of the body, or total muscle mass (which is
more extensively innervated than is, e.g., adipose tissue). [snip] The
analysis shows that the size of the central nervous system (CNS) is
more closely associated with components of fat-free weight than it is
to fat weight. These results suggest a possible explanation for why
metabolic resources and brain size both share the same general
relationship with body size across mammals. They also suggest that
some measure of lean body mass is a more appropriate scaling parameter
for comparing brain size across species than is overall body weight."


--
Adam PR Taylor
http://www.nelliedog.co.nz

Proton Soup
November 25th 04, 04:09 AM
On 24 Nov 2004 20:09:18 -0800, (Adam PR
Taylor) wrote:

>Google tells me that no one has posted this before, and I must say I
>am surprised. (I will leave it up to another to wind up SSFA)
>
>The first two apply to the former (Fat bodies = small brains and
>dementia), and the last to the latter (muscular bodies = big brains)
>for a bit of comparitive humour of dubious validity.
>
>From:
>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6889334
>
><quote>
>"Women who are consistently overweight or obese during adulthood may
>be at increased risk for a decrease in the volume of certain areas of
>their brain -- according to a study from Sweden
>
>Obesity is related to poor blood flow, high blood pressure "and
>cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases," Dr. Deborah Gustafson,
>from Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Goteborg, said in a statement.
>"These conditions contribute to an unhealthy vascular system, and
>therefore, to a higher dementia risk."
>
>[snip]
>
>The team calculates that for every 1-point increase in BMI, the risk
>of losses in the temporal lobes rose by 13 percent to 15 percent.
>
><quote>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>While having a wee look-see around some databases, I found these gems,
>which also have not been posted here.
>
>
>Fat chance: genetic syndromes with obesity
>M-A Delruea and JL Michauda*
>Clinical Genetics
>Volume 66 Issue 2 Page 83 - August 2004
>
>"The majority of obesity syndromes can be distinguished by the
>presence of mental retardation. We performed a systematic search of
>such syndromes and reviewed the literature with a focus on
>distinguishing clinical features, the characteristics of their
>obesity, and the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. We predict that
>the study of these conditions will shed light on common forms of
>obesity."
>
>
>Brain Size Scaling and Body Composition in Mammals
>P. Thomas Schoenemann.
>Brain, Behavior and Evolution. Basel: 2003. Vol.63, Iss. 1; pg. 47
>
>"Brain size scales with body size across large groups of animals, but
>exactly why this should be the case has not been resolved. It is
>generally assumed that body size is a general proxy for some more
>important or specific underlying variable, such as metabolic resources
>available, surface area of the body, or total muscle mass (which is
>more extensively innervated than is, e.g., adipose tissue). [snip] The
>analysis shows that the size of the central nervous system (CNS) is
>more closely associated with components of fat-free weight than it is
>to fat weight. These results suggest a possible explanation for why
>metabolic resources and brain size both share the same general
>relationship with body size across mammals. They also suggest that
>some measure of lean body mass is a more appropriate scaling parameter
>for comparing brain size across species than is overall body weight."

Oh boy, just you wait until the wimmenz read this part. Mens is
smarter cause they gots a lower %BF.

"Jack Sprat could eat no fat
His wife could eat no lean."

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Elzinator
November 25th 04, 03:17 PM
(Adam PR Taylor) wrote in message >...
> Google tells me that no one has posted this before, and I must say I
> am surprised. (I will leave it up to another to wind up SSFA)

The concensus here in the dept is that the stats and conclusions are
questionable, with many variables not considered or controlled for,
which can skew intepretation.

> The first two apply to the former (Fat bodies = small brains and
> dementia), and the last to the latter (muscular bodies = big brains)
> for a bit of comparitive humour of dubious validity.
>
> <quote>
> "Women who are consistently overweight or obese during adulthood may
> be at increased risk for a decrease in the volume of certain areas of
> their brain -- according to a study from Sweden
>
> Obesity is related to poor blood flow, high blood pressure "and
> cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases," Dr. Deborah Gustafson,
> from Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Goteborg, said in a statement.
> "These conditions contribute to an unhealthy vascular system, and
> therefore, to a higher dementia risk."

The other issue that was suprisingly not considered is the associated
chronic inflammation with obesity (body fat mass). Increasing evidence
suggests that chronically high levels of inflammatory cytokines, many
of which correlate with body fat mass, are key players in not only CVD
but also brain biology and function. They are also suspected
etiological players in Alzheimer's, etc.

One also has to question cause and effect (i.e. the 'chicken or egg
first' dilemma). It is suggested that low mental capacity also
predicts weight gain thoughout life. (as your next snippet supports)

> While having a wee look-see around some databases, I found these gems,
> which also have not been posted here.
>
>
> Fat chance: genetic syndromes with obesity
> M-A Delruea and JL Michauda*
> Clinical Genetics
> Volume 66 Issue 2 Page 83 - August 2004
>
> "The majority of obesity syndromes can be distinguished by the
> presence of mental retardation. We performed a systematic search of
> such syndromes and reviewed the literature with a focus on
> distinguishing clinical features, the characteristics of their
> obesity, and the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. We predict that
> the study of these conditions will shed light on common forms of
> obesity."
>
>
> Brain Size Scaling and Body Composition in Mammals
> P. Thomas Schoenemann.
> Brain, Behavior and Evolution. Basel: 2003. Vol.63, Iss. 1; pg. 47
>
> "Brain size scales with body size across large groups of animals, but
> exactly why this should be the case has not been resolved. It is
> generally assumed that body size is a general proxy for some more
> important or specific underlying variable, such as metabolic resources
> available, surface area of the body, or total muscle mass (which is
> more extensively innervated than is, e.g., adipose tissue). [snip] The
> analysis shows that the size of the central nervous system (CNS) is
> more closely associated with components of fat-free weight than it is
> to fat weight. These results suggest a possible explanation for why
> metabolic resources and brain size both share the same general
> relationship with body size across mammals. They also suggest that
> some measure of lean body mass is a more appropriate scaling parameter
> for comparing brain size across species than is overall body weight."


I agree with the latter.

Adam PR Taylor
November 30th 04, 03:40 AM
(Adam PR Taylor) wrote in message >...

[snip obesity complications research]

And what do I see in the news today? "Hefty premiums for the obese"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3113438a11,00.html


--
Adam PR Taylor
http://www.nelliedog.co.nz

Donald L Ferrt
November 30th 04, 03:27 PM
(Adam PR Taylor) wrote in message >...
> (Adam PR Taylor) wrote in message >...
>
> [snip obesity complications research]
>
> And what do I see in the news today? "Hefty premiums for the obese"
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3113438a11,00.html

Then it is time you were castrated Adam:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3362540,00.html

Campos: A profound irrationality
November 30, 2004

Suppose public health authorities were to announce that, because women
enjoy better overall health than men, men ought to castrate themselves
to improve their health.

This, in effect, is the argument made by those who claim that
so-called "overweight" Americans ought to try to become "lean."
Indeed, as bizarre as the former claim is, it isn't as irrational as
the argument that Americans will improve their health by striving for
"leanness." Consider the following:


Advertisement



The health gap between men and women is far larger than that between
larger and thinner Americans.

While the health gap between physically fit men and women is the
same as that between men and women in general, fit "overweight" people
are as healthy as fit thin people.

Efforts to transform "overweight" people into thin people almost
always fail. One consequence of this is that there's little evidence
that long-term weight loss is actually beneficial to health. By
contrast, it's clear that castration extends life expectancy.
(Extensive documentation for all these points can be found in my book
The Obesity Myth.)

How, then, are we to understand the official position of our federal
government, which is that two-thirds of Americans are too fat? It's
comforting to assume we can trust our government to give us accurate
information about the so-far futile search for weapons of body mass
destruction. Unfortunately, when the powers that be fall victim to
cultural hysteria and moral panic, this assumption becomes dangerously
false.

At present, much of the advice Americans are getting about weight and
health is, simply put, crazy.

For example, consider the case of Professor Walter Willett, who heads
Harvard's Department of Nutrition, and who is perhaps America's most
widely quoted authority on the relationship between weight and health.
According to Willett, most people would be healthiest if the
maintained a body mass index of between 18.5 and 21.9 (for an
average-height woman, this is between 108 and 127 pounds).

In making this claim, Willett ignores or dismisses a huge amount of
evidence that weight has no relevance to health among the physically
fit. For example, in a story published in last week's Washington Post,
Willett is quoted as saying it's clear that it's better to be lean and
fit than "overweight" and fit, even though almost all the available
data directly contradicts this claim.

The most interesting aspect of Willett's advice regarding weight and
health is that he himself does not follow it. Based on information he
recently gave USA Today, Willett weighs approximately 20 to 45 pounds
more than what he claims most people ought to weigh.

I've debated Willett and can attest that he isn't "overweight" in the
eyes of anyone who isn't a full-blown anorexic. Furthermore, by his
own account he is quite active, and eats a balanced and nutritious
diet.

So why is Willett significantly overweight by his own definition? The
answer seems to be: Because Willett himself is just one of the tens of
millions of Americans who can't possibly conform their bodies to an
insanely restrictive and scientifically baseless definition of a
"healthy" weight, even when, like Willett, they have perfectly healthy
lifestyles.

Consider, too, the practical policy implications of the fact that a
Harvard professor - that is, a person of immense social and economic
privilege - finds it impossible to follow his own advice. And Willett
is far from alone: Few of those hectoring Americans about their
waistlines themselves maintain a "healthy" weight, according to their
own definitions.

That none of this is ever pointed out by the journalists who give
Willett's bizarre views so much uncritical publicity is just another
example of the profound irrationality that marks America's obsession
with weight.

Adam Fahy
November 30th 04, 04:59 PM
Donald L Ferrt wrote:

> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3362540,00.html
>
> Campos: A profound irrationality
> November 30, 2004
>
> Suppose public health authorities were to announce that, because women
> enjoy better overall health than men, men ought to castrate themselves
> to improve their health.
>
> This, in effect, is the argument made by those who claim that
> so-called "overweight" Americans ought to try to become "lean."

Oh

Please.


-Adam

Adam PR Taylor
December 1st 04, 02:53 AM
(Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message >...

> > [snip obesity complications research]
> >
> > And what do I see in the news today? "Hefty premiums for the obese"
> >
> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3113438a11,00.html
>
> Then it is time you were castrated Adam:
>
> <http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3362540,00.html>

Oh well, testiciles only get in the way when one squats, anyway.


--
Adam PR Taylor
http://www.nelliedog.co.nz

rick++
December 1st 04, 03:57 PM
I believe everything I read in the papers on fitness and nutrition.
They are so truthful and consistent!