PDA

View Full Version : Obesity


Elzinator
May 24th 04, 01:39 PM
Good article:

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/may/feature_040524.html

Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.

tortellini
May 24th 04, 06:22 PM
"Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.

It requires registration and ad solicitations

Proton Soup
May 24th 04, 07:28 PM
On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:22:59 GMT, "tortellini"
> wrote:

>
>"Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
>
>It requires registration and ad solicitations
>

You could always go to Yahoo and generate a throw-away email account.

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

Mick R.
May 24th 04, 08:38 PM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
om...
> Good article:
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/may/feature_040524.html
>
> Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.

So if I'm dyslexic does that make me a textual deviate?

Lee Michaels
May 24th 04, 08:48 PM
"Mick R." > wrote in message
. au...
>
> "Elzinator" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Good article:
> >
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/may/feature_040524.html
> >
> > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
>
> So if I'm dyslexic does that make me a textual deviate?
>
>
No, just a word perv.

Bob Falooley
May 24th 04, 08:53 PM
Proton Soup <> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:22:59 GMT, "tortellini"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
>>
>>It requires registration and ad solicitations
>>
>
> You could always go to Yahoo and generate a throw-away email account.
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup

If only you could always add extra hours to a day.

--Falooley

Richard Smith
May 24th 04, 09:08 PM
"Bob Falooley" > wrote in message
...
> Proton Soup <> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:22:59 GMT, "tortellini"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
> >>
> >>It requires registration and ad solicitations
> >>
> >
> > You could always go to Yahoo and generate a throw-away email account.
> >
> > -----------
> > Proton Soup
>
> If only you could always add extra hours to a day.
>
> --Falooley

Google's offering that as part of the GMail trial.

Richard

Proton Soup
May 24th 04, 09:11 PM
On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:08:27 -0500, "Richard Smith"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Falooley" > wrote in message
...
>> Proton Soup <> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:22:59 GMT, "tortellini"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
>> >>
>> >>It requires registration and ad solicitations
>> >>
>> >
>> > You could always go to Yahoo and generate a throw-away email account.
>> >
>> > -----------
>> > Proton Soup
>>
>> If only you could always add extra hours to a day.
>>
>> --Falooley
>
>Google's offering that as part of the GMail trial.

Are they making email available already? I read that they were going
to offer a huge mailbox, but the fact that they'll be reading the
email makes it a bit iffy.

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

Steve
May 24th 04, 09:34 PM
(Elzinator) wrote in message >...
> Good article:
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/may/feature_040524.html
>
> Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.


And for the whiners who don't want to register, here is the text of
the article:



I'm a potential obese person," says Steve Bloom of Imperial College
London. "I feel hungry all the time and have to keep [jogging] and
restraining myself when they put chocolate biscuits on the table.... I
keep my weight down, but I've still got a potbelly. And that's in
spite of being an [obesity] expert and knowing what I'm supposed to
do."

Which, presumably, is to burn off and eliminate as many calories as
one eats. It's an equation that is getting increasingly out of kilter,
and a problem that science has been trying to tackle.

A recent review describes the past 10 years as the "golden age" of
obesity research.1 In that time, researchers have worked on a
smorgasbord of molecules involved in body weight regulation via many
overlapping systems and pathways. They have identified genes,
including melanocortin 4 receptor and prohormone convertase 1, in
which mutations lead to morbid obesity through their effects on
appetite and metabolism.

Investigators also are pinning down the roles of leptin, ghrelin,
protein YY (PYY), and cholecystokinin. These hormones are produced by
fat cells and the digestive tract and act on long- and short-term
energy balance via the central nervous system. Hopes are high that
obesity will soon be controlled in a chemical fashion. Big favorites
include drugs that block receptors for the cannabinoids, long known to
stimulate hunger. Some researchers even have slim hopes for
angiogenesis inhibitors, which are more associated with cancer
therapies.

"We've come from a situation essentially, in 1994, where we had no
molecular targets, to one where we have a profusion," says Cambridge
University geneticist Steve O'Rahilly. The situation can appear
chaotic, says Matthias Tschöp of the University of Cincinnati's
Obesity Research Center. "Sometimes, you think nobody's ever going to
understand this; everything's linked to everything else."

It won't be easy, agrees David Cummings of the University of
Washington, Seattle. "The task for ensuing years is to sort through
them one at a time and find out which are the key players and which
are the ancillary ones."

It's a task whose successful outcome could benefit many. The World
Health Organization estimates that over one billion adults worldwide
are overweight, defined as a body mass index (BMI, in kg/m2,
calculated as body weight divided by height squared) greater than 25;
300 million are considered obese, with a BMI greater than 30. It is
widely hailed as an epidemic, and just in case that doesn't sound
serious enough, WHO has coined a new word, globesity, to describe the
situation. In the United States, 31% of adults are obese, compared to
23% a decade ago.2 The rest of the western world isn't far behind, and
developing nations are starting on a similar trajectory.

As the numbers of the obese have increased, so too have associated
disorders such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and
certain cancers. Edinburgh University endocrinologist Jonathan Seckl
says that the number of new referrals to his diabetes clinics has gone
up threefold in the last decade. "That's not because we're finding
more cases, it's because there are more cases ... and that's all about
obesity."

Obesity is also about money. Last year, the United States spent $75
billion on medical expenditures attributable to obesity; about
one-half of this money came from public coffers.3 The US Federal Trade
Commission estimates that North Americans spend $35 billion per year
on weight-loss products and programs. "Industry has recognized that
this is the largest possible market worldwide ever," says Tschöp.
"This is a large amount of people that will have to take a drug until
the end of their life, and those people have money." Seckl, whose team
identified 11beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, an enzyme linked to
obesity, says that one drug company recently sold an inhibitor for $86
million.

PAST AND PRESENT There is no question that profound genetic influences
affect weight regulation. Humans who lack leptin, an
appetite-suppressing hormone produced by fat cells, or melanocortin-4
receptor, which is downstream of leptin in the hypothalamus, have
insatiable appetites. "Their phenotype is dominated by their
hyperphagia," says O'Rahilly. "I mean these kids just eat like crazy."

While such debilitating mutations are very rare, more subtle
predispositions to plumpness are not. The problem is that we owe our
genetic make-up to the selection pressures exerted by a once
kill-or-be-killed environment, very different from the one that
operates now. Humans are designed to put on weight rather than lose
it, and the thrifty nature of our genes encourages us to take full
advantage of modern life's tasty trappings. It's "an obesogenic
environment," says Bloom. "I think it's a tribute to our self-control
that we're only this obese."

This evolutionary necessity of maintaining body weight also might shed
some light on the apparent complexity of the regulatory system. "It is
very important to eat to survive," says O'Rahilly, "so it's likely
that we'll have put in multiple fail-safe mechanisms to try and ensure
that we do continue to eat." In other words, the pathways involved in
appetite regulation watch out for each other; if one is cut off,
another takes over.

Tschöp cites the gut hormone cholecystokinin as an example of appetite
regulation. It can be given to induce satiety in the short term, but
in the long-run, caloric intake returns to where it was. Tschöp says
that other specific examples of such physiological redundancy have
proved elusive. "Everybody is talking about redundancy," he says, "but
where are the actual data?"

Trying to integrate the plethora of weight regulatory pathways is
"still premature," says Seckl, "but you can begin to come up with some
principles." Indeed, one pathway has emerged as being of central
importance.

FAT OF THE GLAND Leptin, an appetite-suppressing hormone secreted by
fat cells, is "a truly critical player in the field," says Cummings.
Its discovery in 19944 is widely credited with starting this golden
age of research. "If you asked people about adipose tissue 10 years
ago, everyone said, well, it's a tedious insulator and store for fat.
And that was the sum of world knowledge," says Seckl. "Now we have a
dozen new hormones which come out of it."

Leptin receptors were soon identified in two populations of neurons in
the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus. One population produces the
appetite-stimulating neuropeptides NPY (neuropeptide Y) and AgRP
(agouti-related protein), which are suppressed by leptin, while POMC
(proopiomelanocortin) and CART (cocaine- and amphetamine-related
transcript) neurons suppress appetite and are activated by leptin. As
fat stores are reduced, so is the amount of circulating leptin,
causing appetite to increase.

Hopes that leptin could be used to suppress appetite pharmacologically
were dashed, however, when it was found that most obese people have
high levels of the hormone; they are resistant, rather than deficient.
The mechanism for leptin resistance remains unresolved, but a new
study from William Banks at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center, St.
Louis shows that triglyceride fats, which are elevated in obesity,
impede the transport of leptin across the blood-brain barrier,
preventing it from reaching its receptors in the hypothalamus.5,6 All
the known monogenic mutations (leptin, leptin receptor, POMC,
prohormone convertase 1, melanocortin 4 receptor) that lead to
hyperphagia in humans are in the leptin-hypothalamic system (see
diagram at left).

The melanocortin 4 receptor is a particularly hot target because it is
locally expressed in the brain. Cummings explains that current
anti-obesity drugs are relatively nonspecific. Sibutramine (Meridia),
for example, tinkers with serotonin levels. "Manipulating them is
fraught with side effects," he says, "and those limit the doses you
can use."

The identification of another system involving the hypothalamus has
led to the development of one of only two potential anti-obesity drugs
currently in Phase III clinical trails. The positive effects of
marijuana on appetite have long been known, and in the 1990s, a
receptor for endogenous cannabinoids was identified in the
hypothalamus. Sanofi-Synthelabo has developed a blocker for the
cannabinoid receptor CB1, called Rimonabant, and trials have revealed
spectacular effects on reducing body weight, waist size, and
normalizing lipid metabolism.7

O'Rahilly points out, however, that more people withdrew from
treatment than from placebo groups, so "there were clearly some side
effects." An obvious concern might be that blocking a receptor linked
to a mood-altering drug might have negative psychological
consequences. Yet Marie-Camille Borde, who heads Sanofi-Synthelabo's
Rimonabant research group, says that depression indices reveal no
difference between treatment and placebo groups.

BLOOD AND GUTS Although the current emphasis is on appetite
regulation, it is theoretically possible to target the energy
equation's other side, by manipulating energy expenditure. Drugs that
raise metabolism, such as beta 3 agonists and modified forms of
thyroxin, have been tried before but were only marginally effective
and/or toxic. Dinitrophenol, for example, worked by disrupting
oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria. "Very effective," says
O'Rahilly, "but it killed people."

Less distinction exists between metabolic and appetite targets than
was once thought, says O'Rahilly. Many hypothalamic targets, he says,
seem to affect both. Indeed, "It's hard to find one that doesn't." Low
levels of leptin induce other physiologic systems such as reproductive
and immune functions to conserve calories when energy reserves are
low.

Another approach might be to prevent fat formation in the first place.
Angiogenesis inhibitors prevent blood vessel formation; they have been
developed with a view to treating cancer by starving tumors. But as
adipose volume increases, new blood vessels are required to supply it.
Maria Rupnick of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital has shown that
not only can leptin-deficient ob/ob mice be prevented from putting on
weight through treatment with angiogenesis inhibitors, but they also
can be induced to lose fat-mass.8

There are concerns, however, about the long-term effects of preventing
fat formation. "If you do not have adipose tissue in which to put
those extra calories, where are you going to put them?" asks
O'Rahilly. "You are probably going to put them where they shouldn't
be, in the liver, muscle, pancreatic beta cell. And we know that's
very bad." Rupnick points out that no adverse health consequences have
been seen so far in experimental animals, and she suggests that the
excess calories might be accounted for by an increase in metabolic
rate.

BETWEEN MEALS While the leptin system is regarded as a long-term
regulator of energy balance, other pathways are under scrutiny for
their effects on short-term, meal-to-meal appetite regulation. The
intestine produces PYY after a meal, inhibiting NPY in the arcuate
nucleus. It is a particularly attractive target because it appears to
have a causal role in obesity. Bloom's group has found that it reduces
appetite in mice9 and humans.10 Furthermore, PYY is underexpressed in
obese patients, and this can be corrected, in the short-term at least,
by treatment with PYY. "A peripheral injection of gut hormone produces
a blood level rise and acts exactly as if you'd eaten a meal," says
Bloom, "So it's not going to be at a risk of massive side effects,
because that's what happens every time you eat a meal." However, some
controversy surrounds the rodent work owing to a "widespread inability
of people to replicate the results," says Cummings. Bloom says that he
is about to start longer-term trials on human subjects.

Further up the digestive tract, ghrelin, secreted in the stomach, has
been dubbed the hunger hormone for its stimulatory effect on appetite.
Cummings' group has shown that in humans, circulating ghrelin levels
rise before meals and fall rapidly after eating.11 Ghrelin also
increases after dieting, suggesting that it is one way the body fights
against weight loss.

"In the beginning, we thought, well, it's a hunger hormone from the
stomach, [so] it does something in the brain. Let's block it and we
have an obesity drug," says Tschöp, who was part of the Eli Lilly
group that first identified the peptide's appetite-stimulating
effects. But, just as leptin levels are high in obesity, ghrelin
levels turned out to be low. Furthermore, ghrelin knockout animals are
of normal weight. Blocking the remaining ghrelin in obese patients
might still prove to help weight loss, but progress is hampered by the
lack of suitable ghrelin receptor antagonists.

LEPTIN, UNPLUGGED Meanwhile, leptin continues to surprise. Two recent
papers show that the hormone can rewire neuronal circuitry in the
hypothalamus.12,13 "You know those old movies where somebody at a
telephone exchange center connects people by unplugging and plugging
cables? That's pretty much how that works," explains Tschöp.

Leptin exposure suppresses excitatory inputs to NPY neurons and
promotes them in POMC neurons. Ghrelin also alters these inputs, but
in a direction opposite to leptin. Disruptions to the wiring in ob/ob
can be corrected in mice treated with leptin.13 Neuronal connections
between the arcuate nucleus and other hypothalamic centers also are
influenced by exposure of the developing brain to leptin.12 According
to Rockefeller University's Jeffrey Friedman, who discovered leptin in
1994 and was involved in this work,13 "The wiring diagrams of this
system ... might be subtly, or not so subtly, different between the
lean and the obese." Jeffrey Flier of the Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, Boston, says it might be possible "to forcefully
rewire in an appropriate manner, but that's much further down the
line."

Until then, there's always surgery. Gastric bypass might seem a
drastic solution to the battle of the bulge, but it is effective:
Weight comes off, and it usually stays off. Appetite is suppressed,
which is likely linked to observations that postoperative levels of
PYY and ghrelin are high and low, respectively.

It's an expensive procedure, although Cummings says it pays for itself
in the long run because it removes the need to take many of the costly
medicines that obese people require. For example, many obese people
have diabetes, and 83% of those are cured wholesale, often while still
in the recovery room, says Cummings. "It's a kind of a mystical
thing."

Cummings predicts that surgery will be outmoded as more effective
medicines are developed. He suggests that in the same way that
hypertension is treated with multiple classes of drugs working on many
different sites, the same will evolve for excess body weight over the
course of the next couple of decades.

Tschöp prefers a parallel with interventions in reproductive
physiology. He points to the use of progesterone to trick the brain
into believing that a woman is pregnant. "I'm sure that ... we'll be
able to target the exact, essential mechanisms and trick the brain
into believing the stomach is already full." He adds, "Maybe we don't
yet know the progesterone of energy balance."

Stuart Blackman ) is a freelance writer in
Edinburgh, UK.
References
1. J.S. Flier, "Obesity wars: molecular progress confronts an
expanding epidemic," Cell, 116:337-50, 2004.

2. "Prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults: United States,
1999-2000," National Center for Health Statistics, available online at
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/obese/obse99.htm

3. E.A. Finkelstein et al., "State-level estimates of annual medical
expenditures attributable to obesity," Obesity Res, 12:18-24, 2004.

4. Y. Zhang et al., "Positional cloning of the mouse obese gene and
its human homologue," Nature, 372:425-32, 1994.

5. W.A. Banks et al., "Triglycerides induce leptin resistance at the
blood-brain barrier," Diabetes, 53:1253-60, 2004.

6. S. Blackman, "Fat clue to leptin resistance," The Scientist Daily
News, May 10, 2004. Available at
www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040510/01/

7. "Two pivotal studies indicate AcompliaTM (rimonabant) offers a
novel approach to cardiovascular risk management in overweight/obese
people and smokers," Sanofi-Synthelabo press release, March 9, 2004,
available online at www.biospace.com/news_story.cfm?StoryID=15395520&full=1

8. M. Rupnick et al., "Adipose tissue mass can be regulated through
the vasculature," Proc Natl Acad Sci, 99:10730, 2002.

9. R.L. Batterman et al., "Gut hormone PYY(3-36) physiologically
inhibits food intake," Nature, 418:650-4, 2002.

10. R.L. Batterman et al., "Inhibition of food intake in obese
subjects by peptide YY3-36," N Engl J Med, 349:941-8, 2002.

11. D.E. Cummings et al., "Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced
weight loss or gastric bypass surgery," N Engl J Med, 346:1623-30,
2002.

12. S.G. Bouret et al., "Trophic action of leptin on hypothalamic
neurons that regulate feeding," Science, 304:108-10, 2004.

13. S. Pinto et al., "Rapid rewiring of arcuate nucleus feeding
circuits by leptin," Science, 304:110-5, 2004.

SHOULD WE SHOOT THE MESSENGER?
Cambridge geneticist Steve O'Rahilly cites that old chestnut of
freewill versus determinism as an example of how obesity interacts
potently with social and philosophical issues. "If you're slim, you
like to think there's a lot of control involved. If you're fat, you
like to think it's out of your hands."

There are people in the United Kingdom who think the obese could use
help in the control area: A rising tide of opinion suggests that the
advertising of sweet and fatty foods, particularly to children, makes
a significant contribution to the growing incidence of obesity. The
Lancet1 and the UK government's Food Standards Agency (FSA) have
called for restrictions on the advertising and promotion of junk
foods.2

The FSA's recommendations follow the publication of a report
suggesting that television advertising affects children's food
preferences and behavior.3 But David Ashton, a clinical epidemiologist
at Imperial College London, argues that the report fails to identify
the magnitude of the effect and, therefore, whether regulation would
have any useful impact on obesity.4

Ashton points to Quebec, where obesity rates are no different from
other Canadian provinces, despite a 1980 ban on advertising food to
children. A similar, decade-long ban in Sweden also has been
ineffective, he says.

Peter Marsh, a director at the Social Issues Research Centre, also is
skeptical. "Obesity is most related to processes like urbanization and
social change rather than to single factors," he says. "Some of the
highest obesity rates are in places like Morocco and Uzbekistan.
[These are] not countries where McDonald's has a particularly
significant presence."

The FSA's Jonathan Back accepts that a causal link between advertising
and obesity remains to be shown. "It would be nice to have definitive
evidence, but sometimes you've got to go with what you've got," he
says. "We don't want to turn into the food police, but we've got to
think of the future of our kids."

Ashton believes the current focus on food advertising detracts
attention away from more challenging problems, such as the lack of
opportunity for physical exercise in schools. Marsh agrees. "It's not
by and large white middle class kids who are becoming obese, it's kids
from poorer families," which, he says, ties in with education,
aspiration, and various other factors. "I fear that most government
approaches take the most financially advantageous line," says Marsh.
"The trouble is, they don't work."

References
1. Anonymous, "Thought for food," Lancet, 362:1593, 2003.

2. Food Standards Agency, "Promotional activity and children's diets,"
March 11, 2004, available online at www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/
pdfs/fsa040302.pdf

3. G. Hastings et al., "Review of research on the effects of food
promotion to children," 2003, available online at
www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/
promotion/readreview

4. D. Ashton, "Food advertising and childhood obesity," J R Soc Med,
97:51-2, February 2004.

Elzinator
May 25th 04, 12:13 AM
"tortellini" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Elzinator" > Also has pictures for the textual-impaired.
>
> It requires registration and ad solicitations

Forgot about that. I have a subscription so I have 'instant'
electronic access.

Text is below, without the images/diagrams and references. For those,
you'll have to register and visit the website. The site also has a
sidebar with good content.

There's one aspect not addressed here; in fact, glaringly absent.
Anyone know what that is?
-------------------------------------------------
The Enormity of Obesity
Researchers continue to struggle to find a chemical cure for the
seriously overweight | By Stuart Blackman

"I'm a potential obese person," says Steve Bloom of Imperial College
London. "I feel hungry all the time and have to keep [jogging] and
restraining myself when they put chocolate biscuits on the table.... I
keep my weight down, but I've still got a potbelly. And that's in
spite of being an [obesity] expert and knowing what I'm supposed to
do."

Which, presumably, is to burn off and eliminate as many calories as
one eats. It's an equation that is getting increasingly out of kilter,
and a problem that science has been trying to tackle.

A recent review describes the past 10 years as the "golden age" of
obesity research.1 In that time, researchers have worked on a
smorgasbord of molecules involved in body weight regulation via many
overlapping systems and pathways. They have identified genes,
including melanocortin 4 receptor and prohormone convertase 1, in
which mutations lead to morbid obesity through their effects on
appetite and metabolism.

Investigators also are pinning down the roles of leptin, ghrelin,
protein YY (PYY), and cholecystokinin. These hormones are produced by
fat cells and the digestive tract and act on long- and short-term
energy balance via the central nervous system. Hopes are high that
obesity will soon be controlled in a chemical fashion. Big favorites
include drugs that block receptors for the cannabinoids, long known to
stimulate hunger. Some researchers even have slim hopes for
angiogenesis inhibitors, which are more associated with cancer
therapies.

"We've come from a situation essentially, in 1994, where we had no
molecular targets, to one where we have a profusion," says Cambridge
University geneticist Steve O'Rahilly. The situation can appear
chaotic, says Matthias Tschöp of the University of Cincinnati's
Obesity Research Center. "Sometimes, you think nobody's ever going to
understand this; everything's linked to everything else."

It won't be easy, agrees David Cummings of the University of
Washington, Seattle. "The task for ensuing years is to sort through
them one at a time and find out which are the key players and which
are the ancillary ones."

It's a task whose successful outcome could benefit many. The World
Health Organization estimates that over one billion adults worldwide
are overweight, defined as a body mass index (BMI, in kg/m2,
calculated as body weight divided by height squared) greater than 25;
300 million are considered obese, with a BMI greater than 30. It is
widely hailed as an epidemic, and just in case that doesn't sound
serious enough, WHO has coined a new word, globesity, to describe the
situation. In the United States, 31% of adults are obese, compared to
23% a decade ago.2 The rest of the western world isn't far behind, and
developing nations are starting on a similar trajectory.

As the numbers of the obese have increased, so too have associated
disorders such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and
certain cancers. Edinburgh University endocrinologist Jonathan Seckl
says that the number of new referrals to his diabetes clinics has gone
up threefold in the last decade. "That's not because we're finding
more cases, it's because there are more cases ... and that's all about
obesity."

Obesity is also about money. Last year, the United States spent $75
billion on medical expenditures attributable to obesity; about
one-half of this money came from public coffers.3 The US Federal Trade
Commission estimates that North Americans spend $35 billion per year
on weight-loss products and programs. "Industry has recognized that
this is the largest possible market worldwide ever," says Tschöp.
"This is a large amount of people that will have to take a drug until
the end of their life, and those people have money." Seckl, whose team
identified 11beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, an enzyme linked to
obesity, says that one drug company recently sold an inhibitor for $86
million.

PAST AND PRESENT There is no question that profound genetic influences
affect weight regulation. Humans who lack leptin, an
appetite-suppressing hormone produced by fat cells, or melanocortin-4
receptor, which is downstream of leptin in the hypothalamus, have
insatiable appetites. "Their phenotype is dominated by their
hyperphagia," says O'Rahilly. "I mean these kids just eat like crazy."

While such debilitating mutations are very rare, more subtle
predispositions to plumpness are not. The problem is that we owe our
genetic make-up to the selection pressures exerted by a once
kill-or-be-killed environment, very different from the one that
operates now. Humans are designed to put on weight rather than lose
it, and the thrifty nature of our genes encourages us to take full
advantage of modern life's tasty trappings. It's "an obesogenic
environment," says Bloom. "I think it's a tribute to our self-control
that we're only this obese."

This evolutionary necessity of maintaining body weight also might shed
some light on the apparent complexity of the regulatory system. "It is
very important to eat to survive," says O'Rahilly, "so it's likely
that we'll have put in multiple fail-safe mechanisms to try and ensure
that we do continue to eat." In other words, the pathways involved in
appetite regulation watch out for each other; if one is cut off,
another takes over.

Tschöp cites the gut hormone cholecystokinin as an example of appetite
regulation. It can be given to induce satiety in the short term, but
in the long-run, caloric intake returns to where it was. Tschöp says
that other specific examples of such physiological redundancy have
proved elusive. "Everybody is talking about redundancy," he says, "but
where are the actual data?"

Trying to integrate the plethora of weight regulatory pathways is
"still premature," says Seckl, "but you can begin to come up with some
principles." Indeed, one pathway has emerged as being of central
importance.

FAT OF THE GLAND Leptin, an appetite-suppressing hormone secreted by
fat cells, is "a truly critical player in the field," says Cummings.
Its discovery in 19944 is widely credited with starting this golden
age of research. "If you asked people about adipose tissue 10 years
ago, everyone said, well, it's a tedious insulator and store for fat.
And that was the sum of world knowledge," says Seckl. "Now we have a
dozen new hormones which come out of it."

Leptin receptors were soon identified in two populations of neurons in
the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus. One population produces the
appetite-stimulating neuropeptides NPY (neuropeptide Y) and AgRP
(agouti-related protein), which are suppressed by leptin, while POMC
(proopiomelanocortin) and CART (cocaine- and amphetamine-related
transcript) neurons suppress appetite and are activated by leptin. As
fat stores are reduced, so is the amount of circulating leptin,
causing appetite to increase.

Hopes that leptin could be used to suppress appetite pharmacologically
were dashed, however, when it was found that most obese people have
high levels of the hormone; they are resistant, rather than deficient.
The mechanism for leptin resistance remains unresolved, but a new
study from William Banks at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center, St.
Louis shows that triglyceride fats, which are elevated in obesity,
impede the transport of leptin across the blood-brain barrier,
preventing it from reaching its receptors in the hypothalamus.5,6 All
the known monogenic mutations (leptin, leptin receptor, POMC,
prohormone convertase 1, melanocortin 4 receptor) that lead to
hyperphagia in humans are in the leptin-hypothalamic system (see
diagram at left).

The melanocortin 4 receptor is a particularly hot target because it is
locally expressed in the brain. Cummings explains that current
anti-obesity drugs are relatively nonspecific. Sibutramine (Meridia),
for example, tinkers with serotonin levels. "Manipulating them is
fraught with side effects," he says, "and those limit the doses you
can use."

The identification of another system involving the hypothalamus has
led to the development of one of only two potential anti-obesity drugs
currently in Phase III clinical trails. The positive effects of
marijuana on appetite have long been known, and in the 1990s, a
receptor for endogenous cannabinoids was identified in the
hypothalamus. Sanofi-Synthelabo has developed a blocker for the
cannabinoid receptor CB1, called Rimonabant, and trials have revealed
spectacular effects on reducing body weight, waist size, and
normalizing lipid metabolism.7

O'Rahilly points out, however, that more people withdrew from
treatment than from placebo groups, so "there were clearly some side
effects." An obvious concern might be that blocking a receptor linked
to a mood-altering drug might have negative psychological
consequences. Yet Marie-Camille Borde, who heads Sanofi-Synthelabo's
Rimonabant research group, says that depression indices reveal no
difference between treatment and placebo groups.

BLOOD AND GUTS Although the current emphasis is on appetite
regulation, it is theoretically possible to target the energy
equation's other side, by manipulating energy expenditure. Drugs that
raise metabolism, such as beta 3 agonists and modified forms of
thyroxin, have been tried before but were only marginally effective
and/or toxic. Dinitrophenol, for example, worked by disrupting
oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria. "Very effective," says
O'Rahilly, "but it killed people."

Less distinction exists between metabolic and appetite targets than
was once thought, says O'Rahilly. Many hypothalamic targets, he says,
seem to affect both. Indeed, "It's hard to find one that doesn't." Low
levels of leptin induce other physiologic systems such as reproductive
and immune functions to conserve calories when energy reserves are
low.

Another approach might be to prevent fat formation in the first place.
Angiogenesis inhibitors prevent blood vessel formation; they have been
developed with a view to treating cancer by starving tumors. But as
adipose volume increases, new blood vessels are required to supply it.
Maria Rupnick of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital has shown that
not only can leptin-deficient ob/ob mice be prevented from putting on
weight through treatment with angiogenesis inhibitors, but they also
can be induced to lose fat-mass.8

There are concerns, however, about the long-term effects of preventing
fat formation. "If you do not have adipose tissue in which to put
those extra calories, where are you going to put them?" asks
O'Rahilly. "You are probably going to put them where they shouldn't
be, in the liver, muscle, pancreatic beta cell. And we know that's
very bad." Rupnick points out that no adverse health consequences have
been seen so far in experimental animals, and she suggests that the
excess calories might be accounted for by an increase in metabolic
rate.

BETWEEN MEALS While the leptin system is regarded as a long-term
regulator of energy balance, other pathways are under scrutiny for
their effects on short-term, meal-to-meal appetite regulation. The
intestine produces PYY after a meal, inhibiting NPY in the arcuate
nucleus. It is a particularly attractive target because it appears to
have a causal role in obesity. Bloom's group has found that it reduces
appetite in mice9 and humans.10 Furthermore, PYY is underexpressed in
obese patients, and this can be corrected, in the short-term at least,
by treatment with PYY. "A peripheral injection of gut hormone produces
a blood level rise and acts exactly as if you'd eaten a meal," says
Bloom, "So it's not going to be at a risk of massive side effects,
because that's what happens every time you eat a meal." However, some
controversy surrounds the rodent work owing to a "widespread inability
of people to replicate the results," says Cummings. Bloom says that he
is about to start longer-term trials on human subjects.

Further up the digestive tract, ghrelin, secreted in the stomach, has
been dubbed the hunger hormone for its stimulatory effect on appetite.
Cummings' group has shown that in humans, circulating ghrelin levels
rise before meals and fall rapidly after eating.11 Ghrelin also
increases after dieting, suggesting that it is one way the body fights
against weight loss.

"In the beginning, we thought, well, it's a hunger hormone from the
stomach, [so] it does something in the brain. Let's block it and we
have an obesity drug," says Tschöp, who was part of the Eli Lilly
group that first identified the peptide's appetite-stimulating
effects. But, just as leptin levels are high in obesity, ghrelin
levels turned out to be low. Furthermore, ghrelin knockout animals are
of normal weight. Blocking the remaining ghrelin in obese patients
might still prove to help weight loss, but progress is hampered by the
lack of suitable ghrelin receptor antagonists.

LEPTIN, UNPLUGGED Meanwhile, leptin continues to surprise. Two recent
papers show that the hormone can rewire neuronal circuitry in the
hypothalamus.12,13 "You know those old movies where somebody at a
telephone exchange center connects people by unplugging and plugging
cables? That's pretty much how that works," explains Tschöp.

Leptin exposure suppresses excitatory inputs to NPY neurons and
promotes them in POMC neurons. Ghrelin also alters these inputs, but
in a direction opposite to leptin. Disruptions to the wiring in ob/ob
can be corrected in mice treated with leptin.13 Neuronal connections
between the arcuate nucleus and other hypothalamic centers also are
influenced by exposure of the developing brain to leptin.12 According
to Rockefeller University's Jeffrey Friedman, who discovered leptin in
1994 and was involved in this work,13 "The wiring diagrams of this
system ... might be subtly, or not so subtly, different between the
lean and the obese." Jeffrey Flier of the Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, Boston, says it might be possible "to forcefully
rewire in an appropriate manner, but that's much further down the
line."

Until then, there's always surgery. Gastric bypass might seem a
drastic solution to the battle of the bulge, but it is effective:
Weight comes off, and it usually stays off. Appetite is suppressed,
which is likely linked to observations that postoperative levels of
PYY and ghrelin are high and low, respectively.

It's an expensive procedure, although Cummings says it pays for itself
in the long run because it removes the need to take many of the costly
medicines that obese people require. For example, many obese people
have diabetes, and 83% of those are cured wholesale, often while still
in the recovery room, says Cummings. "It's a kind of a mystical
thing."

Cummings predicts that surgery will be outmoded as more effective
medicines are developed. He suggests that in the same way that
hypertension is treated with multiple classes of drugs working on many
different sites, the same will evolve for excess body weight over the
course of the next couple of decades.

Tschöp prefers a parallel with interventions in reproductive
physiology. He points to the use of progesterone to trick the brain
into believing that a woman is pregnant. "I'm sure that ... we'll be
able to target the exact, essential mechanisms and trick the brain
into believing the stomach is already full." He adds, "Maybe we don't
yet know the progesterone of energy balance." "

Steve
May 25th 04, 12:58 AM
Elzinator wrote:
> Text is below, without the images/diagrams and references. For those,
> you'll have to register and visit the website. The site also has a
> sidebar with good content.
>
> There's one aspect not addressed here; in fact, glaringly absent.
> Anyone know what that is?

<Arnold Horshak Voice>
Ooo! Oooh!
</Arnold Horshak Voice>

The sheer number of obese individuals that exist today did not exist in
the past when people were more active, at less, and ate better.

The theories may shed light on why individuals with medical issues may
be obese, but those people are not what all of the contemporary urgency
are about.

Steve

Elzinator
May 25th 04, 01:52 PM
Steve > wrote in message >...
> Elzinator wrote:
> > Text is below, without the images/diagrams and references. For those,
> > you'll have to register and visit the website. The site also has a
> > sidebar with good content.
> >
> > There's one aspect not addressed here; in fact, glaringly absent.
> > Anyone know what that is?
>
> <Arnold Horshak Voice>
> Ooo! Oooh!
> </Arnold Horshak Voice>
>
> The sheer number of obese individuals that exist today did not exist in
> the past when people were more active, at less, and ate better.
>
> The theories may shed light on why individuals with medical issues may
> be obese, but those people are not what all of the contemporary urgency
> are about.

Basically, yes. But the key concept missing was 'exercise' or
'physical activity.' While reading a review on NEAT (non-exercise
activity thermogenesis) last night, the realization was clear that
even voluntary exercise is not essential to avoid overweight/obesity
(depending on energy intake). NEAT is the predominant component of
activity thermogenesis. It is the activity that we do as living human
beings on a daily basis. It accounts for as little as 15% (sedentary
individuals) to 50% (highly active) of our total daily expenditure.
This does not include exercise contribution to energy balance.

All the attention at the medical level and the larger emphasis by the
media is what goes in our mouth. Less attention is given to what we do
with our bodies these days. We have control here. We are by nature a
very lazy species and rely too heavily on labor-saving
devices/machines. Granted, we won't (nor don't have to) relinquish all
of those. All we need to do is say "NO" to a few (elevators, walking
to car/work/school/store, etc) and we increase our NEAT.

A large factor implied here is behavior. We obsess on eating behavior
with little attention given to activity behavior, except for a nod and
dismiss. (except this group; but then again, how many of us are really
active outside of the gym?) We need a better balance for the equation
(energy intake and energy output).

The reason I traditionally chose high activity occupations or lived in
rural areas is because I like to 'move' (be active). Even living in a
city, I find places to go, things to do. Even in the lab, I'm happiest
standing doing bench work. How many do the same?

Get off your ass, America.

Dally
May 25th 04, 05:58 PM
Elzinator wrote:

> Steve > wrote in message >...
>
>>Elzinator wrote:

>>>There's one aspect not addressed here; in fact, glaringly absent.
>>>Anyone know what that is?
>>
>><Arnold Horshak Voice>
>>Ooo! Oooh!
>></Arnold Horshak Voice>
>>
>>The sheer number of obese individuals that exist today did not exist in
>>the past when people were more active, at less, and ate better.
>>
>>The theories may shed light on why individuals with medical issues may
>>be obese, but those people are not what all of the contemporary urgency
>>are about.
>
> Basically, yes. But the key concept missing was 'exercise' or
> 'physical activity.'

I noticed this, too. I also noted the whole insulin resistance Syndrome
X stuff wasn't talked about, and that's what I had to cure to address my
own obesity. I did this through exercise.

I was curious about the reference to 83% of bariatric surgery patients
having their diabetes cured instantly in the recovery room. How does
that fit into the puzzle?

I really think that everyone should hear Covert Bailey talk about the
Four Food Groups of Exercise. He considers them part of the healthy
maintenance of a human body, along with the food used to fuel it. The
Fab Four are Resistance, Endurance, Intensity and Cross- Training IIRC.

(Before Lyle starts calling me a ****tard for liking Covert Bailey, let
me point out that he's out-dated in his low-fat diet stuff. I just like
the way he was talking inspiringly about exercise as the cure for
obesity when everyone else was talking about low-fat salad dressing.)

> While reading a review on NEAT (non-exercise
> activity thermogenesis) last night, the realization was clear that
> even voluntary exercise is not essential to avoid overweight/obesity
> (depending on energy intake). NEAT is the predominant component of
> activity thermogenesis. It is the activity that we do as living human
> beings on a daily basis. It accounts for as little as 15% (sedentary
> individuals) to 50% (highly active) of our total daily expenditure.
> This does not include exercise contribution to energy balance.

This is also called "insensible" exercise. It's hard to train a very
still person into moving insensibly. I'm working on it for myself. I
tend to be conservative with movement without meaning to. I have to
consciously give myself rules to move. For example, I decided to only
use the bathroom on a different floor of my building than the one on
which I work.

> All the attention at the medical level and the larger emphasis by the
> media is what goes in our mouth. Less attention is given to what we do
> with our bodies these days. We have control here. We are by nature a
> very lazy species and rely too heavily on labor-saving
> devices/machines. Granted, we won't (nor don't have to) relinquish all
> of those. All we need to do is say "NO" to a few (elevators, walking
> to car/work/school/store, etc) and we increase our NEAT.
>
> A large factor implied here is behavior. We obsess on eating behavior
> with little attention given to activity behavior, except for a nod and
> dismiss. (except this group; but then again, how many of us are really
> active outside of the gym?) We need a better balance for the equation
> (energy intake and energy output).
>
> The reason I traditionally chose high activity occupations or lived in
> rural areas is because I like to 'move' (be active). Even living in a
> city, I find places to go, things to do. Even in the lab, I'm happiest
> standing doing bench work. How many do the same?
>
> Get off your ass, America.

Good idea.

Dally, going rollerblading tomorrow with her kids

Steve
May 26th 04, 12:41 AM
Elzinator wrote:
> Basically, yes. But the key concept missing was 'exercise' or
> 'physical activity.' While reading a review on NEAT (non-exercise
> activity thermogenesis) last night, the realization was clear that
> even voluntary exercise is not essential to avoid overweight/obesity
> (depending on energy intake). NEAT is the predominant component of
> activity thermogenesis. It is the activity that we do as living human
> beings on a daily basis. It accounts for as little as 15% (sedentary
> individuals) to 50% (highly active) of our total daily expenditure.
> This does not include exercise contribution to energy balance.

I agree.

I can also see why the emphasis is on diet first, as any energy deficit
created by exericise can easily be filled in with a sloppy diet.
Additionally obese, and morbidly obese people may not be able to create
a large enough energy deficit through exercise until they get down to
lower weights.

Steve

Dally
May 26th 04, 01:57 AM
Steve wrote:

> I can also see why the emphasis is on diet first, as any energy deficit
> created by exericise can easily be filled in with a sloppy diet.
> Additionally obese, and morbidly obese people may not be able to create
> a large enough energy deficit through exercise until they get down to
> lower weights.

My experience is that it was easier to make increased activity normal in
my life than it is to change my feeding habits. The positive feedback I
get from exercise then made changing my diet easier. I'm less likely to
eat junk food if I've just worked out. My blood sugar swings get more
stable when I'm exercising. And I'm also more interested in getting in
better shape once I start a sport.

I know several women who went from obese to fit by making exercise
normal and then working on the diet component separately. It seems
easier to tackle major life-style changes one at a time.

I agree that you won't stop being obese until you tackle the diet issue,
but I don't think you'll STAY non-obese unless you make exercise part of
your life, so it doesn't really matter which order you do it in - they
both have to be addressed.

My Public Library has a whole shelf of books on how to lose weight out
on an end-cap. I noticed that three of the four books I got from the
library that were seminal in my fat-loss journey were not there. The
books were "Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey (saying exercise is
good), The Zone Diet books by Barry Sears (saying how to eat
non-****tardly), "Fattitudes" by Willert (saying face your psychological
reasons for choosing to be fat) and "Body for Life" by Bill Phillips
(saying get off your ass and put it all together.)

Only the Zone books were on that shelf or in the materials they handed
out. That was only 1/4 of the puzzle for me. Elzi's right: people are
missing the boat on how to lose fat if they just talk about diet.

Dally (down 67 pounds of lard in 21 months)

Steve
May 26th 04, 02:08 AM
Dally wrote:
> I agree that you won't stop being obese until you tackle the diet issue,
> but I don't think you'll STAY non-obese unless you make exercise part of
> your life, so it doesn't really matter which order you do it in - they
> both have to be addressed.

Even if someone is morbidly obese, a 300 pounder with knees caving in?
How much exercise can a person like that do until s/he gets down in weight?

Dally
May 26th 04, 02:48 AM
Steve wrote:

> Dally wrote:
>
>> I agree that you won't stop being obese until you tackle the diet
>> issue, but I don't think you'll STAY non-obese unless you make
>> exercise part of your life, so it doesn't really matter which order
>> you do it in - they both have to be addressed.
>
> Even if someone is morbidly obese, a 300 pounder with knees caving in?
> How much exercise can a person like that do until s/he gets down in weight?

Well, they won't be out running (for long, anyway.) But Jorge Cruise
has a book called "8 Minutes in the Morning" that involves doing some
dumbbell lifts with pink dumbbells and some chair squatting. Most gyms
have a pool or aqua aerobics. Fat people can usually handle recumbant
exercise bikes. Or they can sway side to side while Sweatin' to the Oldies.

It's hard to get over being 300 pounds. But it's harder to be 300
pounds. If you want to do it you can figure out a way.

Dally

elzinator
May 26th 04, 03:05 AM
On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:58:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> Steve > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>Elzinator wrote:
>
>>>>There's one aspect not addressed here; in fact, glaringly absent.
>>>>Anyone know what that is?
>>>
>>><Arnold Horshak Voice>
>>>Ooo! Oooh!
>>></Arnold Horshak Voice>
>>>
>>>The sheer number of obese individuals that exist today did not exist in
>>>the past when people were more active, at less, and ate better.
>>>
>>>The theories may shed light on why individuals with medical issues may
>>>be obese, but those people are not what all of the contemporary urgency
>>>are about.
>>
>> Basically, yes. But the key concept missing was 'exercise' or
>> 'physical activity.'
>
>I noticed this, too. I also noted the whole insulin resistance Syndrome
>X stuff wasn't talked about, and that's what I had to cure to address my
>own obesity. I did this through exercise.
>
>I was curious about the reference to 83% of bariatric surgery patients
>having their diabetes cured instantly in the recovery room. How does
>that fit into the puzzle?

One of the signals from the gut is 'missing'. Don't remember which and
I'm too brain dead for much recall right now (loooooong day).


>> While reading a review on NEAT (non-exercise
>> activity thermogenesis) last night, the realization was clear that
>> even voluntary exercise is not essential to avoid overweight/obesity
>> (depending on energy intake). NEAT is the predominant component of
>> activity thermogenesis. It is the activity that we do as living human
>> beings on a daily basis. It accounts for as little as 15% (sedentary
>> individuals) to 50% (highly active) of our total daily expenditure.
>> This does not include exercise contribution to energy balance.
>
>This is also called "insensible" exercise. It's hard to train a very
>still person into moving insensibly. I'm working on it for myself. I
>tend to be conservative with movement without meaning to. I have to
>consciously give myself rules to move. For example, I decided to only
>use the bathroom on a different floor of my building than the one on
>which I work.

I hear alot of "I should do this...." "I should start doing that..."
and they never do anything. My response these days is "Hey, it's your
choice and you have to live with it." The successful ones are those
who make the right choices.


>Dally, going rollerblading tomorrow with her kids

Wear padding.


--------------------------------------
In the end, what we regret the most is not taking chances.
"It is far better to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs,
even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor
spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in
the grey twilight that knows not victory, nor defeat."
- Theodore Roosevelt

Elzinator
May 26th 04, 02:04 PM
(Elzinator) wrote in message >...

The following is an abstract from the 13th European Symposium on
Obesity. The topic is one that several of us have pondered during our
lunch discussions. The authors conclusions support our observations
and is one of the real issues that needs addressing at a social level.

OVERWEIGHT FAMILIES - UNAWARE AND
UNCONCERNED: THE EARLYBIRD STUDY
Jeffery Alison, Voss Linda, Metcalf Brad, Alba Sandra, Wilkin Terry
Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth, UK

Aims: To assess the awareness of 7-year-old children and their parents
of their weight, and the degree of parental concern, if any.
Recognition
of excess weight as a problem is an essential fi rst step in any
healthpromotion
programme.

Methods: Subjects: 277 healthy children (mean age 7.4y) and their
parents
from the EarlyBird Study. Measures: BMI; written and pictorial
self-perception questionnaires.

Results: Children and parents were signifi cantly heavier than UK
norms. Few children recognised their own BMI category, but signifi
cantly more underestimated (51%) than overestimated (17%).
1/3 mothers and 1/2 fathers, who were either overweight or obese
(BMI>25), rated themselves ‘about right'. 1/3 obese girls (BMI>98th
centile) and 1/2 obese boys were similarly classifi ed by their
parents.
Fathers were less perceptive than mothers. In all, 60% parents of
obese
children expressed some concern about their child's weight, but only
28% were concerned if the child was overweight (BMI > 91st but < 98th
centile). Neither social class, nor level of parental education, nor
family
income, was related to BMI – actual or perceived.

Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
social classes, with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
result, the lay perception of ‘average' weight is now in confl ict
with
the clinician's defi nition of ‘normal'. It is of concern that few
parents
appear to recognise the potential health implications of excess
weight,
either in themselves or their children.

Elzinator
May 26th 04, 02:20 PM
(Elzinator) wrote in message >...

Another abstract I found interesting:
(some of the comments here echo observations made by a few colleagues
in the dept that are European natives, but also are seen in Americans,
too.)
------------------------------------------------

EATING PATTERN AND FOOD PREFERENCES IN OBESITY
France Bellisle
INRA, Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France

The possible existence of a characteristic "obese eating style" has
been a
subject of controversy. Many obese individuals may have characteristic
food preferences that could induce particular food choices,
facilitating
an excessive energy intake. Several studies indicate that obese
persons
enjoy high fat foods more than normal-weight peers, and especially
foods
that are both sweet-tasting and rich in fats. Obese persons may also
eat
larger portions of high-density foods, and smaller portions of
low-density
foods than nonobese people. The meal pattern also may be different
between
obese and nonobese persons. Classic studies indicated an inverse
relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating (daily
meals
and snacks) and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a
"nibbling"
meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. This notion has
been
questioned, however, especially since modern methods of assessment
of energy needs have revealed a very high degree of under-reporting
in obese individuals. A very consistently observed difference, in both
children and adults, is the tendency for heavier people to eat little
in the
morning and much in the latter part of the day. It is not known
whether
this behavioural characteristic is a cause or a consequence of
obesity. A
study in adolescents has recently established that, during the period
of
weight regain that follows a weight-loss program, the distribution of
daily
eating tends to return to the pre-diet pattern, that is: less energy
ingested
in the morning and more in the afternoon or the evening. Although
there is
no such thing as a universal "obese eating style", recent data suggest
that
certain preferences or eating patterns may be be relevant to the
development
and/or treatment of the obese status.

Dally
May 26th 04, 02:24 PM
Elzinator wrote:

> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
> social classes, with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
> result, the lay perception of ‘average' weight is now in conflict
> with the clinician's definition of ‘normal'.

Two years ago I was at a well-child appointment with my 9 year old son's
pediatrician and I said that I was concerned about the blubber appearing
on his belly. The doctor said that it was normal and nothing to be
concerned about. I went into my son's fourth grade classroom and looked
around and he was right: half of the children were heavier than my son,
and half were more slender. My son was perfectly normal.

I went home and looked around. TV, computer, DreamCast... a mother who
was 42% fat... I thought about how my kid's doctor wasn't concerned and
I just couldn't parse it. Why WASN'T he concerned about blubber
appearing on the belly of a nine year old? We were living in a toxic
environment that would lead him inevitably to lifelong obesity unless I
changed it.

Since then I've lost nearly 70 pounds, my husband dropped 20, our
daughter is strong and thriving, our oldest son is now doing two sports
and has a daily chore of "romping with the Lab" after school. We eat
MUCH healthier. We don't have cable TV. My son no longer has jiggly
blubber on his stomach.

But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
can't tell anymore.

Dally, who wants to wear Army boots, too

Steve
May 26th 04, 02:53 PM
Elzinator wrote:

> (Elzinator) wrote in message >...
>
> Another abstract I found interesting:
> (some of the comments here echo observations made by a few colleagues
> in the dept that are European natives, but also are seen in Americans,
> too.)
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> EATING PATTERN AND FOOD PREFERENCES IN OBESITY
> France Bellisle
> INRA, Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France

<snip>

> A very consistently observed difference, in both
> children and adults, is the tendency for heavier people to eat little
> in the
> morning and much in the latter part of the day. It is not known
> whether
> this behavioural characteristic is a cause or a consequence of
> obesity.

Interesting. Health experts have been screaming for decades about
eating more earlier in the day and it seems that even now not enough
people are listening.

Steve


--
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"

Lyle McDonald
May 26th 04, 04:43 PM
elzinator wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:58:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>
>>Elzinator wrote:

>>I was curious about the reference to 83% of bariatric surgery patients
>>having their diabetes cured instantly in the recovery room. How does
>>that fit into the puzzle?
>
>
> One of the signals from the gut is 'missing'. Don't remember which and
> I'm too brain dead for much recall right now (loooooong day).
>

Ghrelin?

Lyle

Proton Soup
May 26th 04, 06:38 PM
On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:53:02 -0400, Steve
> wrote:

>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> (Elzinator) wrote in message >...
>>
>> Another abstract I found interesting:
>> (some of the comments here echo observations made by a few colleagues
>> in the dept that are European natives, but also are seen in Americans,
>> too.)
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> EATING PATTERN AND FOOD PREFERENCES IN OBESITY
>> France Bellisle
>> INRA, Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France
>
><snip>
>
>> A very consistently observed difference, in both
>> children and adults, is the tendency for heavier people to eat little
>> in the
>> morning and much in the latter part of the day. It is not known
>> whether
>> this behavioural characteristic is a cause or a consequence of
>> obesity.
>
>Interesting. Health experts have been screaming for decades about
>eating more earlier in the day and it seems that even now not enough
>people are listening.

I was never overweight in high school. In fact I was quite active and
very much in shape. But eating in the morning didn't set well with me
at all. It made me nauseous. My typical breakfast back then was a
Dr. Pepper, well, actually only half a bottle. The other half sat on
the dash of the car all day and was hot and ready by 3 pm.

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

AntwainBarbour
May 26th 04, 09:33 PM
It really is amazing that people are so inactive these days. When I
was young, I used to ride my bike and play around in the streets or
yard. Now kids just sit around the tv or the computer and get fat.
Don't blame the foods and stuff out there, blame the lifstyle.

Steve
May 26th 04, 10:00 PM
AntwainBarbour wrote:
> It really is amazing that people are so inactive these days. When I
> was young, I used to ride my bike and play around in the streets or
> yard. Now kids just sit around the tv or the computer and get fat.
> Don't blame the foods and stuff out there, blame the lifstyle.

Activity is indeed one half of the problem, but food does deserve to be
blamed as it is the other half.

Food quality has declined and portions have gotten out of control.

When I was a kid we might have had soda once a week when my father
ordered in a pizza. The 4 or us would split a liter bottle of cola.

I see *kids* carrying drink cups out of 7/11 bigger then that.

Steve

--
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"

elzinator
May 27th 04, 02:49 AM
On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:43:25 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>elzinator wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:58:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>>
>>>Elzinator wrote:
>
>>>I was curious about the reference to 83% of bariatric surgery patients
>>>having their diabetes cured instantly in the recovery room. How does
>>>that fit into the puzzle?
>>
>>
>> One of the signals from the gut is 'missing'. Don't remember which and
>> I'm too brain dead for much recall right now (loooooong day).
>>
>
>Ghrelin?

Is that Gremlin's cousin?

(severe post workout punchiness - ouch)


"I am the monster." - Riddick

elzinator
May 27th 04, 02:53 AM
On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
>Elzinator wrote:
>
>> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
>> social classes, with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
>> result, the lay perception of ‘average' weight is now in conflict
>> with the clinician's definition of ‘normal'.
>
>Two years ago I was at a well-child appointment with my 9 year old son's
>pediatrician and I said that I was concerned about the blubber appearing
>on his belly. The doctor said that it was normal and nothing to be
>concerned about. I went into my son's fourth grade classroom and looked
>around and he was right: half of the children were heavier than my son,
>and half were more slender. My son was perfectly normal.
>
>I went home and looked around. TV, computer, DreamCast... a mother who
>was 42% fat... I thought about how my kid's doctor wasn't concerned and
>I just couldn't parse it. Why WASN'T he concerned about blubber
>appearing on the belly of a nine year old? We were living in a toxic
>environment that would lead him inevitably to lifelong obesity unless I
>changed it.
>
>Since then I've lost nearly 70 pounds, my husband dropped 20, our
>daughter is strong and thriving, our oldest son is now doing two sports
>and has a daily chore of "romping with the Lab" after school. We eat
>MUCH healthier. We don't have cable TV. My son no longer has jiggly
>blubber on his stomach.
>
>But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
>who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
>growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
>can't tell anymore.

Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'


"I am the monster." - Riddick

John HUDSON
May 27th 04, 08:37 AM
On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:53:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
>>Elzinator wrote:
>>
>>> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
>>> social classes, with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
>>> result, the lay perception of ‘average' weight is now in conflict
>>> with the clinician's definition of ‘normal'.
>>
>>Two years ago I was at a well-child appointment with my 9 year old son's
>>pediatrician and I said that I was concerned about the blubber appearing
>>on his belly. The doctor said that it was normal and nothing to be
>>concerned about. I went into my son's fourth grade classroom and looked
>>around and he was right: half of the children were heavier than my son,
>>and half were more slender. My son was perfectly normal.
>>
>>I went home and looked around. TV, computer, DreamCast... a mother who
>>was 42% fat... I thought about how my kid's doctor wasn't concerned and
>>I just couldn't parse it. Why WASN'T he concerned about blubber
>>appearing on the belly of a nine year old? We were living in a toxic
>>environment that would lead him inevitably to lifelong obesity unless I
>>changed it.
>>
>>Since then I've lost nearly 70 pounds, my husband dropped 20, our
>>daughter is strong and thriving, our oldest son is now doing two sports
>>and has a daily chore of "romping with the Lab" after school. We eat
>>MUCH healthier. We don't have cable TV. My son no longer has jiggly
>>blubber on his stomach.
>>
>>But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
>>who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
>>growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
>>can't tell anymore.
>
>Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'

Another gem from the Bill Brink school of 'Home-spun Philosophy'!!

You people have got your heads so far up your anal orifices it's
almost unbelievable!

An entire and valued profession written off at a stroke; just who do
you think you are?

>
>
>"I am the monster." - Riddick

I agree with Riddick!! ;o)

Helgi Briem
May 27th 04, 09:55 AM
On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:53:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>>But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
>>who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
>>growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
>>can't tell anymore.
>
>Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'

Now, Elzi, I know you know better than that. There may be
MDs who may be to bored with the endless stream of
routine cases to bother to apply their brains to each one.
They can get burned out and lazy and whatnot, but they
sure as hell are trained, to think, and usually by nature
inclined to do so. I know many MDs and they are, collectively
among the brightest, best-read and most intellectually critical
bunch of people I know.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Team Caldwell
May 27th 04, 12:39 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
> >Elzinator wrote:
> >
> >> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
> >> social classes,

while that is true, they are more common among the poor.

for the first time in history

whit

with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
> >> result, the lay perception of 'average' weight is now in conflict
> >> with the clinician's definition of 'normal'.
> >
> >Two years ago I was at a well-child appointment with my 9 year old son's
> >pediatrician and I said that I was concerned about the blubber appearing
> >on his belly. The doctor said that it was normal and nothing to be
> >concerned about. I went into my son's fourth grade classroom and looked
> >around and he was right: half of the children were heavier than my son,
> >and half were more slender. My son was perfectly normal.
> >
> >I went home and looked around. TV, computer, DreamCast... a mother who
> >was 42% fat... I thought about how my kid's doctor wasn't concerned and
> >I just couldn't parse it. Why WASN'T he concerned about blubber
> >appearing on the belly of a nine year old? We were living in a toxic
> >environment that would lead him inevitably to lifelong obesity unless I
> >changed it.
> >
> >Since then I've lost nearly 70 pounds, my husband dropped 20, our
> >daughter is strong and thriving, our oldest son is now doing two sports
> >and has a daily chore of "romping with the Lab" after school. We eat
> >MUCH healthier. We don't have cable TV. My son no longer has jiggly
> >blubber on his stomach.
> >
> >But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
> >who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
> >growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
> >can't tell anymore.
>
> Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'
>
>
> "I am the monster." - Riddick

Bob MacWilliam
May 27th 04, 02:27 PM
<snip>

> It is of concern that few
> parents
> appear to recognise the potential health implications of excess
> weight,
> either in themselves or their children.

If parents had to deal with consequences then this would change in a
hurry. A school will contact parents if behaviour and/or performance
declines. A doctor will intervene if s/he finds bruising or other
signs of abuse. Nobody (or at least too few) will tell a parent "Hey,
your kid's getting fat, what the hell are you doing and how are you
going to address this?" Even if a parent is told, there are no
consequences.

Allowing a child to get fat is neglectful at best, abusive at worst.
We just can't bring ourselves to tell someone their kid's a
tub-o-lard. It's like telling someone their kid is ugly. It
shouldn't be like this of course because being fat is a result of poor
parental choices and is totally changeable.

Bob

NAVYCHIEFCHUCK
May 27th 04, 05:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Obesity
>From: (Bob MacWilliam)
>Date: 5/27/2004 8:27 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
><snip>
>
>> It is of concern that few
>> parents
>> appear to recognise the potential health implications of excess
>> weight,
>> either in themselves or their children.
>
>If parents had to deal with consequences then this would change in a
>hurry. A school will contact parents if behaviour and/or performance
>declines. A doctor will intervene if s/he finds bruising or other
>signs of abuse. Nobody (or at least too few) will tell a parent "Hey,
>your kid's getting fat, what the hell are you doing and how are you
>going to address this?" Even if a parent is told, there are no
>consequences.
>
>Allowing a child to get fat is neglectful at best, abusive at worst.
>We just can't bring ourselves to tell someone their kid's a
>tub-o-lard. It's like telling someone their kid is ugly. It
>shouldn't be like this of course because being fat is a result of poor
>parental choices and is totally changeable.
>
>Bob
>
>
As I was growing up, I gained quite a bit of weight (fat) - and all my
relatives would say, "It's just baby-fat" and "He'll grow out of it"..... and I
didn't. As I got bigger, they just bought me bigger clothes. There is a fine
line of being totally accepting and loving, and utilizing "tough love". After I
got away from that environment and went into the military things changed.
Chief

elzinator
May 28th 04, 02:35 AM
On Thu, 27 May 2004 08:55:09 +0000, Helgi Briem wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:53:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:
>
>>>But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
>>>who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
>>>growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
>>>can't tell anymore.
>>
>>Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'
>
>Now, Elzi, I know you know better than that.

I was being sarcastic, as usual.

>There may be
>MDs who may be to bored with the endless stream of
>routine cases to bother to apply their brains to each one.
>They can get burned out and lazy and whatnot, but they
>sure as hell are trained, to think, and usually by nature
>inclined to do so. I know many MDs and they are, collectively
>among the brightest, best-read and most intellectually critical
>bunch of people I know.

I agree with the first comment, but not necessarily with the latter
part. I work with MDs and PhDs. The training and educational backround
is very different. Granted, not all MDs lack critical thinking skills,
but many do. However, most of the MDs on campus in an academic
environment, such as where I am, are not exactly representative of
the general population of MDs in private practice. This topic (the
dichotomy of MD/PhD training) has been a frequent topic of
conversation amongst us in the dept.

Regardless, your run-of-the-mill MD in general/private practice does
not stay abreast of the literature, and, paralleling your first
descriptions, many are so overburdened that they can't be expected to.
Several of the MDs and MD/PhDs here have commented that they have no
desire for private practice because of the high patient load and
demanding administration/regulations. One commented specifically that
it would be impossible to read all the literature being published and
run a practice. No time.

I have known a few MDs that read the literature, exercise critical
thinking and think 'outside the box', but they are few and far in
between. Many regurgitate what they are told or what they learned in
med school decades ago.



"I am the monster." - Riddick

elzinator
May 28th 04, 02:40 AM
On 27 May 2004 06:27:29 -0700, Bob MacWilliam wrote:
><snip>
>
>> It is of concern that few
>> parents
>> appear to recognise the potential health implications of excess
>> weight,
>> either in themselves or their children.
>
>If parents had to deal with consequences then this would change in a
>hurry. A school will contact parents if behaviour and/or performance
>declines. A doctor will intervene if s/he finds bruising or other
>signs of abuse. Nobody (or at least too few) will tell a parent "Hey,
>your kid's getting fat, what the hell are you doing and how are you
>going to address this?" Even if a parent is told, there are no
>consequences.
>
>Allowing a child to get fat is neglectful at best, abusive at worst.
>We just can't bring ourselves to tell someone their kid's a
>tub-o-lard. It's like telling someone their kid is ugly. It
>shouldn't be like this of course because being fat is a result of poor
>parental choices and is totally changeable.

On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
sunburned.

So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
become morbidly obese?

And who 'throws the first stone'?

Food for thought.


"I am the monster." - Riddick

Steve
May 28th 04, 03:36 AM
elzinator wrote:
> On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
> neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
> sunburned.
>
> So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
> social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
> become morbidly obese?
>
> And who 'throws the first stone'?

I will.

The situation with the obese 3 year old girl was a matter of neglect
leading to serious harm.

What if that sunburn turned into serious dehydration requiring
hospitalization?

Steve

Proton Soup
May 28th 04, 07:26 AM
On Thu, 27 May 2004 22:36:59 -0400, Steve
> wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>> On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
>> neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
>> sunburned.
>>
>> So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
>> social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
>> become morbidly obese?
>>
>> And who 'throws the first stone'?
>
>I will.
>
>The situation with the obese 3 year old girl was a matter of neglect
>leading to serious harm.

You've got one case based on a single opinion. What about the other
5.9 billion people on earth that didn't suffer the same fate?

>What if that sunburn turned into serious dehydration requiring
>hospitalization?

Eh? You get dehydration from not drinking enough water. Do you even
know what a sunburn is? Ever been sunburned yourself?

>Steve

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

John HUDSON
May 28th 04, 08:44 AM
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:35:04 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 May 2004 08:55:09 +0000, Helgi Briem wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:53:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:
>>
>>>>But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
>>>>who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
>>>>growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
>>>>can't tell anymore.
>>>
>>>Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'
>>
>>Now, Elzi, I know you know better than that.
>
>I was being sarcastic, as usual.

That will come as a great relief to the entire medical profession!!

Just because "Most MDs" show little interest in Creatine, whey,
steroids, cutting, bulking, reducing B/F to single figures, pumping
the body to distort its shape in order to oil, wax, primp, pose and
compete against other like-minded souls, does not mean that "Most MDs"
don't "think".

Like the rest of us they probably "think" a great deal but they just
don't consider it a particularly high priority - if at all!! ;o)

Have a great weekend Elzi dear; it's Whitsun in England with a Bank
Holiday on Monday. Do try and enjoy my dear and read something other
than research papers!!

Get out and have a 'pint and a pie'!!;o)

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
May 28th 04, 08:46 AM
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:40:27 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On 27 May 2004 06:27:29 -0700, Bob MacWilliam wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> It is of concern that few
>>> parents
>>> appear to recognise the potential health implications of excess
>>> weight,
>>> either in themselves or their children.
>>
>>If parents had to deal with consequences then this would change in a
>>hurry. A school will contact parents if behaviour and/or performance
>>declines. A doctor will intervene if s/he finds bruising or other
>>signs of abuse. Nobody (or at least too few) will tell a parent "Hey,
>>your kid's getting fat, what the hell are you doing and how are you
>>going to address this?" Even if a parent is told, there are no
>>consequences.
>>
>>Allowing a child to get fat is neglectful at best, abusive at worst.
>>We just can't bring ourselves to tell someone their kid's a
>>tub-o-lard. It's like telling someone their kid is ugly. It
>>shouldn't be like this of course because being fat is a result of poor
>>parental choices and is totally changeable.
>
>On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
>neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
>sunburned.
>
>So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
>social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
>become morbidly obese?
>
>And who 'throws the first stone'?
>
>Food for thought.

I would hope this pun was intended - but I doubt it!! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!! ;o)

Helgi Briem
May 28th 04, 09:33 AM
On Thu, 27 May 2004 22:36:59 -0400, Steve
> wrote:

>What if that sunburn turned into serious dehydration
>requiring hospitalization?

The sunburn in this case was *far* more serious than
simple dehydration. We're talking second and third
degree burns here. Open sores.


--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Dally
May 28th 04, 02:33 PM
Steve wrote:
> elzinator wrote:
>
>> On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
>> neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
>> sunburned.
>> So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
>> social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
>> become morbidly obese?
>>
>> And who 'throws the first stone'?
>
>
> I will.
>
> The situation with the obese 3 year old girl was a matter of neglect
> leading to serious harm.

I saw a piece of shoddy journalism posted all over usenet - was that
you? It was typical British Slimebag press - outrage, glossy facts,
designed to make people feel superior to others....

Do you know that this child's weight was not CAUSED by congestive heart
failure and the attending blow-up on fluids and/or medications?

Do you know that this child was genetically normal and her obscene size
was therefore the result of gross over-feeding rather than her own disease?

A three year old child died of heart failure. She was fat. People are
sad. That's what you know from that article. Personally, I doubt every
sentance. Was she nearly four? Was she gigantic as opposed to fat?
Were people really sad or were they relieved her suffering was over? In
other words, read the British press and you know nothing afterwards.

Dally

Will Brink
May 28th 04, 02:38 PM
In article >,
"Team Caldwell" > wrote:

> "elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
> > >Elzinator wrote:
> > >
> > >> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
> > >> social classes,
>
> while that is true, they are more common among the poor.
>
> for the first time in history

Which as a reverse of history, the higher social classes judge status by
how thin they are versus how fat. When the poor are tanned, they want to
be white, and when the poor are white, they want to be tanned.

>
> whit
>
> with overweight widely accepted as the norm. As a
> > >> result, the lay perception of 'average' weight is now in conflict
> > >> with the clinician's definition of 'normal'.
> > >
> > >Two years ago I was at a well-child appointment with my 9 year old son's
> > >pediatrician and I said that I was concerned about the blubber appearing
> > >on his belly. The doctor said that it was normal and nothing to be
> > >concerned about. I went into my son's fourth grade classroom and looked
> > >around and he was right: half of the children were heavier than my son,
> > >and half were more slender. My son was perfectly normal.
> > >
> > >I went home and looked around. TV, computer, DreamCast... a mother who
> > >was 42% fat... I thought about how my kid's doctor wasn't concerned and
> > >I just couldn't parse it. Why WASN'T he concerned about blubber
> > >appearing on the belly of a nine year old? We were living in a toxic
> > >environment that would lead him inevitably to lifelong obesity unless I
> > >changed it.
> > >
> > >Since then I've lost nearly 70 pounds, my husband dropped 20, our
> > >daughter is strong and thriving, our oldest son is now doing two sports
> > >and has a daily chore of "romping with the Lab" after school. We eat
> > >MUCH healthier. We don't have cable TV. My son no longer has jiggly
> > >blubber on his stomach.
> > >
> > >But now the pediatrician thinks I might be starving our youngest child,
> > >who weighs far below the normal weight charts but is healthy and
> > >growing. "Normal" and healthy are so ****ed up that even a pediatrician
> > >can't tell anymore.
> >
> > Most MDs are not trained to 'think.'
> >
> >
> > "I am the monster." - Riddick
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Proton Soup
May 28th 04, 06:51 PM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:38:06 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>
>In article >,
> "Team Caldwell" > wrote:
>
>> "elzinator" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
>> > >Elzinator wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
>> > >> social classes,
>>
>> while that is true, they are more common among the poor.
>>
>> for the first time in history
>
>Which as a reverse of history, the higher social classes judge status by
>how thin they are versus how fat. When the poor are tanned, they want to
>be white, and when the poor are white, they want to be tanned.

Everyone is like that, poor or not. Straight-haired people want
curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
anyone but ourselves.

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

Proton Soup
May 28th 04, 06:54 PM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:33:48 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> elzinator wrote:
>>
>>> On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
>>> neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
>>> sunburned.
>>> So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
>>> social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
>>> become morbidly obese?
>>>
>>> And who 'throws the first stone'?
>>
>>
>> I will.
>>
>> The situation with the obese 3 year old girl was a matter of neglect
>> leading to serious harm.
>
>I saw a piece of shoddy journalism posted all over usenet - was that
>you? It was typical British Slimebag press - outrage, glossy facts,
>designed to make people feel superior to others....
>
>Do you know that this child's weight was not CAUSED by congestive heart
>failure and the attending blow-up on fluids and/or medications?
>
>Do you know that this child was genetically normal and her obscene size
>was therefore the result of gross over-feeding rather than her own disease?
>
>A three year old child died of heart failure. She was fat. People are
>sad. That's what you know from that article. Personally, I doubt every
>sentance. Was she nearly four? Was she gigantic as opposed to fat?
>Were people really sad or were they relieved her suffering was over? In
>other words, read the British press and you know nothing afterwards.

We also know that many physicians put their political agendas ahead of
their objectivity. Certain peta freaks are just one example. Just
because someone has initials after their name doesn't mean we can
trust their judgement or intentions as objective and well-motivated.

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

"Everyone has a purpose in life.
Perhaps yours is watching television."
- - David Letterman

John HUDSON
May 28th 04, 08:44 PM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:33:48 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> elzinator wrote:
>>
>>> On the train this morning I read that a father was charged with
>>> neglect for not putting *enough* suntan lotion on his son, who was
>>> sunburned.
>>> So, if society judges that as 'neglect', then where is the line of
>>> social and parental responsibility for allowing your children to
>>> become morbidly obese?
>>>
>>> And who 'throws the first stone'?
>>
>>
>> I will.
>>
>> The situation with the obese 3 year old girl was a matter of neglect
>> leading to serious harm.
>
>I saw a piece of shoddy journalism posted all over usenet - was that
>you? It was typical British Slimebag press - outrage, glossy facts,
>designed to make people feel superior to others....

Does this cross pond 'thrombie' mean that you are of the opinion that
only the British are possessed of a "Slimebag press"?

>
>Do you know that this child's weight was not CAUSED by congestive heart
>failure and the attending blow-up on fluids and/or medications?

Do you know it wasn't?

>
>Do you know that this child was genetically normal and her obscene size
>was therefore the result of gross over-feeding rather than her own disease?

Do you know different?

>
>A three year old child died of heart failure. She was fat. People are
>sad. That's what you know from that article. Personally, I doubt every
>sentance. Was she nearly four? Was she gigantic as opposed to fat?
>Were people really sad or were they relieved her suffering was over? In
>other words, read the British press and you know nothing afterwards.

It might be better if you researched the veracity of the article and
the contents therein, before rushing in to condemn it out of hand
using emotive claptrap!!

This is unlike you, so is it:

a. A bad hair day?

b. MT (pre, post or current)?

c. Or are you just ****ed off with the world?

Chill out; follow my example - and have a great weekend!! ;o)

TFIF!!

Will Brink
May 28th 04, 10:25 PM
In article >,
Proton Soup <> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:38:06 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >In article >,
> > "Team Caldwell" > wrote:
> >
> >> "elzinator" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
> >> > >Elzinator wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
> >> > >> social classes,
> >>
> >> while that is true, they are more common among the poor.
> >>
> >> for the first time in history
> >
> >Which as a reverse of history, the higher social classes judge status by
> >how thin they are versus how fat. When the poor are tanned, they want to
> >be white, and when the poor are white, they want to be tanned.
>
> Everyone is like that, poor or not.

Not exactly. There are specific historical trends regarding weight and
skin color to seperate wealthy ruling classes fron the poor.

> Straight-haired people want
> curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
> anyone but ourselves.

It's not to look different per se but to look like the class you are
from so everyone knows it.


>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Everyone has a purpose in life.
> Perhaps yours is watching television."
> - - David Letterman

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

elzinator
May 29th 04, 05:21 AM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:54:55 GMT, Proton Soup <> wrote:

>We also know that many physicians put their political agendas ahead of
>their objectivity. Certain peta freaks are just one example. Just
>because someone has initials after their name doesn't mean we can
>trust their judgement or intentions as objective and well-motivated.

Very well put.


"I am the monster." - Riddick

elzinator
May 29th 04, 05:27 AM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:25:50 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>In article >,

>> Straight-haired people want
>> curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
>> anyone but ourselves.
>
>It's not to look different per se but to look like the class you are
>from so everyone knows it.

That is probably true for a large subpopulation, Will. But the simple
fact is that humans are gregarious and try to identify with others,
like themselves, or who they want to be. Many do not really know who
they are, so they attach themselves to a group, popular, fringe or
subculture, to attain some identity. Humans run in packs just like
other animals. We just have complex social systems that keep us from
killing each other (although we don't seem to be doing a very good job
of that at the moment).


"I am the monster." - Riddick

John HUDSON
May 29th 04, 07:04 AM
On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:21:30 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:54:55 GMT, Proton Soup <> wrote:
>
>>We also know that many physicians put their political agendas ahead of
>>their objectivity. Certain peta freaks are just one example. Just
>>because someone has initials after their name doesn't mean we can
>>trust their judgement or intentions as objective and well-motivated.
>
>Very well put.

And which will include no doubt a few blowhards here, embracing a
couple that have *no* "initials" after their name!! ;o)

HAGW!!

Will Brink
May 29th 04, 04:15 PM
In article >,
elzinator > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:25:50 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
> >In article >,
>
> >> Straight-haired people want
> >> curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
> >> anyone but ourselves.
> >
> >It's not to look different per se but to look like the class you are
> >from so everyone knows it.
>
> That is probably true for a large subpopulation, Will. But the simple
> fact is that humans are gregarious and try to identify with others,
> like themselves, or who they want to be.

But those are two different issues, one of status and one of identity to
a group which may or may not be status related.

> Many do not really know who
> they are, so they attach themselves to a group, popular, fringe or
> subculture, to attain some identity.

Of course.

> Humans run in packs just like
> other animals. We just have complex social systems that keep us from
> killing each other (although we don't seem to be doing a very good job
> of that at the moment).

At the moment? I doubt it's any worse now then any time in history
really. Might even be better actually.


>
>
> "I am the monster." - Riddick

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lyle McDonald
May 29th 04, 08:49 PM
Steve wrote:

> AntwainBarbour wrote:
>
>> It really is amazing that people are so inactive these days. When I
>> was young, I used to ride my bike and play around in the streets or
>> yard. Now kids just sit around the tv or the computer and get fat.
>> Don't blame the foods and stuff out there, blame the lifstyle.
>
>
> Activity is indeed one half of the problem, but food does deserve to be
> blamed as it is the other half.
> Food quality has declined and portions have gotten out of control.
>
> When I was a kid we might have had soda once a week when my father
> ordered in a pizza. The 4 or us would split a liter bottle of cola.
>
> I see *kids* carrying drink cups out of 7/11 bigger then that.

I remeber when a Big Gulp was a big ass soda.
Then Super Big Gulp.
I have no idea how big the drinks are now, 64oz and up are not uncommon.

Might as well just back up the tanker and put the nozzle in their mouth
at this point.

Lyle McDonald
May 29th 04, 08:50 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:38:06 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>"Team Caldwell" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Elzinator wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
>>>>>>social classes,
>>>
>>>while that is true, they are more common among the poor.
>>>
>>>for the first time in history
>>
>>Which as a reverse of history, the higher social classes judge status by
>>how thin they are versus how fat. When the poor are tanned, they want to
>>be white, and when the poor are white, they want to be tanned.
>
>
> Everyone is like that, poor or not. Straight-haired people want
> curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
> anyone but ourselves.

What typically happens is that the rich want to separate themselves from
everyone else (with their clothes, mannerisms, appearance) as this
generally denotes status (especially if how they are distinguishing
themselves requires a high energy/money investment), then the middle
class, then the poor follow along. At which point the rich find some
'new' way to distinguish themselves.

Lyle

Will Brink
May 29th 04, 11:32 PM
In article >,
Lyle McDonald > wrote:

> Proton Soup wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:38:06 -0400, Will Brink
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article >,
> >>"Team Caldwell" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:24:43 -0400, Dally wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Elzinator wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are now common across all
> >>>>>>social classes,
> >>>
> >>>while that is true, they are more common among the poor.
> >>>
> >>>for the first time in history
> >>
> >>Which as a reverse of history, the higher social classes judge status by
> >>how thin they are versus how fat. When the poor are tanned, they want to
> >>be white, and when the poor are white, they want to be tanned.
> >
> >
> > Everyone is like that, poor or not. Straight-haired people want
> > curls, curly-tops want straight. Seems we all want to look like
> > anyone but ourselves.
>
> What typically happens is that the rich want to separate themselves from
> everyone else (with their clothes, mannerisms, appearance) as this
> generally denotes status (especially if how they are distinguishing
> themselves requires a high energy/money investment), then the middle
> class, then the poor follow along. At which point the rich find some
> 'new' way to distinguish themselves.

My point exactly.

>
> Lyle
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Donovan Rebbechi
May 30th 04, 01:34 AM
On 2004-05-29, Lyle McDonald > wrote:

> What typically happens is that the rich want to separate themselves from
> everyone else (with their clothes, mannerisms, appearance) as this
> generally denotes status (especially if how they are distinguishing
> themselves requires a high energy/money investment), then the middle
> class, then the poor follow along. At which point the rich find some
> 'new' way to distinguish themselves.

There is a well known social psychology publication that discusses a
hypothetical study in ostracism that addresses this theory:

``The Sneetches and Other Stories'', Dr. Seuss, 1961 Random House Books

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/