Found this story at Science Daily: Not All Obese People Develop Metabolic Problems Linked To Excess Weight.
New research demonstrates that obesity does not always go hand in hand with metabolic changes in the body that can lead to diabetes, heart disease and stroke.
In a study at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, researchers found that a subset of obese people do not have common metabolic abnormalities associated with obesity, such as insulin resistance, abnormal blood lipids (high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol), high blood pressure and excess liver fat.
In addition, obese people who didn't have these metabolic problems when the study began did not develop them even after they gained more weight.
The findings are published Jan. 2 in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Full journal article is available.
Given the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of many people today, I found it interesting that metabolic impact varied among the obese. Do be aware, however, that there are contrasting studies on the effects of obesity. Consider, for example, these articles which were published in November of 2013:
- Metabolically Healthy Obesity Does Not Guarantee Clean Bill of Health
- Overweight, Obese Are Risks for Heart Disease Regardless of Metabolic Syndrome
I hope that research like this might pave the way so that we may some day find a way to mitigate some of the deleterious effects of obesity.
(Score: 1) by Flyingmoose on Monday January 05 2015, @12:47PM
Metabolic syndrome and diabetes are caused by eating too much sugar. If someone is fat because they eat lots of fat and/or complex carbs, they would probably be less likely to have these problems, compared to someone who drinks lots of soda, for example.
(Score: 2) by khakipuce on Monday January 05 2015, @01:01PM
"I hope that research like this might pave the way so that we may some day find a way to mitigate some of the deleterious effects of obesity"
People need to take responsibility and not put on the weight in the first place, hoping for a miracle cure after the fact is just daft!
The first thought that always goes through my mind when there are TV programs about people who are too fat to leave the house is: who is buying the obese person food? Stop buying them food, take away the scooter and the car and they will soon loose weight walking to the shop.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Monday January 05 2015, @01:12PM
It is their right to be fat, obese, or whatever. Take away their scooter is not helping them. Forced help is not help. Btw giving them a seat in the bus is also not helping them. I wonder if they have to pay ridiculous amount for med insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @01:25PM
>It is their right to be fat, obese, or whatever.
Of course it is, nobody is questioning that.
This isn't about their acts, it's about those who enable their choices. Of course those people also have a right to feed these people, nobody is questioning that either.
>Take away their scooter is not helping them.
The idea here isn't to help (I'm assuming you define help to mean doing anything which improves their experience of life) them, it's to specifically get them to lose weight. It depends on the circumstances, but for many people taking away their scooter would make them lose weight, but of course for many others it would exacerbate existing health problems. It is of course wrong to take anothers property without consent, and thus should not be advocated for, but to claim it shouldn't be advocated for because it would help is wrong because it implies taking anothers property without consent is justified if it helps them.
>Forced help is not help.
Bollocks, of course it is. This is the same shit as "good enough isn't good enough", your definitions are clearly wrong. You may claim that forced help cannot exist, but to claim that if it did exist then it wouldn't be help is a contradiction.
>Btw giving them a seat in the bus is also not helping them.
I'm not sure what your referring to here, but having special fat person seats because normal seats are unsuitable is certainly helping them. Joint problems can make it painful and dangerous to stand for long periods, and if normal seats can't hold them then special seats certainly are helping.
>I wonder if they have to pay ridiculous amount for med insurance.
Insurance is betting. Obese people have better odds of getting ill than the non-obese general populace, therefore they have to make a higher bet to make the same winnings if they do get ill.
Unless of course you think that businesses should be forced to make unprofitable bets by the government.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Monday January 05 2015, @04:30PM
> it's to specifically get them to lose weight
The only ethic way of doing it is to persuade them to want it. Technically you can make people give up their scooters by offering lump of cash for non-scooter policy or something like that, no need for theft. But that's counter-productive because non-fat people would get nothing while fat people will get money, and non-fat people would have stimulus to get fat.
>>Forced help is not help.
>Bollocks, of course it is. This is the same shit as "good enough isn't good enough", your definitions are clearly wrong. You may claim that forced help cannot exist, but to claim that if it did exist then it wouldn't be help is a contradiction.
I didn't understand much of your reasoning here. It is the beneficiary that determines if an act is useful to them ("help") or not.
Maybe it's what I mean by "help": enabling/easing someone to get what they want. They want to eat a lot --> be fat --> movement gets harder --> taking their scooter is not making it easier for them.
If someone lives in misery and can change that but does not, then it is exactly misery they want. Giving them money does not "help", they will not spend the money for getting out of the misery.
The only exception for this is with drugs abuse where the beneficiary has skewed perception of reality and cannot be regarded as capable of reasoning.
>>Btw giving them a seat in the bus is also not helping them.
>I'm not sure what your referring to here, but having special fat person seats because normal seats are unsuitable is certainly helping them. Joint problems can make it painful and dangerous to stand for long periods, and if normal seats can't hold them then special seats certainly are helping.
Hm, you are right, it is helping them. To be fat. Giving them a seat eases the consequences of their choices. But it does not stimulate them to be physicaly fit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @07:00PM
>The only ethic way of doing it is to persuade them to want it.
Not at all, if you're the only person selling food in a given area and you don't sell them any more than they need then that would be an ethical (albeit a dickish) way of making them lose weight.
>It is the beneficiary that determines if an act is useful to them ("help") or not.
>what I mean by "help": enabling/easing someone to get what they want.
You've just stated that help is wholly subjective and then given objective criteria for determining whether something is help or not.
>beneficiary has skewed perception of reality
and then you further imply it isn't subjective by stating that it doesn't matter how a person feels, only what objective reality is.
Furthermore you do this in the context of giving an example of forced help (drug intervention).
Personally I would consider such interventions immoral unless it's by bribing suppliers not to sell to that person or otherwise preventing their access without infringing their rights.
If a person decides that eating whatever they like is worth the cost then to hell with people trying to forcibly stop them regardless of health issues. But informing someone of health issues they're not aware of is only decent, otherwise you prevent them from making an informed decision. Of course an uninformed decision must be respected anyway, but is likely undesirable for the person making it.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Monday January 05 2015, @09:12PM
> ethical (albeit a dickish) way
I don't see how dickish way can be ethical. However I don't claim I know the definition of "ethical" so I won't argue here.
About help: it is wholly subjective. "enabling/easing someone to get what they want" is not objective criteria, it is subjective: it is up to the beneficiary to decide if it really eases them or not. Even in the absurd case of reducing the needed effort to a simple button push, there can be psychological or other issues of the person that has to do it. There is no way for someone to *know* if something is easier for a person more than the person themself.
>>beneficiary has skewed perception of reality
>and then you further imply it isn't subjective by stating that it doesn't matter how a person feels, only what objective reality is.
The beneficiary deciding if something is help or not should be capable of reasoning, capable to make the decision. It is irresponsible to let children or mentally challenged people to take full responsibility for their life. In that case the decision if something is of help or not depends of the responsible person (parent, doctor etc.)
> If a person decides that eating whatever they like is worth the cost then to hell with people trying to forcibly stop them regardless of health issues. But informing someone of health issues they're not aware of is only decent, otherwise you prevent them from making an informed decision. Of course an uninformed decision must be respected anyway, but is likely undesirable for the person making it.
I wholly agree on that except for "an uninformed decision must be respected anyway". But in this case I see no problem: everyone knows it's better not to be obese. They just don't care enough.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday January 06 2015, @01:28AM
People need to take responsibility and not put on the weight in the first place
what you needs to be done is identify and eliminate the reason so many people are getting fat. in the last 40 years people didnt suddenly begin deciding to eat more food because the foods have been altered. companies put millions into making foods addictive, so are you truly surprised by the result? you might as well be angry with someone for becoming a meth addict after secretly putting meth in their foods for years.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Monday January 05 2015, @01:16PM
YMMV. People are different. The trends are clear, though.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday January 05 2015, @01:50PM
Exactly this. There is ALWAYS noise. Some obese people will just get lucky and not get diabetes / heart disease / stroke.
The question is whether or not IN GENERAL it's a good idea to do something. On that point there is no real debate: Being very overweight is a bad idea, just as smoking is a bad idea, drinking too much is a bad idea, etc.
A great book I'm currently reading on this very topic: http://www.jordanellenberg.com/how-not-to-be-wrong/ [jordanellenberg.com]
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @03:40PM
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Tuesday January 06 2015, @07:15AM
The AC may be right. It's hard to tell what is noise in biology. The grandmother who lived to 95 and smoked 4 a day her whole life might be lucky, migh have a low susceptability to cancer, or both of the above. So she may still be worth studying (as the study here has done with obese people). But this is all of rather academic interest right now. The best advice is still not to smoke and not to be obsese.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday January 05 2015, @01:43PM
Biological systems, are highly adaptive, but there are of course, limits.
The younger you are , the more plasticity there is, so you can expect to recover from a wide range of disorders. With the exception of "knowledge" based diseases (e.g. the flu), once you reach puberty+10 years, the body is pretty stable.
However, obesity is an entirely environmental problem. The mechanisms the body has to regulate fat cells has not changed in millions of years. What has changed is the availability of highly concentrated chemical mixtures as food.
That being said, if you *slowly* change something in biology it can recover, assuming it has not gone too far.The NIH pre-diabetes study had it down to "a few thousand steps".
Given the choice to remain obese or not, there are some compelling medical reasons to avoid this state, if you can...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @10:31PM
chemical mixtures as food.
All food is made of chemicals.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Monday January 05 2015, @02:01PM
The flip side of this is what I find most interesting. There is a large subset of the non-obese group that show no outward signs of obesity yet internally are suffering from all sorts of metabolic issues. Issues like atherosclerosis, fatty liver disease, fat deposits around the internal organs, diabetes, cancers, etc. In fact this sub-group of "normal" weight people are virtually identical from an internal medicine perspective to the sub-group of obese people who do suffer from metabolic issues. Meanwhile, the other sub-group of obese people, as stated in this article and other studies, are essentially in perfect health. They just have excess adipose tissue.
Obesity itself, while never entirely benign, is a kind of red herring that is distracting people from the real underlying metabolic health issues that are affecting a Venn diagram intersection of both obese and non-obese people. And the metabolic issues can inexplicably end up getting much worse when attempting to solely lose weight without focusing on actual health. Depends on what sort of diet and lifestyle one undertakes when trying to lose weight.
So if you are not obese, don't be so certain you're in great shape. People who think they're perfectly healthy keep dying or having emergency multiple-bypass heart surgeries these days. Used to be this happened in your 50's or 60's; nowadays it's happening to a lot of folks in their 30's or 40's, and lately we're even starting to have people up and dying of heart attacks in their late 20's. If I remember the numbers I've seen correctly, about 60% of obese people and about 40% of non-obese people are suffering from these metabolic/cardiovascular issues.
Once again I implore the automatons, who simply issue a knee-jerk "Stop making excuses and lose some weight, fatty!" mantra every time someone mentions the word "obese", to take a step outside your narrow viewpoints and educate yourselves on the true depth and breadth of the public health issue of metabolic syndromes. Obesity is only one small aspect of a much more dangerous problem we've developed throughout the western world.
Suggestions to learn more:
Search YouTube for:
Dr. Robert Lustig
Dr. John McDougal
Read:
The China Study
The Starch Solution
Watch:
Forks Over Knives
Fed Up
Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday January 05 2015, @03:53PM
there are many complex disorders that do not require obesity as an explanation or more accurately, as a symptom.
But there is absolutely no physical mechanism by which a human body can retain large (this is an important distinction) amount of excess adipose, if diet and exercise are changed. This has been clinically shone with type-II diabetes reverse via reduced calorie intake.
However, once the biological system is broken (which it can be either via many mechanism including "bad luck"), it becomes more difficult for the body to recover "homeostasis". Hence, people die of other things, even if NOT obese. That in now way reduces the chronic problem of obesity.
In short, if at all possible, don't get too fat. If you have a family history of medical problems, there is very little in this world that is not improved by being as healthly as *you* can. Not according to some statistic, you have to want it.
The problem in society is we have a moving target. Huge swathes of the population are now suffering from one of the "metabolically unstable diseases" caused by the industry of excess consumption. And that is all industry. Capitalism does not have an "enough profit now" mantra.
I am not saying that normal weight control is always possible, there are many disorders that are disabling. But to suggest we have no control, is simply not true.
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday January 05 2015, @04:52PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday January 05 2015, @06:00PM
all "diets" cause the problem if there is no feedback from conditions. Food calories Expended by exercise+ metabolic maintenance == happy.
The problem is I love ice-cream, and biology finds it pretty addictive.
One hour of running burns one pint of ice cream....find your own happy equation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RedBear on Monday January 05 2015, @06:42PM
Your understanding of McDougall's recommendations appears to be limited. The low-fat craze certainly has contributed to the obesity epidemic, primarily because the fat was mostly replaced by refined sugars. But there is nothing in particular about a "high carb" way of eating that is unhealthy, as long as one is eating almost entirely good, unprocessed complex carbohydrates.
I have looked at a lot of different "diets" and have noticed that there are several things no one ever argues against:
- Stay away from simple carbohydrates (sugars) as much as possible, unless paired with lots of fiber, as in eating a real fruit versus extracted fruit juice.
- Eat lots of fiber. Fiber is found in plants, not animals.
- Stay away from processed foods of any kind as much as possible.
- Don't add additional fats that don't exist naturally in foods.
- Limit intake of all kinds of animal byproducts (meat, dairy, eggs) to a small percentage of the total diet.
- Limit intake of energy-dense (fat-containing) foods like nuts, seeds, avocados, etc.
A lot of different kinds of diets that are keeping people perfectly healthy have these things in common, merely differing in a few details. I have not found any evidence anywhere to indicate that Dr. McDougall's and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's recommendations to eat a mostly whole-foods, mostly-raw, plant-based diet is in any way harmful. Having been a perfectly average meatatarian for my entire life like most Americans, this was a difficult thing to accept, but I've seen enough evidence from different sources that I'm now very convinced that excessive consumption of animal proteins plays quite a large part in our current national health predicament. I encourage anyone interested to dig deeper into the dietary recommendations of these doctors and their evidence before jumping to any conclusions either way.
The film "Forks Over Knives" is a good introduction.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday January 05 2015, @07:40PM
If you don't mind my asking, could you please educate me on how you use the word "meatatarian"? Your post is the second time in my life that I've seen/heard it used, so you've elevated the word in my vocabulary from "something that one person says" to "word used in contexts I don't frequent".
Is "meatatarian" a word you use frequently? Is there a group of your friends that uses it more than others who you speak with? Where did you learn the word? How do you use it differently from possible synonyms, e.g. "carnivore"?
Thanks in advance for your patience with my questions; I'm married to a Linguistics graduate and she's rubbed off on me. I'm honestly interested in your response, and look forward to an interesting dinner table conversation as a result.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday January 05 2015, @08:17PM
Can't be too specific. I know I've seen and/or heard the word "meatatarian" quite a few times in reference to our current societal impulse to devour huge steaks or triple-decker double-bacon cheeseburgers at every other meal, sans vegetables. I find it an amusing juxtaposition to "vegetarian" where "carnivore" just doesn't work as well. Meatatarian, like vegetarian, suggests to me that one primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) chooses to eat meat, whereas a vegetarian primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) chooses to eat plant matter. Carnivore suggests that one is actually evolved to eat nothing but meat, and isn't really a good description of the typical American diet, or the fact that said diet is a choice rather than a natural survival requirement. I do not recall having occasion to use the word prior to today. I don't post much, besides here.
For example, as a meatatarian I once ordered a cheeseburger at three different restaurants in one day while on an RV trip. One for (late) breakfast, another for lunch, and a third for dinner. It was totally unplanned. I just kept looking at the local menus and thinking, "You know what, I think I'll have a cheeseburger. I like cheeseburgers. Why not?" That was a good day. I guess next time around it'll be three garden burgers, since I'm trying not to eat meat anymore. C'est la vie.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06 2015, @03:32AM
Sounds like inflamatory jargon for omnivore.
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday January 05 2015, @10:35PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday January 06 2015, @08:31AM
Yeah, I guess you're right about my incorrect usage of "byproduct". I just meant they all come from animals.
Ah,yes, the B12 argument. Literally the only nutrient that doesn't exist in sufficient quantity in plants, at least not the way we eat them in modern times. It has been suggested that originally we consumed a small amount of soil bacteria with our plants which enabled us to acquire enough B12. Makes sense to me. Even before buying into the plant-eating way I always found the presentation of B12 as some sort of proof that humans are supposed to eat lots of meat to be... extremely flimsy. A drop of sublingual B12 under the tongue once a week and a human can go their entire life without needing to consume a single ounce of animal product/byproduct.
Now notice I never said no meat and no nuts/seeds/avocados. I said "limit". McDougall simply recommends drastically restricting high energy foods with high fat content. Unless one actually intends to put on fat for winter or you're climbing Mount Everest, of course. He points out that people don't realize such foods contain so many calories and end up ingesting too much and defeating their weight loss goals. A "serving size" of almonds after all is a quarter cup, but people thinking of nuts as "healthy" will typically eat several handfuls for a snack every day. Same with the other high fat content plants. Avocados are great, but having half an avocado three times a day means you'll be eating far too many calories per day. That's all. It's not about nuts, seeds, avocados, coconuts and whatnot having no place in a healthy diet. A proper diet does need some quantity of fat, after all.
As far as animal proteins, McDougall and others like Esselstyn recommend completely staying away from them. However their own evidence suggests that as long as animal proteins are less than 5% of the overall diet the health effects may not be statistically relevant. I think if your goal is to actively clean out your arteries rather than clogging them the closer you get to 0% animal proteins the better. If you already have known cardiovascular issues I highly recommend following the whole-foods, mostly-raw approach as strictly as possible for at least a couple of years. Get an angiogram and blood workup before and after and see what happens. It's the only diet that has been clinically shown to at least partially _reverse_ atherosclerosis.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 07 2015, @01:43AM
Now notice I never said no meat and no nuts/seeds/avocados. I said "limit". McDougall simply recommends drastically restricting high energy foods with high fat content.
As I mentioned, much of his advice is quite sound. Eating more natural foods and less processed foods, avoiding foods with added sugar. Unfortunately, his diet has far too many grains and not enough fats. Many people using his diet have mentioned tooth decay issues - it seems to practically be an obvious way to identify people on this diet.
Unless one actually intends to put on fat for winter or you're climbing Mount Everest, of course.
You can't put on fat by eating fat - you put on fat by eating carbs. That's why when people want to gain weight, they eat pasta and beans. The human body NEEDS saturated fats. It's a very important component to a nutritious diet. And, no, your rather odd conjecture that eating dirt will help is ludicrous. You get B12 from eating animal product - grubs or grasshoppers will do, but I prefer fish and lots of eggs. Eggs are incredibly nutritious. And just as easy to collect as plants. Grains, not so much. In fact, if you're looking for some sort of "early human" diet, you should not be eating grains at all - they are a product of civilization.
As far as animal proteins, McDougall and others like Esselstyn recommend completely staying away from them. However their own evidence suggests that as long as animal proteins are less than 5% of the overall diet the health effects may not be statistically relevant. I think if your goal is to actively clean out your arteries rather than clogging them the closer you get to 0% animal proteins the better.
Well all of McDougall's "evidence" is rather suspect. You're bouncing back and forth between using the diet for weight loss and for heart health. I guess that's because the article is about the health issues with obesity, so that's valid, but my viewpoint doesn't really come from any weight loss diet - there are many that work for that, including Adkins / Zone style diets as well as some reasonable low-fat, high-carb diets like McDougalls. But for maintaining health over a long term sticking to either is really not good, and can lead to all kinds of heart-unhealthy and auto-immunity issues. B12 is one of those things that can cause major issues, and the US "standard" is way too low, as Europe and Japan have a much higher standard for B12 levels. B12 absorption is a major issue. You can't just take a supplement and figure you're done if your digestive system is in any way out-of-whack, because things have to be just right for your body to be able to absorb B12 at all. This article [chriskresser.com] provides a lot of information that you may not have been aware of.
The claims that saturated fats cause arterial and heart issues turns out to be false, according to the latest research, and even "bad cholesterol" turns out to be a red herring that has nothing to do with heart and circulatory system health when viewed in isolation. I suggest you look into it - I found this article [westonaprice.org] from a quick google search.
I am a crackpot