Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:


  • Please log in to reply
687 replies to this topic

#18 W.Davidson

W.Davidson

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 May 2006 - 06:14 AM

Graves' disease is a thyroid autoimmune disease where cell receptors are targeted. Myasthenia gravis is another.

Hydroxylase enzymes are the ones most frequently targeted in autoimmune disorders. However, another group of enzymes that are targets are the peroxidases. Hashimoto's disease (another autoimmune thyroid disease) results when the enzyme, thyroid peroxidase is the target.

Decarboxylases are also sometimes the target. I think it's glutamic acid decarboxylase in type 1 diabetes.
  • Michaelangelica likes this

#19 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 26 May 2006 - 07:04 AM

. 2. you eat enough so that you achieve a feeling of "fullness".

.

I am told that it takes your stomach 30 minutes to tell your brain that you are no longer hungry.

#20 ronthepon

ronthepon

    An Intern!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2132 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:31 AM

30 minutes?

Not possible.

I eat my lunch in 5 mins, and go form wolfish to well, bursting.

#21 Mercedes Benzene

Mercedes Benzene

    Student

  • Moderators
  • 2950 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 10:13 AM

It's weird. I do not usually feel full until I have finished eating. It could be 5 minutes or an hour, and isn't really dependant on how much I eat. That isn't to say that I don't ever feel "stuffed" or "full", but it seems that my body adapts to the time it takes me to eat a particular meal.

#22 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 06:41 PM

There is a principle in science called the conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Relative to obesiety, being over or under weight, if the energy input is greater than the energy output one will put on weight.

Something like a virus or a sedate life style can cause the metabolism to slow down such that average energy output can decrease relative to other people. But one can balance this by adjusting the energy input. In other words, if I eat 1500 calories and burn 1500 calories it is physically impossible to gain weight (besides something like water weight).

If one does not want to adjust their energy input, because of all the tasty vittels, than they need to increase their energy output. This can be done via increasing the proportion of lean muscle tissue.

Let give me an example. Picture a pickup truck towing a gas storage tank. The overflow to the pick-up goes into the storage tank. If I have a 20 gallon tank but add 22 gallons every time I fill, I will begin to collect gas in the tank. This makes the pickup and tank heavier with time, causing my mile per gallon to drop. This means I have to fill up more often because I burning more gas ( I am hungry more often), overfilling with each fillup. The collected gas is saved fuel. One needs to run another line from the tank back to the pick-up. Just underfill for a while to use up the stored gas. This will make one lighter requiring fewer and fewer fillups

#23 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:03 AM

Omega 3 ADHD
Just a few years ago, no one was paying much attention to a polyunsaturated fatty acid called Omega-3. But then we found out that a lack of it could be making us fat. High Omega-3 means a rapid metabolism and a slim waistline. Low Omega-3 on the other hand means a sluggish metabolism, and an ensuing battle of the bulge. And you guessed it: Western diets are low in Omega-3.

But now researchers are posing an even more momentous question: could a lack of Omega-3 not only be making us fat, could it be making us sick as well? Studies going on right now are testing whether taking doses of Omega-3 can reduce symptoms of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, ADHD, depression, and cardiovascular disease to name just a few. So far preliminary results have been encouraging.

REPORTER: Maryke Steffens

http://www.abc.net.a...ories/promo.htm

#24 ronthepon

ronthepon

    An Intern!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2132 posts

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:00 AM

Omega 3 ADHD
Just a few years ago, no one was paying much attention to a polyunsaturated fatty acid called Omega-3. But then we found out that a lack of it could be making us fat. High Omega-3 means a rapid metabolism and a slim waistline. Low Omega-3 on the other hand means a sluggish metabolism, and an ensuing battle of the bulge. And you guessed it: Western diets are low in Omega-3.

But now researchers are posing an even more momentous question: could a lack of Omega-3 not only be making us fat, could it be making us sick as well? Studies going on right now are testing whether taking doses of Omega-3 can reduce symptoms of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, ADHD, depression, and cardiovascular disease to name just a few. So far preliminary results have been encouraging.

REPORTER: Maryke Steffens

http://www.abc.net.a...ories/promo.htm

Interesting, about the Omega-3. I have come across some cooking oils here that boast a high level of Omega-3

#25 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 01 June 2006 - 06:04 PM

Another angle on obesity is the efficiency of the digestive system. For example, if one eats 2000 calories, but the body only takes 1500 before the waste is expelled, that person would gain less weight than someone who has a more effeicient digestive system so it can get the whole 2000 calories. Obese people may have very efficient digestive systems.

This may be a new weight loss angle. Somehow lower the efficiency of the digestive system so one can gain less caloric value from eating.

Along those lines, there are certain foods that the body tends to retain longer because of their concentrated food value. The slow digestion of such food objects, may cause other foods, eaten at the same time, to be more fully processed than normal.

The rate of absroption is also dependant on how fine the food is chewed or preprocessed. If one gulps down large chunks this could have two affects. If a perseon is on a digestive time cycle, they will get less food value. If their body is very efficient, this will slow the whole works, maybe even giving enough time to digest some otherwise indigestable things.

This is a crappy subject, but even constipation and laxitives will have an impact on the amount of time allowed for digestive processing. If one at a laxitive after every meal they would gain low food value from food.

If anyone wants to research the angle, they are welcome to it.

#26 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 02 June 2006 - 11:40 AM

Wouldn't one then need to eat more to receive the same nutritional value, hence negating the benefit of having a less efficient nutritional system?

I'm not sure, but thought it was worth pointing out.

#27 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 02 June 2006 - 04:17 PM

A less efficient digestive system could lead to less nutritional value from food, but a simple multiple vitamin suppliment would solve that. Extra weight is not stored nutritional value, but energy value.

The energy value of being overweight raises an interesting consideration. Under conditions of famine an efficient digestive system and plenty of extra weight would give one selective advantage. This would suggest another aspect of obesity, i.e., body is sensing famine, in a time of plentiful food. This situation is similar to a bear that gouges during time of abundance so it has food reserves for hybernation (state of famine).

Often the unconscious mind works in symbols, with the famine meaning something figuratively the same. The symbol comes to the surface as one thing, but is really referring to something analogous in the environment.

The orginal question of why we are getting fat, may symbolize the affects of modern culture of people. Society is fairly shallow with superfiscial trimmings more important than inner worth like character. If knowledge was food, the superfiscial trimmings are essentially fast food or junk food. It is all prepared for us for quick eating, the goal of which is ego-inflation.

We are in an information age. But information is data. Data is useless unless it is processed further into useful correlations. Culture appears to be generating so much data, that it can only massage the data fast food style. Part of the fast food appeal is the entertainment factor. The food is prepared as much to entertain us as it is to inform us. It is not natural food but processed food. People may be sensing a famine of good thought food. This is becoming conscious by gaining weight, which is a symbol in anticipation of a intellectual hybernation approaching. Or normal mental activity to process one's metal food is being replaced by prepared food with too much sugar (entertainment) and fat (fluffy data).

Most of the fat is coming from statistical studies. Although statisticc has value in science, in the social arena it often leads to useless results. A good example are polls. They rarely reflect the reality but can be manipulated to get the result someone wants. That makes good entertainment, i.e, fat and sugar.

#28 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 02 June 2006 - 10:44 PM

[quote name='HydrogenBond']Another angle on obesity is the efficiency of the digestive system.
The rate of absroption is also dependant on how fine the food is chewed or preprocessed.
If their body is very efficient, this will slow the whole works, maybe even giving enough time to digest some otherwise indigestable things.
If one at a laxitive after every meal they would gain low food value from food.
[QUOTE]
I agree
That means the fattest people have the most efficient digestive system
-all else being equal.

I think laxatives do more harm than good.
In the first half of last century it was common for children to be given laxatives to "clean them out' or 'keep them healthy'.
The philosophy still lingers on in colonic irrigation.

People who suffered this regime as a child often have stuffed, slow digestive systems now.

#29 EWright

EWright

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts

Posted 02 June 2006 - 11:53 PM

But you all realize that gastric bypass surgery cuts that old virus right out of there... so it must exist in the lining of the stomach! So therefore maybe if obese people get a stomach replacement from a dead skinny person who donated their organs, they'll be cured!!!
  • Michaelangelica likes this

#30 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 03 June 2006 - 02:13 AM

But you all realize that gastric bypass surgery cuts that old virus right out of there... so it must exist in the lining of the stomach! So therefore maybe if obese people get a stomach replacement from a dead skinny person who donated their organs, they'll be cured!!!

LOL!!
m

#31 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 03 June 2006 - 03:21 AM

This explains Obesity in los Angeles?

FEET OBSOLETE? SDSU tests view that we're plump partly because neighborhoods not 'walkable'

By Kelly Thornton
STAFF WRITER

May 19, 2001


Krispy Kreme doughnuts, triple bacon cheeseburgers and stuffed-crust pizza all play their part.

But for the first time anywhere, researchers at San Diego State University are testing an offbeat theory to explain why Americans are the fattest people on the planet: suburban sprawl.

As modern suburbs have expanded, so has the nation's waistline, and researchers believe the exodus from urban centers -- where stores, restaurants, homes and schools are clustered together -- is partly to blame.

"If there's nowhere to walk in your neighborhood, why are you going to walk? We've taken the purposes out of walking," said SDSU professor James Sallis, who is leading the experiment. "The use of land now is based on what is best for cars."
http://phaster.com/u...t_obsolete.html

plastics the problem:-
/
Early puberty: Obesity, environment suspected

WASHINGTON (AP) — Parents come to Dr. Gilbert August mystified: Their little girls, around age 8 and sometimes younger, already are showing unmistakable signs of puberty.

"They say, 'My God, she's too young, do something,"' August says.

Endocrinologists say they're seeing more girls with precocious sexual development, and some medical studies suggest the baffling trend is real, that the beginning signs of puberty are showing up earlier in today's girls than their mothers.

How early? At age 8, almost half of black girls and 15% of white girls start developing breasts or pubic hair. At 9, those numbers reach 77% of black girls and a third of whites.

More striking, 27% of black girls and 7% of whites develop these early puberty signs at age 7 — the second grade — according to a landmark puberty study.

Until recently, doctors and parents didn't expect to see budding breasts until around age 10.

Nobody knows what's causing the shift. Fat is the leading theory, because childhood obesity has doubled in the last 20 years and body fat certainly can spur hormones. Some scientists are hunting environmental culprits, and point to a small study from Puerto Rico — where early breast development is such a problem that it can begin at the stunning age of 2 — that casts suspicion on certain chemicals in cosmetics and plastics.

environmentalists' concern that fetal exposure to certain chemicals, particularly byproducts of plastics and cosmetics called phthalates, could disrupt girls' normal hormone function. They cite a study in Puerto Rico, which has bafflingly high rates of early breast development, that found higher phthalate levels in the blood of 41 early-developing girls — some as young as 2 — than in 35 normal girls.
http://www.usatoday....rly-puberty.htm


Move to the country???

In rural school districts, however, 20% of students were considered obese.

More alarmingly, researchers found that during the years of the survey, between 1999 and 2001, the number of obese students in rural school districts rose about 5%, more than twice the rate of their urban counterparts.

The same trends are being reported from New Mexico to Michigan to West Virginia.

In Michigan, children in rural areas were 3% to 9% more likely to be obese, researchers found. In rural North Carolina children had a 50% greater chance of being obese.
http://www.usatoday....d-obesity_x.htm

#32 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 03 June 2006 - 03:35 AM

Drugs?
Lyrica and weight gain
Hi,
I started taking Lyrica (at a very low dose) about 2 weeks ago and have gained 7 pounds! Plus, it's making me forgetful and my thought process is dull. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm going to go off it, since it's the only thing I can attribute to this.
http://www.lyrica.com/

#33 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 15 June 2006 - 02:40 AM

FROM

http://www.abc.net.a...06/s1659789.htm

WA researchers make breast, prostate cancer breakthrough
P
PM - Friday, 9 June , 2006 18:50:00
Reporter: David Weber
MARK COLVIN: Researchers in Western Australia have discovered a gene which could lead to new treatments in breast and prostate cancer, as well as diabetes and obesity.

The gene is called SLIRP, Slirp for short, and it's been identified as having the potential to shut down the hormones that keep cancer cells alive.

The research team says that in the near term the discovery should lead to lower doses of current cancer therapies like radiation.

But the secrets of SLIRP are still being unlocked.

David Weber reports.

DAVID WEBER: The Director of the WA Institute for Medical Research, Peter Klinken, says the identification of SLIRP is achieving worldwide recognition.

PETER KLINKEN: From my perspective, I think it's the most exciting discovery that the institute has made, certainly over the last two years.

It's internationally recognised as a major breakthrough, and to be perfectly honest we're just incredibly proud that Peter and his team have achieved this.

DAVID WEBER: Professor Peter Leedman says his team detected SLIRP using RNA, ribonucleic acid, as opposed to a protein. Proteins are what scientists often employ to find new genes.

Professor Leedman says that until today SLIRP was described as a hypothetical molecule.

PETER LEEDMAN: It's a very interesting molecule that seems to be involved in turning down the pathways that lead to proliferation of breast and prostate cancer cells.

So in particular, SLIRP can turn down the oestrogen signalling pathway that's fundamental for making breast cancer cells grow, and also the androgen, or testosterone, signalling pathway that makes prostate cancer cells grow

DAVID WEBER: Will radiation treatment still be required?

PETER LEEDMAN: Absolutely. I think the approach to cancer therapy now, and over the next 10 years, we're realising that patients really need multiple modalities. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy still have an incredibly important role.

What some of the new drugs that are going to be used and discovered in the next 10 years will enable will be hopefully lower doses of both of these modalities and more specific and targeted therapies, so that we can predict the women who are likely to respond and who may not need as much radiotherapy or chemotherapy as before.

DAVID WEBER: As well as slowing tumour growth, SLIRP has other functions.

It was found in the body tissues that require the most energy, such as the heart, the liver, the testes and skeletal muscle.

SLIRP regulates energy balance and may be involved in fat metabolism.

Professor Leedman says SLIRP is now being scrutinised from a variety of angles. He says eventually it could be added back to muscles to prevent weight gain.

PETER LEEDMAN: It clearly is going to have a role in cancer, but it also has a role in normal tissues. And the normal tissues, how it's going to be involved in regulating energy balance is critical. And it's a challenge for us to work that out. It could be good in some cells of the body and bad in others.

And it certainly has two different guises: one substantial role in cancer, that is the hormone dependent cancers, breast and prostate, but also, and most challenging for us and interesting, especially with the obesity epidemic we have in the population, is to work out its role in skeletal, muscle and heart.

DAVID WEBER: How long before the treatments for prostate cancer and breast cancer are available?

PETER LEEDMAN: The current work, where we're looking at about 600 women at Royal Perth Hospital who've had breast cancer, and we're analysing how abundant SLIRP is in those people, potentially that could be a test that would be offered within a couple of years. Because if it was able to help us predict who was going to respond to Tamoxifen, who's going to relapse, who might have a poor outcome, then it would be a very useful addition to the therapeutic tests that we currently have for breast cancer.

So that's a reasonably short time.

DAVID WEBER: Professor Leedman also says the three-dimensional structure of the gene needs to be solved, and that may take five to 10 years. He hopes it won't be that long.

MARK COLVIN: David Weber.

#34 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 15 June 2006 - 11:27 AM

Michaelangelica,

I see you were trained in the Racoon school of posting... :beer::hihi::lol: