Posts by dyan campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Eg, if you swap out 400kJ of energy from legumes and vegetables, and replace it with white sugar, you will get fatter. Same energy intake, same activity levels, different hormonal response. I am sure that is what Dyan is talking about.
Yes, thank you Stephen, exactly . Also consume white sugar and the absence of nutrients will signal your brain to forage for more food... this is exactly what I mean.
This is only part of it: HPA axis describes a paradoxical situation where your adrenals on overdrive (i.e. stress) make you store abdominal fat, and that abdominal fat secretes cytokines that make you more stressed. The ultimate vicious circle.
But I'm still not convinced Dyan actually gets it at all, and considers the human body a temple exempt from said immutable laws. He can tell me otherwise.
No, what I said was that you don't understand enough physics, chemistry, biochemistry, endocrinology or clinical chemistry to make any sense. I said:
"Ben, I'm not saying physics are not relevant, what I'm saying is that your simplistic application of Newtonion physics is not really relevant when talking about endocrine function; not in the way you believe it to be, anyway."
You're so caught up in your endocrinology you can't see that no matter what your endocrines are secreting, they aren't creating fat from nothing. That is a physical impossibility. OK, get it?
Er, no, I didn't say anything about people getting fat from eating nothing. I said people could get fat from eating very little. And I said that two identical people eating identical diets could gain different amounts of weight in different places on their bodies, depending on the level of stress they experience.
If you think the human body functions like an internal combustion engine, you should have a look at what happens when someone suffering from type1 diabetes (formerly known as "juvenile onset") eats a tremendous amount... no matter how much they consume, they are emaciated and slowly starve to death. With kidney complications. Just add insulin...
-
If you think that physics does not come to bear, you are as wrong about that as if you thought your mental state would stop physics smashing you into the ground if you jumped off a tall building.
Ben, I'm not saying physics are not relevant, what I'm saying is that your simplistic application of Newtonion physics is not really relevant when talking about endocrine function; not in the way you believe it to be, anyway.
you don't have any answers which are any different to mine. You just have a much longer way of saying it.
No, my answers are very different answers to yours. In fact, some of my answers are the opposite of what you are saying. I'm contradicting you. Which is another way of saying you're wrong, unable to accept you're wrong, and it can be easily demonstrated how you are wrong. You're just unable to admit that you're wrong. Or perhaps unable to grasp how you're wrong. Which still adds up to you being not right .
And yes, state of mind (for instance the HPA axis that is so widely touted these days) will influence weight gain. State of mind will influence where the weight is gained, how much is gained and how detrimental that weight gain is. All these things are very dependent on the emotional state and social status of the individual. State of mind will influence whether a person has a stroke, a coronary, or even whether they will heal properly from surgery.
Notice that I usually put 'obesity problem' in commas? I do this because I don't think it's a problem for society.
Ben, what you think does not stack up against
that which has been can be tested and observed. What the scientists call "proof". You may not think obesity is a problem for society, but every clinical institution and health agency on earth would tell you you're wrong. -
by Len Kravitz, Ph.D
Are you going to go my way?
Wait... different guy? Damn.No, no, you're thinking of that apprentice guy Duddy Kravitz in Mordecai Richler's novel... oh, hang on...
-
And so it goes, all the medical diagnoses that all fail to explain how people are beating the 3rd law of thermodynamics, and creating stored energy (fat) out of nothing.
Ben, Newtonion physics are meant to describe discrete physical objects, not biochemical processes within physiological systems - systems that can even be influenced by an individual's emotional state . These systems can be influenced by the health of their gums .
A person who eats precisely the same amount of food as their identical twin, and expends precisely the same amount of energy can gain a significant amount more weight, in significantly different areas of the body.
If this is possible for identical twins, think of the variation that can be seen between those who differ in age, sex, race or social status. You must get a handle on endocrine function before you hazard a guess at solving what the World Health Organisation and clinicians around the world regard as an emerging health crisis. And yes, this is a huge crisis even in the 3rd world.
To understand metabolic syndrome (obesity syndrome, and yes, it is classified if not as a disease, a pre-disease state) you need to grasp the physiological and biological mechanisms of obesity, the specific pathways that govern energy balance, fat tissue's roles in energy metabolism, the effects of inflammation, appetite and appetite suppression, and body fat distribution.
In every individual, levels of leptin, grehlin, preopiomelanomelacortin, adiponectin, insulin (sensitivity to insulin and pancreatic function) production of lipase, kinase, and general liver function, levels of cytokines and differences in androgens, oh hell I could go on for a long time and unless you're familiar with the basics of of biochemistry, clinical chemistry, physiology, epidemiology and a few other subject, it's not going to make any sense to you.
Even articles written for the layperson, suchas the following, refer to a number of biochemicals because without them discussion of obesity is meaningless.
by Len Kravitz, Ph.D.
The Growing Problem of Obesity"For years fat was viewed and described like a balloon that inflates when one eats more food and expends less calories, and deflates when there is greater physical activity and less food consumption. More recent research reveals that fat tissue (composed of adipocyte cells that specialize in fat storage) functions like other endocrine organs (glands that secrets hormones) in the body, sending signals to the brain which affect several intricate physiological mechanisms of energy expenditure regulation, insulin sensitivity, and fat and carbohydrate metabolism. A few key hormones of interest for energy metabolism regulation are leptin and adiponectin, while a host of other hormones are involved in immune reactions of the body.
"It is now known that fat tissue produces a number of immune system hormones such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-6, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, angiotensin II and other cytokines. Cytokines, which are hormone-like proteins, function largely as inflammatory proteins, reacting to areas of infection or injury in the body. However, persons with excess fat appear to have an over-reaction of the release of these inflammatory proteins. It has been proposed that this is caused by the low oxygen content in the clusters of adipocytes, which are somewhat distant from the tissue vascular supply. This topic of inflammation is one of the most critical in obesity biology. Both obesity and diabetes are associated with chronic low-grade inflammation). As well, inflammation is now understood to be a key facet in heart disease. The release of these inflammatory proteins may inflame arterial plaque, causing the plaque to rupture, and thus leading to a heart attack or stroke "
Ben, you don't seem to understand that the physiology of obesity and you don't seem to be able to accept when you've been proved wrong.I'm not trying to 'treat obesity'. I'm just saying what, at the most basic level, is causing it.
Well, at the risk of hectoring you, you're wrong, still wrong when you insist you're right, and you're no less wrong by labouring your mistaken point.
-
Dyan, I think you might be Mr Spock. ;)
Er, well I did do awfully well in my philosophy courses on logic.
From cultural studies or feminist angles, the word "estrogen" means something beyond clinical or scientific considerations. The folks here bring depths of expertise in many different fields. The cross-pollination can be delightful as well as fractious at times.
Estrogen means something beyond clinical and scientific considerations? How on earth can it? Besides, the feminist medical historians, as quoted by Danielle, were scathing of the use of estrogens in men on sci/med grounds. And that's just, uh, uninformed. It's like my friend Helen who thought it was silly that her parents ever worried about their cash situation when she, even at five, knew all you had to do was use a cheque and simply write in the amount you wanted.
But I certainly accept the presence of social and cultural biases in medical treatment and studies - this was evident to me long before I ever studied medical ethics. But I'd argue that race is more relevant than sex, when it comes to discrimination.
My mother in law Myrtle was hit (hard!) in the face when she was giving birth to her eldest child, by a nurse at National Womens (was that where and Aucklander would have a baby in 1950?) . "You Maoris can't do anything without making a lot of noise can you!" Then she heard a group of white nurses lamenting, loudly and within earshot, the fact that such a handsome white man as my father in law would have married a Maori woman. Myrtle was convinced that all procedures done by those white nurses were done with an aim to cause maximum humiliation and pain, and she's probably right.
But I still can't see what possible criticism a person with no understanding of the many sci/med fields involved in that particular endocrine/clin chem/cardiology study could possibly have on any study. And to use estrogens on men with CHD is really, really, not nutty.
Danielle, if you think my having an opinion on fatness based on observations of both myself and other people around me is insulting, judgmental and anecdotal, then all I can say is: Too bad.
Ben, treating obesity (metabolic syndrome) is just not that simple. And as both Danielle and I have tried to tell you, you can eat a fairly small amount of food and still have quite a bit of adipose tissue. You can actually be quite slim and have quite a lot of adipose tissue. Size is not the issue.
Beatrice Faumoina and athletes that size who have a high muscle to fat ratio are in way better shape than a tiny person like Rene Zellweger when she fattened up to play a role in a film. Her dimensions may have still been tiny - but the adipose tissue around her middle would have played havoc with her endocrine system and would have stressed her organs, and it's likely that even years down the line, that will affect her health.
If it were as simple as a matter of "will power" or "eating less" then that would solve everything and there would be a lot less illness in the world.
As Islander has pointed out earlier in this discussion, race plays a role in obesity. In fact, the last obesity conference I worked on was called Sociocultural and Ethnogenetic Determinants of Obesity for that reason. If an indigenous person did what Rene Zellweger did their health would suffer much more than someone with white ancestry. When we see Pacific Islanders and Maori (and in my country, First Nations and Inuit people) who are overweight and swamping the medical system with health problems, it's not a matter of willpower, it's a matter of unfortunate genetics. There are other factors at play - that a First Nations teenage girl is something like 19x more likely to try to kill herself with an overdose than her white counterpart is less genetic than cultural, but public health problems are never quite as easy to fix as people think.
When I first started working in the field of AIDS/HIV prevention, 25 years ago, I bounded into the job, eagerly expecting all I needed to do was inform all those drug addicted male prostitutes, and they would simply change their behaviour. Boy, was I surprised when I discovered that they were actually quite well informed (for that era anyway) and the thing I had to change was their self-loathing and not so sublimated wish to die. Things are never as simple as those who are outside the field think.
Ben, far more than willpower or even "exercise" in the form that most people think of, nutrition and the "built environment" are greater factors. Obesity is not a medical condition that is likely to respond to an individual's own attempts. I'm not saying it's not possible I'm saying it's not likely. A better approach is within the community - and starting from childhood.
In Vancouver (my hometown) the laws governing property development stipulate that any urban project must include 1)green space 2)playground or some facilities for children 3) drinking fountains 4) public art 5)must not obscure more than 2/3 of neighbouring buildings' views.
This not only ensures Vancouver feels much more comfortable and picturesque, but it actually has quite profound effect on the health of the city's inhabitants. Mental as well as physical health. Not all Canadian cities are so lucky, and where the developers have been allowed to ruin public spaces, you find a great deal poorer health.
Probably the biggest factor in helping the public keep leaner rather than more adipose is the "built environment". Exercise, the kind where people go to the gym and so on is not as effective as simply living in a city like Vancouver, or even NYC, where the built environment encourages people to get out and move on a daily basis.
-
I am really trying to maintain politeness here, Dyan, but, um, sheez. I even used references. Frankly, I don't think my viewpoints are particularly extreme, I don't think what I'm saying is particularly crazy, and I don't think you're likely to hector me into submission any time soon. Sorry.
My apologies, I'm sorry if I was rude, I don't mean to hector you, only to contradict your point.
Your opinion that a study on the effects of estrogens on CHD in men is nutty is puzzling, and anyone in the field would find it so.
I am not entirely sure why you found the study nutty, but am I wrong in assuming your assessment is made from a position of complete ignorance of the subject? What is nutty about studying the role of estrogens in men with CHD?
This isn't meant to be insulting, but either you are conversant with the relevant fields and your opinion is informed, or you are ignorant of the field and your opinion is not relevant.
The study of estrogens in men with CHD is not nutty at all. The excerpt I chose (which should be fairly easy to understand even by those with no background in the field) should explain to you why these studies are far from nutty.
I hope you don't thing ignorant means the same thing as stupid - it doesn't. I am profoundly ignorant in the field of computer software design - I may have opinions as to the user-friendly aspects of software design, but I don't really have any opinion about the field of study, and if I did, it would be an irrelevant opinion that would be from a position of complete ignorance. Hope this helps!
Sorry if this sounds like hectoring.
-
Danielle if you are genuinely interested in this subject (I am fascinated by medical science myself) you might get something from these papers also.
Complex Actions of Sex Steroids in Adipose Tissue, the Cardiovascular System, and Brain: Insights from Basic Science and Clinical Studies.
J. L. Turgeon, M. C. Carr, P. M. Maki, M. E. Mendelsohn, and P. M. Wise (2006)
Endocr. Rev. 27, 575-605Sex-related dimorphic response of HIF-1{alpha} expression in myocardial ischemia.
M. Zampino, M. Yuzhakova, J. Hansen, R. D. McKinney, P. H. Goldspink, D. L. Geenen, and P. M. Buttrick (2006)Stimulation of N-Terminal Truncated Isoform of Androgen Receptor Stabilizes Human Ether-a-go-go-Related Gene-Encoded Potassium Channel Protein via Activation of Extracellular Signal Regulated Kinase 1/2.
Z.-Y. Wu, K. Chen, B. Haendler, T. V. McDonald, and J.-S. Bian (2008)
Endocrinology 149, 5061-5069 -
The first study of estrogen as a preventative measure for heart disease was done solely on men. Isn't that nutty?
Danielle, you are not in a position to have any relevant opinion on the value of a study like this unless you are conversant with at least the basics of endocrinology, biochemistry, clinical chemistry, histology, physiology, cardiology and epidemiology.
Read up on the subject and you will certainly revise your opinion on the nuttiness of any study involving the role of estrogen in men with cardiovascular disease. For instance:
Cardiovascular Actions of Estrogens in Men by Krishnankutty Sudhir and Paul A. Komesaroff from The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
"Although in men estrogens are produced in significant quantities by local tissue aromatization of androgenic precursors from the testes and adrenal glands (5), there has been relatively limited study of the biological role of these hormones or their clinical implications. An investigation conducted 25 years ago into the cardiovascular effects of estrogen administration in men after myocardial infarction, the "Coronary Drug Project" showed an excess of deaths and recurrent infarction in the treatment group. This trial, which employed high doses of conjugated equine estrogens, was subsequently abandoned, and the subject has not been studied in detail since (6). Data gathered over the last quarter century on the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease, the mechanisms of actions of estrogens in women and men, and the biological role of endogenously produced estrogens in men, suggest that it might be time to re-open the Coronary Drug Project file, and re-assess the potential for estrogen therapy in men. Newer approaches to treatment and an ability to identify more preciselyindividuals at risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) may lead to new clinical applications for this group of hormones."
You suggest that the use of only men in studies done in the previous century was somehow a sexist or cultural bias held by the medical research community. Are you aware that the first symptom of heart disease in women is often death? Men with CVD are likely to survive 4 events, whereas women usually present with CVD much, much later in life and often just die from the first event.
Men are rarely used in studies on the treatment of breast cancer yet men suffer from breast cancer, and it is very likely their needs for treatment of this disease differ from those of women with breast cancer. Do you interpret this as a bias against men?
You and the profoundly unqualified person who writes Junk Food Science make a lot of very wrong assumptions about the validity of medical research and the motives of the researchers.
-
The most relevant markers are: hip to waist ratio, resting pulse rate, blood pressure, and relevant bloods (glucose tolerance, LDL to HDL, serum cholesterol etc).
So health is not mostly about being fat at all? Why are they measuring those little kids' BMIs then?
It's not about size but it's certainly about fat. And it's about shape. Pear shape, safe to be overweight apple shape, not safe to be overweight.
Body mass index is a measure accepted by every researcher and clinician who works in this field. It is indeed useful for determining whether a person - child or adult - is obese. Once the BMI is calculated, then the more definitive tests will give a clearer picture.
Junk Food Science is not a credible source of medical information. A better source would be either medical journals or perhaps the World Health Organisation website. The author on Junk Food Science is writing with a political agenda; she has no clinical or scientific credibility.
-
"Morbidly obese" - I've always been intrigued by that phrase.
"Morbidly obese" means 50% or more above your medically desired weight.
Oh, how I wish everyone would regularly read Junk Food Science. Yes, a diet consisting solely of freedom fries and Dr Pepper is bad. But the chunkiness of kiddies is not the actual problem - measuring the BMI of children is just weird. They're all growing in fits and starts. *Health* is the problem.
But measuring BMI is very useful, especially when determining where in terms of the healthy range an individual's weight is, and it is particularly useful when examining health of an entire population.
Junk Food Science is not as reputable a source as the World Health Organisation's stats or the CDC, NIH or any sources that would be used within the medical community. Trends for obesity and its related diseases (lumped under the term "metabolic syndrome") are all on the rise; the costs in public health are huge and arguing that this is just semantics or hysteria caused by the media is hugely unhelpful, downright irresponsible.
When I worked in the area of HIV/AIDS prevention there were similar dissenting voices - AIDS is not real, it's caused by vaccines, it's untreated malaria, it's a case of media feeding frenzy. This media dissent also voiced whenever SARS of H5N1(avian flu) is discussed. But the facts are better obtained through sources like WHO or through reputable health agencies.
According to every other reputable source of obesity statistics, the global trend is towards is that of startling increase. That we are still having to argue that obesity is indeed on the rise and is indeed a cause of numerous diseases is on a par with 19thC lunacy that saw huge resistance to using public funds for sanitation, because no one really believe polluted water was causing disease.
Varied healthy diet and exercise should be the issue we're concentrating on, not paranoia about thunder thighs.
Well, yes I heartily agree with you there. And "thunder thighs" are a good sign, not a bad one. It's the "apple shape" or metabolic syndrome shape - shared by indigenous people around the world - the fat middle and skinny extremities that is a sign of impending health trouble. If you're carrying fat on your lower half - butt and thighs - and your waist is small in relation to your hips - you are just fine, you probably have no predisposition to disease from obesity.
The most relevant markers are: hip to waist ratio, resting pulse rate, blood pressure, and relevant bloods (glucose tolerance, LDL to HDL, serum cholesterol etc).
And exercise itself is useful, but even more useful is the "built environment". Cities where there are plenty of opportunities to walk and where physical activity - not necessarily exercise per se, simply walking from A to B - have a greater impact on health than exercise programs.