The obesity epidemic

[wabmester]

What you've chosen to see as beneficient & avuncular support, others see as legislated intrusion with mandated (yet unfunded) requirements.

Well, the civilian version of the program is completely voluntary, of course.    Two problems though: it costs a fortune, and it's not covered by insurance.   I think we could go a long way by simply subsidizing such a program, and some companies do (here in WA, Starbucks and Microsoft will subsidize obesity intervention for example).    Seems to be very effective for those motivated to sign up.

 

[Caroline]

Rich I'm not saying they want to be obese or a smoker, only that they don't want to do what is necessary to lose weight or stop smoking. 

YET.  

The word left off the end of this sentence, IMHO, is "yet."

Folks spend years trying to quit things that are bad for them.  Some of them never make it.  But many do.  Maybe not on the first try, or the second, or the twentieth.  Some of them are truly outstanding, compassionate, joyful people.

In the past, when I was young and inexperienced and saw a smoker or a drinker or an overeater or a chronic spender, my knee-jerk reaction was to say to myself "there goes an addict."

These days, having known people who found the strength they needed to change their lives, I say "there goes a future former addict."

It's a happier view of the world, for me.

 

[lets-retire]

YET.  

The word left off the end of this sentence, IMHO, is "yet."

Folks spend years trying to quit things that are bad for them.  Some of them never make it.  But many do.  Maybe not on the first try, or the second, or the twentieth.  Some of them are truly outstanding, compassionate, joyful people.

In the past, when I was young and inexperienced and saw a smoker or a drinker or an overeater or a chronic spender, my knee-jerk reaction was to say to myself "there goes an addict."

These days, having known people who found the strength they needed to change their lives, I say "there goes a future former addict."

It's a happier view of the world, for me.

Darn it caught by the editor. You are correct. Many time people try and do change their behavior before the long road, but unfortunately some don't and never saw a reason to try.

 

[wabmester]

Stop me if you've heard this one already.

Anti-obesity nose spray:

press release

 

[jeff2006]

Stop me if you've heard this one already.

Anti-obesity nose spray:

press release

Try squirting some up your rectum.

 

[samclem]

Nords,
I think most professionals in a risky business (cop, sub driver, aviator, etc), believe there are no accidents, that every bad thing that occurs is the result of somebody screwing up. It's the best way to stay sane. "Too bad about Joe, but he knew better than to (take off his body armor, descend below minimums on the instrument approach, run the scram test with the sphincterabob valve open, etc.) Too bad, but he screwed up. I would never let that happen".

Of course, in truth sometimes DO go catastrophically wrong and no amount of skill could prevent disaster. (USS Thresher?)

The rats in the Skinner box who must press the bar incredibly fast to avoid an electric shock aren't the ones that went crazy, it was the rats that got zapped at a random interval no matter what they did.

WW-II fighter pilots didn't have nearly the same combat fatigue/stress issues as 8th AF bomber pilots.

 

[wabmester]

Try squirting some up your rectum.

I enjoy your insightful additions to this discussion. I'll let you know when I get a squirt bottle, OK?

 

[astromeria]

I might add that it's relatively easy to live in a smoke-, drug-, and alcohol-free environment, especially in your own home. A little harder to live in a food-free environment, so "food addicts" are faced with their demon 3 times a day--not to mention a refrigerator and pantry full of their fix all day long, as well as eating out opportunities and tons of food-related advertising. My father quit smoking (3 packs/day at his peak) and drinking (daily), but was never able to quit overeating.

 

[Caroline]

The rats in the Skinner box who must press the bar incredibly fast to avoid an electric shock aren't the ones that went crazy, it was the rats that got zapped at a random interval no matter what they did.  

WW-II fighter pilots didn't have nearly the same combat fatigue/stress issues as 8th AF bomber pilots.

Not to be one of those PITA folks who have to correct others, but this one is kinda up my alley and there seem to be conflicting views...


"Brady's (1958) aim was to investigate whether the stress of receiving electric shocks would lead to stress-related illness in monkeys, and whether this would interact with the degree of control over the shocks.

Monkeys received electric foot shocks that were signaled by a preceding tone.  Monkeys were run in pairs, with one in each pair – the so called “executive monkey” – able to press a lever to avoid shocks.   The other monkey in the pair could not press the lever, but received all the foot shocks that were delivered (this second monkey in the pair was the ‘yoked’ animal).

After 23 days the ‘executive’ monkeys began to die of gastric ulceration.  The yoked control monkeys, who received shocks but could not try to avoid them, remained healthy.

Brady concluded that the shocks themselves were not severely stressful as the yoked monkeys showed little gastric ulceration; the critical factor was the stress associated with trying to avoid the shocks.  Having control was the stressful element in this study, causing gastric ulceration in the ‘executive’ monkeys.

While this is a very famous study, subsequent investigators have questioned Brady's findings and have often reported conflicting results.  Stressing monkeys (or any animals) until they die or become severely ill is highly unethical and would not be permitted in the field today."


As to the WWII pilots -- I wonder if any of them lived long enough to get combat fatigue...

 

[haha]

Well, the civilian version of the program is completely voluntary, of course.    Two problems though: it costs a fortune, and it's not covered by insurance.   I think we could go a long way by simply subsidizing such a program, and some companies do (here in WA, Starbucks and Microsoft will subsidize obesity intervention for example).    Seems to be very effective for those motivated to sign up.

One of my sons is capable of working 3000 hour s a year, yet he couldn't lose the weight he put on soon after he got away from my cooking and my forced exercise.

He went on one of these programs, lost 40 pounds, and truly has a new lease on life. It wasn't that he didn't want to lose it before, it was just that with everything in his life screaming "Take Care of Me First", he needed expert and caring guidance and support.

Ha

 

[haha]

Not to be one of those PITA folks who have to correct others, but this one is kinda up my alley and there seem to be conflicting views...


"Brady's (1958) aim was to investigate whether the stress of receiving electric shocks would lead to stress-related illness in monkeys, and whether this would interact with the degree of control over the shocks.

Monkeys received electric foot shocks that were signaled by a preceding tone.  Monkeys were run in pairs, with one in each pair – the so called “executive monkey” – able to press a lever to avoid shocks.   The other monkey in the pair could not press the lever, but received all the foot shocks that were delivered (this second monkey in the pair was the ‘yoked’ animal).

After 23 days the ‘executive’ monkeys began to die of gastric ulceration.  The yoked control monkeys, who received shocks but could not try to avoid them, remained healthy.

Brady concluded that the shocks themselves were not severely stressful as the yoked monkeys showed little gastric ulceration; the critical factor was the stress associated with trying to avoid the shocks.  Having control was the stressful element in this study, causing gastric ulceration in the ‘executive’ monkeys.

Caroline, has this been erroneously reported for the last 50 years? Because the popular idea is always that control saves a person from the physically deleterious effects of stress, and being in a situation where there doesn't seem to be any personal control, is highly stressful.

Do you have any links or even citations?

Ha

 

[cube_rat]

Wow, this thread got a little weird rectum? squirting?

 

[wabmester]

Wow, this thread got a little weird  rectum? squirting?

I don't think an enema would help, but I personally find the nose spray pretty interesting.

There's a peptide that controls when you feel full.   It's called PYY.   Since it's a peptide, your stomach will break it up if you tried to take it in a pill form, so this company created a nasal spray.

I think it's a promising approach.   We're starting to understand the neurological signalling for appetite control, so this is one of many new obesity drugs that will be coming out on the market.

 

[Caroline]

HaHa:  Here's a citation on the executive monkey study:

Brady (1958). Ulcers in "Executive" monkeys. Science, 199, 95-100.


Overall, the question of whether the executive is more stressed than his subordinates doesn't seem to be clear, from what I can figure.  Rat studies trying to duplicate the monkey studies DID seem to suggest that the "executive rat" was better off than his helpless conterpart.  Which results in a lot of debate on study design, etc.

Kinda like this thread on obesity -- is it the individual who is completely to blame?  Is it the situation that's at fault?  Not clear.

Maybe, for people, it depends upon whether you consider yourself a rat or a monkey!  

   

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Lets-Retire has been open enough to reveal that he a) grew up in an alcoholic family, b) spent a career in law enforcement (I presume -- forgive me if I am wrong) seeing some of the ravages of addiction and c) finally that he has been there himself and climbed out.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I am moved and impressed by that story. I'm definitely softening on the reasons why his attitude initially struck me as as harsh. Usually, strong stances like that have a reason beyond the obvious.

Maybe it's easier to be compassionate and "soft" on victims of these ailments when you've never been to the dark side. And if you have and eventually become compassionate despite that, you're OK in my book.

 

[Nords]

Of course, in truth sometimes DO go catastrophically wrong and no amount of skill could prevent disaster. (USS Thresher?)

Ouch, you know how the Challenger explosion "kinda" changed the space program or how three Thunderbirds followed their leader right into the dirt? You've just laid your finger on the incident that "kinda" changed the submarine force-- over 40 years later we're still flagellating ourselves about that one. Your comment probably just made Rickover spin in his grave a little faster. Talk about all of the little things that had to go wrong in exactly the correct sequence... At least THRESHER taught us that sometimes it's more important to save the people than to save the nuclear reactor.

Last millenium when I was a COMSUBPAC staff weenie I had to assign the water for submarines conducting their underway post-shipyard testing. The designated dive area was carefully selected to be flat, featureless, & shallower than the submarine's test depth rating. The entire area had been surveyed by imaging sonar to make sure that it wouldn't take very long to locate (and presumably rescue) a downed sub.

Of course that area is difficult to find off San Diego or Hawaii, and IIRC it required a 24-hour surface transit to get there before the sub could submerge for the first test dive. Submariners tend to get seasick during anything more than a five degree roll and we're not very good at Rules of the Road, either. The whining, sniveling, & bitching feedback from senior officers could get pretty emphatic, especially when they were behind schedule and rushed for time, but all you had to do was lay the THRESHER card on the table to inspire everyone to shut up and get on with it.

WW-II fighter pilots didn't have nearly the same combat fatigue/stress issues as 8th AF bomber pilots.

I've read "The Eleven Days Of Christmas", and 8AF didn't learn much from then through Vietnam, either, did we? At least the difference in the military is that after a certain number of (successful) missions you're allowed to go and do something "less stressful" (and certainly less lethal) for a while-- like train the rookies or work in the NMCC...

 

[TromboneAl]

We know that obesity rates are dramatically higher than they were 50 years ago.  If we figure out why, we might figure out how to solve it.

People are not different than they were 50 years ago.  They don't have lower metabolisms or more genetic problems than they used to.  That isn't enough time for changes in the genetics/nature of humans.

So what's different?

1. Marketing.  Maybe.  Maybe super-sized stuff and more commercials make people eat more.

2. TV/Video games.  People move around less, maybe that's it.

3. The food is different.  I think this is an important part of what's going on.  Some change in the food we eat, whether it's high-fructose corn syrup, diet sodas, trans fats, or something else, is creating a super stimulus.  These make it harder to resist eating, prevent the body from knowing that it's full, or cause hunger to come roaring back soon after eating.

 

[Nords]

So what's different?
1. Marketing.  Maybe.  Maybe super-sized stuff and more commercials make people eat more.
3. The food is different.  I think this is an important part of what's going on.  Some change in the food we eat, whether it's high-fructose corn syrup, diet sodas, trans fats, or something else, is creating a super stimulus.  These make it harder to resist eating, prevent the body from knowing that it's full, or cause hunger to come roaring back soon after eating.

"The Omnivore's Dilemma" claims that it's all the fault of the corn subsidy. Blame Cargill & ADM.

Population growth is only a percent or two per year, so a corn-processing company can't grow its revenues (or its stock options) just by feeding more people. Shipping the stuff overseas won't work because the rest of the world would (rightly) rather eat wheat or rice. So, let's figure out more ways to use the corn (#3) and let's get better at selling it (#1). Resistance is futile!

 

[samclem]

As to the WWII pilots -- I wonder if any of them lived long enough to get combat fatigue...

I toured the Garber facility many years ago, that is where they fix up the airplanes that are later displayed at the Air and Space Museums. They were restoring a B-24 and had to drill out all the thousands of steel rivets since they were in the aluminum aircraft skin and undergoing a lot of bimetalic corrosion. One of the people touring with me asked the workers why the designers of the aircraft didn't think of that problem. The mechanic replied that the average airplane lasted less than 30 missions. "This corrosion problem fifty years later is one they would have LOVED to have."

 

[wabmester]

We know that obesity rates are dramatically higher than they were 50 years ago.  If we figure out why, we might figure out how to solve it.

People are not different than they were 50 years ago.  They don't have lower metabolisms or more genetic problems than they used to.  That isn't enough time for changes in the genetics/nature of humans.

So what's different?

I think there have been studies that have shown that there are basically two periods in life when we produce adipose cells: within the first few years of life, and again at age 9-13.

In the last 25 years, childhood obesity has increased by a factor of 4!   So, I think the answer lies with changes in childhood behavior.    We had TV when I was a kid.   We had lots of sugary snacks (including those loaded with high-fructose corn syrup )    But we didn't have video games or computers.   We had bikes and skateboards instead.

So, one possible explanation is that less active kids grow more adipose tissue, and then they are more likely to become obese adults.

 

[UncleHoney]

We know that obesity rates are dramatically higher than they were 50 years ago. If we figure out why, we might figure out how to solve it.

People are not different than they were 50 years ago. They don't have lower metabolisms or more genetic problems than they used to. That isn't enough time for changes in the genetics/nature of humans.

So what's different?

1. Marketing. Maybe. Maybe super-sized stuff and more commercials make people eat more.

2. TV/Video games. People move around less, maybe that's it.

3. The food is different. I think this is an important part of what's going on. Some change in the food we eat, whether it's high-fructose corn syrup, diet sodas, trans fats, or something else, is creating a super stimulus. These make it harder to resist eating, prevent the body from knowing that it's full, or cause hunger to come roaring back soon after eating.

I think the answer may be in the general availability of food, mostly the wrong type of food. Just look what's availabile at your typical gas station and convenience store. Nothing but mega calories in the ever present disposable package ready to go. It's just too easy to stuff your face these days and it takes no time to do it.

It's all in the marketing and packaging, whatever you want, it's available and you don't even need to cook.

One drive thru Mickey D's and in less than three minutes you can get sack with more calories then you need for the whole day.

Just too easy to get food these days and not have to work for it.

 

[LRS]

Lets-Retire confessed to having dealt with personal demons, but only after taking a dump on obese people and others struggling with personal problems, and being called out on it.

A lot of times I think people trash the obese because it's "OK"--you can't talk bad about minorities or women anymore, but you can still express your contempt for fat people and get approval for it.

I think it shows a lack of character.

 

[Caroline]

{quote]Just too easy to get food these days and not have to work for it.
I think the word "work" is an important one.  My mother's job was to raise 4 children.  It was a full-time job and she devoted herself to doing it well -- clean house, good morals, AND attention to good nutrition.  

Today's children have two parents who work, for the most part, and who are exhausted when they come home at night.  Who can blame them for buying lunch out instead of packing it beforehand, grabbing a quick energy boost while they fill the gas tank, or taking the kids to McDonald's, etc. instead of spending the time it takes to make a healthy meal from scratch?

I have no kids myself, but I know that when I'm unemployed... er...between renumerative occupations, I take the time to cook at home, eat well, and exercise.  I generally lose weight and keep it off.  When I'm back to 40-60 hours a week in front of the computer, the extra 5-10 come home to roost.  Same thing for vacations - I'm active and more healthy when I'm not chained to the desk.  

Add that to all the other stuff -- big portions at restaurants, corn syrup in every processed food, etc. and it's tough not to gain weight.

 

[haha]

HaHa:  Here's a citation on the executive monkey study:

Brady (1958). Ulcers in "Executive" monkeys. Science, 199, 95-100.


Overall, the question of whether the executive is more stressed than his subordinates doesn't seem to be clear, from what I can figure.  Rat studies trying to duplicate the monkey studies DID seem to suggest that the "executive rat" was better off than his helpless conterpart.  Which results in a lot of debate on study design, etc.

Kinda like this thread on obesity -- is it the individual who is completely to blame?  Is it the situation that's at fault?  Not clear.

Maybe, for people, it depends upon whether you consider yourself a rat or a monkey!  

Thanks Carolyn.

 

[Caroline]

You're welcome, HaHa, but I'm not to be confused with the charming Carolyn...

Caroline