The obesity epidemic

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cube_rat 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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! *

Thanks Carolyn.

[Caroline]

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

Caroline

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline You're welcome, HaHa, but I'm not to be confused with the charming Carolyn...* * Caroline

Whoops, my apologies. You are both lovely beyond compare, but each in your own way.

ha

[HFWR]

I'm genetically of slim build, and so I've heard the comment "I could eat anything I want" most of my life. And, until I turned 40 or so, that was for the most part accurate. It is, er ah, less accurate now... However, I've been fairly active as an adult -jogging, bicycling, and weight training - and I'm cognizant of both how much I eat and what I eat. Definitely can't eat ice cream or chocolate chip cookies like I used to...

I see my more portly cow-orkers eat good ol' biscuits, gravy, sausage, eggs, and cheese, sometimes mixed together in a "mess", for breakfast, and a cheeseburger and fries lunch, day after day... Loaded with starches and sat fat, and not a vegetable in sight...

Brain chemicals, or character flaw? Sometimes one, sometimes the other, but probably a complex brew of both...

Tobacco addiction, however, is entirely the fault of the tobacco companies; but for for a meisly few million, I could be convinced otherwise...

[mathjak107]

There was this huge woman on the tread mill at the gym wearing this sweat shirt that said GUESS.

I wanted to go "THYROID?"

[jeff2006]

Wow! -- Talk about an epidemic! This thread is an outpouring of self-righteous nastiness. Know-it-alls on parade . . .

[ladelfina]

I hafta take issue a bit with the comments about "overeating". For folks with a presumably decent grasp of numbers I'm surprised at some of the statements above.

If 3500 extra calories translates into one pound, then all it takes to gain one extra pound per month is (roughly) one extra tablespoon of fat (100 calories) or one extra apple (100 calories) every day. Not much.

Now I'll state right now that I weigh more than I should. More than I would like.* I'm utterly indifferent towards ice cream and cookies, but I lead a pretty sedentary life. And I weighed exactly the same at age 17 as I do now.

If I had been "over" eating during the last 29 years... let's say that one extra tablespoon of fat per day (just 100 calories, remember.. not a bag of french fries or a Big Mac's worth...).. well, by now I would weigh ((12*29)+180)= 528 pounds.

Conversely, if I were to have eaten one less tablespoon of fat each day than I normally do (or the equivalent of a little more than 100 calories in whatever form), in theory I would be long dead by now, having reached less than 80 pounds in the late 1980s!

There is something more subtle and complex at work here than just willpower or lack thereof. Setpoint theory? Evolution?

mathjak, some others on this thread have shown little compassion for those who struggle with weight problems.. I'm surprised that you've taken this to its nadir by ridiculing a fat lady who is exercising!*

I think some people were just made to store fat more efficiently which, in evolutionary terms, is a good thing. In our society of plenty, an historical aberration, this turns out to have some downside.