Re: You Cant Fix What You Deny

[Guest guest]

I am not proposing that we break the laws of thermodynamics. I am proposing

that not all people can break chemical bonds equally. Just because energy

resides in the chemical bonds in the food we eat, does not mean that all

people have equal means to cleave those bonds and harvest the energy

equally. Pushing reactions to activation, often requires special enzymes.

Not all people have the same enzymes. Not all people will process food

identically, as you must be aware, considering the many enzymatic diseases

we know about.

I don't mind residing in a different galaxy than you, or having different

opinions and understandings. In fact, I prefer it. And I have no interest

in changing your perspective. I do have an interest in challenging

potentially erroneous conclusions, bigotry, and questionable scientific

practice. In this vein, I am happy to send along a few studies. The

studies below were not designed to meet your criteriae, but they do support

some potentially different causes of obesity than just simple overeating..

(Aside, there is a difference between eating high fructose corn syrup, or as

has often been discussed here, fruit juice, and eating unprocessed fruit.

But that has been well discussed before.)

And, you have misattributed my post. I would ask that you read what I said

more carefully before you assert that I am giving anyone " excuses " . Or

perhaps you were not referring to what I said, after all, as it does not

fit. In fact, I wrote of people striving for personal excellence, and they

are not obese people. They are people who find it exceptionally challenging

to avoid weight gain. I apologize if that was not as plain, in my writing,

as it seems to me, to be.

Variables are variables and I think it is unscientific for anyone to dismiss

known variabilities in the discussion of obesity. Citing variability in

tendency to gain and retain weight is not making excuses. It is reflecting

fact.

And what is this us (thin) versus them (obese) attitude? Many people on

this list do, or have struggled with obesity. The very fact they are on

this list argues against your portrayal. If we treat all people with

respect, we might be more able to just enjoy one another's company.

And finally, I don't frequent fast food places, but relate what I saw mostly

in restaurants in Quebec and Montreal, and the people involved were slender,

as they ate their piles of fries smothered with cheese and gravy with large

servings of cole slaw. It may be that because I am in an athletic field,

most of my colleagues tend to be slim, but nonetheless, it is a faithful

representation.

citations follow

Sincerely,

Kayce

http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health & res=940DE4DF1739F936A15751\

C0A96E948260

http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/341

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/275/5/E830 not over 30, but

worth note

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/1087

http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/12/7/1060

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/52/6/1403

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/14/1491?ijkey=6d945a0117aa\

9fa8ffdd03b1dd92bc96109efea3 & keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/2/331

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

Reply-

Subject: [ ] Re: You Cant Fix What You Deny

Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:58:59 -0000

Hi Kayce:

Well it is clear to me that you and I reside in different galaxies.

Either that or parallel universes : ^ )))

I will be more than happy to be persuaded to your point of view about

the origins of obesity, but only when I see persuasive evidence to

support it. (I list a few examples later, of the kind of evidence I

would need to see.)

I *have* seen studies posted here which indicate that the metabolic

rates of obese people are not lower than the average. Indeed, they

are usually found to be higher, no doubt because they have greater

LBM, in addition to higher fat reserves. I have also very recently

seen reference (in the latest issue of the Preventdisease.com email

newsletter) to a study which showed that when obese individuals,

unable to lose weight and claiming to be eating a low calorie diet,

have their BMR measured, it is clear that they are burning off far

more calories than they claim to be eating. Something doesn't

compute. Right? We all know what, I think.

In addition a study was posted here showing that when overweight

people are escorted throughout the day, and their food intake

recorded and reviewed at the end of the study period, it is found

that the records the subjects themselves kept, had under-recorded

what they had actually eaten by a substantial margin - I recall 40%

was the number. It will be found in the archives. I believe it was

posted by Jeff Novick, quite some time back.

These suggest denial to me.

-----------------------------------------------

We are all aware of the laws of thermodynamics. We all presumably

understand that a reduction in caloric intake below caloric

expenditure must reduce body weight - no exceptions. I have checked

data posted here by Dennis de Jarnette as he lost weight starting

from a BMI of ~35 and had his BF% accurately measured. I have also

checked my own case, losing weight at BMIs in the 21 to 25 range (but

for me using the, not totally accurate, US Navy BF% calculation

method). In each case the weight lost has been composed of 60% to

70% fat, and 30% to 40% LBM. Granted, this is a very limited data

set, but I have seen nothing elsewhere of an empirical nature that

suggests anything other than that if obese people ate a lot less than

they do, they would eventually return to a healthy weight. If there

are studies showing data different from the above they ought to be

posted.

It is also worth noting that while about half the obese community and

their advocates like to assert that it is next to impossible to lose

weight ( " so don't bother even trying " ?) the other half have a quite

different, and entirely contradictory, complaint.

The complaint of this other group is NOT that they cannot lose

weight. Their complaint is that after losing a considerable amount

of weight through restriction of food intake, and having achieved

some targeted lower weight, they quickly return to their original

weight, or higher, after resuming their old eating habits.

Is this not a clear acknowledgment that obese people can and do lose

sizeable amounts of weight if/when they reduce food intake? Rather,

the issue appears to be that they are unable to maintain a reduced

caloric intake once their target has been reached. So I submit there

is no serious dispute, even among the obese, that restriction of

calories is all that is required to achieve an appropriate weight.

-------------------------------------------

However, the above said, I would take a very keen interest, and am

certainly open-minded to changing my view, if someone can post

studies which demonstrate any of the following:

A) That thirty or more obese people, when put on a carefully

controlled, RDA-adequate, 1200 calorie, metabolic ward, study failed

to lose weight, or

That thirty or more obese people, when they put on a metabolic

ward study with 1200 RDA-adequate calories, lost only LBM, while

fully retaining, or increasing, their previous body fat reserves, or

C) Thirty or more obese people, while consuming a carefully measured

1200 calories, and burning off a carefully measured 1200 calories

daily, showed a sustained increase in weight.

These are the types of study that seem to me are required to

substantiate the kinds of arguments you and others put forward. Can

you post any such studies? Or other (very carefully measured)

studies which suggest conclusions similar to those above? If you

were to do this I would take a serious look at them. But do not

bother to post them if the measure used for caloric intake is what

the subjects SAY they are eating. Or if the quantity of exercise

assumed is the amount they CLAIM to be doing.

------------------------------------------

My beliefs about the reason for the emergence of an obesity epidemic

in western countries starting approximately in the 1960s, is too long

and, not the least, too controversial, to go into it here. But it

has nothing to do with supposed violations of the Laws of

Thermodynamics (in all the various disguises these arguments are

presented), and it has everything to do with the reasons for the

failure to restrict food intake.

------------------------------------------

We are all familiar with the list of excuses: " it isn't you, it is

your genes " ; or " it isn't you, its something your mother ate during

pregnancy " ; or " it isn't you, its high fructose corn syrup " (while

many of the same people who think fructose is the near lethal also

think fruit, which contains plenty of it, is just wonderful); or " it

isn't you, it is the junk food corporations who are forcing you to

eat their products " [no doubt plenty more excuses can be added to

this list]. Then, of course, there are the people who will advise

the obese that: " it is impossible to lose weight so do not even

bother trying. "

But perhaps most important point here may be the destructive effect

that the promotion of these excuses, and the giving of that kind of

advice, has on the very people who most need to restrict their food

intake. They are a powerful demotivator that will only serve to

distract them from getting around to doing what they urgently need to

do to protect their health. Not helpful, imo.

Rodney.

PS: I was interested to hear your anecdote about canadians eating

huge meals and staying slim. I doubt you will find anyone resident

in Canada agreeing with your sentiments. I have lived in Canada for

a very long time and almost every day I encounter people who look to

be a mile wide. I very much doubt the average circumference in

Canada is materially different from that in the United States. Next

time you are in Canada try going to the food court in any canadian

shopping mall, or to a Harvey's hamburger chain outlet - or

Mc's or Burger King. You will see plenty of obese people these

places. And almost always, if you take the trouble to observe, you

will find a direct correlation between the size of the individual and

the amount of food they order. By one route of logic one might have

hoped it would be the other way around. By another, of course, it

makes perfect sense. I have often thought of saying to some of these

people: " Look, you really don't need to eat for an entire month do

you? So what are you doing in here? " So far I have been able to

restrain myself.

And as for your point about: " Rodney's doctor needs to refer

patients to competent coaches " .............. what, please, does

this tell you about these people? ....... that, you seem to be

saying, they cannot simply take and act on their doctor's

straightforward advice about how to fix an obviously serious health

problem? You are telling us that they need to be *coached* about how

to follow simple advice?

As I said, we must be from different galaxies.

Rodney.

--- In , " kayce cover " <k_cover@...>

wrote:

>

> I am trying to understand what in this survey - not study -

justifies the

> conclusion that the people are in denial?

>

> Doctor Kaplan points out, relevant information that would allow us

to form a

> logical conclusion about whether the people were truthful or not -

was not

> collected. This, and several other things, cause me to conclude

that this

> survey is badly designed.

>

> I suspect that obese American people have failed to adapt to the

adulterated

> food supplied by the American food industry, and a culture that is

> increasingly sedentary, and not that they are somehow less

truthful,

> observant, or cognizant, than American people who are able to

maintain their

> weight in our environment. I watch young girls STRUGGLE to be trim

and

> athletic, watching everything that goes into their mouths, and

working their

> butts off in sports. We now have studies that indicate that

prenatal

> exposure to certain conditions, may create a heritable genetic

tendency

> toward obesity.

>

> I am wondering who is really in denial. I think it is time to quit

thinking

> this is a matter of personal weakness, and start thinking of

American

> obesity as an evironmental disease.

>

> My European friends say that once they start eating American food,

they

> start gaining weight. They work very hard to reverse this trend by

cooking

> for themselves, removing themselves from the effect of the food

industry

> adulterations. I struggle to keep high fructose corn syrup and

grain

> products out of my diet. It is nearly impossible. Like I said,

the

> evidence suggests environmental effects, not lapses in personal

judgment or

> character.

>

> And by the way, Rodney, I have worked all over the world and have

never seen

> bigger portions or bigger eaters, than I have sat next to in

Canada.

> Nonetheless, these people were mostly beautifully trim. What gives?

>

> And I for one, see people diligently change their lives everyday

and

> Rodney's doctor needs to refer patients to competent coaches. But

then,

> doctors are in the business of disease, not wellness.

>

> Sincerely,

> Kayce

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

>

[Guest guest]

>>http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm

Unfortunately, this doesnt support your theory...

" We've learned from this study of the Mexican Pimas

that if the Pima Indians of Arizona could return to

some of their traditions, including a high degree of

physical activity and a diet with less fat and more

starch, we might be able to reduce the rate, and

surely the severity, of unhealthy weight in most of

the population, " Ravussin says.

Its not their hormones or their genes... its the food

they put in their mouth and their lack of activity..

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Yes it does: " These studies, carried out with the help of the Pima Indians,

have shown that before gaining weight, overweight people have a slower

metabolic rate compared to people of the same weight. "

So it IS their hormones and their genes AND the food they put into their

mouths, and the exercise. However, they start out with a genetic

predisposition which is maladaptive for the current environment.

While they can be managed, it and some of the other sources, also says that

they gain more weight on the same number of calories, which is the crux of

the debate here.

And while I argue that obesity is not always a simple matter of overeating,

I have not argued that all of us must do what we must do to take care of

ourselves, no matter the difficulty.

From: Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

Reply-

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: You Cant Fix What You Deny

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)

>>http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm

Unfortunately, this doesnt support your theory...

" We've learned from this study of the Mexican Pimas

that if the Pima Indians of Arizona could return to

some of their traditions, including a high degree of

physical activity and a diet with less fat and more

starch, we might be able to reduce the rate, and

surely the severity, of unhealthy weight in most of

the population, " Ravussin says.

Its not their hormones or their genes... its the food

they put in their mouth and their lack of activity..

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>> Yes it does: " These studies, carried out with the

> help of the Pima Indians,

> have shown that before gaining weight, overweight

> people have a slower

> metabolic rate compared to people of the same

> weight. "

Then their calories " out " may be less than predicted

but still measurable and verifiable, and would still

not violate caloric balance.. It just makes it a

little harder on them, and they either have to be more

active or consume less calories, or a happy medium of

both.

> So it IS their hormones and their genes AND the food

> they put into their

> mouths, and the exercise. However, they start out

> with a genetic

> predisposition which is maladaptive for the current

> environment.

With 64% of Americans overweight and/or obese, it

seems like most of us have a genetic make-up that is

maladaptive for the current environment.

> While they can be managed, it and some of the other

> sources, also says that

> they gain more weight on the same number of

> calories,

Because the burn less, but that doesnt violate the

lawys of thermodynamics.

>>which is the crux of

> the debate here.

No, I dont think so. I think it is the heart of the

debate, than when all factors are taken into account,

including the fact that some may have RMR lower than

others ,and many often underestimate their caloric

intake and overestimate their caloric output... its

still calories in vs calories out...

And, whenever measured in metabolic chambers where all

these variables can be accounted for, and controlled,

these people do lose weight..

But, saying we " see " people who consume lots of food

but remain thin, is possible considering all the

variables... but once accounted for, easily explained.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

kayce cover wrote:

> Yes it does: " These studies, carried out with the help of the Pima Indians,

> have shown that before gaining weight, overweight people have a slower

> metabolic rate compared to people of the same weight. "

>

> So it IS their hormones and their genes AND the food they put into their

> mouths, and the exercise. However, they start out with a genetic

> predisposition which is maladaptive for the current environment.

>

>

> While they can be managed, it and some of the other sources, also says that

> they gain more weight on the same number of calories, which is the crux of

> the debate here.

>

> And while I argue that obesity is not always a simple matter of overeating,

> I have not argued that all of us must do what we must do to take care of

> ourselves, no matter the difficulty.

>

>

===============

I have been on record here questioning simple calculations of the energy

content of food and the net effect consuming that food will have on

different individuals. Except for scientific curiosity, so what?

Individual weight is a personal " struggle " and I don't use that word

casually. We should resist the very human tendency to judge the

behaviors, intentions, motivations, whatever of others.

I have been obese before and could easily return to that condition

without effort. After losing weight and keeping it off for a few years

(for the first time in my life), I recall going through a period of

anger at overweight people who complain about how difficult it is....

No sh__ Sherlock!

I hope I have mellowed as I have habituated to my more healthy current

eating pattern and it gets a little easier. People who never knew the

fat me don't believe me when I tell them. This is also a little

upsetting. We should get a merit badge or a star or something, but

better health should be and is adequate reward and motivation for the

effort.

Many people (like me) have gravitated to CR for the immediate health

benefits rather than the unproven promise of extending life. Improved

health will in fact extend productive high quality life experience. The

bottom line is that we are all the subject of a one rat experiments. If

we don't lose weight eating calorie level X, reduce to X-n. If we can't

cover adequate nutrition at X-n I'd be tempted to temporarily cut

calories further as the science of adequate nutrition is not any better

than the science of energy balance. Nutrition for many nutrients (like

fat based vitamins) is stored and averaged over time not fully consumed

daily.

I find most of this debate off the point. Losing weight really is as

simple as eating less... " Simple " is not the same thing as easy. This is

never easy.

So please excuse those of us who have already mastered our weight, at

least for now, because it can be a heady experience, especially if we

were formerly overweight and/or obese. We often feel this gives us

special license to to speak out with hard earned authority. I hope you

will also get to enjoy the health benefits of lower weight and the self

satisfaction of mastering your personal situation. While it may not

always be apparent I don't think I'm speaking out of school when I

suggest that everyone here wishes you and anyone else in a similar

situation complete success.

JR

PS: I vaguely recall seeing a report (on one of those sensational TV

programs) about dietary and lifestyle changes being the root cause of

the Pima's present unusually high incidence of obesity and diabetes. I

don't recall the details but living off subsistence farming is obviously

different than sitting around eating govt supplied cheese and processed

corn meal.

[Guest guest]

Hmmm... you are arguing both sides of things here. Which is it?

1) the caloric value of food is absolute, and what yields 100 kcal for one

person will yield 100 kcal for all people, and all people, with the same

activity, will gain one pound per 3500 kcals ingested

OR

2) the exact same food can yield different calorie amounts for different

people, according to their bodies ability to harvest the energy from the

chemical bonds in the food, and food that yields 3500 kcals for one person,

may yield more kcals for a second person, resulting in greater weight gain

for the second person

At least you are now agreeing that resting metabolic rates can differ,

therefore, two people eating exactly the same number of calories could gain

different amounts of weight, if there were no other variables.

My point exactly.

Just because a person is eating x calories and gains more weight than a

second person, does not mean that they are lying about how many calories

they are eating.

It is that simple.

The measuring and verifiability is only good within the accuracy of the

expenditure estimation system, and with doubly labled water, is known to

vary up to 21% .

Of course we do not defy the laws or thermodynamics, or they would not be

the laws of thermodynamics. But the laws of thermodynamics have nothing to

do with differing abilities of differing bodies to harvest energy from the

same substances by virtue of their differing enzymes. Where we clip a side

group, what side groups we clip and how we fold a molecule to do that, can

make a big difference.

And I agree that most of us are maladapted for our current food environment.

Which is also one of my points, so I appreciate your ceding that as well.

From: Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

Reply-

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: You Cant Fix What You Deny

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:37:19 -0700 (PDT)

>>> Yes it does: " These studies, carried out with the

> help of the Pima Indians,

> have shown that before gaining weight, overweight

> people have a slower

> metabolic rate compared to people of the same

> weight. "

Then their calories " out " may be less than predicted

but still measurable and verifiable, and would still

not violate caloric balance.. It just makes it a

little harder on them, and they either have to be more

active or consume less calories, or a happy medium of

both.

> So it IS their hormones and their genes AND the food

> they put into their

> mouths, and the exercise. However, they start out

> with a genetic

> predisposition which is maladaptive for the current

> environment.

With 64% of Americans overweight and/or obese, it

seems like most of us have a genetic make-up that is

maladaptive for the current environment.

> While they can be managed, it and some of the other

> sources, also says that

> they gain more weight on the same number of

> calories,

Because the burn less, but that doesnt violate the

lawys of thermodynamics.

>>which is the crux of

> the debate here.

No, I dont think so. I think it is the heart of the

debate, than when all factors are taken into account,

including the fact that some may have RMR lower than

others ,and many often underestimate their caloric

intake and overestimate their caloric output... its

still calories in vs calories out...

And, whenever measured in metabolic chambers where all

these variables can be accounted for, and controlled,

these people do lose weight..

But, saying we " see " people who consume lots of food

but remain thin, is possible considering all the

variables... but once accounted for, easily explained.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

The obesity epidemic has exploded in the last 30 years

and mostly amongst people who were alive 30 years

ago...

So what changed?

At the end of the day.. inspite of all other

variables, an overweight or obese person must consume

more calories than they burn to gain weight.

I see man obese people every day who werent obese

10-30 years ago. What happened? Did the other

variables (their genetics, or their RMR, or their

hormones, etc) change?

No.

But, the food industy has figured out how to

concentrate the calories in food, make them more

appealing and easier to get. Never before could you

get a small package of " food " that could deliver you

3000 calories and be so processed and refined you

almost dont even have to chew it to get it done. MOst

of this change has happened in the last 30 years.

While at the same time.. we can get thru our days in

society while spending much less energy without even

realizing it. We now have people using electric

scooters and carts because they are lazy (see recent

article in WSJ). And that new human transport thing

from Sharper Image or tone. PE is out of most

schools. Its not safe for kids to walk to school.

66% of golfers surveyed are obese.. yet it wasnt that

way 30 years ago, when most of them carried their

clubs and walked the course.

All this has changed in 30 years.

>>> Hmmm... you are arguing both sides of things here.

Which is it?

That was my question for you. No one is doubting

these variables, but you still have to create the

energy excess to gain weight. Do variables exist in

RMR, enzymes, the measure of calories in and calories

out? Of course. Who is denying or aruging that??

But that is not what has changed so rapidly in such

short a time.

Even so, if all and any of the variables could be

measured, to the exact minute detail, where would that

leave us? If you eat a banana and I eat the same

banana and you get 100 calories and I get 90, or if we

both get 100, isnt the issue. That variable in what

ever degree, has always existed since time memorial.

At the end of the week, when i get on the scale, if it

going up, then I am taking in more than I burn and if

it is going down, i am burning more than I take in.

That is pretty simple.

>>> At least you are now agreeing that resting

metabolic > rates can differ,

> therefore, two people eating exactly the same number

> of calories could gain

> different amounts of weight, if there were no other

> variables.

Umm... Again...

I dont think I Or anyone else here has ever argued

differently. You may not have liked Rodneys response

but I dont see where all this comes from.

Everyones metabolic rate is unique to them and their

studies I have posted here that have been done over

the years have shown take a dozen women of the same

age, ht and wt, and they have different metabolic

rates. THat is no startling new paradigm. Yes, we

dont have the best ways to measure it, but there are

ways.

This is why you can only use those standard formulas

as a guide, not a law.

> Just because a person is eating x calories and gains

> more weight than a

> second person, does not mean that they are lying

> about how many calories

> they are eating.

NO, and with all due respect, I am sure many dont

intend to lie. There is the second problem., again no

secret to this list or anyone on it, that the

measuring stick we use for calories in and calories

out is not very good. So, they may be trying their

best, but their may be errors and variables in other

areas. The variables posted in the study i originally

posted isnt saying they were lying, just that there

was a variance. Do some lie?? of course they do.

Its human nature to under estimate the bad and

overestimate the food.

When they tested a dozen muffins at stores and found

most contained on average 25% more calories than their

label stated, whose fault is that.

>>> It is that simple.

Right. We actually have a very simple system to tell

how anyones attempt at measuring the balance in and

out is going... its called the scale.. and if you use

the same scale at the same time of the day, on a

regular basis, regardless of all the variables, you

will see how good your balance is going.

> But the laws of

> thermodynamics have nothing to

> do with differing abilities of differing bodies to

> harvest energy from the

> same substances by virtue of their differing

> enzymes.

No doubt. But, in particpating in the world around

me, and studying 1000s of people every year, i just

dont see this as the issue.

> And I agree that most of us are maladapted for our

> current food environment.

Environment, not just food. THere is also the other

side of the equation.

BUt even so, its not an excuse or rational for people

to keep on the path that is killing them and causing a

major health and economic crisis in this country.

I wrote this recently in response to a similar

discussion on another list... (some points may be

repeated but the story of the patient is relevant.)

............The problem isnt that calories in vs

calories out doesnt work, the problem is that there

are many assumptions made about calories in and

calories out that are inaccurate or have lots of

variance. Many of the ways of measuring these

variables are inaccurate.

How accurate are food labels (which round off and have

an allowed error rate), exercise machines (which have

incredible variance between them), metabolic equations

for determining RMR (some have error rates upward of

30% in the obese), and of course, we have patient

recall and honesty to deal with in tracking food

intake. There is lots of room for error in everyone

of these variables.

What I have seen often is that patients arent very

honest when they first come for counseling/help. They

dont admit to everything they eat as they may be

embarrassed or feel guilty. They give you a figure

of like 1000-1200 calories a day (usually all salads

and healthy food) and say they cant lose weight, and

exercise often. But, they havent admitted to all the

junk food they eat. Then, when asked to keep a

journal they now admit to more or all of what they eat

as they are trying to do better, and it looks better.

So, while it may seems as though they are eating

more, they are only being honest about more and

actually eating less total calories. It may also seem

like more food to them, and they may report that they

feel fuller, cause healthy food is generally lower in

calorie density, have a greater volume per calorie,

and more satisfying than junk foods.

I Recently did an experiment with one such client.

After working with them to find out how many calories

they " said " they ate without being able to loose

weight, we than extablished for them to follow that

calorie level while at the center under a more

controlled environment. Lo and behold, at the exact

same calorie level, (and exercise level) they started

losing weight and kept losing it over the next few

weeks. Now, what was most interesting was that

after a few weeks, they joined me on a dining out

excursion, that I take my patients on every week.

There was about 12 of us that night and she was

sitting down the table at the other end. I overheard

part of her conversation and her food discussions with

some of the other patients at the table and it

included the intake of lots of junk food, ice cream

and cake and the dinner parties she hosted, that she

never admitted to in the original discussions with me

about her " usual daily intake " .

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Thanks for that link again. I took another look at it over the

weekend. I think you are going to have to explain to me what you

believe the significance of that paper to be, because it seems I do

not get the same message from it you do.

This is what I understand it to say:

1. Adiponectin (ADPN) is " abundantly expressed in adipose tissue " . I

might have thought that would mean that people with lots of adipose

tissue would have plenty of ADPN, but apparently the opposite is true.

2. ADPN sensitizes the body to insulin (so more of it

is 'good'). " Adiponectin is an adipokine that is specifically and

abundantly expressed in adipose tissue and directly sensitizes the

body to insulin " . So too little of it causes insulin resistance,

which is bad news. At the end of the second paragraph it says: " ....

insulin resistance caused by obesity, a state of increased

adiposity " . It does not say: " obesity caused by insulin resistance "

the latter of which, as already noted, is caused by insufficient ADPN.

3. Inadequate ADPN is caused by the interaction of genetic factors

and obesity. First paragraph: " hypoadiponectinemia, caused by

interactions of genetic factors such as SNPs in the Adiponectin gene

and environmental factors causing obesity " . Note: not the other way

around ...... not that adiponectin causes obesity.

4. Obesity, they say, is caused by " environmental factors " . See the

quote immediately above. Initially I took that to mean things like

air pollution. But reading further down it becomes apparent that

their use of the term " environmental factors " means in an environment

of an abundant and attractive food supply. In the third paragraph it

says: " While white adipose tissue (WAT) provides a survival advantage

in times of starvation, excess WAT is now linked to obesity-related

health problems IN THE CURRENTLY NUTRITIONALLY RICH ENVIRONMENT " (my

caps, for emphasis). So the " environment " factor that is seen by this

paper as a cause of obesity refers to a 'nutritionally abundant' food

supply.

So, as I read it, the original causation is an abundant food supply;

this results in obesity; obesity causes too little ADPN; insufficient

ADPN causes insulin resistance (and metabolic syndrome, etc.). This

is not especially surprising as many here, I think, have supposed that

this was the route of causation.

If you have a different view of this, JW, please say so.

Rodney.

>

> Please read this again and try to understand the obese are suffering

a problem in hormone balance. They don't suffer from denial.

> http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/7/1784?

maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & fulltext=adiponectin & andorexac

tfulltext=and & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=H

WCIT

> Adiponectin and adiponectin receptors in insulin resistance,

diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome

>

> Regards.

>

[Guest guest]

The bottom line is the fat grows, the body adds muscle to keep the guy moving, and

heart moves the fluids until it fails. But something causes the adipose to grow uncontrolled. Of course food is needed for the body to grow. But it's the imbalance of controlling hormones which allow it to happen. Something stimulates obesity even in youth, a problem I never had neither do my children or gchilren, yet they exist in the same environment of high food supply. WHY are they not eating to satisfy a high hunger?

What it says is that adiponectin is the controlling hormone and is reduced in obese people. IGF-1 is the growth hormone. For every system in the body you have a driver hormone and a controller hormone. A feedback control system much like a thermostat.

In order for you to accumulate fat there must be a drop in ADPN. From table 1 we saw ADPN listed as the only downregulator. ADIPOSE MAKES ADPN.

At the same time the insulin receptor restricts insulin, yet allows IGF-1 in to grow.

Insulin is required to convert fat (fat lypolysis) to get it out of the adipose into the blood stream. If you change that conversion just slightly more fat is stored than is released, so the adipose grows. And that's what happens in obesers.

It's not clear the cause of the adipose IR, whether it makes less adiponectin as a result of IR, or vice versa. Clearly the idea should be to attack that hormone problem.

They won't prescribe adiponectin, because it is thought to cause wasting. This is another complex system, and the adipose is not controlled by the central nervous system.

What happens in obesers, they will tell you, they are hungry even eating large amounts of food. The adipose is sucking up the nutrients and growing.

Clearly there is a problem here that is just not being addressed by nutritionists who think you can always starve yourself and lose weight - you can but it won't be all adipose, and you have no idea where the lost weight comes from.

Fortunately, my fat was mostly visceral when I lost 60 #, but I noticed all the fat didn't go away. Exercise has no effect on this "fat that won't come off".

Funny thing I read about bears, is some don't make it thru the winter - not enough stored nutrients. BUT they will still be fat left in the corpse. Bears can recover their organ tissue in refeeding, humans cannot. That's not a small issue with me. And we will never get out of the clinics if the 300#ers lived longer after losing 100# than they would have untreated. They won't run a test like that and no one can say they were benefited.

I started asking the question does the body conserve heart and organ tissue and just give up muscle tissue in dieting. No definitive answer yet. Until that is answered in humans, I vote against recommending weight loss to anyone.

IMO, the nutritionists need to wake up, and the docs need to learn how to treat obesity. The endocrinologists at Aventis know something we don't know. It's a medical problem.

Regards.

[ ] Re: You Cant Fix What You Deny

Hi JW:Thanks for that link again. I took another look at it over the weekend. I think you are going to have to explain to me what you believe the significance of that paper to be, because it seems I do not get the same message from it you do.This is what I understand it to say:1. Adiponectin (ADPN) is "abundantly expressed in adipose tissue". I might have thought that would mean that people with lots of adipose tissue would have plenty of ADPN, but apparently the opposite is true.2. ADPN sensitizes the body to insulin (so more of it is 'good'). "Adiponectin is an adipokine that is specifically and abundantly expressed in adipose tissue and directly sensitizes the body to insulin". So too little of it causes insulin resistance, which is bad news. At the end of the second paragraph it says: ".... insulin resistance caused by obesity, a state of increased adiposity". It does not say: "obesity caused by insulin resistance" the latter of which, as already noted, is caused by insufficient ADPN.

It's a loop, chicken and egg thing. So increase ADPN somehow and the loop should respond to a different point. And this is why growth hormone is not being bandied about anymore. Hormones are catalysts and a very small amount can shift the system - maybe out of control. Unfortunately there are vicious cycles. Anorexia is one.

3. Inadequate ADPN is caused by the interaction of genetic factors and obesity. First paragraph: "HYPOadiponectinemia, caused by interactions of genetic factors such as SNPs in the Adiponectin gene and environmental factors causing obesity". Note: not the other way around ...... not that adiponectin causes obesity.

Right, HYPER ADPN would cause wasting.4. Obesity, they say, is caused by "environmental factors". See the quote immediately above. Initially I took that to mean things like air pollution. But reading further down it becomes apparent that their use of the term "environmental factors" means in an environment of an abundant and attractive food supply. In the third paragraph it says: "While white adipose tissue (WAT) provides a survival advantage in times of starvation, excess WAT is now linked to obesity-related health problems IN THE CURRENTLY NUTRITIONALLY RICH ENVIRONMENT" (my caps, for emphasis). So the "environment" factor that is seen by this paper as a cause of obesity refers to a 'nutritionally abundant' food supply.

It is also thought the IGF-1 in milk causes it. Could be the obeser is more sensitive than others to growth hormone.

So, as I read it, the original causation is an abundant food supply; this results in obesity; obesity causes too little ADPN; insufficient ADPN causes insulin resistance (and metabolic syndrome, etc.). This is not especially surprising as many here, I think, have supposed that this was the route of causation.

Yes, but by that logic I could blame the abundant food supply for everything. EG, for causing us to live so long we get more cancer. If you have a different view of this, JW, please say so.Rodney.>> Please read this again and try to understand the obese are suffering a problem in hormone balance. They don't suffer from denial. > http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/7/1784?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & fulltext=adiponectin & andorexactfulltext=and & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIT> Adiponectin and adiponectin receptors in insulin resistance, diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome > > Regards.>

..