Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Thank you for posting this. I have been preaching this to whomever would listen that the problem with obesity caused by a lack of activity than by poor diet. There have been numerous studies both in children as well as adults that have shown this to be true and yet we keep pointing at diets as the way to treat obesity. I have posted a number of these studies in this forum over the years. They seldom draw many comments but various nutritional studies seem to get everyone focused. I have always felt that proper exercise and activity can make up for even a poor diet and on the other hand a good diet cannot make up for an inactive lifestyle. Before any one gets upset with me, I am not trying to infer that we should not strive to follow a sensible diet. Is there anyway we can get the full article? [The full article can be downloaded at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/nbu/32/2] Ralph Giarnella MD Southington Ct USA --- carruthersjam wrote: > The below article may be of some interest. The > article concludes > that " there is no doubt that it is easier than ever > to be sedentary. > Our inactive lifestyles are the major cause of > obesity, rather than > the food/drink we consume; although portion sizes > have increased and > there are more palatable, energy-dense foods, the > predominant cause > of obesity is the reduction in our energy > expenditure. While energy > intake has stayed the same or perhaps even gone down > in recent years, > inactivity has steadily increased. Everyone knows > that being > physically active is good for you, but so many > people remain > sedentary, and the most common reason given is lack > of time. " > > ANNUAL BNF LECTURE > Physical inactivity: a major public health problem > S. N. Blair > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467- > 3010.2007.00632.x > > Nutrition Bulletin > Volume 32 Issue 2 Page 113-117, June 2007 > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467- > 3010.2007.00632.x > > This paper is based on Professor Blair's lecture > given at the Royal > College of Physicians, London, on 24 November 2006. > > This lecture will review some of the current data > relating sedentary > living and low fitness levels with health status, > describe briefly > how we might use physical activity as a clinical > intervention, and > include a brief discussion of what we can do to > address the major > public health problem of physical inactivity. > > The topic of physical inactivity is a young > discipline. The ancient > physicians and philosophers knew that physical > activity was good for > health, and humans evolved to be active animals. > However, systematic > research on physical activity and health only began > in the latter > half of the 20th century. The man who invented this > field was > Professor , who carried out a classical study > in the 1950s of > 31 000 London transport workers, in which he > observed that the > conductors of the double-decker buses had much lower > rates of > coronary occlusion than the drivers ( et al. > 1953) (see Fig. > 1). He attributed this to the fact that the > conductors climbed up and > down the stairs all day, while the drivers sat in > their seats. He > also carried out further work around this time, > which concluded that > physical inactivity did cause coronary artery > disease, and this was > really the beginning of the work investigating the > role of physical > activity as a public health issue...... > > ...Physical activity is a complex behaviour and, > therefore, difficult > to measure. Historically, studies looked at > occupational categories > to assess physical activity levels, but this is no > longer useful as > occupations requiring a high degree of energy > expenditure have > greatly diminished today. Many studies have used > self-reported levels > of physical activity during a period of time, but > such measures are > prone to error. Fitness is a more objective measure > of physical > activity.... > > > Effect of physical activity in older age > > Activity and fitness have been shown to be > protective in every > subgroup of the population, including older women > and men. For > example, men and women aged 60 years and over in the > ACLS with > moderate or high levels of fitness had 30% and 40% > lower mortality > respectively than those who were least fit, after > adjusting for > potentially confounding variables (Blair & Wei > 2000). Interestingly, > while physical activity is associated with reduced > blood pressure and > lipid levels, it was still protective after > adjusting for these > clinical measures, suggesting that a number of other > biological > pathways and mechanisms are involved..... > > ....Exciting research also has been published in the > past 2–3 years > demonstrating that physical activity can preserve > brain function and > help avoid senile dementia. This includes > epidemiological studies and > also laboratory studies of brain scans investigating > brain size and > function. For example, Larson et al. (2006) showed > that men and women > aged 65 years and over who carried out moderate > activity three or > more times per week had 40% lower risk of developing > dementia than > those who were more sedentary. Wang et al. (2006) > demonstrated older > people scoring higher on short physical performance > battery scores (a > measure of fitness or function) had lower risk of > developing senile > dementia. > > Muscular strength has been recognised as a marker of > functional > capacity for some time, but it has only recently > been investigated as > another measure of fitness and linked with different > health outcomes. > > What do we do about the toxic environment that > produces obesity and > inactivity? > > There is no doubt that it is easier than ever to be > sedentary. Our > inactive lifestyles are the major cause of obesity, > rather than the > food/drink we consume; although portion sizes have > increased and > there are more palatable, energy-dense foods, the > predominant cause > of obesity is the reduction in our energy > expenditure. While energy > intake has stayed the same or perhaps even gone down > in recent years, > inactivity has steadily increased. Everyone knows > that being > physically active is good for you, but so many > people remain > sedentary, and the most common reason given is lack > of time. > > The consensus public health recommendation is for > adults to achieve > 30 minutes of moderate activity (e.g. brisk walking) > on at least 5 > days a week. This can be broken up into achievable > chunks (e.g. 3 > lots of 10 minutes). Doing more exercise, and > perhaps more strenuous > exercise, may produce additional health benefits, > and we are > beginning to document the fact that resistance > exercise also is of > benefit. We desperately need a call to action to > address the problem > of sedentary-living patterns that are prevalent in > people of all > ages, both genders, all socio-economic status > strata, and in all > racial and ethnic groups. > > ========================== > Carruthers > Wakefield, UK > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 Dr. Ralph- I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of the fat gene present. 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs to claim it's in their GENES, is it! I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to immobile sofa slugs any time. I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA -------------- Original message -------------- Thank you for posting this. I have been preaching this to whomever would listen that the problem with obesity caused by a lack of activity than by poor diet. There have been numerous studies both in children as well as adults that have shown this to be true and yet we keep pointing at diets as the way to treat obesity. I have posted a number of these studies in this forum over the years. They seldom draw many comments but various nutritional studies seem to get everyone focused. I have always felt that proper exercise and activity can make up for even a poor diet and on the other hand a good diet cannot make up for an inactive lifestyle. Before any one gets upset with me, I am not trying to infer that we should not strive to follow a sensible diet. Is there anyway we can get the full article? [The full article can be downloaded at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/nbu/32/2] Ralph Giarnella MD Southington Ct USA --- carruthersjam wrote: > The below article may be of some interest. The > article concludes > that " there is no doubt that it is easier than ever > to be sedentary. > Our inactive lifestyles are the major cause of > obesity, rather than > the food/drink we consume; although portion sizes > have increased and > there are more palatable, energy-dense foods, the > predominant cause > of obesity is the reduction in our energy > expenditure. While energy > intake has stayed the same or perhaps even gone down > in recent years, > inactivity has steadily increased. Everyone knows > that being > physically active is good for you, but so many > people remain > sedentary, and the most common reason given is lack > of time. " > > ANNUAL BNF LECTURE > Physical inactivity: a major public health problem > S. N. Blair > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467- > 3010.2007.00632.x > > Nutrition Bulletin > Volume 32 Issue 2 Page 113-117, June 2007 > > http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467- > 3010.2007.00632.x > > This paper is based on Professor Blair's lecture > given at the Royal > College of Physicians, London, on 24 November 2006. > > This lecture will review some of the current data > relating sedentary > living and low fitness levels with health status, > describe briefly > how we might use physical activity as a clinical > intervention, and > include a brief discussion of what we can do to > address the major > public health problem of physical inactivity. > > The topic of physical inactivity is a young > discipline. The ancient > physicians and philosophers knew that physical > activity was good for > health, and humans evolved to be active animals. > However, systematic > research on physical activity and health only began > in the latter > half of the 20th century. The man who invented this > field was > Professor , who carried out a classical study > in the 1950s of > 31 000 London transport workers, in which he > observed that the > conductors of the double-decker buses had much lower > rates of > coronary occlusion than the drivers ( et al. > 1953) (see Fig. > 1). He attributed this to the fact that the > conductors climbed up and > down the stairs all day, while the drivers sat in > their seats. He > also carried out further work around this time, > which concluded that > physical inactivity did cause coronary artery > disease, and this was > really the beginning of the work investigating the > role of physical > activity as a public health issue...... > > ...Physical activity is a complex behaviour and, > therefore, difficult > to measure. Historically, studies looked at > occupational categories > to assess physical activity levels, but this is no > longer useful as > occupations requiring a high degree of energy > expenditure have > greatly diminished today. Many studies have used > self-reported levels > of physical activity during a period of time, but > such measures are > prone to error. Fitness is a more objective measure > of physical > activity.... > > > Effect of physical activity in older age > > Activity and fitness have been shown to be > protective in every > subgroup of the population, including older women > and men. For > example, men and women aged 60 years and over in the > ACLS with > moderate or high levels of fitness had 30% and 40% > lower mortality > respectively than those who were least fit, after > adjusting for > potentially confounding variables (Blair & Wei > 2000). Interestingly, > while physical activity is associated with reduced > blood pressure and > lipid levels, it was still protective after > adjusting for these > clinical measures, suggesting that a number of other > biological > pathways and mechanisms are involved..... > > ....Exciting research also has been published in the > past 2–3 years > demonstrating that physical activity can preserve > brain function and > help avoid senile dementia. This includes > epidemiological studies and > also laboratory studies of brain scans investigating > brain size and > function. For example, Larson et al. (2006) showed > that men and women > aged 65 years and over who carried out moderate > activity three or > more times per week had 40% lower risk of developing > dementia than > those who were more sedentary. Wang et al. (2006) > demonstrated older > people scoring higher on short physical performance > battery scores (a > measure of fitness or function) had lower risk of > developing senile > dementia. > > Muscular strength has been recognised as a marker of > functional > capacity for some time, but it has only recently > been investigated as > another measure of fitness and linked with different > health outcomes. > > What do we do about the toxic environment that > produces obesity and > inactivity? > > There is no doubt that it is easier than ever to be > sedentary. Our > inactive lifestyles are the major cause of obesity, > rather than the > food/drink we consume; although portion sizes have > increased and > there are more palatable, energy-dense foods, the > predominant cause > of obesity is the reduction in our energy > expenditure. While energy > intake has stayed the same or perhaps even gone down > in recent years, > inactivity has steadily increased. Everyone knows > that being > physically active is good for you, but so many > people remain > sedentary, and the most common reason given is lack > of time. > > The consensus public health recommendation is for > adults to achieve > 30 minutes of moderate activity (e.g. brisk walking) > on at least 5 > days a week. This can be broken up into achievable > chunks (e.g. 3 > lots of 10 minutes). Doing more exercise, and > perhaps more strenuous > exercise, may produce additional health benefits, > and we are > beginning to document the fact that resistance > exercise also is of > benefit. We desperately need a call to action to > address the problem > of sedentary-living patterns that are prevalent in > people of all > ages, both genders, all socio-economic status > strata, and in all > racial and ethnic groups. > > ========================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 We had the same story here in Oz about one or two bad genes. Most newspaper articles though never mentioned that if you were hit with even the two bad gene option, it ment just 2-3 kilograms of extra weight. I just came across this story. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/16/good-nutrition-can\ -overcome-bad-genes.aspx Scientists in New Zealand are dispelling the common myth that obesity is caused by “bad genes.” In what is referred to as a breakthrough discovery, scientists from Auckland University’s Liggins Institute have discovered that genetic pre-disposition to obesity can be reversed through good nutrition in early childhood. Their research shows that when a mother is undernourished, her child’s body is pre-set to cope with a life of scarcity; therefore, the energy-dense, fast-food diet of the Western world results in children who are likely to become fat. In laboratory tests, newborn offspring from both well-fed and undernourished rats were given leptin, a hormone that signals to the body when it has eaten enough. When they became adults, the long-term effects were measured by looking at genes that regulate metabolism in the liver. Rats from well-fed mothers reacted to leptin in the opposite way to those from undernourished mothers. The researchers urge mothers to eat a more balanced diet (with the right amounts of protein and vitamins) during pregnancy. However, if the fetus is under-nourished in the womb, the long-term effects can still be corrected through good nutrition. Sharah Sydney Australia Re: Physical Inactivity Dr. Ralph- I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of the fat gene present. 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs to claim it's in their GENES, is it! I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to immobile sofa slugs any time. I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Genes, Genes, Genes! It's not my fault, it's my genes fault. My parents gave me these genes and I am stuck with them. Dr. Bruce Lipton says hogwash; it's the interpretation and expression of those genes that leads to changes in our bodies. http://www.brucelipton.com/ We have 50 Trillion cells and they live in almost perfect harmony & those cells have the same basic metabolic functions as we have. In essence each of those 50 trillion cells is a mini-me. Our intentions control those cells because of the release of neuro-chemicals that flood the cells from our thoughts. A 3 lb fat difference in those with the fat gene compared to those without is just another variation in our evolution. Dr Bruce Lipton even goes as far as saying that drug side-effect are really the over-all effects and the intended effect from a drug is a side-effect. When a person takes an typical drug the chemicals are released to every cell the chemical touches instead of going to the site of the specific intent. The receptor sites on those effected cells will trigger a cascade effect of non-intended results. http://www.candacepert.com/ Dr Candace Pert is an expert on receptor sites and discovered the opiate & canaboid receptors. Drugs mimic the chemicals we produce every day, it's our response from the receptor sites on each of our cells that determines how well those drugs work or how well we are in general. A simple example is insulin resistance; people with Metabolic Syndrome or mild diabetes need more insulin to do the same job as a person who is healthy. After a while the pancreas get tired and shuts down & then the person has to rely on the drug insulin instead of the naturally produced insulin. When a person is hypoglycemic they react to short bursts of simple sugars by producing too much insulin and overworking the pancreas. If a person who is hypoglycemic changes their diet soon enough the pancreas can rest and become healthy again; otherwise that person will get Metabolic Syndrome & continue the downward spiral. Dan Gilliland San Diego, CA. 92107 http://dangilliland.typepad.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I really am aghast at some of the things both the academics permit in usage of their studies and the media puts out. For example, the " obesity gene " number has been out for some time now, yes? Only now I find a note telling " the rest of the story " in that it's a 2-3 kg or about 3-6 lbs difference from someone without that gene. i.e. the people who are claiming a " fat gene " made them do it are well, possibly fat for other reasons, a major one being lack of activity? the accommodation of such persons and outright ENCOURAGEMENT in some ways yields MORE OF THE SAME. It's interesting that in Oz you folks are now trying to bust this myth open publicly and make sure it gets out in the media. Another example was the old " drink 8 glasses of water a day " which was apparently the truncation of a study that showed you get part of your water FROM FOOD intake. <laughing> Recently there was a new one that got plastered all over the media in screaming headlines... " GRAPEFRUIT EATING CAN INCREASE YOUR BREAST CANCER RISK BY 30% " . The premise was that eating even 1/4 of a normal grapefruit daily was associated with a 30% increase in your risk of breast cancer. As I actually like and enjoy grapefruit, I felt a wish to stampede along with the rest of the startled mass of humanity....until I hunted down MORE INFORMATION. It took an hour of internet searching and reading but I finally find it's a study of over 50,000 women. That approximately 1600 turned up with cancer (it did not say how many breast cancers, this was all cancers?). OF THE 1600, some who ate grapefruit were 30% more likely to get breast cancer....? If anybody else has chased this one down and I am in error, please feel free to bring up a better synopsis? BUT after doing this reading I'd say your risk is very low and eat the grapefruit lol... We have had some very interesting discussions here about the gap between academics and coaches/athletes in the field, right? We obviously need a better cooperation between the media and it's ways of shock therapy and the academics they clearly misquote or ?. Are some academics seeking to get more press by trying to make their own studies more " sensational " too? At a more personal level, every time one of these " studies " gets loose, a person who works in a health care or training/coaching field ends up having to try to figure out what the truth is and then try to answer the panicked questions you get every time something like this crops up...! Three of my clients instantly swore off grapefruit and well, even a reality check of that whole " 1 in 8 " quoted lifetime risk of breast cancer would not persuade them that they are overreacting. It's like saying " heart disease is the number one killer of women " . Ok perhaps it is but EVERYONE MUST DIE OF SOMETHING AT SOME POINT! If granny lives to be 110, she still has to DIE OF SOMETHING. A good candidate for a body part to simply wear OUT and cause death could be the heart, as that is a very busy working part, day in, day out, awake and sleeping lol. Fewer media stampedes and more of a useful herding mechanism perhaps to get the sofa slugs OFF the sofas? I believe that if we could move them, eventually they would get a better desire to eat better anyway...<grin> as most who work out vigorously do tend to eat in a better fashion over time! It is a natural progression? Anyway I look forward to the discussion on all this and perhaps some brainstorming among our good academics and docs here as to how to work better with the media and maybe do some good? The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA --------- Re: Physical Inactivity Dr. Ralph- I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of the fat gene present. 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs to claim it's in their GENES, is it! I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to immobile sofa slugs any time. I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 > > Dr. Ralph- > > I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of the fat gene present. > > 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs to claim it's in their GENES, is it! > > I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to immobile sofa slugs any time. > > I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? > **** The below extracts are relevant - the article concludes: " " Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is our lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity crisis that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that we can turn the tide in the opposite direction. " " FACTS BEHIND THE HEADLINES Obesity – should we blame our genes? B. Aisbitt British Nutrition Foundation, London, UK Nutrition Bulletin Volume 32 Issue 3 Page 183-186, September 2007 In April this year, a flurry of headlines including `Proof: there IS a gene that makes you fat' (Daily Mail, 16 April 2007), `Fat gene found by scientists' (The Times, 13 April 2007) and `Doctors discover the fat gene' (The Sun, 13 April 2007) followed the publication of a study that had found that different forms of a gene, known as FTO, were associated with obesity (Frayling et al. 2007). This article will explore the findings of this study and our current knowledge about the genetics of obesity..... .....The examples shown here are just a few of the many associations that have been drawn between an individual's genetic makeup and their risk of becoming obese. Much research, including the recent findings on the FTO gene, supports the idea that there is a genetic component in the causes of obesity. However, there are many other factors that potentially affect the development of obesity and thus it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the effect might be due to genetics. Further knowledge about an increased genetic risk of obesity may help to motivate people to try and eat a healthy diet and increase their level of physical activity. Conversely, it could also bring about a sense that the development of obesity is out of one's individual control, as it is determined by our genes rather than lifestyle, and therefore there is no point in trying to change one's lifestyle for the better. In time, knowledge of the genetic causes of obesity may help to develop treatments and to target interventions. It is interesting to note that many of the polymorphisms mentioned above are for genes involved in the regulation of appetite, and perhaps this information could encourage those trying to treat obesity to focus more on this aspect. ***Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is our lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity crisis that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that we can turn the tide in the opposite direction.*** =================== Carruthers Wakefield, UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 The media exists on sensationalism. The problem is most people don't read past the headlines. Another problem is understanding the statistics quoted. The incidence of something can be said to increase 10 fold by going from one in five million to 10 in five million. Even for the science community, unless you read the original article and see if the structure of the study stands up to scrutiny, misunderstandings abound. Only by being diligent, can true conclusions be reached. Bruce J. Nadler M.D. Los Angeles, CA carruthersjam wrote: > > Dr. Ralph- > > I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of the fat gene present. > > 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs to claim it's in their GENES, is it! > > I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to immobile sofa slugs any time. > > I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? > **** The below extracts are relevant - the article concludes: " " Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is our lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity crisis that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that we can turn the tide in the opposite direction. " " FACTS BEHIND THE HEADLINES Obesity – should we blame our genes? B. Aisbitt British Nutrition Foundation, London, UK Nutrition Bulletin Volume 32 Issue 3 Page 183-186, September 2007 In April this year, a flurry of headlines including `Proof: there IS a gene that makes you fat' (Daily Mail, 16 April 2007), `Fat gene found by scientists' (The Times, 13 April 2007) and `Doctors discover the fat gene' (The Sun, 13 April 2007) followed the publication of a study that had found that different forms of a gene, known as FTO, were associated with obesity (Frayling et al. 2007). This article will explore the findings of this study and our current knowledge about the genetics of obesity..... ....The examples shown here are just a few of the many associations that have been drawn between an individual's genetic makeup and their risk of becoming obese. Much research, including the recent findings on the FTO gene, supports the idea that there is a genetic component in the causes of obesity. However, there are many other factors that potentially affect the development of obesity and thus it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the effect might be due to genetics. Further knowledge about an increased genetic risk of obesity may help to motivate people to try and eat a healthy diet and increase their level of physical activity. Conversely, it could also bring about a sense that the development of obesity is out of one's individual control, as it is determined by our genes rather than lifestyle, and therefore there is no point in trying to change one's lifestyle for the better. In time, knowledge of the genetic causes of obesity may help to develop treatments and to target interventions. It is interesting to note that many of the polymorphisms mentioned above are for genes involved in the regulation of appetite, and perhaps this information could encourage those trying to treat obesity to focus more on this aspect. ***Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is our lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity crisis that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that we can turn the tide in the opposite direction.*** =================== Bruce J. Nadler, M.D. Nip Tuck Fitness LA Certified Personal Trainer American College of Sports Medicine International Sports Sciences Assoc. www.niptuckfitness.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Most of the research I have seen on nutrigenomics shows that most if not all of these obesity related factors have no impact unless challenged with a poor diet or sedentary lifestyle. In other words, those with the " normal " polymorphism didn't gain as much weight or develop the obesity related results as the " bad genes " did for similar diets, yet the differences disappear when a normal diet is followed and physical activity performed. The study " Polymorphisms in candidate obesity genes and their interaction with dietary intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids affect obesity risk in a sub-sample of the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort " in Eur J Nutr 41 : 210–221 (2002) (Nieters A et al) showed a very interesting regression table of various polymorphisms and their odds risk of developing obesity. The values ranged between 1-4, but two separate equations showed sedentary lifestyle (used a value of 1) against 1-2 hrs exercise (.38) and > 2 hrs exercise (.28) per week, not accounting for polymorphisms. In other words, > 2hrs per week exercise decreased obesity odds by 3.5. 2 hrs week corresponds with the " 30 minutes of physical activity on most days " recommendation, and assuming light exercise may expend about 600 kcal per week or " prevent " 9 lbs of weight gain per year. Over time these 9lbs / yr would add up, but I suspect exercise is providing more weight loss benefits at the gene / mRNA level than simply the 600 kcal per week, just as the obesity genes combined with sedentary / poor diet contribute to weight gain and other risk factors. Witt Dallas TX > > > > Dr. Ralph- > > > > I saw a note the other day saying the genes that " cause obesity " > are likely to account for about 3 lbs vs those without any copy of > the darned gene, and about 6 lbs difference if you have two copies of > the fat gene present. > > > > 6 lbs, about 3 kg, is hardly enough for these spreading sofa slugs > to claim it's in their GENES, is it! > > > > I stand by my observation that the only way to get some of these > people off their excuses and butts is to burn the sofas out from > under them. I'd prefer healthy fluffy people who are mobile to > immobile sofa slugs any time. > > > > I mean, I am not insensitive to those who are out of commission due > to injury, illness, or debilitating disease... but watching the > scooters in the stores proliferate and eyeballing just WHO is on > those is really, really looking like we as a society sell them chips > and soda and then give them the rider scooter to buy more of it and > expend less energy doing it?? yikes! First the problem gets well, > obvious, spreads, and then stores make it easier to well, get LESS > exercise by providing scooters now??? Can we get scooters banned for > everybody who doesn't have a handicapped placard on their cars??? > > > > **** > The below extracts are relevant - the article concludes: > > " " Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is our > lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity crisis > that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce the > amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that we > can turn the tide in the opposite direction. " " > > FACTS BEHIND THE HEADLINES > Obesity – should we blame our genes? > B. Aisbitt British Nutrition Foundation, London, UK > > Nutrition Bulletin > Volume 32 Issue 3 Page 183-186, September 2007 > > In April this year, a flurry of headlines including `Proof: there IS > a gene that makes you fat' (Daily Mail, 16 April 2007), `Fat gene > found by scientists' (The Times, 13 April 2007) and `Doctors discover > the fat gene' (The Sun, 13 April 2007) followed the publication of a > study that had found that different forms of a gene, known as FTO, > were associated with obesity (Frayling et al. 2007). This article > will explore the findings of this study and our current knowledge > about the genetics of obesity..... > > ....The examples shown here are just a few of the many associations > that have been drawn between an individual's genetic makeup and their > risk of becoming obese. Much research, including the recent findings > on the FTO gene, supports the idea that there is a genetic component > in the causes of obesity. However, there are many other factors that > potentially affect the development of obesity and thus it is > difficult to determine exactly how much of the effect might be due to > genetics. > > Further knowledge about an increased genetic risk of obesity may help > to motivate people to try and eat a healthy diet and increase their > level of physical activity. Conversely, it could also bring about a > sense that the development of obesity is out of one's individual > control, as it is determined by our genes rather than lifestyle, and > therefore there is no point in trying to change one's lifestyle for > the better. > > In time, knowledge of the genetic causes of obesity may help to > develop treatments and to target interventions. It is interesting to > note that many of the polymorphisms mentioned above are for genes > involved in the regulation of appetite, and perhaps this information > could encourage those trying to treat obesity to focus more on this > aspect. ***Overall though, there is no avoiding the fact that it is > our lifestyle, rather than our genes that has led to the obesity > crisis that we are facing today. It is only by finding ways to reduce > the amount of energy we consume, and increase our energy output, that > we can turn the tide in the opposite direction.*** > > =================== > Carruthers > Wakefield, UK > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 >. . . I suspect exercise is providing more weight loss > benefits at the gene / mRNA level than simply the 600 kcal per week, > just as the obesity genes combined with sedentary / poor diet > contribute to weight gain and other risk factors. This is a fine point. Gene-environment interactions are very important. Having a gene for some characteristic does not mean it always gets expressed -- the genotype is not the phenotype. Genes get switched on by environmental, social and personal factors, perhaps like eating too much and moving too little. posted some info about NEAT recently, that's 'non-exercise activity thermogenesis'. In the studies below, The average difference between those who have a high NEAT energy use and those who do not is about 350 kcalories each day, with 2000 kcals at the extreme. And the same work showed that obese individuals tend to sit for 2 hours more per day than sedentary, lean people. So is correct. It's about getting people off the sofa and moving more -- and not necessarily organised exercise activity. NEAT seems to interact biologically with the appetite response, so there is an additional homeostatic mechanism working here, perhaps at the gene level. Levine JA, Lanningham- LM, McCrady SK, Krizan AC, Olson LR, Kane PH, Jensen MD, MM. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 2005 Jan 28;307 (5709):584-6. J Intern Med. 2007 Sep;262(3):273-87. Nonexercise activity thermogenesis - liberating the life-force. Levine JA. BTW, it's now a virus (yet another): " Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study " http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2030232620070820 Gympie, Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 " Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study " I think stronger viruses that causes obesity are the viruses of " I'm too busy to workout " & " health-food tastes like cardboard " . I'm sure the study of the virus has some valid points and the virus should be studied more but everyone is looking for the Holy Grail of why something happens so they can apply their Silver Bullet approach to a solution. Dan Gilliland San Diego, CA http://dangilliland.typepad.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Well, there's another way of looking at it too. Seven deadly sins, right? " Sloth " makes the list, as does " Greed " . Food like any other thing within the governance of man and woman can be used for good or for ill. A good use of FIRE would be to burn the sofas out from under them. Instead of looking for " excuses " or " new drugs or ways to market them " , we need to get people doing what's most difficult and in the long term, saves the government and themselves more problems overall. As for viruses, I consider the MEDIA the worst possible infection for the most part...<grin>. The media and the electronic devices which spread its infectious tendencies, like everything else, can be used for good or for ill...but it's much easier to use it in a less than wise fashion! The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA ============================= -------------- Original message -------------- >. . . I suspect exercise is providing more weight loss > benefits at the gene / mRNA level than simply the 600 kcal per week, > just as the obesity genes combined with sedentary / poor diet > contribute to weight gain and other risk factors. This is a fine point. Gene-environment interactions are very important. Having a gene for some characteristic does not mean it always gets expressed -- the genotype is not the phenotype. Genes get switched on by environmental, social and personal factors, perhaps like eating too much and moving too little. posted some info about NEAT recently, that's 'non-exercise activity thermogenesis'. In the studies below, The average difference between those who have a high NEAT energy use and those who do not is about 350 kcalories each day, with 2000 kcals at the extreme. And the same work showed that obese individuals tend to sit for 2 hours more per day than sedentary, lean people. So is correct. It's about getting people off the sofa and moving more -- and not necessarily organised exercise activity. NEAT seems to interact biologically with the appetite response, so there is an additional homeostatic mechanism working here, perhaps at the gene level. Levine JA, Lanningham- LM, McCrady SK, Krizan AC, Olson LR, Kane PH, Jensen MD, MM. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 2005 Jan 28;307 (5709):584-6. J Intern Med. 2007 Sep;262(3):273-87. Nonexercise activity thermogenesis - liberating the life-force. Levine JA. BTW, it's now a virus (yet another): " Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study " http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2030232620070820 Gympie, Australia ======================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.