We’ve had a number of interesting discussions on obesity in America and Europe lately. I’ve had about enough of those discussions, however, because any time I say things which are perfectly factual, I get responses from people who attempt to psychoanalyze me, make wild guesses about my medical history, make tedious efforts to explain things I already understand and which are not relevant, and references to studies which superficially appear to refute the facts as I’ve laid them out even though they don’t. Worst off, people keep throwing thermodynamics into this discussion as if it’s the key to everything, which is about like saying that thermodynamics are key to making a car operate correctly–which may be true at some level, but is superficial at best.
It’s beyond frustrating, it’s maddening. So, in order to try to help some of you really understand the argument, I want you to imagine the following thought experiment, and run it through your head a few times:
I have here a little pill I’ve created. What it does is, it helps your fat cells to store energy. In fact, it stimulates them to store energy at an accelerated rate. The fuel intakes to the fat cells are blown wide open by it, and they stick that way. However, it completely blocks the fuel release valves. No matter what the person taking the pill does, her fat cells will not release any energy, because those valves are completely shut down.
What do you think would be the result of this hypothetical pill if you took it for a year?
As an extension of the first thought experiment, go a little further: what if I told you that after taking this pill for a year, the fat cells get permanently stuck, and the best you can do afterward is open the fuel outflow valves just a tiny bit?
I won’t be participating in the discussion, but talk amongst yourselves.
*Update* [Smacking head on forehead] Why didn’t I see it before? Clearly the laws of thermodynamics make it abundantly clear that it is impossible to alter the settings on a fuel valve, or to clog fuel lines. Why, any child could understand that!
{ 51 comments }
Dean,
Firstly what you’ve said was not factual aside from the aspect that it’s difficult to lose weight. Your fruit fly news article and adiposity 101 have no merit in establishing anything in these discussion.Â
Secondly, Edgar and I have never tried to "psychoanalyze" or "make wild guesses" about your "medical history." All we’ve said is your obese, it’s a matter of public record with your photos on the internet, there’s no speculation about it. Â
Thirdly, you clearly dont understand the fundamental principles as perfectly illustrated by this statement of yours;
 "Worst off, people keep throwing thermodynamics into this discussion as if it’s the key to everything, which is about like saying that thermodynamics are key to making a car operate correctly–which may be true at some level, but is superficial at best."
Thermodynamics is the basis of everything regarding a car, how it operates, hell even the radio’s operation is based on thermodynamics. How do you think a car moves? It converts chemical energy into mechanical energy (motion), and electrical energy (stored in the battery, used for your radio/light/AC).  If you ACTUALLY understood termodynamics you’d know that it’s the basis for everything in the universe. That’s precisely why it’s one of the most fundamental principles of physics, and why chemists learn it the first day in class!Â
Lastly, what is this magic pill supposed to be analogous too in the human body? Because unless there’s some actual real life analogous principle this is a total waste of time. I might as well propose the magic astronaut that radiates green light beams to keep obese people depressed, fat, irritable and stuck on internet blogs 24/7.
"I want you to imagine the following thought experiment, and run it through your head a few times:"
No thanks.
First you need to make up an experiment based in reality, and at least to some extent based on science.
I’m not going to get into obesity discussion except to say that JohnDakota is my new hero. I’m gonna try to tackle the "Thought Experiment".
So I take this pill that blows open my fuel intake valves but blocks my release valves. Wouldn’t I be dead relatively quickly due to my kidney’s shutting down, if I couldn’t expel the fuel??
What do you think would be the result of this hypothetical pill if you took it for a year?
Death, well before the year was up.
It’s simple thermodynamics. :)
I’m with Mark. In the first thought experiment, you will quickly die of starvation because your fat cells will soak up all the available energy (unless you eat at least 1500-2000 kcal/day more than your fat cells are capable of absorbing), leaving none to maintain your base metabolism. You’ll accumulate fat while the rest of your body is metabolized for fuel. The pill would essentially turn your fat cells into a cancer-like growth.
In the second thought experiement, it would be theoretically possible to lose weight, but only very slowly. It might not be practical, depending on how strongly your body’s hunger mechanism protested your attempts to eat less.
We know that neither thought experiment is a good model of obesity, since we know that obese people lose weight rapidly when physically restrained from eating more than a small amount (through gastric bypass surgery, famine, the POW camp example raised in an earlier thread, etc) and keep the weight off so long as the physical deprevation continues. It’s only when we study conscious efforts to eat less when food is readily available that we see high rates of failure.
Seriously guys.. what does this ‘thought experiment’ have to do with anything in reality? If you want to just do a thought experiment for the fun of it, fine. But please don’t think this has anything to do with biological reality unless there’s a physiological link that’s analogous to these pills.Â
I’m worried that because Dean and Co. have been unable to prove with any solid evidence their position they’re trying to slip it in through these ‘thought experiments’ now that have no basis in human physiology.
I think all Dean’s thought experiment is trying to illustrate is that metabolisms can run differently, according to genetics and environmental factors. So raw energy in minus (estimated) raw energy out in terms of calories does not necessarily account for how an individual metabolism utilizes or stores those calories, or relative variances in how people lose fat.
But the responses are:
"If you ACTUALLY understood termodynamics you’d know that it’s the basis for everything in the universe.’
I’m not sure Dean indicated not understanding thermodynamics, he merely intimated that citing thermodynamics when describing the complexity of varying human metabolism is "superficial."
"First you need to make up an experiment based in reality, and at least to some extent based on science."
While Dean’s analogy isn’t exactly this, this may apply:
http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2006/10/12/Science/Genetic.Predisposition.Can.Affect.Weight.And.Fitness-2348990.shtml
"Scientists estimate there may be upward of 250 genes linked to obesity and many more associated with other elements of body type such as muscle size or strength. "
I’ll give you an example not related to chemicals that regulate appetite: if you have a gene that reduces production of myostatin, which inhibits muscle growth, you will naturally produce greater amounts of lean muscle mass which in turn accelerate your body’s utilization of consumed calories and minimize fat storage.
Next:
"So I take this pill that blows open my fuel intake valves but blocks my release valves. Wouldn’t I be dead relatively quickly due to my kidney’s shutting down, if I couldn’t expel the fuel??"
His thought experiment is an exaggeration. Try imagining it in a matter of degree less than an absolute paradigm.
Seriously guys.. what does this ‘thought experiment’ have to do with anything in reality?
I don’t agree with all of his opinions on this subject, and regarding Dean’s thought experiment, I know of nothing that specifically mimics fat storage as he describes it.
But the fact remains that different metabolisms utilize, store and excrete ingested energy differently, that fat cells have an evolved survival instinct that causes them to maintain and create more fat cells, and these factors can make losing weight more difficult for obese folks in a way that has more factors than simple calories consumed – physical activity.
That said, many obese folks can permanently shed weight to non-obese levels with lifestyle (diet, activity) changes. Some may not, due to metabolic predispositions.
The fact that Dean suggests that thermodynamics is only ‘superficial’ when discussing topics directly related to energy (obese people, and CAR MECHANICS) specifically illustrates his total lack of understanding of thermodynamics. It’s not that he’s read about the topic and dismissed it for a rational reason, it’s that he doesn’t know what it is, and therefore dismisses it because it’s the ‘boogie man’ that dares to blow over his card house.
Relating to your news site reference, scientists have estimated many things. Pertaining directly to human genetics they estimated we had >250k genes at one point, that estimation was droped to 100k at the discovery of alternative splicing, then 35k-50k at the sequencing of the human genome. Even now the estimate has been dropped to 25k. Scientists estimate things all the time, it doesn’t make them right. In fact most of the time they’re wrong, just like the rest of us. What’s important is what they produce as results, and as far as I know scientists have not established the functions of 250 genes that are definitively linked to obesity. Just look through the pubmed gene databank, you’ll see it all the time. Putative methyltransferase, putative kinase, putative.. It means it could be, but hasn’t yet been shown to work on anything.Â
So while your idea is still right, people while still being ‘human’ they vary significantly in their abilities to burn off energy. That has never been debated. But to suggest that obese people somehow defy the laws that govern the universe though this ‘thought experiment’ it’s absolutely stupid. Tell me the gene, or gene product, or even the biological process that’s analogous to this hypothetical gene and i’ll consider this.Â
Regarding the rest of your post, it’s pretty much right. I’d only be nit picky about the word choice “excrete.” I’m not going to act as a dictionary, but you may be well served to look up it’s use as it’s not exactly correct here.
And Dean (I’m speaking directly to you now), editing the article is just like participating in the discussion. So are you going to participate, or not?
Dean –
Meaning no disrespect to your readers, I don’t think some of them are quite ready for thought experiments. I remember the famous one in which Einstein pictured himself following a light beam around. That is obviously impossible, and the experiment clearly had nothing to do with either reality or science.
It was probably just a dodge on Einstein’s part to avoid the brilliance of some arguments that the real scientists around him were making.Â
sorry..Â
"analogous to this hypothetical gene"Â should read "analogous to this hypothetical pill."
Phil,
"It was probably just a dodge on Einstein’s part to avoid the brilliance of some arguments that the real scientists around him were making."
That is not a dig on your readers, but it’s a dig on Dean. In this association;
Einstein is to Dean as the ‘brilliant real scientists" is to his Deans readers.
John,
I’ll assume that you’re only pretending to be that inept at parsing irony in the interests of carrying on the joke. Well played!
I believe at this point it would be fair to say that JohnDakota has made his mind up, and decided that he must oppose dangerous heretics like Dean. Inquiry that threatens orthodoxy must not be tolerated, of course.
Nevermind that the orthodoxy has been held for most of the increase in obesity. It’s a failure of people, not the orthodoxy. They are failures, sinners who persist in refusing redemption. If only they would come to The Light…
… and he said to the drowning man, "Rise and walk, my son, and surely you shall be saved."
JohnDakota
You’re doing a lot of back-patting and after re-reading all the threads over the past 4 days I’m not sure why. As Bill notes above, all you provide are snarky comments and ad hominems that you think may make you sound intelligent, but do a disservice to our host and honestly don’t help your arguments much.Â
I suppose since I’m one of the "Dean & Co" who has been around here for 4 years, I’d like to think that I know the guy and can understand him better than you can after 4 days. Your statement "The fact that Dean suggests that thermodynamics is only ’superficial’ when discussing topics directly related to energy (obese people, and CAR MECHANICS) specifically illustrates his total lack of understanding of thermodynamics," is complete b-shit and an insult. I’m not big on internet apologies, so I’ll just state that your assumption is baseless and without merit.Â
Your complete disregard of anything beyond "if you are fat it’s your fault" shows that you are narrow minded as well, and not as smart as you suggest. It grossly simplifies a complex issue which Dean and others – including the very scientists whose paper you quote ad nauseum but apparently never read - are trying to understand.
At the very least you should stop assuming that you are smarter than everyone else here. If you pull your head out of your @ss you might find that you can learn a thing or two from us stupid folk.
Even though I am nominally on the same "side" of the argument as John, I wholeheartedly endorse Scott’s comment above in every particular.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..the Qur’an shooter
Scott,
Your last paragraph says it all. Unfortunately, thats the exact "vibe" people get from the host around here.
JohnDakota is dishing back the same crap at Dean, as Dean is to us. If I recall correctly, when Dean was 29, he was a quite strapping young dude. Medium built, not super thin, not super fat. At 29!! You think, genetics would have kicked in by then. He fell into the same trap I did. He let society dictate what was healthy and what was obese. He went into a diet craze period and now his body is so messed up, as is mine, it would take years just to detox it and start fresh.
Rather than devote the time to do this, he’d rather play "thought games" and explain why he’s genetically predisposed to being obese.
When I was 18 years old, I was 210lbs and thought I was fat. 18 years and about 15 diets later, I’m 335lbs. Yeah, some good I did myself there. But rather than come up with some lame ass way to rationalize genetics, I know the reason I continue to be fat is because I’d much rather eat Twinkies and play X-Box 360 all day than eat carrot sticks and run on a treadmill.
And of course those 15 diets you did didn’t dial back your metabolism even the tiniest bit, because as we all know the body doesn’t try to burn fewer calories when it’s been subjected to a period of near-starvation…
At least that’s what JohnDakota’s saying…
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..The Second Amendment, part 2
Also, in the interest of compromise, I am willing to state that while there is zero evidence that even morbidly obese people cannot as a *rule* lose weight, and keep it off, down towards normal BMI ranges, it is perfectly plausible that *some* obese people are genuinely trapped by genetics and metabolism to make doing so prohibitively difficult. One might argue that a man with a wire in his cortex leading to the pleasure region of the brain *should* have enough willpower to resist the current that sends him into blathering ecstasy when he does the "right" thing and paroxysms of pain when he does the "wrong" thing, but there are biological limits to our rational actions.
Hence, there surely are some people who are obese for whom weight loss via diet and activity is simply not practical. These people need to seek medical attention and surgical solutions before they die, because being obese may be "natural" for your metabolism but it is not and never is "healthy". Unless you are fine with dying an early death.
The study I linked to, and which John apparently wrote, executed, and funded out of his own pocket, shows that even morbidly obese people can lose weight. The sample size shows that such people are not statistical outliers (if they were, finding 700 of them would not be quite so easy). The selection criteria of the study I quoted (and which, I had actually discovered on my own a few weeks ago when we last had this debate, since I do know my way around Pubmed, but of course should be noted was completrely conceived, executed, and created out of void by John) are hardly so esoteric and extreme that only rare individuals qualified. In fact, I myself, who is 5’8" and lost 30 lbs from 176 to 146 over a year ago and have kept that weight off for a year, would have qualified for the study myself! And that is even though at no time was I ever outside the "normal" range of BMI! Think about what that implies regarding the selection criteria- that they are actually rather loose and generous, filtering out only the rapid weight cyclers.
as far as thermodynamics goes, if an obese person eats very little, and they do not draw energy from their fat, then they will have to draw some energy from somewhere. It is Dean’s contention that the ebergy comes from muscle, which is an unsupported assertion bt I will concede it is possible in some extreme cases where the poor person has an extreme metabolism. Such people would certainly qualify as medical curiosities and therefore you would expect to see discussion of them in the literature and in basic bio textbooks, if they are as common as Dean implies, but despite 9as I mentioned above) knowing my way around Pubmed I havent yet found anything on that. Maybe John, who has written most of the literature on PubMed on napkins while saving puppies with one hand, can dig something up.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..the Qur’an shooter
jerry, comparing Dean to John is pretty unbelievable. Dean may be a stubborn bastard but he operates form the assumption that if you explain things to smart people, they will agree with you (the super-rational fallacy, hardly a sin). John seems to think that everyone is less smart than he, and that we need to all bow down before him. Unfortunately, Elizabeth is as guilty of making unfounded assertions off the cuff, but she at least is pleasant about it. Dean tries to buttress his assertions, rather diligently, and is frustated that we dont fall into line because it is obvious to him why he is right. Thats not hubris, its just elevating reason to something it isnt – infallible. We can be perfectly reasonable, and wrong.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..the Qur’an shooter
With all these multiple threads, I’ve forgotten what my position is on all this.
Henceforth, on the question of obesity, I endorse:
1. Parts 1, 2, 4, 5 (subparts a-c, exclusive of b), 7 and 8 of Dean’s view;
2. Parts 3, 5, 6 (subparts e-k, exclusive of f), 8 and 9a of John Dakota’s view;
3. Parts 2,3 and 12 of Aziz’ view; and
4. The twinkie and X-Box defense articulated by Jerryk72.
Hank Barnes
p.s. No matter how fat I get, I will not eat a tofu burger.
To follow up on what Aziz said, there are undoubtedly people whose genetics, etc. leads to problems with metabolism, etc. What I would take issue with is that they represent a major share of the overweight/obese population. The crisis we are facing is not that some small portion of the population has a rare genetic disorder, but that a huge portion of the population has gotten significantly larger.
Since 1976, average calorie consumption has soared in the US by 23%, while the portion of the population that is obese went from 15% to 32% (this is from this publication from the USDA, but you can find similar numbers other places). Meanwhile, growth of white color jobs, explosion of IT, etc. has led to a seriously more sedentary lifestyle on average. So we have a surge of calorie consumption, a decrease in activity, and a surge in obesity – a seemingly major correlation. That doesn’t mean causation, but what would Occam’s Razor suggest? That the growth in obesity has followed from a surge in calorie consumption coupled with a decrease in activity, or that the surge in obesity followed from other more elaborate considerations (huge new numbers of people with the faulty genes, etc.)?
Everyone is talking about the studies that show people don’t keep weight off. Can someone point me to a study that shows a population of people that lose the weight originally through healthy diet and exercise, yet later put it back on while maintaining regular exercise and 2500 calories a day or less? That’s the crucial question here, isn’t it? And there needs to be some audit or control to it, as people (generally) have pretty warped senses of accurate calorie counts and appropriate portion sizes. This is a genuine request – I spend a lot of my professional time reading and analyzing medical literature and studies, but not very often in this area. If such a study like I suggest exists, I’d love to check it out.
Thermodynamics? Perhaps the second law indeed applies to the discussion and its protagonists herewith. What is with this new generation of reductionists? Have they no grasp of the temporal? Does not the thermodynamic "event" of a human life begin at conception and end at final decomposition, whether endothermic or exothermically acted upon? Physically, if we just look at conception/death as the interval of individual human energetics, whether we live 100 minutes or 100 years, this is the temporal interval of each human life. As for the processes during the life event, the quality of thermodynamics is expressed metabolically, however helpful or unhelpful to the particular human’s prospects for prolonged survival. The qualities of this thermodynamic expression are obedient to the laws of physics in that each human conceived will die, will manifest entropy and be obliterated over time. While that human lives, however, there are other rules native to the life event rooted in the metabolic process of life. To date, there are about 5,000 unique metabolic processes identified in human biology. That the typical post modern university-educated reductionist would have no idea what they are or how they work should be of no surprise to anyone. Personally, I have been amused how Dean’s thought experiment could trigger such a novel display of thought disorder. Reductionism is itself a ruse; and matters of life, and the matter of Life, are far more complex than we can yet contort our words to mathematically misapply, pretending Reason.
I defer to Sapolsky:
"I’m both a neurobiologist and a primatologist, and I’ve changed my mind about plenty of things in both of these realms. But the most fundamental change is one that transcends either of those disciplines — this was my realizing that the most interesting and important things in the life sciences are not going to be explained with sheer reductionism."
ROBERT SAPOLSKYÂ
Neuroscientist, Stanford University, Author, A Primate’s Memoir Â
My position is that Dean moved the goal posts to suit his versions of the discussion:
He started here on May 9,
"Eating less and exercising more†is shown, just like hundreds of studies before it, to be an utterly ineffective way to reverse obesity in any long-term or consistent manner. It’s nothing new. The only thing that’s shocking is how resiliant people are in their desperate desire to believe otherwise." Dean
Then, on May 15, Dean wrote:
"What no study has ever–and I do mean ever–shown is that you can take an average obese person and make them non-obese and keep them that way long term strictly through diet and exercise. The people who are exceptions are so rare they qualify as outliers that aren’t even statistically significant."
Then, on May 26, Dean wrote:
"Here is a statement: Not one study in the entire history of obesity research has shown that the majority of morbidly obese people can become non-obese and stay that way long-term through diet and exercise. Those obese people who do so are so rare they barely qualify as statistical outliers…
That is all I’ve got to say on this matter. I’m tired of wasting energy on it." Dean
Gee, the discussions were after all about morbid obesity as in… clinically severe obesity, is an abnormal obesity defined as the condition of having body weight over 100 lbs over an ideal body weight or having a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher
willem,
Robert Sapolsky Phd, would have serious problems with Dean’s approach and convoluted rambling explanatories.
However, I have deep respect for Sapolsky even since he decided God doesn’t exist when he was 12 years old.
Topically, this wiki should provide information of interest for those interested in human diet, metabolism and caloric restriction theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restricted_diet
Jerry72
Your last paragraph says it all. Unfortunately, thats the exact "vibe" people get from the host around here. JohnDakota is dishing back the same crap at Dean, as Dean is to us.Â
Dean said it first! Lord the internet hasn’t changed a bit in 20 years. What, is it populated only by 10 year olds?
I warned in the first thread (my comment 35) that the tone of the discussion was poor; people were talking past each other, not reading what the others were writing, leaping to conclusions, making assumptions, etc.
Was Dean part of this? I’ll leave that to the readers to decide. Was Dean to blame for John Dakota’s incessant whining about Aziz’s posting the link to the Klem article – which Dakota still hasn’t shown that he’s read it let alone understands it? No.
Dean is not a diet expert. He doesn’t claim to be. He’s asking questions and trying to learn about it. Funny, so am I and many other shareholders in "Dean & Co." He’s not stupid, nor is anyone else around here for that matter.
John Dakota hasn’t argued; he’s attacked and flamed.
 I can’t remember the last time I’ve read so many threads that say so little. If Dean has a "Best discussions" category, perhaps he should make a "worst" – just to show how NOT to argue.
John Dakota’s position – and the current paradigm is that if you are fat there is no one to blame but yourself. Yeah, well great. That’s not very helpful, not scientifically proven (see the Klem, Wing et al study), and to a recovering alcoholic like me sounds suspiciously like the "just don’t drink" mentality that existed before AA and lives on in Scientology.
People are getting fatter – not just in this country but even in places like Africa and Japan. I’ve lived in both and seen it first hand. No one is denying that choice isn’t involved in being obese – although a cognitive therapist might. What we are saying is that the problem is more complex than the current paradigm suggests and that to treat it we must do more as a society than telling fat people to shape up.
Unfortunately what could have been an excellent learning opportunity was lost in a pissing contest between those who believe obesity is a simple problem with a simple solution and those who believe the opposite.
Too bad.
Heh. By appearances, Sapolsky seems more than fit to be allowed to speak for himself, which one would think would be the appropriate thing to do.
The question begging to be asked: "What underlying metabolic factors change when adipose fat storage exceeds 100% of the presumed normal body weight for said individual’s age, sex and height?"
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, something important to survival has "broken" when a human retains weight in adipose fat which is double 100% of his expected normal weight and mass.
We are homeostatic organisms. In instances of profound obesity something more is going on than mere calorie intake or homeostasis and our evolutionary biology would work to select for the norm and not against it.
Another thought… Most of these patients have problems with glucose metabolism and sugars, and some have wondered about fungal burden and mycotoxins in the obese as a driver of pathological overproduction of adipose fat. Systemic fungal infections are physiologically not well differentiated; they’re systemic at the cellular level and can represent a considerable constituent of the body mass that is difficult to diagnostically measure. Adipose fat encapsulates and dilutes toxins. Some toxins, bacterial or fungal, may provoke a response in the body to not burn (consume) the contaminated fat. One thing is certain, there is more to morbid obesity than meets the eye. It is globally presenting in human populations. Perhaps it’s the livestock paradigm of feeding and food packaging. Perhaps it is merely the result of transportation and air conditioning technology reducing caloric use and slowing endothermic reactions. Whatever drives this trend, obesity is suboptimal and creates other pathological opportunities. When the body is in a suboptimal state, why wouldn’t other organismal entities find us fair game? Not all predators are arthropods. As an insular, singular organism, we are not alone. We are home to many "things" upon us and deep within.
Aziz,
Did you see the two references I posted? Do they count as any kind of foundation?
The question begging to be asked: "What underlying metabolic factors change when adipose fat storage exceeds 100% of the presumed normal body weight for said individual’s age, sex and height?" From an evolutionary biology standpoint, something important to survival has "broken" when a human retains weight in adipose fat which is double 100% of his expected normal weight and mass.
Indeed, it might be proposed that what has been broken is the evolutionary linkages in that humans were born to be field animals to rise with the sun, to travel long distance by foot, to eat when hungry on small animals, fruits, berries, pinenuts. White bread, farming, big Macs double cheese, burrito’s, enchilada’s, large fries, donuts, and assorted fake foods lead the willing into the echo chambers of fat farms, television, Mom or the school bus drives junior to school, soccer practice or straight to the junk food in the barrios and ghetto’s , movies with the two gallon size popcorn with melted butter, pizza delivery…
One might also propose that some other metabolic factors change seriously when couch potatoes are glued to the TV and the computer or when given the clicker.
Wait, Forget all that stuff about diet and exercise,
willem, eureka, I’ve found it, the answer is:
Insulin resistance and lipodystrophy:
"Insulin resistance is a state in which higher than normal concentrations of insulin are required for normal response. The most common underlying cause is central obesity, although primary insulin resistance in normal-weight individuals is also possible. Excess abdominal adipose tissue has been shown to release increased amounts of free fatty acids which directly affect insulin signalling, diminish glucose uptake in muscle, drive exaggerated triglyceride synthesis and induce gluconeogenesis in the liver.
Someone, please call GlaxoSmithK , get that exercise/diet pill rolling. Turn off the treadmill. Be thankful, one peer-reviewed article can save us all.
In the meantime, remember the human body is counting each and every calorie and whether you do or do not use it, the human body, effectively.
For those interested diet and caloric reduction theory, check out this wiki for a brief primer….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restricted_diet
Good cite, McK.
But I don’t get the incurious sarcasm.Â
willem,
The sarcasm is not important.
Elizabeth, I did read them, and they dont seem to contradict any of the compromise positions i have offered upthread. I will try, though I will not promise, to post them on the site as PDF full text later if I get time.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..the Qur’an shooter
willem, The sarcasm is not important.
Sorry, willem, I was unclear.
Sarcasm is important when Scott Kirwin drags out his horses to do the chips are down plop for the Dean defense.
i.e. against jerryk 72 and/or for or against the fuel intake valves.
Then, again, azzi, marches to the tune of his own druemmr.
I agree that diet and exercise are effective in some cases.
I think that trying to say those are the only valid steps closes off potential avenues for investigation. I would say that there are other things a person could alter, as well as existing and potential medical treatments.
My weight is under control, which is to say it’s in a range I’m comfortable with and my girlfriend finds pleasing. I’ve found that when I eat makes a big difference in my weight control, with avoiding naps after meals seeming helpful. I’ve also found that I can control the amount of heat I radiate by keeping my apartment cold, and that seems to add up.
I don’t know enough to make suggestions for someone who is obese, and it may be that there are currently no viable solutions for some people.Â
I do not approve of trying to shut off discussion.
Once again, a parallel universe is created where human beings run like broken down cars, suck in energy like black holes, and die swimming in their own fat if they suddenly stop eating pizza and ice cream.
Again, JD gets attacked because he points out the obvious: using a bizarre "thought experiment" proves nothing about obesity except that some obese people have an overactive imagination.
And As McKiernan has pointed out, Dean has moved the goalposts of this discussion so many times that even he forgot where he put them.
Maybe someone could do a study showing the relationship between people who have lame, self-serving pseudoscientific theories about why they can’t lose weight and actual obesity.
You are officially on notice, Edgar. Any more personal attacks on me and you’re banned.
Oh. John Dakota too.
And JerryK72.
By the way, goalposts not moved one inch, thanks. Not one study in the entire history of obesity research has shown that most obese people can become nonobese and stay that way long-term strictly through diet and exercise.
Not one. Aziz certainly hasn’t provided any, and neither have the vicious people above attacking me (of which he is not one).
To my non-surprise, those attacking me haven’t actually addressed the thought experiment. Because it would force them to acknowledge that applying thermodynamics to the human metabolism is even more complex than applying it to an automobile. So instead they simply make stuff up about me. Whatever.
BTW, the ever-civil Aziz seems to think I think everyone should agree with me. I don’t know why that is. My assertion remains that no study has shown that most obese people can become nonobese through diet and exercise alone, and stay that way permanently. None ever has. That’s just a fact. You do with that fact what you will, and theorize about it all you want. It’s still a fact, and presenting studies on the less-than-1% of the population who achieve it won’t change that. [shrug]
You may, if you wish, construct all the theories that you want. At the end of the day, until you’ve given us a program that has a success rate better than the abysmal rate we currently have, you’re just giving personal theories and opinions.
God, I knew it was a mistake to even open this thread and read it, because I’d be forced to answer personal garbage thrown at me.
JerryK72, my estranged brother-in-law and godfather to my elder son, thinks I was lean when we met. I was not. I was in fact obese although I was in better shape than now. Today I weigh 10-15 pounds more than I did then. I don’t exercise as much as I should although I do exercise and am in fairly good shape. I don’t work as hard anymore to restrict my caloric intake and I don’t work out as obsessively as I did then, and probably some of the moderate weight regain is due to that. I’m just not willing to go back to the two hours a day I was exercising back then, and to the caloric restriction that was so unpleasant back then.
This is all stuff in my personal medical history that has no bearing on the discussion. But I felt like I had to respond to it as a personal attack, just to set the record straight.
I have the opposite spectrum in my own personal experience. I have always been scrawny. Even after taking up some weights after school I could at one point Military Press my own body weight in reps of 30 (which was 150 lbs), do 100 sit ups and push ups, etc… I was not "ripped" I never will be. There is such a thing as body type.
Even some medical doctors I have talked to ask that if a person is "rotund" but has normal blood pressure, no complaints of joint pain or signs of wear and tear caused by weight or any other signs and symptoms of health issues related to obesity then could this just be the person’s body type? I knew people that were into Martial Arts and all kinds of physical activities that were always chronically heavy set. Can you improve your life with diet and excercise? Of course. But, can everyone be a skinny model or a hulking mass of pure muscle? No and other people believe this as well.
That’s also true, JRogge. I was actively taking Karate classes when I met Jerry. And I was still obese by all medical definitions (body fat%, BMI, etc.). Still am. I wasn’t alone in my classes in that.
Diet and exercise are good for preventing obesity in most people, in retarding its progression in some, and in moderating the condition. For a lucky few, it completely eliminates the problem. They also help improve health. [shrug] I’ve said all this. I just don’t know what else I’m supposed to do.
Holy crap, I go away for an evening and all hell breaks loose!Â
Anyway, I’ve had some time to reflect and ya I was harsh on some people. Particularly Aziz, it is somewhat underhanded to repost an article someone else has dug up and claim it as your own data mining. That said, the article is not my intellecutal property, so I guess it’s fair game to post it as your own. I, in practice as a scientist, generally detail who’s directed me to the literature I use in the labs I’ve worked in. Conventions may vary though.Â
What I can see now as interpreted as ‘fat jokes’ were not intended that way. I had become frustrated and tired of the tip toeing around the issue. I’m sure you can understand how frustrated I was becoming having the goal posts moved constantly, having pseudo-articles quoted as scholarly (That’s you Dean), while my references to fundamental principles of physics and metabolism are brushed off because there’s not scholarly article dealing with them specifically (I’ve previously explained why that is ).Â
So just to address some of the jabs taken at me;
Phil, If you read the relationship in your Einstein story you’ll see the "is to" relationship I proposed is actually how it goes. At least that’s the case in the way it’s been worded.
Dishman, science is never an orthodoxy that’s not to be challanged. Challanging the principles is the fundamental principle of science. I’ve never said don’t challange me, I’ve said don’t challange me with ‘thought experiments’ that have no foundation in reality. All I’ve asked someone (Dean) for is to explain what the biological element analagous to Dean’s magic pill is. If there’s no analagous biological element, then this thought experiment may be fun, but it has no merit in biological reality. By extension it has no application to the reasoning why most obese people apparently can’t lose weight.Â
Scott, while my comments towards Dean about his lack of understanding of thermodynamics were pointed, they were legitimate. Yes its hard to quantitate where energy is expended in the body at any given time under any given state of activity or inactivity. However that was not the point. The point was that thermodynamics is the fundamental principle regarding weight gain and weight loss if you’re healthy, or obese.  If you take in more energy than you expell though any time period clearly you’re going to gain weight. Likewise the opposite is true. To brush this principle off as ‘superficial at best’ is to clearly demonstrate you have no concept of how important thermodynamics is to issues of weight. Yes metablism varies, but metablism is simply an extension of thermodynamics in so far as how fast your body burns energy.Â
Elisha, I never addressed the issue of metabolic variation under near-starvation conditions. Clearly you don’t know what I was saying so respectfully I’d ask you to not try to paraphrase me. Yes your body starts to lower it’s metabolism when you provide it with less calories. That’s why this is a long term process and a one step diet is not going to work. I’ve said repeatedly it’s long term, it’s difficult, but it’s possible.
Aziz, I think by this point you’ve surpassed me in the personal attacks. Ya I was annoyed you didn’t give credit, but I’ve realized that conventions may differ regarding literature accreditation from where we were both schooled.
Scott, yes Dean said ‘it’ first, funny thing with that is I was expected to prove him wrong as opposed to him proving his position first (even though he said "it" first). So I ask you, when in this history of debate or science has someone been allowed to make an assertion with no factual support (I don’t consider his fruit fly news article or adiposity 101 citations scholarly support.. if anyone differs I’d be happy to discuss the reasons) and this has been allowed to stand. More so, when has this platform been acceptable and his ditractors have to prove him wrong with scholarly information? I’ll leave you to answer that. Regarding my position on the topic, yes I believe overweight and obese people have to shoulder most of the blame for their health (with the exception of the metabolic/geneic persons Aziz has discussed). That said, I also believe the change in what’s available to us in the food industry simply makes it easier to have poor diet choices (McDonalds, TV dinners, even ‘low fat’ dinner aren’t necessairly ‘healthy’ dinners, or large portions!!). These products are designed to be fast, easy, and appear to be good for us, or a great deal. The reality is they aren’t most of the time. SO some blame lies with the food industry. Also people in general are horrible at ‘estimating’ what they take in daily, particularly people who are overweight and have bad eating habbits. To ‘standardize’ your estimations I believe calorie counting is a good approach. It’s a pain but it works. Lastly, I recognize motivation is a problem, and I’m sure what I’ve said here the last 2 days has not helped. Funny thing is in a twisted way I was trying to provide hope for obese people (when give a choice between you’re hoplessly obese, and it’s possible to lose weight, no matter how possible to lose weight is presented it’s still hopeful.. at least the way I see it.) Anyway, THAT"s my position.
Dean, you’ve moved the goal posts, it happens sometimes unconciously. And we have provided doccumentation showing obese people can lose weight (significant weight at that!) and keep it off long term. You established the original limitations, 5-40lbs for at least 5 years. Aziz and I provided an article that demonstrated ~700 people losing roughly 30lbs and keeping it off for >5 years. Granted this was self reported and didn’t report people failing (by the nature of the self reporting methods), but it’s somewhat hard to scoff at 700 people losing that kind of weight. If you want to debate if these people represent the minority, then sure that’s up for debate, although you still haven’t even firmly established the ‘minority’ theory you’ve proposed. You force us to support our positions with scholarly articles but you dont hold yourself to the same stature. My position would be that it’s the minority of obese people that can’t lose weight! In fact this is supported by what Aziz has cited regarding metabolic and genetic deficiencies. So what that means it’s not a physical limitation in the majority of obese people that dont lose weight, but rather a mental limitation (and I don’t mean you’re less intelligent!). It’s hard to resist all the crappy easy food out there, and to motivate yourself to get to the gym or even just go outside when you could be on your blog which is like your kingdom (I suppose I’ve put it under seige the last few days.. sorry!).
Sorry for the length, and I hope that clears some stuff up.
Â
Gah. I just should have stayed with what I said and not participated. I hate this.
I said no study has shown that most obese people can become nonobese through diet and exercise alone long term. That’s because none has. Anything else is a distraction from that point, the goalposts of which have not moved. No study demonstrating that has been offered; one study on the outlying exceptions is not relevant precisely because it automatically excludes all failures. The Adiposity 101 article I’ve repeatedly referenced shows references on the less-than-1% figure.
I frickin’ give up. I cannot prove a negative. If you can prove that diet and exercise alone generally are enough, then it should be *very* easy to produce a study that demonostrates that it works most of the time for people who stick with any particular program. Pick a program, any program, I don’t care. I’ve even repeatedly described what such a study would look like. What the hell else am I supposed to do?
You could provide the funding for such a project? Long term research programs cost millions of dollars. More importantly and more to the point, how many people do you think will sacrifice 5+ years of their lives just so anyone can have their token experiment that’s to your specifications (your strict conditions)? Nobody. That’s why these self reporting studies Aziz and I cited are out there. Self reporting or surveys are the only reasonable approaches to doccumenting long term weight loss, or long term human conditions for large samples.Â
And yes, proving a negative is very difficult. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go about it. You’ll probably learn a lot in the process, in fact it’s mainly how I learn in general (researching for the purpose of challange that is). Similiarly though, and something you should consider, the lack of evidence for a phenomenon does not mean the phoenomenon doesn’t exist. Consider gravity, before physicists measured gravity indirectly, did that mean gravity didn’t exist?Â
Funny fact, while gravity is a physical law it still has yet to be directly measured.Â
The studies I’ve described wouldn’t need that much funding. Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers could do it for a pittance just based on their clientele. So could any professional trainer–I challenged Lyle MacDonald, for example, to do that more than 10 years ago. A simple analysis of his records would be enough. Any company or group that keeps medical records on patients seeking weight loss can do it.
My conditions are not particularly strict at all. The truth of the matter, in fact, is that numerous reviews of the data like I describe have already been done. See, once again, Adiposity 101, it references a few of them. The results are always the same: abysmal. Very high dropout rate, and among non-dropouts high rebound is the norm and achieving and maintaining nonobese status is rare; most people on these programs (any program, pick a program I don’t care) are still fat even if they stick with it.
My standards aren’t rigorous. They’ve already been met. Which is why I’ve said no study has ever shown this treatment program that "everybody knows" works actually does.
This is really easy, John. Do you treat obese people for a living? Been doing it for more than five years? Release your records on their progress to the public and let us do the analysis for you.
Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers won’t release such figures. But somehow, they feel compelled to admit in every ad that the people they show in those ads who’ve lost a lot of weight have results that are "not typical." I suggest to you that there is a reason for this, and it’s not because their average customer is a lazy slob with no discipline.
Dean,
"The studies I’ve described wouldn’t need that much funding"
You have no concept of how expensive academic research is even on a yearly basis, let alone a long term 5-10 year program. What you’re proposing, including all the staff and supplies you’re talking millions of dollars. You dont set these sorts of studies up just because you have people at jenny craig.  For example of the red tape, because you’re dealing with people as your research principle there are ethics boards galore. Ask any person dealing with animal research, no matter how mudane, they can’t even start their first experiment until their ethics boards sign off. Â
Â
More so, you’re talking about a program that’s longer than most governments stay in office. How do you expect anyone to get funding for this program that you propose when you cant be sure the next government will have the same direction? Short answer is, you wont get funding from the government, which is the primary source of academic research funding.
Also, like I said, it’s not just about money, it’s about people’s willingness to participate in these long term studies that have defined limitations on how they can live. I don’t know of a single person that’s willing to stick to a routine that would track their progress for 5+ years. It’s not because people are disinterested with the work, or that they aren’t interested in teh goals of the work, but rather people would prefer to determine where they go and not have it dictated to them. Do you know where you’re going to be in a year let alone 5? Most people dont, so most people dont join, and the ones that do usually drop out because their lives change too.
Also, please stop citing Adiposity 101 it’s not a peer reviewed scholarly source. I’ve mentioned this before. I know there are articles cited on that site, but I’m not going to go through that disaster of a site, reading every article to try to guess what you’re meaning only to have you say “no that’s not what I meant.” If there’s an article on that site that fits your point you’re trying to make, cite it directly. THat means journal name, article title, volume and issue numbers, page numbers. Then I’ll read it, then I’ll say what I think. I’m not going to do your leg work for you.
Imagine if I cited you pubmed.com for some point I made. I”m sure there’s an article on it that will support me (you can basically find anything there), but I would never expect you to do that legwork. That’s what you’re expecting me to do, but worse, on a non-scholarly website.
And as far as you need to know I’m an academic researcher investigating Molecular Biology. I have two degrees, a BSc. focusing mainly on human physiology, pharmacology, and plant biotechnolgy and an MSc, which is why I’m a researcher right now. I don’t deal with people directly, few Molecular biologists do. I’m awaiting a decision as to if I’ve been accepted to Medical school. I’ve been interviewed and the results will be in soon. So what are your credentials Dean?
Mendel didn’t have a piece of paper. Hey all I’m saying is give peas a chance and simma’ down now!
Ya.. Pissing contests suck, but hey I’ve got some high arc! =P Now the question is, will my high arc adversely effect the overall distance my pee travels? Now I have to work out the projectile motion to make sure it doesn’t =(
Dean: I challenged Lyle MacDonald, for example, to do that more than 10 years ago.
By the way, since Lyle McDonald isn’t here to defend himself, here is what he said a few weeks ago about that:
"I have no idea what ‘challenge’ Dean is talking about."
As for Adiposity 101, please stop citing it unless you want to refer to specific studies it mentions (or rather, has cherry picked).
Bah, here I was thinking this was some kind of intelligent conversation. It turns out instead that one of the participants (and maybe some sock puppets) is basically really only interested in heaping scorn on someone.
Pfft.
Comments on this entry are closed.