Childhood Obesity May Be Caused by Missing DNA

[Rasmus]

Then you haven't been reading.

Then I don't see what your point is regarding her example. She works out and she loses weight?

There would be a choice between weight loss that does and weight loss that doesn't improve health, the latter of which is frequently advocated by anyone claiming that obese people could and should be of normal weight.

Straw man.

Repeating something over and over that no one is disputing doesn't make it any more relevant to the discussion.

I think it is relevant, though. Everyboidy can change their weight - as opposed to tumors, say, that cannot always be cured.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I skimmed to the end... again... I don't have time to read every single post (sorry), but I got the gist of what was going on here and...

It's a complex illness with many factors. It's not caused by society [failing to acknowledge] that obesity is a lifestyle choice.

I could have only said this slightly better myself.

Right now, on my unit, I have three patients who I CANNOT DISCHARGE because of their obesity-related problems. That is the only thing keeping them in the hospital at this point.

In one case, I have a 600+ (270+ kg) pound 41-year-old man who, for all intents and purposes, is "over" his acute illness. At this point, there is no amenable rehab facility who will take him... until he loses 200lbs (90 kg).

I have another, a 25-year-old woman, who weighs 530 lbs (240 kg) who is in right heart failure. I cannot get her off of the ventilator at night. Her heart, on chest xray, looks to be about the size of a cantaloupe. How she didn't die at home, I'm not sure. Did I mention she is 25? (History from her mom prior to her hospitalization: she sat in one chair in the living room watching t.v. all day, she ate on average daily two loaves of bread with peanut butter, an entire cake, 3-4 large bags of chips, three or four 2-liter bottles of Coca-Cola, and various other things that people brought to her, and she was on "permanent disability" at age 25 secondary to her non-obesity related illness... despite the fact that I have taken care of, literally, hundreds of patients with the exact same problem who were not "permanently disabled" by it).

The third patient is a 61-year-old nursing home patient. She was hospitalized last year. It took three months to get her off of the ventilator. I'm ready to discharge her to a rebab facility, but all of her benefit has run out. She's "stuck" in our unit because she just doesn't have anywhere else to go. And, she's not only not paying for any of her care at this point, she has never paid for any of her care, and will never pay for any of her care (Medicaid benefit).

Did I mention that all three have been trached and are on/off the ventilator at any given point? When you're in the hospital and someone is watching your oxygenation levels go up and down like a roller-coaster, this is what happens to you.

These three patients alone are costing the system, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars every month they are there. Who's the system? You and me. We already have socialized, universal healthcare in this country. Trust me. They will never pay for the care they are getting. Financial ruin? No. These three patients are already well below the poverty level, which to me seems to be an independent risk factor for morbid obesity. They don't have money; they will never have money; we pay for everything they get.

Let me bottom-line it for everyone: we are never going to fix the cost overruns in this healthcare delivery system until we tackle and overcome this obesity problem.

Sorry, too, for taking this off on a tangent. But, taking care of these patients takes a toll on everyone involved... me... the nurses... the people who have to move them around and bathe them (etc.)... and you, who has to ultimately pay for their excesses.

We need to fix this problem. And, it doesn't start by trying to place the blame for it on genetics and overcoming purported obesity discrimination.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Andrikos]

I am not sure whether this will prove important in the relevant professions on obesity.It helps in understanding some aspects in cellular level mechanisms but this conclusion is lost in translation. There are some scientists that support the funding in this type of "tree" research, but is there a point we say "ok, now we really missed the forest for the tree" ? If there is no limit to this , then we have to go all the way to the molecular levels or even more to tackle childhood obesity? What about the parents' nutritional perceptions on what's considered "normal portion", or the parents' perception on how much physical activity they should encourage their child to have? As Albert Einstein marked "Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age."
I see this forum supports that critical thinking should be teached from an early age. Why is that? Critical thinking makes us live a healthier life . Before we eat , we think, no matter what genes we have.If a child could only learn to apply that in his/her eating habits , then maybe childhood obesity would be reduced.Who knows.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Children are not rational beings. Nor should they be IMO ..

We did not have this problem 40 years ago. It is a cultural change, and it is driven by parents who will not, for whatever reason, regulate the eating habits of their children ..

 

[Prometheus]

Here's an interesting article.

 

[casebro]

Interesting article. But it's from 1994. Any follow ups?

 

[Prometheus]

Interesting article. But it's from 1994. Any follow ups?

Huh? The article is dated 2008. Two of the references it cites are from 1994, but the first citation is from 2007.

 

[Aepervius]

Errrr, pardon me, sir. You left your dogma sitting on the seat over there, I thought you might want to take it with you.

That's called law of Conservation of energy. You might have heard of it. Those pesky damn law make it damn hard to gain weight without eating more than you spend. So yeah, although flippant, it was spot on. Too much eating too less activity.

ETA Holy mojo necromancy: Ooops I got mixed in my tab and resurected an old thread instead of answering to a new one...

 

[dafydd]

Childhood obesity is caused by overeating and lack of exercise.

I agree,I remember being in the corner shop in our village in Wales,and a local lady was in there,she had two daughters,one slim,the other obese.The mother was saying that she couldn't understand it,Janice (the large daughter) eats just the same as us,as a matter of fact she mostly has less on her plate than we do.While they were waiting Janice had eaten two chocolate bars,a packet of crisps and drank a can of Coke.I once saw a documentary about an overweight child in New York,the parents were being interviewed and they had their hands in their hair saying what can we do to help him.In the background the kid was parked in front of the tv eating his way through a mountain of candy.I was shouting at the tv,"Take the -------- sweets away from him!" If you want to lose weight,eat less,move more and I speak from experience here.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's called law of Conservation of energy. You might have heard of it. Those pesky damn law make it damn hard to gain weight without eating more than you spend. So yeah, although flippant, it was spot on. Too much eating too less activity.

As I understand it, caloric intake and output has very little to do with conservation of mass/energy. The majority of actual weight that we gain/lose is physically water, but the amount of mass our body holds onto rather than expelling it is closely related to our nutrition and metabolism.
You lose weight because you excercise, but most of the weight is physically lost when your body makes you defecate more.
So, small changes in your body's decision-making processes on how much to "hold onto" can potentially have serious consequences for your weight.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm sure that made someone feel better about eating that extra Twinky ..

 

[Uncayimmy]

As I understand it, caloric intake and output has very little to do with conservation of mass/energy. The majority of actual weight that we gain/lose is physically water, but the amount of mass our body holds onto rather than expelling it is closely related to our nutrition and metabolism.
You lose weight because you excercise, but most of the weight is physically lost when your body makes you defecate more.
So, small changes in your body's decision-making processes on how much to "hold onto" can potentially have serious consequences for your weight.

That's utter nonsense. Sure, you can make some quick adjustments to your weight via fluid loss or retention, but other than these short term changes, it's about fat and muscle loss. The proper way to track weight loss is through bodyfat measurements to make sure you are losing weight at a pace where most of it is fat rather than muscle mass. The amount of weight lost is predictable based on caloric intake and engery expenditure. The mechanisms are pretty well understood.

Your notion that it's only exercise and poop is rather silly. Where did you "learn" that?