Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

grrlscientist writes "New research has shown that the skeletal system may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals. This may also be true for humans, and thus represents an important development for the treatment of these health conditions. From the article: 'Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured), that regulates bone formation, but this hormone also protects against obesity and glucose intolerance by increasing proliferation of pancreatic beta cells and their subsequent secretion of insulin. Osteocalcin was also found to increase the body's sensitivity to insulin and as well as reducing its fat stores ... "The skeleton used to be thought of as just a structural support system. This opens the door to a new way of seeing the bones," said Dr. Gerard Karsenty, chairman of the department of genetics and development at Columbia University Medical Center in NYC, who headed the team that made the discovery.'"

Still have to eat well.

[CannonballHead]

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? It seems that the US really isn't as high [illovosugar.com] as what you'd expect.
 
Stop being a fucking troll and blaming Americans for everything.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[shawb]

I notice a distinct lack of high fructose corn syrup in that data. It simply measures cane and beet sugar. Also such extremely inexpensive calorie laden ingredients such as "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" are missing as well.

Re:

[Rob Riggs]

Your response is misleading at best. That table shows only sucrose (table sugar) consumption. Americans get fully 2/3rds of their sugar from high-fructose corn syrup. Reference: http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter _ 05/article5.aspx [iastate.edu]

One needs to be clear whether on is using the term "sugar" to mean "any monosaccharide or disaccharide" or specifically "sucrose" (table sugar).

Re:Still have to eat well.

[iamacat]

This is true on the most primitive level. However, for a significant number of people "eating correctly" will mean a 1000 calorie-a-day diet of pure protein and in addition to not being obese they will be constantly hungry and lethargic, lose muscle mass and suffer from various diseases associated with malnutrition. They really need medication as well as medically designed diet/exercise program to take care of those genes and hormones.

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Not so hard, though

[localroger]

Actually, having metabolic syndrome myself, I can say that if you catch it in time it responds well to a low carbohydrate diet. You don't need to restrict calorie intake at all, just carbohydrate intake; if you do that you'll find you lose your appetite quickly when you're thinking of eating too much, and your weight settles to a much more reasonable setpoint with no effort or hunger pangs at all.

Also, you cannot eat pure protein; if you are eating low carb, you must eat fat. My blood pressure and cholesterol have confirmed that this isn't unhealthy as long as you aren't poisoning yourself with too much sugar and corn syrup (which is in a lot of foods you'd normally consider healthy, unfortunately.)

Re:

[daeg]

If any of you are attempting a similar diet on your own (with a doctor or similar overseer), make sure you drink PLENTY of water. Half gallon a day at least. When you go to a low calorie diet, your body should go into ketosis. Ketosis (buring fat stores for energy) is an effective weight loss mechanism but is very water intensive. You can purchase test kits to test your urine for ketosis. Your diet should consist of almost entirely protein (lean sources only, fish, etc), around 5-800 calories a day for norm

Re:

[syousef]

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Spoken like person who's never had to deal with a weight problem.

Re:

[E++99]

The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits.

As none are present to defend themselves, I'd like to point out that neanderthals had larger brains than ours.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd like to point out it's not the size that matter, but how you use it.

Re:

[iamacat]

So are you saying that there are no health conditions that cause obesity and require medical treatment in addition to lifestyle changes? Even if that's a tiny minority of obese, millions of people in US are affected.

Nope, get rid of ice cream/potato chips...

[Joce640k]

Humans only use up a small amount of energy by moving around. The problem isn't the lack of movement it's the junk which typically goes into the mouth while watching TV.

Re:

[iamacat]

I have never seen anyone does an hour of vigorous exercise per day and is severely obese. Muscles burn energy even when at rest. Exercise suppresses hunger and makes you not want to eat a heavy meal. Staying outdoors for long periods distracts you from desire to eat junk snacks and restricts access to the fridge. Physical activity alleviates depression, making you want to take better care of yourself.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."

Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.

"Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that."

Yes, but you couldn't define "eat correctly" to save your life. It isn't just "eat less".

"Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of thei

Let me guess, you're a 'healthy' 250 pounds?

[Dan B.]

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.

"You obviously don't know a thing about the subject."
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.

Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[dfghjk]

Actually, you are wrong but it doesn't surprise me that you said that. I'm in my mid-40's and have 12% body fat. I constantly work with my weight but few that know me consider me to be fat. My family, however, has a history of obesity and diabetes, my mother has it, my father died from it, and my siblings are becoming severely overweight. I have a great deal of experience in the matter and I see a doctor 4 times a year to do blood work.

"Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

Re:

[3vi1]

In 20 years you'll be fatter than me

You purport to be more enlightened, yet you equate age with weight. That doesn't sound like an intelligent argument. The only way your statement could be true is if the problem is actually with today's average lifestyle, and not physical at all.

I don't claim to know more than anyone else about obesity, but I've never seen anyone lose weight naturally unless they ate less/less garbage and/or expended more energy. What magical pill/therapy is there to get around this?

How

Re:

[dfghjk]

Weight and age are quite related, not only because of lifestyle considerations but because of hormonal changes. Perhaps you need to rethink that.

Adult onset diabetes takes decades to develop. In that respect, diabetes, and the obesity that is linked to it, are necessarily a function of age. You can't have a condition that takes 30 years to develop when you are only 20 years old.

"How many people eat and exercise properly yet suffer from signs of malnutrition? How come no one on "The Biggest Loser" or any

Re:

[Dan B.]

Skinny, yes; 18, no, almost double that.

Given the level of effort you put in to maintain a healthy weight, I doubt you will ever have weight problems of the obese kind (and I commend you on that). It still stands however that the basic premise for most people in 'that' Generation is that nothing is their fault. I hate people who can't accept responsibility. Do you see me posting as AC? No, I own up to where I put my words.

I don't have any medical problems and I rarely, if ever, eat take-away. When I do it w

Re:

[dfghjk]

There is absolutely no doubt that we live in a society that refuses to take basic responsibility. That I would never dispute. Furthermore, there are many overweight and obese people who refuse to help themselves.

However, just because that is so is not proof that obesity is caused by simple laziness. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The fact of the matter is that, regardless of cause, some people are predisposed to not gain weight. The claim is that it's genetic and it may be so, but it cou

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[drsmithy]

Every time I see a news story that is 'blah blah 40% of the population is obese' I often wonder where these people are.

All around you, they just don't _look_ like it.

That statistic you hear is based on BMI. BMI is, at best, an unreliable indicator for a) whether or not someone "looks obese" (obviously very overweight, rolls of fat, multiple chins, no muscle definition anywhere, etc, etc) and b) whether they're "unfit" (gets puffed running up stairs, does no exercise, etc).

For example, I have a BMI of about 31 (=medically obese). However, I'm 189cm and "built like a tank", so while I definitely have a pot belly, I doubt many people would look and consider me "obese" - especially since I have reasonably good muscle definition on my arms and legs. I cycle a ~25km round-trip to work (without raising much of a sweat) and play a 40 minute game of indoor soccer once a week (again, without feeling exhausted afterwards). So while overweight, I'm not really unfit and I can't think of anyone who has ever referred to me as "obese" or looked at me in that "I can't believe you're so fat" way. However, my weight has been stable at its current level for 5+ years now and short of seriously intrusive dieting (= food I didn't really enjoy eating and feeling hungry 24/7) I haven't been able to lose it (or, rather, I did but it came back).

The "best" my BMI has ever been was 24.something, back in the middle of high school (just under "overweight"). I was about 180cm and weighed around 80kg. At the time, I was cycling ~30km daily (to and from school), training 1-2hrs a day for soccer and/or volleyball, swimming a kilometre ~3 times a week and playing 3-5 games of very competitive soccer and/or volleyball every week. For the last two years of high school, with a similar level of exercise, my BMI rose to (just) over 25. So I would have fit into that x% of the population that was being reported as "overweight", despite being extremely fit and not *looking* at all overweight.

The short version is, a hell of a lot of people are medically overweight or obese, but don't look it because of their body type - they just look "pudgy". That's where most of that "x% of the population is obese" is hiding.

Re:

[dfghjk]

BMI is a total joke. It's curious that an accepted but bogus standard such as that would be used to lump so many people unjustly into the overweight/obese category when the prevailing "wisdom" in medicine is to do the opposite. Unlike other conditions, "overweight" does not necessarily require treatment that has to be honored by insurance.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Country people are even fatter than city people. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.

Fat does run in the family. Only some of it is genetic.

The problem with you and all the other ignorants around here is that you believe there's only one cause of obesity, that it's due to laziness, and that you aren't and never will be obese because you're too good. You'll learn.

Re:

[dfghjk]

...and since you've never experienced metabolic syndrome, no one has. Furthermore, you never will!

You may claim to be 44 years old, but you think and brag like a teenager.

Re:

[thebdj]

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

There are a few problems with this, and I will now attempt to explain some of them. First, I believe it is a fair to say parents are the root of this entire problem. First, many of them are purchasing more fatty snacks and sugary sodas for their children and not trying to further the notion of a healthy diet. Kids are eating bad foods, and you have to blame the parents for creating this problem. Second, in households where both parents work, you will probably find a lot less cooking, especially healthy

Re:

[MikShapi]

Food is an addictive drug that interferes with thought (and consequently, your priorities), same as with many other drugs.

There is a problem with your holier-than-thou approach, however, as applied to food.

With (illegal) drugs, you can squarely lay the blame with the junkie. You can't really blame him when he's in junkie stage, his brain is past telling him to stop at that point, but you can say he should have been responsible when he still had a working sense of judgement and be right. He chose to do somet

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?"

Are you trolling?

Yes, I do. The body has builtin regulation mechanisms to control weight. Neither the body nor the mind desires to be obese, no one sets out to be fat, and the fact is that the body wastes energy that it doesn't need and doesn't desire to store. When the body thinks that it needs to gain weight and is faced with an energy deficit, it goes into conse

Re:

[dfghjk]

Conservation of matter has nothing to do with it. Metabolism is highly variable, and fools who believe that weight gain is a simple matter of balancing equations must completely ignore that fact in order to cling to their ignorant opinions. Their arrogance is eventually overcome, however, when they hit their 30's and realize that weight management is far more complicated than they imagined when they were 18.

Re:

[dfghjk]

I see you've thought about this in depth. ;-) Have you ever been fat? How much? How old are you? Any history of diabetes in your family? Just curious of your qualifications, if any.

The bulk of any weight gain is water, so I assume that you are suggesting that, if we don't want to get fat, we should avoid drinking all liquids, right? Make sense to me, conservation of matter and all.

Your body has regulation mechanisms that control weight and those include punishing lethargy in times of famine. Anyone w

Re:

[smchris]

Just finished reading "French Woman Don't Get Fat" and I think she has quite a bit to say.

The whole mindset that it should be feast or famine is so puritan and self-defeating. Eat everything: bread, butter, fat, wine. Just don't eat a slop pail of it. Don't do it unconsciously. Don't let snacking be the neurotic habit of choice. Take the time to enjoy the satisfaction of quality in moderation instead of the satisfaction of being stuffed with junk. Eat a vegetable, some fruit. And get off your ass as

Re:

[dfghjk]

If you're in the mood to read then, try this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm [abc.net.au]

Just because some people don't have weight problems doesn't mean those that do are sloths. Furthermore, people without weight problems don't automatically know why they are lean. Moderation alone isn't the key, at least not for all people.

Re:

[dfghjk]

As though that hateful diatribe contributes anything to the discussion at all. Nice work, AC.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[afidel]

Actually you are WRONG. People who are on only a below needed calorie diet will eventually plateau. The reason is that a bunch of your involuntary calorie usage such as slow muscle twitching and non-instructed nervous actions will cease as your body adjusts to what it considers to be the equivalent of a famine. That is why you must balance a complete, body type appropriate meal plan with the correct amount of cardio exercise. Even then is very difficult for most people to lose and keep off a significant percentage of body fat because evolution has setup all of our bodies systems to maintain body fat as we historically have not had enough calories in our diet.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.

Re:

[Cadallin]

As I read it the GP was saying that if you don't do something to maintain metabolic levels (which is to say, add exercise) then the body will reduce its metabolic activity. So yes, you avoided that by adding a cardiovascular exercise regime (running). If you hadn't been running, you would have stopped losing weight.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that.

With the caveat that you're otherwise healthy, of course. For example, if your thyroid becomes AFU, so will you.

I'm waiting for the research to show that high-fructose corn syrup wreaks havoc with the human system, in the long term.

Re:

[innerweb]

Clue Stick Time!!!

What you are spouting off works for a majority of people, not all people. Please go back to studying and learning about how things work in specific instead of using the gross generalizations that organizations like the USDA and the ADA use. Not all people will be at the proper weight without medications or other drastic measures. *NOT* all people are the same. In fact, biologically, no two people are identical, merely very similar.

In a genetically defined system (as each of us are),

Re:

[DuckDodgers]

You are ignoring prior contributing factors to the problem.

If your insulin regulation is out of whack from too much sugar, it interferes with leptin, the hormone that normally controls your appetite. That's why fat people are fat. They don't eat 110% or 130% of what it takes to feel full. They eat 130% of what it takes for a normal person to feel full, and they're still hungry.

If you haven't experienced it, passing judgment on those who have is obnoxious. You are simply much hungrier than you should

Re:

[SplatMan_DK]

Sugar? You have sugar in the US?

I would have thought you only had "great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products... ;-)

- Jesper

Re:

[CptNerd]

..."great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products...

Part of this complete breakfast!

Re:

[SplatMan_DK]

... along with the "butter flavored spread", which has never been close to anything remotely resembling actual butter?

Re:

[Jartan]

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like. Having to eat a horrid diet might give you a healthy body but it's not optimal in any way. Most of the people who have to do it against their wills are still suffering. Substituting mental suffering for physical suffering is not a be all end all cure.

Re:

[LordSnooty]

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like.

I suppose you have a point if your country forces you to pay for the healthcare you'll need as a result of your "eat-what-I-want" diet.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Sugar IS a horrible diet, and whatever "the hell" you feel like eating is very much a function of the diet you have, healthy or not. All the "mental and physical suffering" you imagine occurs from eating a good diet has no basis in fact if you had eaten a good diet all along, while the "mental and physical suffering" that results from obesity and adult-onset diabetes is very real.

Re:

[Jartan]

Sugar IS a horrible diet, and whatever "the hell" you feel like eating is very much a function of the diet you have, healthy or not.

Your point being? My entire post was about how we should use science to allow me to eat a horrible diet in the first place. Also your full of it trying to make grandiose claims about how people who've eaten a good diet all along don't wish to eat things that are bad for them. Anyone who's actually ever studied something like diabetes will tell you very clearly: Science stil

Re:

[mh1997]

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

I am sick and tired of people suggesting that I have some sort of responsibility and accountability for my actions. We Americans can do, say, and act any way we like without consequences. And if someone does try to hold me accountable, I will sue the hell out of them and whine to my congressman about the need for the government to take care of victims like me.

Re:

[dfghjk]

No, HFCS and cane sugar are equally unhealthy. Both are essentially poisonous to your liver and their effects on your body are the same since they are effectively identical once they hit your mouth.

Claiming the two are somehow different, while popular here, is absurd. HFCS is processed so that is specifically the same as cane sugar; it's fructose content is not higher and its health ramifications are not different.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Sugar (all the different sugars) are chemicals. All life is composed of chemicals. What you mean is, we replaced one chemical in our diets that was unnecessary and very unhealthy with another one that is just as unnecessary but even more unhealthy.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, I know. Sorry to be so pedantic. But it irks me when people refer to food products as "natural" or "real" as if such things don't involve chemistry, but are made of some magically pure unadulterated goodness that no mere chemicals can hope to match.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't."

You are completely mistaken. HFCS, the kind used as a sugar replacement, has functionally the same ratio of glucose to fructose as cane sugar. It's horrifying effect on insulin levels and its long term destruction of the liver are the same.

"So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's na

imagine that

[circletimessquare]

that old nice way of saying "she's fat": "she's just big boned", might actually be true?

I don't think so

[iamacat]

Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

Come on, we all know that fat people and diabetics find themselves unable to bone even when they get a rare opportunity.

Bone hormone?

[edittard]

You mean viagra? (Or as we scientists call it, \/1@gr@ )

Endocrine Function

[LightPhoenix7]

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs? The original paper from Cell is here: http://download.cell.com/pdfs/0092-8674/PIIS009286 7407007015.pdf [cell.com].

Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising. The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow.

Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising? I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it.

May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[BlackGriffen]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. The only alternative explanation I've heard involves endorphins and whatnot. I've suspected that it may be due to the fact that repairing the damage done to one's body during exercise is metabolically more expensive than just doing the motions, but had no idea whether this was true or not. This possibi

I thought the going theory

[msimm]

was corn-based byproducts (corn syrup?). Most cookies, like most snacks (in box listed portions of course) are around 180 calories. I run about 1 mile at a 10% grade for just over 10 minutes to burn that. My treadmill has on of those digital counters. Changes the way I think about having a beer or buying that bag of potato chips. But I wouldn't call 1 mile insane, just a bit of a disincentive.

Re:

[dfghjk]

The only reason that corn syrup is the biggest culprit is that it is corn syrup that is the dominant sweetner. If HFCS were entirely replaced with cane sugar, nothing regarding obesity would change at all. People here fail to realize that, but then, if they can blame HFCS for everything then they have a convenient enemy and don't have to face the facts.

Yes it is true that HFCS is the devil. That doesn't mean that sugar isn't.

Weight management isn't simply a matter of running off the calories you take in.

Re:

[mpe]

Your body expects a natural diet that is much different than what we eat today, and equating all calories makes any evaluation of diet virtually useless.

The whole "calorie thing" is also flawed in that humans eating food is not equivalent to burning the same food in pure oxygen.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Graff]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems.

The amount of calories burned during exercise is only the tip of the iceberg.

Exercising burns up glucose and puts a demand on your body to change how it processes foods. As a result of these changes your body's metabolism increases not only the rate at which it burns calories during exercise but it will also be elevated for a good amount of time afterwards. This means that you burn calories for the actual exercise done but you will also burn more after you have finished exercising, taken your shower, and sat down at your desk to do some work. Here is an article [about.com] on this phenomenon.

In addition, by exercising you are telling your body that changes need to be made. Part of exercise is the microscopic tearing of muscle fibers, stress on capillaries and other transport systems within your body, and the release of various hormones related to your exertion. Your body's overall response is to rebuild and bolster these systems. You grow more muscle tissue, your capillaries increase their ability to carry more blood, various organs and cellular structures configure themselves for the next bought of exercise. All of these actions take energy and they put food to a better use than simply turning into fat around your waist.

Finally, now you have more muscle mass, better circulation, and so on. This generally results in an overall higher metabolic rate because your body has prepared itself to provide you with more energy at all times. The higher metabolic rate burns more calories even when you aren't exercising and allows you to exert yourself even more the next time you do exercise.

So there's a lot more going on than the simple "1 Calorie will lift 155 pounds to 20 feet in the air". You body changes with exercise and that is where the real weight loss begins.

Re:

[nacturation]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems.

One 12oz McFlurry at 560 calories would take just over an hour [calorieking.com] of jogging to burn off -- the site shows that's for a 35 year old 144 lb female, adjust as appropriate for weight/gender. On the elliptical machines in the gym, I can sustain about 20 calories per minute so this would be a 28 minute intense sweat-soaked workout just to break even after eating one of those!

Re:

[Kandenshi]

It's true that exercise doesn't directly burn off THAT many calories, unless you exercise long and hard.

What exercise does do though, is build muscle mass. Muscles (even at rest) use a higher number of calories than fat cells do. So running those kilometers and lifting those weights burns some calories off directly, and then the new muscles you have will continue to burn off calories while you sit on your progressively more muscular butt watching TV.

Trying to lose weight off of pure cardio is difficult, c

Re:

[Eivind Eklund]

I thought that "Exercise will regulate your appetite" was well accepted as at least part of the explanation? As far as I know, exercise will lower appetite for a period for men, especially heavy exercise (weight lifting and similar) is effective. For women, there is much less of an effect, and if they're eating fat heavy, there are studied that show the effect work the opposite direction, see Effects of short-term exercise on appetite responses in unrestrained females [nih.gov]. (Though that's only one study.)

WR

Re:

[Eivind]

Part of it is also that muscles burn significantly more calories than fat -- even when resting.

Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".

So, running X miles may only burn Y calories -- during the actual exersize. But it'll *also* let you burn some extra calories thereafter, the extra muscles you build burn calories even when you sleep.

So, a f

Re:

[tuxette]

Fat does not burn any calories at any time.

Having a lot of muscle is expensive to the body, so it'll tend to do away with it when it's "not needed" and if you live a life with little movement and exersize, the body will think the muscle is "not needed".

This is also why when you starve yourself to lose weight or whatever, the muscles are the first to go. When the body is in starvation and thus survival mode, it gets rid of what expends the most energy first. Bye-bye muscles...

By the way, aerobic exercise is

Re:

[Graff]

Get tested for diabetes now.

"Unrefined" carbohydrates (complex starches) give you gas because many of them are difficult to break down and so bacteria in your gut do the job, producing byproducts such as methane gas. This is natural although you may be able to take enzymes to reduce the effect.

Now the fact that "refined" carbohydrates (simple sugars) put you to sleep and give you headaches probably means that you have a bad insulin response to them. This means that you either don't produce enough insulin

Re:

[Graff]

I looked around and the only thing that I've seen is that diabetics are at a greater risk of developing problems with candida albicans, not that candida albicans causes diabetic-like symptoms. As far as not being conclusively tested as a diabetic you should get tested periodically, a lot of borderline people later develop diabetes.

Well good luck with it and I hope that avoiding simple sugars does the trick for you. I'm just over the edge of being diabetic (type 2) and have it in control by avoiding carboh

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising?"

If such a "magic bullet" existed, then yes they would. Why would anyone simply take it for granted that the problem is simply overeating and lack of exercise? Perhaps those that look for other explanations realize that such a naive explanation is false and useless. Why would the scientific method be discarded in this case?

"I under

Re:

[dfghjk]

With a comment like that, one would get the impression you were referring to yourself.

When was the last time you were fat, PenGun? If you never were, then what qualifies you to comment on the subject at all? If you were, you'd know better than to say anything so stupidly simplistic. The only people I've known to make this comment, and I've been hearing it for 20 years, are those who are skinny.

Re:

[scotch]

The only people I've known to make this comment, and I've been hearing it for 20 years, are those who are skinny.

Wow, that's odd. Maybe you should listen to them, then? Some of them, after all, are bound to be formerly-fat. Who are you going to listen to for advice on not how to be a fat-ass: a bunch of waifs, or a bunch of fatties? Take your pick.

Re:

[dfghjk]

None of them have been formally fat. Not everyone's experience is the same, and those that have none aren't qualified to offer advice. That appears to be the case for all the know-it-all teenagers here.

I'm going to listen to people who've bothered to educate themselves on the subject. That would include myself and it would exclude anyone who says it's "conservation of energy". Anyone with any experience with weight issues knows that's not the case.

Waifs use drugs and starvation to maintain their conditi

Re:

[scotch]

I'm going to listen to people who've bothered to educate themselves on the subject. That would include myself ....

Well that's good. If you won't listen to you, who will?

Re:

[dfghjk]

No one would, but then that's not the case, is it? I'm not here begging for information, I'm here slapping down ignorant fools like yourself who think you know everything about weight loss based on never having faced the problem yourselves.

Re:

[scotch]

Are you stupid? I posted my experience with weight problems in another message which you responded to. I like how you think you're the only one here with valid experience with weight problems. Everyone else is too young or naive or you just ignore what they say when you respond.

How about that wager where you were going to run circles around me? Ready to back up that BS yet?

Re:

[FleaPlus]

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs?

Although I also wish that the summary included a link to the original paper, I found the blog entry by GrrlScientist to be a good layman's summary of the research, and was glad it was linked.

Re:

[mpe]

Also, food has a strong social aspect to it. Going to lunch with my coworkers is something I want to do despite the fact that it screws up my diet.

Probably the most screwy bit isn't the "with coworkers" bit so much as the whole "mealtime" thing.
Eating by the clock (especially if all meals must be "balanced") is a significent way in which we humans manage to screw up our diets.

BMI replaced by waist measure

[G3ckoG33k]

When I visited the doctor the last time they measured my waist, and said (to my great surprise) that 92 cm (36 in) is the recommended measure for men of ANY length.

Re:

[ookabooka]

That's what happens when you model the folding of proteins utilizing distributed computing; someone thinks its funny to hack the client to submit whatever they want. . .

Re:

[Fizzol]

Eating isn't the be-all and end-all of diabetes. There's also significant genetic component. If you don't have the genetic disposition you can eat all the junk and crap you want and not develop diabetes. If you have the genes for it, you can be normal weight and still develop it. Eating less helps but it isn't all there is to it.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Except it's not true. The decade's old claim that fats are bad for you turns out to be bullshit. It's the overloading of carbohydrates in the diet, the processing away of dietary fiber, and the abundance of fructose and simple sugars that are the problem. A low fat diet is helpful in keeping total calories down, that's all. Many fats are, in fact, good for you.

Re:Ultra Mega Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? What the devil are you thinking? A blood glucose between 80-100 is NORMAL. A NORMAL person will bump up to MAYBE 120 after even a bad meal, but rapidly come back to the 80-100 level. If you get below 70, you're running into HYPOGLYCEMIA territory, enjoy your seizures.

800 is indeed a "nuke for your brain" but unless you're a Type I diabetic without ANY endogenous insulin production, or a horribly controlled type II, you're not gonna see that. Hell, I'm not sure I've even seen a fingerstick capable of registering above 550-600!

Respectfully, parent is full of hockey. I'm sure you're an excellent CS student, but you've not had biology for a long time, friend. Don't check your own Fingerstick blood glucose unless you have reason to (ie: a medical condition), but if you're suspicious, then GO TO YOUR DOCTOR. Get a Fasting Blood glucose drawn, not those crap fingersticks. And if you're not satisfied, push for a glucose tolerance test, where you drink RAW glucose, then follow your venous blood sugar levels to see how your body reacts. If it can't keep up with the load, then welcome to the wonderful world of Diabetes. If it DOES, count your lucky stars, go home, and throw out your ho-ho's, Oreo's and Jolt Colas, and try a lovely dose of Moderation In All Things for a change.

Jebus help me...

Hehe, code was "criteria."

blood sugar levels

[Tumbleweed]

> A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy

40?! You're nuts. If you're below 50, you need to get some orange juice in your body ASAP. Between 80-110 is normal (closer to 80 is better, though). In fact, from the article you linked to, "A measurement of 40 is grounds for an immediate trip to the hospital." Really low glucose levels are more immediately dangerous (easily fatal) than high ones. Consistently high ones will destroy your body in ways you don't want to think about (blindness and limb amputation is common, among many other things).

If you go above, I think, 245 or so, your body goes into 'ketoacidosis' and starts eating itself and the chemical Acetone (nail polish remover) winds up in your bloodstream. I can tell you from personal experience that this feels about as good as it sounds.

Re:blood sugar levels

[slimjim8094]

Ketoacidosis is when your body, which creates acetones naturally, can't clean those acetones out of the blood. So, you get nail-polish breath, which, if medical personnel aren't careful, can smell like booze. That's bad because hyperglycemia can produce mental symptoms similar to drunkenness.

P.S. I'm a NJ EMT-B, and we frequently get calls where policemen want us to check out a drunk, with booze breath and all the mental signs like belligerence. They were really a diabetic at least 10% of the time.
Sorry for the OT

Re:

[3vi1]

OT: Mods please mod parent informative. It actually is, for once.

Re:

[MaceyHW]

You expect a poster to RTFA just because they're linking to it? Pleeease, this is Slashdot.

This just proves once again that the only thing more dangerous than high blood sugar is following medical advice you find on teh internets.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Actually, if I got that right, it sounds more like the absence of a protein that would get you "big bones" makes you obese.

Re:

[mr_mischief]

I know some people who are legitimately "big-boned".

A girl I knew in junior high and high school had about 20 inch waist, but wore a size 10 jeans and women's large or extra large shirts. Her pants were baggy at the waist, but just barely fit over her hips. Her shirts hung, but anything smaller wouldn't fit over her very broad shoulders. She's never been fat or flabby.

I have a friend who has to do pull-ups with his hands about 2 or 3 inches apart at the most, because any farther apart and his shoulder blad

Re:

[phantomlord]

His chest after being in Kuwait and Iraq in the desert heat wearing boy armor for months was still over 50 inches.

In a similar vein, I'm 5'6.5" and have a 48" chest. By doing a low carb diet, I can get down to about 200 pounds in a matter of 4-6 weeks and I'll stay there for months despite keeping myself at a 20-25 carb/day limit. Off the diet, I quickly move back up to (and stabilize at) 225 pounds despite eating fairly healthy home cooked meals twice a day as well as walking 5-6 miles per day. All of my body fat is in my stomach, the rest of my body is pretty lean (which is actually very typical for all males on my

Re:

[dfghjk]

How many "lazy, overeating fat people" have personally told you that they set out to be fat? How many of them would not choose to be lean if given the choice? Why do you assume that fatness is a reflection of their lack of character? Have you ever been fat?

Re:

[budword]

I have been fat. Over 300lbs twice in my life. It's because I ate too much and sat on my ass too much. Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie. It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie."

Whoever said otherwise? The fact is, though, that it doesn't have to be much food to be "too much". There are plenty of thin people that vastly overeat fat ones and yet are totally sedentary. If it were as simple as you say, then that wouldn't exist. There is something biologically complicated afoot.

"It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation."

Yes, an

Re:

[Lehk228]

i worked in a supermarket, yes it is sloth and gluttony causing the excess weight in >95% of cases. take a field trip to your local supermarket and observe the produce, bakery, meat, bread, and frozen foods aisles.

i'll tell you right now where you will see the fewest fatties; the produce aisle.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Your work experience qualifies you for nothing. You have no idea whether obese people are that way because of what they eat or they eat the way they do because of their obesity. All you are observing is a connection.

Re:

[Macgrrl]

i worked in a supermarket, yes it is sloth and gluttony causing the excess weight in >95% of cases. take a field trip to your local supermarket and observe the produce, bakery, meat, bread, and frozen foods aisles.

I was recently diagnosed with a liver tumor, while the liver is 'functioning' correctly as far as medical tests go, one of the side effects of the tumor is a sweet tooth - a craving for sugar. I've been concious of the cravings for a long time and have discussed them with the trainer I see,

Re:

[cerberusss]

I'm guessing you've stopped taking birth control pills? That could have the side effect losing some weight as well, I noticed this with my girlfriend. As for the sugar cravings, you might be able to fool your brain by buying a can of sweetener and a sack of lemons. Add the juice and the sweetener to water and you've got great sugarfree lemonade.

Re:

[scotch]

Maybe it's just that some people naturally have more willpower than others? Maybe some people genetically have more motivation than others? Maybe some people are bred to work hard and achieve goals? It's genetics I tell you, which is why the obesity rate in the USA increasing, obviously. Our genes are getting fat.

I'm not as old as you (upper 30s), but I come from a family where everyone has a "weight problem", there is late-onset diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. I've been 40lbs overweight before. It

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Maybe it's just that some people naturally have more willpower than others? Maybe some people genetically have more motivation than others? Maybe some people are bred to work hard and achieve goals? It's genetics I tell you, which is why the obesity rate in the USA increasing, obviously. Our genes are getting fat."

That is a nonsense explanation driven out of pure ego.

"It's clear to me as anything in this life is that for the vast majority of people, being fat is a choice."

Sure, just as living is a "choice"

Re:

[dfghjk]

You've demonstrated that you're a prick, now demonstrate that you're not ignorant.

Re:

[scotch]

Yes, I read what you wrote the first time. I'm a prick. And ignorant. Yeah, good for you. What about that little bit of bragging bullshit you posted? Ready to respond to the other half of my post yet - or are you too busy "teaching me a thing or two" and "running cicles" around me in you mind?

Re:

[dfghjk]

Where did I say anything about "good enough"?

I don't give a shit whether I'm "way ahead" of you or anyone else. My health is my concern, it's not a contest. I could give a shit about the bragging of someone in their early 20's. They have no idea what they face 20 years down the road.

I am also not an "old fart", I am only old compared to those who have no living experience as an adult yet. Once again, you are barely and adult. Who gives a shit what you think?

Lastly, I don't care what the parent was "tel

Re:

[stephanruby]

If a body degenerates into obesity we should naturally assume it is not working properly, not that the person has weak character.

Why? Shouldn't our goal be to reverse that obesity? If someone is obese, we should formulate as many assumptions as we can, so that we can eliminate them as quickly as possible. And if this means that some obese people/children would have to go through a fat camp in order to eliminate the lack of a proper diet and exercise as a possible root cause of their problem, then so be it