Chemical That Affects Biological Clock Offers New Diabetes Treatment 156
First time accepted submitter rosy rohangi writes "Biologists at UC San Diego have discovered a chemical that provides a completely new direction and promise for the development of drugs to treat metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes – a key concern of public health in the U.S. due to the current obesity epidemic. From the article: '...Scientists have long suspected that diabetes and obesity could be related to problems of the biological clock. Laboratory mice with altered biological clocks, for example, often become obese and develop diabetes. Two years ago, a team led by Steve Kay, dean of the Division of Biological Sciences at UC San Diego, discovered the first biochemical link between the biological clock and diabetes. He found that a key protein, cryptochrome, which regulates the biological clocks of plants, insects and mammals also regulates glucose production in the liver and that changes in levels of this protein could improve the health of diabetic mice.'"
Treatmen woo! (Score:1, Funny)
I like the mans. How does I get some treatmen?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Treatment woo! (Score:4, Informative)
And well managed diabetics may yet still age more rapidly than non-diabetics. I am one of them.
Dr. Fuhrman on Diabetes (Score:2)
Might be helpful: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx [drfuhrman.com]
"How can we lower high glucose levels, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, lose weight and not need to take drugs such as insulin and sulfonylureas which cause weight gain? Here is the simple answer -- the best diet for humans to live longer in superior health is also the best diet for one with diabetes. That is a diet with a high nutrient per calorie ratio as described in my books, Eat To Live and Eat For Health. When one eats a diet pred
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
or we could just eat less.
give it 10 years or so... perhaps scarcity will become the norm again.
and with childhood obesity an increasing problem, perhaps evolution really does have something to say about it.
honestly, there need to be some serious efforts made to show people how much they actually need to eat. there's such a thing with alcohol, (not that many abide by it) with the "standard drink". perhaps instead of stupid coloured boxes with percentages on them, a meal could be given a simple "1.5 standa
Re: (Score:2)
honestly, there need to be some serious efforts made to show people how much they actually need to eat. there's such a thing with alcohol, (not that many abide by it) with the "standard drink". perhaps instead of stupid coloured boxes with percentages on them, a meal could be given a simple "1.5 standard meals" and be done with it.
The problem is, where do you define the standard? The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place. You had people crusading against saturated fats, and replacing them with trans fats which we now realize are significantly worse for you than the saturated fats they replaced, and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets, even though those carbohydrates metabolize into glucose as a natural part of digestion (some
Re: (Score:2)
"The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place ... and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets,"
+1 insightful. That message was drilled into people's heads for so many years, I can't even remember when it started.
"Eat a bunch of grains and fruits while minimizing fat and you'll be healthy." Total BS. I'll never again believe anything that the government or the medical industrial complex tries to tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, where do you define the standard? The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place. You had people crusading against saturated fats, and replacing them with trans fats which we now realize are significantly worse for you than the saturated fats they replaced, and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets, even though those carbohydrates metabolize into glucose as a natural part of digestion (some of them, faster than table sugar does), and trigger insulin production which, among other things, is a hormonal cue for your body to start storing energy in fat cells. 40 years later, they're *still* teaching this crap in schools. You want to know why people are fat, it's because they've been fed bad information for their entire lives.
You are exactly correct! In fact, shortly after I was diagnosed as a Type II diabetic, I went into my Dr.'s office with a "food pyramid" that I had (re) designed. It was essentially the INVERSE (but not quite) of the USDA food pyramid we've been seeing all our lives in the U.S.
My Dr. took one look at it and said "You should patent this."
I have another comment regarding caloric restriction and weight loss: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!
Unless you truly get to concentration-camp levels of food-deprivation, th
Atkins for vegetarians really sucks. (Score:2)
I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Our bodies may do just fine eating animal parts, considering that we've done it since at least the time we became apes, and we've been eating cooked animal parts since we figured out fire a million years or so ago, but it's a pretty hostile way to treat animals, just because they happen to be tasty and easy to catch. I'm also fat, and could stand to lose weight, but my blood sugar is just fine, stays nicely in the middle, not too high or too low.
Most of the scientifi
Re: (Score:2)
add spices and nothing is boring...
Re: (Score:2)
With my anecdotal experience, I would say being poor can make you fat.
RIGHTY-O!!! Give that man a Grapefruit!!!
There ain't NUTHIN' cheaper than CARBOHYDRATES!!!
In fact, my personal Atkins experiment ended because I simply couldn't AFFORD to carbohydrate-restrict anymore, due to unemployment.
Re: (Score:2)
i find this and GP's post very interesting.
i've certainly observed this phenomenon in some towns i've been to (typically rural areas, but ghost-town sort of feeling - an old port that was made redundant by the expansion of a more major port near a bigger town, that kinda thing). i don't fully understand it because i'm sort of inner city and have access to more than just the local supermarket.
my wife and i are getting a business off the ground and everything i earn is going into it. plus we have a 13 month
Re: (Score:2)
However, the parent's assessment of the cause of most type II diabetes, and how it so neatly correlates with body-type, is spot-on.
I disagree, however, that evolution doesn't play much of a part in this, or else we wouldn't hav
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, the majority of people who find themselves in this situation are actually a victim of their mouth; as in what they've been putting into it for the previous many years. In far too many cases, people have diabetes because they are horribly obsese and they are horribly obese because they've crammed cookies down their own throat without any regard for their long term prognosis.
In fairness, I never grew up in a household that had "the cookie jar", or a mom that baked cakes, pies, etc. often. We also did NOT have sweetened drinks (pretty much just water or unsweetened tea). And yet, as soon as I hit puberty (thanks, God! (rollseyes)), I INSTANTLY went from "so-skinny-they-thought-I-had-leukemia" (really!), to a BLIMP. It happened over a period of less than a year.
So don't give me your pious bullshit about "cramming cookies", fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you rather he just be able to take a pill?
I think his point was that with a little willpower, diabetes can be managed with diet alone. No need for injections. Now, replacing the injections with a pill would be a huge advantage for most people, but they'd still need to monitor their blood glucose levels so they can treat urgencies with an injection.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly that is NOT true... the elevated blood glucose levels after meals cause damage to the beta cells in the pancreas killing them off. No matter how tightly controlled your diet is, you will be killing some cells off with every meal you have. The point with diet control is to delay the progression to diet plus pills and then onto insulin... If you can keep your long term HbA1c levels down b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Don't eat too much HIGHLY CONCENTRATED SHORT CARBOHYDRATES.
You can eat as much vegetables as you want. You can stuff yourself until you burst every day. You won't get fat and you won't get sick.
A balanced, species-appropriate diet with no defective (half-heated) proteins... is that so hard?
Also, YES there is a treatment. You just don't know it yet. (You are aware that you're not “God”, right? [With doctors, you always have to ask.])
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you will get fat, and if you eat enough of anything, you will get sick. Its a simple equation, energy in, energy out. What isn't used up or turned into waste gets stored as fat. That's why its usually recommended for people who sit all day looking at screens to just eat less.
Re: (Score:2)
"Its a simple equation, energy in, energy out."
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
It's a lot more complex than just "calories in, calories out", as evidenced in this kind of experiment [nih.gov]: take healty mice, restrict their food by a mere 5%, and *surprise* they grow a lot more fat tissue at the expense of lean mass.
If it really is just a problem of "balancing caloric incomes and expenses", then please explain why do people who restrict their ca
Re: (Score:2)
While you are not wrong.
Perpetual machines don't exist and we can't get free energy out of nothing. Eventually, restricting diet will lower weight.
And people really really don't realize how much they eat (they are not dishonest, they just don't realize).
Re: (Score:2)
While you are not wrong.
Perpetual machines don't exist and we can't get free energy out of nothing. Eventually, restricting diet will lower weight. And people really really don't realize how much they eat (they are not dishonest, they just don't realize).
Your "solution" only works under the conditions of "The Final Solution".
NO living being has the "willpower" to ignore continual, gut-gnawing hunger, with the weakness and illness that accompanies it.
While I certainly agree that today's nutritionally-dense foods are very easy to lose track of, it just isn't possible to ask people to VOLUNTARILY "starve themselves". It almost NEVER works.
And it is not because people lack the "willpower". It's because we're genetically-predisposed to make FOOD a priority
Re: (Score:2)
That's why its usually recommended for people who sit all day looking at screens to just eat less.
And that's why it never works. Because it ISN'T just a "simple equation"; because there are compensatory feedback mechanisms in place.
Re: (Score:2)
My sister who almost died from pancreatitis by doing just that would disagree with you. Did it to try to be healthier and lose weight at that. Triglycerides shot through the roof, pancreas swelled to the size of a large intestine with fluid that needed to have a drainage port surgically implanted. You clearly aren't a doctor or certified nutritionist.
Re:Treatmen woo! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never eaten too much. I got T2 Diabetes all the same - because it can be genetic it seems.
Re: (Score:3)
common myth about Type 2 diabetes is that it is caused by over-eating.
This is in no way the case.
Certain people are genetically pre-disposed to type 2 diabetes. Over-eating on carbs is simply a very good trigger for the diabetes, this is what causes the correlation.
However while quantity can definitely cause the onset faster, just eating a slice of bread a day for someone that has the pre-disposition will eventually trigger it. Any kind of what most people would consider "normal" quantity of refined sugars
It's like that radio commerial... (Score:3, Informative)
Part of you is worried about your weight, but All of you wants a Baby! Call XYZ fertility clinic today.
Re: (Score:2)
...where they put you on diabetes medication (metformin.)
Re: (Score:2)
...where they put you on diabetes medication (metformin.)
As diabetes meds go, it's the best and safest by far. And in fact, it may even have anti-cancer [nih.gov] benefits!
Cryptochrome (Score:2, Insightful)
is like the coolest word ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the color of Neal Stephenson's bike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cryptochrome (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like some really old Kodak stuff dug up by archaeologists.
Re: (Score:2)
like their short-lived experiment in photochemical stenography?
My wife will just have to wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean Treatwom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cycloset (Score:4, Informative)
There is a little known drug on the market called Cycloset that works for Type 2 Diabetes, and part of it is working on the biological clock. Its been around a few years, but it was out of patent before it got approved so most doctors don't even know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a little known drug on the market called Cycloset that works for Type 2 Diabetes, and part of it is working on the biological clock. Its been around a few years, but it was out of patent before it got approved so most doctors don't even know about it.
Oh, you mean Parlodel Bromocriptine [google.com]! That drug has been around for years, and has long been the darling of life-extension advocates as a powerful antioxidant. It is yet another ergot alkaloid discovered by the late, great Dr. Albert Hoffman. In fact, Durk and Sandy Pearson first spoke of its MANY benefits in their way-ahead-of-its-time book "Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach" [wikipedia.org], reportedly published in 1982 (although I swear it was a few years earlier). It's a very interesting book, and well wor
Error in TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, in all honesty, I'm not sure what the testing differences is for DM Type 2, so I could be very off. Most of my own patients use blood for testing as well. I think the only reason
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Type II, diagnosed just over ten years ago when my doctor was trying to find out what caused my first kidney stone. (never did) I'm not sure, but I'd guess that the original diagnoses was from a urinalysis, but I do know that I keep track of my blood sugar with twice-daily blood tests and the occasional A1c, also a blood test. I have several friends who have been (at least) suspecte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like Diabetes LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults), which people often nickname "Type 1.5"
Interestingly, family history is still a factor, but it's family history of autoimmune disorders rather than diabetes. In my case, my father has a type of vasculitis that causes his immune system to attack non-vital parts o
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. What?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definition and diagnosis should not be confused.
Indeed, though that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined.
That sounds like an old-school definition being taken too literally in the modern world. Here's what an actual medical dictionary [merriam-webster.com] says:
"a variable disorder of carbohydrate metabolism caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors and usually characterized by inadequate secretion or utilization of insulin, by excessive urine production, by excessive amounts of sugar in the blood and urine, and by thirst, hunger, and loss of weight
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh I hope not because you've got it totally wrong. The official diagnosis for DM is a high fasting blood glucose and/or a high glucose tolerance test, but again both of these are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we're getting into semantics, but it's not a "root cause" of the disease which is what everyone here means when you say cause. Yes the symptom of high blood glucose does in itself cause other problems and because you can't cure the disease itself you end up managing the side effect of the disease to avoid the side effect of the symptom. But saying this is a cause of the disease is like a situation where a horse drawn wagon upsets an apple cart and the apples fly off and break a window. By your te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As other sib posters of mine have pointed out, this is in fact wrong. Historically (as in Ancient Greece), tasting urine for sweetness was how the disease got its name (it's not called 'mellitus' for nothing!). These days the diagnosis is through measuring levels of sugar in the blood, although most recently, measuring the surrogate marker of HbA1c can now be used to make a formal diagnosis. Before this you could either do a fasting blood sugar level, a glucose tolerance test, or having a rip roaring singl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Diabetes is caused by a buildup of glucose in the blood, which can lead to heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and blindness." Wrong! the buildup of glucose in the blood is a symptom of diabetes, not the cause.
It's not an inaccurate statement. Clinically, abnormally high glucose levels after fasting is diagnostic for the disease. Although, like all things in biology, it's not the root cause; High glucose levels are due to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is not fully understood but it is is often found in patients who are obese. This is why diabetes is referred to as a syndrome. There are many potential causes, and it varies from patient to patient. Obesity is the most common medical condition found co-exis
Re: (Score:3)
I know that Type I is an autoimmune disorder, but AFAICT, Type II [wikipedia.org] isn't. Do you have any sources for your claim, or are you just making it up as you go along?
That was obvious (Score:5, Funny)
It's obvious that obesity is related to problems of the biological clock. Their clock is always telling them it's lunch time.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that plenty obese people don't, in fact, eat any more than you? Not saying diet doesn't matter, but genetics and lack of excercise dominate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That was obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up. What you eat determines how many calories you eat. Your digestive system senses volume, not calories. So if you eat easily digested simple carbs, you'll be empty within an hour and your stomach tells the brain "Feed Me!"
Hence eat fiber, protein, good fats, no simple carbs, yada yada.
Anec-data (Score:2)
So that's two anecdotes from a pair of the closest relatives you can get...Ima need a few before I find your study to be statistically significant.
Re: (Score:2)
(And to be clear, I'm not arguing that there is no cause-and-effect between overeating and obesity, but my anec-data tells me that at least some people that are clinically obese don't eat or worse than more than usual, they just have a completely different body type. So I'm just arguing against applying your assertion to *all* obese people. And your methodology.)
CRYPTO-CHROME (Score:1)
Link Down. Try Here Instead... (Score:4, Informative)
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/09-15BiologicalClock.asp [ucsd.edu]
not the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is simple; carbohydrates.
Most of our carbs come from plants more closely related to grass [msu.edu](corn, wheat), than to a vegetable
Solution: eat grass fed animals [npr.org], eat lots of root and leafy green vegetables and some fruit
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the nearly immobile lives that youngsters live has something to do with it as well? Recess and gym are a fraction of the time they used to be, if they even still exist in schools. You can't have kids memorizing material for the federally mandated achievement tests that determine a larger and larger chunk of cash-strapped school districts' budgets if they are outside running around. If that isn't enough "persuasion" to cut recess and gym, the fear of lawsuits if little Brayden (or Aiden or Kayden or
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Atkins. According to some specialists, though, fructose (aka sugar, HFCS, etc.) is the carb you should be really worrying about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Atkins. According to some specialists, though, fructose (aka sugar, HFCS, etc.) is the carb you should be really worrying about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]
Um, what you call "sugar" is not fructose. It is sucrose [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And sucrose is one glucose bound to a fructose, the latter of which gets metabolized in the liver -- per the video I linked to.
Re:not the solution (Score:4, Informative)
Most of our carbs come from plants more closely related to grass [msu.edu](corn, wheat), than to a vegetable
Um, yeah - vegetables have very few carbs. If you want carbs, go for the starchy grains.
This wasn't a problem until the last century. Either humans changed or something about the food supply changed. Surely a 20x increase in sugar intake per capita is coincidental - it must be the oatmeal.
Re: (Score:2)
but carbohydrates, i.e. your oatmeal, breaks down into sugar in the bloodstream.
It's largely fiber, but yes, your body runs on glucose. You're going to get that glucose from starches or gluconeogenesis. What's important about the effect of various starches is the rate at which you get those glucoses. HFCS = instant glucose. Oatmeal = 2-3 hour slow release of glucose. Since your enzymes are rate-limited, your foods should be as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What's important about the effect of various starches is the rate at which you get those glucoses. HFCS = instant glucose. Oatmeal = 2-3 hour slow release of glucose. Since your enzymes are rate-limited, your foods should be as well.
It's been mentioned a fair amount on Slashdot: fructose [nytimes.com] seems to be the worst part about the high sugar intake, not the glycemic index. High-GI foods like rice are popular in Asia without the corresponding diabetes. Also, there have been a lot of studies now that explain how fructose can lead to diabetes.
Of course, if you already have Type II diabetes, you're better off eating a diet that isn't high in carbs.
Re: (Score:2)
When there is less glucose, the body can convert fat to ketones to produce energy.
Yes, certainly you can get ketosis from lyposis, but you're also going to get gluconeogenesis at the same time, in healthy people. The acetyl-CoA can be inserted into the Krebs Cycle directly, and that can definitely provide energy, but the body is really greedy for glucose and will rob for it.
I suspect if you're active enough the effects will balance out - the Inuit seem to do OK. They also eat a specific diet with lots of
interesting protein (Score:2)
If memory serves, wasn't cryptochrome mentioned in the article last week about the cell in the sea trout's nose that apparently helps it navigate by using Earth's magnetic field? And a fellow provided two links to journal articles wherein the same protein featured in some not-well-understood fashion having to do with birds using geomagnetic nav?
If so, strikes me as one very interesting protein.
I love cryptochrome (Score:2)
I used to shoot with it all the time - especially loved the way it captured blues and didn't overemphasize reds. Of course that was back before I switched to a camera with a digital sensor.
Just for diabetes? (Score:2)
Percent of calories absorbed... (Score:2)
Simply put, our bodies evolved to pack on the pounds in time of plenty and then miserly dole out that fat during l
Still peddling the overweight myth... (Score:3)
So wrong according to latest research. [phlaunt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I lean strongly toward the "nature" side of the nature/nurture argument, so I think this is good material. However, you can see how the overweight "myth" is at least theoretically compelling.
We're definitely witnessing an observable phenomenon in the (American) population with higher rates of obesity and higher rates of child obesity coupled with a higher incidence of type2 diabetes occurring earlier in life. I don't think the data is in dispute, so obviously "something" is going on. It see
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read and seen (guys like Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig), the amount of sugar (which includes sugar, HFCS and other similar sweeteners comprised of fructose/glucose combinations) consumption per capita has increased tremendously over the last century.
Equally important is the increase in carbohydrate consumption since most food guidelines switched to a "low fat" paradigm about 1980. Carbs are 4 kcals per gram, fat is 9, so switching to a "low fat" diet is essentially a "high carb" diet since i
Epidemic (Score:2)
A disease is epidemic if it is contagious and a certain percentage of the population is infected. Even though (morbid) obesity is common enough for the percentage requirement to be fulfilled, obesity is not a contagious disease. It is completely self inflicted, because people that have it got it by eating too much and/or the wrong diet.
The only mitigation for that is, once your body has made the fat reserves that make you obese, you can diet but they won't go away. Sure, they'll get smaller, but once you st
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that obesity is controllable - if anything high body weight is just like high blood sugar and is just a symptom of an underlying problem.
It seems to me that one of two things is true:
1. People today just are psychologically different from generations past and eat way too much food voluntarily. Maybe we all committed too many sins in our childhood or something. I've yet to hear a compelling explanation for why most of the US population voluntarily overeats.
2. There is some underlying ph
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's merely the fact that throughout most of human evolution, the vast amount of our labor has been dedicated to acquiring enough food to survive. It's no surprise that we're "hard wired" to prefer foods with high caloric density. This is not a problem when food is scarce in general and there is rarely an opportunity for excess consumption, especially of fats and sugars.
We still have that built in drive, but now live in an environment(USA anyway) with an over-abundance of cheap high calorie food w
Re:Epidemic / terminology (Score:2)
I agree with your point about obesity being largely linked to lifestyle choices but I don't think the use of "epidemic" implies "contagion". I heard a lecture where a researcher was presenting evidence suggesting a causal link between the incidence of cancer and proliferation of petro-chemicals in the environment. He described cancer as "an epidemic" in the U.S. merely due to the % of people who will get some form of cancer in their lifetime.
Link has "account suspended." (Score:2)
How about a ketogenic diet? (Score:2)
How about research into that? The reputable sources and limited studies show that obese people with type II diabetes almost all seem to revert to a non-diabetic status once they go on a ketogenic (very low carbohydrate diet).
While there are certainly some portion of type II diabetes sufferers who will not respond to, people like Robert [ucsf.edu] Lustig [youtube.com] seem to believe that low carb diets have an extremely high success rate in basically eliminating type II diabetes.
But not eating carbs doesn't sell drugs or allow peo
Re: (Score:1)
Ya trying to RTFA is waste of brain cells and time as you try to fill in the gaps.
You should read the proper article at Science Daily instead (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712144749.htm)
It's atrocious when a blog copies a real article and then cuts out words to probably claim that it's an original piece, or something along those lines.
Re: (Score:1)
even slashdot's title is misspelled. a sign of the times.
The entity formerly known as slashdot?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes the number of calories does not change. How your body handles those calories do.
I do some casual bodybuilding. If I consume all my protein goodness early in the day then my body burns the food for energy. If I eat it at night then my body says 'Hey! I don't need energy right now and this protein could really be great at patching up all that worn muscle tissue.' If my caloric intake as a whole does not compensate for the loss of calories during the day then I lose fat and gain muscle.
The time of day you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
+1. GP's myth has been debunked many times.
Of course, if you eat or drink sugary junk it gets converted mostly into fat any time of the day.
Re:don't get yer hopes up (Score:4, Interesting)
Just spent a little while looking this up. There are a lot of opinions both ways, but all the scientific studies I could fine (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842774 [nih.gov]) implied/proved/gave evidence that night-time eating did in fact produce significantly more weight gain then the same amount eaten during the daytime.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, mere obesity and heart disease will be an improvement over obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Sad but true.
And maybe if you stop feeling like shit all the time...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a treatment would:
1. Increase your calorie consumption by making you more active and less tired.
2. Make you feel less inclined to eat the pint of Ben and Jerry's in the first place.
Some people eat more than others, and some of the former gain more weight than others. Perhaps this is a result of genetics, and not moral inferiority. Honestly, I'm surprised we don't try to exorcise the obese the way many carry on these days...
Meth? (Score:2)
1. Increase your calorie consumption by making you more active and less tired.
2. Make you feel less inclined to eat the pint of Ben and Jerry's in the first place.
Methamphetamine!
(or if you'd like to stay legal, those FDA approved diet pills which destroy your heart valves instead of your teeth).
Re:Sorry folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.
You need to stop doing that. Here on slashdot we have +1, Insightful (I agree with your political statement), -1, Flamebait (You said something bad about [religion]... Die Heathen!), +1, Funny (You said something obvious, but in a novel way), +1 Underrated (A lot of people are going to downmod you for this in meta, but I love you in secret), and -1, Overrated (I'm too cowardly to delurk and tell you why I disagree).
Your post clearly indicates you are unaware of this and are attempting to moderate based on a novel concept known as 'merit'. I hope they mod you into oblivion, you community-destroying monster! You corrupt everything /. moderation is about. It's a debasement of our esteemed institution of knee-jerk moderation. :)
P.S. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.
Your post clearly indicates you are unaware of this and are attempting to moderate based on a novel concept known as 'merit'. I hope they mod you into oblivion, you community-destroying monster! You corrupt everything /. moderation is about. It's a debasement of our esteemed institution of knee-jerk moderation. :)
P.S. Thanks.
No, it was a knee jerk downmod of some thoughtful idiot who was making sense in a rational, logical yet fair manner. My knee jerked so badly I accidentally clicked an upmod. It was purely unintentional, I promise.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A warrior's drink.
Re: (Score:2)
Monday July 16 Wasn't a good day to FIRST POST (-1, offtopic)