Disney closes Childhood Obesity exhibit after complaints

[blinky8225]

Has anyone else apart from SociallyChallenged, in this thread, ever even thought to consider, for one second, that like most chronic conditions, obesity is not simply a completely genetic or completely environmental condition? Because it seems that neither you nor Bateluer has. And for that you have committed the false dichotomy logical fallacy, and for trying to pin this view on us, you have also committed the straw man logical fallacy.

Get your heads out of your asses and try to think for a change.

I do accept that, but those are special cases. I'm looking more at the cause of the recent explosion in obesity, which the exhibit is focused on. The only thing that has changed significantly in these past 100 years are environmental. Genetics are virtually the same, yet 100 years ago, 1/3 of the people in America weren't obese. We need to admit that our environment, filled with processed foods and chemicals and constructed to require very little physical activity, is pretty toxic.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I do accept that, but those are special cases. I'm looking more at the cause of the recent explosion in obesity, which the exhibit is focused on. The only thing that has changed significantly in these past 100 years are environmental. Genetics are virtually the same, yet 100 years ago, 1/3 of the people in America weren't obese. We need to admit that our environment, filled with processed foods and chemicals and constructed to require very little physical activity, is pretty toxic.

No, those are not special cases. Those are the majority.

A good analogy is COPD. Before people smoked, nobody got COPD. Therefore, it seems reasonable to blame COPD on smoking, right? However, this does not explain why some people can smoke their whole lives and not get COPD, but some people smoke 1 or 2 a day for 5 years and then get COPD in their 60s. The reason is genetic, and a similar relationship exists with obesity. Yes, inactivity and increased caloric intake are big factors in obesity. But it doesn't explain, for example, why I have to watch what I eat, whereas my Dad eats more than me, moves less than me, and yet is still smaller and skinnier than me.

It's important to stop thinking about conditions as being monofactorial, it doesn't work any longer. It used to work in the times when infectious disease accounted for the majority of premature death; he's sick, therefore something's infected him. That doesn't work anymore, because most chronic diseases are very complex interplays between genetics and environment. Just because there is a very obvious environmental factor, does not mean there are no genetic modifiers also.

 

[JimKiler]

Considering we're the only two healthcare professionals on this board and have read research on it, I'm going to say our opinions carry the most clout. In addition, you don't understand genetics if you think that there always has to be a cause and effect. There is a gradient of protein expressions and sometimes there are defects that cause certain things. Obesity is regulated likely by thousands of genes. If half of them put you at a predisposition for being fat, then you're gonna be fat unless you're really active. You can say diet and lack of exercise area always the cause, but that's simply not true. There is a significant portion of the population that eats just as poorly as those who are obese, but have a metabolism that wastes the energy via thermogenesis.

so should we classify those people as victims of genes and subsidise them when they get too fat and clog up our healthcare? They may not have the best metabolism but i bet they can still reduce weight with exercise and healthy eating.

I do not watch biggest loser or those TLC shows about weight lose but i have not heard of one of those people unable to lose weight due to genes.

Also since you are a science man you must know obesity levels are increasing in America and no science report has yet to say genes are the main culprit.

 

[JimKiler]

No, those are not special cases. Those are the majority.

A good analogy is COPD. Before people smoked, nobody got COPD. Therefore, it seems reasonable to blame COPD on smoking, right? However, this does not explain why some people can smoke their whole lives and not get COPD, but some people smoke 1 or 2 a day for 5 years and then get COPD in their 60s. The reason is genetic, and a similar relationship exists with obesity. Yes, inactivity and increased caloric intake are big factors in obesity. But it doesn't explain, for example, why I have to watch what I eat, whereas my Dad eats more than me, moves less than me, and yet is still smaller and skinnier than me.

It's important to stop thinking about conditions as being monofactorial, it doesn't work any longer. It used to work in the times when infectious disease accounted for the majority of premature death; he's sick, therefore something's infected him. That doesn't work anymore, because most chronic diseases are very complex interplays between genetics and environment. Just because there is a very obvious environmental factor, does not mean there are no genetic modifiers also.

Science is great and will explain how obesity works but at the same time you should watch what you eat since you can easily get obese compared to your father. Anyone who needs to lose weight who goes to a doctor is going to be told diet and exercise is the first step and unless those do not work then someone should start looking for other reasons for obesity.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Science is great and will explain how obesity works but at the same time you should watch what you eat since you can easily get obese compared to your father. Anyone who needs to lose weight who goes to a doctor is going to be told diet and exercise is the first step and unless those do not work then someone should start looking for other reasons for obesity.

What the fuck is with you people and misrepresenting everything I say?

 

[blinky8225]

No, those are not special cases. Those are the majority.

A good analogy is COPD. Before people smoked, nobody got COPD. Therefore, it seems reasonable to blame COPD on smoking, right? However, this does not explain why some people can smoke their whole lives and not get COPD, but some people smoke 1 or 2 a day for 5 years and then get COPD in their 60s. The reason is genetic, and a similar relationship exists with obesity. Yes, inactivity and increased caloric intake are big factors in obesity. But it doesn't explain, for example, why I have to watch what I eat, whereas my Dad eats more than me, moves less than me, and yet is still smaller and skinnier than me.

It's important to stop thinking about conditions as being monofactorial, it doesn't work any longer. It used to work in the times when infectious disease accounted for the majority of premature death; he's sick, therefore something's infected him. That doesn't work anymore, because most chronic diseases are very complex interplays between genetics and environment. Just because there is a very obvious environmental factor, does not mean there are no genetic modifiers also.

I understanding what you're saying, but these people have a choice. Hardly anyone is predestined to get obesity or COPD. They have genes that certainly predispose them towards obesity and COPD, but those genes would never express themselves without certain environmental factors.

So you will admit that if you get rid of smoking COPD disappears? And if you add smoking back COPD reappears? To me, that sounds like cause and effect, no? I know you could make the same argument about the genes. If we could some how alter their DNA, COPD would disappear, but let's focus on practical solutions.

 

[Kaido]

Doctors say obesity can sometimes be attributed to genetics and certain medications, and food can be used as a coping mechanism.

I always see this line quoted when an obesity discussion comes up. Does anyone have any actual numbers about nature vs. nurture here? Like, is 60% due to diet and 40% due to genetics? In my own case, I was overweight due to my diet and a lack of knowledge/habits regarding proper nutrition. Once I got motivated and educated, I lost 50 pounds. But I've also seen TV shows where people suffer genetic disorders that cause them to gain weight - but it seems incredibly rare. And I've never met anyone who has pursued a proven fat-loss program who hasn't lost weight and gotten in shape once they've changed their lifestyle. So I'm curious as to what the statistics actually are for unmanageable genetic obesity that doesn't respond to diet & exercise.

The older people I work with say it's mind-boggling, because as kids there would be like one overweight kid in the school, and he was the "fat kid", unfortunately. And it's not just the number of kids who are struggling with weight issues, but also the amount of weight. One of the most telling images I've seen is the Willy Wonka movie comparison of the overweight kid from the original 1971 version to the 2005 version:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/image-of-childhood-obesity-1975.png

 

[ArchAngel777]

I did, very clearly in several of my posts. But, the fact is, some 90% of obesity is simply causes by poor diet and lack of exercise. The percentage of obesity caused by genetic factors and diseases is statistically insignificant. Those arguments are coddling, things you say to make an obese person feel better, because its not their fault. Its genetic. They don't have to control their diet or get off the couch occasionally. Because its genetic.





Those are the two biggest causes.



Falls into what I've stated several times, poor diet. Seems to keep going over your head.



Wouldn't effect obesity.



Debatable, but again, falls under poor diet.



Nothing to do with obesity. This isn't an autism discussion thread.




Unless the increased pollution is preventing you from exercising, no effect on obesity.



Has other affects, but not much in obesity. Passing down genetic disorders that would otherwise be weeded out has other affects.



All of these fall under my poor diet/lifestyle statements. And it was exactly these factors that Disney and BCBS were targeting. Improving education, improving dietary knowledge, and doing it in a light, fun, entertaining way. I'm still mystified why you're attacking Disney for this.



Nothing to do with obesity.



This would have an effect, high stress people tend to be overweight. Just keep in mind, that they usually aren't exercising and usually eat fast food because they feel they need to accomplish certain tasks and believe they don't have the time to eat healthy or exercise. So again, poor diet and lifestyle.



Lifestyle is 90% of the matter. Obesity has skyrocketed in the past decade mostly because we eat crap, don't exercise, and more and more often, we attack and shutdown groups who try to stem this tide.

Obesity is going to become one of the biggest problems for first world nations in the next couple of decades as these obese children become obese adults. And suddenly wonder why they have a slew of illnesses and medications they have to take, and continue to complain that their health care costs are through the roof. And then they'll order out for McDonald's delivery. While taking the electric scooter to the mail box to get the mail.

Spot on... Instead of being careful to hurt peoples feelings and thus perpetuate 95%+ of these obesity epidemic, lets give them the TRUTH. Eat healthy, do some exercise and don't take insane portion sizes.

What a bunch of pathetic people we have become if we are scared to hurt someones feelings over an aspect of their life that they can change. Don't argue the 5% that have some crazy medical condition, argue the 95% that can change.

True healthcare isn't looking for excuses for people to remain the way they are , it is providing people with treatment that can cure.

So lets take 100% of obese people and apply a healthy diet + exercise treatment and if 5% are left over... Well, then we can look into alternative treatment for them. Not sure why less than 100% treatment works for every other stupid disease known to man, yet we are scared to apply it too some basic things as obesity.

Edit ** I want to add that walking around in 6 pack abs is also not the staple for 'healthy'. Those people are obsessed as well. Just keep a decent BF range of 12-20% for men and you can be very healthy. No reason to be 8% unless you are naturally that way (some people are!) So not having love handles, a bit of jelly around the belly isn't much of an issue. But when you start getting the spare tire, time to start cleaning up the diet.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I did, very clearly in several of my posts. But, the fact is, some 90% of obesity is simply causes by poor diet and lack of exercise. The percentage of obesity caused by genetic factors and diseases is statistically insignificant. Those arguments are coddling, things you say to make an obese person feel better, because its not their fault. Its genetic. They don't have to control their diet or get off the couch occasionally. Because its genetic.

Those are the two biggest causes.

Falls into what I've stated several times, poor diet. Seems to keep going over your head.

Wouldn't effect obesity.

Debatable, but again, falls under poor diet.

Nothing to do with obesity. This isn't an autism discussion thread.

Unless the increased pollution is preventing you from exercising, no effect on obesity.

Has other affects, but not much in obesity. Passing down genetic disorders that would otherwise be weeded out has other affects.

All of these fall under my poor diet/lifestyle statements. And it was exactly these factors that Disney and BCBS were targeting. Improving education, improving dietary knowledge, and doing it in a light, fun, entertaining way. I'm still mystified why you're attacking Disney for this.

Nothing to do with obesity.

This would have an effect, high stress people tend to be overweight. Just keep in mind, that they usually aren't exercising and usually eat fast food because they feel they need to accomplish certain tasks and believe they don't have the time to eat healthy or exercise. So again, poor diet and lifestyle.

Lifestyle is 90% of the matter. Obesity has skyrocketed in the past decade mostly because we eat crap, don't exercise, and more and more often, we attack and shutdown groups who try to stem this tide.

Obesity is going to become one of the biggest problems for first world nations in the next couple of decades as these obese children become obese adults. And suddenly wonder why they have a slew of illnesses and medications they have to take, and continue to complain that their health care costs are through the roof. And then they'll order out for McDonald's delivery. While taking the electric scooter to the mail box to get the mail.

All of your statements are based on your personal suppositions. I don't have all day to argue each point, so here are a few articles that support several of my claims. Some of the things you've mentioned aren't logically sound points. Genetically modified foods fall into everyone's diet, as they are really the only foods available nowadays. Most everything you eat has been grown for certain traits. Instead of natural selection occurring, it's called artificial selection and it modifies plant nutrition and content.

Herpes virus linked to obesity via TNF (which is also linked to insulin resistance)
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v18/n2/full/oby2009250a.html

Adenovirus 36 virus linked to obesity
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/20/peds.2009-3362.abstract

http://studium.unict.it/dokeos/2011/main/upload/users/4327/4327/Int_J_Obesity_2009.pdf

(Multiple resources supporting adenovirus 36 and link to obesity)
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/290/1/R188.short

Distemper linked to obesity
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1740670/reload=0;jsessionid=1bjdu0i3QSOKoEgs8OG2.2

Multiple bacteria/viruses linked to obesity (including common ones like chlamydia and heliobacter pylori)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?...esity: a multinational epidemiological study.

Pesticide link to obesity (look in the article to find the journal article)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...cide_in_womb_may_promote_obesity,_study_finds

Pollution and obesity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513328/

Stress related to obesity, outside of poor decision-making
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15350881

Also, as a note, cortisol has reliably been linked to greater propensity for obesity, independent of diet choice. This is why I'm trying to talk to you. You're not understanding the science behind the points I'm making. I'm done with this thread because I feel I've made my point loud, clear, logically, and with evidence. The burden of proof is now on your shoulders to provide research evidence telling me I'm wrong.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I understanding what you're saying, but these people have a choice. Hardly anyone is predestined to get obesity or COPD. They have genes that certainly predispose them towards obesity and COPD, but those genes would never express themselves without certain environmental factors.

So you will admit that if you get rid of smoking COPD disappears? And if you add smoking back COPD reappears? To me, that sounds like cause and effect, no? I know you could make the same argument about the genes. If we could some how alter their DNA, COPD would disappear, but let's focus on practical solutions.

I don't disagree. However, the problem with the 'I have a choice' thing is that it's good on a personal level, not so good on an epidemiological level. And this is where (in my opinion) you guys are going astray. Your thinking is more along the lines of "how can I help this person", in which case personal motivation is a far more relevant factor than genetics. However, that doesn't really help in the population level, where even a relatively rare condition (and things like thyroid conditions aren't exactly rare) can affect thousands of people because so many people are overweight, and where it's much harder to alter or manipulate human psychology in an effective way.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that we can somehow eliminate sugar and fat from diet. Even if these weren't essential to human life, completely eliminating simple sugars and excess fat from every person's diet on Earth is about as practical as mass gene therapy. They won't go away from people's plates just because you tell them that they'll die if they keep doing what they're doing.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm done with this thread because I feel I've made my point loud, clear, logically, and with evidence. The burden of proof is now on your shoulders to provide research evidence telling me I'm wrong.

I accept your gracious surrender.

Your points are irrelevant to what Disney created, which was a edu-tainment show targeting the two largest contributors to obesity. Not really sure why you're attacking them . . . you seem more interested in finding excuses for obesity and poor life styles than actually attacking a problem.

 

[blinky8225]

I don't disagree. However, the problem with the 'I have a choice' thing is that it's good on a personal level, not so good on an epidemiological level. And this is where (in my opinion) you guys are going astray. Your thinking is more along the lines of "how can I help this person", in which case personal motivation is a far more relevant factor than genetics. However, that doesn't really help in the population level, where even a relatively rare condition (and things like thyroid conditions aren't exactly rare) can affect thousands of people because so many people are overweight, and where it's much harder to alter or manipulate human psychology in an effective way.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that we can somehow eliminate sugar and fat from diet. Even if these weren't essential to human life, completely eliminating simple sugars and excess fat from every person's diet on Earth is about as practical as mass gene therapy. They won't go away from people's plates just because you tell them that they'll die if they keep doing what they're doing.

Actually, I mostly agree with you here. You're right. The idea of "having a choice" is not entirely the person saying "I want to be eat junk and not move even if it means being fat." The reality is that our environment is so toxic that the person must actively fight against his or her evolutionary instincts to avoid obesity. We are biologically programmed to eat good food and exert as little physical effort as possible, which makes donuts, cheesecakes, and elevators quite attractive. From my own weight loss journey, I know that it's not easy. Perhaps, it's more of a problem of ignorance as well. Government health recommendations are not exactly sound.

Anyway, it's hardly necessary to eliminate sugar and fat from the diet. It's processed food that is the problem. Sugar in its natural form such as fruit is pretty good for you. The fat on the ribeye of a grass-fed cow is also pretty healthy. Starch like sweet potatoes are great for you, but when you grind things up into a super-refined flour, you have a recipe for insulin resistance. But yes, perhaps avoiding processed food is impractical for most people.

 

[Kalessian]

There is a significant portion of the population that eats just as poorly as those who are obese, but have a metabolism that wastes the energy via thermogenesis.

This is something I've always wondered about, and I am very curious about the implications of this sentence, from both a biological point of view and a thermodynamic one. Does this mean the average body temperature of skinny people is higher? Or does the increased fat provide some sort of insulation?

What would be an evolutionary advantage of increased thermogenesis? Surely this is a less efficient use of calories and would have been selected against throughout the majority of history?

Is anyone looking at ways to increase thermogenesis as a cure for obesity? Sit around a sweat away the fat?

Have any interesting studies on this?

 

[ArchAngel777]

This is something I've always wondered about, and I am very curious about the implications of this sentence, from both a biological point of view and a thermodynamic one. Does this mean the average body temperature of skinny people is higher? Or does the increased fat provide some sort of insulation?

What would be an evolutionary advantage of increased thermogenesis? Surely this is a less efficient use of calories and would have been selected against throughout the majority of history?

Is anyone looking at ways to increase thermogenesis as a cure for obesity? Sit around a sweat away the fat?

Have any interesting studies on this?

I am not sure this truly has been studied to find a conclusive result. In my opinion, these peoples are not neccessarily burning more energy, I merely think they just don't take it in. This could be due to much of the food not being absorbed via the large intestine.

In gastic bypass, I believe they 'shorten' a third of the large intestinal track. They also, of course, shrink the size of the stomach so less food is allowed at any one time. But the shortening of the intestinal track allows the body to absorb less of what is ingested, according the doctors. That is my take on it anyway, as I truly don't think these people are burning 6,000 calories while they do nothing active all day. I merely think out of those 6,000 calories, their body only took in a 3K or so, the rest was never harvested. Additionally, these people may 'look' like they eat 6K a day because you see them eat a 2K meal and thin (they must do this 3 times a day!), when it fact they may just have two smaller meals as well.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

This is something I've always wondered about, and I am very curious about the implications of this sentence, from both a biological point of view and a thermodynamic one. Does this mean the average body temperature of skinny people is higher? Or does the increased fat provide some sort of insulation?

What would be an evolutionary advantage of increased thermogenesis? Surely this is a less efficient use of calories and would have been selected against throughout the majority of history?

Is anyone looking at ways to increase thermogenesis as a cure for obesity? Sit around a sweat away the fat?

Have any interesting studies on this?

That some people 'have a higher metabolism' than others is mostly complete bullshit. If anything, fat people have a higher basal metabolism than skinny people, because their fat tissue requires energy as well.

Prentice AM, Black AE, Coward WA, Davies HL, Goldberg GR, Murgatroyd PR et al. High levels of energy expenditure in obese women. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Apr 12;292(6526):983-7.

This is, of course, at a population level. I am aware that exercise can temporarily increase BMR, cancer will drastically increase BMR, and certain endocrine conditions will also do the same. However, at a population level, these effects are probably very small.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

That some people 'have a higher metabolism' than others is mostly complete bullshit. If anything, fat people have a higher basal metabolism than skinny people, because their fat tissue requires energy as well.

Prentice AM, Black AE, Coward WA, Davies HL, Goldberg GR, Murgatroyd PR et al. High levels of energy expenditure in obese women. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Apr 12;292(6526):983-7.

This is, of course, at a population level. I am aware that exercise can temporarily increase BMR, cancer will drastically increase BMR, and certain endocrine conditions will also do the same. However, at a population level, these effects are probably very small.

I've read a couple research articles that I don't have on hand at the moment, but you're right. BMR doesn't typically change in individuals of a given body composition who eat at caloric maintenance. However, there has been research that shows some individuals are particularly sensitive to drops in caloric intake. Some people's BMR doesn't change at all, while others drop up to 30% to compensate for the calorie loss. The same thing is true with caloric excess. Some individuals store each and every calorie somehow. Other individuals can undergo temporary excess thermogenesis, which essentially increases their BMR. It is contingent on certain scenarios, but it does happen and has been noted academically. These individuals have even been noticed academically in things like the bodybuilding world and are typically called "hard gainers." Instead of having to eat an excess of 500cal per day to gain mass, they have to eat 800-1000cal to gain the equivalent amount of mass each week. Let me see if I can find the articles this weekend.

 

[Kalessian]

If anything, fat people have a higher basal metabolism than skinny people, because their fat tissue requires energy as well.

I've always joked with my friends that really fat people aren't actually lazy, because the really big ones have to put so much effort into maintaining their weight that unless they have someone enabling them, it's gotta be hard work. I'm 6', doing starting strength, trying to get to 200 lbs, but I can't even be arsed to get to the store to buy a gallon of milk for GOMAD, let alone get up and actually drink all of that milk during the day. I can't budge over 190 lbs because I'm too lazy to eat.

 

[alkemyst]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46591678/#.T1EWu_Egc3U



We need to stop worrying about offending the obese.

Disney should have told the fatties to go pound sand, it would have been good for them. Burn some calories.

Edit - Fixed the quoted text.

Usually those that are so adamant against another group aren't bringing much to the table themselves.

 

[Mandres]

Personally I'm appalled that Disney would even consider opening an exhibit of this kind in the first place. Isn't it supposed to be a place for fun and whimsy, rather than self-righteous nagging?

How is a 10 year old going to feel when he notices, maybe for the first time, this his body sort of looks like the villain "Lead Bottom's"? At an amusement park? Seriously? I'm sure there were crowds of furious parents every day.

Yes childhood obesity is a serious problem, but Disneyworld is not the right venue for this message. They really should have known better.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Personally I'm appalled that Disney would even consider opening an exhibit of this kind in the first place. Isn't it supposed to be a place for fun and whimsy, rather than self-righteous nagging?

How is a 10 year old going to feel when he notices, maybe for the first time, this his body sort of looks like the villain "Lead Bottom's"? At an amusement park? Seriously? I'm sure there were crowds of furious parents every day.

Yes childhood obesity is a serious problem, but Disneyworld is not the right venue for this message. They really should have known better.

There would be so much cognitive dissonance having an exhibit about obesity next to stalls selling candy floss, soft drinks by the gallon, and fast food joints galore...

 

[BAMAVOO]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46591678/#.T1EWu_Egc3U



We need to stop worrying about offending the obese.

Disney should have told the fatties to go pound sand, it would have been good for them. Burn some calories.

Edit - Fixed the quoted text.

Same reason we shouldn't worry about offending gay,black, asian.............................

 

[bononos]

I don't disagree. However, the problem with the 'I have a choice' thing is that it's good on a personal level, not so good on an epidemiological level. And this is where (in my opinion) you guys are going astray. Your thinking is more along the lines of "how can I help this person", in which case personal motivation is a far more relevant factor than genetics. However, that doesn't really help in the population level, where even a relatively rare condition (and things like thyroid conditions aren't exactly rare) can affect thousands of people because so many people are overweight, and where it's much harder to alter or manipulate human psychology in an effective way.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that we can somehow eliminate sugar and fat from diet. Even if these weren't essential to human life, completely eliminating simple sugars and excess fat from every person's diet on Earth is about as practical as mass gene therapy. They won't go away from people's plates just because you tell them that they'll die if they keep doing what they're doing.

What about socio-economic factors in the rise of obesity - if the stress of a non-stable low wage job isn't enough to pack on the pounds, its the problem of 'food deserts' in inner cities, lack of parks/safety to exercise, lack of time to cook (depend on fast food), funding cuts in schools affect PE/music etc.

There is a tendency in America to compartmentalise and to medicalise what seems to be purely an individual pathology without regard for the broader social dimension. Whether its the culture that sees food more as fuel or big industry spinning science, they all have a part in the global obesity epidemic. Eg. The US food lobby have made it such that the august National Academy set the DRI for sugar intake at 25% of total caloric intake, and the Bush admin threatened the WHO when its recommendations were way lower than the DRI.

 

[bononos]

... Is anyone looking at ways to increase thermogenesis as a cure for obesity? Sit around a sweat away the fat?

Have any interesting studies on this?

Workers handling DNP (component in explosives) turned skinny and it was found to interfere with the cell respiration process. A less dangerous compound (usnic acid) works similarly to poke holes in cellular energy pathway so a person literally has to use up more energy even lazing on the couch. A ban on usnic acid for fatloss supps was supposed to happen years back but I don't know if it came about.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Whether its the culture that sees food more as fuel or big industry spinning science, they all have a part in the global obesity epidemic. Eg. The US food lobby have made it such that the august National Academy set the DRI for sugar intake at 25% of total caloric intake, and the Bush admin threatened the WHO when its recommendations were way lower than the DRI.

25% of your calories from Sugar? That sounds insane to me!