Scientists Developing Obesity Vaccine

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: eLiu
Mankind has gotten along for millenia without serious obesity problems.

Yes, we have. But mankind has never been faced with this environment we have created for ourselves. We have changed our environment, but not our bodies.

Again, obesity is caused by genetics AND environment. The genetics that allowed many to survive repeated famines and/or high physical workloads now works against them in an environment that allows sedentary living and endless, plentiful and cheap high quality/calorie foods.

And after over a decade of abject failure trying to tell people to use self control, we are left with two options: Change the environment, or change the bodies.

Individuals are capable of choosing whether to be part of that environment or not.

Some people are born naturally intelligent. Others are not. Yet there are people in the 2nd category who have achieved through hard work. Say genetics is a large factor in obesity. So what?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,289
19,293
146
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: eLiu
Mankind has gotten along for millenia without serious obesity problems.

Yes, we have. But mankind has never been faced with this environment we have created for ourselves. We have changed our environment, but not our bodies.

Again, obesity is caused by genetics AND environment. The genetics that allowed many to survive repeated famines and/or high physical workloads now works against them in an environment that allows sedentary living and endless, plentiful and cheap high quality/calorie foods.

And after over a decade of abject failure trying to tell people to use self control, we are left with two options: Change the environment, or change the bodies.

Individuals are capable of choosing whether to be part of that environment or not.

Some people are born naturally intelligent. Others are not. Yet there are people in the 2nd category who have achieved through hard work. Say genetics is a large factor in obesity. So what?

Obviously more than 80% of those prone to weight gain within our given environment are incapable of controlling themselves... or their bodies, to be more exact.

Again, you can scream about self control all day long. But to do so would merely be a case of insanely trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Originally posted by: Amused
[Ever wonder why the best power lifters are people prone to severe obesity? Why are all the best power lifters saddled with extremely high body fat %s? How many champion power lifters have you seen who are cut with low body fat? None.

And if you gain weight easily and cannot pack on muscle it's not your genetics that are the problem, it's your lifting routine. Because yes, they are closely related.

But aren't you making the same sort of sweeping generalizations that you are telling other people not to do? Sorry, I went to a gym for a while and was doing a routine with a friend that was designed by one of their instructors. I got stronger, but added very little mass. Yet I can add and drop weight in fats stores very quickly (well, add much faster that remove... lol). I've been this way my entire life. It may be true that many power lifters can can also easily pack on fat, but I know from experience that the abilty to pack on fat != the ability to pack on muscle.

How about you tell me what your weight lifting routine was like?

And don't forget the diet. How many cals were you taking in? What split of fat/carbs/protein?

BTW, I saw something interesting at the gym last night. This really 'large' man was trying to work out on a flat bench with db's. He probably weighed 400 pounds at about 5'10" tall working out (and seriously struggling) with 40 pound db's. He was so large that he could not get off of the bench when he was done with his sets but instead had to roll off the side and get on his knees in order to get up.

Why am I telling everyone this? Because a lot of overweight people tend to avoid gyms because they are afraid of being looked at and/or ridiculed. I have a lot of respect for this man and hope he sticks with it long enough to start seeing the results. I'm convinced that once a person that large sees something positive they will continue to improve and have a great chance to succeed at whatever his physical fitness goal may be.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,574
972
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Yeah, that sounds healthy...:roll:

I have a better solution: Get off your fat ass and get some exercise!!!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting different results.

Telling people to "get off their ass and exercise" has completely failed for over a decade now. Diets have failed for over two decades.

What makes you think it will work because you see it as some great revelation?

That's just it, it's not some great revelation. It is however, the best solution (most healthy)...and it does work.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,289
19,293
146
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Yeah, that sounds healthy...:roll:

I have a better solution: Get off your fat ass and get some exercise!!!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting different results.

Telling people to "get off their ass and exercise" has completely failed for over a decade now. Diets have failed for over two decades.

What makes you think it will work because you see it as some great revelation?

That's just it, it's not some great revelation. It is however, the best solution (most healthy)...and it does work.

For more than 80% of those who are overweight, it does not work long term. That's an astounding failure rate that means more than mere "self control" is at play here... or self control is not enough to control our basest desires. Probably both are at play here.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: eLiu
Mankind has gotten along for millenia without serious obesity problems.

Yes, we have. But mankind has never been faced with this environment we have created for ourselves. We have changed our environment, but not our bodies.

Again, obesity is caused by genetics AND environment. The genetics that allowed many to survive repeated famines and/or high physical workloads now works against them in an environment that allows sedentary living and endless, plentiful and cheap high quality/calorie foods.

And after over a decade of abject failure trying to tell people to use self control, we are left with two options: Change the environment, or change the bodies.

Individuals are capable of choosing whether to be part of that environment or not.

Some people are born naturally intelligent. Others are not. Yet there are people in the 2nd category who have achieved through hard work. Say genetics is a large factor in obesity. So what?

Obviously more than 80% of those prone to weight gain within our given environment are incapable of controlling themselves... or their bodies, to be more exact.

Again, you can scream about self control all day long. But to do so would merely be a case of insanely trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I don't have to try anything; I was gifted with one of those very fast metabolisms. This is an individual problem, they can address it however they want to their heart's content.

Just don't whine when you pay extra for seats on a plane.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
The biggest objection I have is not the existence of the genetically obese. But Amused's definition of genetically obese, which basically is that if you don't have hyperthyroid or some other disorder that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat, then you are genetically obese. In many threads I see Amused saying that food isn't the problem, despite clear evidence that it is. There is a direct correlation with obesity and the increase of portion sizes and injection of corn syrup. People began getting fat in the 60s/70s as things like soda servings went from 6 ozs to several times higher.

http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2003/12_03/bray2.gif

Even otherwise healthy foods today are loaded with corn syrup -- yogurt and bread are clear examples.

Freedom comes along with personal responsibility. If one chooses to to quick fix their self inflicted obesity with unnatural solutions, then I shouldn't have to pay for all of the other quick fixing health care solutions that result. I shouldn't have to pay a dime because that infringes economic liberty. Because if you eat whatever you want, there's going to be an increased incidence of heart disease, cancer, and many other disorders. Aside from major genetic disorders, your diet is by far the largest contributor to your health. To deny this is to deny science and reasoning. Countless studies have looked at how significantly food impacts the body. This website has accumulated the health benefits of simple, health food and has the scientific studies referenced.

Spinach
Green tea
Salmon
food list

Not only are such foods less expensive than the obesity causing sh1t people eat, but they also prevent so many expensive disorders that would need treatment. You don't have to be some nutty vegan. Lean meats and dairy make the list.

 

herkulease

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2001
3,923
0
0
it'll never happen. drug companies will find ways to shut it down.

why?

Obese people -> health problems -> require meds -> drug company profits.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,289
19,293
146
Originally posted by: Legend
The biggest objection I have is not the existence of the genetically obese. But Amused's definition of genetically obese, which basically is that if you don't have hyperthyroid or some other disorder that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat, then you are genetically obese. In many threads I see Amused saying that food isn't the problem, despite clear evidence that it is. There is a direct correlation with obesity and the increase of portion sizes and injection of corn syrup. People began getting fat in the 60s/70s as things like soda servings went from 6 ozs to several times higher.

The obesity epidemic started in the 80s and exploded in the 90s. You may not be old enough to remember, but I am.

At any rate, what I am saying is supported by EVERY valid site on genetics and obesity on the web. What you are saying is merely the environment issue I have discussed in my posts, nothing more.

Food has changed very little in that time. Blaming one sweetener over another is so silly, it's absurd. Blaming serving sizes is absurd as well. As if we are cattle who cannot stop eating until all the food in front of us is gone.

Up until now, you have been screaming about self control. Now you blame serving sizes as if people have no self control. Which is it?

The ONLY major cultural shift that directly correlates with the rise in obesity over the last 25 years is the introduction, and growth in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the kick in the nuts was the Internet. Other smaller changes correlate as well, as the growth of the snack food industry in response to a more sedentary populations demands for munchies grew. The growth in the rate of air conditioned housing grew, keeping people indoors more. I could go on, but to blame portion sizes and an alternative sweetener alone is absurd. Your problem is you read the propaganda from "whole foods" websites. Here's a hint: They are trying to scare you so they can sell you something.

I have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the propensity for obesity is genetic within a given environment, not learned. The multiple, independent adoption studies confirm this without a doubt. To keep agruing against this makes you look downright silly.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Legend
The biggest objection I have is not the existence of the genetically obese. But Amused's definition of genetically obese, which basically is that if you don't have hyperthyroid or some other disorder that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat, then you are genetically obese. In many threads I see Amused saying that food isn't the problem, despite clear evidence that it is. There is a direct correlation with obesity and the increase of portion sizes and injection of corn syrup. People began getting fat in the 60s/70s as things like soda servings went from 6 ozs to several times higher.

The obesity epidemic started in the 80s and exploded in the 90s. You may not be old enough to remember, but I am.

At any rate, what I am saying is supported by EVERY valid site on genetics and obesity on the web. What you are saying is merely the environment issue I have discussed in my posts, nothing more.

Food has changed very little in that time. Blaming one sweetener over another is so silly, it's absurd. Blaming serving sizes is absurd as well. As if we are cattle who cannot stop eating until all the food in front of us is gone.

Up until now, you have been screaming about self control. Now you blame serving sizes as if people have no self control. Which is it?

The ONLY major cultural shift that directly correlates with the rise in obesity over the last 25 years is the introduction, and growth in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the kick in the nuts was the Internet. Other smaller changes correlate as well, as the growth of the snack food industry in response to a more sedentary populations demands for munchies grew. The growth in the rate of air conditioned housing grew, keeping people indoors more. I could go on, but to blame portion sizes and an alternative sweetener alone is absurd. Your problem is you read the propaganda from "whole foods" websites. Here's a hint: They are trying to scare you so they can sell you something.


Foods haven't changed? Really?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

According to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of various sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to 147 pounds in 2001.

What has also changed during the past four decades, the USDA figures show, is the type of sweeteners consumed -- a trend that some studies suggest may help to undermine appetite control and possibly play a role in weight gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, held the No. 1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized differently" than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the syrup. "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray. "It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher [blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men."

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less clear," the team noted.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Legend
The biggest objection I have is not the existence of the genetically obese. But Amused's definition of genetically obese, which basically is that if you don't have hyperthyroid or some other disorder that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat, then you are genetically obese. In many threads I see Amused saying that food isn't the problem, despite clear evidence that it is. There is a direct correlation with obesity and the increase of portion sizes and injection of corn syrup. People began getting fat in the 60s/70s as things like soda servings went from 6 ozs to several times higher.

http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2003/12_03/bray2.gif

Even otherwise healthy foods today are loaded with corn syrup -- yogurt and bread are clear examples.

Freedom comes along with personal responsibility. If one chooses to to quick fix their self inflicted obesity with unnatural solutions, then I shouldn't have to pay for all of the other quick fixing health care solutions that result. I shouldn't have to pay a dime because that infringes economic liberty. Because if you eat whatever you want, there's going to be an increased incidence of heart disease, cancer, and many other disorders. Aside from major genetic disorders, your diet is by far the largest contributor to your health. To deny this is to deny science and reasoning. Countless studies have looked at how significantly food impacts the body. This website has accumulated the health benefits of simple, health food and has the scientific studies referenced.

Spinach
Green tea
Salmon
food list

Not only are such foods less expensive than the obesity causing sh1t people eat, but they also prevent so many expensive disorders that would need treatment. You don't have to be some nutty vegan. Lean meats and dairy make the list.

Here's the rub though - its not just a genetic predisposition towards obesity or not, its an innate evolutionary disposition towards the very things that are most likely to make you fat. Those very things that were so rare back then, that are SO abundant now, that the tables have turned, and the things that we SHOULD have a taste for nowadays, are the very things we don't.

So you can go on and on about self control, personal responsibility, and you'd be right, but you'd also be missing the point. You can feel good about your mind winning the struggle against the desires of the body. I'd rather feel good knowing that my body and natural desires are more in tune with the current day and age, and what tastes good IS good, rather than some pseudo-moral test of personal responsibility every time I have a scoop of ice cream.

But being that evolution isn't going to help us anytime soon, the only way we can affect that kind of change is through medication. This isnt the first time our bodies try to "do us a favor" and it ends up backfiring - allergies, optical illusions, etc - our bodies were created to deal with a much different environment than we now live in...whats so wrong about bringing our biology up to speed with our society?
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...cle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL

An overweight America may be fixated on fat and obsessed with carbs, but nutritionists say the real problem is much sweeter -- we're awash in sugar.

Not just any sugar, but high fructose corn syrup.

The country eats more sweetener made from corn than from sugarcane or beets, gulping it down in drinks as well as in frozen food and baked goods. Even ketchup is laced with it.

Almost all nutritionists finger high fructose corn syrup consumption as a major culprit in the nation's obesity crisis. The inexpensive sweetener flooded the American food supply in the early 1980s, just about the time the nation's obesity rate started its unprecedented climb.

Loading high fructose corn syrup into increasingly larger portions of soda and processed food has packed more calories into us and more money into food processing companies, say nutritionists and food activists. But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.

The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002658491_healthsyrup04.html

High-fructose corn syrup fueling obesity epidemic, doctors say

Bray says the problem with HFCS is not only that it is sweeter than other forms of sugar, but also that it does not affect appetite. Fructose adds to overeating because it does not trigger chemical messengers that tell the brain the stomach is full and no longer hungry, like food and drinks that contain regular refined sugar do.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,289
19,293
146
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Legend
The biggest objection I have is not the existence of the genetically obese. But Amused's definition of genetically obese, which basically is that if you don't have hyperthyroid or some other disorder that allows you to eat whatever you want and not get fat, then you are genetically obese. In many threads I see Amused saying that food isn't the problem, despite clear evidence that it is. There is a direct correlation with obesity and the increase of portion sizes and injection of corn syrup. People began getting fat in the 60s/70s as things like soda servings went from 6 ozs to several times higher.

The obesity epidemic started in the 80s and exploded in the 90s. You may not be old enough to remember, but I am.

At any rate, what I am saying is supported by EVERY valid site on genetics and obesity on the web. What you are saying is merely the environment issue I have discussed in my posts, nothing more.

Food has changed very little in that time. Blaming one sweetener over another is so silly, it's absurd. Blaming serving sizes is absurd as well. As if we are cattle who cannot stop eating until all the food in front of us is gone.

Up until now, you have been screaming about self control. Now you blame serving sizes as if people have no self control. Which is it?

The ONLY major cultural shift that directly correlates with the rise in obesity over the last 25 years is the introduction, and growth in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the kick in the nuts was the Internet. Other smaller changes correlate as well, as the growth of the snack food industry in response to a more sedentary populations demands for munchies grew. The growth in the rate of air conditioned housing grew, keeping people indoors more. I could go on, but to blame portion sizes and an alternative sweetener alone is absurd. Your problem is you read the propaganda from "whole foods" websites. Here's a hint: They are trying to scare you so they can sell you something.


Foods haven't changed? Really?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

According to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of various sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to 147 pounds in 2001.

What has also changed during the past four decades, the USDA figures show, is the type of sweeteners consumed -- a trend that some studies suggest may help to undermine appetite control and possibly play a role in weight gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, held the No. 1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized differently" than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the syrup. "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray. "It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher [blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men."

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less clear," the team noted.

I said changed very little. And I did point out that the snack food industry exploded when people became more sedentary, explaining the increased use of sugars and grains. (Think about it, people sitting around munch, and what do they munch? Carbs.

And I'm sorry, but they can say studies "suggest" all they want, but I know plenty of hard gainers who gain very little weight who take in a ton of HFCS. I just don't think it's effects are as devisating as some people make it out to be.

I get quite a bit of it in my breads, although I drink only water, so I don't get it from soda. I have no trouble losing, or gaining fat at will while eating breads with HFCS (and other things).

If you read what you posted critically, not one of those claims has been verified by repeated independent studies. That's why they use terms like "suggest."