Post Reply
Page 25 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25
Switch to Forum Live View Fifteen Deadliest Food Myths
4 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2010 - 8:26PM #241
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Oct 12, 2010 -- 8:14PM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 6:43PM, appy20 wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 6:33PM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 5:30PM, appy20 wrote:


We don't know why they eat more than others do, though.   That, too, is a biological puzzle. 





I'd say it's a socio-psycho-biological puzzle, like most of the things behind people's choices.




There is too much evidence otherwise. 




No, actually all the evidence points to social, psychological and biological causes, the same reason some people become addicted to tobacco, some people become addicted to alcohol, etc, etc.


In fact, all the loci found regarding apetite control and food choices explains an amount of variance that's clinically insignificant.


Moreover, if you see the curve on women between socioeconomic class and weight, you see a huge trend where socioeconomic class is strongly correlated with weight. None of the "biological" associations has nearly the same strength.



There are too many flaws with that logic. Number one, they don't have all the biologic factors figured out yet so how the heck could they have any correlations regarding them.  They do have a lot of genetic data that is very strong.


Secondly, some of the socioeconomic aspects may be biologicallly based.  Last but not least correlations have no guarantee of causality. Correlations are not definite proof of anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2010 - 8:37PM #242
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Oct 12, 2010 -- 6:43PM, appy20 wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 6:33PM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 5:30PM, appy20 wrote:


We don't know why they eat more than others do, though.   That, too, is a biological puzzle. 





I'd say it's a socio-psycho-biological puzzle, like most of the things behind people's choices.




There is too much evidence otherwise. 





appy


I agree with you on most of this, if I understand the conversation. (I may not.)


We are just beginning to understand the role of genetics, brain and other chemicals, meds, etc..


Why does depression run in my family, a family with more brilliant minds than any family should have? I think there is a connection, but I don't know what it is.


We have so much to learn.


J.



discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2010 - 9:34AM #243
Ceren
Posts: 1,430

Oct 12, 2010 -- 8:26PM, appy20 wrote:


There are too many flaws with that logic. Number one, they don't have all the biologic factors figured out yet so how the heck could they have any correlations regarding them.  They do have a lot of genetic data that is very strong.


Secondly, some of the socioeconomic aspects may be biologicallly based.  Last but not least correlations have no guarantee of causality. Correlations are not definite proof of anything.





Actually...


a. ALL the biological factors so far found for most chronic diseases (e.g. HTN, DMII, DSLP) are VERY weak. SAME thing with obesity.


So the likelihood of finding one more more factors that account for the random variance that's found today is extremely small.


b. The epidemic of obesity is very recent. However, there haven't been variations in our genome. However, there have been GREAT changes in our lifestyle. So just by this simple fact, it's quite obvious that the main responsible for this epidemic is not our genes.


c. Diseases that are genetic (e.g. trisomy, turners, etc.) have no correlation with socioeconomic factors.


Science has claimed over and over and over that obesity is a product of lifestyle (mostly) compounded with genetic predisposition. That is the state of current knowledge and you can find it in any scientific journal.


Now if you want to have your own belief, then please go ahead, but don't claim that currently knowledge supports your theory because it doesn't.


This is what science says:


Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2009 Mar;134(13):644-9


Although the genetic background may influence weight loss, items such as compliance and life-style may play a greater role. Thus the current knowledge about genetic determinants of weight loss has as yet no clinical relevance.


 


Physiol Res. 2008;57 Suppl 1:S1-15


The dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity over the last two decades cannot be attributed to genetic factors as the human genome is unlikely to have undergone substantial changes over the short period of several decades. On the other hand, our environment and consequently our behavior have undergone crucial changes during this rather short time period.


 


Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Dec;68(6):811-29.


It is well established that rapid globalization of the westernized lifestyle is fuelling this emerging obesity epidemic. Yet, not everyone in the present-day obesogenic environment develops obesity, highlighting the multifactorial nature of the condition. Indeed, obesity arises through the joint actions of multiple genetic and environmental factors, i.e. the obesogenic environment increases the risk of obesity, in particular in those who are already genetically susceptible.


Despite highly significant associations and consistent and repeated replication [with gene interactions], each of the recently identified loci have only small effects on BMI and obesity risk.


 


-----------------------------


Thus, the conclusion stands: like many other chronic diseases, obesity is a multifactorial disease with both genetic and lifestyle factors implicated. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2010 - 2:00PM #244
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Oct 13, 2010 -- 9:34AM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 12, 2010 -- 8:26PM, appy20 wrote:


There are too many flaws with that logic. Number one, they don't have all the biologic factors figured out yet so how the heck could they have any correlations regarding them.  They do have a lot of genetic data that is very strong.


Secondly, some of the socioeconomic aspects may be biologicallly based.  Last but not least correlations have no guarantee of causality. Correlations are not definite proof of anything.





Actually...


a. ALL the biological factors so far found for most chronic diseases (e.g. HTN, DMII, DSLP) are VERY weak. SAME thing with obesity.


So the likelihood of finding one more more factors that account for the random variance that's found today is extremely small.


b. The epidemic of obesity is very recent. However, there haven't been variations in our genome. However, there have been GREAT changes in our lifestyle. So just by this simple fact, it's quite obvious that the main responsible for this epidemic is not our genes.


c. Diseases that are genetic (e.g. trisomy, turners, etc.) have no correlation with socioeconomic factors.


Science has claimed over and over and over that obesity is a product of lifestyle (mostly) compounded with genetic predisposition. That is the state of current knowledge and you can find it in any scientific journal.


Now if you want to have your own belief, then please go ahead, but don't claim that currently knowledge supports your theory because it doesn't.


This is what science says:


Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2009 Mar;134(13):644-9


Although the genetic background may influence weight loss, items such as compliance and life-style may play a greater role. Thus the current knowledge about genetic determinants of weight loss has as yet no clinical relevance.


 


Physiol Res. 2008;57 Suppl 1:S1-15


The dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity over the last two decades cannot be attributed to genetic factors as the human genome is unlikely to have undergone substantial changes over the short period of several decades. On the other hand, our environment and consequently our behavior have undergone crucial changes during this rather short time period.


 


Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Dec;68(6):811-29.


It is well established that rapid globalization of the westernized lifestyle is fuelling this emerging obesity epidemic. Yet, not everyone in the present-day obesogenic environment develops obesity, highlighting the multifactorial nature of the condition. Indeed, obesity arises through the joint actions of multiple genetic and environmental factors, i.e. the obesogenic environment increases the risk of obesity, in particular in those who are already genetically susceptible.


Despite highly significant associations and consistent and repeated replication [with gene interactions], each of the recently identified loci have only small effects on BMI and obesity risk.


 


-----------------------------


Thus, the conclusion stands: like many other chronic diseases, obesity is a multifactorial disease with both genetic and lifestyle factors implicated. 




Evidence for genes is only weak for the weak minded.  It is very solid.  If you understood how genes work, then you would understand the article I posted.  Genes can be flicked on and off by viruses and bacteria.    A common virus can be everywhere but only flick the genes of those that possess those particular genes.  It is possible that a new bug came along about 30 years ago.  We had fast food before that.  We had plenty of food before that.  I also believe the use of Prednisone, antibiotics all changed the playing field. Prednisone  is what changed mine.  At least, after that I never could maintain my weight very well again even after getting off the prednisone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2010 - 5:43PM #245
Ceren
Posts: 1,430

Oct 13, 2010 -- 2:00PM, appy20 wrote:


Evidence for genes is only weak for the weak minded.  It is very solid.  If you understood how genes work, then you would understand the article I posted.



Mmm... so I guesss all the aarticles that I posted from scientific journals from geneticists that specialize in nutrition don't know anything eh? I guess they must be weak minded... who would have guessed?

 


Oct 13, 2010 -- 2:00PM, appy20 wrote:

Genes can be flicked on and off by viruses and bacteria.    A common virus can be everywhere but only flick the genes of those that possess those particular genes.  It is possible that a new bug came along about 30 years ago.  We had fast food before that.  We had plenty of food before that.  I also believe the use of Prednisone, antibiotics all changed the playing field. Prednisone  is what changed mine.  At least, after that I never could maintain my weight very well again even after getting off the prednisone.



If a "bug" came like you said... then the scientists would SEE that our genome has changed... AND IT HASN'T. I don't know how many other ways I have to explain it.


The use of prednisone will alter your metabolism for a while... if you're obesity prone then losing the extra weight will take a lot longer and be a lot harder than for people who are not obesity-prone. But at the end of the day, if you eat less than what you consume, you will lose weight.



Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 14, 2010 - 12:43PM #246
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Oct 13, 2010 -- 5:43PM, Ceren wrote:


If a "bug" came like you said... then the scientists would SEE that our genome has changed... AND IT HASN'T. I don't know how many other ways I have to explain it.


The use of prednisone will alter your metabolism for a while... if you're obesity prone then losing the extra weight will take a lot longer and be a lot harder than for people who are not obesity-prone. But at the end of the day, if you eat less than what you consume, you will lose weight.



Well... all my aversion to biological rooting of "everything" notwithstanding (genes are the superstition of this age, I dare say) - the topic of gene-environment-interaction is an under-researched area and Appy may very well have a point here.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene%E2%80%93envir...


See the text about the "naive nature vs. nurture debate"... bottomline is, your "at the end of the day" scenario may not obtain, should prednisone interact with genes to cause obesity. It's not necessarily an addition of two independent effects, as your reasonig seems to assume, Ceren.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 14, 2010 - 2:31PM #247
Ceren
Posts: 1,430

Oct 14, 2010 -- 12:43PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Oct 13, 2010 -- 5:43PM, Ceren wrote:


If a "bug" came like you said... then the scientists would SEE that our genome has changed... AND IT HASN'T. I don't know how many other ways I have to explain it.


The use of prednisone will alter your metabolism for a while... if you're obesity prone then losing the extra weight will take a lot longer and be a lot harder than for people who are not obesity-prone. But at the end of the day, if you eat less than what you consume, you will lose weight.



Well... all my aversion to biological rooting of "everything" notwithstanding (genes are the superstition of this age, I dare say) - the topic of gene-environment-interaction is an under-researched area and Appy may very well have a point here.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene%E2%80%93envir...


See the text about the "naive nature vs. nurture debate"... bottomline is, your "at the end of the day" scenario may not obtain, should prednisone interact with genes to cause obesity. It's not necessarily an addition of two independent effects, as your reasonig seems to assume, Ceren.






I don't think they're independent effects.  In fact I think they ARE dependent. Gene expression is constantly changing due to the environment. For example, if I run a lot (like I do!) my gene expression to produce more aminoacids to rebuild muscle will kick in. Gene expression is varying all the time.


In the case of the genetics of obesity, one of the main issues that has been researched is that, in people with susceptible genes, the exposure to an obesogenic environment (i.e. people overeating) would actually trigger the DNA expression cascade and then would make it very difficult for these people to lose weight.  This is why increasingly, due to results in genetics studies, people are talking about the importance of PREVENTING obesity. Could someone's DNA cascade be triggered by prednisone? It's possible though it has  not been seen in current research.  And even then so far the "effect" of gene expresssion and variation has been deemed clinically non-significant.


However, researchers still point out that in the end, the formula for these people will still be "eat less than what you consume". The difference will be in that for these people they might need to taylor their weight loss regime to "reset" their body's "ideal weight"marker (since it became biased) or that they might have to do a different excercise routine to keep the metabolic rate up.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2010 - 3:42PM #248
rangerken
Posts: 16,406

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 25 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook