Print 93 comment(s) - last by ClownPuncher.. on May 10 at 2:46 PM

Researchers hope to eventually inject brown fat, or "good fat," under the skin to burn white fat, or "bad fat"

Researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine have made a discovery that could eventually treat obesity in humans.  

A recent trio of studies reported that obesity rates have doubled in less than 30 years worldwide. In 1980, 5 percent of men and 8 percent of women were obese. By the end of 2008, 10 percent of men and 14 percent of women were obese. This means that worldwide, 343 million men and 458 million women were obese just three years ago. In addition, another 1.5 billion adults were overweight. 

Today, more than two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight and more than one-third are obese.

Sheng Bi, M.D., study leader and associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and a team of researchers have now found that reducing the expression of a certain protein in the brains of rats decreases their calorie intake and weight. Also, their fat was transformed into another type of fat that burns off more energy.

Bi and his colleagues made this discovery by studying the two types of fat that the body makes, which are white and brown adipose tissues. White fat stores the extra calories we eat and is found around the mid-section and other places. It has one large droplet of lipid, which is a building block for fat like triglycerides and cholesterol. Brown fat, on the other hand, is a better fat that has several little droplets of lipid, and each little droplet has its own power source to allow for heat generation. Brown fat is known for its energy burning characteristics. 

Sheng wanted to figure out if suppressing the neuropeptide Y (NPY) protein in the dorsomedial hypothalamus, which is located right above the brain stem and regulates thirst, hunger, water balance, blood pressure and body temperature, would reduce body fat in rats. NPY is an appetite-stimulating protein.  

In the experiment, Sheng had two groups of rats that were both fed a regular diet. One group was a control group while the other was treated with a virus to inhibit NPY expression. Over a five-week period, both groups were observed, and Sheng found that those with NPY suppression were eating less. 

The researchers then divided both groups into two, making four groups of rats. One of the treated groups and one of the control groups were given a regular diet while the other control group and treated group were given a high-fat diet 

The results showed that the control group on the regular diet weighed more after 11 weeks than the treated group on the regular diet. As far as the high-fat diet goes, the suppressed NPY group gained less weight than the control group, which became obese.  

Sheng explained that the less NPY expressed, the less the rats would eat, thus the more weight lost. In addition, after the rats died, Sheng checked the fat in the bodies and found that brown fat had begun to replace white fat. This was confirmed through the observation of levels of mitochondrial uncoupling protein-1, or UCP-1, "through which brown fat burns to produce heat." Researchers originally expected to find white fat, but found signs of brown in the groin area of the rats. 

Sheng believes this occurred due to brown fat stem cells being contained in white fat tissue. Brown fat is found in infants, but as we age, it fades and is replaced by white fat. Sheng believes that brown fat may not fade completely, but just becomes inactive, as we grow older. 

Researchers hope to one day inject brown fat stem cells under the skin in order to burn white fat, which would lead to weight loss in humans. 

"If we could get the human body to turn 'bad fat' into 'good fat' that burns calories instead of storing them, we could add a serious new tool to tackle the obesity epidemic in the United States," said Sheng. 

This study was published in Cell Metabolism.

Comments     Threshold


Mixed feelings about this
By MrTeal on 5/5/2011 3:59:41 PM , Rating: 4
Drugs or gene therapy that helps to lower obesity it welcome but it's really only treating a symptom of the problem. The benefit of lowering calorie intake in mice is nice, but would that really apply to humans? This might find use for people who really have medical reasons for being obese, but those are few and far between. For most people it would just be another pill they could try that will allow them to keep eating too much of the same crap and not exercising.

One thing I don't have mixed feelings about is that picture though. You shouldn't post stories with pictures like that right after lunch; it's cruel.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By icemansims on 5/5/2011 4:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree about the picture...Unnecessary cruelty.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Azethoth on 5/5/2011 4:18:06 PM , Rating: 3
I find that picture inspiring. True, I have only managed to fight my weight to a slightly overweight standstill for 10 years now but on the other hand I am not on my way to that picture.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By headbox on 5/5/2011 8:22:41 PM , Rating: 3
10 years? And you never thought "I must be doing it wrong" ???

Simple math: calories burned > calories consumed = weight loss.

How to burn more calories? Weight training! As your body rebuilds muscle, you will burn 9X more calories than cardio workouts. My wife is 120 lbs (after having 3 kids!) and eats everything in sight, but she also lifts weights, can do 10 pullups, and runs a 5k once in awhile. No pills, no lab rats, no bullshit excuses- just honest exercise.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By FaceMaster on 5/5/2011 8:27:59 PM , Rating: 5
No! I tried it for a couple of days and it doesn't work. I obviously have the fat gene.

*Eats more chocolate*

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By kyleb2112 on 5/6/2011 2:34:20 AM , Rating: 5
"Simple math: calories burned > calories consumed = weight loss."

Not that simple. Which calories you eat matters a lot.

Skip to 1:26:00 near the end.

Then watch the whole thing and tell me that guy doesn't know his sh*t.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By paydirt on 5/6/2011 10:06:37 AM , Rating: 2
This video is really good. Thanks! Might be kicking the fructose habit soon.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Mitch101 on 5/6/2011 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
You should have been rated up for that its a major role in obesity that most people overlook.

Everyone should know a sugar calorie is not the same as a protein calorie and are stored two different ways in the body.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By someguy123 on 5/7/2011 1:06:16 AM , Rating: 2
While the video is informative and true, this doesn't go against the simple reality of calories burned > calories consumed = weight loss. Though things like sugar can cause insulin spikes and substantial losses in energy levels/diabetes problems, the increased rate of nutrient absorption still needs to exceed your daily requirement of calories for you to build fat.

The general public is definitely misinformed about nutrition (especially the general hatred towards all things Fat) but lack of determination and/or sheer laziness seems to be a more substantial factor for obesity. I don't know how many times I've heard someone blame genetics for someone being skinny or themselves being fat.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By lyeoh on 5/8/2011 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 3

People (including dieticians) who make remarks like this are just showing their ignorance. It's not so simple.

Humans do not have 100% efficient digestive systems. Calories are also excreted. Even if you consume more than you burn, if you excrete most of it, you can lose weight. Burning is NOT the same as excretion (go ask a mechanic or a bulimic ;) ). Therefore that formula is wrong.

The percentage excreted varies depending on the type of food and even the human (not everyone has the same bacteria - go check with cows to see how important bacteria is for digestion, and the addition of oregano-based stuff to feed can cause cows to excrete less methane).

Even excluding excretion, the type of food consumed makes a difference- go ask body builders, or farmers trying to fatten/bulk-up livestock. Not all food with the same amount of calories will make you grow at the same rate or the same way.

Genes also make a difference. Don't believe me about genes? Go compare a chimp with a human. See what a "2% difference" in genes make? Compare a chihuahua and a Great Dane. Compare a Black Angus with a Belgian Blue. So even a small difference in genes can make a big difference.

I do agree that most people are clueless about nutrition. But this includes many nutritionists and others who've been telling fat people to follow the USDA food pyramid for years. The USDA happens to be the US Department of Agriculture. Not health. So go figure why many US people look like pyramids ;).

While many fat people deserve some of the blame, the nutritionists and dieticians who've been spreading "authoritative" misinformation should take significant responsibility too. By following their recommendations the US people have actually grown fatter over the decades. And anyone remember margarine getting high recommendations? They get things so badly wrong it's not funny.

Parents who've ingrained habits into their children to finish everything (even if they are full) are also to be blamed too, such habits combined with restaurants that sell larger and larger portions (to get more $$$) just result in fatter people.

FWIW, I'm far from overweight, I don't live in the USA nor habitually consume a "US style" diet. I just think that fat people are getting blamed too much. Many know and admit they have a problem, but the advice they get often just makes them end up fatter. Some of the advice is like telling a cocaine addict to cut down and take heroin instead.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By room200 on 5/7/2011 2:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. I've been addicted to Coca Cole and other soft drinks for a long time (even after being diagnosed with congestive heart failure). That video has inspired me to kick the that crap out of my diet.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Gzus666 on 5/5/2011 4:18:00 PM , Rating: 1
From what I have seen of the stats, it is apparently related to the change from higher fat content and lower carbs to lower fat content and higher carbs in our food. I'd say it makes sense since it takes longer to digest fat than it does carbs.

Granted there are probably more things involved and I can't say I have done any real research on the topic, but that seems like it fits.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Skywalker123 on 5/6/2011 4:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
its not carbs, its junk food carbs that are the problem

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Gzus666 on 5/6/2011 11:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
When something takes more time to break down, it burns more calories. All carbs are not created equal, some are harder to break down than others. It isn't so simple as everyone makes it out to be, your body isn't that easy, I promise.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Skywalker123 on 5/7/2011 1:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
WTF does that mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? :)

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By tastyratz on 5/7/2011 9:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
partially in some ways.
"junk food carbs" is not really explanatory. Fast burn sugars are different from whole wheats and unprocessed carbs.

junk food typically mixes high glycemic carbs (sugars) with extremely low glycemic fats.

Also above someone commented on high carb low fat and vise versa. The #1 thing is calories. calories in calories out and it is that simple. You can lose weight on twinkies and get fat on broccoli - doing it properly just makes it easier to maintain and provides your body with a steady source of energy vs rollercoasters.

"twinkie diets" still work because your body will store the calories it does not use as fat, but if you eat the same number it has to burn calories from fat to sustain.

Eat smart and its easier.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Gzus666 on 5/8/2011 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree and disagree. For example, if you get 300 calories from something that takes 30 minutes to digest vs 300 calories from something that takes 20 minutes to digest, logic would dictate that you spent more calories digesting the first meal, so you would have less net calories. This is simplistic and in no way meant to represent the actual digestion process, simply an example.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Skywalker123 on 5/8/2011 7:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see someone get fat eating broccoli. Broccoli has approximately 150 calories per pound. Eating 10 lbs would give you 1500 calories. Even if you managed to get that much down your throat you wouldn't get fat on it.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By tastyratz on 5/8/2011 11:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
and I don't see anyone eating enough broccoli to get fat either it is statistically improbable, but it was more a point with a dash of sarcastic flair.

To the poster above:
it takes about 4-5% of the calories in fat to digest fat, 10-12 % of the calories in carbohydrates to digest them and 20-22% of the calories in lean protein to digest them
While you are correct digestively a complex food takes more calories to process than a processed food in the grand scheme of things that fact has minimal bearing. The heavy weigh factor (zing) is *time*. The longer it takes to break down the more the calories spread out and the longer you feel full. It takes more discipline to lose weight on crappy foods and generally people do it just to prove a point.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By ClownPuncher on 5/5/2011 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just ban clothing manufacturers from making clothes in that size.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By MrBlastman on 5/5/2011 4:35:27 PM , Rating: 4
That might make it worse. All of a sudden we'd start seeing super-overweight people wearing clothes several sizes too small--all stretched super-tight over their lard-infested flab.

Hmm... yeaaaah. Not a pretty thing to think about. All that jiggling as they move.

*squish squish squish squish*

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By interstitial on 5/5/2011 5:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
Or they'd have to wear sacks.

The problem is there are now people who consider being fat a lifestyle choice that everyone else should respect. To me that's like being asked to respect the choice of crack addicts to be constantly high.

The morbidly obese need to recognise that they have a problem and properly seek help.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2011 8:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Make them have license plates that mean they have to park at the BACK of the parking lot instead of the front.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By ekv on 5/6/2011 1:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of the picture ... somebody else said "unnecessary cruelty" ... and then read your post and thought ... ROTFLOL. Never mind.

Yes, a little exercise would help. Perhaps they ought be denied the elevator too?

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By thurston on 5/6/2011 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 1
Mister Land of the Free, Home of the Brave likes big government when it punishes those he is prejudice against. I have better one how about we let you quit paying taxes and you stay off government funded roads.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2011 4:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus Christ you're stupid.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By thurston on 5/7/2011 5:23:01 PM , Rating: 1
Why am I stupid you obviously are prejudice?

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By ClownPuncher on 5/10/2011 2:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because you didn't understand that it was a joke.

By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 5:50:58 PM , Rating: 4
Obesity is being grossly overweight, so if the drugs curbed appetite and/or burned more calories and led to weight loss, that would treat the actual obesity, not just a symptom. It might not mean you're eating only healthy food and working out 2 hours a day, but a lot of the side-effects of obesity (cardio issues surrounding the weight, mobility problems, maybe type II diabetes, etc.) would be removed as well, not just covered up.

And given how well 'you should eat less and work out more' has worked as a global health policy (about as well as calling for people not to ever have unprotected sex unless they are trying to have children), this sounds like a huge win if it works. The health-care cost savings and savings on fabrics alone could fund an extra war or two.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By random git on 5/5/2011 10:57:41 PM , Rating: 3
You said: "The benefit of lowering calorie intake in mice is nice, but would that really apply to humans?"

Just FYI, lowering calorie intake is a fancy way of saying eating less. In your post you are first questioning this and then advocating it two sentences later. This is self contradictory.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By MrTeal on 5/6/2011 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 1
I know lowering calorie intake means eating less, and I don't agree that it's contradictory. In mice expressing this gene causes them to eat less, and if they did consume more to gain less weight. With humans the act of eating often doesn't have much to do with needing the calories; people eat because they want to. This might help them gain less weight from the crap they eat, but it won't necessarily help with the fact that they're eating too much of the wrong things. That's the root of the problem.

By Skywalker123 on 5/6/2011 4:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Shut up, that's my girlfriend you're talking about.

RE: Mixed feelings about this
By Da W on 5/6/2011 10:49:04 AM , Rating: 1
Just eat well and exercise for god sakes! It's called MAKING AN EFFORT!
I can't imagine a future where we eat all kind of junk and then just swallow a pill to stay thin and healty. Something's wrong with that. If americans just eated like Europeans, food prices worldwide would drop by a 1/3!!!

no more corn
By redeyedfly on 5/5/2011 6:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
if we just cut corn syrup out of all foods made in the USA i this this problem would cure itself.

Lets help instead of forcing them to addict to garbage just to make a dollar.

RE: no more corn
By dgingeri on 5/5/2011 6:19:37 PM , Rating: 1
HFCS is just sugar. avoiding refined sugar in any form, except for a little treat once in a while, is better.

I'll admit my daily consumption of 1 16oz bottle of Arizona green tea every morning, and a Frosty from Wendy's about every 2-3 weeks, but I don't go overboard.

a little won't hurt you, but a lot will. the form of sugar is irrelevant.

RE: no more corn
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 6:35:41 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, didn't time my reply well... HCFS is not 'just sugar'. There are different kinds of sugar, and apparently fructose in fruit is usually bound to fiber, which slows the absorption making it easier on your body. HCFS is a fast hit of true sugary crap in an unnatural form.

The Princeton rat study showed the rats gaining more weight when given equal amounts of calories of HCFS vs. table sugar, so there's a difference in the metabolism. A lot of any sugar will hurt you, but less of the HCFS will do the trick.

RE: no more corn
By RamarC on 5/5/2011 8:20:55 PM , Rating: 1
yup. hfcs is so highly refined your body has do hardly nothing to metabolize it... it's almost like mainlining sugar straight into your bloodstream.

RE: no more corn
By myhipsi on 5/6/2011 8:36:40 AM , Rating: 1

Sugar = 50% fructose, 50% glucose
Typical HFCS = 55% fructose, 45% glucose

So no, there's not much difference at all between HFCS and refined sugar. Both, in large amounts, are unhealthy and will likely result in weight gain over time.

RE: no more corn
By bodar on 5/5/2011 6:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, but his point is that HFCS is in the majority of processed foods, sometimes in high amounts. It's really in more foods than people realize; things people may not normally associate with being "sugary" -- ketchup, bread, frozen meals. When they make low-fat foods, they crank up the HFCS to add flavor.

The only solution is to highly limit consumption of processed foods.

RE: no more corn
By Skywalker123 on 5/6/2011 4:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, glucose can be used by every cell in the body, fructose is only metabolized in the liver, causing the liver to be overworked.

RE: no more corn
By dgingeri on 5/6/2011 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 5
um, wrong. all sugars and carbohydrates are converted into glucose by our saliva. The only sugar that can be absorbed into our blood is glucose. sucrose and fructose never enters our blood stream directly.

What gives this a little taste of truth (and thus, the biggest source of lies) is that the liver converts sugars and fats into triglycerides to be stored in other tissues. Frustose is a very simple sugar, even more simple than sucrose, so it is converted into glucose faster, and then causes faster spikes in blood sugar, then causes spikes in triglycerides in the blood. These spikes can cause the body to store this extra energy rather than use it, which can encourage more fat development, and wider fluctuations in "energy" levels. (People feel tired more often, thus do less physical activity, leading to more sedentary behavior, leading to even more weight gain.)

It isn't the fructose directly, but rather the reactions of people to the effects is has on their bodies. When people take responsibility for their own actions, the food itself is not to blame. Just as guns don't kill people by themselves, food doesn't hurt your health directly, but rather the way people eat and how much activity they do.

The nanny state mentality just takes responsibility away from people and gives power to the government. I prefer to remain free to do as I like, rather than sacrifice my freedom to the government. I'll take responsibility to what I do to my body. I will not let the government control how I lead my life. They can have my ice cream when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. :)

RE: no more corn
By Skywalker123 on 5/7/2011 1:38:32 AM , Rating: 1

RE: no more corn
By room200 on 5/7/2011 4:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is when you want to try to control what you put in your body it's damn near impossible. If you wanted to eat foods without HFC, you can't eat anything fast, packaged, ready-made, microwaveable, etc.

RE: no more corn
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 6:31:10 PM , Rating: 5
That's probably true. As one HCFS article pointed out, corn & corn by-products, including HCFS are what cows are fed to fatten them up. Coincidence that once all of that crap got put into our food supply, people started to fatten up more too?

A recent HCFS vs. table sugar study found: "The rats who consumed HFCS gained 48% more weight than their sucrose peers and had significant deposits of abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides. In humans, these are characteristics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer."

Not to mention cane sugar tastes better. But like all big industry, there's a quicker buck to be made by producing total crap at least until it gets outlawed as harmful. And then the companies will all say they didn't know and settle whatever lawsuits they get hit with for some low dollar amount - and the real costs will fall on taxpayers and our health.

RE: no more corn
By RedemptionAD on 5/6/2011 2:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
The Twilight Zone: To Serve Man.

RE: no more corn
By marvdmartian on 5/6/2011 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 1
If they'd just quit screwing around, and make cake, ice cream and candy into health food, it would solve the obesity problem, practically overnight! ;)

By PeaJay on 5/5/2011 4:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you're obese it's because you're eating it wrong!

Steve "skinny white boy" Jobs

RE: Obese?
By futrtrubl on 5/5/2011 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
He's only skinny because of all the sex he gets. ;']

RE: Obese?
By surt on 5/5/2011 5:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's only skinny because the cancer makes it easy not to eat.

RE: Obese?
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 6:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
He's a healthy weight under the new BMI guidelines, not skinny at all. You're just all fat.

RE: Obese?
By Schrag4 on 5/6/2011 9:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
BMI guidelines say that for my height I should be 155 lbs. If I was back to my 2% body fat I would be about 165 lbs. One-size-fits-all guidelines like these are unreasonable for those of us whose muscles kept developing after we were 11 years old.

That being said, yeah, I could stand to lose 15 pounds.

Its simple really.
By imaheadcase on 5/6/2011 6:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
1. People eat to big portions.
2. People eat more (aka snack between meals)
3. People are less active than years ago.
4. People don't understand food anymore.

Those 4 things are what is causing the problem.

Today we rely on machines/computers to do the things that manpower (or woman power) did by hand. People long ago worked hard, made less, and simply could not afford to eat as much as we do...however they ate healthy food.

Lets me honest here with ourselves, our "poor" are still richer than years ago. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to eat healthy. Now instead of healthy food, the poorer you are the more unhealthy options you have to eat.

Most kids, now adults, grew up eating bad. Sugar is replacing food in a sense. I read someplace that in the early 1900s a average adult ate a coffee cans worth of sugar a year, now its a wheel barrel. That is insane.

The country as a whole needs to educate people, revamp the industry, to encourage healthy eating. You can't simply tell people to stop eating bad food, when they can't afford or understand why its bad.

RE: Its simple really.
By Jalek on 5/6/2011 8:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
I know I ate healthier when I actually owned dirt and could grow things. The bank doesn't seem to be putting in a garden again this year and the fruit on the trees just rots.

RE: Its simple really.
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2011 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
According to today's media, people 50-60 years ago ate horribly. Real bacon, real eggs, real sugar in soda, red meat and pork all the time, etc.

The difference was, as you said, they burned it off.

RE: Its simple really.
By room200 on 5/7/2011 4:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
They still eat the same thing with HFC added to all of it.

Math question
By ganjha on 5/6/2011 4:52:31 AM , Rating: 1

<2/3 + <1/3 = <1/1

I knew Americans were fat but more than a 100% either fat or obese? That must be a new record.

RE: Math question
By Jaazu on 5/6/2011 7:21:05 AM , Rating: 3
Those who are obese are ALSO overweight....

By StraightCashHomey on 5/5/2011 6:06:10 PM , Rating: 3
A few minutes of exercise and staying away from the frickin' buffet every night for dinner.... FATTIE.

Fatnum PI
By RivuxGamma on 5/5/2011 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
If the control became obese anyways, it begs the question: Were they American rats?

Real solution
By jouno53 on 5/5/2011 6:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
Want to know the tried-and-true solution to obesity?

A good diet and exercise.

Can I have my Nobel Prize now?

Old discovery.
By Dean364 on 5/5/2011 6:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
I was really hoping to read that the new discovery they found was a combination of diet and exercise.

Boy was I wrong!

Y'all Are Jes'...
By mmatis on 5/5/2011 6:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
a bunch of racits fools! Such bigotry pickin' on dat brown fat like dat!

Hateful! Jes' plain hateful now.

RE: Y'all Are Jes'...
By room200 on 5/7/11, Rating: 0
By hiscross on 5/5/2011 7:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to try have a decent diet and exercise until I saw that pic. Never mimd. Let the drug companies make a fortune.

By Arsynic on 5/6/2011 8:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's simple. We live a less active lifestyle than humans in the past. We live a more fast-paced lifestyle that sometimes requires eating fast food. Both of those are recipes for obesity.

By MrWho on 5/6/2011 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
"In addition, after the rats died"

Wait, what? Died of what? Because of the experiment?

If suppressing I-don't-know-what in my brain makes me less fat but kills me in the end, then screw that!

Oh sure...
By gglenn on 5/6/2011 12:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
They blame whitey for everything these days.

By Ammohunt on 5/6/2011 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
I brown fat every time i cook up a prok chop or nice juicy steak! I didn't know it was so beneficial!

stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: stupid "scientists"
By Slyne on 5/5/2011 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong forum to impress the ladies, dude, or are you sincerely trying to suggest you're representative of the US population?

RE: stupid "scientists"
RE: stupid "scientists"
By bodar on 5/5/2011 6:29:08 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, go to a public place in middle America and observe the ratio of obese people to ripped He-Men. Pretty high, eh? Measuring BMI isn't the best, but it's going to indicate correctly for the "average" person.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By Gzus666 on 5/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: stupid "scientists"
By Solandri on 5/5/2011 7:57:15 PM , Rating: 3
Not only that, but they changed the definitions back in 1998. So it's impossible to directly compare 1980 stats to 2010 stats.

If we were still using the standard in use in 1980, you find that the number of overweight people has actually decreased.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By Lugaidster on 5/5/2011 5:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
I tell myself the same thing. People don't believe me when I say that typing on a keyboard lets me burn 3500 calories, I mean, they should try it... It's an amazing exercise.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/5/2011 6:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
I work in a server software test lab. I'm constantly moving drive arrays and servers, lifting and moving 60-80lbs devices constantly. I'm also climbing ladders a lot to run and remove FC and network cables. I get plenty of exercise. Considering I've been eating around 3500 calories a day for the last 6 months and haven't gained any weight (I've fluctuated between 215 and 225) I think I'm burning that 3500 quite well.

I just happen to have a little lull in my workload today, as I am just using software to set up 10 FC arrays for the next series of tests.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By ekv on 5/5/2011 8:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
and haven't gained any weight
Could have something to do with metabolism and generally being aware of body tone. I'm typically around 180, when I get to 185 - 190 I can simply feel it. I should go for walks or other recreational, um, exercise, more often, but my work keeps me on my feet plenty.
10 FC arrays for the next series of tests
Just curious ... Windows? Linux? performance comparisons?

RE: stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/6/2011 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
it's a proprietary disk based backup system that takes up 2 racks. Our 8 source systems are going to be basic Linux systems (to keep costs down) with totally fictional test data sources that simulate normal corporate data that includes documents, an email database, and several corporate use databases.

In order to test our software and data deduplication performance, we need to feed it 3TB/s through 10Gb networking and 8Gb FC.

It's going to be interesting to get this set up. I just got the first 2 racks of equipment today.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By ekv on 5/6/2011 1:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
3TB/s through 10Gb networking and 8Gb FC.

Nice. Enviable job 8)

[document the heck out of it though, will save time in the long run]

RE: stupid "scientists"
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 6:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
For instance, I'm 5'8" and 225lbs. according to these people, I'm obese.

Fortunately for you, fatty, at 5' 8", you could be 122 lbs and be considered just at the low end of normal. So you could lose 103 lbs and still be considered healthy, though you are overweight at 165 and obese at 197.

While the fact that at 6' 2", I'm overweight at 195 lbs and obese at 234 is troubling, I am consoled because I could be 144lbs (6' 2") and still be considered a healthy weight.

Seriously, WTF? Did friggin' Mengele come up with this? Is it supposed to make starving Africans/Asians feel better?

If you eat, you're probably on the high side of normal on the new BMI scale. It's certainly true that a lot more people are overweight nowadays than in the past, but I guarantee the number / % went up dramatically overnight when they rolled out the new guidelines. And given that they don't consider build or muscle/fat makeup, it's totally useless other than throwing out scary statistics. I can only assume the change was paid for by some of the drug companies.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/5/2011 6:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
lol, 5'8" and 122lbs is normal?? I graduated high school at 5'6" and 135lbs, and I was skinny. I was the wimpy kid everyone made fun of back then.

like I said, these people don't know what healthy is.

anorexia is the new healthy?

RE: stupid "scientists"
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/5/2011 6:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Yep, it's the lowest 'normal', but still normal. Look up a BMI calculator and prepare to be amazed at what junk it spews out. Then take the 'obesity' statistics with a new grain of salt. Not that we don't have plenty of fat people, but it certainly puts a new light on the % that's being claimed.

I was crazy-skinny at 190, and apparently when I hit 195 I was overweight. Oops.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By sigmatau on 5/5/2011 7:37:49 PM , Rating: 4
Wait, you have a 40" waist and don't think you are obese? You may not be morbidly obese, but you are definetly obese by a good amount. You need to lose about 50lbs at least to be healthy, not 10-15 lbs.

Most people that lable other as "skinny" have no idea what the word means. "Skinny" is the new term for healthy.

I am 5'11" and 215 lbs. I don't kid my self, I know I am obese/unhealthy. I am looking to lose 40 lbs myself.

Stop whinning and put the fries/big gulp down.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By Gzus666 on 5/5/2011 10:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
You might not realize this, but abdominal muscles affect waist size. If he works out his abs frequently, like many people that work out do, it can actually increase waist size even though you are actually losing fat. Then there is the opposite side, working out your lower back can also increase waist size.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't work out seriously or ever have. As someone who has worked out most of his life, I can tell you even when I had a six pack, I had about a 36 inch waist. My abs stuck out quite far, enough that some people thought I was chunky till they saw the abs.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By Skywalker123 on 5/6/2011 4:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
You don't get a 40" inch by doing situps

RE: stupid "scientists"
By itlnstln on 5/6/2011 9:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you can. Fifty Cent has/had a 38" waist* and I doubt you consider him "fat." Now, I doubt the OP has this "problem," but it certainly is possible.


RE: stupid "scientists"
By Gzus666 on 5/6/2011 10:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
I never said it was solid muscle and neither did he. He clearly said he had to lose some weight, but he isn't obese just cause his waist is a certain size. The only way to actually figure out whether someone is obese or not is with a real body fat test.

The point of the comments thus far was that BMI is an inaccurate indication of healthy weight.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/6/2011 11:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
you're right on this. I have about an inch thick pad of fat around the middle and small "love handles". However, I also have 24" thighs that are solid as heck, back and shoulder muscles big enough to lift an ~90lb Dell R910 with 16 2.5" drives on my own, and calves almost as big as my thighs. I have plenty of muscle.

I have a coworker (programmer type, never does any physical labor) who is 15 years younger than me, 1" taller, and 10lbs lighter. However, he's got a 52" waist. He would be considered obese, that's for sure.

That's the problem I'm pointing out with the BMI system and the statistics that show "America is fat!" I know a lot of people who are big and strong, stronger than me. Colorado, where I live, is one of the fittest state in the US. Indiana, where I'm originally from, is considered one of the fattest.

The people I know in Indiana are farmers and Mennonites. They love to eat. They celebrate the bounty God gives them. However, never call them fat. They're big, but they're farmers, they work constantly. My uncle Rod is a very big guy at 6" and 260, but he's got a smaller waist than mine. His arms are about as big as my legs, but there certainly isn't any fat there. Many of the Mennonite men are like that. Many have a little extra around their waist, too, but not that much. Yet these statistics basically punish these men for being as big and strong as they are. (They also happen to be about the happiest people, as a group, I've ever known. I love going to their get-togethers when I'm out there with family. they're just great people to be around. Total pacifists, too, but I don't hold that against them.)

There are large communities of people like this all over Indiana. These people aren't fat, they're strong and they celebrate life. I don't support anything that will punish them for that.

This BMI system need to be totally chucked and a decent system that evaluates body fat % and muscle mass to truly call someone obese or not. The so called scientists who came up with this BMI system need to be drummed out of the scientific community. Such a shoddy system shows they're totally incompetent.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By interstitial on 5/5/2011 11:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
The definition of obese was set to the BMI at which most patients will experience significant increases to risk of obesity associated illnesses. The underweight category is the point at which most patients will start to feel effects of malnutrition.

BMI works for the vast majority of people. Also, I honestly don't believe that the small percentage of men who are muscular enough to break the system all hang around on DT. So for the love of god spare us the I'm built like a Gears of War character speech.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By Gzus666 on 5/6/2011 11:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, all nerds are scrawny or fat slobs, way to stereotype. As a network engineer, I have seen lots of muscular guys in this field. I have friends that are engineers and scientists that work out religiously. Believe it or not, stereotypes are not always true.

BMI is inaccurate, muscle weighs more than fat. Use a real fat percentage test and you will see the real results.

Again, I'm not saying obesity isn't a problem, it very much is, but the measurements are inaccurate. Skewed statistics are not a good starting point of any study.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By rdeegvainl on 5/6/2011 3:02:16 PM , Rating: 2

Good point, those who break the mold are mostly in positions where it can actually affect them. No one is penalized on daily tech for not meeting a BMI standard, but the point of a BMI is to give an accurate representation of a persons level of excess weight and as such is mostly used in situations where accuracy is needed. Unfortunately its not accurate when used for an individual.

Most people don't care what a BMI says, they either know they need to lose weight or know that they are fine. But the BMI is used with lots of red tape to get a theoretical result. My own experience with it was in the Marine Corps. When I was in, they only used a BMI, in combination with a 2 point taping system.(not accurate either) to determine if someone was overweight. Well that big guy who exercises better have exercised the hell out of his neck. I've seen too many overweight marines, but even worse is the fit Marines that spend a lot of time and effort to get in the shape they are in be discriminated for it.

And then there are the guys who match the BMI, but are still all flab and no muscle, no cardio...

RE: stupid "scientists"
By wordsworm on 5/5/2011 7:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think injecting steroids is a good solution to obesity. You should also know that while it may increase your size in many areas, there's one key area where it's known to shrink your size.

RE: stupid "scientists"
By dgingeri on 5/6/2011 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
no steroids here. Just good, hard work got me to this place.

