been a while since I posted. Any other/more souces? Thanks a ton Una! I need as much info on this as possible!
The column has been updated with about 24 or 25 of the main ones which Cecil examined. For this column, Cecil probably examined about 70 or 80, despite the snark from some that he only did a “cursory” review of what was out there.
Yeah, but Una, I need concrete references as to the GH defiency= overweight claim…thanks! 
When it comes to this kind of subject, 70-80 is cursory. The reviews that I referenced typically have multiple hundreds of references before they come up expert opinions. To not be aware of the extert reviews that have done that work and come to the current sate of the art understanding is a superficial coverage of a complex area. Okay for entertainment, but not “the straight dope”.
You have a serious lack of perspective on the level of research done for even a superior weekly fact-finding column like The Straight Dope. The Straight Dope is not a peer-reviewed publication for Nature or JAMA, nor does it pretend to be.
Direct any further questions or comments about the due diligence of the column to either Cecil or his editor, Ed Zotti.
Una, you have a serious problem at tolerating disagreement over this subject. You decided, at this late date, in response to a specific cite request, to make the jab at comments like mine at the beginning of this thread that said: “Cecil does a disservice in this very superficial answer. He is either ignorant of, of chooses to ignore, the medical consensus that a the adipose tissue is an endocrine organ and that predisposition to obesity has significant genetic contribution in a gene-environment interaction and how more than just in-out is involved.”
I stand by that comment, and will defend it from such unwarranted swipes. Any answer regarding weight and endocrinology that fails to include a discussion regarding adipose tissue as an active endocrine organ, settling points, and gene-environment interactions, does a major disservice to reducing ignorance, even if that answer agrees with your long established pre-existing biases.
If Ed Zotti, or whoever else currently plays the persona of Cecil, wants to respond to that, (s)he is welcome to, but as this particular forum is the forum to comment on his columns I see no reason to bring that opinion elsewhere, nor to belabor it. And I do not think (s)he needs you attempting to function as a stifler of criticisms.
I stopped responding to you after you on more than one occasion within this thread either negligently or deliberately misrepresented my posts. And before you bat your eyes and protest innocence, just read the thread. I even pointed out where you had twisted the argument to suit you, either negligently or purposefully, and you categorically refused to comment on that post. I wonder why not…?
I know this is your “pet topic”, but you have not behaved well at getting your message out.
You made an allegation that reviewing 70-80 references is “cursory”. You are incorrect. Sorry if you don’t like that, but I told you how to escalate your protest, and all you did was snark at me. That’s hardly effective?
You are incorrect, and your mind-reading abilities aren’t that impressive.
Your next post will contain a hard citation proving my alleged bias, or, well, I’m afraid doggone it you’re going to look pretty foolish. Do you even know what you think my alleged bias is? I really doubt it, not that I expect you to admit such. I too believe that more than just energy in and energy out is involved. Is that the bias? I also believe that the genetic predisposition has some effect. That must be the bias, right? Oh, as far as fat being an organ…hmm, not seeing a broad “consensus” across the field, as you allege, but I’m willing to consider it. That must be the “bias”, that I don’t lock-step 110% agree with something you put forward. Gosh. :rolleyes:
Asking you to address the persons responsible for due diligence of the column is stifling? That’s some spin you’re putting on this. I don’t think it’s going to serve you well.
Una seriously? You need me to cite you repeating your “pet” theme discounting that the endocrine system has a role in keeping the obese obese? You have long had the conclusion that any discussion of how adipose tissue works to prevent weight loss is whining by the fat or if originating from someone who is not obese is being an apologist who should just be ignored. But you need a hard citation?
Okay then here in 2008.
And into March of this year.
And June.
To just a month ago.
And … nah, you get the point. You “know” that it is “impossible” and any discussion is treated with hostility.
And please tell me, if this forum is not the place to bring up my disappointment in a particular column’s lack of “due diligence”, which forum should I bring it to?
My “pet interests” include many things medical, health and fitness related. Obesity, especially pediatric obesity and how to best prevent and treat it, the consequences that being bullied about obesity has on kids (and adults ) are in that circle of subjects. It is a large part of what I do professionally. Do you have a problem with my sharing what I learned in my professional life with people here (so long as I do not resort to an appeal to authority)? Or using that knowledge to be critical of a column that I know to be weak?
Una you are a very intelligent person whose posts I have often admired, especially on threads regarding energy. There have been times that you have been dissed and I have stood up by your side. But with great respect I must inform you that you have some investment in not having your belief on this subject questioned in any way. I do not understand why but it is out of line. You give the impression that as part of the “Scientific Advisory Board” you were in part responsible for this column and your answers here seem to be in some official capacity. You may want to reconsider whether you are well-suited for that role.
And more than this does not belong here. If you want to Pit me for my disrespect to the Great Cecil and for making it clear that this particular column is not up to standards, then please do. I have no need to criticize you any further.
So…you won’t be addressing your misrepresentations in this thread? That’s dirty pool.
I ought to just ignore you at this point, but I want you to know you’re not fooling anyone here.
So what? That’s not incorrect, unless it’s actually your contention that everyone who is overweight has a “glandular problem.” And given the tone of your posts, I’m starting to wonder about your agenda.
I don’t care what other genetic or hormonal issues one has, thermodynamics apply. No one said that it wouldn’t make things hard, difficult, unpleasant, unhealthy, or even dangerous, but people who argue thermodynamics doesn’t apply are ignorant, wrong, and pushing their own little agenda. That post was in reference to a past case where delusional woman on here claimed she ate nothing and gained weight. And when I contested that I had death threats, sexual slurs, and other mockery aimed at me.
You seem to be taking a tack that thermodynamics doesn’t in fact matter, or is almost meaningless. It’s difficult to tell.
So what? What’s your beef here? It’s a complex problem - some folks are hampered by genetics, some by hormonal issues, some by other conditions underlying…and some are just plain lying. Unless you’re going to post a whole bunch of convincing cites that 100% of overweight people have no control or culpability in their condition, perhaps you should drop this selective quoting.
Now that’s just unfortunate - you Searched and grabbed without reading. I’m talking about what people will post and not post, and addressing that there are a lot of folks who do in fact think that either/both obesity or homosexuality is all a matter of self-control. I’m addressing the misconception people have, and noting that they aren’t brave enough to voice their feeling that homosexuality is a choice, but they have no problem picking on overweight and obese people. You’re trying to use my saying there’s a double standard which works against overweight and obese folks as snark against me? How very…well. One might think you’re just a hammer looking for a nail, as a result of your half-hearted attempt to again spin things away from reality.
See, I have confidence you don’t believe that, and are just setting me up for the direct personal insult in your penultimate paragraph. If you did really believe that, you might have shown the smallest God damned courtesy and addressed my concerns when I first pointed out you were misrepresenting my posts and my position. But…you refused to do that.
I am wrong about things, I may be wrong about anything. I may make mistakes, I may not read things carefully. It happens. But what you need to understand is that your misrepresentation of my posts early in this thread is not acceptable, and I’m not going to let you just get away with it. You could have presented any case you wanted to that I was wrong, that I was arguing from an unsound basis, that I was just completely off-base. But when you misrepresented my post, and then refused to address it when I called your attention to it, you invalidated the scientific discussion and treated me poorly. And I don’t have to take that.
I’m done talking to you. If you want to keep insulting me and misrepresenting my posts, take it to another forum. Bored now.
Una seriously I do not feel that I misrepresented your posts in any way (and I did review this thread) but I am very sure that you honestly feel that I did and that debating such with you would be pointless. If anyone else cares (and I doubt anyone else does) they can review the thread and conclude for themselves. You can feel free to lump me with those who have “shouted you down” on this subject. Or mocked you.
As a general rule if someone tries to accuse me of misleading or misrepresenting or other similar (in my mind petty) themes I will attempt to ignore the statement and focus instead on responding to the actual points I hear being made. I am a married man; I don’t need to come here to bicker. If you believe that action is “dirty pool” then that will be also be something I will have to live with.
I think that you misunderstand the meaning of “bias”. I could try again to explain to you my position that the Laws of Thermodynamics are red herrings in a discussion about how human bodies change dynamically on both the intake and output side, but that is not the point. The point was merely that your bias going into whatever role you played in this article and in this thread was that any use of the word “hormonal” in the context of the obese means fat people making excuses and that it is, for some reason, important to you make clear that “hormones” are no excuse, and, unless I honestly misunderstand you, that the fat are fat to no small degree because they do not know how to count calories well. This particular column came to a conclusion consistent with those extant beliefs, that is consistent with that bias.
As to the rest … well I am sorry that I and my posts in other threads that we have crossed on subjects other than obesity have left you with no impression of me or of my respect for your knowledge on those subjects. I can assure you however that the feeling is, as far as those subjects go, honestly felt. I can have that assessment and also conclude that your behavior here is out of line. Those conclusions are not mutually exclusive.
And agreed that this should be done.
A few comments:
-
The column didn’t say the obese are bad at counting calories. It said EVERYBODY is bad at counting calories.
-
Cecil’s comments about sucking it up and so on were intended facetiously.
-
The column acknowledged that genetics played a role in obesity.
-
One of your complaints is that the column didn’t acknowledge the role of adipose tissue. You’re right, it didn’t. We probably should add a sentence about that. I’ll mention it to the Master.
-
The perennial debate in questions like this is the relative importance of endogenous vs. exogenous factors. You give greater weight to the former, Cecil the latter. Given the limits of an 800-word newspaper column, it’s understandable that you’d think his treatment is superficial. By your lights it is.
Thank you for the response.
And I had no problem with the column’s mentioning that. My objection in regard to this factoid was Una’s contention that this inability that the average person has is “one reason overweight people were overweight”. Something that is true for everybody seems unlikely to be a major culprit of why something happens to some and not to others.
And no problem there.
Sort of. " Maybe in part." counts as acknowledging it? Maybe in part it does. More on this subject below.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of this point. Relavent to the subject is the fact that it is a dynamic endocrine organ.
This is the key point. No, I do not give greater weight to one or the other. My position is actually that framing the discussion as “endogenous vs. exogenous” or “nature vs. nurture” is a very unsophisticated way to frame it. As is often the case the answer is much more complex than that and framing a discussion in that manner impedes an appreciation of how biologic predispositions interact with particular environments.
In my (to be honest here, not so humble) opinion, the “straight dope” is as I wrote in my comment on the column - The predisposition to obesity has significant genetic contribution in a gene-environment interaction and much more than just in-out is involved. Somewhere between 30-70% of the risk for obesity is genetic predisposition and once an individual is obese the endocrine system, including adipose tissue itself, works hard to maintain the state and metabolism slows down as weight is lost. To frame the discussion in terms of “lack of will power” vs. “the fault of hormonal conditions” vs “being hammered by a relentless outside force” is I believe an inadequate answer even in the confines of an 800-word newspaper column.
Again thank you for the response.
As someone mentioned previously, it comes down to first causes. Few would dispute that once you gain weight, it’s hard to lose it, whatever role the adipose tissue may play. The question is why people gain weight in the first place. The column made the point, I understand not emphatically enough for your taste, that genetics may play a role. The fact remains that food has been cheap and abundant in the U.S. for a long time; the obesity epidemic is more recent. This suggests that the proximate cause of the rise in obesity is external factors such as greater consumption of foods prepared outside the home, the absurd increase in restaurant portion sizes, etc. (and of course you’ve got those blaming corn syrup). You may respond that the ultimate cause is the genetic predisposition to which food sellers are now pandering, but as the numbers you yourself cite suggest, this is not well understood. Given what we know, I think the column’s take was reasonable. You disagree. There we are.
And a fair 'nuf place to leave it, as I go off with my 9 year old to collect a lot of candy!
Happy Halloween!
I have two cites I figured I’d mention of the topic of obesity. One is good and sourced and the other is something which I heard of a while ago and have forgotten the proper source.
Let’s start with the much more shaky one. Opposing the mention of people who claim to eat 1000 calories a day and gain weight, you frequently hear of people who claim very high calorie counts, upwards of 3500 calories a day, with little exercise who don’t gain weight. There’s been evidence that these people tend to be compulsive fidgeters, the ones who can’t sit without bouncing their knee, can’t type without swaying their head from side to side, etc. Essentially, they’re burning calories without realizing they’re burning calories through constant movement. Personally, I think it seems like that small amount of extra movement couldn’t possibly cause the corresponding loss of calories, but maybe it has to do with metabolism. Plugging in “fidgeting” and “weight loss” in Google give you a number of articles, but few with any legitimate cites.
Secondly, and with better citations, research seems to be showing that everyone’s getting fatter including animals in the wild and animals in the research labs and it may be due to the AD36 Adenovirus. Yup, obesity might yet be a disease rather than a bad habit. It’s not really new news - much of the research came out in 2005 - but I hadn’t seen much mention of it until Charles Stross pointed it on on his blog.
Personally, I’m in that lucky category of people with high metabolisms who regularly eats in excess of 3000+ calories without regular exercise and stays the same weight. It runs in my family as best I can tell. And yeah, chronic fidgeter too.
Yeah, but I’m a chronic fidgeter and my weight has been creeping up. So there.