Jump to content
random

Morbid obesity , causes

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious to know opinions, and bear with me because I may just be ignorant, But It stands to reason for me that the only possible cause of morbid obesity is consuming too many calories, If you don't put somthing in your body cannot very well produce fat. I just have a few friends who fit in this category and have heard everything from underlying genetic conditions to "I don't eat that much" etc.

 

I completely understand food addiction, or gorging etc. but if these people cannot acknowledge to themselves that the cause is over indulgence then they're not going to get healthy. Just my opinion. What is yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although no studies on this phenomenon: One person can stand out with mosquitos and another is right next to her. He is bit and she is not. Reason? He has carbon dioxide being liberated. Ok, this is one personal antidote. Bloodwork may say show low carbon dioxide. If totally immobile he is able to consume 3000 calories versus 1800 calories for her. That is what is meant by metabolism So one way to look at it is that biology is destiny. She has him beat during famine but today, he remains svelte (though mosquito bitten.) He doesn't need as much willpower and can actually eat three meals a day where she is relegated to three snacks a day. They started adding antibiotics to cattle feed when they noticed large fish downriver from a pharmaceutical plant in New York. The change in intestinal flora due to antibiotics may be a root cause. Or some other effect like all the estrogens in chicken today. Mothers get their kids removed today if they let them roam the street versus 40 years ago when kids never stopped playing and yelling outdoors. Also, pediatricians browbeat new mothers if their kids are low on growth charts with always the ever present idea that a baby is not being fed enough. This scares Moms into on average preventing the low weight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many potential causes for morbid obesity, and obesity in general. Some of which are genetics, pre-existing diseases that affect metabolism and mobility, eating disorders, etc. Though it's true that the main cause that's touted in the media is "calories in/calories out", that's mainly because this is the vast majority of obese people's *main* problem, and also it's one of the problems that can be fixed relatively easily (by changing eating habits and exercising).

 

Some hormonal problems can also cause obesity.

 

It is absolutely not, however, the only cause for obesity, and definitely not the only one for morbid obesity.

 

A few resources:

Hope that helps,

 

~mooey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thyroid/metabolic issues, potentially faulty nurturing, addictive disorders, marijuana use, binge eating, poor education, the age-old myth that excess weight equals healthy (subject to limitations), genetics, sedentary lifestyles, lots of potential factors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many potential causes for morbid obesity, and obesity in general. Some of which are genetics, pre-existing diseases that affect metabolism and mobility, eating disorders, etc. Though it's true that the main cause that's touted in the media is "calories in/calories out", that's mainly because this is the vast majority of obese people's *main* problem, and also it's one of the problems that can be fixed relatively easily (by changing eating habits and exercising).

 

Some hormonal problems can also cause obesity.

 

It is absolutely not, however, the only cause for obesity, and definitely not the only one for morbid obesity.

 

A few resources:

I guess I was going for the recent causes of obesity. Although I left out the primary one. What is the single biggest factor (other than gender) for an early death?

Hope that helps,

 

~mooey

 

that was weird that comments got added to mooeys

 

What is the single biggest factor as a cause for an early death? (besides gender)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest cause of death, according to WHO besides starvation, is heart disease, which is caused by poor diet.

Edited by Realitycheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest cause of death, according to WHO besides starvation, is heart disease, which is caused by poor diet.

 

This is interesting.. I didn't know that. Can you supply a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

It's not separated to 3rd world vs modern-medicine using countries, though, and it may skew the conclusions a bit. Obesity is (as far as I know) a disease of the modern world. It's a big factor to deaths in modern world or to conditions that lead to death (like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc).

 

I wonder if there's a way to see what the factors are in modern countries. I'll try to look it up.

 

Thanks for the links!

 

~mooey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

It's not separated to 3rd world vs modern-medicine using countries, though, and it may skew the conclusions a bit. Obesity is (as far as I know) a disease of the modern world. It's a big factor to deaths in modern world or to conditions that lead to death (like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc).

 

I wonder if there's a way to see what the factors are in modern countries. I'll try to look it up.

 

Thanks for the links!

 

~mooey

 

If you look at the bottom of the page there are links to further pages which go on to categorise it either by wealth of the country or by continent. the second page in particular.

 

I guess they're trying to stay neutral and keep away from "3rd world" terminology and a higher wealth should be analogous to Modern-Medicine using countries. Presumably.

Edited by Leader Bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the bottom of the page there are links to further pages which go on to categorise it either by wealth of the country or by continent. the second page in particular.

 

I guess they're trying to stay neutral and keep away from "3rd world" terminology and a higher wealth should be analogous to Modern-Medicine using countries. Presumably.

 

Sorry.. I might be looking in the wrong place, but I can't find the links you're talking about?

 

The only thing I could find is this: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index4.html

fs310_graph3.gif

 

 

This seems to show that heart disease is the highest, but not quite what the factors of it are. It's not really enough to know if Obesity is a major factor or not...

 

~mooey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I guess you must have found those links as there are only those 5 pages.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ischaemic_heart_disease

 

"The medical history distinguishes between various alternative causes for chest pain (such as dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, pulmonary embolism). As part of an assessment of the three main presentations of IHD, risk factors are addressed. These are the main causes of atherosclerosis (the disease process underlying IHD): age, male sex, hyperlipidaemia (high cholesterol and high fats in the blood), smoking, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, and the family history. "

 

I'd only be guessing here but High Cholesterol, Smoking, Hypertension and Diabetes all strike me as something to be found more often in developed countries; either from the lifestyle a richer country can provide with it's fast food chains and non-physical labour forces in comparison to 3'd world countries.

 

I should look into this further, I would imagine the International Labour Organisation (Another branch of the UN) would have some statistics on this, i'm looking now but not having much luck. I suspect the lifestyle a richer economy provides is considerable factor in this.

 

http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/lang--en/index.htm

Edited by Leader Bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I guess you must have found those links as there are only those 5 pages.

 

http://en.wikipedia....c_heart_disease

 

"The medical history distinguishes between various alternative causes for chest pain (such as dyspepsia, musculoskeletal pain, pulmonary embolism). As part of an assessment of the three main presentations of IHD, risk factors are addressed. These are the main causes of atherosclerosis (the disease process underlying IHD): age, male sex, hyperlipidaemia (high cholesterol and high fats in the blood), smoking, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, and the family history. "

 

I'd only be guessing here but High Cholesterol, Smoking, Hypertension and Diabetes all strike me as something to be found more often in developed countries; either from the lifestyle a richer country can provide with it's fast food chains and non-physical labour forces in comparison to 3'd world countries.

 

I should look into this further, I would imagine the International Labour Organisation (Another branch of the UN) would have some statistics on this, i'm looking now but not having much luck. I suspect the lifestyle a richer economy provides is considerable factor in this.

 

http://www.ilo.org/g...g--en/index.htm

 

Many of those causes used to be labelled differently- old age.

 

Early death here is the key and it has been sort of mentioned. In the United States today besides gender what is the biggest easily defined factor causing an early death?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of those causes used to be labelled differently- old age.

 

Early death here is the key and it has been sort of mentioned. In the United States today besides gender what is the biggest easily defined factor causing an early death?

 

Perhaps i'm missing somethign but hasn't the answer already been given as heart disease?

 

I don't understand how gender can be the leading factor for early death over the lifestyle choices of those individuals?

Edited by Leader Bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps i'm missing somethign but hasn't the answer already been given as heart disease?

 

I don't understand how gender can be the leading factor for early death over the lifestyle choices of those individuals?

 

 

That is wrong. Heart disease is not the main -measurable factor- which is the main cause of -early- death in the United States. Anyone? Hints are already here. Are more hints needed?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very thin people have a shorter life expectancy than morbidly obese people do.

 

It is foolish to say that heart disease caused by poor eating habits is the leading cause of death, since heart disease is really just a final common pathway by which the stresses of countless diseases -- many of which are inherited -- manifest themselves. Thus type 1 diabetes is a major cause of heart disease, but type 1 diabetes has now been identified as probably caused by some abnormal pain response in the nerves surrounding the beta cells of the pancreas, with either that abnormal pain being a consequence of abnormal fetal development which in turn arouses an autoimmune attack against the stinging beta cells, or a secondary effect of a primary autoimmune disease on the nerves surrounding the beta cells. So to take just this one example of 'death by heart disease,' you can see that the cardiac death is in fact just the final manifestation of a long pathological chain of events which begins either in abnormal nerve formation during gestation or abnormal T-cell governance of immune processes. These then are the real causes of the death in such cases, but they still count as cardiac deaths, which is taking the symptom for the cause.

 

You could go through the same steps above with 50 other important diseases, showing how their final expression is in cardiac function cessation, which of course means death, so by virtue of being at the end of the line, heart disease seems to be the most significant 'cause' of death. In contrast, the diseases of the pancreas, kidney, liver, thyroid gland, adrenal glands, digestive tract, and nervous system which all ultimately culminate in a fatal heart attack don't kill patients in and of themselves, so they are undercounted as causes of death. Death certification is always arbitrary in listing primary and secondary causes of death, since the truly significant cause is often the cause which winds up being labelled as 'secondary' or 'underlying' or a 'background pathology.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have evidence and substantiating statistics to your claim here, Marat? It's different than what I know, and quite different than what I saw so far... I'd love to see the evidence that morbidly obese people live longer than thin people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have evidence and substantiating statistics to your claim here, Marat? It's different than what I know, and quite different than what I saw so far... I'd love to see the evidence that morbidly obese people live longer than thin people do.

 

 

This really does goes towards my general concern that science is misunderstood.

 

Except in this case there is an underlying favorable goal towards what is in fact a type of propaganda. I know cigarette smokers do die from it but it often effects the quality of life. Even here one would have to say heavy smoking is dangerous. If you limited yourself to two a day you haven't increased your odds at all.

 

Every medical study I have ever read I always approach it trying to see if the researchers have truly teased out cause and effect.

 

Suppose you were to observe five thin women at age 55 in the heartland. It is a very different thing than study results to conclude that they would have better odds at a longlived life than an obese person. The words that the media misses is "all other things being equal" perhaps obesity is a risk factor. Here too a study may have sorted out all the people with other factors.

 

Today, for instance, in certain areas, thinness is a marker for cigarette smoking or methamphetamine use or alcoholism. These things on average will get you quicker. In the studies weightloss is often a precurser to cancer.( "preclinical cancer" meaning it hasn't been detected yet.) Half of the people have a genetic predisposition to get diabetes and high cholesterol while half do not even, possibly, if they were to go on and become obese.

 

When mentioning cause and effect just as thinness could be a marker of cancer and not a cause of it, obesity can be a marker of already having insulin resistance and prediabetes. So it is then an effect here and not a cause primarily. Certainly debilitating illness which prevents movement can be seen to hurt the equation also. Even if weightloss helps initially since 98 percent gain back the weight then at a two year trial they are not then better off. So weightloss may not improve longterm health outcome.

 

The factor I am thinking of is the main one that makes researchers struggle to account for in their study populations for almost any kinds of research. Epidemiological research especially. I've asked several scientists in person who don't guess it. What is the major measurable risk factor among the largest number of people which causes the most lost years resulting in earlier death in this country (USA)?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really does goes towards my general concern that science is misunderstood.

 

Except in this case there is an underlying favorable goal towards what is in fact a type of propaganda. I know cigarette smokers do die from it but it often effects the quality of life. Even here one would have to say heavy smoking is dangerous. If you limited yourself to two a day you haven't increased your odds at all.

 

Every medical study I have ever read I always approach it trying to see if the researchers have truly teased out cause and effect.

 

Suppose you were to observe five thin women at age 55 in the heartland. It is a very different thing than study results to conclude that they would have better odds at a longlived life than an obese person. The words that the media misses is "all other things being equal" perhaps obesity is a risk factor. Here too a study may have sorted out all the people with other factors.

 

Today, for instance, in certain areas, thinness is a marker for cigarette smoking or methamphetamine use or alcoholism. These things on average will get you quicker. In the studies weightloss is often a precurser to cancer.( "preclinical cancer" meaning it hasn't been detected yet.) Half of the people have a genetic predisposition to get diabetes and high cholesterol while half do not even, possibly, if they were to go on and become obese.

 

When mentioning cause and effect just as thinness could be a marker of cancer and not a cause of it, obesity can be a marker of already having insulin resistance and prediabetes. So it is then an effect here and not a cause primarily. Certainly debilitating illness which prevents movement can be seen to hurt the equation also. Even if weightloss helps initially since 98 percent gain back the weight then at a two year trial they are not then better off. So weightloss may not improve longterm health outcome.

 

The factor I am thinking of is the main one that makes researchers struggle to account for in their study populations for almost any kinds of research. Epidemiological research especially. I've asked several scientists in person who don't guess it. What is the major measurable risk factor among the largest number of people which causes the most lost years resulting in earlier death in this country (USA)?

 

 

 

 

 

Sure.

 

Only I didn't make any statements. I asked for evidence about a particular claim.

 

If you don't consider your assumptions in light of evidence, how do you know if your conclusions are right? I do agree with you that there are a lot of factors to consider, but the fact there's a lot to consider doesn't mean we can't start from evidence-based factors.

 

~mooey

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.

 

Only I didn't make any statements. I asked for evidence about a particular claim.

 

If you don't consider your assumptions in light of evidence, how do you know if your conclusions are right? I do agree with you that there are a lot of factors to consider, but the fact there's a lot to consider doesn't mean we can't start from evidence-based factors.

 

~mooey

 

 

I am asking for a albeit more unusual problem statement.

 

Are you asking in a group of people who would have a high risk of mortality do to their age who among them will be at most risk to die first? Or are you asking all things being equal compared to that rare group of say 60 year old females who have the amazing self-disipline of no other risk factors will obesity as either a marker or a cause signal a shortened life? There are caveats then for each question also.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make two categories, morbidly obese and very thin, one would first define the the category quantitatively (i.e. BMI or any other measure).

And then, and this is important, define the question properly. Then the population has to be defined. Is it e.g. for the US, or worldwide. Both will yield very different outcomes. A finer dissection is relevant to find confounders, but is not within the scope of the question asked (i.e. low weight is more strongly associated with higher morbidity than extremely high weight).

In epidemiological studies you never assume a "clean" reference population as indicated above (i.e. amanda more's post).

The identification of individual mechanisms requires a different approach and is currently not easily possible in humans.

 

That being said, most epi studies that I have seen associate morbid obesity with higher risk than low weight. An example in US women age 30-55: My link

In this study the very low weight class (below BMI 18) and the morbidly obese are somewhat underrepresented. However, at best a positive association between the chance of dying (during 16 years) and weight was observed. Note that the study started in the 70s where there were less obese people around.

 

In a country where food is not readily available the trend is likely to be inverted as there food may be a limiting factor.

 

Edit: found the study I was actually thinking of My link.

Here extreme low BMI (17.5) does indeed carry a higher hazard ratio, but was still lower in non-smoking subjects. Comparing all subjects together, however shows no significant difference between extremely low and extremely high BMI.

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking for a albeit more unusual problem statement.

 

Are you asking in a group of people who would have a high risk of mortality do to their age who among them will be at most risk to die first? Or are you asking all things being equal compared to that rare group of say 60 year old females who have the amazing self-disipline of no other risk factors will obesity as either a marker or a cause signal a shortened life? There are caveats then for each question also.

 

 

No no, the conversation (as far as I understand it, and as far as the original post confines it) is about the causes of morbid obesity. It shifted slightly to ask (and I agree with the question) whether the danger is the morbid obesity *itself* or rather the underlying causes or, maybe, the resulting side effects.

 

We can't really judge any of these in proper context without looking at actual data. I agree that there's a large amount of propaganda going against morbid obesity -- but for us to really see which is the propaganda and which is the truth, we need to judge things according to facts.

 

So, when the statement was made that Obese people actually live longer than thin people, I merely requested the data behind such statement.

 

This isn't to say that morbid obesity is necessarily the ultimate cause of these people's higher risk of death, but it does (a) give us an indication about the general issue and (b) prevents us from going onto tangents that are NOT based on facts, but rather on opinion and empty claims.

 

~mooey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A curious factor to add into the consideration of the harmfulness of obesity is that in the peculiar population subgroup of renal patients, the patients with the highest BMI and the highest blood lipid levels live longest, while thinness and low blood lipids are strong indicators of shot lifespan. As in all epidemiological relations, cause and effect might be difficult to separate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A curious factor to add into the consideration of the harmfulness of obesity is that in the peculiar population subgroup of renal patients, the patients with the highest BMI and the highest blood lipid levels live longest, while thinness and low blood lipids are strong indicators of shot lifespan. As in all epidemiological relations, cause and effect might be difficult to separate here.

 

Not too long ago it was thinness that was associated with bad health. Obesity was rare.

 

Even when AIDS was out of control this culture with TV images etc. still worshipped the very thin. Hard to believe today that anyone ever shared Reuben's appreciation of large females.

 

As I channel flip I noted that Jerry Springer has svelte guests now instead of overweight. My guess on this is the Meth epidemic in the heartland. I don't think the population he can manage to draw from got with it suddenly with diet and exercise.

 

Culture is huge.

 

Health departments must be exasperated. Nuggets and fries and the inability to let your children play outside has to be a true health problem. Beating up on the parents and overweight adults would rarely be a solution. No wonder so many people hate science. Science is used to constantly browbeat.

 

Although I believe good science asking the right questions can show many systems etc. "the errors of their ways." Related to this topic there have been studies showing that mothers who cut calories during pregnancy add risk to their babies. The media never picks up on these stories much. I'm trying to recall but seem to remember the risk can be as high as known factors like cigarette smoking.

 

Actually, it may be a good thing if researchers have time to publish in peace. The public has yet to understand that a controversial study generally signals a need for more science not a total conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious to know opinions, and bear with me because I may just be ignorant, But It stands to reason for me that the only possible cause of morbid obesity is consuming too many calories, If you don't put somthing in your body cannot very well produce fat. I just have a few friends who fit in this category and have heard everything from underlying genetic conditions to "I don't eat that much" etc.

 

I completely understand food addiction, or gorging etc. but if these people cannot acknowledge to themselves that the cause is over indulgence then they're not going to get healthy. Just my opinion. What is yours?

 

 

Food addiction, will power, and temptation are a trivial cause of obesity. It's the lack of healthy foods that cause one to compensate for an empty-stomach [or the sensation of such] by overeating the "junk food".

 

I've stopped eating junk food and just started the induction phase of the Atkins diet. Two weeks ago I was 205 lbs. I'm now 195 lbs. My ideal body weight is around 140 lbs.

 

I currently daydreaming of a hypothetical diet product to cure my own state of obesity that I desperately would like to live off of -- without eating anything else. This product that is vegan-friendly and has all the nutrients of vegetables, fruits, herbs, algae, seaweed, and other non-animal organisms that are necessary/beneficial for human health. It also contains beneficial and essential microbes [such as probiotics]. All the aforementioned are in amounts optimum for human health.

 

This product is completely organic and free of any pesticides, synthetic ethylene and other man-made substances that compromise the

heath of foods and their human consumers. In addition, no organisms used in the product are genetically-engineered or irradiated. Equally important is the environment used to grow these organisms is healthy, organic, and free of pollutants.

 

This product may be extremely healthy to live off of. However, it will likely taste bad. To make this product consumable, an orogastric tube made of health-friendly, eco-friendly, non-abrasive material -- is included. An orogastric tube coats the entire mouth and throat all the way down to the stomach. This tube directly and safely transports the product into the consumer's stomach and can even do so in the complete absence of peristalsis.

 

Prior to the making of this product, all proteins & fats are pre-digested completely, and the following substances are completely removed from the plants:

 

1. Any carbohydrate that raises blood sugar. These carbohydrates are bad for health. Soluble fibers [such as inulin] are not removed at all

as they don't count as net carbs. Simple sugars and digestible starches are completely removed. Insoluble fibers [such as cellulose] are also completely removed as they don't offer much benefit other than to add bulk to the stools.

2. Unhealthy amino acids

3. Glycerol [which is unnecessary calories and can be produced by the body]

4. Saturated fatty acids [which contribute to atherosclerosis]

5. Trans fatty acids [which are far worse for health than saturated fatty acids]

6. Any other substance that is known not to be beneficial or necessary for health -- such as the caffeine in coffee/teas

 

All organisms used in this product -- excluding tomatoes -- are raw. Tomatoes are boiled to bring out the lycopenes.

 

To make the product healthier, bad minerals [such as lead and thallium] are completely removed [assuming any of them happen to

somehow be in the product]. To decrease blood pressure, sodium and chloride are decreased [but not completely removed]. The sodium is decreased as much as can be without leading to symptoms of sodium deficiency. The chloride is decreased as much as possible without causing any serious symptoms of chloride deficiency -- the consumer should still be able to safely perform tasks taken for granted -- such as driving or operating machinery. The decrease in chloride will help balance out the acidity caused by ketosis. To help prevent kidney stones during ketosis, extra potassium ions are added to the product. The potassium is also alkaline and will further assist the body in keeping itself non-acidic during ketosis. In addition, the extra potassium is added because the body responds to chlorine deficiency by making the kidney excrete potassium. So more potassium must be consumed to make up for this loss.

 

The product has drinking water added to it to make it easier to drink.

 

This product is in small health-friendly, eco-friendly bottles. Five bottles per day should be consumed. The bottles are in a package and

are of different sizes. The biggest bottle should be consumed in the morning. The smallest should be consumed in the evening. In between, are bottles of different sizes. Earlier in the day, the bigger bottles should be consumed and as the day progresses the smaller bottles should be consumed. This routine follows the saying eat breakfast link a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper -- except the food is divided into 5 smaller meals instead of 3 bigger meals. This is an extra benefit to diabetes patients.

 

It is important to understand that this product will initially not satiate it's users. However, once ketosis kicks in, appetite will decrease and consumers will no longer feel the urge to eat.

 

To summarize, the substances in the product are chopped and ground as finely as possible [tomatoes are boiled prior to this]. Second, the proteins/fats are pre-digested all the way down to their monomers [amino acids in the case of proteins, fatty acids & glycerol in the

case of fats]. Third, the undesirable substances are removed. Fourth, good microbes, potassium ions, and drinking water are added. Finally, all the substances are blended together.

 

There still will be fat in this product, it's just that they will be broken down to fatty acids [and the glycerol portions removed] prior

to bottling. Many fatty acids are necessary and/or beneficial for health. They also assist in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins.

 

If this product did exist it would greatly benefit obese patients. I just wish someone would start a company, get the company to make this theoretical product, and sell it to the general public at a reasonable price.

 

Here is my question.

 

I would like to live off this product and eat it in the aforementioned manner. Is there any hope?

 

All I ask is to experience a complete healthy life that is totally free of any physical disability -- such as stroke, heart-attack,

blindness, paralysis, etc.

 

Please tell me I'm not asking for too much.

 

 

Thanks,

 

GX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.