Talk:Obesity/Archive 6

Fetal origins of obesity

 * ) There is a lot of evidence indicating that obesity might have a fetal background. Smoking in pregnancy leads to offspring obesity. This is not a genetic mechanism, which entitles it to have a separate section under "Causes and mechanisms". I would not call this "vandalism" Magfas (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite the info, then im sure it would be considered. - FatM1ke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a reviewMagfas (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I didn't see anything on smoking in that. Did I miss something? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was more of a general review (were you able to access the entire review?) on fetal origins of obesity and fat distribution. Here is a more specific one on smoking. The point is that intrauterine processes influences the adaptation to life. It deserves a mention at least. Magfas (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

that photo of a love seat
How has that photo of a love seat stayed on here? Can someone ask the original poster to provide some evidence that that's indeed a special chair for large people, and if s/he can't, remove the picture? The whole thing screams "practical joke" to me. Triangular (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

exercise vs diet
The article currently says "exercise combined with diet resulted in a greater weight reduction than diet alone".

But that makes me wonder -- are there any studies comparing exercise alone vs. diet alone? Is "weight loss from exercise cod with diet" an additive effect of "weight loss due to exercise" plus "weight loss due to diet", or is there a synergetic effect? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As well I think it's better to define what exactly is meant by exercise, diet and weight loss, as for myself, in the past 4 months I've changed my diet, started to exercise and as a result gained approximately 25 pounds, mainly of muscle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.177.210 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Indefinite protection is not usually a good idea, but yesterday's unprotection of this page shows that it is a vandal magnet. I have yet to see a useful edit to this topic from an anon or newly-registered account. JFW | T@lk  07:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we're doing the right thing then. RFerreira (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it off
mmmmmm: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/10/1139?etoc JFW | T@lk  01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

seen as a sign of lower socio-economic status
"Obesity is often seen as a sign of lower socio-economic status" sounds strange to me. Obesity correlates with low economic status. That is a fact and could be mentioned. But to see obese people as of lower socio-economic status is prejudice. Why mention the predjudice unless in a section on prejudice against the obsese?--Timtak (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-fat?
made some pretty sweeping changes to the introduction and opening sections. Edit summaries seem to indicate that the content was "anti-fat", but what came instead was a weasel-word laden attempt at NPOV. I don't think that there are many experts who disagree that prevalence of obesity is increasing or that it predisposes to many medical conditions. The news article that was inserted in the intro replaces peer-reviewed evidence already cited with "personal opinion" by "experts" with a sniff of conflict of interest. That may technically belong somewhere in the article, but is really not suitable for the intro. JFW | T@lk  07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, some of the additions lead to very interesting sources. I had heard of the UK twin study, but have now identified the actual reference and added it (in preferment over news articles that have the habit of dumbing down the data). The "10 alibis" news item led to a pretty high-profile review of additional explanations for the "obesity epidemic" that is highly quotable. JFW | T@lk  08:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Units
Units in first paragraph The mg/kg2 should be kg/m2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.27.178 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term "healthy weight"
Given that there is conflicting evidence about the health effects of obesity, I propose that the term "healthy limits" in the first paragraph be changed to "established limits," or some other value-neutral term like that. Minerva9 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree, your argument is clearly based on POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some references --
 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=5
 * http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/17/2028
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339599?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
 * I believe the issue deserves some discussion. Perhaps it's as simple as adding a section about crticisms of modern obesity research. Might provide useful information. Minerva9 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal
I suggest that the Central obesity article be merged with this one. Central obesity contains NO references, and doesn't say much that is different from the Obesity article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I retract my proposal - the Central obesity article is much improved from the state it was in before and is now a well-rounded (ooh... poor choice of words there!), properly sourced article! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, but please spare us the slang terms ("muffin top" and "love handles") presently mentioned on that page. JFW | T@lk  10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we should keep the article on central obesity - because central obesity (belly fat) is a distinct topic in its own right, and has been covered a lot in the news lately, since much research has shown that there is a high correlation between belly fat and health risks such as stroke, and because users tend to look up specific things they'd like to know more about. Users who look this up will expect or hope there is an article explaining what this term is.  Redirecting them to a huge article on obesity in general is inappropriate when it is central obesity specifically that they want clarified.  Links to the general article can be provided in case users are interested in reading more (which is a core design philosophy of this and other encyclopedias - go from specific to general). Besides, the obesity article is already 74 kilobytes long, and we should start looking seriously at splitting it up.   Also, more material is bound to be gathered on belly fat by our editors, and it makes sense that there is an article of its own for them to add more facts to - obesity is a wide enough topic (no pun intended) that we shouldn't expect to place everything about it  on a single page.  The Transhumanist  17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Improvements to the article - I've copy-edited the whole central obesity article, have added references throughout, and have added two or three new sections as well. I think you will agree that the topic is well-worth covering in its own right.  While I was researching additions to the article, I noticed a lot more material out there on this topic - for example, "central obesity" returns 111,000 hits on Google, while Google Scholar returned 14,400 hits.  The Transhumanist  23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. Central obesity is a distinct medical condition with a huge literature, which warrants its own page. The obesity page is sufficiently long to require splitting already. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. Per The Transhumanist and Espresso Addict. There's plenty of literature on central obesity, it has its own specific characteristics, and deserves to be treated in a separate article. --Eleassar my talk 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MC4R
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/MRC004564 - this has now been demonstrated to be relevant in a 90,000 people study. JFW | T@lk  06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Diets
removed the entire section on dietary treatments, on the grounds that it because it discussed specific diets it was "not encylopedic information on obesity". A quick glance at the references will suggest that this is not just a list of diets. It is a list of diets that have actually been investigated in the treatment of obesity. It is therefore highly encyclopedic, because contrary to all the nonsense written in the ladies' magazines, these diets have been scientifically tested! I oppose removal of the section. If there are specific concerns, we ought to discuss them here. JFW | T@lk  09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for World Ills
A recent letter by two members of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published in the Lancet, proposes that obese people are partially to blame for both global warming/climate change and the World food crisis (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107629.php). It's been picked up by several reputable news outlets, and probably warrants inclusion in this article. I would reckon it should be put in the non-medical consequences section of the article, however, I would feel it warranted a little more exposition than just a bullet point and 2 or 3 sentences (as the section is currently comprised). Any thoughts on whether we should add a paragraph? Or just keep it to a bullet point? Malbolge (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. This is a piece of opinion by two researchers who are not particularly notable in themselves. Obviously there is no direct evidence that obese people leave a larger carbon footprint (and it will be very hard to create that evidence). Furthermore, I submit that most obese people do not wilfully overeat/underexercise, so it would be rather unfair to place climate change squarely on their shoulders. JFW | T@lk  08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Semantics
For instance, reliance on energy-dense fast-food meals tripled between 1977 and 1995, and calorie intake quadrupled over the same period.[23]

Someone please clarify this, i.e. 'calorie intake of energy-dense foods quadrupled' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.47.72 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it makes perfect sense. Because more people have energy-dense meals, their overall calorie intake increased a lot. JFW | T@lk  08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SineBot. I too feel that this passage does not make sense. Calorie intake has increased but it has not increased 4 times as it sounds in the article. Fast food meals have increased 4 times. This is what is meant and what should be said.

A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 1971 women ate 1,542 calories on average, compared with in 2004 1,877 ( an increase of 335 Cal for women ), while men went from 2,450 calories a day to 2,618 ( an increase of 168 Cal for men ). Jmh649 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lardass redirects to Obesity?
I realize wikipedia is not censored, but the redirect to obesity from that word is offensive to those who are overweight.

I think Lardass belongs in the entry Insult on Wikipedia instead of redirecting to obesity. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Post it on WP:RFD then. JFW | T@lk  23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph says that "Although obesity is an individual clinical condition, some authorities view it as a serious and growing public health problem". This should be changed to either "most authorities" or even "all". There is a debate about the effects of being overweight on mortality. There is however "No Serious" debate that obesity increases mortality and morbidity.

references include:

the CDC stats Canada The Joint Effects of Physical Activity and Body Mass Index on Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Women Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):884-890. Jmh649 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be easily traced to the Lancet review we are already cited. I have fixed this now. JFW | T@lk  23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
The below segment does not follow from the reference. It implies that 7% of obese people have a single locus mutation. What the article says is that 7% of those with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) SD score (SDS) > 3] of early onset (<10 yr) have a single locus mutation. Not 7% of the general population as is implied.

If you read the reference this is what it says: Various genetic conditions that feature obesity have been identified (such as Prader-Willi syndrome, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, MOMO syndrome, leptin receptor mutations and melanocortin receptor mutations), but known single-locus mutations have been found in only about 7% of obese individuals; these people tend to be very obese from a very young age.[26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Jmh649 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting this. JFW | T@lk  23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Obesity Paradox
Within some section of this page we have references to primary research that contradicts some of the secondary research presented.

This info in particular is referring to something called the obesity paradox.

This is were increasing BMI leads to lower mortality and morbidity rather then higher mortality and morbidity.

I think that this needs to be addressed directly as it is very popular in the press. I have made some changes. Let me know what you think.

--Jmh649 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

# 3.7 Social determinants
The section on social determinants as a cause of obesity mentions a relationship between weight and social outcomes. A few of these are just as easily an effect of obesity as a cause. I feel that some or all of this section should be moved.

One explaination is that overweight women marry into a lower class as they are viewed as less attractive. Look which women are admired socially and whos pictures we plaster on advertising and magazine covers. Doc James (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been annoyed with the Zagorsky reference for some time. I can't read the paper (no access) but it is in a an un-indexed journal of limited impact. I have no problem with a complete rewrite of that paragraph. JFW | T@lk  02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Causes and mechanisms
This is a page about Obesity not about the obesity epidemic specifically. The sources S W Keith just talks about what other issues might be contributing to the obesity epidemic well he lives out static factors such as genetics and other medical illnesses that contribute in a more static manor. Therefor I have reverted to previous as what was writen dealt with all obesity not just the new epidemic. Doc James (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Keith reference reviews ten influences. We are citing those ten influences. If you think that there are others that also need to be discussed, please list them afterwards but do not modify the content sourced to that reference.
 * In general, please be careful to ensure that your claims still match the references to which they are sourced? JFW | T@lk  02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Diet types
Moved the specific discussion about diet type to the page about dieting. Will work on cleaning up this section and getting it supported by meta anaylsis. Doc James (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of that content should not have been removed. If diets have been researched specifically for use in obesity, they should be discussed here. JFW | T@lk  07:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence
Recommend that we move prevalence up to its own section at the top from were it is in public health. These numbers will health put the morbidity and mortality in perspective. Doc James (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the way we usually structure medical articles, see WP:MEDMOS. JFW | T@lk

Is Ciliopathy -- as a genetypic cause of phenotypical obesity -- worth mentioning in the article?
A few edits ago, I added a single sentence to the obesity article: "Obesity is one symptom reported in a newly discovered class of genetic diseases known as ciliopathies" which I sourced from this journal article:    My edit was removed, perhaps because I wrote poorly.

What I was trying to say is that there is now, as of some fairly recent developments in the genetics literature, at least a plausible hypothesis that one potential cause (underlying molecular cause, or underlying genetic cause) for some particular cases of clinically observed obesities is ciliopathy. Perhaps my use of the word "symptom" was a mistake; but I thought that saying "one potential genotype for the obesity phenotype is ciliopathy" to be rather too esoteric. Perhaps the entire sentence needs to be rewritten. But I do think it is an appropriate addition to the Obesity article.

I am in no way saying that all ciliopathies result in obesity. They obviously do not. From the last ten years of work in molecular genetics with animals that have the cilia organelle, one thing that is obvious is that ciliopathies manifest in an extremely pleiotropic manner. But there is a plausible hypothesis that has been put forward in the academic literature relating to a ciliopathic underlying cause for some clinically observed obesities; it has to do with a dysfunction in the molecular signaling pathway (along the cilia and/or basal bodies) that signals fullness, and/or taste, and/or time to move food onward in the large and/or small bowell, etc. To date, most of the specific ciliopathic genes that have been related to obesity have been studied only in relation to more pleiotropic genetic syndromes such as Alstrom's, MKKS and BBS. But the ciliopathic root cause, identified in some and implied in others, is encyclopedically interesting.

In my view, this newly-discovered connection is worthy of mention in the obesity article. But I am not well-read on Obesity, so I will let those editors who frequent this article hash it out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the edit because the connection seemed very indirect. Some (how many?) cases of obesity may be due to monogenic conditions, and some of these are (or may be) ciliopathies. I asked you on your talkpage for any evidence from the Badano article that obesity is tightly linked to ciliopathies up and above any individual members. If this is mere speculation without any hard data, I really do not think this is ready for inclusion.
 * Succinctly: just because obesity occurs in some (possible) ciliopathies doesn't mean we should reverse the argument and put ciliopathy into the differential diagnosis of obesity under that name. JFW | T@lk  20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Public health and policy Environmental factors
This section should be combined with the section on cause and what does not have references should be delete. Will do if I have time.Doc James (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Title
Wondering if we should change the title to adult obesity as there is another page on child obesity. We really only deal with adult obesity on this page anyway.Doc James (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that obesity is used commonly to refer to adult obesity in the scientific literature. However I think there would be a few benefits to the title change.


 * adult obesity would be construed less as an insult making this page less prone to vandalism if it was to ever become unprotected again


 * would highlight the page on obesity in children contrasting it to the page on obesity in adults and make it appear equal in importance to editors and readersDoc James (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandals use redirects as well. The present solution (mentioning childhood obesity in the intro) is much better than moving the page IMHO. JFW | T@lk  23:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)