Talk:Obesity/Archive 3

The Cause of Obesity

Since there are millions of people looking for the answer to obesity, as a public service here it is. 0. fat people are obese

1. Obesity is the storage of fat. Scientists and citizens worldwide believe this to be true. 2. Insulin is the hormone that controls the storage of fat. Most scientists and doctors, especially those who prescribe insulin to diabetics, believe this to be true. Most ordinary citizens don't know a thing about insulin. 3. Eating fats and proteins do not stimulate insulin production. Eating carbohydrates (simple and complex carbs/sugars) cause insulin to be released by the pancreas. All scientists and doctors believe this to be true. Most ordinary citizens don't know anything about insulin. 4. Eating carbohydrates causes insulin to be produced and fat to be stored. Almost no scientists who are paid to do obesity research publicly believe this. The reasons vary: Some scientists say that fat is stored by rats when eaten, and so rats are a good model for human obesity. Most obesity researchers are paid for their work, and a lot of this money comes from companies that sell food for a living. All of them have seen people who eat a low fat diet, exercise, and lose weight (even though 99% on this plan eventually regain the weight), so for them seeing is believing. So for a variety of reasons, no paid scientist believes statement #4, even though it is the sum of statements #1, #2, and #3.

A diet that is mostly fat and some protein will not raise insulin levels, and so fat will not be stored. This diet is the opposite of the food pyramid guide, which is promoted worldwide along with the note "exercise 30 minutes per day". This is because no one who puts out this guide believes that without exercise, the guide will work. So you can believe that if you don't exercise and do follow the food guide, you will gain weight; and that is exactly what is happening to most of the population, as over 60% of Americans are now overweight/obese. Seeing is believing.

A diet that is mostly fat and some protein, with a small amount of carbohydrate, would look like this: - lots of olive oil, a bit of cheese/meat, and salads. This is called the Mediterranean Diet. - or lots of sour cream and vegetable oil, a bit of meat/cheese, some vegetables. This is called the Central European Diet. - or lots of cheese, sour cream, vegetable oil. A bit of meat/cheese, some vegetables. This is called the French Diet.

None of these diets raise insulin levels, and so fat is not stored. Obesity is not present to a large extent in these populations. These diets run counter to the medical diets recommended by American scientists, who advocate low fat, high carb, and lots of exercise. As a result, obesity is predicted to be the #1 Killer disease in 20 years time.

While it is possible to believe that eating a low fat, high carb diet and exercising will keep you fit and healthy, seeing is believing and for the vast majority it is not working. In countries where diets keep insulin low, people live long, healthy lives and also they also do not eat a lot of sugar. Sugar is neither good nor bad, it is a source of calories and stimulates insulin production.

This information is presented as a public service to the millions of people out there who don't know what to believe. Who want to believe they can lose weight and lead a healthy life, but just can't see the solution. Seeing is believing. To those who are afraid, go ahead and try a diet high in fat, with some protein and a small amount of carbohydrates. If it works after a week, and you see it and believe it, it won't hurt you to do it for six months and lose all the weight you want. Go see your doctor while doing it, and get tested along the way. See for yourself, at this point it is up to you as no one but you can see for yourself.

If that diet doesn't work, then try the other way: Eat a diet high in carbohydrate, and low in fat. Since fat is stored only when insulin is produced, if you don't eat fat you won't store it. At the end of the day, we are overweight because of our beliefs, and need to change them to lose weight. The belief that sugar is bad for you is only true if you eat fat with it, as the fat will be stored. But if you eat fat by itself, without sugar, the fat won't be stored. So we believe sugar is bad, meat is bad, coffee is bad, carbohydates are bad, fat is bad, etc... With these beliefs set, we try and justify them with as much science as we can pile on.

In the end, the belief that insulin controls our weight is the only way to get out of the trap. It is not sugar, meat, fat, carbs, it is just insulin. Either find a way to keep insulin down, or don't eat fat when it is high. That's all you need to do, change your belief and you can change your weight.

Involve Science and use the "F" word instead of the "W" word

The introduction should note the following facts:

1. There is no scientific defintion of "obese" (or, come to that, of "overweight".) FYI, BMI is not a scientific message; it's just a mathematical version of a height-weight chart, without the adjustments for small, medium and large frames. Both BMI and the height-weight chart were devised in the nineteenth century (the former in Belgium, the latter in Britain), and they are both terribly antiquated tools. The definition of obesity that begins this article is a common one but it is NOT a *scientific* one -- and for good reason. The term has not yet been *scientifically* defined.

2. There is also no scientific evidence that excess body fat causes disease -- at least in part because there are no scientific definitions of "obesity" or "overweight" to indicate what "excess body fat" means. There are plenty of "normal weight" people who die from the same diseases that kill fat people, so there's no real correlation there. That said, there *is* strong evidence to support a theory of abnormal body fat gain and retention as a common *symptom* of disease; so, if a subject does have body fat in great excess of that normally required for survival (especially if the subject is from a very *non*-affluent background and, thus, can't really be said to be "over-eating"), that can be a sign of a serious underlying medical problem. But there is, as yet, no scientific evidence that fat itself presents a problem; and there is the additional complication that almost all of the research relied up by medical practitioners since World War II has been funded by the dieting industry.

Otherwise, the article should use the "F" word instead of the "W" word. If there *are* health problems caused by the condition sub judice, they are NOT caused by excess body *weight* but by excess body FAT. (Aside: Therein lies the principal problem with BMI, which betrays it as a non-scientific measure. Most professional athletes are "morbidly obese" according to their BMI numbers, because they are so muscular -- and muscle mass is *far* greater than fat mass.) So, the article should come out with it and use the word "fat" instead of "weight."

CUBISM

© LEEDS, 2003-2006 from The Bread Perspective re:CUBISM: When you debate, you often have to deal with fallacies. For example, fallacies like ‘obesity’ exist by manipulating the facts. The reality is, in nature animals are rarely obese and the fact very basic things like genetic modifications have to be forced and deliberately sustained in an unnatural environment proves humans are influenced to become obese. The reality is, obesity is an aberrant biological condition and should be rare, yet paradoxically it is becoming prevalent in humans and domestic animals. The paradox is an illusion, the reality is obesity factors are like a Rubik’s cube in that all sides of the cube contain tiny ‘orange’ factors or biases toward weight gain like ‘race/lean body mass’ or ‘fat/calories’ or ‘choice’ etc., However if you manipulate all the biases to one side of the cube you can create an orange face [the illusion of obesity]. The illusion is real to some extent, in the same way the Easter Bunny is real, but only because in an artificial world the illusion is held in place by cultures with a vested interest in maintaining it. Without being supported by unnatural things though, the natural state of a variety of factors on each face of the cube would resume. If you understand cubism, you can understand hallucinations are also created by saying just one orange square represents obesity, or ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction’ therefore if one face is orange/obesity, then another face has to be white/normal and another face blue/anorexia. Obesity is not the only illusionary face you can create. For example, fame is an illusion because even if the star does something society disapproves of, the media keep on photographing them. Intelligence is another face, so is mental illness and specific language. There are heaps of faces. So my Bread Perspective is: - just because it is possible to make something happen doesn’t mean it is law. Incidentally, the illusion is held in place by cultural factions with a vested interest in maintaining choice. So we are influenced to make poor choices like spending money on junk or more food rather than exercise. I see this as a cultural illness parallel to some elective surgery {eg., if people with small pelvises have Caesars, then they will loose their ability to have natural childbirths}. And what about prioritising? If we have to live in an artificial world, why can’t we do it to our advantage? In the past, lots of cultures put standards before luxuries eg., Asians/rice and Indians/vegetables. So why don’t we construct an Australian diet of:- Caltrate [600mg]; multivitamin; bowl of musalie with milk; bowl of brassicas; 2 toast with protein topping; 2 L fluid + 1 variation per day? Let extreme variety be superfluous? As I said, vested interest. Not only does our culture pay lip service to standards and priorities, they even create artificial pelvises or chastity belts that armour plate our substandard pelvises and proclaim “I have a legal right to choose”. Cultural illness worries me. I know I can survive if nature is expanded on by artifical things, but I’m not sure I can survive if nature is altered by them.

POV

You can tell this article is being edited by a lot of people who don't have the willpower to control their eating or stay in shape. To read it you would think everyone on Earth is a member of an aboriginal tribe standing around and worshipping a statue of Porky Pig's fat mom. Newsflash: Almost everyone thinks obesity is downright gross. You don't need a journal article to tell you this. Go outside and ask the first ten people that pass you on the street what they think about it. Even the tiny little paragraph that tackles the truth is written like an after-school special fatty apology. Just because you heard that a thousand years ago being fat was cool doesn't mean it still is today. Nor do tiny "non-Western" tribes deserve a greater level of emphasis than a country of nearly 300 million people. Places like America and Scotland are way fatter than the rest of the world, and very often reviled, by themselves and by others, because of it. This article is worse than Traditional Chinese Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.201 (talk • contribs)

• Heh. Yes, "obesity is downright gross" and "people who don't have the willpower" is definitely more NPOV than the current article! Chartreuse green 03:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is I'm keeping my opinion to the discussion rather than going through and casting the article from an unnatural frame of reference; although, to be fair, changing the article to reflect my personal opinion would have the side effect of making it much more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.201 (talk • contribs)
    • My apologies if this post is in the wrong place, but I thought I should point out that the introduction to the article on obesity has been locked with the words 'fat fuck' still in place. If someone with the access could change it, I think I wouldn't be the only grateful person.

Carnitine's Role in Obesity

Carnitine's Role in Obesity is now on Wikipedia.

microclimates

Because obesity can result from fluid retention and from compression within environs having limited space, such as peninsula or regions having some historical significance, an introduction skewed toward food-intake management will not address other vital obesity concerns and may instead contribute to the number of unnecessary surgeries demanded and scheduled. 12/6/2005 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) beadtot

Sorry, obesity does not result from fluid retention. Water is water; fat is fat. And I have no idea what you mean by "obesity can result... from compression within environs having limited space" but I suspect it is a sillier concept than the fluid retention. Thanks for not adding either to the article. alteripse 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we are not talking about fat, we are talking about size and girth -- fluid retention within body cavities can also be termed as a type of 'edema' resulting from compression, say, in the company of athletes or 'Type A' professional businesspeople. The best and most effective remedy for such stress upon the natural bodily state is, paradoxically so it seems, well-nourished and safe sleep.

The post-pregnancy state is often ajudged to be 'obese' when a woman choses to retain amniotic fluid in the abdominal region as a hedge against infectious disease -- no amount of persuasion can force her to go to the gymnasium or join a marathon race to lose it. As well, adult people among youngsters maintain some padding when close quarters are continuous so as to cushion interpersonal encounters. 22:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 12/17/2005 beadtot

Can you give us some references for what sounds like fantasy physiology to me? Are you suggesting we should just tell "fat" people to stop "choosing" to retain fluid? Have you noticed that the rate of obesity rises when children have their own rooms and the family has larger living quarters?alteripse 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's raving pseudoscience, or a hoax. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to be kind. alteripse 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I opened my mind briefly, but then discovered all other serious thought already present protested and threatened to leave. JFW | T@lk 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen these other, real points of view presented within literature of any kind -- therefore, the opportunity to present them within RFC is laudable. Paradoxically, as stated, eating nutritious meals and sleeping will cause weight loss as a result. 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 12/19/2005 beadtot

Remember Me? =)

Hi Guys

Well done on finally cracking down on removing the vandalism from this article. I will explain my rather weird actions of previous months now, so I will be forgiven and my real picture be posted up (If you want confirmation, let me know and I'll webcam with you). I was at the point where I wanted to help the wiki as much as I could, so I helped this article with a picture that wasn't me. I put the wrong liscening on it and should have explained my actions, but I was stupid and didn't. I apologise the confusion and general weirdness I caused, but I actually have a proper picture now and I am willing for it to be used on this page. It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boochan.png. I will put it up soon if you wish, Just asking to be forgiven for the crap I caused and to still help. - Boochan 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should we believe you this time, Boochan? And we already have a great picture of a user with genuine obesity who has not stuffed several pillows under his shirt. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've Chilled - Sorry =) - However I am still leaving the fact that its a genuine picture, but will be deleted anyway (on my own request) so there is no point in arguing. - Boochan 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Chill, man. I'm glad you've apologised but we have no need for your picture. Really. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No Problem - Could you have just said that politely instead of making false accusations next time please? No need is fine, if that was explained rather then it hidden in annoyance motivated drivel (understandable, believe me) first, then I would have accepted it and not posted a few lines of rant :) - Don't take it the wrong way or anything, but being accused of a fake even with the first reputation is not so good, because I'm not a nusiance user. - Boochan 16:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not. We've just had too much trolling about the images here. At the moment what we need is a schematic drawing to explain the difference between visceral fat (located around the abdominal organs) and subcutaneous fat. According to research, the former produces a set of adipokines (call them "fat hormones" if you like) that accellerate atherosclerosis through a form of low-grade inflammation. This is of significant importance to the article, and needs to be fleshed out.

As for featured article status, this is still miles away, especially as we need more from the social science angle to make it truly comprehensive. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to hear that you understand correctly. - Boochan 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again, and again, and again, and again....

Ok. For the umpteenth time -- will someone P-L-E-A-S-E tell me why this article is being vandalized on a regular basis? Jason Palpatine 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Because obesity is big. Honestly. People are interested and concerned. Teenagers have a strong bias towards obesity. They click fat, then learn this is about triglycerides and fatty acids, then come here, leave their turd, and go. Go look at the G.W. Bush article. It is vandalised every few minutes. Tough. Shame. That's part of Wikipedia. It is likely to improve if anonymous users are disallowed from editing, something that has been debated on and off for the last 2 years. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I never thought I would see you show as much exasperation as I do sometimes. It's probably healthy. alteripse 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's this that might help— Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. It's still being debated on that articles talk page too, if you want to chime in and/or make suggestions. —Locke Cole 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is your real name Kenneth by any chance?[1] JFW | T@lk 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No it's not, though my parents did consider it alomg with Benjamin. Have a nice day friend. -- Jason Palpatine 18:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet againthe vandals have struck. Sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! -- Jason Palpatine 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Live with it, mate. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you Astrailian? I'd rather kill it, mate. Jason Palpatine 18:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's popular in London as well. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obesity vs. Overweight?

I just noticed that "overweight" redirects to this article on obesity, but the two terms do not really indicate the same condition, and this article doesn't appear to actually discuss "overweight" at all. Should "overweight" be given its own article? If not, at the very least I think it should be made clear here that "overweight" and "obese" do not mean the same thing.. Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject? -- Foogod 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See my discussion with Brendan above. Overweight and obesity are part of a spectrum. Some overweight people are centrally obese, yet have a BMI under 30. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, now I see your comments above (I missed that earlier because it was under a subject heading which didn't seem to apply).. I should point out in response to your comment here, however, that my point had nothing to do with who's considered overweight vs. obese or the health implications thereof (and has nothing to do with BMI). My point is just that from a technical, clinical standpoint these terms are have fairly well defined meanings and do not actually mean the same thing, and the current Wikipedia organization implies that they are the same, which should be corrected. It sounds like there may be some consensus here that we should create a new article for "overweight".. maybe I'll look into doing that if I find the time soon.. -- Foogod 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be an overweight article regarding the stock market term (i.e. overweight, underweight, equal weight) versus an automatic redirection to an article on obesity. --Rmoss78 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Foogod, this article explains the term overweight. This is normal Wikipedia functioning - if an article does not exist it is acceptable to (temporarily) redirect it to a page that provides more information. I do support a page on overweight, but it will provide little information and should more take the form of a sub-page of obesity. The studies Brendanfox was suggesting above could well serve as useful sources for an overweight page. Rmoss78 can then split off overweight (stock market), which is an uncommon use of the term (as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). JFW | T@lk 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a new article for Overweight, based on references found here and various other information I've collected. Please take a look and tell me what you think. -- Foogod 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

What's the point? --Bulgarian Ben 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with you, Ben. This is stupid! --Sunseeking Jay 18:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The point, of course, is too keep the page from being vandalized. And it seems to be working. --Angr (t·c) 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not too well! The infamous North Carolina vandal keeps hitting up on this page. 68.39.174.238 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it was working while it was protected! Trouble is, WP policy won't let me keep it semi-protected permanently. Pity. --Angr (t·c) 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One week is not permanent, why not try semi-protecting this article for one week and see what happens? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has yet again been vandalized

It looks as if somone had the immature notion to vandalize the beginning of this article. Seeing that there has been a history of this from reading the talk page, I recomend that these actions be rectified.

naked man

its really unneccessary-- not to mention gross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, don't look at it. --Angr (tɔk) 09:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. None of his private parts are revealed. This is what an obese human being looks like. Weither or not one finds it "gross" or something else has no relevancy to the fact its an effective picture of an overweight person. I'm sure many don't like looking at what a Penis looks like but that shouldn't stop its wiki article from having a picture of it for strictly informative reasons. Man...I don't get all this attitude towards this picture. Its just a fat guy, whats so disturbing about that?--Kiyosuki 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the nude man photo. That is indecent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.76.102 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored for content. The picture is relevant to the content, and I have restored it. Please do not remove information from the articles without prior discussion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

not because it looks indecent-- but because more appropriate visuals exist-- should the article use a different picture. don't make this a stand against censorship. when obesity comes to mind, i think of fat people, not fat nude people saturated with light, wearing weird glasses, picnicking. the picture, on a whole, is not very good.68.222.12.248 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To be hinest, I don't think the man actually WAS nude -- nothing was showing because his fat was covering his bathing-suit. -- Jason Palpatine 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed in the archives. When the picture was there he actually was if someone was sad enough to grab the picture and zoom in, but then it was replaced with a censored version before it was volnterrily taken off. - Boochan 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think the page should be protected. Someone really has it out for that picture. I decided to change pictures of ANGR to another one (from the Fat page) in order to hopefully decrease the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.76.14 (talk • contribs)

Even if ANGR's picture wasn't there, there'd still be plenty of vandalism. That is not where the only bit of vandalism occurs. Personally I would leave it up. It's a distractor to some people who could end up doing more widespread harm.

Will someone please explain to me -- as if I were a 6 year old -- why a day doesn't go by without someone VANDALIZING this article?! -- Jason Palpatine 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason, you are now six years old, and you must have seen those ugly drawings on the subway trains and blind walls in bad neighborhoods. Most of them are no more than a person's name or signature. Sad people do this, Jason. They try to make a name for themselves by defacing other's hard work. It is not dissimilar to dogs leaving an odor mark at the bottom of all the trees they encounter.

Obesity is a very fashionable subject, and being fat is not very popular. Combine this with the appeal of defacing others' property, and you get a volatile situation. Have a look at how often George W. Bush is being vandalised. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I would like to apologize for abuses coming here from Loyola College. They are coming from a computer lab located in one of the dorms. The problem was discovered when half of the computers were blocked and couldn't edit. We're working on a policy to stop the vandalism of this fine site.

Ah that explains a lot of it. Only college students could be so overly sensitive and repressed. :D (I'm one myself.)--Kiyosuki 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Or they could just be ########. :P--Kross^Talk 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now now..--Kiyosuki 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would ignore Kross. He's just a jerk. Read my talk page. User Talk: 144.126.161.43 144.126.161.43 15:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Boys, none of this is relevant to obesity. Go to 144.126.161.43's talk page. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What do I do to report him? That's all I ask. By the way, if you want to leave a message please do so on 144.126.161.43's talk page. I generally have most of my access to that computer.144.126.76.73 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pigs

Does the reference to pigs really have to be in the intro? Although the pig reference may be an "objective" statement, it's derisive. Would anybody allow this to be edited out or changed to another farm animal?

Well I can see how it could be a bit...harsh. I've wondered the same thing myself but always thought to myself that it wasn't a huge deal to really give consideration. But if it is...well I have no problem really. What about a picture of Homer Simpson? He may not be a particularly great man in the show, but he's almost universally known, and his weight is the subject of humor as well as satire in the Simpsons but at the same time he has good qualities as well as famous qualities that make him not so much of a one dimensional portrayal. I could change it...but only if a few others really agree. Aside from just the implication that an anthromorphic pig may leave, changing it like this could have some positive use on the wiki as a character like Homer or something equivalent is much more relatable since so many are familiar with the character and his qualities, where as I can't really remember where the current character comes from and he(she?) seems like such a bland example.--Kiyosuki 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this in reference to the PIGS IS PIGS picture I posted in the POPULAR CULTURE section? -- Jason Palpatine 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I added a pic of Jabba the Hutt instead.Ollie the Magic Skater 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I thought that was a good example...Ollie the Magic Skater 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing its the following text: "Obesity is relatively rare, but it is common in domestic animals like pigs and household pets who may be overfed and underexercised." - I doubt its the cartoon picture. - Boochan 10:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I dislike how this page attacks FAs. It says more militant but doesn't acknowledge the existence of less militant ones. Nobody is denying it's healthier not to be very obese. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get the support and appreciation they need.

{{Sofixit}}. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is any truth to this assertion, you have my support. I can't stand intollerance.

Could you spotight one or two of the sections you are refering to? It would help not having to read the entir text to find/see what it is.

And I happen to be an FA myself -_- Jason Palpatine 00:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo list

Someone started a todo list. The first item for discussion is AD-36. This has actually been discussed before, and it was my view that this information did not require mention in this article, given that the whole AD-36 thing is the work of one group and has received minimal attention in the scientific community. See here for my wanderings into this subject. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi JFW - As far as I recall, Morbid Obesity is generally regarded as 40 and over, or being over 100lb over the persons ideal weight. The Amount between 35-40 seems to be occasionally called "Severe Obesity". Hope this helps.. though some medical proof would be useful. I am also thinking that various difference countries may recognise the BMI for Morbid Obesity as different, as for example some countries still consider a healthy weight BMI from 23-28, rather then the recent change to reduce it down to 25..- Boochan 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

African vs African-American

I notice these two are listed as different groups under those recommended for increased BMI limits. Why is this? What are the genetic differences between the two?

I guess I'll collapse them into just 'African' if noone has any objections? Robthebob 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? Kids are dying of hunger in Africa! Cuzandor 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bariatrics and obesity surgery

The article bariatrics currently seems to be primarily about obesity surgery, which is a different article. I have proposed that the two be merged. Please discuss at Talk:Bariatrics. Angr/talk 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think combining them is a good idea. Obesity surgery, namely gastric bypass dominates the bariatric discussion.

Major Thanks

Thanks for having a solid replacement to the fat nude man. OsFan 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is in such a vandalised state, plus it makes it all the less centered on one of our mods. Thanx for finding a good replacement. - Boochan 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

needs a good pic

a good photograph of an obese person would be very helpful for this article. i understand why the last one was removed, but i imagine that there are a bunch of noncopywritten photos of fat people out there. Joeyramoney 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that whatever photo is going to be up there that someone will be unhappy with it.OsFan 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

why? obesity is not subjective. Joeyramoney 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

People had problems with ANGR's photo because he was nude. You have issues with that photo for reasons you have not specified. My bet is that there's always going to be dissent over how a fat person should be shown. OsFan 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no photo, that's what bothers me. the painting is functional, but it isn't a photograph. it just seems out of place not to have one. and no, people will not have a problem with any picture put up, and it actually surprised me how long the previous one remained. once i can find one, i'll add it myself. Joeyramoney 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would put my picture up, but I might change my mind and take it off, which has made people a bit ticked off before. I would put mine up on the condition that I can take it off. - Boochan 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC) If you want an example of my picture, ask me for the link.

Recent edit

This was an edit done recently to the article/image. I was unsure wheather this was or was not intended to be an act of vandalism. Would the person responible please explain the meaning of their edit here? -- Jason Palpatine 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course its vandalism... -_- - Boochan 09:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, with all the vandalism that was/will be done to this artice, maybe we should set up a seperate article for listing all the vandalisms done to it. Some of them have been opretty creative. -_- Jason Palpatine 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The future of this article

Last week I made a number of substantial edits to this article. It is still my objective to work it up to featured status, given the immense (no pun intended) public interest in the problem of excess weight and its cultural, social, political and obviously medical repercussions.

We need a bit of an agenda as to how we're going to proceed here. I've summarised the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of obesity (although perhaps there could be some tightening in the diagnostic area), and I've cited the very comprehensive Jeffrey Flier paper that summarises the state of affairs in the "obesity wars".

Some sections are still in need of help:

• Epidemiology and worldwide distribution of obesity (the number of malnourished and obese people apparently is about equal on a global scale)
• Estimated medical and social cost of obesity (we only have the Mokdad reference that was subsequently discredited)
• "Societal causes" is mostly unreferenced and could do with WP:CITE injection
• The "AMA list of complications" has no reference (and is potentially endless; for example: thrombosis is not mentioned)
• "Controversies" presently mentions a few lone voices. A "bird's eye view" of the various POVs would be more helpful than a list of names (Campos says this, Critser says that).
• The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently issued guidelines for the medical and surgical management of obesity. The Royal College of Physicians likewise has been working on informing the profession on the epidemic of obesity facing the Western world.

I'd love to hear some more opinions on what this article needs to include. For example, I'm against the inclusion of AD36, an adenovirus intensely studied by one research group that was previously mentioned in the article but somehow did not seem to improve its credibility.

Are any of you aware of useful social science, psychology and politicology perspectives that could be included here? JFW | T@lk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting this article into two separate articles. One on the indiviudal medical and clinical aspects of obesity. Another on obesity as a public health and policy problem. Both areas are vast and require substantial work. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Social epidemiology is widely used in public health approaches to the problem. Also, there is a lot of work in behavioral economics on obesity control policy. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Obesity and the law

Instead of our present ponderous content perhaps we can get some more factual information from this source: Obesity — The New Frontier of Public Health Law. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this source. There are a few errors and the legal analysis is spotty. I can suggest other sources. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Center for Consumer Freedom

I want to suggest that references to the Center for Consumer Freedom or its use as a source be flagged or marked for concern and/or removed. Center for Consumer Freedom is a front organization for the food, beverage and restaurant industries. It began as the Guest Choice Network and was funded entirely by tobacco companies. Pelican 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5

This article has failed review for Version 0.5. It has a clean-up tag, and the writing and structure are not appropriate for a general audience.

For example:

• The first sentence ("Obesity is a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and mammals is increased to a point where it is thought to be a significant risk factor in certain health conditions, leading to increased mortality.") might be more simply written along the lines of: "Obesity is an overabundance of fat."
• The "Definition" section, as now written, is too technical for the beginning. Maurreen 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Black males have higher intra-abdominal fat risk.

Controversies Section

I have removed the sections "Medicalization of obesity", "Health effects of obesity", and "Medical Responses to obesity". The first two are not controversies save Paul Campos' work. His position and this position is not published in the peer reviewed literature and is generally not accepted. The section "Health Effects of Obesity" is unclear. "Medical Responses to Obesity" belongs under "Treatment" and is redundant. Pelican 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Health and Policy

I have also renamed this section to indicate the policy and public health dimensions of the obesity epidemic. This entire section, along with much of this article, requires citation and explanation. Also, the obesity/overweight prevalence numbers are not in dispute. Pelican 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This section lists the previous "societal causes" of obesity. There are no citations for this material yet. Pelican 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"How Cameron Lost His Gut"

In the "Environmental Causes of Obesity" section, under "Lack of activity", I'm removing everything after the word "also". It appears to be vandalism; there is no such story as "How Cameron Lost His Gut", so far as I can determine, and the citation (22) used doesn't correspond to that at all. It seems to be related to the first part of the entry, though, so I'm assuming they used to go together and I'm leaving it. --Defordj 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's going on

I last edited this page in May, and sorta lost track of it. Comparing the versions now, there are some good improvements but a few points I'd like to bring up:

• Silly tags about references and cleanup. This article has more references and is tidyer that many articles on similar topics and of equal length. These tags should not take the place of a gentle note on the talkpage.
• Much material was deleted despite being of good quality (e.g. specialist measurement systems - don't delete it, source it!) I have reinstated this.
• Many sources are still nonspecific webpages, especially those cited in inline URLs (rather than cite.php references). All these URLs should ideally be replaced with more elaborate citations so the reader can guess their authoratitiveness (is that a word?) from the reference. John Doe's website is not the WHO/CDC/NIH website, or what?
• Pihp (talk · contribs) kindly added some really useful sources, but probably was unaware that cite.php allows multiple instances of one cite. I've fixed this.

As I've stated, this topic attracts immense public attention, and the article needs to be one of Wikipedia's best. I'm gonna start watching it again, and have asked Pihp to comment here. JFW | T@lk 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to mark in the talk page some of the major changes I made, e.g. deletion of specialist measurement systems. Specialist measurement systems, for example, seem technical and are implied by the three diagnostic tools mentioned. I also removed etymology as it seemed irrelevant. I was going to work on the public health and obesity section as that is more my area of expertise. I do think the page might be well served by splitting this article into two or more separate articles. Pelican (PIHP) 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

In the subject of cultural and social significance isnt there a slight NPOV? The section feels like Obesity was valued in acnient times and in modern times it is somewhat less attractive because "thinness" is cosidered somewhat better. when the reality is that while it may ahve been good looking ages ago obese people are ridculed, shunned and looked down upon by most of the non obese world in modern times?

______________________________________

Second this. There's a big paragraph about thinness as a modern, Western body preference and how this preference is being exported as part of the process of globalization. No citations, no research, all speculation.

My impression

In some ways I like this article. For instance, it's balanced in presentation and ambitious in scope.

BUT.

It seems to suffer fatally from being written by people who are uncomfortable with the science. It is heavy on the conceptually simple topics which most readers will already be aware of, while shying away from the more current understanding of the physiology which they probably do not know and which it should be the job of this article to elucidate. I get the feeling that most writers have avoided dealing with the basic science as beyond them, relegating it to a poorly worded few paragraphs and encouragement to go read the Flier article.

To me the article reads as unbalanced as a diabetes article that spends pages on epidemiology but only a passing reference to glucose metabolism or the pancreas. By the end the reader may be sure that diabetes is bad - but do they really know what it is?

I know the science has exploded in only the last decade and by now it is quite difficult to master. But ultimately obesity *is* a neuroendocrine problem - and a complex one, so the neuroendocrinology should be at the center of the article, not a footnote.

This may take time to research and present clearly and accurately, but until that's done, I'm not sure what the article is really worth. Kately 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been only very superficial in citing the Flier review. There are very many studies coming out on a regular basis, but this area of medicine presently lacks a unifying hypothesis.

You are of course warmly invited to expand on the pathophysiology, provided that it is accessible to the general readership and adequately sourced. I'm happy to help if you provide some pointers that you think should be covered.

I disagree with your assessment of the diabetes article. Of necessity, it cannot list the 100s of relevant pathophysiological details. It provides a general picture, which is then elaborated on in the subarticles about type 1 and type 2. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest again that this article be split into two. The clinical and medical dimensions of obesity/overweight are related but distinct from obesity as a public health problem where issues of clinical assessment are secondary to the use of BMI as a epidemiologial measure in a population. Obesity is a clinical problem and a public health problem. The two are related but distinct. Perhaps separating the article into two articles or parts will eliminate some of the confusion. pihp 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected - again

Too much vandalism. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Factors

article mentions all reasons from "cheap gas" (which is bunk), to portion sizes increasing, to desk jobs, but what about one key thing? "Fatty foods invariable taste 100% better to most people than fruits and vegetables! healthy foods have no taste.

Viral causes

I see that discussion of viral causes is now on the to-do list. I actually added some of this data on 6 November 2005, but it was deleted two days later.[2] Mike Serfas 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a little theory espoused by one research group and has not been confirmed by anyone else. It is dwarfed in significance by the many other more "mainstream" lines of research in obesity. I will protest the inclusion of AD-36 until several large studies show a clinical relevance of this virus in humans. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weight Gain

I noticed Weight Gain redirects here. Even when its under for example, the side affects of a corticosteroid. Since weight gain doesn't necessarily lead to obesity, it probably should be changed somehow. Ledmonkey 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Weight gain can also be muscle gain, which has little to do with obesity.

Obesity Stroke "Chain"

While this article does not discuss it, I thought the medical profession long thought that obesity leads to strokes. On mentioning that to a pal who appears to be attempting suicide by massive overeating, he claimed to me that obesity does not have anything to do with strokes.

On a quick review of this issue, it appears that directly it does not but indirectly it hugely does as in a obesity stroke "chain" as follows": obesity routinely causes e.g. high blood pressure and / or diebetes and both can directly lead to strokes.

Will a health care pro, discuss this and add to this article as this is important info for the obese person to consider.

/s/ 285 lb slim man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.17.1 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Non-medical consequences

Winkwink (talk · contribs) has been populating a new section with "non-medical consequences". I was hoping he could fill us in on primary sources (see WP:RS for details). News articles etc are generally poor sources of information - they may provide some context but are usually inferior to the actual publications - in this case a government report on fuel costs and seating problems. All the medical material is presently sourced to journal articles - we should expect nothing less of the non-medical content. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Primary source material has been added in the recent editing. Thanks for your interest in this section. By the way most of my edits (by edit count) to this article have nothing to do with the non-medical consequences of obesity, but are rather directed to improve the article as a whole. Regards. Winkwink 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in improving the article. I have only a limited perspective and have been looking some time for editors willing to contribute to the article enough to raise it to featured status.

    "Improvements" seem largely directed towards demonizing the fat and those advocating on their behalf. 

Would you be able to provide primary references for the other statements in the new section? JFW | T@lk 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

More primary refencing supplied just now. still looking for more and better references. cheers Winkwink 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've doctored them a bit (no pun intended). I hope that in the fullness of time all inline URLs will be replaced with more descriptive full references. Don't forget to adhere to the academic citation standard. I managed to find the PMID code associated with the Dannenberg article, and an URL for the Finkelstein paper (which is online-only). JFW | T@lk 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected - again

15 vandals within 24 hours. I don't care, protection is back on. We should consider permanently protecting this page. The only editors who contribute are longstanding users. JFW | T@lk 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep it semi-protected. Too much editor energy goes into reverting vandals instead of improving the article. Nunquam Dormio 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to see

As a person 60 pounds overweight I think this article is well done. Although I wish it was more helpful in a couple areas...

1. More than the token mention of the mental problems associated with Obesity.
2. Information that would help identify self-destructive behaviors.

====================================================

There are problems mental problems related with obesity, they fall into two catagories, the ones that make people eat to much and so gain weight, and the ones that people suffer from (usually some form of depression or lack of self esteem) that are caused by being obese. The second can be a good or a bad point, it can motivate people to get on and decide to lose weight to stop feeling bad about themselves, or can make them eat as in a form of so called "comfort eating". Luckly after eating too much and putting on 90lbs I got fed up of it and decided to shift the lot, but I have to say its a lot easier to put it on than it is to lose it. But now I've built the muscle, it's easy to keep it off.

There is a lot on self destructive behaviour under "Eating Disorders" (not sure how to link to it), not sure if it needs more elaboration in this article or if its better where it is, what do the rest of you think? 86.131.16.140 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking A Stand.

From bbc.co.uk ... "Today, the goverment announced it's newest initiative to combat obesity in the UK - changes have been made to the laws regulating the manufacturing of clothing. From November 15th, all adults over size 16 will require a liscence to buy larger items, and will only be able to do so from specialised outlets ..."

Bloody hell, I know SOMETHING needs to be done, but surely this is a bit far? What does everyone think? And this page are very good

================================================

Nice to see people are making things up and posting them on here again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.16.140 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Pictture recomendation

I think this picture would make a great addition to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homer_simpson_-_muumuu.jpg

Public Health and Policy Responses

I suggest that a reference be made to the Healthy and Active programs undertaken by governments across Australia. For example on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane. Also perhaps reference could be made to the 10,000 steps program.