Childhood Obesity: Nature or Nurture?

[By Crabby]

Cranky Fitness is confused.

So there was a study that came out last week on the heritability of childhood obesity. The study looked at how much of childhood obesity is genetic, versus how much has to do with lifestyle stuff.

You know, like eating Pop Tarts and Dunkin' Doughnuts for breakfast instead of oatmeal and blueberries. Or playing video games and watching Survivor instead of going outside to play wholesome games like "Kick the Can" or "Capture the Flag" or "Jump Off the Roof with a Grocery Bag Parachute" or "Nearly Set the Neighbor's House on Fire Playing With Matches."

(Younger readers might not be aware that in the old days, we Baby Boomers were often permitted to play outside for hours and hours at a time, completely unsupervised. Isn't that neat? We tended to be slimmer, those of us who actually survived.)

Anyway, even though the study didn't get that specific, the general conclusion was: fat kids are mostly screwed because of their genes, not because of how their parents are raising them.

A few observations, then I'm eager to hear what you all think.

1. This was an extremely depressing study.

Not just because of the poor fat kids, but also because I could NOT make any sense out of it. I'm hoping an actual scientist might take a look, because it seemed to be saying a lot of contradictory things all at once. I can usually at least follow along a little bit when I read research studies, but this one made me feel dumb. I think it may have said that being a fat kid is about 77% genetic, but, well, don't quote me on that.

2. People Are Going to Believe What They Already Think is True.

Many who report on this study simply go with the headline and proclaim that "Nature Tops Nurture" when it comes to obesity, so Don't Blame the Parents. Others read the same study and come to the opposite conclusion.

At Mark's Daily Apple, for example, where the Impressively Healthy hang out, they noted that there is still a big environmental influence on how genes get switched on and off. If you drop down into the comments section, the general tenor is very academic, and the conclusion seems to be: screw the headlines, it's still mostly Nurture, not Nature.

3. I Think it's Both Nature and Nurture.
Duh.

4. So Don't Leap to the Conclusion That Any Particular Fat Kid has Unusually Bad Health Habits.

If 77% of obesity is indeed genetic, there are some kids who are going to be fat doing the exact same stuff the skinny kids are doing. To stigmatize them and blame their parents without actually knowing anything about their particular diet or exercise habits is counter-productive and really mean.

Back when I was growing up, there were fewer obese kids--but those who were, in my experience, weren't doing anything all that different from the rest of us. To pretend we all have the same metabolisms and that all skinny people are virtuous and all fat people are lazy is just silly.

5. But As a Society, We Feed Kids Too Much Crap and Don't Ensure They Exercise Enough. That Needs to Stop.

Genes don't change over a couple of generations. The obesity epidemic is a real problem, and it wouldn't be here all of a sudden unless something major changed in the way we're eating and exercising.

So since we can't change individual genes (yet), we have to do all we can to make sure all kids are learning healthy habits. The ones who are genetically lucky enough to be a healthy weight despite eating crap and not exercising enough will still pay for it later in life. No one can afford to grow up thinking that unrestrained scarfing of junk food and a sedentary lifestyle are "normal," let alone some sort of entitlement.

End of Sermon.

So what do you folks think about the Nature vs. Nurture debate as far as childhood obesity?

Mighty Mice

Mouse or Rat? We're Not Sure. Whatever, At Least It's a Rodent.

[By Crabby]

Oh dear, is it Friday already?

For those regular readers expecting the usual "Random Friday" post, complete with an assemblage of bizarro web links--um, sorry! A certain crab didn't manage to put in the usual hours of exhaustive scholarly research mindless web surfing necessary to put one together.

So instead, we have some breaking news about weight training and mouse fitness.

Did you know there are some really strong mice out there hoisting barbells with their tiny paws? And that these mice are better off than the mice who put on their itsy bitsy running shoes and go for a nice long run?

You'd sure think so from this strange little press release (discussed here in case the link screws up again):

"Researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) have demonstrated that in mice, the use of barbells may be as important to losing weight and improving health as the use of running shoes."

Can't you just picture these determined little rodents in their gym outfits and teeny tiny little ipods? How adorable! A whole new kind of gym rat.

Well, turns out that the press release is either (a) trying to be funny or (b) written while on drugs, because despite my hopes there was no actual miniature mice exercise equipment involved at all.

The researchers just genetically engineered a mouse so that they could mess with a muscle growth-regulating gene. (They're called "MyoMice," not "mighty mice," alas). The upshot of the research seems to be that, at least if you're a mouse, weight lifting as you age will keep you slimmer and healthier and more junk-food resistant than running mouse-marathons. It has to do with all the swell things that type II muscle fiber can do for your metabolism.

The implications are that humans could do a better job fighting obesity if they'd lift weights. Good point! However, I just was SO disappointed after that initial paragraph to find out they did not actually design any little mouse-sized Nike's.

But here's what I'm curious about:

We've been hearing for quite a while now that we're supposed to be doing strength training, not just cardio. I make myself do it, even though I don't like it much. (Okay, some days, honestly, I loathe it). But it really does help you slim down and burn more fat and makes you feel all strong and virtuous and smug.

And yet... I get the feeling a lot of people, particular female people, tend to avoid strength training. When I work out at a gym, there are lots of gals on the treadmills and ellipticals, yet I don't have much female competition for the weight equipment. (And among my friends and relatives--far more pay attention to cardio than bother with weights) .

What's up with that? Is it fear of bulk? Is it psychological? Does strength training truly feel more miserable to women than to men?

I'm curious if you all have any theories. Or whether you guys do weights yourselves. Or is it perhaps something you keep meaning to get around to.. "some day?"

Tax the fat?

[By Merry]

Talk about ‘no country for old men’ – it’s no country for old women either. Apparently some doctors in Britain don’t want to treat people who are old or obese. According to the BBC, "About one in 10 hospitals [in the U.K.] already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt."

And this is not an opinion limited to the British. A new bill in Mississippi would make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese customers. The legislation, introduced by three members of the state’s House of Representatives, would allow health inspectors to revoke the license of any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight people. I get the feeling that a lot of people are, if you will excuse the pun, fed up with people who are overweight. (I do hope you will excuse the pun. I couldn't think of another way to phrase it.)

I can see doctors getting exasperated with people whose behavior made them unwell. But not treating people because they’re old? That’s not just saying Do Not Resuscitate, which is after all supposed to be decided by the patient. This is more like the insurance company that refused a liver transplant to that sick teenage girl. (They argued about it until she was too sick to have the operation performed anyway, basically Death by Red Tape.) Where do you draw the line on how much money to spend on a patient?

Even if the doctors are exasperated, what good will come from stopping treatment because the patient is morbidly obese? All it would do is cause more suffering. It won’t stop people from becoming obese. This article got me thinking about Worst Case Scenarios, the kind of measures the governments might take if we continue to gain weight at this rate. Taking things to a logical extreme, I came up to a few possible W.C. scenarios:

• They could pass a law that those of us who have more than 30% body fat must go to a nutritional counselor or physical trainer. Like sending someone who has trouble driving to traffic school. Or sending an alcoholic to rehab. You can’t force someone to stop overeating or under-exercising, but you can make it clear what the consequences of this behavior are. Something along the lines of showing children pictures of a smoker’s lungs, showing pictures of untreated diabetes?


• Or they might put a higher tax on junk food, as some states do with cigarettes, and use the money to fund nutritional education. Katharine at Editing My Body wrote about how expensive it is to eat well in America. Researchers found that the problem was worst in the rural South, which is a region where you could grow some kind of vegetable year ‘round. There’s a cultural bias against “Yankee” food, but it’s surely better to change a bias than to try to reverse diabetes or something like that.


• If I were really paranoid, the most extreme solution I can see would be forcing people to have gastric bypass surgery. Okay, that’s an extremely extreme solution, but it is similar, in thought if not in scale, with forcing people to wear helmets (or seat belts) or risk being fined. (I do wear helmets or seat belts, but the idea of being forced to look after myself is still annoying.)

These solutions all sound draconian, but not nearly as much as refusing to treat people altogether. That sounds like the voice of exasperation pushed to the point of being totally pissed off. It’s like they want to punish people for being unhealthy.

I suppose the thought behind refusing to treat the obese is based on the feeling that if you're fat, it's your own fault. The relationship between obesity and illness is seen as cause and effect, in the same way that jumping into a tiger’s cage can result in permanent loss of limb or life. If you make a deliberate, conscious choice, you should be prepared for the possible consequences. Fair enough, but not everyone makes a deliberate choice to live off junk food or become a couch potato. I think a lot of people become obese because we didn’t make a conscious choice to be anything else, following the path of feast least resistance.


*********obligatory disclaimer****************
I know there are people who are morbidly obese due to factors beyond their control. Speaking for myself, my weight is my own fault. It would be easier to lose weight if my thyroid functioned like those lean greyhound-type people. (You know who I mean, the ones who can eat anything and remain thin.) But even as I am, I can lose weight if I work at it.
*********end of obligatory disclaimer****************

I still worry about the old people. I mean, who decides the definition of old? To me, old is a term applied to people who have been on this planet longer than I have. I’m not old, and I’ll thank all you young whippersnappers to remember that fact.

Some ancient tribes in the arctic supposedly would abandon their old people out on an ice floe when they got too old to work. Maybe that’s where we got the expression ‘go with the floe’ from. Okay, maybe not. I could see insurance companies wanting to return to that tradition. But it surprises me to find the same feeling is apparently so widespread among doctors. Am I being naive?

Road Trip: Sacrificing For Science

[By Crabby]

So it would be nice to pretend that for the last ten days or so, I've been getting almost no exercise and eating like crap on purpose. Can we make believe it was really a scientific study? Could I impress you with my dedication to the cause of health and fitness research?

We could say I've been undertaking an intense immersive examination of the psychological and physiological impact of behaving like an ordinary American for a week or two. I'm a regular anthropologist, like Jane Goodall--just without the chimps and the cute jungle khakis and the pith helmet. (Actually, I'm more like the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds for months til he almost died, but I loved the Jane Goodall documentaries I watched back in fifth grade. Do they still show those in schools?)

Anyway, the whole "undergoing hardship for the sake of science" thing is obviously bullsh*t. Really, this last ten days was just an unusually extreme and pathetic variation of what I normally do when on the road: I start off pretty good, then as the challenges of maintaining my normal routine start seeming like more of a pain in the ass, I start to slack. I eat stupider stuff and work out less until by the end, I'm a total disgusting slothful junk-food scarfing machine. But then I'm home.

This time, I gave up on my normal healthy routine about two hours in, said WTF, I'm just not in Virtuous Traveler mode this trip. Screw it. Other people are ordering cheeseburgers-- I'm having one too! And a gym day pass for $20? WTF? That's too much money. Oh, there's nothing healthy on this menu but they do offer chocolate cake for dessert? Sure, that sounds good...

Why was I so rebellious this time? I'm not sure, and I'm not worrying about it too much. One nice thing about doing the mostly-healthy-lifestyle thing for decades, is, I have extensive history with it. I know that I will rebel at times and that I will always get back on track.

The nice thing about this self-knowledge is that I can skip right over the "guilt" phase of the cycle and go straight to the "repent and reform" part. Which is not all that hard after a week or two of eating crap--it becomes way less attractive to me if I wallow in it for a while. Greasy cheeseburgers seem less of a treat after you've had them a couple days in a row.

The most interesting thing this time was discovering how much of the research I read about healthy eating and exercise is actually true! I don't think I'd gone off track for long enough before to really notice the difference.

It's one thing to read that you have more energy, sleep better, feel happier, ache less, and are less stressed if you eat right and exercise. But wow--there's nothing like a bunch of white flour and sugar and saturated fats and missed workouts to prove the point.

So today junk food goes back to being an occasional splurge, not a staple. Stretching and cardio and strengthening are back on the agenda. It was fun to walk on the wild side with the other chimps, but... I want my regular routine back now! I want to feel healthy and energetic and normal again. I feel like, oh my goodness... some vegetables and whole grains and non-hamburger based protein!

So does anyone else go a little crazy when they travel? And if so, how do you handle to the return to real life?

The worst brings out the best in us

[By Merry]
The good news is, the worst is over.

No, I'm not talking about Madonna's fashion sense. A psychologist from Cardiff University says January 24 was the Worst Day of the Year, when people were the most miserable. He even has a formula to prove it: 1/8W+(D-d) 3/8xTQ MxNA.
W: Weather
D: Debt
d: Money due in January pay
T: Time since Christmas
Q: Time since failed quit attempt
M: General motivational levels
NA: The need to take action

Anything with that many variables makes me suspicious (okay, and confused). There are so many factors, I don't see how you can predict their interaction with any degree of reliability, no matter how many diplomas you have.

I think this study was memorable because humans like imagining the worst. It tends to bring out the best in us. In Oregon, they celebrate bad weather by hosting the Worst Day of the Year Ride. This bicycle ride has gotten so popular that they had to cap the number of people who signed up.

Another example is the Coney Island Polar Bear Club, whose members swim every Sunday from October to April. In New York. Sounds insane to me, but they're all smiling in the picture.

Is the human race schizophrenic or what? One the one hand here's a large part of the population huddled by the heater whining about how lousy it is outside, and then there are these fanatics really enthused people deliberately going out into the coldest, most miserable weather -- and enjoying themselves! They positively embrace the fact that it's awful, instead of whining about it as any normal red-blooded human would do.

I envy them even while feeling irritated. I mean, they make the rest of us look bad. I think the most annoying part is -- well, you know how you felt when you got up crack o'dawn to go exercise or do something virtuous like that? You remember how good you felt afterwards, maybe even a little smug about the people who didn't get off their tuckuses and work out first thing? That's how I imagine these people feel. I don't want people feeling smug around me; it makes me feel inadequate.

Probably there's no way to stop feeling this way except to join the Dark Side myself, i.e. go out in the worst weather to exercise. I'm curious: does anyone know if there are more of these extreme weather workouts around? Do people like them because it's a chance to exercise outdoors and experience the excitement of a race with other people despite the inclement weather?

Or maybe it's just that we're attracted to the bizarre. There's one marathon, the Moonwalk, that takes place in Scotland, among other locations. It begins at midnight, and everyone participating wears a pink bra. (Presumably a pink sports bra, but you never know.) I like the idea of making exercise fun, but I don't know if I'm ready for that one yet. Because it's a marathon, yeah, that's the reason.

Besides, Madonna will probably be there. She's already got the perfect outfit.