childhood obesity sucks
Apr. 24th, 2007 11:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
THis story hit the papers at the weekend and there's been some discussion of it at
hfnuala's LJ, based (unfortunately, I think) on the rather addled version from the Metro. I read it in the Observer and assume the Guardian story is basically the same.
Essentially the story suggests that leptin, a hormone in breast milk not currently put in formula, can inhibit childhood obesity by "chemically restructure[ing] the metabolic system of children to ensure they never became obese.
Studies in mice have found that large doses of the appetite-controlling hormone leptin during infancy permanently prevent excess weight gain and reduce the chances of type 2 diabetes."
Nuala argues that this points towards encouraging, or possibly even mandating breast feeding, as opposed to adding leptin to formula milk, as the scientists suggest. Another person on her LJ suggests that why can't childhood obesity be better avoided by diet and exercise, as was the case with all of us slim things here ? :-)
My (annoying) view: Frankly if a *safe* way exists, or can exist, to reduce or eliminate childhood (and hence adult) obesity with all the health risks and expense for the NHS and sheer misery attached to it, I'm all for it. In fact I think it'd be a fucking miracle. I've known the sheer bloody misery of growing up as a small fat child; even leaving aside health risks, it was pretty shit. (Probably less so now, I guess, when it's so common?)
If this stuff exists naturally in breast milk AND is proven to be safe, however that needs to be done, why NOT add it to formula, for god's sake? Also it might be that higher doses than naturally exist in breast milk need to be added for it to be fully effective (again safety testing clearly crucial). We've already been trying to push breastfeeding for decades and there's no question it isn't the best approach, or that we'll stop promoting it - but some people, whether because it's uncomfortable, inconvenient, incompatible with work, or for whatever reason, are just not going to do it (or not for long enough). Should they be excluded from these benefits? Should their children? Especially given they're likely to be the least middle class segment of the population?
25% of UK women are now obese and children are heading that way . (And yes I know not all women who are obsese are unfit, and that BMI sucks, but c'mon we all know what these figs imply for the NHS. You just have to look around Southampton, or Glasgow, or the average sf convention:-) It's all very well for us smug middle class people to say, exercise and better diet are the way fwd. Huge numbers of people don't have the opportunity, the money (fresh veg, lo fat food, cost more, take more time to prepare, are less easy to obtain, we all know that) or simply the nous or motivation to take that path. Like me, who can afford all the pomegranates and gyms in the world, I'm so thin already ... :) If we can help people. especially children, and especially our least well resourced and most ignorant people, we should.
The Observer article emphasised that tests would need to be done to ensure safety for both mother and child and that this would be very difficult as few people would want something tested on a new baby - OTOH they said the drug might be viewed as a natural food supplement and not a drug. This needs supervised carefully.
I get really irritated with the kneejerk response that any medical advance is (a) a dangerous drug being imposed by a consiracy of drug companies (b) designed to discriminate against the people with the condition it's designed to eliminate. I'm as keen as anyone, being er plump myself, to ensure that fat people aren't discriminated against in a world where it's bloody hard to do anything about it. But in a world where you CAN - why on earth would we want to hold out against it?
OTOH there is this possibility..:-)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Essentially the story suggests that leptin, a hormone in breast milk not currently put in formula, can inhibit childhood obesity by "chemically restructure[ing] the metabolic system of children to ensure they never became obese.
Studies in mice have found that large doses of the appetite-controlling hormone leptin during infancy permanently prevent excess weight gain and reduce the chances of type 2 diabetes."
Nuala argues that this points towards encouraging, or possibly even mandating breast feeding, as opposed to adding leptin to formula milk, as the scientists suggest. Another person on her LJ suggests that why can't childhood obesity be better avoided by diet and exercise, as was the case with all of us slim things here ? :-)
My (annoying) view: Frankly if a *safe* way exists, or can exist, to reduce or eliminate childhood (and hence adult) obesity with all the health risks and expense for the NHS and sheer misery attached to it, I'm all for it. In fact I think it'd be a fucking miracle. I've known the sheer bloody misery of growing up as a small fat child; even leaving aside health risks, it was pretty shit. (Probably less so now, I guess, when it's so common?)
If this stuff exists naturally in breast milk AND is proven to be safe, however that needs to be done, why NOT add it to formula, for god's sake? Also it might be that higher doses than naturally exist in breast milk need to be added for it to be fully effective (again safety testing clearly crucial). We've already been trying to push breastfeeding for decades and there's no question it isn't the best approach, or that we'll stop promoting it - but some people, whether because it's uncomfortable, inconvenient, incompatible with work, or for whatever reason, are just not going to do it (or not for long enough). Should they be excluded from these benefits? Should their children? Especially given they're likely to be the least middle class segment of the population?
25% of UK women are now obese and children are heading that way . (And yes I know not all women who are obsese are unfit, and that BMI sucks, but c'mon we all know what these figs imply for the NHS. You just have to look around Southampton, or Glasgow, or the average sf convention:-) It's all very well for us smug middle class people to say, exercise and better diet are the way fwd. Huge numbers of people don't have the opportunity, the money (fresh veg, lo fat food, cost more, take more time to prepare, are less easy to obtain, we all know that) or simply the nous or motivation to take that path. Like me, who can afford all the pomegranates and gyms in the world, I'm so thin already ... :) If we can help people. especially children, and especially our least well resourced and most ignorant people, we should.
The Observer article emphasised that tests would need to be done to ensure safety for both mother and child and that this would be very difficult as few people would want something tested on a new baby - OTOH they said the drug might be viewed as a natural food supplement and not a drug. This needs supervised carefully.
I get really irritated with the kneejerk response that any medical advance is (a) a dangerous drug being imposed by a consiracy of drug companies (b) designed to discriminate against the people with the condition it's designed to eliminate. I'm as keen as anyone, being er plump myself, to ensure that fat people aren't discriminated against in a world where it's bloody hard to do anything about it. But in a world where you CAN - why on earth would we want to hold out against it?
OTOH there is this possibility..:-)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 10:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 10:55 am (UTC)If it were calcium, there'd never have been this fuss. Mind you, if it'd been calcium, it'd have been much more obvious why the little dears weren't actively running around at nursery school - it'd have been because their legs had no bones.
My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 11:00 am (UTC)To me that article feels as though its assuming that obesity is genetic, and to a certain extent it is, apparently :). However, to me, its more to do with our lifestyles. I dont have the research but it is claimed that our diet has not really altered that much, and 100 years ago obesity was not the same problem it is today, and some people owuld suggest its the lack of activity thats causing the weight (although I'm sure fast food outlets help). So to me, its deifnately a lifestyle change.... But its really hard to increase physical activity if you don't have somewhere to go do it.
My PhD is hoping to encourage people to join in group acitivities that are fun and social and make you forget about the fact youre exercising. But that requires some knowledge of where to find these groups or how to play some team sports.
This article is aimed at kids, and I would love to see physical activity becoming an enjoyable thing for them (I HATED PE at school) so that they already have the knowdlegde of how to play team sports, what to wear and where to do it and to have found some sort of activity they enjoy.
When I was doing my undergrad I was very interested in hormones and neurotranmsitters. My mums been trying to lose weight for a very long time, and I would have loved to have got my hands on some leptin to see how it would effect her. Though, we're not supposed to experiment on our friends and family :)
I think its really interesting scientiests are beginning to understand how our genetics, and biology make us the way we are.
I also worry that rather then we humans do physical acitivty and not eat at burger king every day, that drug would reduce the liklihood a person would get obesity... emaning they could eat burger king all week and sit on the sofa at a hard day at school/work (also sitting down) and not put on weight. Great some people may say, but this is still bad for health. I think we need to treat the cause, not the symptoms.
:S I really rambled :S Though I know its *really* hard though to improve health... and its not as simple as it might appear that I think it is :)
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 11:04 am (UTC)But then, so far as I can tell, we really do.
But most people will never pay much attention to it, so it makes sense to help them out in other ways as well.
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 11:09 am (UTC)You will be assimilated.
From there, a half-step to Winston Smith's telescreen telling him to exercise more vigorously.
No ta.
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:15 pm (UTC)tho I did like badminton when i tried it, at the ripe age of 32. But it's hardly "team".
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:22 pm (UTC)Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:49 pm (UTC)Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:58 pm (UTC)Aren'y you mixing it up with masturbation?:-P
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 01:22 pm (UTC)Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 01:41 pm (UTC)I think i read it as self flagellation..
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 01:59 pm (UTC)Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:12 pm (UTC)If we could be made slim by a miracle drug WOULD it matter if we ate at Macdonalds and sat on the couch all day? I like some exercise - swimming and yoga make me feel good. But god I'd pay good money never to go to a gym again:-)
I agree that the article does seem to discount the non genetic components of obesity.
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:34 pm (UTC)See I though the same about the idea that our diet hasnt changed, I've spoken to 2 lecturers who say that it has not changed. I bet even 20 years ago families didnt eat as much fast food. I remember when we got our first McDonalds in my hometown! Though I do believe we are a lot less active... and I think that because theres fewer jobs where you have to be active... and computer do so much.
Theres this idea of thin on the outside, but fat on the inside. When your organs are surrounded by fat but you don't appear overweight at all... but thats another health scare :D
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:38 pm (UTC)Also there's the point that manual work really used to be manual. i remeber reading that colliers used to dink 10 or 11 pints of beer a day - nowadays they'd be alcoholics, then they were just rehydrating from the working conditions.
Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 03:05 pm (UTC)Re: My 2 cents :)
Date: 2007-04-24 02:01 pm (UTC)My Wartime Menu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3847041.stm
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 11:01 am (UTC)Technocratic solutionising for the win!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 11:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 11:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 11:50 am (UTC)I was and am more appalled by the suggestion the hormone should be given to pregnant women than I was by the suggestion it should be in formula milk. Research into why breastmilk is good for us should indeed feed into the making of artificial milk but that is the second step. The first is encouraging breastfeeding, which is good for both mother and infant. And also cheaper :)
And, yes, I do wish breastfeeding were seen as the norm with formula milk as a medical intervention but luckily I dont't rule the world.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 12:12 pm (UTC)pushing my luck
Date: 2007-04-24 12:16 pm (UTC)Re: pushing my luck
Date: 2007-04-24 12:31 pm (UTC)To be honest, I don't believe such a pill is ever likely to exist so I think it's a silly question :)
Re: pushing my luck
Date: 2007-04-24 12:57 pm (UTC)Does it matter? We take folic acid even though most our babies won't have spina bifida..
Side effects? if it was a bit of nausea or the equivalent of anti deopressant side effects, I would say it was worth it for the value to the baby and society.
It might not be a "pill" but the Observer article predicted such an effect being available via supplements within 10 years. And I though "god that's amazing".
I do think at root here there's two things going on here of which I am suspicious - (1) natural is always best (not in any way always true or we'd be a society of polio, rickets, syphilis, people dying of pneumonia and, facial deformities, etc etc.
(2) what is harder to achieve is always best =Calvinist syndrome. Why CAN'T I just take a pill and be thin? Why do I have to do it the hard way?
I want to live in Varley's Six Worlds, where I can be thin, fat, male, female , beautiful or reptilian any day I want :-)
Re: pushing my luck
Date: 2007-04-24 01:18 pm (UTC)(Folic acid is a red herring - it occurs in table food, leptin doesn't.)
..on a slightly different note (and I'm avoiding work)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:37 pm (UTC)But then maybe when the crazy pregnant hormones kick in, it'll feel like the most natural thing in the world....
Re: ..on a slightly different note (and I'm avoiding work)
Date: 2007-04-24 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 12:52 pm (UTC)