childhood obesity sucks
Apr. 24th, 2007 11:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
green_amber THis story hit the papers at the weekend and there's been some discussion of it at ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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..:-)
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..:-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.)