Obesity Pandemic - Infectious, or Personal Responsibility?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

If misfolded proteins are causing obesity at alarming rates, then why does specific dietary intervention reverse fat deposition?

The 'reversal' isn't permanent - it just overrides the epigenetic programming and shrinks the already created mutant fat cells. If the 'triggers' change from healing back to non-healing, the epigenetic program takes over again, the cells grow and the weight comes back.

Telling me that a healthy diet is "healing" is a cop-out. That's just as ambiguous as your prion theory.

No - it's not. I keep posting the links…. Besides getting lots of exercise, stopping smoking and not drinking or doing drugs - add a few "prion propagation inhibitors" to your diet. High on the list are green tea, curry (turmeric with curcumin), and sage.

New Inhibitors of Scrapie-Associated Prion Protein Formation in a Library of 2,000 Drugs and Natural Products

Several classes of compounds were represented in the 17 most potent inhibitors, including naturally occurring polyphenols (e.g., tannic acid and tea extracts), phenothiazines, antihistamines, statins, and antimalarial compounds. ...many are either approved human drugs or edible natural products...

Also - inflammation and oxidation help prions propagate. Go big with anti-inflammatories whenever you can - like cinnamon, aspirin. Same with antioxidants - Vitamin C is king.

There are certain physiological/metabolic reasons for why food reverses symptoms of chronic disease.

You betcha. And the evidence shows the primary mechanisms involve proteins.

And if fixing the diet works, there's no need to try and add another confusing theory/cause, especially one that doesn't explain all of the observations, as do dietary influences.

Fixing the diet takes care of some of the obvious symptoms - it does NOT cure the underlying disease - which means it WILL be passed on epigenetically.

Do not forget that much of the current obesity and chronic disease NCD Pandemic results from epigenetic inheritance. Pushing the KISS principle will NOT reverse that trend - it only will protect industry's "right" to pollute and cause disease.

when you track the molecular impact of each those factors individually, you will find a common mechanism - misfolded or mutant proteins that create disease through gain or loss of function or toxicity.

So... You're telling me that those factors are causing protein misfolding which directly leads molecular degeneration and cellular miscommunication that leads to obesity? Regardless of the factor?

No. I'm saying that if you track a disease to it's molecular origins you will find a mutant protein. In obesity specifically, there are several known proteins and pathways, and likely more to be elucidated.

I still don't think you have ANY idea how that even happens. And I'm quite certain you have NO IDEA how fat-deposition, fat-oxidation and fuel allocation happen, what drives them and what drives obesity (which are all part of the processes involved in obesity, regardless of prion involvement).

I don't think YOU know much either - and your regurgitated talking points might fool your fans but they don't impress me.

…You're clearly committed to the KISS principle - regardless of the future impacts. I'm not.

Originally posted by soficrow

The 'reversal' isn't permanent - it just overrides the epigenetic programming and shrinks the already created mutant fat cells. If the 'triggers' change from healing back to non-healing, the epigenetic program takes over again, the cells grow and the weight comes back.

OR....poor diet causes metabolic havoc. Eating the right diet, the one upon which we evolved eating, will return metabolic equilibrium. This, in fact, is NOT based on some loose associations. It's based on observational studies and then confirmed by controlled experiments in-vitro and in-vivo with animals and humans. The processes are extremely clear.

And to confirm the diet theory, observations in different conditions support it.

. Besides getting lots of exercise, stopping smoking and not drinking or doing drugs - add a few "prion propagation inhibitors" to your diet. High on the list are green tea, curry (turmeric with curcumin), and sage.

Those are great ways to relieve stress and lower inflammation. But, that's NOT a diet.

Also - inflammation and oxidation help prions propagate. Go big with anti-inflammatories whenever you can - like cinnamon, aspirin. Same with antioxidants - Vitamin C is king.

Also, not a diet. I'm talking about the FOODS; not the supplements or individual anti-oxidants or vitamins, etc.

There are certain physiological/metabolic reasons for why food reverses symptoms of chronic disease.

You betcha. And the evidence shows the primary mechanisms involve proteins.

And the point? They also include hormones and enzymes and....should I go on? Involving proteins, even if they're misfolded, doesn't mean the processes are CAUSED by them.

Do not forget that much of the current obesity and chronic disease NCD Pandemic results from epigenetic inheritance.

And don't forget that, in most cases, genetic predispositions and influences regarding metabolic processes are expressed as a result of a diet that ALREADY promotes these diseases in people without the predisposition. However, with a genetic propensity to be fat, have high-blood sugar or have elevated LDL, one very easily develops such diseases, relatively speaking, if the conditions caused by diet are promoting metabolic dysfunction. If a diet that promotes these conditions is cessated, the metabolic dysfunction reverses and the conditions aren't observed.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


The evidence linking chronic disease and environmental pollutants is far too great to be ignored. The only reason to focus on diet and make chronic disease a "personal responsibility" is to protect industry's "right to profit."

…chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

......Environmental influences on health are multifaceted, involving multiple pollutants, exposure routes, on a scale ranging from macro to micro (e.g., from built environment features to the loading of floor dust with toxic substances), multiple interrelationships, and life course vulnerabilities. It is already well- established that the in utero and perinatal “environment” and maternal and early childhood circumstances play major roles in the risk of later life disease. Within this new paradigm for disease causation, the DOHaD concept and the related field of epigenetics, a rapidly expanding body of research indicates a role for early life exposure to environmental contaminants in this lifelong continuum of disease vulnerability.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by soficrow


So no - I do not question the benefits of good food, clean air, uncontaminated water, 'natural' products and stress-free living.

And what, exactly, is good food?

For starters, good food is NOT grown from genetically engineered or genetically modified seed; it is NOT a Monsanto product.

"Good" food is not sprayed with hormone disruptor pesticides; it is NOT grown in soil contaminated long ago by hormone disruptor pesticides.

"Good" food is not grown in soil contaminated by anything.

Good luck finding good food in this polluted world.


More old news, suppressed to protect the corporate "right to profit":

Hormone disrupting chemicals targeted to prevent chronic disease in the EU

Early Exposures to Hazardous Chemicals/Pollution and Associations with Chronic Disease

Toxic Chemicals: The Cost to Our Health

Transboundary Pollution

Toxins in a Fragile Frontier

reply to post by soficrow


....and yet consuming these "bad" foods are ameliorating metabolic abnormalities that drive obesity, heart disease and diabetes and, in some cases, cancer (do I need to fetch you studies as proof?). It just goes to show that toxicity from contaminants and pollutants are dose and duration dependent. And that it's the food itself (the type of fat, type of carbohydrate, type of protein, amount of fat and amount of carbohydrate) that really matters.

You're grasping at straws here.

(and please stop saying that I'm ignoring environmental impacts on health. I'm not dismissing that they're having an impact, only that they're impact is not responsible for the observed, alarming rise in obesity, diabetes and heart disease and, like I said before, cancer to some extent (not nearly the extent that we see in the latter 3).

In this day and age, there is no way to eat healthy unless you are rich. Fruits and vegetables are ridiculously expensive. Only thing I can afford is junk food and cheap calories. What do they expect when everything we eat is derived from fructose corn syrup? Unless things change, obesity will be the #1 killer in the US.

reply to post by blackrain17


Are you sure about this?

You can get whole foods in bulk on the cheap.

I don't see junk foods as being that much cheaper than whole foods.

Now, organic fruit is certainly more expensive than regular produce, but that's just a section of the healthy variety.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

You're grasping at straws here.

Only because you provide NIL, ZERO, Zilch actual data to grasp. I will admit - your constant campaigning to defend the corporate paradigm is becoming a bit tiresome.

And again - The evidence linking chronic disease and environmental pollutants is far too great to be ignored. The only reason to focus on diet and make chronic disease a "personal responsibility" is to protect industry's "right to profit."

…chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

Try reading up on a few things that do not support your agenda. Knowledge is power.

reply to post by soficrow


Why, for the love of god, are you making false accusations that I'm promoting corporate industry? Jesus... You try everything you can with strawman arguments to completely derail this topic.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Would you please respond to this point instead of trying to redirect attention to trivia?

The evidence linking chronic disease and environmental pollutants is far too great to be ignored. The only reason to focus on diet and make chronic disease a "personal responsibility" is to protect industry's "right to profit."

…chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

reply to post by soficrow


Im sorry but I just don't buy it. The reason people are getting fat, is because they're eating too much food. Simple. Simple. Simple. Don't you scientist types know Occam's Razor

C'mon the real problem here is easy to identify. With the industrial revolution, along with technology advancing as it is, we have access to all types of foods, at all times. We as a species have never had this before. And now for the past 100 years or so, we have increased our weight gain, due to fast food, poor diet, and with the introduction of the tv, computer, and car, no excercise. This is whats causing obesity to flare. Not a disease. If it is a disease, does that mean that everything I've just explained is a coincidence? I think not. People have lost responsibility in this age, which means its not there fault their fat, its not their fault their stupid, and its not their fault their poor, so give them pills and money to fix it all. Well sorry, guess what it is your fault, and they won't be doing this forever, so grow up, take control of yourself, and most importantly take responsibility.

reply to post by andersensrm


Perhaps you can explain why undeveloped nations - many without access to much of any kind of food, never mind "fast food" - are now bearing the brunt of the NCD Pandemic? And why the focus is now OFF the "Big Four" chronic diseases, and solely fixed on the obesity component?

In 2011, the NCD Pandemic will kill over 37 million people - more than all other causes combined. Up from 36 million in 2008, the death toll is still climbing; 44 million NCD-caused deaths are expected in 2020, 52 million by 2030. Over 12 million NCD fatalities this year are under the age of 60, at 33% of the NCD death toll - up from 9 million at 25% in 2008. The death toll in people under 40 is rising rapidly. Children are being diagnosed in record numbers, and kids born after 2000 are the first generation expected to die before their parents.

.....Originally called "diseases of civilization" because they go hand in hand with industrial development, NCDs have now spread around the world. NCD stands for Non-Communicable Disease but no gender, age or country is immune; historically, nothing ever has spread so far and fast without an infectious component.

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies the "big four" pandemic NCDs as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and lung diseases like asthma...

reply to post by soficrow


More than one reason, Sofi.

I agree that prions seem to be part of the blame, but also other factors must be considered.

That's where the weaponized mycoplasma may help to explain some of this.

It coincides with the timeframe for increase in various illnesses.

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and consider outiside of your current agenda.

reply to post by unityemissions


Silly. I don't have an agenda - I'm just persistent when I know I'm right. Besides, I've been going on about this stuff for years, as you may know - and I've always said obesity and other chronic diseases are multi-factorial. Remember this one, from 2004? Virus Causes Obesity; Obesity Causes Heart Disease? And this 2010 thread has obesity-virus related information too: Viruses Can Change Human Genetic Code.

.......Proteins just appear to be the basic mechanism - even mycoplasma uses a "protein code" to get into cells, just like viruses do... Mycoplasma Membrane Lipoproteins Induce Proinflammatory Cytokines by a Mechanism Distinct from That of Lipopolysaccharide

reply to post by soficrow


And you're saying that I'm promoting industry profit, which is BS and is a joke of an attempt to slight me. I'm telling you that environmental factors play a role. No doubt. But they're NOT causing the obesity problem we observe today. Nor are they causing the heart disease problem we've been observing. And they certainly aren't causing the type II diabetes problem that's exploded in the last 20 years.

Why is it that dietary intervention reverses these problems in people that are/have been exposed to pollution and contaminants? Why is it that we see these diseases of civilization in NON-industrialized civilizations or people? And why is it that, even when in the same environment, these people reverse their incidence of chronic disease when they eat the diet that was intended for humans?

It's because a propensity, or predisposition to have metabolic abnormalities does not CAUSE the abonormality....it's the FOOD. The genetics simply make it easier/harder to for exogenous(food) factors to wreak their havoc.

If Diet fixes the problem in MOST cases, then why do you think an improper diet is not the cause?

And stop with the bullsh!t that I'm supporting "big industry" and the government's attempt to ruin people. Stick to discussing the topic and stop attacking me.

I still can't get over the absolutely ridiculous amount of loose associations you use as proof that your theory holds water. And even if they are strong associations....they're just that. ASSOCIATIONS. And we all know that correlation does not equal causation.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

you're saying that I'm promoting industry profit, which is BS

You are promoting the "it's caused by bad diet" component of the "blame the victims" corporate strategy; the other two parts are "it's irresponsible lifestyle," and "it's genetic." .....But it's never pollution or industrial contamination.

Would you please respond to this point?

The evidence linking chronic disease and environmental pollutants is far too great to be ignored. The only reason to focus on diet and make chronic disease a "personal responsibility" is to protect industry's "right to profit."

…chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

Thanks you, sofi

reply to post by soficrow


Association does not equal causation. Environmental influences, depending on dose and exposure, cause susceptibility, or predispositions. Of course harsh environments lead to disease; nobody is arguing that.

But...at the end of the day...YOU'RE STILL ARGUING ASSOCIATIONS. And I've pointed this out throughout this thread.

Viruses and contaminants and pollutants and such CAN cause chronic disease. But are they in the general population, where we see the explosion in said chronic disease? No. The one constant is diet. Diet, independent of environmental factors, can lead to chronic disease and, independent of environmental factors, can reverse it. That is a constant that your theory has yet to explain.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by blackrain17

 

Are you sure about this?

You can get whole foods in bulk on the cheap.

I don't see junk foods as being that much cheaper than whole foods.

Now, organic fruit is certainly more expensive than regular produce, but that's just a section of the healthy variety.

Why would a single guy living by himself need to buy whole food in bulk just so that I can throw away more than half from them going bad? When I can get a meatball sandwich and a can of Coke for $3.00?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Viruses and contaminants and pollutants and such CAN cause chronic disease. But are they in the general population, where we see the explosion in said chronic disease? No.

Really? What planet are you from?

And again, Would you please respond to this point?

The evidence linking chronic disease and environmental pollutants is far too great to be ignored. The only reason to focus on diet and make chronic disease a "personal responsibility" is to protect industry's "right to profit."

…chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

reply to post by soficrow


I'm done. Arguing logical points vs fallacious reasoning tends to drag on...and on. So, enjoy you're thread.