# Summary of some recent studies in obesity



## Tad (Sep 16, 2013)

Not surprisingly, part of the take away is that people are different, and a calorie doesn't always have the same effect, it depends on the source of the calorie, genetics, and gut bacteria (at least).

Article is here, talking about four recent papers:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21586269-how-bacteria-your-gut-may-be-shaping-your-waistline-wider-understanding?fsrc=nlw|hig|9-12-2013|6608170|37020722|


----------



## EMH1701 (Sep 18, 2013)

Yeah, I wish the scientists and the news media would make up their mind. I keep seeing things that are "oh, a calorie is not a calorie," and then I see stuff like this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2835235&page=1

Is it any wonder nobody knows who is right? None of the so-called "experts" can agree on the most basic things.


----------



## bluetech (Nov 20, 2013)

Articles like both of these tend to seem conflicted, because they generally dumb down, gloss over, and often completely misinterpret the science behind the studies either out of ignorance, or to push an agenda. And it gives science a bad name, because it makes the scientists look like idiots while almost always failing to provide a link to the actual study so that the reader can fact-check it. 

The actual science is pretty much in agreement about a few facts - that "metabolically healthy obese" (defined as people who despite being obese have diabetes rates, heart disease rates etc. and lifespans equal to those of a so-called "healthy" weight) is a real thing, and that by far the primary factor differentiating the healthy obese from the unhealthy obese is amount of exercise they get.

The ABC article devoted one whole one-sentence paragraph on page 2 to this:



> In fact, a low level of aerobic fitness has been identified as a stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease mortality than other risk factors, including body fat.



But then in the very next paragraph jumped back into the weight-loss-is-the-only-path-to-health mantra, while simultaneously revealing possibly what the actual study was actually studying. Specifically that "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight loss, and that the only thing that matters for weight loss is calorie deficit. It doesn't matter whether that deficit is because you ate a little and exercised a bit, or at a bunch and exercised a lot. However, the article doesn't mention whether other health factors such as triglycerides or glucose were measured or just the subjects' fat mass and distribution. There is no way to know if that was an omission by the study or the ABC 'journalist'.

Sorry for the long rant, but as a proponent of HAES and a proponent of better science reporting in the news media, I felt the need to set the story straight.


----------

