Talk:Obesity/Archive 7

Here is the section from the NYT article.

They're here because they want to meet larger women, Ms. Lefebure said.

These men are known as fat admirers. Mr. Fabrey said he was a fat admirer himself, but added that, because society's ideal woman is thin, it is often difficult for many men to acknowledge such a preference.

Helping make fat admirers feel accepted is part of the association's purpose, Mr. Fabrey said. It is an extension of the goal of making fat people feel comfortable with themselves - a task complicated by the wisecracks and unsolicited advice they are confronted with on a regular basis.

Doc James (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. That reference is 20 years old. I makes no mention of "chubby culture", which would then need a separate reference. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which source is worse, an ancient NY Times article or a 2002 article from the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, which still doesn't mention Chubby Culture. I despair. JFW | T@lk 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What about all the refs in Fat acceptance movement? There are some free pictures in the wikinews article linked in that article too. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I am just trying to add references to other peoples claims. This is a section on culture so I do not think the quality of the references should be held to the same standard as in the rest of the article. Chubby culture and fat admirer refer to two different thing one homosexual one hetersexual. I will find references to chubby culture. Also both of these have topics have pages on wikipedia.Doc James (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if it would be useful to add the degrees of increases caused by obesity to the health problems outlined in the table?Doc James (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more a matter for the subarticles in question, because these increases are presumably very much dependent on the nature of the study, the population in which it was studied, additional risk factors and other trends. To state without qualification that "80% of all type II diabetes is due to obesity" is probably incorrent - diabetes risk rises from BMI 23 especially in South Asians. If we are going to devote space to numerical data on health complications, this should be in prose and not squeezed into a table. JFW | T@lk 05:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

rt and left mixed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.223.175 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ThanksDoc James (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it absolutely impossible that an obese person can be healthy? Could the statistics be pointing to a widespread unhealthy food chioce that many obsese and not obese people make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.189.211 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not saying that. What it is saying is that obesity markedly increases the risk of many severe medical conditions, and that this negatively affects life expectancy. There is research ongoing to find out which obese people are at low risk of complications. Those with a low waist-hip ratio, for instance, are at lower cardiovascular risk than those with a high WHR. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"...if they do not take measures to reduce there weight and improve there health. These measured are set to start Jan. 2010 and apply to those with a BMI of greater then 35 kg/m^2 who fail to make improvements in their health after one year."

I don't even need to read the entire article, really. The errors are there, and they're blatant. Mikhajlovich (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had meant to fix these myself, but I've been busy. Your help is appreciated. JFW | T@lk 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes appreciate you fixing these. The three there are something I have never understood.Doc James (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This formula takes into account the fact that the body fat percent of women is 10% greater in men then women for a given BMI and that a persons percentage body fat increases as they age even if their {editsemiprotected} weight remains constant.

Changed "there" to "their" Kathleenmccandless (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Smoking has a significant {editsemiprotected} effect on weight. Kathleenmccandless (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed and smoking does have a significant effect on weight.

Doc James (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User Jfdwolff reverted my addition of Body Fat calculation fomula on the grounds that it was not widely used and that it was not properly cited with templates.

Firstly, in my opinion, just becuase something is not used widely used does not mean that it should not be included - an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. (Assuming the information is accurate.)

Secondly, the method is mentioned in the article on Body Fat, although without the formula. I can see an argument for not mentioning the actual formula in the obesity article and instead referencing Body Fat and placing it there, but in that case the formula already in that section of Obestiy should be removed as well.

Thirdy, I don't edit much in Wikipedia, and haven't got to grips with Referencing Templates. If the change is reverted, or the information placed in the Body Fat article, perhaps someone who knows more about this sort of thing could put in the proper template?

Any thoughts from the rest of you?

Alan West (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talkpage, Alan. Please demonstrate that this formula is used in clinical practice outside the US army. Does the army use it to diagnose obesity or for body fat measurements? This sounds like hair-splitting, but it would help me decide whether I've made a mistake in reverting you. The content may be more appropriate on body fat.

The template in question is {{cite web}}. If you click on the link you will find some instructions on how to use it. If it is unclear, please let me know and I'll clarify things. Referencing templates are very important to standardise references on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulimia and anorexia get to be classified as a disease why not obesity? They all revolved around food and exercise choices. You have exercise induced anorexia and starvation induced anorexia. Why not lack of exercise and excess calorie obesity?

Doc James (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "condition" is a good description. Most obese people are not considered ill by themselves, their peers and even their doctors. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article refers to it as a disease. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/84/1/7.pdf

Doc James (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If obesity was classifed a disease, the healthcare industry and the government would actually have to get serious about treating it - other than the totally useless advise to simply eat less and excersize more (like that really works, must be why there is such a decline in obesity). Bulimia & anorexia are considered diseases because of the celebrity patients with the condition. "You can't be too rich or too thin" 204.44.5.4 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have nominated for a good article review. During my editingss I am coming across more and more material that uses stuff directly from this page. I read an article in the journal CME today and I think the author just took all his info directly from here. Doc James (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is little evidence from what I have read that high energy density food causes obesity. What the evidence show is that the amount of calories ones consumes is what is important.

Doc James (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is having a proper lead section per WP:LEAD: an article like this should have 3-4 paragraphs and provide an accessible overview of the entire subject area. I believe the intro should also reflect a certain logical order of importance of different aspects, like the sections in WP:MEDMOS. This is currently not the case. So what if I introduced 1 mistake in the lead: that's why this is a wiki, so another person can correct it. You cannot seriously mean that the current introduction is better. If you do, please improve it so that complies with the Manual of Style, or else it is unlikely to be promoted to Good Article status. Also remember WP:OWN and that if a good faith editor comes along and cares enough to try to improve the article, you shouldn't simply revert and throw away the child with the bathwater. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Will work on combining your edits unless you want to give it another try. From what I say the high energy food intake was the only real change other then formatting. Anyway will look at things latter.

Doc James (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not completely MEDMOS compliant, as MEDMOS caters for actual diseases but not for risk factors like obesity. (No, I don't believe obesity is an illness in itself, much like high cholesterol is not an illness but can kill.) The intro should indeed be expanded, but only with information that is actually uncontroversial.

I believe Stevenfruitsmaak's point is that it is easier to overconsume calories with the so-called "energy dense" foods; that seems to be a widely held perspective. With adequate sourcing (ideally to one of the reviews we are already quoting) this is easily resolved. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any point about high density foods; this was more a slip of the tongue in a quickly drafter but much better introduction. WP:LEAD explains that the introduction should provide, in 3 or 4 paragraphs, an accesible summary of the rest of the article, which is currently not the case. My attempt can easily be retrieved in the edit history; you can either write a proper lead on the current lead or based on the changes I suggested, but I won't simply restore it if you believe it is so incredibely poor, and you'll revert anyway. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Was unaware of the WP:LEAD guideline. Have returned the page much to how Steven had it. WRT energy dense food we have info that says that the main source of increase calories is extra carbohydrates. And under treatment we quote a review that weight loss was associated with decreased calorie consumption rather than any special properties of food.

The evidence is contradictory when it comes to the effect of food type consumption on weight lose / gain. And from my review of the literature it leans towards no effect. Eating fat does not make you fat which is often the view of the popular press. Atkins does seem to work as well as other diets however.

Doc James (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do people feel there is enough literature to add something about the obesity controversy to the lead? There are currently a bunch of popular books saying being obese is okay. More than there are that accurately reflects the scientific consensus.

Doc James (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It think at least the intro should say something along the lines of "Although obesity is associated with a stigma today, it has been perceived as a symbol of wealth and fertility in other times of history." Let me know what you think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Have moved non medical effects under history and culture as this is were we discuss the effects of obesity on employment and stigmatization. What do others think?

Doc James (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• As various cultures are mentioned should sumo wrestlers, and weight be mentioned? Should any other sports and related weights be mentioned? SriMesh | talk 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• AS history and culture are looked into, should notable obese persons be mentioned? Fat History ie world's heaviest people SriMesh | talk 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Most obese people is in the see also section. It is sort of trivia. Stuff on sumo wrestlers would be interesting. Doc James (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great, I may get more of a chance to review it later. A couple suggestions for now:

• Use en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) for number ranges per WP:DASH.
• Maybe look back over the article looking for ways to reduce wordiness and be as concise as possible. e.g. "associated with stigmatization" -> "stigmatized"

Have to go for now but hopefully I'll be able to have another look in a while. delldot ∇. 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Obesity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Kind of a lot of points here, so this is just a partial review. Don't worry, most of them are minor. Over all a very well-done article! Let me know when you've gotten through these and I'll finish the review.

• Done I think "waist hip ratio" and "waist-hip ratio" should be "waist–hip ratio" (with an n dash). At any rate, they should be consistent.
• Done The absolute waist circumference (>102 cm in men and >88 cm in women) or waist-hip ratio (>0.9 for men and >0.85 for women) are both used as measures of central obesity. define central obesity.

• Done Awkward sentence: BMI is an accurate reflection of body fat percentage in the majority of the adult population, but is less accurate in situations that affect body composition such as in body builders and pregnancy. - The "situations such as in body builders" in particular.

• Done Splitting the sentences didn't address the problem; I was more concerned about the "situations that affect body composition such as in body builders and pregnancy". "Situations...in body builders" doesn't make sense. Maybe 'people such as body builders and pregnant women in whom body composition is affected' or something.

• Done with the results being accurate to +/- 4 %. - this is confusing. 'With' is an awkward linker, and the use of +/- is unclear. Maybe write it out in words.
• Choose British or American English and use consistently throughout ('recognizes', 'metre').The rest of the world uses bits and pieces of both American and British English

Health effects section

• Done Be careful of sweeping statements like "Obesity is one of the leading preventable causes of death." This would not be true worldwide, I doubt it's a significant cause in the third world. In fact, the source is US-specific. It would be good to find a source with worldwide applicability and give an analysis of that. Failing that, at least make sure the statements in the article don't overstep what the sources actually say.
  • Can you quote the sentence in that article that backs up this statement? I can't find it. Once again, it is of utmost importance that the article is faithful to the references, and that we never say a reference says something it doesn't say. If this is an instance of a source being misrepresented, other sourced statements will have to be checked. delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is a second source that the first source quotes. The first sources says diet and inactivity in it heading. Under this section it refers to overweight. Then when you look up the article they use to get their reference to overweight this article refers to obesity. Therefore we can quote both.--Doc James (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I still see only one source cited in the article, the one in which I see no mention of the cited fact (and which is US-specific). What's the second source?sorry, I was looking at an older version of the page I think you should use only the one that endorses the exact fact you're citing. How about instead saying "a leading cause of death worldwide" and cite the last article you posted to my talk page? delldot ∇. 19:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • DoneI don't see that fact in the second source either (I could be missing it, I just skimmed it). I do see "Obesity is a major cause of mortality in the United States", but that's not the same thing as what our article says. I see nothing about the 'Western world' in either article; they're both US-specific. Doc James, do you understand my concern about focusing too heavily on the US? Do you understand my concern about accurately representing what sources say? delldot ∇. 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Done This reference needs to be fleshed out with author, date, title, etc.: Emedicine
  • 'Done I'm talking about current ref 22, used as a reference for ...20 years for men and 5 years for women. This has not been done. delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Done Awkward sentence: "Increases in body fat alter the body's response to insulin leading to insulin resistance, it creates a proinflammatory state, and it increases the risk of thrombosis." Surely these are big enough topics to deserve a sentence each at least? Be careful about switching singular to plural from the subject, I've caught a few of these but it might be worth a read-through to catch more.
• Done hyperuricemia / gout slashes discouraged by MOS. See WP:SLASH.
• Done In the table, cancer is not a system. Psychological is also kind of pushing it, but I'm not sure what to do about these two. Maybe they should be taken out of the table and discussed in prose.

• DoneDoes the table have any organization? Why is the order of the systems the way it is? For example, I would expect to see reproductive and genitourinary close together, but they're second and last respectively. Why not a top-down organization (head, chest, abdomen...) or a most important to least important (brain, heart, lungs... skin, musculoskeletal) approach?

• Done reduces daily energy expenditure by about 300–400 kcal/d -- if d stands for day, it's redundant; the 'daily' covers that.

Fat acceptance and the obesity controversy

• Done This should probably be two separate sections, or at least two separate paragraphs in this section; there's a big difference between the arguments that fat people should be accepted and treated fairly and challenging the accepted relationship between diet & exercise, obesity, and health risks.

Genetics

• Done This sentence is unclear: The 16% of adults in the study who were homozygous for this allele weighed about 3 kilograms more than those who had not inhereted this trait and subsequently had a 1.6 fold greater rate of obesity. Which group subsequently had a 1.6 fold greater rate of obesity? If it's the former, how about The 16% of adults in the study... weighed about 3 kilograms more than those who had not inhereted this trait, and the former group subsequently had a 1.6 fold greater rate of obesity.
• Done What does above-average physical exercise mean? More than usual? More intense than usual? above average amounts would cover it if the former.

Management

• Done Very low calorie diets: might be good to say how many calories a person on these diets eats.

References

• Done Some refs need more info. e.g. University of Szeged. "CGFA".

I'm seeing a lot of typos and some poor organization (e.g. a lot of apostrophe abuse and neglect, and some spelling errors). If you don't mind, it would save me some time if you or someone who owes you a favor could go through and give it a copy edit before I pick back up for the next part of the review. Otherwise I'll correct it myself or bring it here. The referencing looks good, and the content is great, good job with a no doubt very difficult article! delldot ∇. 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick response! Permit me to jump in even though you're not done. Good job on some of these, on others my points have not been addressed; I've marked these. delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I lied; a couple more comments for now:

• Done WHO is another ref that needs to be fleshed out with title, author, date, etc.

• the study was done over two years so the data collected is from both Under Canada in Epidemiology, "1978/1979" should be clarified. 1978 and 1979? 1978 or 1979? Same with 1967/1968 under History.
• Done Avoid statements that date quickly, like "over the last 75 years." and "recently". These are examples only, the whole article should be checked.

• Done Here is another sentence that I'm not sure is accurately reflecting what the source says: "One sixth of the rise in obesity in North Americans can be attributed to falling rates of smoking," where the source says about a sixth (1.3 of 8.0 percentage points) of the increase in the prevalence of overweight could be attributed to smoking cessation within the past 10 years. (emphasis mine). There's a difference between obesity and overweight, and the time period is important; this is a specific time frame, so the article is overstating what the ref says. This is a serious problem with accuracy. I've removed this sentence for now until a ref can be found that actually backs it up. delldot ∇. 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand there are many aspects of the article that make it very high-quality. It's got a lot of good citations and a lot of info from scientific studies. Good work on the improvements that have been done, I look forward to more. I'm sorry to fail it because obviously a lot of work has gone into it, but it looks like too much needs to be done to pass it at this stage. Let me know if I can offer any help or clarification. After these are addressed, best of luck next time this is up at GAN. delldot ∇. 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done Liposuction is discussed in the "Bariatric surgery" section. According to the Bariatric surgery article "The term does not include procedures for surgical removal of body fat such as liposuction or abdominoplasty."
• There is confusion between overweight and obese throughout the article. Sources referring to overweight are used to back up claims about obesity, so this is another accuracy concern.

The scientific literature often uses these two terms interchangeably. For example see "In children, the term overweight has been preferred because of the potential for stigmatization associated with the term obesity." The WHO for example says obesity is a subtype of overweight.

• Extensive citations need to be added; they've been marked in the article.
• I think the article goes into excessive detail in some places about overweight rather than obesity per se (it should be summarizing that info per WP:SUMMARY) and fails to cover other areas in enough detail (for example, as I mentioned, I think the age issue should at least be summarized). Another example of insufficient detail: some of the drugs mentioned under "Clinical protocols" are not discussed in the pharmacology section. With excessive detail, examples include: the "Weight loss drugs" section under "History and culture" is interesting but it's not clear that it pertains specifically to obesity; that info might be better moved to another article with a summary left here. Info like "The average height of Miss America pageant winners increased by 2% from 1922 to 1999, while their average weight decreased by 12%." probably pertains better to body weight or overweight or something; at no time were obese women participating in Miss America pageants, so this info is probably not very relevant to obesity.

JFD wants the info on weight lose drug kept in this article. WRT Miss America this is from a source that was discussing obesity. I feel it relates.

• I have added fact tags to statements that need sources.
• Some of the weight loss history does not seem to pertain to obesity per se--mightn't it be better moved to weight loss? I think this might be an issue for other sections, too; the info pertains to overweight or fatness in general, not obesity specifically. Some of the info could be moved to other articles with summaries and links to those articles left here.
• I don't know if "Historical trends" is the best place for discussion of modern Western culture's stigmatization of obesity, maybe it should have its own section under a separate "Society and culture" section (see WP:MEDMOS). This is certainly an issue worth going into depth on.
• Childhood obesity has it's own page I was surprised that there was no discussion of Obesity in children. This should at least be discussed in epidemiology, if not in its own section. I'd also like to see more coverage of prevalence in different age groups in the epidemiology section. delldot ∇. 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• There should be a short summary of one or two paragraphs here. See WP:SUMMARY. delldot ∇. 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

• with ob added to it. What does ob mean or do? Why is it added? delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Causes

• This section focuses too much on the US. It's understandable since it's such a problem here, but the article should also use statistics from elsewhere. I see you've done a good job on that with the epidemiology section, but you understand my concern about overemphasis on statistics from one region, right?

Lots of European info

The link is good, but in addition it'd be good if you could provide a short definition in the same sentence so readers don't have to navigate away from the page to understand what they're reading: blah are both used as measures of central obesity, obesity of the center or whatever the definition is. delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also in the table, some things are referenced and some are not. Are those items without a reference not endorsed by one, or do some references endorse more than one item? It might be worthwhile to repeat some referencing so it's clear.
• How are "complications from general anaesthesia" related to obesity?
• There are some problems with organization: sometimes material is presented in a haphazard way with little logical arrangement. I mentioned before the lack of organization in the body systems table.
• I'm seeing a bunch of mistakes with use of 'then'. Then is used for time, as in 'then and now'. 'Than' is used for comparison, as in 'larger than life'. I've changed the ones I caught, but please do a check through the whole article for any I missed.
• I think there is a POV problem with extensive use of US statistics, sometimes presented as though they are worldwide. Sections such as "causes" don't go into enough detail about other countries. I understand that most research is from the US but an attempt should still be made to provide balance. For example, under "diet" and "Sedentary lifestyle", there's no reason the US diet and lifestyle should be the only one discussed. The article is full of statements like this: "In a prospective study, intentional weight loss of any amount was associated with a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality." But looking at the article title, it is not a general population but one of overweight US white women. So it's not accurate to present this like it applies to everyone; surely it doesn't. This is a problem throughout the article. The epidemiology info from other countries is quite sparse, with one-sentence subsections and no info on places like South America or the Middle East. The paragraph beginning Many cultures throughout history have viewed obesity as a flaw only discusses Greek, "during Christian times", and modern Western. (However, other sections of the article handle the global view well, presenting facts from diverse places).

• I don't know if the paragraph beginning Many countries and groups have published reports pertaining to obesity is that useful. So what if they have? I do like the info from the reports, e.g. the ability to cripple the health system. Why not integrate that info into other sections with dire publich health warnings and use the report as a citation? e.g. the British government published a report in 2004 that said..." Similarly, rather than just saying the US government published a report, you should find some fact from it and use it as a citation.
• Minor thing about inconsistent referencing format: Some journal abbreviations have periods, some don't. Sometimes authors' first names are spelled out, sometimes there's just an initial.

Could somebody please replace the term "full-bodied" by something more appropriate? This is an (American?) euphemism for "over-weight", and has some funny and inappropriate connotations. This is used at least when describing that "Rubenesque" means over-weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.25 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Full bodied has a slight different connotation then overweight and the one that is implied by the ref quoted. --Doc James (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The line The weight gain over a 10-year period that was associated with the cessation of smoking (i.e., the gain among smokers who quit that was in excess of the gain among continuing smokers) was 4.4 kg for men and 5.0 kg for women. is in the PMID given. It is then followed by For men, about a quarter (2.3 of 9.6 percentage points) and for women, about a sixth (1.3 of 8.0 percentage points) of the increase in the prevalence of overweight could be attributed to smoking cessation within the past 10 years covering the other half of the statement. Doc James (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited article does not mention obesity here, and the WP article does not mention the 10-year period, so we are misrepresenting the source. I think it should be taken back out (although the information could go into overweight or weight gain). It's very important that we be careful to represent accurately what sources say. delldot ∇. 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

found a great review of the topic: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/4/801 --Doc James (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done Be careful of sweeping statements like "Obesity is one of the leading preventable causes of death." This would not be true worldwide, I doubt it's a significant cause in the third world. In fact, the source is US-specific. It would be good to find a source with worldwide applicability and give an analysis of that. Failing that, at least make sure the statements in the article don't overstep what the sources actually say.
  • Can you quote the sentence in that article that backs up this statement? I can't find it. Once again, it is of utmost importance that the article is faithful to the references, and that we never say a reference says something it doesn't say. If this is an instance of a source being misrepresented, other sourced statements will have to be checked. delldot ∇. 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is a second source that the first source quotes. The first sources says diet and inactivity in it heading. Under this section it refers to overweight. Then when you look up the article they use to get their reference to overweight this article refers to obesity. Therefore we can quote both.--Doc James (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I still see only one source cited in the article, the one in which I see no mention of the cited fact (and which is US-specific). What's the second source?sorry, I was looking at an older version of the page I think you should use only the one that endorses the exact fact you're citing. How about instead saying "a leading cause of death worldwide" and cite the last article you posted to my talk page? delldot ∇. 19:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see that fact in the second source either (I could be missing it, I just skimmed it). I do see "Obesity is a major cause of mortality in the United States", but that's not the same thing as what our article says. I see nothing about the 'Western world' in either article; they're both US-specific. Doc James, do you understand my concern about focusing too heavily on the US? Do you understand my concern about accurately representing what sources say? delldot ∇. 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Have moved this discussion to the talk page. I will find some better references. This was originally from Harrison's textbook of internal medicine.Doc James (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I might have taken a bit of liberty with this. Here is an article from the UN which states obesity and overweight contribute to 15 million deaths: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=15937&Cr=health&Cr1= There is another that says obesity causes 80% of the deaths due to both obesity and overweight.

This quote was a summation of the research that followed rather then a direct quote from a paper.

I think I have found something. See http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Full.pdf and page which is block: associatedcontent.com/article/778075/world_health_organization_statistics.html?cat=5

Will continue latter.--Doc James (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found the exact quote in a published journal article and have changed the line back to its original to match. Barness LA, Opitz JM, Gilbert-Barness E (2007). "Obesity: genetic, molecular, and environmental aspects". Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 143A (24): 3016–34. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32035. PMID 18000969. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)--Doc James (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

obesity is another name for endomorph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.148.90 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence for gut flora was one very poor study. Do we think it really belongs in the lead? --Doc James (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the line "Some people are attracted to the obese," be changed to "Some people are particularly attracted to the obese," or maybe "Some people are especially attracted to the obese"?

As it stands, the line makes it sound as though one has to be a fetishist or deviant to be at all attracted to an obese person. What it really seems to be talking about isn't pure attraction but an especial attraction. The line's current phrasing sounds nearly as silly/obvious as if it said, "Some people are attracted to slim people," or "Some people are attracted to blondes." It implies that there is something inherently odd or unnatural about it, which is very much a particular cultural assumption. In some cultures, it is perfectly normal for obese or overweight persons to be attractive. I think the addition of an adjective such as "particularly" or "especially" would make the sentence more accurately reflect the idea it represents, which is that there is a noteworthy community of people who are particularly devoted to obesity as an attractive quality.

67.182.154.79 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure--Doc James (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Doc James deleted a statement under Childhood Obesity regarding genetics as a factor. In his edit he states that genetics has not changed in the last 40 years and is therefore not a contributing factor.

Yet further down, there is an entire section devoted to Genetics as a factor in obesity. There are in fact solid studies such as "Genetic Epidemiology of Obesity" by Yang, Kelly and He of Tulance University that substantiate the influence of genetics on obesity.

206.169.172.212 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What was removed was a sentence that said genetics has LEAD to the rise in obesity rates. We all agree that genetics plays a very important role in obesity but it hasn't caused the recent epidemic.

--Doc James (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. 71.214.65.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now epigenetics is another matter. I just havn't had time to look into it. Doc James (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Obesity in children and adolescents is defined as a BMI greater then the 95th percentile.[19] Rates of obesity among this group have increased by 3 to 5 % from 1990 to the year 2000.[20]"

This is incorrect becuase if obesity is defined as a BMI greater than the 95th percentile then 5% of all people must be obese at any given moment. Unlike with adults, it is very difficult to define obesity in children so it is often measured in comparison to the percentile for that age group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.3.4 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I read this, and so I checked reference 20. It is a published paper that says 1) Overweight (the term they use) in children is defined as above the 95th percentile, and 2) the prevalence of overweight in 12-19 year old's was %15.5. I think that the explanation of this is that they are using data from previous years (as long ago as the 60's) to establish the 95th percentile cutoff.

Holmansf (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would agree. Does someone want to clarify this?--Doc James (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting story on a strong link between obesity-related genetic activity and a pesticide:

• Staff (2008-12-03). "Persistent Pollutant May Promote Obesity". Science Daily. Retrieved 2008-12-03.

—RJH (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We are already discussing endocrine disruptors. JFW | T@lk 07:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IRFAK conducts liposuctions of which the obtained body fat is used to create nutritional foodstuffs in the devloping world. The process is well controlled and could provide a significant input for the developing world and help people in the developed world aswell. See this site. Perhaps it can be added to the article.

Thanks, 81.245.176.58 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One would hope that this is a satire to bring people attention to the disparity between rich and poor. Jonathon Swift wrote something similar about the Irish and English. From the page: "A Modest Proposal", perhaps the most famous satire in English, suggesting that the Irish should engage in cannibalism. (Written in 1729).--Doc James (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The WHO classifies overweight as greater then a BMI of 25. The breaks this down into pre-obese 25- 30. >30 obese.

Their has been concerns that we havn't distinquished these two terms enough.--Doc James (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My edit was reverted with the summary, "It has since been show that the obese underestimate how much they eat much more then those of normal weight.. And in fact in the end eat more then those of normal weight." I'd be interested in the sources for this. At the very least the topic deserves some coverage in the article, both highlighting the fact that they claim they eat less, and the evidence (whatever it is) that they actually eat more. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-15 16:54Z

There is a small amount of coverage of this already in the article. Give me a few days and I can find you more. I think it is under the diet section.--Doc James (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Okay found it. It is ref 18 under diet. A book from 2006 http://books.google.ca/books?id=u7RvldSr5M0C --Doc James (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That book gets its claim from this article from 1992, the results of which were rejected in this Letter published in NEJM in 1993. The rejection of this claim should be in the article right next to the claim itself. I cannot read the entire article or the letter rejecting it, but I can guess that the rejection is in part because they did not use a non-obese group for comparison, to see if the obese under-report any more than the non-obese. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-18 19:26Z

Read in other areas that the obese do under report how much they eat more then those of normal weight. They have also done in hospital studies were all is a special fluid. And people who are obese have the same metabolism is others.Doc James (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref: http://www.medicalpost.com/therapeutics/nutrition/article.jsp?content=20080818_121920_25640 --Doc James (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

At Obesity#Body_fat_percentage, the entire following bit should be deleted until the formula can be fixed. It needs parenthesis, but where do they go? I'm sure I could figure it out, but I shouldn't have to. (I wrapped the bit in an HTML table because I don't know any cool wiki-code to separate it):

I searched the source @ Google books with no luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You follow usually mathematical procedures. First you multiply and divide. After which you add and subtract. Therefore parenthesis are not needed.--Doc James (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Parenthesis would be helpful for us dumbasses.

Done --Doc James (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be "Metric: BMI = mass/height²" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billosj (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great map. Wondering if someone could create one for Wikipedia?

http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/pdf/map07.pdf

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Under Historical trends, there is a picture of a painting off to the side depicting a rather rotund man. The captions state (Obesity was a status symbol in renaissance culture: "The Tuscan General" Alessandro del Borro, 1645.[165]") The editing needed here is that Alessandro del Borro is not the painter, in fact it is the continuation of the painting's title. The actual painter is Charles Mellin. The source is Gemäldegalerie art museum, Berlin where it is kept today.

Suggested Correction:

Obesity was a status symbol in renaissance culture: "The Tuscan General Alessandro del Borro" by Charles Mellin, 1645.[165]"

--Hbk2818 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The painter is disputed from what I have heard. Mellin is just one possibility.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This passage confuses me:

Obesity in children and adolescents is defined as a BMI greater then the 95th percentile.[19] Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in 21st century with rising rates in both the developed and developing world. Rates of obesity in Canadian boys have increased from 11% in 1980s to over 30% in 1990s, while during this same time periods rates increased from 4% to 14% in Brazilian children.[20]

How can 14%/etc of them be above the 95th percentile, wouldn't 5% of all children be obese by that definition? Narayanese (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have been meaning on clarifying this for people.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New articles started appearing on the 'net today about a viral obesity vector (Adenovirus AD-36). It may be too early to include in the article, but worth monitoring as the news develops. news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1296964393 —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the study it is based upon. van Ginneken V, Sitnyakowsky L, Jeffery JE (2009). ""Infectobesity: viral infections (especially with human adenovirus-36: Ad-36) may be a cause of obesity". Med. Hypotheses. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.034. PMID 19138827. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I agree it is still too early to include this hypothesis. This article was published in Medical Hypotheses which says that the " purpose of Medical Hypotheses is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All the work on that virus is being done in one laboratory, and much of the research is preliminary. Med Hypoth is not usually a source we would want to cite, exactly because the ideas published in it are non-standard and non-mainstream. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's the first paper suggesting a link beween a virus and obesity... plenty of studies on animals have seen that various viruses can induce obesity. Here is a bit more on that adenovirus btw. Narayanese (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has replaced parts of the article with the word "well". I don't know what it was there before, too many edits snce it occured. Narayanese (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No that is just my bad grammer :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry for calling it vandalism ;) Narayanese (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two sections ought could to be in the article that aren't there now: obesity in pets (under epidemology), and virally induced weight gain. I could write a few sentences on viruses (shouldn't be longer than that), but I have little experiece looking through veterinary publications. Narayanese (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC) PMID 16790384 has a nice two paragraph review on viruses and obesity. No luck on pets, haven't got access to those journals, and PMID 16772464 doesn't say much other than many are obese and it is increasing. Narayanese (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed a while ago that obesity in pets would not be covered in this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Obesity increasing cellulitis is discussed but will add a little more on other infections.

Will add a line on viral infections and change the section from gut flora to infections. Infectious agents as a cause is still in it very early stage of investigation.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have said in the past that this viral thing is really overhyped. The Keith et al review (doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803326) discusses it in passing but doesn't bother including it in a list of 10 less studied causes of obesity. If even these authors cannot see grounds to include it, why should we bring it up?

For obesity in pets we need a subarticle, not a paragraph in this article, because weight variation in domesticated animals is a completely different phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring viruses up for completeness... same reason Prader-Willi syndrome and gut flora is included. Especially in the light of news coverage. Narayanese (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The paper Nara has put forth is a review. Gives this topic enough weight to deserve mentioning. I have added a line on viral agents as a cause for completeness.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The info tags as not in source actually is. Here is the line from the WHO page "At the same time, large shifts towards less physically demanding work have been observed worldwide. Moves towards less physical activity are also found in the increasing use of automated transport, technology in the home, and more passive leisure pursuits."--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dieting section - 2 grammatical errors need to be fixed: No adverse affect from low carbohydrate diets were detected. They found that these diet lowered total body mass by 8% over 3–12 months. Amiwikij (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

THANKS--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/6/636?etoc - may be useful for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have started some discussion about morbidity and pregnancy complication on the page Obesity associated morbidity. Will add this reference.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has recently been found to be true that those of Jewish decent are prone to obesity because most of the foods eaten at holidays (of which there are more that involve large meals than in Christianity) are high in fat and oil content. Such foods are latkes (potato pancakes) and high-fat briscuit with gravy Jewish-Americans are especially prone to this as America is a very unhealthy nation. The South-Western United States has extremely unhealthy food from the blending of Mexican food and unhealthy American food. Thus, Jewish-Americans residing in the South-Western United States often eat unhealthy Tex-Mex-esque foods on a regular basis and eat unhealthy Jewish holiday-esque foods at family holiday gatherings. Though this is true, it isn't true for Jewish-American residing in the South-Western United States who immigrated to the country because they for the most part retain their healthier eating habits and more active life-styles from their native country. So, for example, a Canadian-born Jew who immigrates to somewhere such as Arizona, USA, will be less prone to obesity than an American-born Jew living in Arizona along side the Canadian-Jew. This happens to be especially true when concerning Jews approximately around the age of 10-16, when young Jewish adults are being immersed in much of Jewish culture and cooking.

From ~~ReyJudio~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.223.172 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but could you provide a reliable medical source supporting your perspective? JFW | T@lk 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of original research of the worst sort, if not a really bizarre attempt at trolling. Arizona and New Mexico are both among the top 10 thinnest states in the country, and Jews among the thinnest where religious demographics are concerned. I'm going to leave this up because I felt obligated to respond, but someone else please feel free to delete this nonsense. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User 96 you are most likely right. This is why we are waiting for a good reference for the above comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably duplicating what you already have, but I thought I'd paste this, cut from an AfD'd article, in case it's any use.

Obesity is one of the leading health issues in today's society, resulting in about 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. ^[1] About 65 percent of American are now considered overweight or obese. ^[2] According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Study collected between 1970s and 2004, overweight and obesity prevalence have increased steadily among all Americans over the past three decades. ^{[3] [4]}If these trends continue, 86.3% of adults will be overweight or obese, and 51.1%, obese by 2030. By 2048, all American adults would become overweight or obese. ^[5]

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Will add it to the page on epidemiology of obesity. Have removed the trends stuff. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"A BMI of over 32 is associated with a doubling of risk of death" etc? Really? Doubles from certain to what exactly? Is this some technical way / medical way of expressing risk? Does this mean premature death? Is there a clearer way of explaining what is meant here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexFoster (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference will tell you. Obesity is associated with a large number of life-limiting conditions such as cancer and diabetes, as the article makes clear. JFW | T@lk 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what is meant is premature death. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Will run through the recent changes:

• The changes to the lead make it no longer compliant with WP:LEAD therefore changed back
• The edits were marked as minor when none of them were. They envolves the removed of a fair bit of well sources text
• The entire medical community is more than some researchers therefore removed

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Some edits were minor and so marked. Others were not minor and not so marked. If I made a mistake in marking an edit, I apologize. I relocated and condensed material in an effort to improve readability, but removed very little. The re-edits make this already unwieldy article even more redundant.

The "entire medical community" has not agreed on this highly controversial issue, but this article does read as if it has, in violation of WP:NPOV. Much significant alternate data is not represented. The article is rife with generalities and opinions stated as facts, and implies relationships are causal without proof. It offers only token representation of differing medical opinion or doubt and no acknowledgment of the flawed methodology behind a number of studies or their financing by diet drug peddlers, e.g.:

When WHO defined the body mass index scores constituting normal, overweight and obese, they appeared to be the result of an independent expert committee convened by WHO.

Yet the 1997 Geneva consultation was held jointly with the International Obesity Task Force, an advocacy group whose self-described mission is "to inform the world about the urgency of the (obesity) problem.

According to the task force's most recent available annual report, more than 70 percent of their funding came from Abbott Laboratories and F. Hoffman La-Roche, companies which make top-selling anti-fat pills.[1]

It's a pity that Wikipedia's article on this subject should be so unbalanced and full of the scaremongering bias of medical people who profit from frightening fat people. On the other hand, since it is so long, redundant and full of overly technical language and passive voice, few people are likely wade through it. Fijagdh (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will agree there is a small group of people who try to deny that obesity has any adverse health effects. There is a section on it "Size acceptance and the obesity controversy" There are over 200 studies and reviews on the obesity pages here at Wikipedia that support everything that is here. There are many more available.

The pro obesity lobby has grabbed on to Flegal's study and continuously misinterpret it to say that obesity does not cause increased mortality. Please read her study PMID 15840860 Paul Campos is famous for this. All researchers / scientists agrees that obesity cases health problems and death. The debate is over overweight. If you want to bring the discussion there I would be happy to carry on.

Read the aol article. Have read lots of similar stuff. They claim that the scientific community confuses obesity and overweight. Than they use Flagels study that say being overweight causing little health problems. Well glossing over the increased mortality she found in obese people. And this does not even look at morbidity. This is garbage I hope you realize.

Please find recent reviews that support your POV. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way this is what the IOTF says since you took it out of context "The IOTF is a global network of expertise, a research-led think tank and advocacy arm of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. The IOTF is working to alert the world to the growing health crisis threatened by soaring levels of obesity. It works with the World Health Organization, other NGOs and stakeholders to address this challenge. The IOTF's mission is to inform the world about the urgency of the problem and to persuade governments that the time to act is now." --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to review the recent changes here (disclaimer: I have not edited this article before, and I find the number of recent changes and the discussion here a little overwhelming and hard to follow). I find these changes troublesome vis-a-vis of WP:NPOV—too much watering down via the introduction of WP:WEASEL words like "claim" or "some", replacing "normal weight" with "skinny people" etc. The first thing I would recommend is to reduce the pace of editing so changes can be individually discussed. If there are significant alternative medical viewpoints on the effects of obesity, then they should be mentioned. But until that is done (using reliable medical sources, of course), it's inappropriate to alter the language to give the impression that some research findings are disputed if they are not. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not bothered to become a registered user, so my opinion may not count. However, this article does seem to me to go out of its way to select and emphasize material that puts the darkest possible perspective on the health and economic issues surrounding obesity. That there are is a lot of medical opinion supporting obesity as hazardous to one's health is true, but the minority opinion is not well represented here. Putting the negatives at the top and burying the other side of the issue hardly seems to be fair play. (And presenting other theories in a belittling fashion, lumped in with the fat acceptance movement as if such research were wishful thinking, is particularly disturbing.)

I also agree that the article is badly written, which is what I originally came to the talk page to say. Besides the redundancies and technical language already mentioned, it is, particularly, bad science writing.

A thing I find troubling about Wikipedia generally is it encourages a system of assertions and citations on the order of: "Here is a fact[somebody said it]". Those can be fine if you want to know what year a rock band had its first hit, but much less truthful when it comes to presenting scientific research. This is a highly controversial subject that experts are still hashing out. To assert that debate is over over overweight is both blithe and untrue. Debate still continues; there no universal agreement among "authorities", and to imply that there is complete consensus, or to present a point of view--even a majority point of view--as fact is highly misleading.

To say "most" scientists agree on something implies that someone has polled them all, not merely that many studies support a hypothesis. "Many" or even a specific large number is not "most"; it is, weasely as that may be, "some". (I will point out that the article is already riddled with weasel words: "commonly defined"; "has been found"; "is thought to"; "authorities view"; "has been perceived"; "typically assessed;" etc.)

It would be far more honest (and encyclopedic) for the article to present its assertions by saying, "According to John Doe and Jane Roe..." or "A 19-- study of 500 Canadians by Researcher Z showed..." than its current presentation: "Obesity kills[reference to a paper]". 75.56.56.186 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You complain it is technical and then say we should make it more so?

Wikipedia presents the topic according to the acceptance by the scientific community. That obesity is not a health problem is a FRINGE position propagated by a small group of people. Show me one review or even one research paper that shows being obese is healthy? I am not saying overweight. This page is not about overweight. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying you need to explicitly attribute statements to specific experts in the text rather than to vague "authorities". That adds transparency, not technicality.

No one has suggested that the article state that obesity is healthful. However, there is significant disagreement among reputable authorities over scope. I am suggesting that alarmist phrases like "one of the leading preventable causes of death worldwide" and "epidemic proportions" and the amounts of associated costs need to be attributed, and explained, with reference to disputes over various means of crunching numbers.[2] and possible bias created by funding, as fijagdh mentioned above, from organizations who stand to gain from widespread panic over obesity.

Further, I don't think the article goes far enough to explain and detail the difference between health factors associated with obesity and those proven to be caused by it. The article currently implies, for example, that obesity directly causes hirsutism, dementia and carpal tunnel syndrome. 75.56.56.186 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole page on Obesity associated morbidity which is still a work in progress.

People suggest that obesity is healthy all the time. I am glad no one here is making that assertion. She Paul Campos. The page preventable causes of death gives a review paper and that comment is supported by many references.

Let look at the main ref: Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ (2006). "Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data". Lancet. 367 (9524): 1747–57. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9. PMID 16731270. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is published in the Lancet one of the world top journals. It is published in 2006 ( recent ). It is a systematic review addressing a specific question. If this does not change you POV than it sounds like it is held in faith and their is nothing I will be able to present to change it.

I have no intention of changing it to the WHO consider it a leading cause in the world the CDC considers it a leading cause in the states etc thru every country. All these statements are referenced. Click on the reference and that will take you to the supporting evidence.

You say their is considerable disagreement among researchers about Obesity I know that they lay press misinterprets scientist to try and create what seems to be a controversy. They all use Flagel in an attempt to support themselves. Her published research found that obesity causes many deaths. Find one research paper that says obesity is not harmful to your health so that we have somewhere to start from. Not a popular science book, not an opinion peice, not a magazine article.

You attach an article saying that their is discussion about the numbers. Yes there is. What mortality do we quote: "111,909 to 365,000 death per year in the United States" The first is Flagel the other represents the other major study. This is the big discussion and all the controversy you refer to. Does obesity cause 111,000 deaths or 365,000 deaths?

The media and the fringe groups than grab onto this and say aha the scientists are confused so obesiy must be good for you.

You have seen this technique with evolution and with global warming. So I end with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE" Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Doc James here; controversy over an estimate of effect size is not the same thing as disputing the existence of the effect, namely that obesity is a cause for mortality. If you think the 2005 spat in Science over the effect size adds something significant to this article, discuss it, but don't flash that to contradict the virtually universal agreement that obesity is harmful to one's health. 08:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The "obesity is not dangerous" people don't exactly manage to make their voices heard (if they do, you have to show sources), so our 5 lines on obesity-dangers-as-conspiracy is giving more than enough weight to this view. Narayanese (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at what you could summarize more in the article, per Geometry guy's suggestion, do you think in the "Classification" section that the various ways of calculating measures could be summarized and, if necessary, spun off into a subarticles. I'm thinking that BMI, Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio, and Body fat percentage, for example. Just have a summary in the article. The same with the "Causes" and "Management" section. Seems to me that perhaps "Clinical protocols" is too detailed and could go. Also, with "History". Why does "Weight loss drugs" have a section to itself under History? Isn't it sort of an overlap with "Medication"? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Matisse has a point here. There needs to be single overview article about measuring body fat that other articles (obesity, overweight) can defer the details to; Body_fat_percentage#Measurement_techniques look fairly comprehensive content-wise, although it's a bit thin on citations. This article should be deferring more to that one methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given how long this article is, a 4-paragraph lede seem suitable. You could add one on management for instance. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The classification of obesity is more than just a determination of body fat % which is not discussed on the page you refer to. Will see if i can condense things a little better. Already move some stuff.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The way I see it body mass index is mainly used as a convenient method to estimate body fat (the excess of which over a certain threshold defines obesity). Now, both this article and the one on BMI dance around this fact that seems simple to me, and it's outlined in Body_fat_percentage#Measurement_techniques . Are there other significant uses for BMI so it cannot be considered just a method of estimating body fat? And, more importantly, even if that's the case in general (which I can't figure out from the Applications section of the article on BMI), does it matter for this article to the point that BMI and Body fat percentage are discussed separately? I would introduce the classification section with "Direct attempts to determine body fat percentage are difficult and often expensive. A common clinical method used to estimate it is the body mass index; therefore, the definition of obesity has been operationalized in terms of BMI. Central obesity is a more sensitive indicator of health in certain groups; it can be estimated by waist circumference and waist–hip ratio." Then I would put the subsections on:

• BMI, which should include, the stuff now in Body fat percentage on how BMI is related to body fat. I don't see a definition of obesity using the body fat percentage in there, so I'm not sure that the more sensitive methods of measuring body fat are worth discussing in such detail. [sorry, I had missed it on my 1st reading.] Childhood obesity classification should also be discussed in this subsection since it seems based solely on BMI (and defer the epidemiological numbers on that since this is the classification section).
• Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio is good as it is.

Is this making sense? Also, I don't see why Risk factors and commodities is a subsection of classification—surely other factors increase the risk of various bad outcomes that obesity contributes to, but is anyone classifying obesity based on those? Xasodfuih (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that section can be improved. Will make a small difference but not much in the overall size of the article. Childhood obesity has a page of its own and is thus discussed breifly.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Body fat percentage, BMI, Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio are all seperate techniques to determine obesity. Body fat % is the gold standard, BMI and waist measurements are what is used. Childhood obesity's definition has the added complexity of needing to refer to charts and is seen as a sperate classification. Never liked the section on risk factora. Therefore all but the last sections are needed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"It is commonly defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher.[1] This distinguishes it from being overweight as defined by a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher.[1]" I do not think that it is good to begin an article with the first few sentences not making sense. If the common definition does not make sense, that is a person can be defined as overweight with a BMI of "25 kg/m2 or higher", then perhaps you need to reword it, use a difference definition, or something. A person can be classified as both overweight and obese at the same time. No wonder the WHO has no credibility in this area. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not that is doesn't make sense. It is that it is not what most people expect and why most people often mix up the two terms. I am happy to go with 25-30 though. Have found another reference that support it.

The WHO defines overweight as any BMI > 25 than breaks it down into preobese and obese. Obese is than further broken down into Class 1 - 3 obesity. Some do however define overweight as a BMI of 25-30.

The surgical literature breaks down class three obesity further into super obese and morbid obese.

Therefore you can be overweight, obese, and super obese all at the same time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Even uptodate misquotes the WHO. http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/topic.do?topicKey=obesity/4467&selectedTitle=1~150&source=search_result#5 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf see page five. As does the media. Most simply equate pre obese and overweight. If we really want to get technical this article will get longer. I could change the name of the overweight page to pre obese. I personally do not care which way we leave it of if you feel this is a issue that we discuss things in greater detail. Will add some details to the page on overweight to clarify things.

Looked into things further and I had already added both definitions to the page on overweight. Obesity is not a simple topic. Therefore it is not going to be straight forwards to understand it. It is a subject full of misconceptions and urban legends. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes and hope this addresses the issue.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is the same length as prostate cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Schizophrenia, and Major depressive disorder. All four of which are FA. Obesity is a complex and controversial topic. Therefore I am not sure how much small I can reasonable make it. There are already subsection for neither ever section of this article similar to other FA. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has a clear layout which results in short enough sections, so I don't think length is a problem - the reader can still find the info of interest without sifting through too much text. Narayanese (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this article has a clear structure, see my comments in the thread right above. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how your coment is about layout. It seems to be about the fne details on obesity definition. You have to say what's wrong with the layout in a more easy to understand way. Narayanese (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"It was not until the 20th century that it became common, some much so that in 1997 the World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic." Some needs to be changed to so. That was just a single error, but because it exists, someone should go over the entire article and give it a once over for such errors.

That would be great. Fixed this one.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know of additional unconventional causes of obesity & I'll start looking for backup refs, & maybe others will help find info that backs it up, or maybe it will inspire the industry to look into these ideas further: 1) Television because there's nothing else to do. 2) Too many food advertisements inundating people all the time, in all ways (TV, movies, paper ads, magazines, etc.) 3) Movies because there's nothing else to do. 4) Restaurants as a get-away-from-home-to-socialize with friends activity 5) Too many restaurants that serve too much food 6) Traditions, like appetizers, too many holidays, etc 7) Too many good recipes & ways to prepare different foods 8) People who say they love to cook, & are good cooks 9) Brainwashed from childhood to read too much to pass the time 10) Too few physical activities available 11) Unaffordable physical activities (dance lessons, health clubs, etc) 12) Nothing to do but work 10-12 hours a day (the Puritan-work-ethic brainwashing) 13) Talking about food too much because there's nothing else to do

These are not unconventional causes all of these are variations of exercise and diet and are touched upon in the article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess most people just don't connect the word "sedentary" to TV, movies, reading, desk jobs, car rides & education. Stars4change (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that section could use some more fleshing out. I have started a page on exercise trends were I speak to some of theses but I agree some of these sub section could use more work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/projects/psc/index_html

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60318-4/fulltext

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a large body of evidence that suggests obesity isn't caused by overeating and under-exercising. In fact, the hypothesis that suggests this is the case is extremely simplified and ignores the contradictory evidence. It is a failed hypothesis. I accept that this is currently a minority viewpoint but it is one that is worthy of a mention in this article. The basic argument goes something like this: Obesity has always been studied as a disease of overeating because this idea is so deeply ingrained in our thoughts. Thus, the research has mostly been undertaken to validate this preconception. Along the way, sedentary behaviour has been added to the mix and these two things conveniently fit in with our value judgements about the evils of junk food and laziness. The end result is a lot of research which looks at vague statistical links and even more vague clinical studies in which the researchers have explained away the lack of coherence in the data. And now we are advised to eat less and exercise more even while obesity researchers acknowledge that this is an extremely innefective long-term approach. There are researchers who decided to approach obesity for what it actually is: a disease of excess fat accumulation. They came up with the hypothesis that carbohydrates encourage fat storage partly through the action of insulin (the biological processes involved have been well documented for decades) and that this excess storage of fatty acids prevents them from being free in the blood for tissues to use. This leads to tiredness and lack of energy. Rather than thinking of overeating and sedentary behaviour being the causes of fat accumulation, this new hypothesis states that a hormonal imbalance caused by the nature of the diet (not the quantity) causes fat accumulation, overeating AND sedentary behaviour. Intervention trials tend to agree with this new hypothesis far more than the currently widely believed one and these trials are much more meaningful than studies looking at statistical links since correlation does not imply causation. For anyone who wants to get to the truth of obesity and other diet-related health issues I recommend you start by reading Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (known as The Diet Delusion in the UK). It is very thorough and very empirical. I would like to add a section discussing this alternative viewpoint myself but I am a wikipedia noob (cannot edit this page yet), I'm not sure how to fit it into the structure of the article and I'm not sure how to get links to the right studies etc.TheQuickBrownFox (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I do have a copy of Gary Taubes. Even so books are not a good enough resource for a page like this. You must quote directly from the peer reviewed published literature. The ideas presented on the obesity page are very well back up by evidence. See Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ; et al. (2009). "Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates". N. Engl. J. Med. 360 (9): 859–73. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0804748. PMID 19246357. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) which provides good evidence that contradicts what you have written above. If you have better sources please post them. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well luckily for me Taubes' book is very thoroughly referenced so getting those linking the relevant studies shouldn't be a problem once I get it back from my friend. Most of the ones he mentions are quite old though and I hope that people here don't consider that to mean they are any less relevant (I notice you've picked a very recent study as an example). In the meantime here is a study whose results indicate that the diet composition *does* make a difference http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229 . "In this 2-year dietary-intervention study, we found that the Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets are effective alternatives to the low-fat diet for weight loss and appear to be just as safe as the low-fat diet." What they fail to mention in their discussion is that the low-carb diet that they use is more effective than the low-fat one. This is illustrated here http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229/F2 . I have read about the Sacks study that you linked. It has been criticised for reaching the conclusion that only caloric intake affects weight loss and not macronutrient composition, when actually it has shown that only to be true for the diets that the study tested. Obviously, one could only make that very broad claim by testing all macronutrient combinations and it is clear to see that they have not done that. You need look no further for an example than the study by Shai et al above which tests a diet with much lower carbohydrate than the Sacks study. This slip in logic seems to have gone unnoticed by the peer review process, yet it is quite obvious and easy to explain. This is why I feel we should hold the research to even higher standards rather than just saying "This is peer reviewed. You can quote it". One easy way of doing this is using their data and ignoring their conclusions, which are often littered with opinions. Also, the studies that go against the mainstream scientific consensus don't need to be "better" (more tightly controlled, larger, more statistically significant) in order for their ideas to be worthy of a mention here. They just need to be valid. TheQuickBrownFox (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some trial do and some trials do not find better outcomes with low fat verses low card diets. What we will need is a more recent meta analysis taking in the newer studies. This one here from 2006 says they are at least equivalent. And that is what is reflected in the page. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/3/285?ijkey=62e1c47dcbe35171da2061f92177b4c2d8cd830a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Before I would be happy saying that low card is better than a low fat diet I would need a review that states that rather than a single study. That is the direction I believe the literature is going but I have not seen it reach that point yet. Fat in ones diet slows down digestion and transit times through the gut so it makes sense that it would cause satiety and thus decrease coloric consumption. It works by causing people to EAT LESS though, not by some magic property of these diets. Other experiments as discussed on the obesity page deal with this issue inside calorimic rooms.

What you are discussing does not need a section of its own but is dealt with under the section on diet as treatment already and also has a page of its own.

But when it comes right down to it all diets are only marginally effective. The only really good treatment in the general population in this environment is bariatric surgery. People are just not able to control their own weight in a environment were exercise is not needed and food is plentiful. I recommend a low CAR diet but no one seems to take me up on it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct attempts to determine body fat percent are difficult and often expensive. One of the most accurate methods is to weigh a person underwater which is known as hydrostatic weighing. Two other simpler and less accurate methods for measuring body fat therefore have historically been used.

I see what these sentances are trying to say but I belive they would be better phrased: "Direct attempts to determine body fat percentage are difficult and often expensive, such as hydrostatic weighing, one of the most accurate methods of Body Fat calculation in which a person is weighted underwater. Therefore, two other simpler and less accurate methods for measuring body fat have historically been used."

Any thoughts?--Devon DeFazio (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Corrected --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this "Calorie consumption is reduced but not purposely so." statement rather confusing. If you're talking about a Low fat diet in an article about Obesity management, then surely the purpose of a low fat diet is to purposely reduce calories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel asdf (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What this means is that poeple were instructed what foods to eat but not instructed how much food to eat.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this equation confusing. According to this, a 90 year-old woman should have a BMI of about 14.5 to not be considered obese. That sounds very low. 71.174.56.109 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity is defined by BMI not by body fat % therefore obesity is always greater than 30. What is an acceptable body fat percentage changes as you ages. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity is important in this sport.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 

In the history section, one sentence (without any citation) reads, "For most of human history mankind struggled with food scarcity." I understand that this is the popular conception, but have never seen any convincing supporting evidence for this statement. The sentence should be removed unless a suitably trustworthy source can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.71 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Theodore Mazzone; Giamila Fantuzzi (2006). Adipose Tissue And Adipokines in Health And Disease (Nutrition and Health). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. p. 222. ISBN 1-58829-721-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior." and "6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger." !? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3654291&page=1 --AaThinker (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a mixture of truth and not truth. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat true. Second part not true.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, I realized if someone gets that too far, it obviously violates the law of conservation of energy, which would make any physicist burst into laughter if realized. You can't, for example, run around without food and still not lose weight, where did the energy come from? Not from fat, not from muscle... where? air? Did the dark matter that passed through your torso propelled you? --AaThinker (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a new account and cannot edit this article. There is a typo: "sociatal" that should read "societal".

Someone who can fix it should do so!

Thank you, Scott Therkelsen Stherk (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to add a link to Active travel - an important approach to confronting the global rise in obesity, overweight and sedentarity. thanks.

Extrospecteur 5 May 2009

Extrospecteur (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No were in ref does it support the statement. So will need references first. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)^ OECD data showing rates of obesity.[1]

now added ref to the UK House of Commons report on Obesity and link to obesity article. --92.25.255.190 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the article lacks any mention of prevention - though it does cover management. could usefully link to [3]78.151.210.30 (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be noted that what you eat influences the forming of the bacterial colonies you grow in the stomach. This again influences weight gain or loss (as they can increase or decrease the extraction of nutrients from food). See http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2009-sct/5161.html

also, drugs against obesity thus include drugs eliminating hydrogen producing bacteria; aldough it can be named that this approach isnt usually very good for the environment; as you dont decrease the energy amounts you consume; you just decrease absorption of the energy in the foods eaten. as such some food is gown uselessly while still releasing ghg gases in the process. if however the extra food is from the backyard rather than supermarket, surplus ghg gas will be not really big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.194 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Add in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.194 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Infectious_agents --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adderall is D-Ampheamine, NOT methamphetamine as this article incorrectly promulgates.

Dr. B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsilverman (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up: It is a mixture of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine. Removed the brand name.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the section "Body Fat Percentage", there is the sentence, "It is generally agreed that men with more than 25% body fat and women with more than 33% body fat are obese," followed by a footnote [25]. The last word in this sentence should be "overweight", not "obese". This can be verified from the main article (Body Fat Percentage), or comparison with other articles, such as the one on BMI.Averitar (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct passage from the ref "In view of these limitations, some authorities advocate a definition of obesity based on percentage body fat. For men, percentage body fat greater than 25% defines obesity, and 21-25% is borderline. For women, over 33% defines obesity, and 31-33% is borderline." By the way we do not verify to other parts of Wikipedia put to the literature. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this possible? Is there some gene that creates mass from nothing? --NoPetrol (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of the article?

The point of course is that genetics determines appetite control, rate of metabolism, and all sorts of other things. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it's impossible for obesity to be caused solely by genetics, unless there exists some genetic condition that completely destroys free will- and in that case a person's caretakers should limit their food intake. --NoPetrol (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are some cases that completely destroy free will. Parents need to put lock on the fridge / freeze. But I agree it is still only 99% genetics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You can´t blame the fat people for the global warming.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejection-of-science-squared.html http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/blame-fat-people.html

I think you should remove it from the Obesity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.223.55 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. I do not think it belongs either.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I can´t. {{editsemiprotected}}

I want to delete: Effect on the environment

Obesity may have a negative effect on the environment. A 2009 study concluded that if 40% of the population were overweight or obese as projected in 2010 it would require 19% more food. The energy required to generate this would create 270 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation systems also would require more fuel to both accommodate and transport larger passengers.[225]

--Fisch4Fun (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that morbidly obese people have a mold that grows on their skin in the creases? I have heard this is true and would like it to be confirmed. The reason I asked is that my husband has become morbidly obese and he always has an unpleasant odor. There is also a yellow ring in the jacuzzi every time he sits in it that I can't explain. If there is a mold, are there any health risks to either one or both of us?

Kelco (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Being overweight does increase ones risk of having Canadida ( which is a yeast ) grow between ones fold of fat.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isnt obesity in USA discussed in this article? It is in the heart of this issue, as majority of americans are obese and majority of obese people are Americans.

This is a global issue. The USA is addressed under epidemiology.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What?! The majority of Americans are obese? The majority of obese are Americans?? Are you retarded?? Serious question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.122.162 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

400 million people are obese worldwide, 110 million American are obese: 1/3 of American ( 330 million ). Therefore about 25 % of the obese people worldwide are American. Enough said.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found these answers:

“ The few studies of mortality among people who voluntarily lost weight produced inconsistent results; some even suggested that weight loss increased mortality” (Kassirer JP, Angell M. Losing weight--an ill-fated New Year's resolution [Editorial]. N Engl J Med 1998;338:52-4. )

“The Cochrane Library holds a protocol entitled Weight reduction for reducing mortality in obesity and overweight (1) which is due to be published in Issue 1, 2002. In their background to the review they refer to a guideline produced by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), USA, 1998, which states that "there have been no prospective trials to show changes in mortality with weight loss in obese patients. “ (Vlassov VV, Weight reduction for reducing mortality in obesity and overweight [protocol], The Cochrane Library, due Issue 1 2002. )

In the last 10 years evidence has been generated and is provided in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a review “Surgery for obesity“ from the Cochrane Collaboration.

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003641/frame.html

• “Surgery is more effective than conventional management. “
• “Reductions in comorbidities, such as diabetes and hypertension, ”
• “Improvements in health-related quality of life occurred after two years, but effects at ten years are less clear. “
• “limited evidence and poor quality of the trials “

I think this means:

• Long term effects are not clear.
• The effects on the morbidities is unclear just “comorbidities” are mentioned.

Sandy Szwarc criticizes these kind of studies: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/junkfood-science-weekend-special.html

• “Extraordinarily high “lost in followup” rates are common ”
• “Most studies only report short-term outcomes “
• “The SOS Study, although its primary outcome measures were overall mortality, refused to release its mortality data in its latest 10-year report. “

I am not saying, that surgery is not healthy I am just saying, we are not sure.

So I think the answer is nobody knows if weight loss in obese patients improves mortality or morbidity. I think there is a huge difference between thin people an fat people, who lost weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17NZNDjcBs

I know this is very sad news :(

But I think it should be part of the article.

What do you think?

-- Fisch4Fun (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not have time for a complete response but a few things: comorbidities are the same as morbidities. Decrease in diabetes and hypertension is a decrease in comorbidities / morbidities. Therefore some long term outcomes are clear. Sugery improves morbidity.

Junkfood science and youtube are not great sources. Cochrane of course is a great source.

"Reductions in comorbidities, such as diabetes and hypertension, also occur. Improvements in health-related quality of life occurred after two years, but effects at ten years are less clear."

"A further systematic review of the long-term weight loss effects on all-cause mortality in overweight and obese populations (Poobalan 2007) concludes that there is some evidence that intentional weight loss has long-term benefits on-all cause mortality for women and more so for people with diabetes. However the long-term effects for men are not clear.Weight loss in obese patients with knee osteoarthritis has also been systematically reviewed and the results of meta-analysis indicated that disability could be significantly improved when weight was reduced over 5.1%, or at the rate of greater than 0.24% reduction per week (Christensen 2007)."

Here is the SOS data on mortality "Cumulative overall mortality The SOS 1997-2007 study reported cumulative overall mortality

during a period of up to 16 years (mean 10.9 years follow-up).The hazard ratio of the surgery group compared with the control group was 0.76 [(95%CI 0.59 to 0.99) P = 0.04)]. There were 101 (5%) deaths in the surgery group and 129 deaths (6.3%) in the control group. Table 8 displays the causes of death; the most common causes of death were cancer (surgery 29 cases, control 47 cases), sudden death (surgery 20 cases, control 14 cases) and myocardial infarction (surgery 13 cases, control 25 cases)."

The p on that last one is just barely significant for decreased mortality with surgery.

So inconclusion the Cochrane paper basically supports what is already in the paper.

No one is saying surgery is healthy. It is a final measure after all others have failed. Weight loss via diet and exercise is better but most human are not able to do this well living in an obesogenic environment were exercise is not required / discouraged. That obese people are somehow different than thin people has been disproven in well done in hospital feeding trials. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Conventional:

I think these are the points where we agree:

• intentional weight loss has benefits for people with diabetes.
• long-term effects for men are not clear
• ”benefits of weight loss on all cause mortality for overweight/obese populations is meagre.” (Poobalan 2007)

I think this should be changed: “There are significant benefits to weight loss. In a prospective study, intentional weight loss of any amount was associated with a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality.”

Surgery:

I think these are the points where we agree:

• ” No one is saying surgery is healthy. It is a final measure after all others have failed.”
• Long term effects are not clear.

I think the last point should be added in the section “Reduced mortality and morbidity”(Bariatric surgery)

--Fisch4Fun (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. With respect to diet and exercise what has been shown is that very few people are able to maintain long term weight loss. Therefore finding benefit from diet and exercise is not very significant as no one does it. Benefits at 2 years for surgery have been shown. ( in other areas of medicine 2 years is refered to as long term ) Adding that quality of life at 10 years is not yet determined would be good.

Feel free to make the above suggested changes.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read this article you believe obesity exist because lazy people eat too much. It makes no mention of changes in food production(such as the use of high fructose corn syrup)or analgesics(which slows metabolism). The idea that corporations are totally innocent or that this is just pure laziness is a spiteful argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't read like that to me at all, and I'm what would be considered morbidly obese. If I disagreed with the articles POV I wouldn't have put my pics up to be used on here. - FatM1ke (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these areas above need further discussion. They are however discussed somewhat under social determinants of obesity. I have not yet have time to add more of this content but will at some point. Thanks for the comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright I'll add the information. I know from medical reports pain killers cause fast weight gain for one. I'll add themYVNP (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes if it is well referenced please do. For medical stuff best to reference to a review. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a little biased. Specifically the word normal should not be used to describe people who are not overweight or obese. Who is to say what is normal and not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.49.50 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer it to be changed to healthy?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... normal is simply a statement of majority. Most people aren't overweight. Thereby the definition 'overweight' and also the source of normality in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.151.52 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Poosbalan study is they looked at both overweight and obese people combined. Weather being overweight causes heath problems BMI 25 - 30 is questionable. At greater than 30 no one disagrees. Need to look at it in more detail but not sure if it is appropriate on this page.

I am not sure. -- Fisch4Fun (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Even still they found benefits in women, in diabetics, and possibly those with intentional weight lose. I do not find the new wording very good at this point. Will look at it further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The benefits in women, were based on just one study. But if you want to include it feel free to do so. Please don´t hesitate to change the wording -- Fisch4Fun (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Weight loss in the severely obese was associated with a substantial survival benefit. http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=12000&article=00016&type=abstract Now if this weight loss were achieved by diet and exercise there is no reason why it would lead to different outcomes. Improves frailty in the elderly obese http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/8/860 <st likely better outcomes. pan style="color:#0000f1">Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, we shouldn´t start to write our own reviews. Knowledge from reviews is more reliable, than single studies. On the other hand, the obesity debate "is so political, so rife with misinformation and disinformation," ( Dr. Friedman dicoverer of leptin). So sometimes one has to question a review.

Exercise is good for everyone even if you don´t loose weight. So if you want to produce positive effects for in weight loss just combine it with exercise. This is an old trick. ;-) --Fisch4Fun (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a previous argument that one could be fat yet fit and have no back health outcomes. A recent study found this not to be true. That about half of the detrimental health outcomes are from obesity and half from inactivity. This is just one of many reviews on the topic.

My concern is that the Pooblan dilutes obesity with overweight. Being overweight does not seem to lead to poor health outcomes in many people. Therefor losing weight would have not benefit.

This article is however about obesity not overweight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"My concern is that the Pooblan dilutes obesity with overweight." Yes that´s true. Perhaps you should mention it in the arcticle.

"In a prospective study, intentional weight loss of any amount was associated with a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality", but only for midel aged white woman who had with obesity-related health conditions. "In women with no preexisting illness (n = 28,388), intentional weight loss of > or = 20 lb (> or = 9.1 kg) that occurred within the previous year was associated with about a 25% reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality; however, loss of < 20 lb (< 9.1 kg) or loss that occurred over an interval of > or = 1 year was generally associated with small to modest increases in mortality." This are not a significant benefits in mortality. I would like to remove it. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Made some clarifications. I am not sure how a 20 and 25% reduction in mortality is not clinically significant? Especially when it involves a potentially free treatment ( diet and exercise ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let´s take a look at the authors interpretation: ". The association between intentional weight loss and longevity in middle-aged overweight women appears to depend on their health status. Intentional weight loss among women with obesity-related conditions is generally associated with decreased premature mortality, whereas among women with no preexisting illness, the association is equivocal." That´s more or less, what the review says. The sentence "Some studies have found significant benefits in mortality." leads the reader into a wrong direction and is without evidence. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree and clarified further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I think this is to complicated for the reader. If you want to keep in the article at least put it behind the results of the review and cite the conclusions aof the authors: "The association between intentional ... whereas among women with no preexisting illness, the association is equivocal." -- Fisch4Fun (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seem straight forward to me.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How can it be straight forward, if even you (with your huge knowledge) thought it suported weight loss among women with no obesity-related conditions? Let´s do an experiment: Send this text to a friend:

"Some studies have found significant benefits in mortality in certain populations. In a prospective study of obese women, intentional weight loss of any amount in those with other weight related diseases was associated with a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality, well a weight loss of greater than 9 kg ( 20 lb ) was associated with a 25% decrease in mortality in those with out obesity related illnesses."

Then ask him "Is it good for woman to loose weight?" The answer should be: "Intentional weight loss among women with obesity-related conditions is generally associated with decreased premature mortality, whereas among women with no preexisting illness, the association is equivocal." You won´t get it. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarified it. Also can you provide a ref to the Cochrane collaboration paper. Unable to find it on their site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cochrane paper has been withdrawn, "due to inability of authors to continue work with this review" (8 July 2009) http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003203/frame.html. If you want to know more about the old version, please contact me via email. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it was withdraw from publication it is no longer verifiable and thus I have removed it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment concerns this statement regarding "Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio" : "The waist circumference (>102 cm in men and >88 cm in women) ... as measures of central obesity."

In fact, the figures given for waist circumference are the NCEP guidelines for waist circumference as a criterion for diagnosing metabolic syndrome, not central obesity per se. Since there are several definitions and sets of criteria in use, shouldn't these figures be identified for what they are, perhaps with a link to the page for Metabolic syndrome ? I suggest :

"The waist circumference (>102 cm in men and >88 cm in women, according to NCEP criteria) ..."

feel free to change it. If you do not have enough edits yet make a few on other pages than you will be allowed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This reflected information from the US government specifically The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in cooperation with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

 

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The information from the government being that 333 calories was average then and 590 is average now? Or that the sizes shown are the most popular? The most heavily promoted? The only available? The ones that people most readily call to mind when asked to envisage a cheeseburger? I have no problem putting the image back if this is made a bit more explicit. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Food portions sizes are known to effect food intake. Average food portions have increased over the last 50 years specifically for fast food. The site linked states that food portion sizes have increased as you mention above than it goes on to give these exact images. I do think a graphical image of the average food at different times is useful in addition to giving the exact calorie increase.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding portion sizes increasing in some areas of the world (e.g., the US. Possibly others too? I haven't reviewed the literature.), that is exactly the sort of thing WP should document with verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the claims. That is, however, an entirely different topic than whether the use of a particular image, which stated, as was 2009-09-27, "A comparison of a cheeseburger 20 years ago (left) which had 333 calories with a modern cheeseburger (right) which contains 590 calories". As I mentioned yesterday when I tagged in POV, one can still buy the small burger today, and could buy the mongo burger 20 yrs. ago. I would have no problem with some sort of graphic that might illustrate the secondary-source studies. Not sure this graphic is it. And I'm quite certain that the caption, as it was, should not stand. Cheers, N2e (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

These are the only one that I could find that were in the public domain. These were created by the US government. Specifying that they reflects the USA would be a good idea. Here is a JAMA paper looking at portion size http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/4/450 And another looking at the obesity epidemic and portion size http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16679008 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That portion size is causing the obesity epidemic is relying heavily on correlations rather than randomized experiments. I don´t think the average reader understands the difference. The real question is: Does eating smaller portions reduce weight? If yes: how much?--Fisch4Fun (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a large body of literature looking at portion size and obesity. If I have time at some point I will try to summarize it and add to this page. Here is a controlled experiment that found that a larger portion increased the amount consumed at a single sitting. http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n3/abs/oby200464a.htmlDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I think there is a mistake about Yugoslavia in the World map of Energy consumption 1979-1981

It's impossible they ate more than 3600 kcal/day, more than any country in the world (even more than USA lol) ! Yugoslavia wasn't that poor but was not very rich too...

And the other map (2001-2003), ex-Yugoslavia republics (Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, ...) HAVE THE LOWEST consumption in Europe !

Obviously, 1979-1981 map must be changed

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.51.169 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The data set from the UN actually says this. Well I agree it is probably wrong I am not sure what to do about it. See: http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?step=countries&ccID[]=0&allcountries=checkbox&theme=8&variable_ID=1856&action=select_years Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looked into it further and yes it looks like before 1990 the former Yugoslavia eat a great deal. Than the war and the amount they eat dropped. Check it out on earth trends.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

-there are several grammatical errors -not sure about lumping Jenny Craig with Weight Watchers and OA. Could expand on usefulness/health risks of different diets -would be nice to refer to a reputable source regarding nutritional requirements -shouldn't there be specific info on type/duration of exercise that is beneficial or is that only for heart health? (i.e. what do you mean by moderate?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weakliesandcoldwalls (talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Moderate is based on percentage of V o2 max. It is in the ref somewhere. Feel free to correct grammatical errors. Not sure what issue you have with lumping OA, WW, and JC together? The health risks of different diets are difficult to determine. They are discussed in more details on the specific pages. There is also a page on healthy diet were nutrition is discussed. WRT exercise a minimum of 1/2 hour five times per week http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649v1.pdf Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section in the article about notable people suffering from this medical condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.59 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

it would probably be too long--UltraMagnus^speak 18:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A little to much like trivia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's useful. Maybe just create a list called "list of obese persons". By the way, some scholars claim that obesity witch-hunt is a moral panic (see [4]). Maybe we should add this claim on the article (of course, we must look for reputable sources to back them and use in-line citations to improve verifiability. --RekishiEJ (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

a category would probably suffice, but per wp:BLP, it will need to be sourced somewhere in the article itself--UltraMagnus^speak 09:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such a category would be at all helpful or useful. Classifying people by body shape is really not a very fundamental attribute, and only will tend to pander to unfortunate social tendencies to emphasize it. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, we'd better not create a list or category about obese persons, since obesity is mostly measured by BMI, and BMI has been criticised for its inaccuracy, such as regarding human body as two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. But some scholars' attitude toward anxiety over obesity still need to be mentioned in the article - but not give too much weight, since many people and medical professionals don't think so - with reputable sources. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a page on world heaviest people. This is trivia IMO. The BMI though criticized is a good measure. We have a section on the fat acceptance movement and if you wish to add criticism about BMI it can be done on that subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This article in the management section is missing a discussion on intragastric balloons, such as heliosphere made by helioscopie [5], BIB/Orbera made by allergan [6], Silimed [7] and Spatz [8]~ PS: It is a long time since I contributed to Wikipedia. Where can I find the editing rules, symbols etc? Hpaami (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading about this. Surprised it is not here. Should we add it to the surgery page?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that know what is obesity. I’m receiving my first in life really belly today, after 5 days of experiment and stop experiment. My weight rise from 69.5 kg to 72.5 kg. after 5 days. Today 71 kg. I’m 44 yeas old, 182cm height. I never have weight more 70 kg. The good food is only 25% of importance, imho. Today I think about this fenomen. When my belly blow off (( I’m repeat it. My experiment in home condition is inside body electron charging when sleeping by high voltage (-500 Volt) and very low current. Electrons debets into legs and credits from head without wires. In the evening I’m sense debet and at the morning sense credit electrons. I have growth of all factors of feeling (+ belly) and think that it is a good prophylaxis against all disease, like cancer too. But I’m not a medical person. If you have obesity – more outside water, more cotton and less linoleum in room, imho. Youth faithfully. DimA

(I think yet – body’s power charging easy may be in automobile, imho.)

Zgrad (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also know as Madame Landry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.248.81 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on published literature rather than opinion. Therefore the above without refs is not admissible.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 10 is about childhood obesity and the title of chapter 11 is "in other animals". This is not very good. Yours Nika —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.26.65 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You have lost me, what is wrong with this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

you should include the definition of 'morbid obesity' as being a bmi equal to or greater than 40 kg/m2 in the first paragraph, where the definitions of pre-obesity and obesity are given. [unsigned comment originally added to top of page]

It is under classification.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Overweight should be merged into Obesity, as the topic is really the same, and the former violates the article naming conventions by targeting an adjectival term rather than a noun (i.e., we have articles like Science and Politics, not Scientific and Political, which are simply redirects). Given the amount of rehash between the articles, I would think that a section here on labels ("obese", "overweight", "fat") and how different interest groups define them should be quite concise compared to the separate article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

These are medical topics. These are separate disease diagnosis. Therefore merging is not a good idea. The research also discusses these two terms separately and the conclusions do not overlap one to the other. For example in Caucasians and Blacks obesity increases mortality, well being overweight does not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The presented evidence just shows , that being obese is not healthy. But is it preventable? As Doc James mentioned before “very few people are able to maintain long term weight loss“. This means you can´t cure it. But even if you could it is not clear if this would change mortality or morbidity. Most of the weight prevention programs I have heard of were a failure. So why is Obesity a leading cause of preventable death? --Fisch4Fun (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this statement is supported by the WHO and a JAMA article. Most people cannot stop smoking either but it is still a preventable cause of death.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jama article just shows, that there is a correlation between weight and number of deaths. We don´t have to discuss the benefits of intended weight loss again and again and again. Do you really think the Jama article calculated the number of preventable deaths? I may be wrong, but I think it calculated the difference between thin and fat people. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This PMID 18000969 says that it is one of the leading causes of preventable death. We have a whole page on the subject. See above regarding smoking. Obesity is something you can do something about. It is not inevitable and therefore is preventable. And the fact that we do not have good treatment or the political will to bring it about does not make it less preventable. Wikipedia is based on the scientific published opinion and this statement is a reflection of this published scientific opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Men are not as healthy as women. Sex is something you can do something about. Maybe we should add sex (Sex reassignment surgery) to the list of preventable death ;-) Just kidding. But it shows, that there is a difference between correlation and cause. I don´t think this discussion is getting us anywhere. Let´s take a timeout and read the papers again. I don´t think they really prove, that the death are preventable, but I may be wrong. --Fisch4Fun (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do an analysis get it published and than we can add this :-) Unless you can find a peer reviewed publication that already says the same.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In the section about medication used to treat obesity:

"Rimonabant (Acomplia), a third drug, works via a specific blockade of the endocannabinoid system. It has been developed from the knowledge that cannabis smokers often experience hunger, which is often referred to as "the munchies". It has been approved in Europe for the treatment of obesity but has not yet received approval in the United States or Canada due to safety concerns."

The European Medicines Agency (EMEA) is currently recommending suspension of marketing authorisation in Europe (http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/acomplia/53777708en.pdf). Due to this, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK has withdrawn it's guidance on the use of Rimonabant for the treatment of obesity until the EMEA reviews it's recommendation (NICE Technology Appraisal TA144). I propose a change to the current section on the pharmacological intervention of obesity to reflect this more negative view of the drug Rimonabant in Europe. 129.215.116.144 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

edit 12/18 4:35 EST, yo mama joke in the first line still.

Yo mamma joke on the first paragraph, probably more further down the page but I haven't checked. Can this be fixed please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.15.210 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Refresh you browser. Was reverted less than one minute after it was done. And the user has been blocked User_talk:Weirdhog Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

edit 12/18 4:35 EST, yo mama joke in the first line still.

First line looks fine to me, looking in the history it looks like a bot reverted it within a minute like Jmh said. Did you reload the page? Thanks for spotting that though, your help keeping the article presentable is appreciated! delldot ∇. 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"although a few cases are caused solely by genes, endocrine disorders, medications or psychiatric illness"

How can it be caused "solely" by one of these things? People with these issues still need to eat excessively in order to gain weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.185 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. As you are correct will change it to primarily.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section be titled "In other species"? The current title is somewhat confusing, as if there were any discussion of animals in the article before. I'm not an anti-evolitionist or any crazy stuff, it just seemed odd. Srrrgei (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Are there any good authorities supporting the hypothesis that obesity can be a result of mental disorder (depression or anxiety, for example) leading to food abuse, such that psychoactive medication to treat the underlying mental condition might be appropriate and effective?
Laurel Bush (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Most psyc meds cause obesity rather than treat it. Thus obesity is commonly seen in psychiatric diseases but as a result of treatment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes
Drugs currently licensed for psychiatric use do seem, mostly, to have serious side effects
I do not suppose that, without going seriously off-label, psychiatrists would have anything, at present, very effective with respect to obesity
Cheers
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet I finally gave anti-depressants a try, lost my cravings, intense hunger pangs, and 10 pounds effortlessly. Now that I've come off of said anti-depressants, I am struggling with my old extreme hunger pangs and sense of never being full. If I didn't want to enlist in the military so bad I would still be on them... -btmims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.163.123 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a new animation based on several jpg files on CDC site.
 
--Nevit (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Would be good on the epidemiology subpage. Not general enough for this page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)--

The following passage is highly dubious:

With the onset of the industrial revolution it was realized that the military and economic might of nations were dependent on both the body size and strength of their soldiers and workers.

This argument contradicts common sense. Before the Industrial Revolution, agricultural and manufacturing output was directly tied to manual labour, therefore physical strength would have been advantageous. After the onset of the Industrial Revolution physical labour was largely replaced by machines, so the significance of physical strength was greatly diminished. Likewise pre-industrial warfare was waged mostly with weapons such as swords, bows, axes, maces, spears and polearms, all of which relied on physical strength to inflict damage. As artillery and firearms became more sophisticated, the role of these weapons was greatly reduced and eventually eliminated. firepower and technology became the most important determinants of an army's ability to inflict damage. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You tagged as {{dubious}} some content that was directly sourced to a reliable source. Do you have a source that contradicts the source? Because if you don't, your personal perspective is original research. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The text I tabbed (as I noted above) as dubious was completely unsourced. Later in the same paragraph, a source was cited for a group of statements which seemed accurate, and I did not tag as dubious. I hope this clears up the confusion. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did not dispute the idea that body mass has Increased since the Industrial Revolution. There is overwhelming evidence that it has indeed increased dramatically. What I tagged as dubious was the contributor's apparent assumption that this increase in body mass was driven by nations' demand for "size and strength"of "soldiers and workers" in the pursuit of military and economic might after the onset of the industrial revolution. There is scant (if any) evidence for such a claim, however there is abundant evidence that the observed increase was due to increased caloric availability do to advances in food production technology. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This statement is based on the source given.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting paper http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/170/5/420?etoc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another paper http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/12/1173 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Depression itself is often associated with abnormal patterns of eating and physical activity that could result in obesity; however, obesity may also result in psychosocial problems that can produce depression. Depression is found to be associated with obesity, with a higher ratio reported in clinically obese adolescents compared with a non-clinically obese population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorcapstone5 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BiologySeniorCapstone5.American University.9 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorcapstone5 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is discussed on the subpage regarding morbidity and obesity but could be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to show the world rankings as per % citizens obese. Richard Rippon (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a nice list of the top 10 near the relevant maps would be good. Richard Rippon (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be good on the page regarding epidemiology of obesity. I think all we list currently is percentages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing food advertisements constantly causes obesity, but also reading, discussing recipes, restaurants, etc Stars4change (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a refs supporting this? I am sure it is true and the article could use more of a discussion on this point.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Will this work? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424130951.htm Stars4change (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you find the original paper? Does look interesting. Would definitely go on the childhood obesity page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don´t think the article profs that “Seeing food advertisements constantly causes obesity “. It just shows that short term food intake is increased. “Future studies are planned to investigate whether enhanced responsiveness to food adverts or the greater amount of television children are watching is a predictor of childhood obesity. “ --Fisch4Fun (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll write & see if they can get the original paper. Another cause of obesity is poverty which shocks people. Here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302111922.htm Stars4change (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find me the PMID at pubmed I can get you the original papers. The original papers are preferred over a science daily post.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt to prevent to prevent obesity has failed. The programs “are facing difficulties in their efforts to help children stay at a healthy weight.” This is nothing new! A lot of programs have failed before. So what is the solution? better programs? No! more funding is the answer ;) --Fisch4Fun (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, I'm sorry but I don't know what "the PMID @ pubmed" means so I can't do it. But can someone else find that please? Thank you. Stars4change (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a review from 2009 [9] which I can get you if you want to work on it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because the heritability is high in some studies does not mean that genetics is the primary cause of the condition. Thus I reverted this recent edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone give a better explanation for these terms?

Looks like it refers to obesity from external cause vs from internal causes. But I think this is a poor way to divide health care issues as different study designs give conflicting results. This pages discusses this false dicotomy [10]. All obesity is cause by eating more calories than one burns. That is just simple physics (laws of thermodynamics or something )--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Exercise section, it says:

With use, muscles consume energy derived from both fat and glycogen. Due to the large size of leg muscles, walking, running, and cycling are the most effective means of exercise to reduce body fat.[133]

Reference number 133 relates to "aerobic" exercise. So, I would change the sentence to read:

Due to the large size of leg muscles, walking, running, and cycling are the most effective means of aerobic exercise to reduce body fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicque (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A paper confirming common sense. [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondering if it is worth writing about drugs that are in trials in for medication section of this article, for example enterostatin article is about a drug that created in the intestine and effects the ability to metabolise fat. Blackash have a chat 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If a drug is in phase III trials that might be appropriate, but in this case it's probably better to wait until there is some good data rather than proof of principle only. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is added it would go in a section on Research rather than in the treatment section. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a lot of books talking about it, I do some more expanding of the article enterostatin and maybe I can find out if it is or has done phase III, and if so do a section on Research here. Thanks Blackash have a chat 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that that is in fact a special obese-person chair? Because it looks like a loveseat to me.Triangular (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and we have chairs similar in my hospital. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

w00t have you love seats in the hospital? JFW | T@lk 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The good article status needs to be reexamined or the definitions for obesity need to be cleared up.

"The most commonly used definitions, established by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1997 and published in 2000, provide the values listed in the table at right.[3]

Some modifications to the WHO definitions have been made by particular bodies. The surgical literature breaks down "class III" obesity into further categories whose exact values are still disputed.[15]

• Any BMI ≥ 35 or 40 is severe obesity
• A BMI of ≥ 35 or 40–44.9 or 49.9 is morbid obesity
• A BMI of ≥ 45 or 50 is super obese

As Asian populations develop negative health consequences at a lower BMI than Caucasians, some nations have redefined obesity; the Japanese have defined obesity as any BMI greater than 25[16] while China uses a BMI of greater than 28.[17] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.16.169 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A factual error that can be easily corrected does not invalidate the GA status. Perhaps you ought to check WP:WIAGA. Do you have an easily accessible reference to the alternative cutoffs for obesity that you have quoted? JFW | T@lk 10:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is the problem with the above text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Center for Consumer Freedom should not be used as a legitimate source. It is a known smear-campaign based front organization, and is not simply 'partly supported' by the restaurant and food industry, but rather fueled by it. Its campaigns in support of obesity have no scientific merit beyond what the industry-paid pseudo-scientists report or distort. For more information regarding this group and why they should not be displayed as a legitimate source please read more here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

This is in regards to the following statement:

"Other groups are also trying to challenge obesity's connection to poor health. The Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization partly supported by the restaurant and food industry, has run ads saying that obesity is not an epidemic but "hype"."

Please remove the statement or clarify the organization's position as a front organization which does not rely on legitimate science but rather industry-fueled propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.208.41 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the disclaimer is clear enough about the fact that their statements may not be completely unbiased. JFW | T@lk 11:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yu ZB, Han SP, Cao XG, Guo XR (2009). "Intelligence in relation to obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Obes Rev. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00656.x. PMID 19780990. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the two maps showing calorie consumptions in countries of the world in 1961 and in 2001-3. If you click on the maps themselves they have different scales, that is to say, the colour dark orange on one of the maps does not refer to the same range of calorie consumption as it does on the other map.

This really means you cannot compare the two maps to eachother.

I can point out that this is wrong... but don't have the skills to fix it... Marchin Man (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness: a longitudinal study in children (EarlyBird 45)" http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2010/06/23/adc.2009.175927.abstract "This reverse causality may explain why attempts to tackle childhood obesity by promoting PA have been largely unsuccessful. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisch4Fun (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A single study. Now let's wait for this to be reproduced. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Other studies disagree. I guess this is a reason why we use reviews instead of primary research. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree reviews are better and I am sure Doc James will find one :) I know that there are other studies. But you can´t deny the failiure of PA programs. Here is another study: Longitudinal study of the long-term relation between physical activity and obesity in adults http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n1/abs/0802548a.html "CONCLUSION: This study did not support that physical inactivity as reported in the freely living adult population in the long term is associated with the development of obesity, but the study indicates that obesity may lead to physical inactivity." --Fisch4Fun (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I will look into it when I have time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent study that supports the conclusion that exercise decreases obesity at the level of a society [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@james. far as i can see that study only looked at correlation, asking women about their exercise-routines in the past few years and their weight-gain. i'm sure you are aware correlation does not prove causality. so unless they actually *changed* the amount of exercise those women had (randomly distributing them over groups that exercise never/a bit/a lot) this study does not contradict the idea that popular wisdom might have it backwards: that obesity makes you exercise less, instead of the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.65 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying obesity is the direct cause of cardiovascular disease and other disorders is misleading. Lack of exercise and eating unhealthy food are what cause these illnesses, obesity is a symptom of the problem, it's not the problem itself. There are many people with poor diets and sedentary lifestyles who are still at what would be considered a "healthy weight" and they are just as susceptible to cardiovascular disease as obese people are. On the other hand, obese people, with the exception of extreme cases, can still be healthy as long as they exercise regularly and avoid eating unhealthy foods. Body fat doesn't really have any major health effects until it reaches the point where any strenuous physical activity is impossible. This fixation on vanity just causes people to obsess on being as thin as possible rather than being healthy. --98.198.217.254 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not what the references say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be of interest, perhaps obesity and mortality isn't as closely linked as one might think.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2599

http://www.csw.ucla.edu/Newsletter/Mar10/Mar10_NguyenFrederick.pdf

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-longer

Etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.71.184 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

// 83.254.71.184 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And therefore all other published data is wrong? JFW | T@lk 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jfdwolff. a few articles don't prove anything, but the point is there has been very little reliable research into the subject of obesity. doctors would follow societies norms ridiculing fat people. doctors would only look at weight rather then overall fitness (because it's easier en cheaper to put someone on a scale then having them run 5 laps and see how tired it makes them). doctors like blaming patients (that also goes for smoking and drinking and such) because it absolves them from any responsibility for the patient's ill health. since obesity is typically a lower-class problem there weren't many obese doctors stepping up for themselves. etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.65 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Flier summarizes the many possible" at the start of the pathophysiology section; is Flier notable? Should it not read "There are many possible,,,," or similar?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Dexamphetamines are not approved by the FDA for the treatment of obesity", in the medication section; should it not be "amphetamines"? Why is dexamphetamine plural? Dexamphetamine is only one type of amphetamine and I think it should be singular if used. I think all amphetamines are not approved by the FDA for obesity.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanding this section with another viewpoint may be helpful. Is there any information in say a book arguing the case that obesity is part of natural selection/survival of the fittest, i.e. that obesity is benefitial in times of scarcity (of food)? There are advantages to being obese. I always thought that obesity is benefitial in certain circumstances and has during the history of humanity contributed to the survival of the human race. Obese people have more fat reserves and are less likely to starve to death during a famine eg times of war, harsh winter, when crossing a desert or something where little food is about. So when there is little food about in the wild, slim people starve and die and obese people live and survive. :) I am quite slim by the way and cannot put on weight even if I really try, so I am not biased. :) Perhaps controversial but I can't be the only person with this viewpoint? Would be a nice addition to the article if a sentence or two could be added along these lines and referenced. Might help with WP:NPOV to add a benefitial effect as it is at the moment presented as purely a pathology, but there is a benefit.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have finished reading over the article. Some of the links need to be placed into inline citation template format. I think that once this is done there is no reason to not submit it to FAC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@geek. since there are a lot of people who share your 'can't put weight on, even if i try' trait, i'd imagine there has also been natural selection towards leanness, otherwise it would be a pretty rare trait by now. perhaps there was both an evolutionary drive to get fat (to get fat-reserves, and stay warm at the poles and mountains) AND and evolutionary drive to stay thin (in order to be more agile and better able to run after mammoths, and remain cool in the tropics). and no: it's not necessarily contradictory that there was selection in 2 opposite directions at the same time. humans have evolved as groups as much as individuals, and a group will often benefit from having a lot of genetic variation. just think of how evolution gave us both 'jerks who would steal from their own grandmother' AND 'saints who would give away their last coin'. both have advantages at different situations so evolution kept them both around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.65 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a section concerning the psychological factors that have been found to contribute to obesity? Quite a few longitudinal studies have demonstrated that individuals of lower intelligence and/or conscientiousness are at a greater risk of developing obesity, even after controlling for socio-economic status. --Mr. Deltoid (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have good review articles than yes that would be fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Also massively tied to anxiety, depression, and psychological trauma - this section needs to be built. Monteitho (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

far as i know it's well-proven there is a correlation between a large spectrum of psychological problems and obesity. so it should certainly get included. but what i wonder about is whether or not those studies proof which came first: are people fat because they are depressed, or are the depressed because they're fat? if they are longitudinal they only looked at correlations through time, so they probably can't be used to identify cause and effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.65 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The leading cause of preventable death? The link provided redirects to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death" which clearly indicates that obesity is the seventh leading cause of preventable death. The data on the preventable death page is from 2001, if new data suggests otherwise, where is it? 174.28.206.194 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting to go through the article. I would like to remove this whole short section on the grounds of being based entirely on primary (non-MEDRS) sources, and not really belonging anyway. May I please? Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no view either way, but I think you are misinterpreting MEDRS; MEDRS does not prohibit the use of primary sources; they can be used sensibly and cautiously.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, but I don't think the use here is cautious enough. One of them is a pilot study! Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok. I see what you are saying and I agree it should be removed to obtain FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is in a section on ongoing research. not within the treatment section itself. I to shy away from primary research however in this sort of section I feel it should be allowed to a limited extent.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I know you are particularly knowledgable in this area so presumably this research is relevant and important. Not being a doctor and not being familar at all really with the subject matter I can't tell, so shall support keeping research section in the article. Idealy though, it might be better in a more dedicated article such as a sub article such as treatment of obesity; might be an idea for the future if article needs split or someone developed such a page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of primary studies in favour of secondary sources. Who is to say that any of the treatments discussed will even be applied in practice? JFW | T@lk 10:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

True but people see these things in the media and come to Wikipedia to learn more. Often the media presents it incorrectly and here one can easily see that these ideas are in the research stage and not currently treatment options. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@doc. i agree completely. the media tends to hype every new obesity-treatment. wikipedia is one of the few reliable sources for people to get some objective information: to find out that the over-hyped new cure isn't something their doctor will have in his medicine-cabinet any time soon. seems we are in need of the 'treatment of obesity'-page mentioned above. there is just to much research going on, with the proposed active ingredients in the new drugs all over the place, for it to be included on the main obesity-page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.65 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree a subpage might eventually be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay will work on a summary. Have moved the research section to the management subpage... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"If the FDA follows the panel's advice, lap band surgery will become an option for people with a body-mass index of 35 or higher, and for those with a BMI of 30 or higher who have health problems." Will wait for an official announcement before changing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1000367 - NEJM has stats over >1 million people. Confirms what we already knew, largely. JFW | T@lk 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes just a confirmation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Updated graph to new data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Study Shows Link Between Morbid Obesity, Low IQ In Toddlers ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2006) — University of Florida researchers have discovered a link between morbid obesity in toddlers and lower IQ scores, cognitive delays and brain lesions similar to those seen in Alzheimer's disease patients, a new study shows. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060901164136.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.93.195 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure this is not confounded by the various obesity syndromes such as Prader-Willi and Bardet-Biedl syndrome? Please identify the study in question and ideally any secondary sources that might be appropriate as per WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Caballero B (2001). "Introduction. Symposium: Obesity in developing countries: biological and ecological factors". J. Nutr. 131 (3): 866S–870S. PMID 11238776. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Does this post need archiving? JFW | T@lk 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)