Thursday, March 6, 2008

I take requests...

Just wanted to mention that while I do have a list of topics I eventually hope to cover here, I am also happy to write about things that people are curious about. So please feel free to post to the comments if there's something you have in mind!

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Adipose as an endocrine organ. Fat-postive blogs always make it sound like fat is inert, but I know that is not true. Fat is metabolically active. It does things by existing! It's fascinating. The link between fat and insulin-resistance as well. Not to be fat-negative--but a balanced perspective would be nice.

Piffle said...

I left a request on another of your posts, about the study that was press-released on sciencedaily today where a bariatric surgeon noted that bypassing the small intestine (or part of it) can cure type II diabetes even if weight loss doesn't occur. His idea is that the small intestine produces hormones involved in shutting down insulin activity, and in type two diabetics it produces too much of this hormone, creating insulin resistence.

Now his approach, being a surgeon, is to yank out the small intestines of even more diabetics; but I wonder if it would be fruitful to go after the real biochemistry and see if type II's are producing two much of the hormone, and if so find a drug to help antagonize it or regulate it properly.

At any rate I saw the article and thought I'd like to discuss it with someone who knows their stuff--you seem perfect.

Mae Travels said...

Current Fatosphere blogs have quite a few posts on something called "Intuitive Eating." They link to a website promoting this practice and selling a book about it. The material on the website sounds a little less than scientific.

Some of the bloggers' descriptions of how they eat "intuitively" sound as if they were providing examples for the book "Mindless Eating" -- using "intuitive" as synonym for eating mindlessly (such as the person who said she at a 1-lb bag of Bugles and then felt slightly sick).

Many of these bloggers, however, sound as if they are sincerely trying to reverse years of negatively influenced eating habits. They interpret their food cravings as a signal to eat appropriate foods and overcome dysfunctional habits. All reject the idea of morally "good" or "bad" foods, because this dichotomy leads them to disordered eating.

Could you comment on any actual scientific studies of "intuitive" eating?

K said...

How about the link between anti-depressants and weight gain?

I've been thinking about this for a while because my husband (normally skinny) has experienced it, and then had my interest stimulated further by a comment piece by Paula J Caplan in this week's New Scientist, which said by the bye that 1 out of 6 Americans currently takes some sort of psychotropic drug... That's a lot of people.

I don't know what the figures are for the UK, where I live, or if any studies have been done here, but I'm going to try to find out!

Anonymous said...

Your reaction to The Obesity Myth by Paul Campos, Rethinking Thin by Gina Kolata, and Big Fat Lies by Glen Gaesser.

Anonymous said...

I'd be interested to hear about the scientific basis for the oft-touted 1200 calorie minimum required intake for women. While the number is always being trotted out as the "word of the Diet God," from what I understand, it comes from a study of exactly one small 19 year old woman. Is this true? Have there been other studies to determine minimum calorie levels?

Cindy said...

I would like any information about the possibility of and success rate for reversing Type II diabetes and other problems having to do with Metabolic Syndrome.

Thanks for the very interesting blog!

mizshrew said...

I posted this on the artificial sweeteners post too, but I'll throw it in here as well. I'd be interested in any research on natural low-calorie or low-glycemic sweeteners and their affect on insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, etc. I'm thinking of plant-based sweeteners like Stevia and Agave nectar in particular, although there are others (I'm just not sure the others I've seen qualify as "natural").

Thanks... I'm looking forward to reading the blog!

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this is necessarily within your area of expertise, but I would be interested to read a post about the findings that thin/normal weight people fidget and move around more during the day than obese people.
And I too would like to see what your take on the "intuitive eating" movement is.
Thanks for starting this blog, by the way- you're one of the few sane and rational commenters over at BFD, and I look forward to reading what you have to say.

Anonymous said...

I second the first request about adipose as an endocrine organ. If you feel equipped to write one, I'd also be interested in a post about statistics/probability and the concept of risk and risk factors. I'd venture that a lot of people have a fuzzy understanding of what exactly statements about like "A is a risk factor for B" do and don't mean, and that many people who do understand it use the language in a sloppy way. And then there's the further step of understanding how probabilistic information can be appropriately and inappropriately used in science and medicine. At various times over the past months I've been itching to write such a post myself, until I remember (a) my own understanding and articulation might not be as good as I think, and (b) I neither have nor want a blog :-)

Kelly said...

I suppose this may not warrant an entire post, but I was wondering if you had some actual scientific research regarding soda and the chemicals in it and how they're bad for us. Things like that. Trying to get my husband to voluntarily drink less soda and more water. Maybe soda isn't as bad as I think it is, but it can't be good for us, right?

Ms Ingrid said...

Hello!

I have lost 140 lbs on Kay Sheppard plan, but I have noticed that it's not a very well known weight-loss plan.
Someone should look into that because I believe it is a "miracle" food plan. It really works.

Anonymous said...

I keep seeing this concept thrown around that bodies have a "setpoint" weight they return to. Where did this come from? Is there a scientific basis for it? Is there a way to determine it? When are you just gaining weight because no matter what you do your body will return to this "setpoint" and when are you gaining weight because you are spending too much time on the couch eating Ho-Hos?
(The ho-hos part was tongue in cheek but the gist of the question was not.)

Anonymous said...

I'd also like a post on intuitive eating. I really don't believe in the intuitive eating dogma that your body will tell you what it needs to eat to stay healthy.
Didn't we evolve to crave fat, sugar, and salt? I know nutritional deficiencies can produce food cravings, but it can't possibly be true that (as a paraphrased example of something I once saw on a fatosphere blog) "my body was telling me to eat a slice of lemon cake because clearly I needed the vitamin C!" I mean...really, come on now.
So yeah. Your thoughts on "intuitive eating" would be very interesting. Does it have any basis in scientific fact at all?

G.G. said...

I'd like to see a post about the recidivism rate for people who've lost weight. Is that oft-quoted statistic about 95% of people gaining the weight back true, or do exisiting scientific studies demonstrate say different? How extensive/exhaustive have any studies on this issue been?

Dr. LaWade said...

These are all great ideas! As you can see, I have now addressed a couple of them, but hope to get to most of the rest eventually.