Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Thoughts on Childhood Obesity - The Half Man Angus T. Jones

True confession time:  I love watching reruns of the early years of the TV show Two and a Half Men.   It's been many years since I followed any TV series "live" and not in reruns, and as I'm not into Ashton Kutcher (not seeing it gals, you?) I never had any urge to watch the new shows.  As such, I was rather surprised by pictures of the son, played by Angus T. Jones, at age 19.  He's all grown up ... and decidedly not obese or even overweight.  One might call him svelte even.  Then I saw an old episode and he was a very chubby child.  

This post is about children and weight.  I think we've gotten ridiculous as a society about this in some ways.  Robert Lustig laments over some obesity epidemic in 6 month olds.  Really?  My husband was born prematurely at 4 lbs and change.  I was born full term at a robust (especially for these days) 8 lbs.  I was a "chubby" baby, he was not.  I have a picture of me at age 1 where I'm still quite chubby.  By age 4 or so, I was, if anything, too thin and I remained that way naturally until puberty (when I chubbed out a bit but was never more than 20 lbs overweight).  My husband was not a fat kid, but he was pudgy, especially in those middle school years.  But by high school he leaned out a bit.

Our personal journeys through childhood aside, I was looking back at elementary school class pictures (I won't post them here to protect the innocent) from the late 60's/early 70's -- e.g. when I grew up before this obesity epidemic.  It is strange doing so as I remember exactly one "fat girl" in my grade in elementary school, and she remained so through high school graduation.  And her entire family was overweight.  One of my closest friends in high school, a girl I knew since I can remember and who is part of my earliest memories, was overweight, but not "fat".  I think many my age might have some selective memories of how big or small our classmates might have been, because when I took a closer look back at my class pics more recently, I thought to myself "if I saw that kid today, I'd think he/she was overweight".  Going to a smaller school system where most families planted for the duration, I have memories of a goodly number of classmates throughout our formative years.  I don't recall thinking those kids were fat back then ... we certainly didn't tease them for being so, and let's face it, as kids go that truly is the best measure, right?  

So nowadays, although I don't have kids myself, I tend to frequent places where I see them a lot -- swimming pools!  And I see them fleetingly in my neighborhood on their way to and from school though too many are seated in cars to really tell.  Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but if I compare kids today with kids of my generation, obectively, looking at pictures,  I'd have to say that I really don't see obesity of the sort of epidemic proportions I'm supposed to be concerned about.  What I do see, and this is more prevalent in certain areas, is a few more "fat kids" among the sea of "normal" and the occasional one of those being quite a bit larger than the "fat girl" from my childhood.    Causes of concern, yes, but I really do wonder if our society is not dooming an entire generation (and then some) to a lifetime of orthorexic judgmentalism and dietary neuroses over what used to be lovingly termed:  "baby fat".  The sort that many kids tended to grow out of.


Angus T. Jones’ ‘Two and a Half Men’ cast shot
Now it's true, that in general, girls will go through different stages and tend to gain weight for the first time around puberty.  Some when they go to college.  The freshman 15 is something quite real, but between being a college student myself including grad school, and being around college students "up close and personal" for 15 weeks at a time for over 20 years now, I honestly cannot say that, at least at this level, I've seen much of a fattening trend over the past three decades.  If this were some out of control epidemic as we're led to believe, I would have seen it.  Most of my friends that struggled in college thinned out following, until the next great challenge for most women, childbearing.   But back to the kids ...

Now granted the college student population is on average from a higher socioeconomic demo, but I have many students who are clearly not coming from such backgrounds.  Still, it is true that the worst of this seems to have manifested itself in the communities of the poorest among us.  My husband's job change was from a business in a very poor area to one that is considerably less so, and he's previously worked in businesses with high end clientele.  Clearly there are other factors at play than simply eating vegetable oils, or potatoes, or wheat, or sugar, or .... you get the picture.  I think Nanny Bloomie's soda bans and such will have zero effect.  As did posting calories in giant sizes at fast food restaurants, etc.  To a very small extent, restaurant chains have reacted to posting calories on menus by paring back portions and such (I'm not sure where I read this, probably Yoni Freedhoff's Weighty Matters) but the servings are often still just as big (who is going to complain about being given more than asked/paid for?) or I expect calorie creep will occur once the initial shock wears off.  But  a Michelle Obama style approach isnt going to work either.  Unfortunately what will, involved non-neurotic BMI-panicky parents, is not something that can be legislated or mandated.  And low carb paleo?  Fuggettaboutit.

So meantime we'll continue to have news stories of children humiliated by report cards or somesuch with BMI alerts that somehow become known to classmates.  And idiotic lunch inspections with artificial limits and absurd videos in response.  And we of course have the all knowing parents -- and the purist low carb and paleo parents are NO better than the vegans ... wake UP!! -- inflicting their dietary neuroses upon their children.   Parents complaining how their carb deprived kids are hungry all the time, but don't give them carbs because somehow that will make them addicts!  Parents calling their kids addicts for not wanting to eat low carb diets and eating reasonable foods which aren't good enough for the parents.  Parents denying their non-gluten sensitive or anything of the sort kids the joy of actually eating oatmeal with brown sugar or a banana let alone a ... gasp! ... chocolate chip cookie!  In this regard I was so very heartened to read Peter Attia's endearing recounting of his daughter's Disneyland experience!   If only we saw a little more of that all the way around.  Children have been eating "fattening foods" for ages ... certainly well before this epidemic took hold.  I'm VERY sensitive to addressing true obesity in some sane fashion in childhood because it is SO damned difficult to reverse, but we cannot as a society impose some blanket standard and panacea to achieve that.  It won't work.

And at least in the case of Angus T. Jones?  It wasn't necessary.


Ozquoll said...

The idea of six month old bubs being obese is pretty crazy. I and my sisters were dimply little chubsters until we learned how to walk....and then we never stayed still for a second and were extremely lean throughout our childhood and teen years. And yes, we had tv and computer games....although we we're in a country town and had a lot of freedom to roam around, perhaps that helped to keep our overall activity level high?

I looked at my primary school pics from the '80s, and most of the kids were skinny - I'd say fewer than 5% were obese or even overweight. That said, it was not a very large school so may not be representative of the general size of kids at that time.

anotherdeadletter said...

Thinking back--and this could be tinted by rose-colored glasses--I can only think of perhaps 2 students in my class that I'd classify as obese. There were more that were overweight, me included, but it was usually just having a larger build. No one I knew of had diabetes or any real health problems attributable to their weight.

I also wonder if there is an overreaction going on, but I'm not around the newer generation of kids much. I have a nephew who is around 14 and looking at him and his friends, the they all seem to be healthy-looking. Some what we would call stocky or chunky but it's well-carried weight. They all can run, swim, etc., without struggling.

Diana said...

My neighborhood is full of kids - rich white kids. Virtually no obesity. I don't think that most parents have gone low-carb gonzo. I see the kids eating 'goldfish', Cheerios, bagels, etc., in the stroller. I'm so carb-sensitive from my days in the cult that I notice that. And fruit. They eat fruit. Call Zoe Harcombe.

But in my neighborhood there is also a world class museum and I see a lot of kids getting off buses to visit the museum for school trips. Many of them are black - and obese. Not all. But I do remember one instance of seeing a whole troupe of black kids (age 7-8?) getting off the bus. Not one was skinny, and some were very heavy.

Dave said...

If there is an epidemic of childhood obesity, then that would be a good indicator that ELMM as a behavioral approach to solving obesity is nonsense, which I already knew, but maybe you will get it one day.

Anyways I think there is a good hypothesis that women who are obese during pregnancy are likely causing their children to become obese via epigenetics.

Simon Carter said...

Are you saying that there is no problem with childhood obesity? It's all made up? Not really a problem? I see fat and overweight kids all the time, much more than when I was a kid. When I see a very overweight, say 14 year old, to me it it a total parent fail.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I came across a class page on FB from my highschool a few weeks back. Some pics of old classmates and I don't recognize most of them. One has even changed his name after moving to India and writes under an Indian name for some pretty major publications. I remembered this guy and what he looked like in the 2nd grade. So that's when I got out the pics and took a closer look than I had previously. And you know what? While true that there was only one really "fat kid", there were quite a few others that would be considered so today. None of them that I've seen ended up fat as adults.

In high school I so wish my coaches hadn't harped on us girls for our normal puberty bursts. We were normal. Things grew a little too fast or whatever, but almost all of my teammates seem to have turned out just fine in adulthood.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The stark differences across socioeconomic lines and racial lines are like the proverbial elephant in the room that nobody really wants to discuss. I understand. It's not comfortable. But its a real problem and taxing sodas and banning large drink cups in the inner city is not going to change things. And food deserts aren't the problem either ...

anotherdeadletter said...

Maybe they're pushing complexes onto kids? Always found it interesting that every phys ed teacher at my school was obese.

Then of course there's a regional factor. I grew up and live in the country. Large Amish community, lots of farms. Maybe obesity is more prominent in urban areas with fewer things to do?

Charles Grashow said...

Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called 'Physics for Future Presidents.' Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security

The Physics Diet

"Want to lose weight? Easy! Just remember the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.

Here's an old joke. The dairy industry hires a physicist to improve milk production. After several weeks, he's ready to lecture about his progress. He draws a circle on the blackboard and says, 'Consider a spherical cow.'

I've told this joke many times, but nobody ever laughs -- except other physicists. For the rest of you, I should explain that it is self-deprecating humor. It makes fun of our penchant for oversimplification.

This month I want to talk about diet and exercise for weight loss, and I'm going to oversimplify on purpose. Consider a spherical physicist.

Most dieters are so concerned about second-order effects, such as daily fluctuations in weight and changes in metabolism, that they lose track of the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.

Want to lose a pound of fat? You can work it off by hiking to the top of a 2,500-story building. Or by running 60 miles. Or by spending 7 hours cleaning animal stalls. (It is amazing what scientists have actually measured. This last example is tabulated in the book Exercise Physiology by G. Brooks and T. Fahey.)

Exercise is a very difficult way to lose weight. Here's a rule of thumb: exercise very hard for one hour (swimming, running, or racquetball)– and you'll lose about one ounce of fat. Light exercise for an hour (gardening, baseball, or golf) will lose you a third of an ounce. That number is small because fat is a very energy-dense substance: it packs about 4,000 food calories per pound, the same as gasoline, and 15 times as much as in TNT.

If you run for an hour, you'll lose that ounce of fat and also a pound or two of water. By the next day, when you've replenished the water, you might think, 'the weight came right back!' But you'd be wrong -- you really did lose an ounce. It is hard to notice, unless you keep running every day for a month or more, and don't reward yourself after each run with a cookie.

There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first law of thermodynamics. Eat less.

A reasonable daily diet for an adult is 2,000 food calories. That's 8.36 megajoules per day, or about 100 joules per second -- in other words, 100 watts. Most of that ends up as heat, so you warm a room as much as a bright light bulb. Cut your consumption by 600 calories per day and you'll lose a pound of fat every week. Most diet experts consider that a reasonable goal. Don't drop below 1,000 calories per day, or you might get lethargic. But at 1,400 calories per day, you can easily maintain an active life.

Of course, there is a catch. You'll be hungry.

It's not real hunger–not like the painful hunger of starving people in impoverished countries. It's more of a mild ache, or an itch that you mustn't scratch. To be popular, a diet must somehow cope with this hunger. Weight Watchers does it with peer support. The food pyramid does it by encouraging you to eat unlimited celery. Some high-fat diets satisfy all your old cravings -- and figure you'll eventually cut back the butter you put on your bacon.

Last April, I had once again grown out of my belt. I wasn't grossly overweight: 205 pounds in a six-foot, one-inch body. That wouldn't be bad for a football player, but I'm 59 years old, and the excess pounds weren't in muscle. I had gained a pound a year for several decades. I felt heavy and old. I decided to try conservation of energy. I gave up lunch and snacks.

Charles Grashow said...

How to cope with the hunger? I attempted to enjoy it. I thought of the movie Lawrence of Arabia, in which T.E. Lawrence says, 'The trick is not minding that it hurts.' I told myself that the mild ache was only the sensation of evaporating fat. That interpretation has some basis in physics. When you lose weight, most of your fat is converted to the gases carbon dioxide and water vapor, and so you get rid of fat by breathing it out of your body.

Physics works, and I lost weight. By August, I was down to 175 pounds, a 30-pound drop. My belt went from 42 inches to 36 inches. My Zen-like approach to hunger also worked; I found myself declining offers of chocolate cake because I didn't want to lose the sensation of evaporation. I didn't change my level of activity, and managed to maintain my diet while taking trips to Cuba and Alaska -- and during a week-long backpacking excursion in the Sierra Nevada. A key innovation: I kept up the social aspects of lunch, without eating. I watched others gobbling cheeseburgers, while I sipped diet cola. It really wasn't that hard to do. And the mild afternoon discomfort was compensated by several positive developments. Dinner became truly wonderful. I hadn't had pre-dinner hunger for decades. A sharp appetite turns a meal into a feast. No more cheese 'appetizers' for me.

Moreover -- and this may sound silly coming from a physicist -- I was surprised that I began to feel lighter. I no longer walk down streets -- I float. Distant stores seem closer. And my knees have responded to the lighter load. Their aching, which I had mistakenly attributed to aging, went away.

Food is instant gratification. And fast-food chains and gourmet restaurants serve tasty food at remarkably low cost. It is a situation unprecedented in history and unanticipated by our genes. No wonder we are overweight.

Anybody can lose weight. Energy is conserved. Just stop scratching that itch. Of course, you'll have to sacrifice instant gratification. Is it worth it? You decide. Food is delicious and cheap. You might reasonably choose to take advantage of this unique historical circumstance, and decide to be fat.

It's been seven months since I started my diet, and two months since I left it. I've begun eating a light lunch, and having an occasional small snack. I'm still at 175. But I never want to lose the delicious edge of hunger before dinner, or the floating sensation when I walk. Moving takes less energy now, so I have more energy. I no longer feel like a spherical physicist. And for losing weight, dieting sure beats cleaning animal stalls.

Morgan Pfiffner said...

This post reminds me of David Barkers research and the "thrifty phenotypes" hypothesis of birth weight variations. He observed children born skinnier were more likely to have heart attacks later in life. It was proposed later that this was because they developed phenotypes to support food scarcity, perhaps low metabolisms, greater food desires, and/or less desire for activity.

This is just a hypothesis based on observation, but it's interesting.

anotherdeadletter said...

While I'd agree that exercising for the sole purpose of burning calories isn't really all that effective, the oversimplification is oversimplified and kind of misleading. Just dieting also tends to lead to loss of lean muscle mass, no? Not a good thing.

It has always been my impression that the theory behind ELMM is equilibrium. You are fat/overweight. Moving more builds lean body mass as you are moving your fat/overweight self around. Eating less, lessens the amount of your overweight self. At a certain point, an equilibrium is reached and you reach a state of fitness.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Nonsense to your first paragraph. By any measure Americans are eating more on average, and while activity is more difficult to measure, moving less almost always complicates things.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

No. I think the epidemic is somewhat blown out of proportion and our perceptions are skewed. There are certainly more overweight kids and those that are seem to be moreso than the "fat kid" of my era. It is also disproportionate as Diana pointed out, an observation my husband made daily at his former place of employment in a very poor neighborhood with a high percentage of hispanics and blacks. Averages can be skewed across decades merely because of the increased proportions of these two minorities who tend to have higher BMI's (though aren't necessarily fatter, think black athletes of both genders who aren't necessarily "juiced" either)

My generation was raised almost exclusively in two-parent households where one parent was around almost all the time, and when that wasn't the case there were grandparents and other neighborhood parents. We ate most meals at home. A whole lot has changed .... Abstent or disengaged parents for sure plays a role. Left to their own devices many kids prefer junk that has been engineered to tantalize them and heavily marketed at them. Imagine that.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome Morgan ... Actually there is a ton of evidence of low birth weight babies and obesity and/or metabolic disease later in life. I blogged on it a bit a while back -- LBW babies are "fattier" than normal weight ones. Somehow gaining the last bits of fat and development in utero is far preferable to on the outside. I fear my husband is one of these cases.

coconutz said...

For those not educated in physics. The Al Sharpton plan may be a good starting point.

paleotwopointoh said...

Any kid in the 95th percentile is 'obese'. So my very muscular 2yo who can lift and carry 1/2 her bodyweight is 'obese'. They are defining the top tier of kids as fat, which is clearly not very useful or accurate.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Love it! As I recall his "fast" included smoothies though!

paleotwopointoh said...

I'm beginning to think movement in utero is a factor, where I didn't before I had kids. But it's hard to measure for obvious reasons. But both my kids have come out with unusually high levels of muscle for infants and both were very early and active movers, starting late first trimester and never stopped until delivery.

Diana said...


I think it's a terrible problem. My anecdote was simply meant to illustrate that the OE doesn't affect the rich that much but it's everywhere else - more or less. I often wonder why - I have my suspicions, but I can't prove anything.

For some reason I think you're British - if I'm wrong forgive the next question - but isn't the OE a class and race issue in the UK too? I put class first in order of priority. As an outsider it strikes me that the more working class, the heavier. Kate Middleton skinny girls are usually posh.

Diana said...

Some stats on childhood obesity in the US:

@Evelyn/ADL - I'm certainly not in favor of adults pushing their complexes onto kids, but what if a kid is getting fat? Sure, it's sick to punish a girl for a normal puberty burst, but there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. With compassion and tact, but still.

If most of your classmates grew up fine, then maybe the warnings to watch it had a good effect.

paleotwopointoh said...

I don't know that it's such a disaster that poor kids have so much food to eat that they get fat.

The big difference between poor and rich is that the rich kids have activities while the poor kids do not. Those fat poor kids like clockwork slim right up when they are somewhere with a backyard or park to run around in. When I lived in a wealthy neighborhood where it was safe and easy to walk to numerous parks, no chubby kids. Now I live where you have to drive to a park and there are some chubby kids, though the poor people have cars and sometimes backyards, so the kids do get out sometimes and they aren't as fat as urban kids who don't.

Also, there is way more food restriction for rich kids than most people are aware of.

Drew said...

Evelyn-- thank you for your article. I couldn't agree more. Prepubescent weight is a very poor indicator of adult obesity. My husband and all his brothers were chunky and are now around 6 5' and skinny. The extra fat is often needed to reach full genetic height as underweight and malnourished children always show growth retardation, (That's not to say everyone is meant to be tall or all skinny children are malnourished). The current definition of overweight in children is those in the 85th percentile and above. In other words, even in sub-saharan africa you will have at least 15% of children who are overweight. It's a curve system and has no objective meaning. 15 to 20% of children are overweight or obese!! Well, that's the definition-- being in the top 15% (and of course off the curve).

Simon, I think you're terribly misguided to think 'epic parent fail' whenever you see one of those shameful, rotund children. I wonder if when you see a thin young woman you think that? After all, many skinny girls are flirting with eating disorders and are dangerously underweight-- much more serious than childhood pudge. Most Kate Middleton skinny girls are undereating-- does that not bother you? If you think only obese children eat crap then you have not been around kids. In my observation, the skinniest kids are the ones who live off of chicken nuggets, white rice, goldfish and juice boxes. I have two sons-- one is skinny and one of them would represent an epic fail on my part since his BMI makes him 'obese' -- never mind that if h was 5 lbs lighter he would be normal. The skinny one has to be peeled away from video games and can eat an entire bag chips in 5 minutes, would (if we let him) guzzle 2 or 3 cans of soda, and just in general has more of the characteristics we would attribute to a 'fat kid.' Don't get me wrong, he is active and enjoys playing and sports, but he is able to be sedentary far more than his chubby little brother who almost never sits still, prefers fruit and cheese to 'junk food' and would maybe drink a few sips of soda if it was in front of him. I wouldn't be so quick to judge-- slimness in and of itself is rarely a sign of health and virtue on the part of the individual or his or her parent.

lian johnston said...

I just rechecked my school photo I'm tagged in on facebook. There was probably about 9 overweight kids and all besides 2 are a normal weight today. The 2 that were and still are fat probably have some kind of food addictions as they are always posting their high fat/calorie/sugar foods they have cooked. The funny thing is that about 10 of the former slim kids are now in fact overweight today.

Diana said...

According to a study good enough to be cited by Dr. Sharma, a genial Canadian-Indian obesity doc, childhood obesity is one of the factors in adult obesity. No, you can't predict a kid will grow up to be an adult obese person, but it's one of them.

Diana said...

Oops, meant to say "you can't predict a kid will grow up to be an adult obese person due to weight alone, but it is one factor."

Gabriella Kadar said...

I was somewhat surprised that K M got pregnant. At the wedding she appeared to be thin enough to possibly be in the amenorrhea category. But, even 5 pounds weight gain can make a huge difference. It's really too bad that women in the public spotlight feel the need to cave in to the pressure of looking 'model' thin. When she developed hyperemesis, she wouldn't have had much in the way of extra to ensure the optimal environment for the fetus.

Diana said...


"Simon, I think you're terribly misguided to think 'epic parent fail' whenever you see one of those shameful, rotund children. I wonder if when you see a thin young woman you think that?"

No, what's wrong with being thin? If she's thin and smokes, then yes, I think epic parent fail. Otherwise I think thin on a young woman is lovely. I do think Kate lost too much weight to fit in with prevailing norms but it doesn't seem to have hurt her fertility.

Further to my above comments, although most of the childhood obesity I see in my little world is black (and brown), I do see all sorts of young folks who have come to NYC to make their fortunes, and there is a surprising spike upwards in young obese middle-class white women. I do not mean plump or a little overweight: I mean obese. And I wonder where the hell these girls' parents are.

Contrast to above, I worked for a time at Columbia U, an Ivy League school, in 2010. Not one obese person young person did I see.

Diana said...

FWIW, a study of predictors of BMI (not obesity per se), in Finland:

Gabriella Kadar said...

Charles is correct: mucking out a barn and working outdoors with big animals for 7 or 8 hours once per week results in weight loss. I did this for a year and a half and although it was not my intent, my waist decreased by about 4 inches.

I didn't change anything about my eating.

A once per week full body heavy-duty labour seems to do what an hour a day at the gym never can. Prior to, I'd been going to the gym for three years and before that I had been swimming an hour a day for several years. Sure those activities kept me toned. The problem, actually, with the barn work was I ended up gaunt because I didn't need to lose weight.

This is why I laugh at the people who claim that ELMM doesn't work. Put them to work at a farm even only once per week, and let's see what happens. They wouldn't even have to be tasked with eating less.

Drew said...

Well my point is that you can't assume an overweight child is unhealthy or that her parents have failed them any more than you can assume a thin child is healthy and that her parents are doing all the right things. Do you have children, Diana? I'm not meaning to be rude but I'm around a lot of kids every day, all day. Some of the chunky ones eat well and are very active in sports and just generally playful and energetic. Some of the thin ones are listless, sunken-eyed, miss a lot of school due to allergies, asthma, ear infections, bronchitis and eat like crap, watch t.v., etc... So there is nothing wrong with being thin if it's a natural result of your genetics and good habits-- but you simply can't assume all those ivy league chicks are exhibiting a 'healthy' skinny-- weren't we just talking about this with Stephanie Ruper and her eating disorders? When I was in college, many of my thinnest friends did not eat healthfully (or very much), binged on alcohol and/or smoke, and vomited when they did 'eat too much'-- they also all ran and ran and ran. From the outside they looked the picture of health and I only wished I had there will power so that I could be 'skinny'. Medical literature has failed to prove there is any health benefit to being skinny or health liability to being overweight. Though I agree it can be lovely. I, myself, was once one of those thin young women-- I lived off of the saddest of sad diets-- but I was thin so my parents can pat themselves on the back-- actually they can, they were kind and loving, provided unending intellectual stimulation and were the most moral human beings I've ever met. They did not, however, obsess over diets or weight or calories or carbs or sugar. In fact other than having to sit down to dinner and turn the t.v. off -- I never heard them comment on my food intake or my brothers (who was a little chubby but grew up to be quite lean).

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Drew you make an excellent point about weight and health, especially with kids. When I see kids at the pool running and jumping and happy and unencumbered, but with a little pot belly or leg chub, I think were that my kid I'd be happy. I used to be "Aunt/babysitter" to a friend's 3 boys, two were very husky, the oldest was gangly thin. The younger ones were relatively well adjusted, the older one had severe problems (spoke of wanting to die from age 6) and was getting sick all the time.

Academically I see a focus on the slowest -- don't want to leave anyone behind or stigmatize them by acknowledging that leaving them back a grade might be all that's needed (it was done all the time when I was a kid) -- and the smartest kids have become the more troublesome (because they're bored off their asses) or the truly gifted get some attention. What of the top 50-95%? Relished to mediocrity lest they show up the 0-49%. Policies are formed to address the lowest 10-20-30% and ignore the rest. I see the same with childhood health. This "crisis" means kids are being weighed and measured and evaluated by a school nurse (whatever happened to pediatricians?) as if weight is the most important factor. We must control what they eat if they are getting "too fat". Meanwhile I think the "fat girl" from my era still falls through the cracks and doesn't get appropriate intervention in conjunction with the parents if it is warranted and needed/wanted. And the skinny sickly kids are ignored because, heck, at least they're not fat, right?

I'm sure there were people who criticized Jones' parents (and as kid stars go it seems he's gone through some of the usual growing pains but he hasn't been in the tabloids for tussles with parents and such). The early episodes were a lot about the kid eating (the constipation one is still one of my favorites!!) and I can see people thinking it was child abuse to allow their kid to play a fat kid and perhaps even keep him that way as he grew? But at least physically it looks like his body sorted it out. ... to be cont...

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Diana, you make some good points and observations here. I think the "fat girl" in my class wasn't epic parental fail, it was in her genes. That just is for some people, and I'm sure her parents struggled (being obese themselves) to find a balance for her to enjoy childhood like a "normal" kid w/o too much of the teasing and all of that that can scar one indelibly. But too many adult policy makers look at statistics and enact ridiculous remedies targeted at averages and numbers, and not at children as individuals. I'm not sure what the answer is in poor neighborhoods.

I do see your point about maybe the coaching nudges worked, but I see it as more despite that. Most of us started dieting and some of us (me) were set down the path to perfection. We were high school athletes at a small school who were not being scouted by Division I schools and such. In other words this was good old competition and all that should go with sports and the focus on weight was counter productive.

I guess my rant here was generated more by reading some idiotic shit on Facebook with vegans bragging on their lean toddlers (with misshapen heads and hollow eyes) and low carbers bragging on their lean kids who are in ketosis most of the time (let's see what happens when these kids get to high school and beyond) and idiotic posts by Jimmy Moore taking pictures of "carbage" in people's carts at Sam's Club like it is any of his business what others feed their kids.

And I guess what REALLY set me off was the most recent interviews by Lustig with his Sugar = Fat. He's now saying it's not about weight, it is ALL visceral fat and SubQ is actually good. Then going on about his pediatric practice and fat kids and infants. And then I saw a commercial for 2.5 the other day I didn't even recognize Jake/Angus (or realize just how tall Ashton is as he "towered" over John Cryer seated at the table!). I cannot imagine what the Paleoista would have done (needlessly) were he her child, and Lustig would never let that kid have a glass of deadly orange juice. It's getting mighty bad out there!

Diana said...


I am not equating thin with healthy. I've spent enough time out of my ghetto to see that there are (even in today's "fat" America) plenty of skinny people (usually heavy smokers) who are not healthy.

I am only referring to kids who are genuinely too fat and despite the fact that the hucksters are turning this into yet another scam to scare people, and to profit from it, it's a genuine problem. I don't think it's overblown.

I do agree that there is an overlap between overweight and obese in terms of data collection. In the CDC link which I gave above, they refer to this & it bothered me. BMI (esp. given racial differentials) is not the way to judge a kid's propensity to adult obesity. But it is one factor, as the studies that I cited indicate.

I totally agree that in the diet world, this subject has become yet another reason for a shooting war. And it will become another get rick quick scam.

Drew: "Don't assume...." I don't think I assumed anything. I am limiting my comments strictly to children who truly are overweight, not going thru a puppy fat phase, and who fit the criteria for future weight gain. Sunken-eyed glassy-eyed skinny kids aren't relevant to my points.

Regarding thin girls, sorry, I think that the vast majority of young women will be naturally thin eating a moderate diet, and that the OE which is spreading amongst them alarmingly a bad indicator. When I see a fat teenaged girl I think that some caring adult should intervene, in a compassionate & tactful way. It's irrelevant to the issue of skinny girls who starve & smoke.

But I notice that first generation immigrants (NYC is an immigrant magnet) are normal weight people. Many of their kids are fat. What's going on?

Diana said...


Agree w/you about Kate. I think she became way too thin and I hope she keeps an extra five pounds after the baby is born, but I don't think so. The pressure on her to go back to her skeletal frame will be intense. She does have a nice round ass, though. I saw the pictures.

I also agree about heavy labor. My one experience of actual physical work (a week of trail work in the White Mountains of New Hampshire) combined with dietary restraint but not deprivation convinced me of that. The problem with today's "exercise gurus" is that they don't want to tell people: do this 7 hours a day.

The only problem with the heavy labor "diet" is that eventually you will get injured. Injury is a way of life among manual laborers.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Just to clarify, I don't think that concerns over genuine childhood obesity are overblown. I'm also not denying there's an epidemic of sorts, though I do think THAT is overblown to some extent. (Sorry, the Lustig obese 6 mo olds is bugging me extra specially lately!) As you have related, it is a much bigger problem in some groups vs. others, but this country is seeking to enact national policies to somehow effect change.

Part of my issue is with the use of BMI -- somewhat useful for comparing populations, but useless for the individual. My other point is that "chub" in children can be quite normal and overreactions to it are not likely to have good longterm results either.

Yes, obesity in childhood can predispose towards obesity as an adult, but in an odd fashion this may well protect the heavier adult from metabolic diseases.

More later ....

Drew said...

Well-- I am limiting my reply to the idea that an obese child represents bad parenting. Simon Carter said it represents a total parent fail and you asked where the hell the parents of these fat girls are. All I'm saying is that being overweight doesn't mean that parents are pouring ding-dongs down their kids' throat anymore than slim children indicate parents who have provided the healthiest of healthy meals and hidden the remote. Nor does it mean that a caring adult has not tried to intervene. It's very difficult to control one's own weight much less the weight of another human being. A parent learns fast that a child is very autonomous even as their first cries are heard. Eagerly trying to get the little critter to latch on to the breast, the newborn turns it's head and says 'no'. And so goes the rest of the relationship.

My friend's parents began her on weight watchers at age 9-- she also went to fat camp, did jenny craig, etc... until finally she was that loveliest of lovelies-- a slim young woman. This lasted for about 3 years until she gained about 100 lbs that she has never successfully lost again. The parents did intevene-- over and over. What might have then been puppy fat is now obesity combined with binge eating or maybe it kept her from being 200 lbs overweight-- I don't know-- but, they did care and they did, indeed, try to help.

So, again, all I'm saying is slimness does not necessarily represent health or a healthy home environment with wonderful parents and obesity does not necessarily mean negligent parents. Shows like the Biggest Loser that shame people are great television, but I don't think this is the best tact to address what you rightly point out as a real problem of severely obese children and young adults. So, I don't think it's irrelevant to talk about skinny girls who starve and smoke because the assumption is that a thin child means the parents are not providing a 'toxic' home environment. We would be better off to stop worrying about the scale and focus on healthy, balanced lives for all children. The emphasis on weight as the ultimate gauge of health, habit, hygiene, etc... creates overeater's on one end and anorexia and bulimia on the other end The public health campaign right now is targeting overweight kids and their parents--naming and shaming. I don't think it's fair or reasonable or grounded in truth because of it assumes thing. My observation is that there is little correlation in young people between healthy habits & diet and beauty & slimness. Besides, interventions focused on weight loss do not have predictable LONG term results. As Evelyn mentioned, we're heading to a point where your BMI is going to be on your report card home with the subtext-- 'Mom & Dad: you better get this sorted out." Meanwhile the Paleo people are so impressed with their slim children-- most children are slim-- it will be interesting to see whether the over-emphasis on their weight as a value will backfire-- "Look at little Johnny, he just loves grass-fed beef jerky and is not even interested in eating birthday cake (aka gluten death cake)" Yeah, right. He's trying to please you-- one day he will try to displease you.

Melissa Officinalis said...

While I was going through my 6 years of elementary school back in the late '80s, early '90s, there were three fat kids in my grade: one boy, two girls. I was one of the girls. I stayed overweight up through the middle of high school, when I made a radical change in my lifestyle. I started eating less and moving more. That slimmed me down to a normal weight, where I have been ever since.

eulerandothers said...

'The big difference between poor and rich is that the rich kids have activities while the poor kids do not.'

This reminds me of a comment someone made (in an article, perhaps?) about basketball skills. That, in the inner city, poor kids go to a park and shoot baskets - over and over and over again. Practice, practice, practice! Seen any overweight basketball players lately? (Exclude the overweight office workers seeking to 'work it off' at the Y...)

You could say that rich kids know what practice means, too. But in my area, a relatively affluent suburb, the tendency is to take music lessons, have tutoring sessions 'to keep up' or improve, and do other relatively sedentary activities after school. When ' practice, practice, practice' means physical activity (my son was that kid in soccer), kids tend to be physically fit, rather than unfit.

For my daughter, 'practice, practice, practice' meant hours at the cello. Her obese cello teacher rightly encouraged her. You make your choices. You seek the balance.

I've seen my share of chubby kids here, who usually get thinner by high school. We're near a city with a Hispanic and Cambodian population, less affluent, and the kids are of average BMI. That is, until high school graduation, after which things change! You can see it on the street - the number of people of who seem to be 'settling down,' (with kids, or just with income, out of the family home) getting heavier. You can see it at the local Walmart.

To put it in perspective, change happens whether you are poor or not - after high school. I see this in my kids and their friends. Their environments changed, as did some habits. With that, the effects of the changes kicked in.

Together, my offspring are like poster children for the effects of activity. Daughter sedentary (overweight) at her job, and son physically active at his job (slim, muscular). Daughter is active in the local food co-op, and values gardening above other physical chores. Son eats like life is one long visit to the movie theater food court.

Go figure. Both are still young. Close in age. One in the country, one in the city. Both have bicycles, which they treat like cars because they don't HAVE cars. Both walk and cycle miles. Daughter hikes for fun. Son just discovered the 'Fry Daddy' deep fat fryer, in which he fries everything he eats. He is learning to make mayonnaise - because it tastes so good. I stay out of it. They're both adults now.

As Drew said, ' We would be better off to stop worrying about the scale and focus on healthy, balanced lives for all children.' At some point, they make their own decisions and choices.

eulerandothers said...

'The problem with today's "exercise gurus" is that they don't want to tell people: do this 7 hours a day.'

So true.

Unknown said...

4 minute body is the way to go, you exercise 4 minutes a week, the rest of the time you are totally immobile.

Had a friend who tried it for six months, entered a major marathon, and came in third behind a couple of Kenyans, even though he had never run further than 20 yards in his entire life.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Per your final paragraph, I think you and Drew took my post in the way in which it was intended. Not so much denying we don't have a problem in this country (we do) or that parents are always or never at fault (not true) but that a lot of this is highly individual and I think in some cases we focus on it too much. As an outsider if I saw Angus, I admit I might have judged his situation more harshly than I now would. Hopefully officials can learn from this sort of thing and not try to cubbyhole kids based merely on weight.

Charles Grashow said...

Evelyn - just curious - do you have any recent bloodwork that you could post here?

coconutz said...

Speaking of blood work. What happened to Jimkins follow up with Dayspring ? On podcast #2 DS wanted to prescribe him statins for high LDL-P.

Did Jimkins drop him like a hot "safe starch" potatoe?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I have no intent of ever sharing my specific medical information on the internet. Sorry.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I haven't listened to the second podcast yet. Did they discuss his visit?

Charles Grashow said...

so - we would have no way of telling whether your specific diet protocol is working or not.

Charles Grashow said...

you also lose a lot of credibility when you comment on anyone's (like JM) else's lipid profile

Kade Storm said...

I think this is interesting but far from settled as a matter of fact.

Just for humour. What do we use to define a low birth weight baby? Is there a cut off point? Let's say that 5 lbs is low birth weight. So if baby A is 5.001 lbs, no problems. Baby B, on the other hand, at 4.999 had bad cards. And of course, baby C who came out at 12 LBS is supreme! Eh. I know that this is more like spectrum and risk increases with lower the weight, but there has to be a point as I am also sure that there's a U-curve at play because I know of families who can attest to the opposite anecdote with regards to birth weight and metabolic health at later stages in life.

paleotwopointoh said...

They have cutoffs for Small for Gestational Age and Large for Gestational Age.

Sue Staltari said...

No she doesn't Charles as she is not recommending a diet protocol.

Sue Staltari said...

Do we know if Angus went on a diet to lose weight? I was trying to google it and couldn't find anything except him condemining Two and a Half Men and becoming Seventh Day Adventist.

Kade Storm said...

So then, any one nearer to either side is possibly in for long term trouble, right? Although they could take care of themselves and avoid said trouble. Seems interesting, but more complicated than the present data.

Your own experience gets me thinking. I mean, what if someone produces a relatively light baby--not underweight--but with good musculature and metabolic status for a baby? Things to consider.

Kade Storm said...

Lol! Charles, that's a totally loaded statement since there is no diet protocol being espoused on this blog, and more importantly, Evelyn's criticising something as opposed to endorsing something else -- the latter would merit some results and anecdotal evidence to support the endorsement.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks Sue. Sorry Charles, but I am blindsided by this from you. I am not advocating anything. Frankly I don't think Jimmy is required to divulge his info ... BUT HE DOES. And way more information than anyone should divulge on the internet ... BUT HE DOES. My lipid profiles have always run on the higher side for LDL and TC but my HDL is high as well. I've never had a doctor, even at my high weight, suggest statins. That's as much as I feel obliged to divulge. Since when does blogging require someone to do anything more. Can I list all of the people for which we have no biomarkers that DO advocate a particular WOE?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome Ozquoll, Yeah, this notion of obesity in 6 mo olds is troubling to me. He mentioned it in the famous YouTube video and people ran with it, because surely they can't be eating more and moving less! Well, perhaps they are no obese either!!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I didn't hear anything. I'm not a celeb watcher but you would think you would hear something about it in this day and age if you search, right? Even if he did, it just would go to show that when kids get to a certain age they can take matters into their own hands on their own terms. As did Melissa above, apparently.

BTW ... nice to finally "see" you pretty lady!

Diana said...

Charles, We've been thru this repeatedly. Jimmy's business revolves around his claims of being a poster child for Low Carbing. That this is a joke is besides the point. (Or is it?) He's making loads of huge claims on behalf of the health of his WOE and he is, in his mind, its chief exponent. Evelyn isn't selling anything here. She's offering - for free - skepticism of the science of LC and Paleo. For the life of me I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Unknown said...

I had some blood work recently and I will post a copy of the results when I can scan it, according to the doctors I'm not even human, their best guess is that I'm some type of lizard.

anotherdeadletter said...


Of course if there is a problem--a child is having trouble breathing, diabetes, etc. I'm certainly not denying there is a serious problem with children and obesity or that the problem is growing. As I said in my post, it could just be seeing things as better after the fact, as is a tendency when thinking of childhoods.

I just wonder if overweight or being hefty is automatically diagnosed as a problem these days and if the psychological aspects of that don't further the problem. After all, one of the quickest ways to get a child to do something is to tell them not to do it.

Sanjeev said...

Charles, I would not expect James Randi to post his medical information because he critiques homeopaths, acupuncurists, faith healers and psychic surgeons.

I would not expect David Gorksi and Steve Novella to post their childrens' medical info because they criticize the anti vaccine quacks.

These analogies don't match on all corners but IMHO they're close.

Sue Staltari said...

Thanks Evelyn. Hubby added pic the other day.

coconutz said...

Yes, Dayspring through him a life line. He told him his amazing health might be protecting his arteries from high LDL-P damage. Wants him to get a heart scan in 2 years. If I were Christine,I would up his life insurance policy.

blogblog said...

Seventh Day Adventist Diet = low fat vegetarian = semi-starvation.

Sue Staltari said...

I was wondering if he adopted their diet.

lian johnston said...

Yeah. He basically said he could be some unusual paradox who has amazing arteries immune to athrosclerosis, so who cares? Sounds like insanity to me.

lian johnston said...

"Seventh Day Adventist Diet = low fat vegetarian = semi-starvation."

Can't possibly be. If he adopted a low fat vegetarian or followed the governments diet advice he would of become fat he would of become fat sick and diabetic.

lian johnston said...

looks like we have a paradox.

BigWhiskey said...

'AMPK Mediates the Initiation of KIDNEY DISEASE induced by HIGH FAT DIET"

Any comments? It's a rat study. Free PMC article.....

Kade Storm said...

I used to watch this show a lot, and we generally observed that he was starting to drop weight as he matured. This was before he was a Seventh Day Adventist, I believe.

You could always go through the older seasons--if you have the time--and you'll find that there was a gradual case of weight loss as he matured. It does happen to some people with age; metabolic changes and all.

Simon Carter said...

Hi Sanjeev, however if we found out that James Randi has been seeing an acupuncturist for years and David Gorski's kids had not been vaccinated we would probably think that they were.......what?

Simon Carter said...

This kid won the lottery. He is one of the stars of a hit TV show and makes $8 million a year. He probably has a personal trainer and his agents, handlers etc positioning him for the next phase of his career when the show ends. He is hardly a typical case.

Sanjeev said...

seventh day adventists are allowed fruits and vegetable oils.

Unlike a purely leafy vegetable diet with which a large number of calories is mechanically difficult to do (like Fuhrman for example, who IIRC disallows or minimizes extracted calories)

They could easily eat 10,000 calories a day, hardly starvation in terms of macros. They could be starving for micronutrients though.

Sanjeev said...

> has been seeing an acupuncturist

Charles did NOT ask if Evelyn is following NuttyK / low carb - that would be the equivalent of what you suggest.

> David Gorski's kids had not been vaccinated

Charles did NOT ask if Evelyn herself is following NuttyK.

Simon Carter said...

Hi Evelyn, do you think that that is one explanation for Jimmy's baffling appeal to so many people, that he puts it all out there?

Simon Carter said...

Evelyn, Sanjeev makes an excellent point above. So how long have you secretly been trying Nutritional Ketosis? Come on, tell us, you'll feel better once you unburden yourself. :)

eulerandothers said...

There are many Seventh Day Adventists, world-wide.
Given the emphasis on a vegetarian diet (although it doesn't seem to be so strict that variations aren't allowed), you've got plenty of data coming from a population that is motivated to make food choices for religious reasons.
'The study population comprised 22,434 men and 38,469 women who participated in the Adventist Health Study-2 conducted in 2002-2006. We collected self-reported demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and lifestyle data from Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America.'

The Adventists in the study range from vegan to pesco-vegetarian and semi-vegetarian. There are Adventists world-wide. Loma Linda University, Loma Linda vegetarian products - are familiar to many.

(My dentist graduated from their dental school!)

Diana said...

@Simon, Nor do I think that using a Hollywood star is a good example for complacency about the pediatric obesity epidemic. Hollywood actors work out fearsomely. There's a section about that in a book by Timothy Caulfield called "The Cure for Everything." He took a session from a Hollywood personal trainer named Gina Lombardi (she's like Jillian Michaels, w/out the obscenities) and nearly threw up at how difficult it was. She also said, "they starve."

Diana said...


Look, I'm frankly baffled by this discussion. A few news reports about admittedly clumsy and likely ineffectual attempts to deal with the rising rates of pediatric obesity cause more concern than the actual problem? I don't get it.

Also, if anyone's coach warned a girl who was just developing along the normal lines of womanhood that she was getting fat, I'd report that coach to the administration. This is inappropriate. In this day and age it would be a cause for legal action.

Yes, some parents unload their weight complexes on their kids, along with their fears, anxieties, prejudices, and frustrated ambitions. I don't see that as nearly a problem as the actual obesity epidemic.

I do think that adults should intervene when they see that a kid is getting heavy. How? That is a very delicate issue. Clearly dealing with kids is a different matter from adults. The issue of government intervention is way more fraught than that, even. But if society is going to pay for this with increased medical costs, etc., government will be tasked to step in.

Sure there is evidence that low birth weight in babies is linked to adult obesity, but I don't see how that affects anything. There is also evidence that pediatric obesity is a strong indicator of adult obesity. I don't see how any of this conflicts with one another.

One thing you can be sure of, the world is not going to be kind to that fat kid, and his peers will be much more vicious than the teacher or coach. For that reason alone, there's a duty of care to children.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

LOL Simon ;-) I don't think I'd last a day.

Seriously tho, lest I get accused of secretly low carbing, let it be known that I still do eat VLC from time to time even now. But I also eat VLF some days and any manner in between. I'm not one who can eat junk foods ad libitum like some, but that's OK :D And I have a record going back to around 4 years ago of being a staunch low carber who was skeptical of the "science" from day 1 of finding the internet community, so nobody can accuse me that way!

As to Jimmy's openness and popularity? Perhaps, but it is a deceptive openness. Anyone who followed his menus blog and the regular one knows what I'm talking about. The most egregious example would be when he was still getting congratulated on the pregnancy several days after he posted the video of his wife losing the baby(ies) on the menus blog. The other problem is that while he touts the good stuff with specifics, he either pretty much lies about having "spectacular" lipids, or uses wishy washy terms like "high" when his numbers are astronomical. He is a consistent presence and a drama queen that some people love to cheer on. I just don't get anyone signing up for more than two cycles of the farce if you know what I mean. Fool me once, fool me twice and all that jazz.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Speaking for myself Diana, I'm not saying we shouldn't do something when warranted. I am saying that perceptions may be skewed. I used to be one of those people who thought my generation was soooo much thinner, hence our one "fat girl" ... I hate to use a tragedy for an example, but I think most have seen footage of the Newtown kids walking out of the school, and those killed. There was girl much larger than the rest, and larger than the largest in my class, which I made a point of mentioning in the post (that the "fat kids" seem fatter). One of the kids who was killed looked a lot like Angus in the face/build. Was he "targeted" by officials for his obesity? How about the girl? Do people look at those kids and presume they are unhealthy and doomed to be diabetic? I'd say most of the paleo and low carb types probably do.

This is not to say as well that special intervention is needed in populations with high propensities for diabetes and rates of genuine childhood obesity.

anotherdeadletter said...

Friggin' wordpress ate my reply.


I don't disagree with you and I'm not saying that nothing should be done in some cases. My anxiety is tied to the prospect of damaging kids who might just be heavy for their age. It's not always a problem to be 10 or 15 pounds overweight. Sometimes you grow into it, sometimes you don't. Kids can be cruel, no doubt, but at the same time, they're kids, not adults.

Given how hot a topic weight is in regards to adults, it's even more strain on the kids and in the end, as we fight over VLC, VLF, vegetarian, paleo, we still don't have any solid answers to many questions regarding it.

blogblog said...

Junk science.

Rats are absolutely worthless models for human nutrition. Rats have extremely poor fat tolerance (<5%) and extremely high tolerance for starches (>80%)- basically the exact opposite of humans.

blogblog said...

The Contribution of Psychosocial Stress to the Obesity Epidemic
An Evolutionary Approach

Horm Metab Res 2009; 41(4): 261-270
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1119377 (free article)

Kade Storm said...

"Rats are absolutely worthless models for human nutrition. Rats have extremely poor fat tolerance (<5%) and extremely high tolerance for starches (>80%)- basically the exact opposite of humans."

Wait. What? So. . . What about those traditional Irish and their massive potato consumption--and how they were the best lookers out of their European counterparts--that you and others talk about? Are they lizard people? ; )

Nigel Kinbrum said...

The study used C57BL/6J MICE (yes, I know I'm being pedantic) and the HFD was the standard 60F/20P/20C diet known to produce increased energy intake/reduced energy expenditure/obesity/hyperinsulinaemia/etc in those particular mice. The study was about the effect of increased energy intake/reduced energy expenditure/obesity/hyperinsulinaemia/etc on kidney function.

The results of that study do not apply to subjects that don't get increased energy intake/reduced energy expenditure/obesity/hyperinsulinaemia/etc on the above diet.

BigWhiskey said...

Thanks for the comments; I am cancelling my order of AICAR, then!

"AMPK activity was decreased within 1 week of high fat exposure, and AMPK activation with AICAR was able to completely block the early onset of the renal inflammatory response to HFD. Taken together, the study likely has relevance to features of the human metabolic syndrome and provides insight into the mechanisms underlying obesity-related low-grade renal inflammation and albuminuria.16"

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.