Royal Society: Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great NYT OpEd on the meeting: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/opinion/obesity-cause.html

LONDON — A select group of the world’s top researchers studying obesity‌ recently gathered in the gilded rooms of the Royal Society, the science academy of Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, where ideas like gravity and evolution were once debated.

Now scientists were arguing about ‌‌the causes of obesity, which affects more than 40 percent of U.S. adults and costs the health system about $173 billion each year. At the meeting’s closing session, ‌John Speakman, a biologist, offered ‌‌this conclusion on the subject: ‌ “There’s no consensus whatsoever about what the cause of it‌ is.”

That’s not to say the researchers disagreed on everything. The three-day meeting was infused with an implicit understanding of what obesity is not: a personal failing. No presenter argued that humans collectively lost willpower around the 1980s, when obesity rates took off, first in high-income countries‌, then in much of the rest of the world. Not a single scientist said our genes changed in that short time. Laziness, gluttony‌‌ and sloth were not referred to as obesity’s helpers. In stark contrast to a prevailing societal view of obesity, which assumes people have full control over their body size, they didn’t blame individuals for their condition, the same way we don’t blame people suffering from the effects of undernutrition, like stunting and wasting.

The researchers instead referred to obesity as a complex, chronic condition, and they were meeting to get to the bottom of why humans have, collectively, grown larger over the past half century. To that end, they shared a range of mechanisms that might explain the global obesity surge. And their theories, however diverse, made one thing obvious: As long as we treat obesity as a personal responsibility issue, its prevalence is unlikely to decline.
 
I blame the introduction of the television remote control. Followed by out of area shopping malls. I now like to shop on foot, in my village, at the greengrocers, butchers, bakeries etc, just like the good old days.
 
I blame the introduction of the television remote control. Followed by out of area shopping malls. I now like to shop on foot, in my village, at the greengrocers, butchers, bakeries etc, just like the good old days.
Seriously, research shows that changes in our 'built environment', together with our transport systems, are one of the two main causes of 'the obesity epidemic'. In the past, people got far more exercise because they walked more, and they could walk more because villages, and town or city neighbourhoods, had a mix of houses/flats and local shops-- and not cafes and takeaway shops but "greengrocers, butchers, bakeries etc".

And then governments started encouraging widespread ownership and use of cars, and created an obesogenic landscape-- residential developments with out-of-town 'superstores' miles away, and poor public transport.

So, yes, building policy and transport policy, on the one hand, and food policy, on the other, have created an environment in which it can be hard not to be unhealthily overweight and unhealthily sedentary.

Genes, though, are a dangerous red herring. [The mental picture makes me laugh-- something like a big red piranha? ... But as I was saying ...] Our genes have not changed significantly in the past 40 years-- but overweight and obesity have shot up. For example: in England, in 1980, 6% of men and 9% of women were obese; the figures for 2019 were 27% and 29%. (https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/04/patterns-and-trends-in-excess-weight-among-adults-in-england/ ) That is shocking, and genes did not cause that increase.

And although the current environment can make it hard not to be unhealthily overweight and unhealthily sedentary-- it is not impossible. What we need to do-- while putting pressure on government to change housing/transport policy and food policy-- is to provide much, much more psychological and social support and encouragement for people to lose weight and get more active.
 
A new review paper on unanswered questions about the causes of obesity by John Speakman, Kevin Hall et al, arising from this symposium: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg2718

Much has been learned over the past 50 years about the regulation of body fat. Examples include the discovery of the hormone leptin, finding thermogenic brown adipose tissue in adult humans, elucidating pathways in the brain that affect hunger and feeding behavior, quantifying adipocyte turnover and the lipids therein, identifying single genes that produce rare but severe obesity, and finding thousands of genetic variants associated with individual differences in body mass index (BMI). Despite this progress, there remain several key questions to be answered to aid the prevention and treatment of obesity.

Confusion about the causes of obesity has arisen based on the false dichotomy of genes versus environment (rather than the combined effects of genes and environment). At any point in time, most of the variance in levels of obesity among individuals may be genetic. But, changes across time are predominantly driven by the environment. Which individuals deposit the most fat in response to environmental change is influenced by both.
 
... What we need to do-- while putting pressure on government to change housing/transport policy and food policy-- is to provide much, much more psychological and social support and encouragement for people to lose weight and get more active.
No, what we need to do is bring back religion! Gluttony is a sin. We're all gonna burn in hell for pigging out, some sooner than others if we don't stay out of the chippy. :rofl:

We've all got freewill and there's never been so much knowledge around and so readily available yet we expect the Government to mollycoddle us and stop us buying rubbish. If I was the Government I would just lay about me with a big stick.
 
IDK but I'd say it's much more likely that you're like a zillion other people & it's more a matter of Nature having done a crap job with the engineering of your hunger control circuits which you don't have much control over.

If you haven't already. I'd try to have a conversation with yr doc about semaglutides - best Wegovy, Ozempic otherwise, if you can get either of them. They work by improving those hunger control
No, what we need to do is bring back religion! Gluttony is a sin. We're all gonna burn in hell for pigging out, some sooner than others if we don't stay out of the chippy. :rofl:

We've all got freewill and there's never been so much knowledge around and so readily available yet we expect the Government to mollycoddle us and stop us buying rubbish. If I was the Government I would just lay about me with a big stick.
So is Judging a sin.
He that is without cast that first stone .
 
We've all got freewill and there's never been so much knowledge around and so readily available yet we expect the Government to mollycoddle us and stop us buying rubbish. If I was the Government I would just lay about me with a big stick.
How likely is that to work? Given that these are population-level trends, why is the right answer to look to individual responsibility rather than to environmental changes?
 
I just like the idea of a big stick. 🙂
 
I just like the idea of a big stick. 🙂
I read on the Internet that thumping people with a big stick makes their genes better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top