Currently viewing the category: "hormones"

Some Evidence on Obesity Model

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), drinking water, energy expenditure, fast-food, hormones, International Journal of Obesity, junk food, obesity, parents of obese children, positive energy balance, visfatin

I’ve been getting harangued for weeks by a severely wounded ego-centric proponent of the I’m-so-desperate-to-be-right approach to intellectual discourse, that I am finally giving in and providing some support for my thoughts on obesity. The blog stalker has insisted that I prove the validity of my thoughts on obesity, and so I will provide some evidence, but let it be known that this is the last response I will make to the ramblings.

In the most recent issue of the International Journal of Obesity [Volume 35, Issue 10 (October 2011)], no less than every article supports my position:

Overweight and obesity are the results of an enduring positive energy balance, that is, when energy intake is larger than energy expenditure. Hence, overweight and obesity prevention requires effective intervention programmes targeting behaviours that contribute to both sides of this energy balance. These so-called energy balance-related behaviours include dietary behaviours (for example, consumption of fruit and vegetables, or sugar-sweetened beverages), sedentary behaviours (for example, television (TV) viewing or computer use) and physical activity behaviours (for example, sports or active commuting to school).

Interesting, calories in vs. calories out (boldface emphasis mine), and not one thing about hormones or genetics. That’s because it’s science, stupid.

The PA of children seems to compensate in such a way that more activity at one time is met with less activity at another. The failure of PA programmes to reduce childhood obesity could be attributable to this compensation.

Duh!  Parents are responsible for their children especially when they see them blowing up.

Lower insulin sensitivity at childhood may predict subsequent total and central adiposity gain at adolescence. These findings enhance the role of insulin sensitivity as a target of obesity prevention already from the first decades of life.

Or in other words, don’t let your children eat junk food.

Children whose both parents were overweight or obese both before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up had a strikingly high risk of overweight at age 16 years…parents’ long-term overweight (BMI greater than or equal to25 kg m−2 before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up) was the strongest single predictor.

I almost can’t believe that anyone would need proof of this.

Consuming the recommended daily amount of water for children could result in an energy expenditure equivalent to an additional weight loss of about 1.2 kg per year…water drinking could assist overweight children in weight loss or maintenance, and may warrant emphasis in dietary guidelines against the obesity epidemic.

Too much abdominal (visceral) fat increases an individual’s risk of developing insulin resistance and other metabolic disorders. In a Perspective, Hug and Lodish discuss the unexpected finding that blood levels of a hormone produced by visceral fat, called visfatin, correlate with obesity.

Okay, that particular study is from a different journal, but I couldn’t resist (and one more from same journal)

But back to the International Journal of Obesity:

Conclusion: Hormone (serum visfatin) levels are influenced by body fat content in obese children

An association between children’s body mass index (BMI) and overeating has been established…overeating, impulsivity and reward responsiveness were significantly associated with childhood BMI. Mediation analysis revealed that impulsivity and reward responsiveness equally and significantly predicted BMI indirectly through overeating.

The single most idiotic argument I’ve heard is that overeating is not a cause of obesity–precisely why this will be my last response to such nonsense. I cannot discuss an idea with someone if we don’t speak the same language.  Denying the most basic knowledge we have about physiology puts us on different planets.  Conversation over.

The teenagers who ate at FF restaurants consumed more unhealthy foods and were more likely to have higher BMISDS than those teenagers who did not eat frequently at FF restaurants.

  • That prosperity leads to obesity:

Ethnic minority groups in Western European countries tend to have higher levels of overweight than the majority populations for reasons that are poorly understood. ..Conclusion: Contrary to the patterns in White groups, the Dutch ethnic minority women were more obese than their English equivalents.

It’s only poorly understood because the right questions aren’t being asked.  Essentially the study shows that culture alone isn’t definitive.  However, I propose that it’s the change in culture, particularly entering an environment where conveniences abound.

…higher preferences for sweet and fatty foods compared with the other two groups. Food preferences were also related to all overeating measures, which in turn accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in BMI…The associations reported in this paper are important from a public-health perspective because of the abuse potential of sweet-fat foods and their strong relationship with obesity.

And that’s that. As I’ve said before, Mr. Stalker, I don’t do peoples’ research for them. But because you showed such diligence in asserting yourself, I thought I would finally accommodate. I didn’t have to go far for supporting articles–one journal, sir, was all I needed. That’s because what we know about obesity isn’t in need of an overhaul, therefore most of what I put forth is BASIC. What is needed is a halt to the notion that the individual isn’t responsible for his or her own weight, and that they are powerless because of their genetics or hormones.

So as I said, I’m done. I will post a few more promised pieces on obesity in the future, and then I move on.

Obesity Causes Imbalance

By On · Add Comment · In anabolism, autonomic nervous system, calories, catabolism, exercise, fight or flight response, homeostasis, hormones, obesity, parasympathetic nervous system, sympathetic nervous system

Continuing on with obesity, you know, I’ve been hearing quite a bit about hormones and their role in weight gain. It is an indisputable fact that the concentration of some hormones goes haywire as people gain weight. But listen up o’ seekers of truth: Hormone imbalances are a consequence of weight gain (though I am certain they are also maintainers of such), but in and of themselves they are not the cause.

Hormones are chemicals messengers that have a number of functions, one being regulation or homeostasis. Homeostasis is a control mechanism that maintains the balance in a system—it is a universal principle. The peripheral nervous system is made up of the somatic and autonomic nervous systems (ANS), the latter controlling functions that are on auto pilot–the one’s we don’t have to think about.

The ANS has two branches that act in continual oscillation under normal conditions—the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic nervous system is responsible for our fight or flight responses; the parasympathetic for our rest and digest. In other words, each branch of the ANS is responsible for various functions that support either build-up (parasympathetic) or breakdown (sympathetic) processes. Energy utilization is one such process.

During energy buildup and storage or anabolism—when we extract and store our energy molecules—our parasympathetic system is the driver, controlling various hormones and chemical messengers. During breakdown and utilization (fuel burning) or catabolism—it’s our sympathetic nervous system that’s the driver, with it’s own hormones and neurotransmitters. Parasympathetic prepares the body for build-up (rest and digest), which includes slowing molecular breakdown and energy utilization (sympathetic), increased blood flow to the digestive system, and decreased blood flow to the muscles. When this system is in full force, we often feel relaxed, lazy, maybe even sluggish. Our bodies are ripe for energy storage or weight gain when we are in rest and digest.

On the flip side, our sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for energy utilization, especially under stressful conditions. Remember it’s the fight or flight system. During sympathetic stimulation, our metabolism speeds up so we burn fuel more efficiently, blood flow to the digestive organs decreases (less food coming in and being distributed to tissues, thus less stored), and muscles perfuse with blood (getting ready to work). It’s what makes you shake and tremble when you are stress or excited, although I am certain some people rarely feel it so strongly.

I say that because, no doubt, obese people are in a state of parasympathetic imbalance. That is, their parasympathetic system is kicked in more often than their sympathetic system. As a result, it has been observed in obese people that certain parasympathetic processes are acting normally while their sympathetic system is depressed. The effects of such an imbalance is that obese people have difficulty burning fuel efficiently, while they are quite proficient at packing it in.

Okay, we’ll no sh#%…we all know that: It’s harder for obese people to lose weight. No kidding…that doesn’t mean they cannot. The reason this happens is that when fuel keeps coming in as food, the body, in its profound intelligence, does what it’s proficient at: stores it as fat for leaner times, for survival. The body doesn’t understand gluttony; it doesn’t understand prosperity—it doesn’t know 24-hr pizza delivery exists. All it understands is, “Influx of food—store it.” Period. And so that’s what it does.

As a result of overeating, excessive weight gain and very likely low physical activity, the body is forced into this autonomic nervous system imbalance between parasympathetic and under-active sympathetic systems. And a vicious cycle ensues.

Yes it’s the reason obese people don’t see the same gains non-obese people see from short-term exercise…that’s why they’ve got to make it lifestyle, and see what happens after two years of continued activity. Too many obese people quit when they don’t see result within three months.

And, yes, decreasing calories too quickly can lead to a stress that is both mental and physical, one that the body interprets as a need to store even more (“Starvation!”). That’s why I always recommend keeping weight loss to realistic and healthy goals of one pound per week. It’s one thing I like about the Weight Watchers program—they do it slowly and steadily, advocating lifetime wellness and not just a crash-diet (literally and figuratively).

But here’s the skinny: In the end, it still comes down to calories in (and stored) versus calories burned. It’s just that the hormonal changes that DO occur—the ANS imbalance—slow things down that much more for the obese person. In the end, though, part of the answer is still to exercise regularly and effectively, as well as change eating habits (see last post).  There is, however, one more obstacle that is probably the biggest hump when it comes to losing and keeping off weight, and one which I will be discussing in the next post—the human mind.

Chocolate Stress Cure

By On · Add Comment · In antioxidants, cacao. chocolate liquor, dark chocolate, female orgasm, flavanols, hormones, phenylethylamine (PEA), stress

Listen up, ladies: Eating chocolate may decrease the stress response. Ooh…got your attention didn’t I? You heard right, a small amount of dark chocolate a day can keep stress at bay.

According to a recent study done at the Nestle Research Center in Lausanne, Switzerland, eating about an ounce and a half of dark chocolate a day for two weeks reduced the levels of stress hormones in highly stressed people. Dang! That sounds like the cure for me.

Dark chocolate is rich in bioactive compounds. It contains flavonols–antioxidants found in dark vegetables. Dark chocolate has eight times more antioxidants than do strawberries. Since dark chocolate is only sugar and fat mixed with cacao, or “chocolate liquor“–it’s a purer form than milk chocolate, white chocolate, or sweet chocolate. Some other health benefits of dark chocolate:

Now I know what you’re thinking: If a little dark chocolate is good, then a five pound block is better, right? No, no, no…too much sugar, and remember that the chocolate we eat is also mixed with fat, so the recommendation is an ounce and a half per day (the picture to the right shows a 1.5 oz. bar). That’s it. A little chocolate every day, less stress, more pleasure–what more could you need?

Buff Babes

By On · Add Comment · In hormones, lean muscle, muscle mass, oral contraceptives, protein, resistance exercise

Want to get buff, ladies? Try this: Get off the pill. Yup, oral contraceptives may prevent muscle growth in women, current research shows.

A study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M and University of Pittsburgh showed that women not taking the pill had built significantly more lean muscle than women taking oral contraceptives. Seventy-three women aged 18-31 completed a whole body resistance exercise program–half took the pill, half did not. The women were encouraged to eat a half a pound of protein per body weight each day (about a third more than recommended by U.S. nutritional guidelines) to ensure that they got enough protein and calories to build muscle (my West Hollywood/Beverly Hills chiropractic clients will recognize this regimen as I recommend it to people healing from injury along with those wishing to build mass).

After ten weeks of working out–three times per week with weights–the women not taking oral contraceptives had a significant increase in lean muscle mass. And blood samples before and after the training period showed the women on the pill had lower levels of muscle-building hormones such as testosterone and far higher levels of muscle-breaking hormones such as cortisol.

So there you have it all you aspiring Sarah Connors: you want to get buff, get off the oral contraceptives. But fear not: that hard, chiseled body may be just enough contraceptive you’ll ever need. Really.

Sudden Death

By On · Add Comment · In cardiac arrest, catecholamines, cells, evolution, hormones, innate intelligence, police arrest, programmed cell death, suicide

A newly observed phenomenon is being reported which shows that some young men are dying suddenly following police arrest, and scientist believe that it may involve a mechanism similar to one to one that kills some animals in the wild. Man as wild animal expiring under extreme stress? You bet. Read on.

According to Dr. Manuel Martinez Selles of Madrid’s Hospital Gregorio Maranon, surges in blood levels of hormones–specifically catecholamines–may cause cardiac arrest. Interesting. Many wild animals also die suddenly when captured. Call it an evolutionary expiration mechanism if you will. But why?

The study looked at 60 cases of people who had died suddenly and unexpectedly after being arrested. Twenty had died at the point of arrest, while the rest died within 24 hours. All but one of the cases was male, their average age being 33. Only sudden deaths with no clear causes were included and autopsy reports were checked to exclude the possibility of mistreatment or past serious medical conditions. Twelve of the victims were drug users but Selles said this was not thought to have contributed to their deaths.

I find this story so interesting, because it illustrates the incredible innate intelligence of human body. Organism under severe stress, captured and compromised, expires suddenly. Cells do it, wild animals do it, and now we know that man also does it. Simply fascinating. This type of organismic suicide has most likely evolved to preserve the whole, that is other cells or other animals of the group. In cells, programmed cell death occurs to stop infection from spreading to other cells, and clearly this has passed on to more complex organisms.

What really gets my intellectual juices flowing is the notion that this phenomenon is just now being observed. I asked why. Why now? What is going on in society, with people, that this mechanism is turning on. Why haven’t we seen more of it before? Surely people have experienced extreme stress before today. Was it just that we weren’t paying attention? Was it that we only now have the tools, the diagnostics, the autopsy techniques to study this phenomena? Any thoughts?

Losing Weight is a Lifestyle Choice

By On · Add Comment · In anxiety, appetite, chiropractic, depression, energy, fad diet, fat, grehlin, hormones, leptin, lifestyle choices, lose weight, sleep, sleep deprivation, weight
If I had to guess the lazy man’s ultimate fantasy, I would have to say that it’s probably a “lose weight while you sleep” program. How does that sound? Do absolutely nothing and shed pounds while you snooze. Ooh, I like the sound of that: Losing weight while sleeping. Well, now your dreams can become reality. So says a study out of Europe showing that lack of sleep can lead to weight gain. Hey, that’s not the same thing. I know, but I had to get your attention somehow.

According to French scientists, sleep deprivation has an effect on two principle appetite-controlling hormones, grehlin and leptin. Grehlin makes people hungry, slows metabolism and decreases the body’s ability to burn body fat, and leptin, a protein hormone produced by fatty tissue, regulates fat storage. In the study, sleep deprived people (only four hours sleep two nights in a row) showed an 18% loss of the appetite-cutting leptin and a 28% increase of appetite-causing grehlin. The people also showed about 25% increased hunger. according to lead author, Karine Spiegel, this translates into an additional 350 to 500 kilocalories a day, “which for a young sedentary adult of normal weight could lead to a major amount of added weight.”

Add to this a second study which discloses that children who lack adequate sleep (and those who watch more television, but that’s another story) have double the chance of being overweight, raises the chances of later anxiety and depression. Looking at 915 children in Massachusetts, researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that those who slept less than 12 hours a day in the first two years of life were twice as likely to be overweight at age 3 than children who slept longer.

These stories bring out two predominant thoughts for me: First, when it comes to weight management, it really is all about lifestyle choices. It’s not solely about genes or foods–it’s about how we choose to live our lives. I push the principle that sleep is absolutely necessary to a well-functioning mind and body. I see the effects of sleep deprivation every day in my patients, and I’ve got plenty of my own experience, and I know, it’ll kill you.

But it will also lead to poor energy utilization and, as a result, more weight gain. Think about it: You don’t sleep, you are tired, your body get discombobulated and starts using your stored energy rapidly to keep you going. You secrete the appetite-stimulating hormone, grehlin–your body’s way of saying, “more food, more fuel”. The hormonal imbalance leads you to crave foods heavy in fats and sugars–foods that are high in energy and efficiently stored as fat. And on your way to the bulge.

The second predominant thought is that losing weight for the long-term isn’t often correlated with following a particular fad diet. It really is about the lifestyle changes one makes, like:

  • eating healthy, wholesome foods
  • exercising regularly
  • getting sufficient sleep
  • getting rid of pain that prevents exercise–try chiropractic, it rocks!
  • balancing one’s perceptions

These are the true tricks to trimming down. It’s not rocket science, but it can be hard work. I tell you though, it is worth the effort. Start today by getting enough sleep, and your lazy fantasies can become reality. Isn’t it great to know that not all healthy habits are a pain in the rear?

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.