This isn't true, right...? - Obesity virus

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...

"OBESITY can be “caught” as easily as a common cold from other people’s coughs, sneezes and dirty hands, scientists will claim today.
Researchers believe that an airborne “adenovirus” germ could be causing the fat plague that is blighting Britain and other countries."

Is it like, April Fool's Day and I haven't noticed? I mean, I know this is from the Daily Express, self-proclaimed world's greatest newspaper, but somehow I have the feeling this is a hoax.

Is it a virus that makes you eat too many pies?

Considering all of the different biological factors that can help determine your weight, it's not entirely impossible that a virus could develop that affects one or two of those factors... However it seems improbable that such a virus would be the sole cause, considering all of the external factors that have recently (relatively speaking, I am referring to changes over the last 60 or so years) changed for the worse that affect our weight in general.

Just another reason to shun the fatties.

Wow, I bet treating AD-36 will be big business for a pharmaceutical industry that is already being hit hard by people tightening their wallets and opting against more personal choice type medicines. Maybe this is even a first step towards getting the insurance industry to foot the bill for widespread treatment of obesity as an ailment.

Is it true that the body doesnt recycle a fat cell once it's been created and that when weight is lost, the fat cell remains as a potential container? Just curious and it seems related to the the findings of the research in question.

Irongut wrote:

Is it true that the body never recycles a fat cell once it's been created and that when weight is lost, the fat cell remains as a potential container?

I thought it was that fat cells were already there one way or another, and just become saturated or empty based on how much storage is necessary.

Fat cells are a connective tissue called adipose tissue. NSMike is correct in that they are little pockets that fill up with fat when there's fat around to fill them. They're kind of like little balloons.

Zelos, you're right that in order to gain wait the input needs to be higher than the consumption but metabolism makes it a little harder to figure out than that. Change the rate of input and the rate of consumption changes too, and not always in a directly proportionate manner. Throughout the course of the history of life it's virtually unheard of for an animal to have health problems from being too fat. Being fat has always been a good thing. It's no wonder humans have trouble when they try to LOSE weight, especially when they're perfectly healthy and are trying to shed pounds their body really wants to hang on to in case of emergency.

Is it an STD?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Is it an STD?

Research unavailable.

This is awesome.

I hope they find the virus that causes people to conduct hilarious fake studies designed solely to pad their wallets.

There's an article in the more reputable Telegraph about it as well. It reads a bit like an advert for the documentary about the subject this evening.

I guess it's possible, but presumably thermodynamics means you still have to eat more calories than you use to put on weight, right?

Edit: Fixed link

This is the primary author of the studies, if anyone is interested.

Funny. His CV indicates that his work is on *one* cause of obesity. I don't think he's claiming that all obesity is due to this virus. Blown out of proportion, maybe?

LobsterMobster wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Is it an STD?

Research unavailable.

If fatness were an STD it would be self defeating

Robear wrote:

Funny. His CV indicates that his work is on *one* cause of obesity. I don't think he's claiming that all obesity is due to this virus. Blown out of proportion, maybe?

If we can't hyperbolize, what's left?? =)

Honestly if you re read the article as "there is a virus that messes with your metabolism so the previous amount of food you needed to sustain your weight is drastically lowered but you didn't know that so unless you are very careful about adjusting, you will likely gain weight," it would make sense to me.

But hyperbole -- and a healthy amount of tinfoil hat "the pharmaceutical industry is getting us" conspiracy theory -- is so much more fun.

Robear wrote:

Funny. His CV indicates that his work is on *one* cause of obesity. I don't think he's claiming that all obesity is due to this virus. Blown out of proportion, maybe?

Well, the original story starts out

Researchers believe that an airborne “adenovirus” germ could be causing the fat plague that is blighting Britain and other countries.

The local hyperbole is a response to the hyperbole of the story. I don't see any reason why a virus couldn't contribute, anymore than over-active thyroid glands can't contribute.

But you just know that this will be latched on to by the same people who have been crying 'thyroid' while jamming cakes in their face. The research is probably perfectly valid, but will be spun as a justification for unhealthy lifestyles.

Apologies to anyone with a valid problem, but I'm speaking from experience.

Well, there's a virus that apparently makes women more promiscuous and men more antisocial, and there's another that makes ants go to the top of a plant and stay there in the sun so they are eaten by animals (because the virus enjoys living in an animal's bowels).

So this could be true, I guess.

I'm wagering there is a virus that is responsible for every single thought and action I have ever had or done.

Scientists at the Brogambo Center of Disease Research have announced today the revolutionary discovery of the mdk-314, a specific type of the MDK virus capable of living in humans. During tests in which rats, mice, and non human pirates were exposed to the mdk virus, those under the effects showed a startling 60% increase in their tendency to kill others around them.

"MDK-314, or as it's referred to here, the "murder virus," explains a lot of the behavior of humans with a past history of violent crime," says head research scientist, Dr. James Pathogenaway. "Using samples given to us from several high security prisons, we are able to deduce that the MDK virus is almost wholly responsible for all of the violent crime in America."

Dr Pathogenaway is also currently working on uncovering more information about metavirus vandal-41, which seems to be responsible for every work of property damage in the US.

Mex wrote:

Well, there's a virus that apparently makes women more promiscuous and men more antisocial...

Kiss a shy guy; become a slut. The origin of generations of geek heartache found!

Staats wrote:
Mex wrote:

Well, there's a virus that apparently makes women more promiscuous and men more antisocial...

Kiss a shy guy; become a slut. The origin of generations of geek heartache found!

That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth.

Seth wrote:

Dr Pathogenaway is also currently working on uncovering more information about metavirus vandal-41, which seems to be responsible for every work of property damage in the US.

[/quote]

That's awesome, there's a huge bunch of weird viruses and parasites going on, a biologist friend told me about a few of them years ago and I've been interested ever since, there's lots of info on wikipedia about others. Some really f*cked up stuff.

Mex wrote:

That's awesome, there's a huge bunch of weird viruses and parasites going on, a biologist friend told me about a few of them years ago and I've been interested ever since, there's lots of info on wikipedia about others. Some really f*cked up stuff.

Dang it, I need to start marking my stuff with [sarcasm] tags....

My above story was totally made up. I thought the name "Pathogenaway" would've given that away.

Seth wrote:
Mex wrote:

That's awesome, there's a huge bunch of weird viruses and parasites going on, a biologist friend told me about a few of them years ago and I've been interested ever since, there's lots of info on wikipedia about others. Some really f*cked up stuff.

Dang it, I need to start marking my stuff with [sarcasm] tags....

My above story was totally made up. I thought the name "Pathogenaway" would've given that away. :)

I hate you

You forget, Mex - You're not a native speaker. Easy out.

How do you vaccinate against fatness? inject babies with weakened cheeseburgers?

More importantly, has the Angry Whopper made the fatness a superbug like those strains of staph infections?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Fat cells are a connective tissue called adipose tissue. NSMike is correct in that they are little pockets that fill up with fat when there's fat around to fill them. They're kind of like little balloons.

My understanding might be out of date, but I think that your body will normally make new fat cells if you eat a lot (once the existing ones are full, I guess) and if the fat cells are left empty for long enough your body doesn't replace them. The article states that the virus makes the fat cells replicate, but you'd still need to eat enough calories to fill the new cells for it to make a difference to how you look. Interesting, but still not as much of an issue as the whole 'taking in more energy than you use' thing...

This idea has been bandied about for a while - I first heard about it from my doctor about a year ago. There has been some stuff identified, but no one has any idea of why or what to really do about it.

The materials I read said the virus didn't work by making fat cels replicate; it worked both by slowing your body's metabolism and making it much more inefficient at retrieving energy stored in the fat cels. Then no matter how much you exercise or how little you eat, you can gain weight on much less food than others. Then once it's stored away as fat, also it makes it harder to get it back out again.

Think of it like a fire - a regular metabolism is burning clean and clear, this one is a smoky fire that leaves lots of clinkers behind that don't light well when you try to put them back in the fire.

The 'taking in more than you use thing' is true to a point. But just saying to limit what you eat to what your body uses is not a cut-and-dried answer when you're working on this scale. A lot more than just the calories in your food affects your body's workings. Your digestive system needs a certain amount of mass to work properly and it's very hard to get a proper amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins when you're on the sort of extremely low-cal diet that is required for these things.

momgamer wrote:

This idea has been bandied about for a while - I first heard about it from my doctor about a year ago. There has been some stuff identified, but no one has any idea of why or what to really do about it.

The materials I read said the virus didn't work by making fat cels replicate; it worked both by slowing your body's metabolism and making it much more inefficient at retrieving energy stored in the fat cels. Then no matter how much you exercise or how little you eat, you can gain weight on much less food than others. Then once it's stored away as fat, also it makes it harder to get it back out again.

Think of it like a fire - a regular metabolism is burning clean and clear, this one is a smoky fire that leaves lots of clinkers behind that don't light well when you try to put them back in the fire.

The 'taking in more than you use thing' is true to a point. But just saying to limit what you eat to what your body uses is not a cut-and-dried answer when you're working on this scale. A lot more than just the calories in your food affects your body's workings. Your digestive system needs a certain amount of mass to work properly and it's very hard to get a proper amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins when you're on the sort of extremely low-cal diet that is required for these things.

That is very interesting stuff, and seems perfectly plausible, after all a virus that causes a fever already has a metabolic effect.. But that makes the original story even more of a load of bunk. It refers specifically to increasing the number of fat cells.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Is it an STD?

If anyone is living proof against this theory, it's me when I was in college.

Hmm. I actually find it remarkably easy to get the nutrients I need out of relatively low calorie foods. It just requires cooking with fresh ingredients and being mindful about avoiding or limiting high calorie foods. Being married to a Korean wife certainly helps as well since everyday Korean foods very much fit that description.

A typical breakfast for me looks like this:

bowl of high fiber cereal with soy milk and a banana
cup of coffee
glass of juice

I usually make lunch for both of us:

sandwich using homemade bread, low fat mayo, lettuce, lean ham, and slice of low fat cheese
2 pieces of fruit
1/4 cup of mixed nuts

Dinner is usually something Korean:

1 cup serving of brown rice
soup
kimchee
fish or other lean protein

Snacks during the day are mostly fruit.

I am rarely hungry and when I am I find a pear or orange usually does the trick.

Eating healthy takes a pretty high level of consciousness. It's not more expensive and only takes slightly more effort on the preparation side, but it DOES take a fair amount of research. the problem is that there's a ton of misinformation out there.

Orange juice, for example, is terrible for you -- it has more calories (and specifically, calories from sugar) than Mountain Dew, and negligible vitamin usefulness (vitamin C is destroyed by sunlight, so the vast, vast majority of orange juice you buy has already been purged of vitamin C, even the stuff in the cardboard containers).

You're much better off eating an orange and drinking a glass of water.