Re: virus causing obesity? + hyperinsulinemia preceeding obesity
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> This article ( http://tinyurl.com/1zt ) is about 2 topics.
Your tinyurl link does not work.
> The first
> topic is postulating that a virus could be responsible for the recent
> upsurge in obesity.
There has been no evidence for this.
> Animals that have been infected with the virus
> became obese after the infection + had low blood cholesterol &
> triglyceride levels with their obesity.
Obese humans tend to have high and not low triglyceride levels.
Moreover, it would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics for
weight gain to occur from solely virus infection without overeating.
> Obese People in a study who
> were found to have antibodies against the virus, also had low
> triglicerides and cholesterol with their obesity.
Again, the vast majority of obese humans have high triglycerides.
> The second half of the article is about a study on rats that found
> that hyperinsulinemia preceeds obesity.
In humans, VAT precedes hyperinsulinemia.
> The second article ( http://tinyurl.com/2ubglq ) is about how the
> obesity link to high blood pressure has weakened since 1989. That the
> incidence of hypertension has not incresed since 1989 despite obesity
> increasing greatly since then.
Since 1989 there has been a reduction in sodium intake as a matter of
public health.
Would refer you to the research on the DASH diet.
> I can't help but wonder if a virus is responsible for the obesity
> epidemic now, but because the virus causes obesity without higher
> cholesterol & triglycerides, it does not raise blood pressure.
The reason for the obesity epidemic is because of the world's greatest
lie as described in the following news release:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Here's a new tiny URL to replace the one that isn't working:
> http://tinyurl.com/2rbrfo
>From your citation:
"University of Wisconsin researchers report that as many as 15% of
obese people carry antibodies to a form of adenovirus (Ad-36) that has
been implicated in obesity in other animals. The researchers tested
154 obese and 45 lean human volunteers for the presence of antibodies
to Ad-36. He found about 15 percent of the obese volunteers had
antibodies to Ad-36 while the lean volunteers showed none.
The antibody-positive obese people had significantly lower cholesterol
and triglycerides levels than the antibody-negative obese people, a
pattern similar to that seen in animals infected with Ad-36. But the
two groups did not differ on any of 29 other measures the researchers
compared, including age or family history of obesity. In male
patients in particular, the presence of antibodies was associated with
a significantly better response to treatment with obesity drugs"
An more tenable hypothesis for this observation is that obese folks
are more susceptible to having Ad-36 infections severe enough to
provoke their immune systems to commit memory cells for lasting
immunity. If Ad-36 were truly behind the obesity epidemic, it would
be directly detectable by PCR as an active infection in a high
percentage of obese folks while undetectable in the lean&trim folks.
Antibodies indicate a **past** infection.
KC
<heartd...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Kathy Clayton (KC) wrote:
> > The first
> > topic is postulating that a virus could be responsible for the recent
> > upsurge in obesity.
>
> There has been no evidence for this.
There is probably not enough evidence to prove it yet, but that is not
the same as no evidence for this at all.
>
> > Animals that have been infected with the virus
> > became obese after the infection + had low blood cholesterol &
> > triglyceride levels with their obesity.
>
> Obese humans tend to have high and not low triglyceride levels.
Correct, but go read the article, now that I have the correct
URLhttp://tinyurl.com/2rbrfo
You will see that the obese people who were infected with the virus
had lower cholesterol and triglyceride levels than the other obese
people.
>
> Moreover, it would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics for
> weight gain to occur from solely virus infection without overeating.
But, biological bodies could behave in ways that promoted VAT gain.
The body could do things like not feed the muscle tissue as well, and
send most of the food directly to fat storage, but leave the body
weaker than a body that was functioning more efficiently.
>
> > Obese People in a study who
> > were found to have antibodies against the virus, also had low
> > triglicerides and cholesterol with their obesity.
>
> Again, the vast majority of obese humans have high triglycerides.
And yet these obese people with antibodies to the virus didn't have
high triglycerides or cholesterol.
>
> > The second half of the article is about a study on rats that found
> > that hyperinsulinemia preceeds obesity.
>
> In humans, VAT precedes hyperinsulinemia.
Study, or article to back that up please.
>
> > The second article (http://tinyurl.com/2ubglq) is about how the
> > obesity link to high blood pressure has weakened since 1989. That the
> > incidence of hypertension has not incresed since 1989 despite obesity
> > increasing greatly since then.
>
> Since 1989 there has been a reduction in sodium intake as a matter of
> public health.
Has there really? Got any data to show people use less salt now than
then? I'm open to the idea since I was only postulating a link
between virus driven obesity and obesity without hypertension.
>
> Would refer you to the research on the DASH diet.
>
> > I can't help but wonder if a virus is responsible for the obesity
> > epidemic now, but because the virus causes obesity without higher
> > cholesterol & triglycerides, it does not raise blood pressure.
>
> The reason for the obesity epidemic is because of the world's greatest
> lie as described in the following news release:
I know that is what you think as you say it all the time. Me, I think
that not all people are alike. There are people over 7 ft tall, and
people under 5 ft tall. There are people with smaller bones, and
people with bigger bones. There are fat people and thin people.
There are people in perfect health and people with medical problems.
For me the idea that we should all eat 2 lb of food a day because it
is God's plan is ridiculous. Obviously those 7 ft tall people will
need a different daily food requirement than the people under 5 ft
tall.
My personal belief is that a large percent of people who are obese are
so because of some medical reasons. There are probably more reasons
than one. The virus could be a reason, there are probably lots of
different endocrinological profiles that make people susceptible to
becoming obese. There could be brain disfunctions that could lead to
an excessive appetite as well. Look at Prader-Willi Syndrome.
Something is wrong with them that causes insatiable appetite.
I agree that you can't be obese without input of food, so eating very
little will protect everyone against obesity. However, it is a
difficult feat to not eat when you are hungry. We are not all
addicted to religion to a point that we deprive our bodies food for
our religion. Religious addiction at that level is a whole nother
medical problem in itself. So, for me my interest lies in learning
everything I can about obesity by reading articles and studies, and
using those things to help myself to cure my obesity.
We treat other medical issues. We even treat depression and attention
defecit disorder, so do you really think as a doctor that we shouldn't
treat obesity with medical solutions if and when they become
available? Do you think that we should just close our eyes to the
science before us, and blindly grasp at a few words in the bible
instead that say something about travellers needing just 2 lb of food
a day (and probably dried foods at that)?
Geeze, there is just megatons of obesity research these days. They
are learning about how obesity occurs in the body. It takes time to
get safe solutions to market, but it doesn't mean that there isn't an
avalanche of data out there about all they are learning about
obesity. To say we should just turn a blind eye to that in favor of a
few words in an old book is just ridiculous to me. I imagine it is
even pretty ridiculous to most Christians.
Nontheless, I am sure that I haven't changed your mind any, and there
is no way you can change mine because I do not believe in the
supernatural and you never show any studies to back up what you say
even when people request it.
You got a tough job ahead of you if you are set to try to convince
people that eating your diet is the right thing to do when there is so
many scientific studies that show it is not as simple as your 2PD-OMER
diet suggests.
I am curious what it takes to be a convicted neighbor? I noticed I am
a convicted neighbor now. I thought I had always been polite, but we
just disagreed on ideas. I guess simple disagreement is all it takes
to be convicted in your court.
KC
KC
Not necessarily. Not if the infection changed the people in some way
that made them more prone to gaining fat. If you search on +virus
+obesity in a search engine you will find more articles on this. I
have seen it proposed that the virus changes the body in some way
rather than the virus actually causing the gain while active infection
was in progress. Many of the articles also say that it is hard to
explain the upsurge of obesity in so many countries in the world
simultaneously, which leads them to think that a virus could be
involved.
KC
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > convicted neighbor Kathy Clayton (KC) wrote:
>
> > > The first
> > > topic is postulating that a virus could be responsible for the recent
> > > upsurge in obesity.
> >
> > There has been no evidence for this.
>
> There is probably not enough evidence to prove it yet, but that is not
> the same as no evidence for this at all.
Associations are not evidence of causality.
> > > Animals that have been infected with the virus
> > > became obese after the infection + had low blood cholesterol &
> > > triglyceride levels with their obesity.
> >
> > Obese humans tend to have high and not low triglyceride levels.
>
> Correct, but go read the article, now that I have the correct
> URLhttp://tinyurl.com/2rbrfo
See comments:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cd513977733e05e1?
> You will see that the obese people who were infected with the virus
> had lower cholesterol and triglyceride levels than the other obese
> people.
Actually, the investigators report that those obese folks who have
antibodies against Ad-36 have lower cholesterol and triglyceride
levels. It remains possible that these folks had the lower
cholesterol and triglyceride levels **before** their exposure to
Ad-36.
> > Moreover, it would be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics for
> > weight gain to occur from solely virus infection without overeating.
>
> But, biological bodies could behave in ways that promoted VAT gain.
That would depend on the design of each individual's body.
> The body could do things like not feed the muscle tissue as well, and
> send most of the food directly to fat storage, but leave the body
> weaker than a body that was functioning more efficiently.
Again, that would depend on the design of each individual's body.
> > > Obese People in a study who
> > > were found to have antibodies against the virus, also had low
> > > triglicerides and cholesterol with their obesity.
> >
> > Again, the vast majority of obese humans have high triglycerides.
>
> And yet these obese people with antibodies to the virus didn't have
> high triglycerides or cholesterol.
It remains possible that folks without dyslipidemia are more able to
mount a more vigorous immune response to Ad-36 so that antibodies
against this virus persists.
> > > The second half of the article is about a study on rats that found
> > > that hyperinsulinemia preceeds obesity.
> >
> > In humans, VAT precedes hyperinsulinemia.
>
> Study, or article to back that up please.
See the case study of Morgan Spurlock filming a documentary called
"SuperSizeMe" of this pathophysiological process:
overeating --> gain nearly 30 lbs of VAT --> IR/MetS
> > > The second article (http://tinyurl.com/2ubglq) is about how the
> > > obesity link to high blood pressure has weakened since 1989. That the
> > > incidence of hypertension has not incresed since 1989 despite obesity
> > > increasing greatly since then.
> >
> > Since 1989 there has been a reduction in sodium intake as a matter of
> > public health.
>
> Has there really?
Yes.
> Got any data to show people use less salt now than then?
By Occam's razor, the levelling off of the incidence of hypertension
would be explained by the public being educated about sodium in the
1980's by the mantra...
"Eat right and exercise."
... which was issued to help people lose weight.
Eating right (low sodium) and exercising does help improve vascular
health thereby reining in the increasing incidence of hypertension but
did nothing for helping folks rein in the amount that they have been
eating. Instead, improved vascular health made people hungrier so
they ate more thereby accelerating the rate of obesity in this
country.
> I'm open to the idea since I was only postulating a link
> between virus driven obesity and obesity without hypertension.
Your idea would not be a parsimonious one because it invokes too many
assumptions.
> >
> > Would refer you to the research on the DASH diet.
> >
> > > I can't help but wonder if a virus is responsible for the obesity
> > > epidemic now, but because the virus causes obesity without higher
> > > cholesterol & triglycerides, it does not raise blood pressure.
> >
> > The reason for the obesity epidemic is because of the world's greatest
> > lie as described in the following news release:
>
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
>
> I know that is what you think as you say it all the time.
It is what I know, in the Holy Spirit.
> Me, I think that not all people are alike.
Did not write that folks are alike. Indeed, they are different.
> There are people over 7 ft tall, and people under 5 ft tall. There are people
> with smaller bones, and people with bigger bones.
> There are fat people and thin people.
> There are people in perfect health and people with medical problems.
> For me the idea that we should all eat 2 lb of food a day because it
> is God's plan is ridiculous.
Actually, it is by GOD's design of our bodies.
We know that physiologically with the ingestion of the optimal amount
of food, the body is able to extract the exact amount it needs.
> Obviously those 7 ft tall people will
> need a different daily food requirement than the people under 5 ft
> tall.
The GI tract will extract what the body requires in each instance
provided that the amount ingested is optimal.
If the amount is excessive, which occurs when folks overeat to the
point of no longer being hungry, their GI tract will then overextract
and this overage causes the formation of VAT, which is invariably
pathological.
This is why type-2 diabetics in ASD have observed that when they
overeat **anything** (including salad without carbs) that they
experience a bigger PP spike indicating that there is more VAT
activity worsening their insulin resistance.
> My personal belief is that a large percent of people who are obese are
> so because of some medical reasons. There are probably more reasons
> than one. The virus could be a reason, there are probably lots of
> different endocrinological profiles that make people susceptible to
> becoming obese. There could be brain disfunctions that could lead to
> an excessive appetite as well. Look at Prader-Willi Syndrome.
> Something is wrong with them that causes insatiable appetite.
In each of your examples, there would be no VAT gain if there were no
overeating.
> I agree that you can't be obese without input of food, so eating very
> little will protect everyone against obesity.
Eating less, down to the optimal amount would reverse obesity.
> However, it is a
> difficult feat to not eat when you are hungry.
It is not difficult for folks who now know in their hearts that hunger
is good (optimal).
> We are not all
> addicted to religion to a point that we deprive our bodies food for
> our religion.
It remains my choice to not be religious:
http://abchung.livejournal.com/1176.html?thread=10136#t10136
> Religious addiction at that level is a whole nother
> medical problem in itself.
No such medical problem.
> So, for me my interest lies in learning
> everything I can about obesity by reading articles and studies, and
> using those things to help myself to cure my obesity.
The cure is simple:
Eat less, down to the optimal amount.
The cure is difficult for the reason described in the press release:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> We treat other medical issues. We even treat depression and attention
> defecit disorder, so do you really think as a doctor that we shouldn't
> treat obesity with medical solutions if and when they become
> available?
The cause of obesity is simply overeating.
> Do you think that we should just close our eyes to the
> science before us, and blindly grasp at a few words in the bible
> instead that say something about travellers needing just 2 lb of food
> a day (and probably dried foods at that)?
We have empirically determined the optimal amount of food for everyone
to be 2 lbs per day.
This determination occurred with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
What is written in the Bible is that there is one optimal amount for
all.
GOD has permitted us to figure out this one optimal amount for all.
> Geeze, there is just megatons of obesity research these days. They
> are learning about how obesity occurs in the body. It takes time to
> get safe solutions to market, but it doesn't mean that there isn't an
> avalanche of data out there about all they are learning about
> obesity. To say we should just turn a blind eye to that in favor of a
> few words in an old book is just ridiculous to me. I imagine it is
> even pretty ridiculous to most Christians.
Would suggest you read the book, Be Hungry.
> Nontheless, I am sure that I haven't changed your mind any, and there
> is no way you can change mine because I do not believe in the
> supernatural and you never show any studies to back up what you say
> even when people request it.
You are the one here with a weight problem seeking help.
My weight problem was solved 10 years ago once my intake was
decreased, down to the optimal amount.
> You got a tough job ahead of you if you are set to try to convince
> people that eating your diet is the right thing to do when there is so
> many scientific studies that show it is not as simple as your 2PD-OMER
> diet suggests.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either convince
or argue.
> I am curious what it takes to be a convicted neighbor?
The work of the Holy Spirit.
> I noticed I am a convicted neighbor now.
HE has convicted you.
> I thought I had always been polite, but we just disagreed on ideas.
HE is the Spirit of Truth.
> I guess simple disagreement is all it takes to be convicted in your court.
HE is the Source of your conscience.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly declaring with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirt/TheWay
In the interim, may GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you
healthier (hungrier) than ever.
KC
#
# Xia Hong, China InfoHighway's PR man: "The Internet has been an important
# technical innovator, but we need to add another element, and that is
# control. The new generation of information superhighway needs a traffic
# control center. It needs highway patrols; USERS WILL REQUIRE DRIVER'S
# LICENSES. THESE ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT."
In dissenting on the unconstitutionality of the CDA, which attempted to censor
the Internet, Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, together with the Chief Justice,
said CDA will be legal as soon as:
"it becomes technologically feasible...to check a person's [Internet]
driver's license...the prospects for the eventual zoning of the Internet
appear promising..."
My WebTV has a slot for reading a smart card!
Well, noone would ever put up with a Universal Biometric Card in the U.S.!
Right?
* Recent agreements announced by Sandia include contracts for the
* issuance of national ID cards for the People's Republic of China over
* the next five years; approximately 10 million fraud-resistant alien ID
* cards for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service over
* the next three years; 5 million driving licenses for the State of
* Alabama and 7.5 million for the State of New South Wales, Australia.
5 million driving licenses for the State of Alabama!!!
What did the announcement look like?
* November 7, 1996- SANDIA IMAGING SYSTEMS WINS CONTRACT TO PRODUCE
* DRIVERS' LICENSES FOR STATE OF ALABAMA. Carrollton, TX (Business Wire).
*
* S