Talk:Obesity

water-losing and deobesification

I heard that some obeses were like this because of too much water-keeping (so they were obese but not really "fat"). Is there deobesefying methods that use water-losing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.154.12 (talk) 12:03 pm, 30 May 2016, Monday (5 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)

Wishful, dangerous thinking. See sauna suit --Elvey^(t•c) 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Text addition

This text was added "A low-fat, low glycemic index (GI), and high protein diet was more beneficial to long-term weight-loss retention than low fat, high GI, low protein diets."

Yet the source says "In the long term, there are no differences in the effect on weight loss between advice on strict and moderate low carbohydrate diets, low fat diets, high protein diets, Mediterranean diets, diets aimed at achieving a low glycaemic load or diets containing a high percentage of monounsaturated fats."[1]

This appears to agree with the prior review article from 2014.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Assume it was just a mix up between long and short term effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"the Japanese" is not a nation

"some nations have redefined obesity; the Japanese have [...] while China [...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.209.141 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Idea:Survey

Someone should do a survey - ask lots of folks what they think, in a word, is the most important thing to pay attention to when managing one's weight, and their weight/BMI - and correlate the answers to their weight. I bet we'd find some really interesting data! I.e. how does weight correlate with answers like fat, sugar, carbs, soda, candy, TV, exercise, ... perhaps the answers that correlate most with the healthiest weight would be the ones experts would name, but perhaps not! --Elvey^(t•c) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Elvey What does this comment have to do with the article? Please have a look at WP:TALK. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

More diet than exercise?

A new review states: "Excessive intake of food, especially palatable and energy-dense carbohydrates and fats, is largely responsible for the growing incidence of obesity worldwide." and has lots more good stuff, IMO, expecially about why people (and other animals) who become obese stay obese. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We list diet first under causes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why so dismissive? To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More. (Preemptive Ack: Can't use this for medical claims, even though the NY Times is of course a WP:reliable source.) I provide a review to back this up, plus lots more good stuff, and it's free content, and that's all you have to say? ([meta analysis] confirms it too.)

I don't think we need to go into all the details of the industry-funded efforts to hide the connection, but we owe it to our readers not to perpetuate ignorance. Speaking of free content, our DOI link (which brings me here) does a really shitty job of indicating that the full article is available for free. Even if, after going there, I click on "Rights and Permissions" and fill out a form, the fact that the content is free is hidden from me. ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26549651 here, FREE, in red, alerts me to the status, and at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825944/ is the whole article and the license. (It's only CC BY-NC 4.0, so we can't quote from it too much.) Are other editors aware of this, seeing it as a problem and trying to rectify it? IIRC, you're a fan of open publishing.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how me stating that we give diet the greatest weight by mentioning it first is dismissing?

We cannot use large quotes from stuff that is NC as it is not a compatible license.

The WHO as of 2016 states "The fundamental cause of obesity and overweight is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended. Globally, there has been: an increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat; and an increase in physical inactivity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization."[2]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say deleting two paragraphs I'd written :

Extended content

Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution. Fad diets are popular even though they, by definition, haven't been shown to work; industry-funded misinformation campaigns both obscure accurate information about what does contribute to obesity, and spread false claims about so-called health-foods that are actually obesogenic. A 2016 review reports, "Excessive intake of food, especially palatable and energy-dense carbohydrates and fats, is largely responsible for the growing incidence of obesity worldwide." The main cause of epidemic obesity is excessive food energy intake.[meta analysis] A meta analysis of studies found objectively measured physical activity and fat mass aren't associated. References

with the one-word edit summary "adjusted" is inappropriate dismissive spraying of liquid. Would you be willing to give a shot at being more collaborative, Doc ? --Elvey^(t•c) 07:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The request was to use high quality reviews not popular press. So yes I paraphrased and move the review [3] and removed the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. You made no such request... But I will request that you stop removing content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced to, e.g. the PBS NewsHour. True; I missed that; kudos. DOI? --Elvey^(t•c) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The cause of obesity needs to be supported by high quality references. A single review in a mid quality journal does not override a statement by WHO. Your text was giving undue weight to a single position. Thus I adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Zeroth: Did you miss the 'True; I missed that; kudos.' part of my message above, Doc? I'm fine with the move and paraphrase/shortening you did. You belittle the review for no reason; your comment feels hostile. )

First: Any chance you can comment on the DOI issue? I've asked 3x about it. Is my concern about it indecipherable to you? You seem to be skimming my replies.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Second: "Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution" is not about obesity. It's about patients' beliefs regarding obesity, and information about obesity treatment ad campaigns. Try to think like a layman for a minute. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are hoping for with respect to DOI? We do have "PMC=" in the cite templates.

We have a single review from 2011 only about children. A single review does not trump all other sources. That is not hostility.

Most people know that obesity is related to energy expenditure and diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Most people know the main cause of obesity? Evidence? I don't think they - or you - or I - know with confidence what the main cause is! Most people don't think it's mainly diet and exercise, though I think we both do.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

[Silence is interpreted as a lack of evidence.]

Not only was this "Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution" supported by poor refs, it is not encyclopedic in tone and I am not even clear what the last bit after the last comma means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(Note:I've corrected the indentation of your edit and added the obvious but missing "an" to my quoted addition to the article that you removed.)

You say the refs are poor. Have you read them? Bloomberg? PBS? What are you on? AGAIN: I request that you stop removing content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced to, e.g. the PBS NewsHour. Please try harder to engage with what I've said rather than talk past me and ignore my questions and arguments. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

< silence from User:Doc_James>. Hello? Your position is so inconsistent. You praise Jytdog's edit which uses a blog as a citation, and yet remove content and Bloomberg and PBS sources when I use them. And praise Jytdog's edit when he uses my sources that you said were shit. Pisses me off. What's your problem with me? Explain here please.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

<still silence from User:Doc_James>, though he asks me a question, below.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Big money is spent to obscure the causes of obesity. Is mentioning that fact encyclopedic or not, Doc? Why/why not?--Elvey^(t•c) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

< silence from DocJames>

• I added this in the Society and Culture section, picking up on the discussion above. The Sept 2016 JAMA paper is really about coronary heart disease not obesity; discussion belongs there and in articles on the sugar industry - it is already discussed for example at Sugar Association. We already had an article on Global Energy Balance Network.

Most of the deleted content was about heart disease, not obesity, so I also added a section to coronary artery disease in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good edits, Jytdog. But the issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed? The HuffPo often has RS issues, but the article I cited has excellent sourcing; we could use the sources directly. Example: Studies with a financial conflict of interest, including research by PepsiCo and the American Beverage Association, were five times more likely than independent studies to report no correlation between drinking soda and weight gain and obesity, according to the journal Plos Medicine. [4] --Elvey^(t•c) 19:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Please answer: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed? Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another. Instead of answering, which you are obliged to do, per CIVIL, you edited my comments, violating TPO. --Elvey^(t•::::c) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You want to use this source[5] to say what? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer is obvious, but since you ask, I will answer by saying: I want to use the HuffPo piece and its sources to say: as it says, "There’s a lot of junk science — and corporate sponsorship — out there." - or as I put it, "Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution" For each of the following, can you please state whether you think it is is true?:1)"Fad diets are popular even though they, by definition, haven't been shown to work" 2)"industry-funded misinformation campaigns obscure accurate information about what does contribute to obesity", and 3)"industry-funded misinformation campaigns spread false claims about so-called health-foods that are actually obesogenic." --Elvey^(t•c) 20:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What you added does not belong in the section on "causes" and the HuffPo is not a very good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You are being rude. And you should know better than providing an I DON'T LIKE IT argument (that, is, you say it does not belong in the section on "causes" - yet it's regarding "Misinformation about the causes" - where would it go if not there?) What part of "The HuffPo often has RS issues, but the article I cited has excellent sourcing; we could use the sources directly." do you not understand? Plus, I said using its sources. Which you ignore, along with several questions above ("Have you read them?", etc). As you keep failing to be civil when doing so, don't engage with me, Doc.--Elvey^(t•c) 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• elvey what content with what sourcing are you proposing at this time, and where in the article do you intend it to go? thx Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: For the third time, please answer: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed? Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another. Instead of answering, which you are obliged to do, per CIVIL, you edited my comments, violating TPO.

Be civil. thx. Answer my question. Your question has been answered. What part of "I want to use the HuffPo piece and its sources to say: as it says, "There’s a lot of junk science — and corporate sponsorship — out there." - or as I put it, "Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution" do you not understand? As you too keep failing to be civil when doing so, don't engage with me. --Elvey^(t•c) 10:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to add "There’s a lot of junk science — and corporate sponsorship — out there." or "Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution" or both. and where in the article do you want to add that. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ok, so here is what you meant -- an addition to the Causes section:

Misinformation about the causes of obesity abounds, leaving people rightly confused, an ongoing problem with no clear solution.

References

yeah, that is not OK per MEDMOS and MEDRS. Maybe something for "Society and culture". Unclear what "rightly" means here but you copied "rightly confused" from the source. The last bit "an ongoing problem with no clear solution" is COPYVIO from the huffpo source. also as already discussed above the bloomberg source doesn't discuss obesity so has no role in this article; it is about heart disease. the PBS source only has passing mention of obesity and is also almost all about heart disease. The huffpo piece is on point for this article. not sure why you re-introduced the bloomberg and PBS refs. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you reverted my addition of that. I don't understand your attempted justification. Do you claim that such content would have to be in a section entitled "Society and culture"? That it can't be in a section called 'Causes'? There's no policy or guideline that supports such a claim, but that seems to be what you're saying, and if that is what you believe, why do you delete it instead of move it?

Jytdog : As I've said before, the sources are only backing statements about patients' beliefs, so they can't be violating MEDRS; they don't fall within its scope. As I said:content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced. I'm not sure what makes you think that an article entitled "How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat—in 1965" could possibly have nothing to say about obesity. WP:ABF? Based on the title and first sentence alone, your claim is clearly groundless. Hello, Jytdog? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: For the fourth time, please answer: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed? Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Both doc james and i have explained what is wrong with your edit. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A cause: SSB, mainly soft drinks and fruit juices

Review article, quote: <ref name="ObesityReview">{{cite journal|last1=Du|first1=H|last2=Feskens|first2=E|title=Dietary determinants of obesity.|journal=Acta cardiologica|date=August 2010|volume=65|issue=4|pages=377-86|pmid=20821929|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.2143/AC.65.4.2053895|quote=Increased consumption of SSB, mainly soft drinks and fruit juices, is considered as a main driving force for weight gain and obesity, especially among children and adolescents.}}</ref>. Currently there are no medical claims regarding SSB causing obesity in the article. (Just mention of The WHO - and that was recently added) I propose we add some, using this review article. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The article says "the primary sources of these extra carbohydrates are sweetened beverages, which now account for almost 25 percent of daily food energy in young adults in America" Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good.