Obesity Epidemic A Sign of Prosperity

Over the last several posts I have discussed a few aspects of obesity that I think are important in understanding the condition.  There is no doubt that obesity is a multi-factorial issue in adults--I've always contended that.  But I do not feel that way when it comes to kids, because children often do not have the same mental factors, which I believe play such a strong role in chronic obesity (the factor most involved in the I-just-can't-seem-to-lose-weight-no-matter-what-I try-syndrome).  More on this in a future post.

But we already defined obesity--a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems--so the question should now be: How has obesity become epidemic?  How have so many people gained weight to such degree as to be detrimental to their health?  The numbers today are harrowing--in the U.S. no state has a prevalence of obesity less than 20%, with some states having 30% or more of their population obese.

This is a fairly new phenomenon, as the numbers in the U.S. have gone through their most dramatic increase only over the last twenty years.  This is one reason I do not buy into the genetic or hormonal-cause theories.  Gene pools don't change that quickly, especially not with regard to a trait that has neither survival nor reproductive advantages.

One major benefit we are experiencing as a result of the current obesity epidemic is that we have learned quite a bit about human physiology, particularly the changes in autonomic function.  What is particularly interesting for me is to see the body's response to an extreme change in condition--an excess weight gain.  It shows, once again, the incredible intelligence of the human body.  The body responds to to a perceived stress in a very predictable way, it tries to reestablish balance, and it does so through the autonomic nervous system (ANS).

These observations have some in the field excited that they have now found the real underlying cause of obesity.  ANS changes and their associated hormonal imbalances are not the cause of obesity.  Emotional or economic stressors are not the cause of obesity.  While these issues are likely factors in the long-term maintenance of obesity, the reason why "weight stays relatively constant," they are not in and of themselves what causes obesity.  Taking in more energy than what is used is the primary cause of obesity.  This phenomenon is predominantly due to one or more of the following factors: 

• Eating more than is needed (we've all done this at one time or another, so it shouldn't be too hard to conceptualize how it could happen repeatedly, leading to a form of conditioning)
• Eating nutritionally-poor foods (more than occasionally)
• Chronic inactivity (which includes constantly challenging oneself)

Yes, hormonal issues like hypothyroidism can cause weight gain, so can medication side-effects, and genetics probably leaves some people more susceptible than others.  But these factors are not responsible for 20-30% obesity rates in the U.S.  No way.

So, once again, how has obesity become epidemic in the U.S. and other western societies?  As far as I can see, obesity is a consequence of prosperity.  When food is abundant, when we do not have to grow, hunt, trap or kill our own food sources, when high-energy foods (not in vibrancy, but calories: think pizza) is just a phone call away, 24-7, what do you think is going to happen?  Poor nations don't have obesity epidemics.  Oh they may have obese people...but not an epidemic.  Think about it.  Obesity is mostly a condition of abundance.

Obesity is also a consequence of population growth.  The more mouths we have to feed in rich, industrialized nations, the more we have to manufacture foods that will preserve long-term storage, transport and shelf-life.  Simple as this: To feed millions of people, foods are tweaked to prevent their perishing, and as a result we get chemical- and preservative-laden foodstuff, as well as the now prevalent, yet highly controversial, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).  Ingesting these food-like substances, as I like to call them, in large quantities or over long periods can lead to excessive weight gain.

Sorry to foolish skeptic, but sodas do cause weight gain, plain and simple. It's no surprise to me that obesity has run concurrently with both American power and prosperity in the world, but also with the explosion of the food industry, particularly processed  foods (and junk food, and fast food, and soda consumption...)

As I've hinted in a previous post, I also believe a very strong mental component is involved in the obesity epidemic.  No doubt the psychological makeup of society is contributing to this massive inflation.  The coddling of the obese by searching for an it's-something-outside-of-you cause is no small factor in making obesity an epidemic.  Next post, I will discuss weight loss and what I think is a better approach to decreasing the prevalence of obesity in modern society.

Omega-3 Imbalance Leads to Obesity Inheritance

Finally a genetic excuse for obesity that actually makes sense.  Researchers show that an omega fatty acid imbalance can lead to obesity.  But even more interesting is that this imbalance, and the associated obesity, can be passed on from generation to generation.

A recent French study looked at the role of omega intake and fat deposition in mice.  Four generations of mice were fed a 35% fat diet with an omega imbalance now common in much of the developed world--that is, a high ratio of omega-6 fatty acids relative to omega-3s.  The results were progressively fatter mice at birth, generation after generation.

In my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, I discuss the importance of bringing the omega balance to 1:2 omega-6:omega-3.  Currently the typical imbalance in western cultures is 15:1 in much of Europe and up to 40:1 in the United States.  Omega-3s are important to many functions including cholesterol balance, blood pressure, reducing heart disease and stroke, preventing blood clots, preventing diabetes and much, much more.

Omega-3 fatty acids are found plentifully in fish and flax oils, although fish liver oils are a more potent source.  Omega-6s, on the other hand, are high in vegetable oils, breads, grains and poultry--things we eat copiously in the typical American diet.

But what about passing fatness on to successive generations?  Experts believe that the link between omega imbalance and obesity is epigenetic; in other words, the imbalance in mothers influences an offspring's genes during development.  Whoa!  That's right--the omega-6:omega-3 ratio in the breast milk of American women has gone from an average of 6:1 to 18:1.  Holy milkshakes!  Exactly.

I recommend a few things to bring the omega ratio back into healthy balance.  First and foremost is reducing your intake of high omega-6 containing foods.  So breads, high carbs, vegetable oil--cut 'em.  Then I suggest you supplement with a good omega-3 fatty acid.  I carry a great brand in my Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood chiropractic office.  Check this article for all the information you need on omega-3 fatty acids.

Stop the cycle of obesity in your family--get your omega fatty acids balanced.  And don't think it's too late for your children, either.  Feed them well (healthily, not in hordes), get them moving, and give them omega-3 fatty acids--that should break the inheritance pattern.  Remember, health starts in the home.  Now how's that for epigenetics!

Bipolar Disorder, Body Clock Connection

Emotional vacillations like the ones seen in bipolar disorder may have a genetic connection to circadian rhythms. New research suggests that variations in a gene known as RORB may be a molecular factor in children developing manic depressive disorder.

The RORB gene is one of the players involved in our circadian rhythm--our internal body clock; that 24-hour cycle that influences many of our biorhythms like feeding, sleep and temperature. The RORB gene is mainly expressed in the eye, pineal gland and brain--the areas most involved in melatonin production.

The link was discovered by looking at the genetic makeup of 152 children with bipolar disorder and 140 without, and variations in the RORB gene were thus found. Although preliminary, researchers believe that the findings are a good basis for further study. According to the study's co-author, Dr. Alexander Niculescu of Indiana University School of Medicine,

"Bipolar disorder is often characterized by circadian rhythm abnormalities, and this is particularly true among pediatric bipolar patients. Decreased sleep has even been noted as one of the earliest symptoms discriminating children with bipolar disorder from those with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. It will be necessary to verify our association results in other independent samples and to continue to study the relationship between RORB, other clock genes and bipolar disorder."

I find these results interesting, not because I'm such a big genetic-cause-of-this-or-that-disorder believer*, but I do think that our biorhythms are vital. It is my observation that the more people push the envelope on that end--that is, disrupt their natural rhythms--the more physical and mental processes become disturbed. I know this sounds obvious, but I believe the disturbance is much more drastic than we even give it credence now. So it doesn't surprise me that they find connections between disrupted circadian cycles and vacillating mental/emotional states. And I'm sure either one can lead to the other.

The reason I don't buy into the genetic cause assumption is that I know many factors are involved in gene expression like epigenetics. Essentially what we express in the material world is influenced by many things like the environment and even our mothers (I know, I know; but Freud aside, it's true).

So the interesting thing to me is noting the rhythmic imbalance, both chemically and mentally, of the person involved. Bipolar disorder is a massive mental/emotional imbalance that is going to affect sleep, eating and other physiology all the way down to the molecular and genetic levels.

Great start to this study--we'll keep our eyes open for more info in the future.

*Epigenetics has always been all the weird and wonderful things that can’t be explained by genetics. ~ Denise Barlow (Vienna, Austria)

Cancer Tough to Cure...But There May Be Hope

Cancer may be tougher to cure than once thought. Because it is the product of many gene mutations and not just one, cancer is especially hard to located and treat. That's the latest, anyway, out of Johns Hopkins University.

According to researchers, genes in tumors work in networks, not as single genes as once believed. The scientist studied every gene in two of the hardest to treat cancers, pancreatic and glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain cancer. They found that pancreatic cancer has an average of 63 mutated genes that code for uncontrolled cell growth, while glioblastoma multiforme averages 60 mutations. And to make matters worse they vary among people. According to one of the researchers, Dr. Bert Vogelstein, "If you have 100 patients, you have 100 different diseases."

Sounds daunting, I know; but the good news is that they found just 12 pathways on average that caused uncontrolled growth and spread. The researchers point out that treatments should be aimed at interacting in the pathway itself, and not against a singular gene, like the current cancer drug Gleevec does.

These findings are not surprising to me and it illustrates the complexity of genetic interactions. The one gene, one illness notion is simplistic and unlikely. It happens to work that way for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)--which Gleevec was designed for--but that's probably more the exception than the rule. The researchers point out that single gene target drugs will most likely be ineffective against most solid tumors.

I also think that finding one gene for other characteristics is unlikely too. Don't get me wrong, geneticists think they are finding genes that act in a solitary fashion in coding for traits or processes, but I'm certain that the work done in this study is a taste of how it works as a whole--the pathways or networks are what is important.

I think that finding drugs to disrupt these pathways and cure cancer will a be very difficult task, indeed. We may not see it in our lifetime. And it really makes me think of the bigger picture. We are all developing genetic mutations and damage at all times. Our body has a way of fixing these problems. And when the damage cannot be fixed, cells have a built-in protective process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. This evolutionary insurance plan is designed specifically to halt uncontrolled cellular growth, which is non-conducive to life. If we all have the propensity toward genetic mutation, and we all have repair mechanisms, then why does this process go haywire in some people and not others? Remember these are pathways, not single genes, so we aren't just born one way or the other--we all have the capacity to develop cancer, every one of us.

I don't really have an answer that would suffice here, but I do think that the future with regard to cancer will be about prevention; and much of this will come from mind-body discoveries. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. There is a mental/emotional component that we are missing in all of this, and we're missing it because we are so attached to materialistic explanations for everything. I think there is more, and I think it will come out sooner or later. Let's leave it at that for now.

Pregnancy Stress Linked to Schizophrenia

Severe stress during pregnancy may help cause schizophrenia. So says a study out New York University School of Medicine. According to researchers, severe stress--like wars, natural disasters, terrorism, or sudden bereavement--can lead to epigenetic changes, which are changes in gene expression, not changes to the DNA itself.

The study looked at data from 88,829 people born in Jerusalem from 1964 to 1976. They wanted to see if an increase in schizophrenia occurred in babies born to women during the height of the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. What they found is astounding: babies born to mothers who were two months pregnant in June of 1967 were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia. The height of bombing in Jerusalem was a three day period from June 5-7.

Females born during this period (January 1968 to be exact) were 4.2 times more likely to develop schizophrenia than the 1.1 % of the population which is the global norm. Males born during this period were 1.2 times more likely to develop the mental illness. Wow! Although the researchers didn't rule out a genetic link--that is, the babies had a high family risk for developing schizophrenia--it is unlikely. While schizophrenia in the general population has some family ties, the majority of cases do not. So epigenetics seems to be the logical mechanism.

I find these results fascinating, because I'm a firm believer that we all have every gene, but it's whether or not it's expressed that counts. This would explain some seemingly random human variations, like gender identity disorders, psychopathy, and schizophrenia. And it makes complete sense that a strong connection exists between Mom's experiences during gestation and how baby forms.

In epigenetics, as it is understood and discussed today, we are talking about a narrow form of gene expression, a once in a lifetime event. In other words, humans are not susceptible to environmentally induced genetic changes multiple times in their lifetime; major genetic variations occur during gestational development only. In the case of severe stress, the stress hormones can affect the placenta, ultimately changing the environment of the fetus, which then changes in response.

But wait! Don't freak out, soon to be mom's: we're talking about severe stress here, not simply getting in a fight with baby's daddy. I reported in an earlier post that this just isn't the case, so unless you're involved in a major trauma, you probably have nothing to worry about. But I think we will learn in the near future just how much severe stressors during pregnancy can affect the unborn child. Any thoughts?

Natural Cancer Prevention

They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but a few daily servings of broccoli can ward off cancer. So says a new study out of Great Britain. Not only does the study show broccoli's anti-cancerous effects, but it shows just how the cruciferous vegetable does it.

According to researchers, isothiocyanate--a chemical found in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables like brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and watercress--sparks a cascade of genetic effects which ultimately provide the body protection against cancer. Broccoli, however, is particularly powerful since it also contains the compound called sulforaphane, which may give it an extra cancer-fighting kick.

The study looked specifically at men with precancerous lesions of the prostrate, and found that by eating four extra servings of broccoli each week, genetic changes occurred such that certain cancer-fighting genes were turned on while other genes, those which tend to fuel tumors, were turned off. Brilliant! According to Richard Mithen, biologist at Britain's Institute of Food Research, and one of the study's authors, "When people get cancer some genes are switched off and some are switched on. What broccoli seems to be doing is switching on genes which prevent cancer developing and switching off other ones that help it spread."

So there you have it: Reason to start pounding this stuff. Prostate cancer is the second-leading cancer killer of men following lung cancer. Each year some 680,000 men worldwide are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 220,000 will die from it. So fellas, eat your broccoli by the bushel full. And women, you eat it too, since scientists believe that the cancer-protective effects of broccoli extend to other tissues besides the prostate. Remember, a large percentage of illnesses plaguing society are preventable. Now you know.

Check out this cool broccoli-blog.