Talk:Obesity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Obesity article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale
To-do list for Obesity: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • solidify present material with maximum WP:CITE
  • more on epidemiology, e.g. global numbers and political/geographical/sociocultural determinants that have been identified in this way
  • slightly more on the neurobiology (e.g. which cerebral mechanisms may be involved) and the consequences of obesity to metabolism
  • incorporate guidance from professional organisations
  • address the relevance of fad diets and the limited scientific evidence for their use
  • recommend adding a BMI calculator like http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/index.htm
  • correct picture insert of "The Tuscan General" which features Alessandro del Borro. Alessandro del Borro was in fact the Tuscan General, who the artist was of this piece is still a mystery.
  • Would like to add information pertaining to new findings linking obesity to Dementia. Information has been published by the American Neurology Association <http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.wnl.0000306313.89165.efv1>
Priority 1 (top) 
Peer review Obesity has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Fetal origins of obesity

) There is a lot of evidence indicating that obesity might have a fetal background. Smoking in pregnancy leads to offspring obesity. This is not a genetic mechanism, which entitles it to have a separate section under "Causes and mechanisms". I would not call this "vandalism" Magfas (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Cite the info, then im sure it would be considered. - FatM1ke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reviewMagfas (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
I didn't see anything on smoking in that. Did I miss something? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that was more of a general review (were you able to access the entire review?) on fetal origins of obesity and fat distribution. Here is a more specific one on smoking. The point is that intrauterine processes influences the adaptation to life. It deserves a mention at least. Magfas (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] that photo of a love seat

How has that photo of a love seat stayed on here? Can someone ask the original poster to provide some evidence that that's indeed a special chair for large people, and if s/he can't, remove the picture? The whole thing screams "practical joke" to me. Triangular (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] exercise vs diet

The article currently says "exercise combined with diet resulted in a greater weight reduction than diet alone".

But that makes me wonder -- are there any studies comparing exercise alone vs. diet alone? Is "weight loss from exercise cod with diet" an additive effect of "weight loss due to exercise" plus "weight loss due to diet", or is there a synergetic effect? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


As well I think it's better to define what exactly is meant by exercise, diet and weight loss, as for myself, in the past 4 months I've changed my diet, started to exercise and as a result gained approximately 25 pounds, mainly of muscle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.177.210 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Indefinite protection is not usually a good idea, but yesterday's unprotection of this page shows that it is a vandal magnet. I have yet to see a useful edit to this topic from an anon or newly-registered account. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we're doing the right thing then. RFerreira (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping it off

mmmmmm: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/10/1139?etoc JFW | T@lk 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] seen as a sign of lower socio-economic status

"Obesity is often seen as a sign of lower socio-economic status" sounds strange to me. Obesity correlates with low economic status. That is a fact and could be mentioned. But to see obese people as of lower socio-economic status is prejudice. Why mention the predjudice unless in a section on prejudice against the obsese?--Timtak (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-fat?

Fijagdh (talk · contribs) made some pretty sweeping changes to the introduction and opening sections. Edit summaries seem to indicate that the content was "anti-fat", but what came instead was a weasel-word laden attempt at NPOV. I don't think that there are many experts who disagree that prevalence of obesity is increasing or that it predisposes to many medical conditions. The news article that was inserted in the intro replaces peer-reviewed evidence already cited with "personal opinion" by "experts" with a sniff of conflict of interest. That may technically belong somewhere in the article, but is really not suitable for the intro. JFW | T@lk 07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some of the additions lead to very interesting sources. I had heard of the UK twin study, but have now identified the actual reference and added it (in preferment over news articles that have the habit of dumbing down the data). The "10 alibis" news item led to a pretty high-profile review of additional explanations for the "obesity epidemic" that is highly quotable. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Units

Units in first paragraph The mg/kg2 should be kg/m2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.27.178 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the term "healthy weight"

Given that there is conflicting evidence about the health effects of obesity, I propose that the term "healthy limits" in the first paragraph be changed to "established limits," or some other value-neutral term like that. Minerva9 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, your argument is clearly based on POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are some references --
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=5
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/17/2028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339599?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I believe the issue deserves some discussion. Perhaps it's as simple as adding a section about crticisms of modern obesity research. Might provide useful information. Minerva9 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Merger proposal

I suggest that the Central obesity article be merged with this one. Central obesity contains NO references, and doesn't say much that is different from the Obesity article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I retract my proposal - the Central obesity article is much improved from the state it was in before and is now a well-rounded (ooh... poor choice of words there!), properly sourced article! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, but please spare us the slang terms ("muffin top" and "love handles") presently mentioned on that page. JFW | T@lk 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe we should keep the article on central obesity - because central obesity (belly fat) is a distinct topic in its own right, and has been covered a lot in the news lately, since much research has shown that there is a high correlation between belly fat and health risks such as stroke, and because users tend to look up specific things they'd like to know more about. Users who look this up will expect or hope there is an article explaining what this term is. Redirecting them to a huge article on obesity in general is inappropriate when it is central obesity specifically that they want clarified. Links to the general article can be provided in case users are interested in reading more (which is a core design philosophy of this and other encyclopedias - go from specific to general). Besides, the obesity article is already 74 kilobytes long, and we should start looking seriously at splitting it up. Also, more material is bound to be gathered on belly fat by our editors, and it makes sense that there is an article of its own for them to add more facts to - obesity is a wide enough topic (no pun intended) that we shouldn't expect to place everything about it on a single page. The Transhumanist    17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Improvements to the article - I've copy-edited the whole central obesity article, have added references throughout, and have added two or three new sections as well. I think you will agree that the topic is well-worth covering in its own right. While I was researching additions to the article, I noticed a lot more material out there on this topic - for example, "central obesity" returns 111,000 hits on Google, while Google Scholar returned 14,400 hits. The Transhumanist    23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. Central obesity is a distinct medical condition with a huge literature, which warrants its own page. The obesity page is sufficiently long to require splitting already. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. Per The Transhumanist and Espresso Addict. There's plenty of literature on central obesity, it has its own specific characteristics, and deserves to be treated in a separate article. --Eleassar my talk 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] MC4R

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/MRC004564 - this has now been demonstrated to be relevant in a 90,000 people study. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diets

OccamzRazor (talk · contribs) removed the entire section on dietary treatments, on the grounds that it because it discussed specific diets it was "not encylopedic information on obesity". A quick glance at the references will suggest that this is not just a list of diets. It is a list of diets that have actually been investigated in the treatment of obesity. It is therefore highly encyclopedic, because contrary to all the nonsense written in the ladies' magazines, these diets have been scientifically tested! I oppose removal of the section. If there are specific concerns, we ought to discuss them here. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Responsibility for World Ills

A recent letter by two members of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published in the Lancet, proposes that obese people are partially to blame for both global warming/climate change and the World food crisis (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107629.php). It's been picked up by several reputable news outlets, and probably warrants inclusion in this article. I would reckon it should be put in the non-medical consequences section of the article, however, I would feel it warranted a little more exposition than just a bullet point and 2 or 3 sentences (as the section is currently comprised). Any thoughts on whether we should add a paragraph? Or just keep it to a bullet point? Malbolge (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This is a piece of opinion by two researchers who are not particularly notable in themselves. Obviously there is no direct evidence that obese people leave a larger carbon footprint (and it will be very hard to create that evidence). Furthermore, I submit that most obese people do not wilfully overeat/underexercise, so it would be rather unfair to place climate change squarely on their shoulders. JFW | T@lk 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics

For instance, reliance on energy-dense fast-food meals tripled between 1977 and 1995, and calorie intake quadrupled over the same period.[23]

Someone please clarify this, i.e. 'calorie intake of energy-dense foods quadrupled' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.47.72 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense. Because more people have energy-dense meals, their overall calorie intake increased a lot. JFW | T@lk 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)