Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Is obesity an immune response. page

  1. #1
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    968

    Is obesity an immune response.

    Primal Fuel
    I have read a lot of information regarding obesity and there is the oft quoted association between obesity and systemic inflamation, with the inference that it is the abundance of fat which results in excess cytokines that cause inflamation.

    Reading in more with regard to leptins role in the immune system and the causes of elevated leptin levels I am starting to wonder if the entire process is not an immune response by the body.

    So, say we have the body finding itself in a defensive position, under siege from excessive carbohydrate, Omega 6, AGE's, environmental toxins etc. so it ramps up the immune system to process, eject or store & contain the toxic overload, hence we have a weight gain situation which goes hand in hand with higher leptin levels, which also set a new baseline level for inflamation.

    As Leptin level is roughly corrolated to adipose tissue, does this then suggest that the elevated state of inflamation is actually required to maintain the containment process within the adipose tissue and elswhere in the body to deal with toxins slipping through the containment lines.

    Whilst we continue to push crap into our mouths, this process is continuously being ramped up.
    Once we decide we can do better, then by reducing the crap going in, allows the body to better deal with and repair existing damage, but there is still the toxic dump in the adipose tissue that needs to be eliminated. So this would suggest that until the rest of the body is healed to some degree can the inflamation begin to subside gradually, but only at the rate with which the body can process the toxins coming out of the adipose tissue.

    So this hypothesis is that obesity is the desired result of inflamation enacted by the immune system.

    The article's and study's below suggests toxins are released during weight loss.
    http://www.wellnessresources.com/wei...diet_weight_l/
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHe...alHealth/22080
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569688/
    http://drhyman.com/downloads/Toxins-and-Obesity.pdf

    If this is the case, then this begs the question of whether it is actually healthy to force a weight loss situation by calorie restriction, or is it more appropriate to assist the body by restricting the toxins ingested and providing it with nutrients density and allowing the body to deal with detoxing as it deems appropriate?

    Should CICO be pronounced SIcKO?
    Last edited by Omni; 04-17-2013 at 11:46 PM.

  2. #2
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,222
    Do you have links to any of the articles you have read?

  3. #3
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Laissez le bon temps rouler!
    Posts
    6,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    If this is the case, then this begs the question of whether it is actually healthy to force a weight loss situation by calorie restriction, or is it more appropriate to assist the body by restricting the toxins ingested and providing it with nutrients density and allowing the body to deal with detoxing as it deems appropriate?

    Should CICO be pronounced SIcKO?
    I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I've always found that when I restrict calories, I eat more healthy/nutrient dense foods than I was eating prior. IOW, even when sort of following CW, restricting calories to me meant ditching sweets, pizza, beans, etc., and eating more meat, fish, and eggs. I wasn't eating to heal anything except a fat ass, but looking back, I eliminated a lot of the worst offenders. I did eat some "diet" products, but since they were no worse than their full calorie counterparts, that was kind of a wash.

    Now when I decrease calories, I really eat clean. Meat, fish, eggs, butter, CO, and cooked greens and tomatoes probably make up about 95% of my food intake.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

  4. #4
    Black Timber's Avatar
    Black Timber is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    174
    I would think that a smarter, more evolved, human body will in the future dispose of the toxins as they presented themselves rather than holding onto them in adipose tissue. It is a difficult situation we have put ourselves into. Sort of like storing nuclear waste. Everything is fine until the drums start to leak!
    Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

  5. #5
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    Do you have links to any of the articles you have read?
    The toxicity links are at the bottom, are you refering to the leptin stuff?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoanieL View Post
    I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I've always found that when I restrict calories, I eat more healthy/nutrient dense foods than I was eating prior. IOW, even when sort of following CW, restricting calories to me meant ditching sweets, pizza, beans, etc., and eating more meat, fish, and eggs. I wasn't eating to heal anything except a fat ass, but looking back, I eliminated a lot of the worst offenders. I did eat some "diet" products, but since they were no worse than their full calorie counterparts, that was kind of a wash.

    Now when I decrease calories, I really eat clean. Meat, fish, eggs, butter, CO, and cooked greens and tomatoes probably make up about 95% of my food intake.
    That's about as clean as you can get, but the environment still presents challenges, one of the toxicity articles reported that from autopsy samples, 100% of adipose tissue samples had measurable DDT levels along with 3 other known toxins and at 90% level there was 4 additional chemicals.
    Now the issue with any testing we only get a result for what we test for, hence half of the problem is deciding what to test for, so what else was in the fat tissue, did those individual's have those toxins because we can't clear them or were their bodies dealing with more pressing issues, hence those chemicals were contained to be dealt with in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Timber View Post
    I would think that a smarter, more evolved, human body will in the future dispose of the toxins as they presented themselves rather than holding onto them in adipose tissue. It is a difficult situation we have put ourselves into. Sort of like storing nuclear waste. Everything is fine until the drums start to leak!
    That's a long way off, we spent millions of years evolving to fit the environment of the time which for all intensive purposes was fairly constant, in the last 100 years, human's in all their wisdom and creativity have introduced hundreds of thousands of new chemical compounds into their environment and many of these don't degrade, put simply we've been shitting in our own back yard and wonder why we are sick.

  6. #6
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Laissez le bon temps rouler!
    Posts
    6,924
    I don't know much about environmental toxins. Can DDT ever be gotten rid of entirely? I know there are some metals that once you 'got 'em,' you're stuck with them.

    I don't think there will be one answer to obesity. I was encouraged by the experiments done on the mice who'd had gastric bypass surgery and what injecting their post surgery intestinal flora into obese mice did. But I think there will be many components such as immune response, genetics, etc.

    Any new information helps. The "eat less you stupid fatty pants" model certainly isn't working.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

  7. #7
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,252
    Here's my theory. I'm sure there are many other theories that could work but this is mine.

    Obesity starts because a person is not getting enough nutrients from food. This leads to hunger. Hunger despite adequate calories. Hunger leads to eating. You eat more calories than you need because your body has not satisfied its needs. The hunger is why diets are very difficult. It is hard to overcome such a fundamental biological urge.

    Because it is a fundamental biological urge, we give in. But we are bombarded in our culture with the word "gluttony" and if we're women there's an additional layer of shame piled on top of this. We turn to junk foods. We eat in secret. We binge. We develop eating disorders.

    If we are poor or of ordinary income and just not that into the whole "health food scene" we'll shop in stores that provide industrially produced foods that are nutrient deficient. So even when we do try to eat well and proper, we'll still be sabotaging our biology.

    The nutrients we don't get enough of are the ones in saturated animal fat from healthy animals, real vitamin A like you get from liver, trace minerals that modern foods are becoming very deficient in, Vitamin D because we all wear sun block and avoid the sun, real protein from animals, choline from the egg yolks we aren't supposed to enjoy, Omega 3, etc. So when we try to eat "healthy" or restrict calories, we tend to avoid these nutrients. This only makes the situation worse. We become malnourished.

    The Primal Blueprint works because we're told to move toward the foods that provide the nutrients we really need and stay away from the substitutes we've been taught are healthier but really aren't and to also stay away from the junk foods everybody knows are bad. Isn't it interesting how similar the so-called healthy foods are to the junk foods? The Omega 6 fats are in both, the difference between whole grain and refined grain is nil, meat as a condiment (where's the beef?) is equal to both, both a junk food diet and a "healthy" diet are high in high glycemic index carbohydrates.

    We still have to restrict calories to lose weight. But it is so much easier to do when the food we do eat has adequate nutrients. There is less hunger. The food is delicious and satisfying. We can eat less if the food is nutrient dense. We feel better. We have energy for exercise. Our bodies return to something closer to normal. That some of us don't return to normal easily is probably testament to the damage that has been done by years of malnutrition and endocrine disruption.

    Basically my theory revolves around gnolls.org Why we are hungry series, the recent article about the science of junk food, and that article about the healthiness of people in Victorian England. I think the gutsense guy was hinting at these things in his never ending series.
    Why Are We Hungry? Part I: What Is Hunger? Liking Vs. Wanting, Satiation Vs. Satiety - GNOLLS.ORG
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/ma...junk-food.html
    How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 210 x 3

  8. #8
    picklepete's Avatar
    picklepete is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    Obesity starts because a person is not getting enough nutrients from food.
    I think Warrior Diet and Perfect Health Diet make this case too. When I see how many of my peers live on special K for breakfast, pasta for dinner, and vending machine pretzels in between it's not hard to believe.

  9. #9
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    968
    I do think Obesity is very much a Hydra (greek mythology) type of situation and nutrition, overconsumption, genetics and behaviour all come to play a role.

    The main issue I see is there are significant exceptions to all of these, maybe that is just part of the multifactorial nature of obesisty or maybe it's because these things only address some aspects of the problem. One of the triggers for me to go down this path was reading about some of the Omega 6 studies, general findings indicating that with over 8% of calories being O6 always resulted in weight gain, whether the diet was isocaloric or not.
    Then I have also seen studies with overfeeding that did not result in any weight gain, so overfeeding to gain nutrition does not seem to be the key.
    The other component that I do not believe is adequately explained elswhere is the issue of plateaus, that refuse to be broken by caloric restriction, that's some serious determination to hold that fat in place by the body to risk significant metabolic dysfunction just to hold onto a bit of fat, I don't find the starvation response adequately explains this in obese individuals.
    The logic seems, for me, to suggest releasing what's in the adipose tissue is far worse than downregulating metabolism.
    The more I read the more I find that the body is far smarter and more purposeful than we give it credit for and everything that we have considered as an abberant response in the past, falls into the most logical response once enough information becomes available, so to that end, without an adequate explanation for a seemingly abberant response, I assume it is logical and we just need to look deeper to understand.

    The gradual detoxification through good nutrition does seem the best explaination for the majority of weight loss anomolies IMO at this stage.

  10. #10
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,559
    Everything the body does is intelligent every time. It's an intelligent response to circumstances that we put it in. Most chronic diseases are simply intelligent physiological adaptations to a stress that would have killed you outright should those adaptations not been made.

    Chris Masterjohn actually did a talk where he explained diabetes as an intelligent response quite well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •