Well we do know that eating a lot of sugar increases insulin production and insulin enlarges cells. I am not sure about the whole causation/correlation part of it, but for example with increased insulin production, fat cells become larger and their will be a greater likelihood of obesity even in skinny people. Moreover, I understand it is common for people with high insulin levels to have enlarged organs.
It is an outrageous theory, but maybe the difference in the brain is simply cell size due to insulin since that might affect appearance but not function.
In reading the paper, I appreciate the statistical efforts to adjust for age differences between the groups to make their claim, but at least optically it doesn't help that the average age of each cohort was already 10 years different. Lean group M = 48 yrs SD = 16; Overweight M = 57 years SD = 17; Obese M = 61 years SD = 16. The latter two groups were combined for analysis.
Doesn't BMI that uses electrical current to check for fat percentage in body negate the conetentiousness of BMI? I ask because I thought that was the case but now I'm not so sure.
Then it seems that inflammation would be the first place to start looking for mechanisms linking weight with white matter volume.
Certainly more visceral fat is associated with higher risk of all of the common forms of dementia, and most age-related conditions are sped up in their progression by inflammation.
It does not seem to affect cognitive ability (per the article). However I am curious if it is reversible. If you lose weight and get back to 'normal', does the brain layout look normal [for that given age group]?
Is that the case long term though? It would be interesting to study the progression of people over the next decade or few to see if it seems to speed up the onset of age related dementia or increase susceptibility to other conditions and illnesses.
I'd be interested in seeing if the effect is continuous or happens more at certain ages. Like take a group of people who are obese and say in there 40s, half were obese since they were children, and half became obese after 25 or so. See if there is any difference in brain development if the person was obese while they were still developing.
Not sure how you would account for effects of just being obese longer in general tho.
There is more and more agreement that obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and dementia are all in the end manifestations of various forms of metabolic issues, most prevalent of which is (frequently undiagnosed) insulin resistance, which, in turn is the result of high sugar consumption coupled with inflammation (from consuming all kinds of strange substances like food coloring and artificial sweeteners).
Our bodies are not very well adapted for continously running on sugar, but ever since early 19th century when sugar became abundant, that's what we've been doing, especially the developed countries.
>There is more and more agreement that obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and dementia are all in the end manifestations of various forms of metabolic issues, most prevalent of which is (frequently undiagnosed) insulin resistance
> Scans show greater shrinkage in volume of white matter in overweight and obese people, although it does not appear to affect cognitive performance.
Perhaps this is a demonstration that the brain is over-engineered and the extra matter is insurance against damage. If the white matter is being lost slowly, the brain can continuously adapt asymptomatically.
There may come a point where there is so much loss/damage dementia is inevitable, implying obese people would have a higher long-term likelihood of dementia.
I went to the client subsidised canteen for lunch with my team today. I selected some nice salad from the buffet, and decided to weigh it before heading for the till. At today's conversion rates it was 12 bucks for green leaves and Greek salad.
I put it down and had a very nice pie and chips for half that.
We have a situation where a significant portion of our society is having to make choices at the margin that it is evolutionarily unable to do.
I think we have many challenges ahead of us before we reach that golden future of humanity. wars, climate change, to name two, but they come down to the same problem we have with obesity - arranging our society to ensure our inner chimp's less helpful evolutionary urges do the least damage.
Another question is why does "society" honor and accept Obesity as a lifestyle choice, when its openly critical of tobacco addicts and heroin addicts? What's the difference?
It's widely seen as less of a simple choice to become obese, as it is to take up smoking for one thing. Presumably if you met someone who'd been regularly given cigarettes since they were toddlers, you would have a certain degree of sympathy for their issues as adults. There is also the simple fact that abstinence from tobacco is simple, and easy, and it works for everyone who doesn't choose to smoke. Most people don't attempt to have a "moderate" intake of smoking after all.
Meanwhile food is a bit harder to manage if you have a problem with it, don't you think? So, for people talking about a "lifestyle" ignore the crazy people. For people talking about realistic challenges beyond "suck it up fatty", you might want to pay attention.
Finally, "honor"? I don't think you have widespread discriminatory hiring practices against the "honored".
It doesn't, but at least in the US it might seem so because society makes it as hard as possible to get hooked on heroin and tobacco (prohibition, restriction & taxes) and easy as possible to get off of it (rehabilitation programs), whereas the ingredients that cause obesity (e.g. corn) are actively subsidized by the government and promoted by a large portion of the medical establishment. I'd bet that if the US government were actively subsidizing tobacco and opium farmers and processors, addiction to those drugs would be seen much more as a lifestyle choice.
I don't think the US weight loss market would be so large if society honored and accepted obesity ($64 billion in 2014 was one number I saw). There's certainly people who push for acceptance, but I've never gotten the feeling that it's the overwhelming sentiment.
A ten-year-old can be obese. An 80-year-old can be obese. I'm not sure what it says about the corresponding "lean peer" when adding ten years to these ages.
[+] [-] DenisM|9 years ago|reply
Explanation 1: being overweight leads to brain deficiency.
Explanation 2: brain deficiency leads to being overweight.
Explanation 3: a hidden variable, such as excessive blood sugar or nutrient deficiency, lead to both.
Explanation 4: there is no brain deficiency since there is no cognitive impact.
The article states as much, which is very refreshing to see in a mainstream paper.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] will_brown|9 years ago|reply
Well we do know that eating a lot of sugar increases insulin production and insulin enlarges cells. I am not sure about the whole causation/correlation part of it, but for example with increased insulin production, fat cells become larger and their will be a greater likelihood of obesity even in skinny people. Moreover, I understand it is common for people with high insulin levels to have enlarged organs.
It is an outrageous theory, but maybe the difference in the brain is simply cell size due to insulin since that might affect appearance but not function.
[+] [-] suprathreshold|9 years ago|reply
Is it still contentious to use the BMI to define these groups? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1062684...
[+] [-] inter_coder|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bargl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reasonattlm|9 years ago|reply
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.05.005
and the mountain of evidence showing that excess visceral fat tissue produces greater levels of chronic inflammation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437966/
Then it seems that inflammation would be the first place to start looking for mechanisms linking weight with white matter volume.
Certainly more visceral fat is associated with higher risk of all of the common forms of dementia, and most age-related conditions are sped up in their progression by inflammation.
[+] [-] deskamess|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dspillett|9 years ago|reply
Is that the case long term though? It would be interesting to study the progression of people over the next decade or few to see if it seems to speed up the onset of age related dementia or increase susceptibility to other conditions and illnesses.
[+] [-] TearsInTheRain|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UlyssesSKrunk|9 years ago|reply
Not sure how you would account for effects of just being obese longer in general tho.
[+] [-] btilly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gtrubetskoy|9 years ago|reply
Our bodies are not very well adapted for continously running on sugar, but ever since early 19th century when sugar became abundant, that's what we've been doing, especially the developed countries.
[+] [-] gruez|9 years ago|reply
Citation?
[+] [-] s_q_b|9 years ago|reply
Citation needed.
[+] [-] louprado|9 years ago|reply
Perhaps this is a demonstration that the brain is over-engineered and the extra matter is insurance against damage. If the white matter is being lost slowly, the brain can continuously adapt asymptomatically.
There may come a point where there is so much loss/damage dementia is inevitable, implying obese people would have a higher long-term likelihood of dementia.
Edit: removed an off topic counter-reference.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|9 years ago|reply
I always knew it ;-)
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|9 years ago|reply
I put it down and had a very nice pie and chips for half that.
We have a situation where a significant portion of our society is having to make choices at the margin that it is evolutionarily unable to do.
I think we have many challenges ahead of us before we reach that golden future of humanity. wars, climate change, to name two, but they come down to the same problem we have with obesity - arranging our society to ensure our inner chimp's less helpful evolutionary urges do the least damage.
[+] [-] dualogy|9 years ago|reply
So, wiser?
[+] [-] mbillie1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rarec|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpg33|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AWildDHHAppears|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aelinsaar|9 years ago|reply
Meanwhile food is a bit harder to manage if you have a problem with it, don't you think? So, for people talking about a "lifestyle" ignore the crazy people. For people talking about realistic challenges beyond "suck it up fatty", you might want to pay attention.
Finally, "honor"? I don't think you have widespread discriminatory hiring practices against the "honored".
[+] [-] hx87|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patorjk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris2048|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sickbeard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swehner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swehner|9 years ago|reply