This Week’s Top Stories (August 28 – September 4, 2010)

While we regularly post lengthy discussions on Obesity Panacea, there are many research updates, news stories, videos, etc. in the field of obesity, physical activity and nutrition that we come across on a daily basis that never grace the pages of the blog. Most of these mini-stories we share with our followers on Twitter, and we encourage those of you with active Twitter accounts to communicate with us there to get real-time updates of all the stuff we are discussing (Follow Peter and/or Follow Travis). For those of you who shy away from Twitter, enjoy below the best mini-stories that we came across during the prior week along with links to the original source so that you can follow the full story.

  • Not breast-feeding increases mothers’ risk for type 2 diabetes (Scientific American)
  • The Big Fat Bariatric Bangwagon (Diabetologia editorial)
  • Coming Soon: Theaters, Airplanes to Post Calories (Wall Street Journal)
  • In the UK, use of weight-loss surgery has increased 10-fold since 2000 (BMJ)
  • Is your allergy medication making you overweight? So suggests a new study. (Obesity)
  • There is more to the story than cholesterol and triglycerides. The complex lipidome quantified. (Nutritional Blogma)
  • Diabetes and the heart: More questions than answers. (Dr. Sharma’s Obesity Notes)

Have a great weekend,

Peter

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Creative Commons License
This Week’s Top Stories (August 28 – September 4, 2010) by Obesity Panacea, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

This entry was posted in This Week's Top Stories. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to This Week’s Top Stories (August 28 – September 4, 2010)

  1. mangrist says:

    “Currently, only triglycerides and cholesterol are usually clinically assessed, and while we know a lot about how nutrition [affects] these, their causal roles in disease or as biomarkers are controversial.”

    Why are they controversial?

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Travis Saunders, MSc, CEP says:

      I sent Colby a note to see if he’d elaborate :)

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. nobody says:

    I’m no longer in university, so I can’t read the whole article, so I just have to ask for more information on the allergy medication study. Who were the controls? The authors list some physical measurements which are matched between the allergy medicine takers and the control group, but they make no mention of matching by severity of allergies and presence of allergens.

    As someone with a fair amount of allergies, this is a red flag for me. And I’ve stopped taking allergy medicine, mostly because it’s generally stopped working and I can get better results for airborne allergens with a netti and if I eat something lethal, I’m in epi pen territory. I know anecdote is a poor substitute for evidence, but I can tell when ragweed starts blooming by my sudden increase in appetite. Also, I have a disability that kicks in and makes me stop exercising when there is enough pollution and allergens in the air. With zero explicit lifestyle change I’ve lost 25 pounds (moving from obese to overweight) since moving from the big city in the desert (no rain = ever present pollutants and allergens) to the small town away from the desert where it rains every 2 weeks, minimum. Since they don’t mention controlling for presence of allergies in the abstract where they describe the control group, all this makes me wonder if they’ve adequately controlled for the drug vs. allergies in general. It might be hard to dig up matched subjects, but I’d really want to see a comparison of matched subjects who are geographically proximate (and therefore getting roughly the same allergen exposure) and are allergic to the same things.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)