Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Material_Mongoose339 t1_ixz00dk wrote

Quick answer: additional fatty tissue can supply increased lipid levels, including cholesterol, which is the basis for sexual hormones synthesis. Moreover, fat tissue can itself synthesize some feminine hormone lookalikes that can trigger early puberty (this is also why obesity is a factor influencing male hormones).

742

Interesting-Month-56 t1_ixz6lwh wrote

In addition to this, obesity is generally an indicator that the child is well fed while being underweight is an indicator of malnutrition.

The decrease in the global average age of menarchy over the last 100 years has been postulated to be entirely due to improved overall nutrition, which would support such a view. It’s not clear from your post whether you’re just comparing overweight and underweight children or overweight to appropriate weight children

147

Celcey t1_ixzjqai wrote

Obesity is not an indicator that a child is well fed, it’s a sign the child is over fed. And many, probably most, obese children are malnourished because they’re not eating nutrient dense food. So they’re getting calories, but not vitamins and minerals.

156

nicholsz t1_ixzkndy wrote

We understand that, but the endocrine system which evolved before Cheet-os doesn't.

342

Ok-Development-8238 t1_ixzty60 wrote

Just imagining an image of cavewomen gathering Cheetos from bushes, while the men hunt a bright orange, high cheetah

95

hiricinee t1_ixzzrfn wrote

That's just it. The body is essentially made to survive, reproduce, and take care of offspring until they can do the same. Obesity from an evolutionary standpoint is a sign of success, or at least a sign that there's enough resources to go ahead reproducing. The biggest concern to the body reproducing until the last 120 years was not having enough calories to survive (or calorie proxies.)

72

Ok-Development-8238 t1_iy11blo wrote

I tell my anthro students that all the time: there’s a reason it’s so goddamned hard to lose weight. For most of the past 3.8 billion years, your ancestors & their relatives were more likely to starve than have way too much

Still fascinating to me that the brain operates on 20 watts

28

jduff1009 t1_iy15wzj wrote

It’s actually not hard to lose weight. Just consume less calories than you burn. Pretty basic math.

−15

Ok-Development-8238 t1_iy16jc5 wrote

“It’s not hard to get over depression…just stop having negative thoughts!” 🤣

I have no problem fasting for 48 hours if need be…other people get crazy dizzy after six hours. But I have empathy for people whose psychology & physiology are different than mine

17

riotousgrowlz t1_iy1rglb wrote

It’s actually much more complex than CICO. Your metabolism shifts as you lose weight and at a certain point it gets harder and harder to lose each additional pound. If you gain weight back (as most people do) your metabolism doesn’t have a corresponding increase so weight cycling actually results in more weight gain over time than making no changes. The hormones that control hunger are also affected by weight cycling and you can get hungrier the more you crash diet and it is HARD to do anything else competently while experiencing hunger pains. So, it’s not really simple math, there are so many more variables at play than simply calories in and calories out.

7

NightlyNate t1_iy1ryj2 wrote

However, without a healthy diet containing fiber and protein, which satiates hunger longer, people eat more unhealthy (ultra-processed) food which contains fats and sugars and calories, which is packed with fats and calories, which doesn't satiate hunger, which turns into a cycle. Especially if you buy nutrient deficient foods like microwavable dinners and processed products like those.

​

I hope I make sense.

1

TC9095 t1_iy0c9tm wrote

I'm pretty sure 120 years ago kids were not stuffing there face with McDonald's. I really doubt there were overweight kids in that time. They did not eat sugar like we live off of today

−7

Dr_dillerborg t1_iy0eyse wrote

Well Hamburger Charlie was selling fast food hamburgers in 1885 - so technically kids could stuff their faces 120 years ago.

12

hiricinee t1_iy0dbvw wrote

It's not hard to imagine, going as far back as you can, a highly successful hunter/gatherer tribe where a kid indulged on berries and meat until they got big enough to start puberty early. It'd be a lot harder without calorie dense foods, but the idea that a body can overweight itself into early puberty was still a real thing.

9

clullanc t1_iy0ufnl wrote

I really don’t think many children eat that way. Lack of exercise I can believe.

−2

julius_sphincter t1_iy0zhf1 wrote

It's almost certainly sugar drinks/sodas that get most kids fat. I mean kids will eat straight dessert if you let them, but most parents know better than that.

What I see way way way too often is kids pounding sodas/gatorades/juices etc that are have more sugar than a bag of candy

7

Saxamaphooone t1_iy170ji wrote

Juice is a really insidious one. On the surface it can sound like a healthier choice, but when you look deeper it becomes quite clear that it can be just as bad as drinks that are well-known to be full of sugar. I know someone who works in a dental office and they have to have “the juice talk” with parents countless times every year.

5

ExKnockaroundGuy t1_iy0cxzo wrote

Just look at the sugar content of modern packaged foods and the newer GMO wheat spikes insulin levels creating fat storage. Look at pics of crowds like young people pre 1980 compared to 2022.

−3

biguncutmonster t1_iy0ow55 wrote

Source on GMO wheat? There seems to always be some sort of fear mongering surrounding GMO

15

jbsgc99 t1_ixzsvkj wrote

From the perspective of an organism that originated in a world where starvation was only a single misfortune away, calories are king.

42

Celcey t1_iy1nq72 wrote

To an extent. There's a reason our bodies are designed to crave carbs, after all. But in today's food environment, calories can be a big problem. We really don't need as many as one would think.

6

Interesting-Month-56 t1_ixzka4m wrote

Granted there is nuance and important detail missed in the generalization, more calories available while growing generally indicates better health than growth stunted by lack of calories.

I recognize that we have also gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and that some overweight kids have nutritional deficits. Don’t know how that affects onset of puberty though.

30

ImprovedPersonality t1_iy0b0p1 wrote

> And many, probably most, obese children are malnourished because they’re not eating nutrient dense food. So they’re getting calories, but not vitamins and minerals.

It’s not that hard to get enough protein, vitamins and minerals on the food intake required for obesity.

13

SelectWay5519 t1_iy1i9c2 wrote

It depends on the type and variety of foods consumed, truly. The average American doesn't eat a diet diverse or enriched enough to meet all the basic requirements in calcium, potassium, Vitamin D and fiber for example.

4

OLAZ3000 t1_iy02fmi wrote

Actually this is not what current obesity research suggests... we actually don't entirely know why.

I do agree with you for prob 75% of obese children, but there are prob 25% for whom there are other factors we do not understand at play. (Google recent news on obsesity research.)

2

[deleted] t1_iy1ofq6 wrote

[removed]

1

riotousgrowlz t1_iy1t1u6 wrote

Sure but that’s not a problem solvable at an individual level— we need structural changes to help keep kids healthy. Long recess, more (non-traumatic) physical education, healthy school lunches, walkable cities, shorter workdays, regulations on advertising sugary foods to kids, reduction in environmental toxins that contribute to asthma, safe bike infrastructure, subsidies on fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. all would have an impact. But right now most obesity public health policy seems to “eat fewer calories dummy” followed up by a shocked pikachu face when that seems to have no impact.

5

Celcey t1_iy4apx5 wrote

100% agree. We have a societal problem that is currently only solvable on an individual level, and that's just not gonna fly.

2

Misabi t1_iy08sge wrote

>In addition to this, obesity is generally an indicator that the child is well fed while being underweight is an indicator of malnutrition.

Interesting perspective. An alternative opinion: "Malnutrition is a state of the body in which due to insufficient supply or incorrect absorption of essential nutrients, the body composition changes and the body's functions are impaired. Malnutrition is associated not only with reduced body mass index but also with obesity." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749356/#:~:text=Malnutrition%20is%20a%20state%20of,index%20but%20also%20with%20obesity.

31

GoodGoodGoody t1_iy042k0 wrote

Your bias is interesting: the post topic is obesity which you call “well fed” and everything else you call “underweight”.

1

A_Boojum_Snark t1_iy09fpb wrote

Not the one you replied to, but I've always heard "well fed" used with an implication of excess, not as to the quality or correctness.
That said I took their post as spoken from an evolutionary perspective: well fed = resources = begin reproduction sooner. In regards to the "goal" of evolution being reproduction, more food is always a good thing.

18

GoodGoodGoody t1_iy0bhe6 wrote

Youre really trying to square peg-round hole that one. Topic is obesity which they rounded down to well fed. They say everything else is underweight.

Then you went off topic; if the topic was well fed it would be just that. A morsel too much or a morsel too little would be immaterial with no automatic assumption of excess (which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyhow).

−6

mothman83 t1_iy0d6gq wrote

you are completely misunderstanding the point.

​

Until 200 years ago, famine was a real issue even in wealthy nations. The body does not "understand" obesity. The body " goes" ( i mean no actual thought is involved obviously) " this is a time of plenty, better reproduce ASAP while the going is good".

13

bad_apiarist t1_iy100et wrote

This is true. In the pre-civilization past, substantial obesity was almost impossible. This is due to several aspects of modernity, and not just food availability:

- compared to us, ancient humans had to spend a LOT of energy just to survive. You want clothing? tools? food? Shelter? You're making it. You're finding it. You're preparing it. Every day. Or else you don't make it.

- Parasite & pathogen load. A substantial amount of body resources used to go to parasites like helminths, as well as to fighting off infections. In modern, post-industrial societies almost all parasites are simply eradicated. When you do get infections, you get medical care (antibiotics, vaccinations, antivirals, etc) that drastically reduce the strain on the immune system and energetic resources required.

- Obesity, at a certain point, is debilitating. But modern society makes such a life quite manageable. This was far less true in the distant past. No rascal scooters on the savanna. Many groups of humans were nomadic. If you can't walk and run reasonable well for hours at a time, you're in a lot of trouble.

1

eddie3737 t1_iy11o78 wrote

The decreased average age of menarche is caused by excess of carb intake/decrease in insulin sensitivity. As someone else said many obese children are malnourished from a lack of nutrient dense foods

1

[deleted] t1_iy06o3l wrote

I always was a person with a “fast metabolism “ never could gain weight no matter how much I consumed. And believe me I tried. ( I’m in my Thirties now and finally starting gain weight ) and I remember I was a late bloomer like 14+ and slow and steady till about 25. It was rly annoying and I did have a lot of obese friends in childhood and they all hit puberty at 10-13 and fast. In high school was the worst. It def messed with my head and how insecure I was. Lol. I’m all good now but took enough time compared to others lol

26

Xxazn4lyfe51xX t1_iy1vowh wrote

This is probably not the reason. We don't really know what exactly triggers puberty yet. While adipose tissue is responsible for aromatization of androgens into estrogens, the feedback for this to happen is not present until after puberty.

1