Talk:Obesity/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Obesity country statistics

The United States is historically remarkable for being the first nation with obese poor people. This was in bad jokes and deleted nonsense, but it actually makes a good point. -Ed Poor

I've added information about poverty correlations in the social causes section. Adhib 01:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should probably mention the recent US court case(s) against MacD's. -- Tarquin

See also "McLibel" case

I've added material about the policy/litigation issues at bottom of the controversies section. Adhib 01:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Americans have the highest obesity rate in the world -- This may be true, but I'd like to see some documentation for it. -- Zoe

Not true. Obesity rates on some Pacific Islands run at up to 85% in the over-40 bracket. Adhib 11:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's more likely one of the highest obesity rates in the developed world. New Zealand also has a rather large obesity rate, especially in children.

"Obesity also plagues middle eastern countries, with 35 per cent of Egyptians considered obese, a greater proportion than the population in the USA at 20 per cent." -- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000917/world.htm#6 However, I can't find any sources to confirm this. -- General Wesc

The first document contains a bar-graph on obesity levels in Europe + Israel. the second some numbers from the WHO from various coutries -- Mokgand 22:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• House of Commons Health Committee : Obesity Third Report of Session 2003–04 Volume I
• WHO | Obesity and overweight

BMI

---

From the article:

The BMI was created in the 19th Century by the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet, and remained largely intact until June 1998 when the BMI was revised downward. This had the effect of changing one's status from "ideal" weight to "overweight" in one day.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the numerical definition of the BMI was changed, or that the thresholds for "overweight" were changed? As is, this statement is vague and confusing. -- The Anome 09:04, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Clarified this claim, but I suggest any further material is referred to the BMI article itself. Adhib 11:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some mention should be made about waist circumference, as a supplement to BMI or even a better predictor for health problems. And add more detailed info on this to BMI article ? Mokgand 20:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]
• See section: Body fat distribution and health risk

The article mentions this, and so does the first reference. What is your point? JFW | T@lk 21:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Cultural Obesity, Famine, Overeating

User:Curious wrote:

obesity is rare in the wild because they eat the body controlled way. the trouble with dogs and cats and horses is the diet mentality has the owners feeding the animals only a certain amount, usually located on the bag or in books, and only once a day for dogs and twice for horses.

so when hunger strikes the dog or cat they have to wait on the owner to feed them which can be hours, so for hours the animals is hungry the body is burning up fat and muscle for fuel until food comes in. and when they do finally get to eat it is not enough to replace the muscles or to saitiate the animal.

so what does the animal do? Beg. so the owner gives them the parts of the food they themselves don't want and poof a fat animal. they are only putting on fat because they are going hungry to often or the food quality is poor and they are not given enough on a consistent basis.

This is famine survival, we may not think of animals as enduring famines afterall they are being fed at least once a day. but it is a famine nontheless, as far as the body is concerned.

But if the owners would give them a high quality food on a constant basis, higher meat than vegie, give them some fat several times a week they would cure their obesity. it wouldn't happen overnight but it can be done without being cruel to the animal by making it go hungry all the time just for the sake of vanity (thinness doens't necessarily equate with good health, it just looks better) putting animals on diets or giving them less than they want is cruel.

and:

Studies show that exercise while dieting doesn't preserve muscles. muscles are needed for a higher metabolism. Diets also are associated with increased mortality because of this muscle cannabalism, which the heart is a muscle and it weakens it. Just read that in a metabolism article earlier today.

Adipose 101 stated too that diets do not lower setpoints, and that setpoint determines the amount of fat stored. I also learned through personal experience that the land of plenty is not the reason for obesity. animals in the wild generally have a land of plenty and are not obese, though they do gain fat in the fall for winter survival.

humans who live in a land of plenty do not generally take advantage of it because of the diet mentality or if they do, they eat too much junk, which to the body of a famine sensitive individual is considered a nutrtient famine. the body doesn't know that food is plentiful if you don't eat enough of it on a consistent basis reaching satiation.

just as much as many are overeating, they are also undereating. Jean Antenello, RN,who runs the naturally thin clinic in saint paul minnesota, states that "the famine feast cycle" is the reason for obesity. Just as we are trying not to eat, there are times the body makes us eat until the setpoint is reached. this setpoint is raised or lowered based on how we train our bodies.

if we eat enough and listen carefully to the body's cues and signals or relearn them if we have damaged them, we can eventually get the setpoint to lower. This is a slow process.

How does one know if they are on the right track and eating enough?

Basically you start to crave healthier fares, you lose interest in food over time, you have other interests that start to dominate, you find you leave food on your plate because you are satiated, you find junk food revolting most of the time and you find you don't think about food all the time if that is what you were doing before eating on the body demand basis. You find that exercise doesn't have to be forced but you get antzy, (personal experience) you feel like a motor in your body has reved up on high idle (well it does for me anyway).

you get hotter, you don't have cold hands or feet, your not hungry all the time anymore once your body has reached the setpoint and has plataued. you start to eat less without trying, you are not even aware of the weight loss until you try on your clothes and they feel like they have stretched and start to hang on you. you don't need willpower not to overeat at a party if you are eating enough other times.

And when under stress you such as depression or exciting event, instead of wanting to eat then, (which is the bodies chance to do make up eating since your willpower is low) you find food revolting. And for me by getting of this famine feast cycle mentioned it eases menstral pain consideralbly, and it eases bloating too at that time this i was not expecting.

You also heal faster too when you exercise or strain a tendon or muscle, whereas before eating the body controlled way I personally would take forever to heal a pulled muscle, sore muscle, strained back, tendon or whatever we are talking weeks not days like now. I also am building up strengh and stamina from exercise quicker with less effort then when I was still on the cycle. I don't get sick like I used to I was always getting colds in my sinus and getting chronic headaches and hurting all the time. not much of that anymore which surprised me.

The cure for obesity is the oppisite of what we have been led to believe. eat more, keep it mostly real foods, eat junk sparingly, exercise for fun, but not weight loss and live your life, stop waiting to live, you might be dead by the time you reach your weight loss goals if you do it the conventional way.

Bmi's are not accurate, they determine size but they dont' tell you what that size is. muscles bone etc besides fat. We all know how excess fat is harmful to a well fed body,well so does the body of a genetically strong survival instinctual individual. the body will kick in the fat burning mode (while still preserving muscles as opposed to dieting effects of burning muscles with fat) but only after a long time when it sees thorugh experience that you will feed it what it wants as much as it wants when it wants.

that is why the plataue of a naturally thin eater (tho still fat yet) can be long. the body in the plataue stage is waiting for that famine (dieting efforts) to come along, if it doesn't come along within it's time frame, not ours, it will make the changes needed to get rid of excess fat that is there for surviving famines and not for good health.

This I am experinceing and so are many others that I correspond with on the internet special message board.

This material is highly personalised, and the POVs are not well cited (Adipose 101 -- but taught by who?) I assume that this is based on somebody's theory of obesity, and could be worked into a good article on those ideas. I will talk to User talk:Curious (who is quite new) and see if I can get more details. -- Toby Bartels 04:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have reluctantly reverted a large addition by this anonymous user, rather than copyediting it. Although it generally conformed to the flow of the article, it was unwikified, written in the first person ("I think...") and full of statements which need POV-work (Weight Watchers is a 33 billion industry) and factual disentangling ("1% of all anti-obesity surgery works"). I urge the user to reintroduce his work in a way that does not make one think this is a school project copy/pasted into wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I think more attention to NPOV writing is needed in this article: As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single study showing a obesity causes any disease (in humans, at least). This is simply because it is virtually impossible to cure obesity (or induce it) without changing exercise patterns, diet (this is not as trivial as it might sound), and probably quite a few other things. There are statistic correlations between obesity and adverse health effects, but those boil down to "Group A, which (in tendency) does not to get enough physical exercise, is poorer, does not to follow or ask for medical advice, and might suffer more from all sorts of mental disorders, has higher mortality than group B". Usually, this wouldn't be too much of a problem. For a life insurance company, obesity is a good indicator for reduced life expectancy. However, quite a few people jump to the conclusion that if only group A people ate less, that would increase their life expectancy to that of group B people. I consider that highly unlikely.

As for the 400,000 US deaths/year claim, could someone with access to the actual journal article fix it? The New Scientist reporter seems confused about whether the study concerned "poor diet and physical inactivity", "overweight or obesity", or just obesity. That a condition affecting about 30 per cent of the population would be the cause of 16.6 per cent of deaths seems rather unlikely to me.

At present, the quote seems to be at best irrelevant. It is unclear to me why we would want to quote an article which can't decide which of three conditions, affecting anywhere between 20 and 80 per cent of the US population, to blame for 400,000 deaths per year.

Prumpf 14:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll chase the reference. The New Scientist is not a good source in general. It only reports what scientists have published in other journals. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded the Mokdad reference. If you feel this is still too unclear, please make further edits.
I have finally removed the "viral origins" paragraph and merged it with "causes". This theory is in its juvenile stage, and I'm not even sure if this should be on Wikipedia. At any rate, I've found a nice reference to go with it... JFW | T@lk 17:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is:

Obesity is a concept that is being continually made fat.

I can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to say. Evil Monkey → Talk 03:41, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

> Replying to "Obesity is a concept that is being continually made fat." > > I think its trying to say that obese people just put on more and more weight. > Or would it be more appropriate to call this Morbid Obesity? I don't know.

Has anyone considered mining the information and images from [3]? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely ignores controversies and scientific explanation. Please use sparingly. Also annoyingly addresses the reader in first person. JFW | T@lk 09:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In December this article failed featured article nomination. There has been significant expansion (no pun), and I'd like to make it a proper featured article. Obesity is amongst one of the most commonly discussed topics, both in the public discourse and in science. Every discovery on obesity, however minor, makes the headlines. Wikipedia cannot afford to lag behind.

The article in its present form has many qualities:

• It examines the subject from several angles
• It is well sourced
• It offers critical opinions

Failings include:

• Cultural context is lacking (fat was beautiful to P.P. Rubens, and many Arab-related cultures have an obesity ideal)
• Images (there must be a public domain image of some fat people having Häagen-Dasz)
• It includes a lot of voices from "experts" but few statements from official bodies (e.g. WHO, AMA, ACP, BMA, NICE). A professorship is no guarantee of impartiality.

I'm willing to expand further on the medical side. I'd like to remove the table with the medical complications. Its matrix design suggests a system (which isn't there). Please offer your opinions on what needs to be done, and how we will go about it. JFW | T@lk 12:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well done on fixing the table - I ran out of time last time I tackled it. I agree that this article is fit for nomination, bar the photo problem - mice seem too peripheral to the issue to lead the article with, and there ought to be more than one image - we'll have to get inventive. Can you think of a source for diagrams that might illustrate one or more of the complications? Adhib 16:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm presently doing oncology & haematology - most of my patients are not fat enough for a photo. Diagrams abound, but they just show a little person with arrows aimed at the relevant organs. In obesity, that would be a lot of arrows.

Your cultural additions are great. The ACP has, today, published three papers on obesity that I will try to read sometime. JFW | T@lk 13:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've finally lost patience. I'm going out with my digital camera to bag me a big belly. Wish me luck. Adhib 13:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great! Just make sure the face isn't shown. That would give problems re. permissions etc. Good luck. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the unit kg/m² is confusing? It looks like it's kilos per square meter of body surface or something like that. And linking m² to m² definitely seems wrong as it doesn't seem to be the area sense of the unit that's used in the Body mass index. Or am I just being totally dyscalculial? Preisler 23:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it looks odd, but like with body surface area the surface is a better mathematical approximation than volume. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

How in the world can "Wearing warm clothes too often" cause obesity, as the article claims? --Menchi 08:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, and it looks highly dubious to me, I removed that item.

Talk-o to Taco

23:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting in a

00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonexercise activity thermogenesis

With apologies I've removed the NEAT paragraph. This seems to be Dr Levine's personal hobbyhorse, given the fact that he appears to be the only physiologist using the term. Thermogenesis is definitely of interest in obesity (see Flier in Harrisson's Principles of Internal Medicine, 15th ed), but is a function of metabolic rate, not of someone's weight. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Some observations: under "causes of obesity" it would be better if the cite for the quote had either a page number, an article title, or both. The next section has a quote that seems to be from the book The Obesity Myth, but the (broken) link seems to be to a news source. If you're going to quote a book, you should cite the book (with a page number), and since Campos's book is mentioned several times in the article (and is currently getting a fair bit of attention in the press), a full cite in the references (or further reading) section is appropriate. The quote in the next section has no cite. Also, is Campos's book called "Obesity Myth" or "The Obesity Myth", it's refered to both ways, that's a small point I know, but should be corrected. Some structural points, I think a section that compares obesity globaly would hang together better. Right now you've got a graph on obesity rates in the definition section, a "cultural significance" section, and a "societal causes" section, that could be brought together into one section (eg, The Epidemiology of Obesity, but some might object to that title on POV grounds). The "etymology" section seems too small (and not particularly relevant) to have it's own section, maybe include it in the introduction or drop it all together (after all, the article is about obesity, not the word obesity). Hope this feedback helps. Matt 01:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What quote is from Campos?

under medicalisation of obesity there is "In The Obesity Myth, Paul Campos writes that: ... (F)rom the perspective of a profit", and on a style note, I don't think that the first letter needs to be parenthasized, but others may disagree.

"Epidemiology" is not a biased term. Even aplastic anemia has an epidemiology. The term simply describes the rate of occurrence and which parts of the population it affects. It is an important subject re. obesity and should be kept. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My point was that epidemiology is a term that mainly applies to disease (such as aplastic anemia), and there are people who argue that obesity is not a disease. It's not so much that any word (such as epidemiology) is biased itself, but rather the use of a word carries certain presumptions (such as obesity being a disease). Since that presumption is currently an issue of significant dispute (fat acceptance movement, paul campos, et al.) perhaps there are better words that can be used. This doesn't suggest that the rate of obesity or distribution in the population should be ignored. Matt 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not making any argument here about obesity being disease v. non-disease. Nor am I making any argument about the validity of the non-disease argument. If the overwhelming majority of health experts consider obesity to be a disease, and if folks like Campos simply represent a fringe POV, then feel free to use terms such as epidemiology as long as you recognize what presumptions come with that term. Matt 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hypercholesterolaemia is not a disease, yet it has an epidemiology. Let's please close this discussion.

ok.

I don't think obesity should be called a disease in this article. It becomes a health problem when it gets ridiculous. That does not mean it is a disease in itself. Paul Campos is ranting against a strawman. Should we be devoting so much space to him, including a long block quote? JFW | T@lk 01:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My impression of the CDC's position (or some such organization), is that it's the second leading cause of death and soon maybe to take over smoking for the number one spot. A bit beyond simply becoming "a health problem when it gets rediculous". Campos might be full of hot air (I haven't read his book, and don't particularly plan to), but he recently got feature articles in sciantific american and new scientists, so some people think he's important. He represents a current pov on obesity that needs to be represented in the article. I won't argue about the size of the quote, too many block quotes detract from an article I think, but the space should be spent somehow. Matt 03:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There must be other voices than Paul C., who is incidentally still a red link. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some recent books include (from june 2005 sciam) "

Michael Gard and Jan Wright (Routledge, 2005); Obesity: The Making of an American Epidemic, by J. Eric Oliver (Oxford University Press, August 2005); and a book on popular misconceptions about diet and weight gain by Barry Glassner (to be published in 2006 by HarperCollins)." All red links, I'm afraid. Campos is the name I've seen repeatedly lately, IIRC. Matt

14:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.s. fwiw, in the further reading section of the sciam article, there's mention of several articles in April 20, 2005 of JAMA (vol. 293, pp. 1861-1874)

I have no access to Sciam. In your view, is Campos the most prominent obesity skeptic? Or are there others. Similarly, there must be more books that claim that corporate cynicism and decreased mobility are at fault.

I'm still waiting for the BMA library to send me the article on the social/cultural meaning of obesity, but perhaps I should ring ahead :-(. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my view, Campos is the most prominent (as measured by the ammount of media attention) obesity skeptic and there are others (I believe that all those mentioned above fall into that category). I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Similarly, there must be more books that claim that corporate cynicism and decreased mobility are at fault. Could you rephrase it? Matt 21:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Critser book. There are now quite a few books that blame food producers and urban planning, and Critser is therefore hardly alone. JFW | T@lk 02:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'A charge of discrimination on the basis of appearance could be leveled against these depictions.' Am I the only one who thinks the quoted sentence is more some kind of social/political statement than encyclopedic material? Let the reader decide if fat is funny and if that is neccesarily a bad thing. Preisler 23:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I phrased that with plenty of reserve and NPOV. It is now effectively forbidden to make fun of black people, homosexuals and the disabled, and this political correctness can easily be extended to include obesity. If you want the phrasing to be even more neutral, go ahead, but it should not be removed. JFW | T@lk 02:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. You can't change those things. All overweight people can lose weight discounting the few few people with some kind of illness. It's not that hard. Some degree of social stigma is what helped me lose some 20 pounds and to quit smoking. And besides, if smokers are fair game why not fat people. Quiting smoking was ten times harder than losing weight. But you're probably right that the PC mafia would think that way Preisler 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sigh*. I am not advocating the "PC mafia" or any other form of censorship. It's a shame you consider this a
  false analogy. In my mind, stigmatisation of obesity can (and has been) called a form of discrimination. Pretend a job interview. Are the interviewers going to hire someone who's positively huge, or someone who's lean and works out every day? Just imagine. Declaration of bias: my BMI has been 25 for the last ten years. JFW | T@lk
  21:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Environmental causes of obesity

This article (

18:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

70.187.183.3

I have left a message on this user's talk page to clarify what point he is trying to prove. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Today is the glorious day that I removed most external links. None were particularly representative, balanced or official. I'm adding some better stuff, but let's try to stop this section from turning into an advertising/linkdirectory dumpground. JFW | T@lk 14:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's Sunday, and all bored teenagers go online to vandalise Wikipedia. After six different vandal edits, I thought it would be better to {{vprotect}} the article until they're back in school/at work. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In the article weight cycling as a consequence of dieting or exercising hard, then given up, is mentioned. It seems appropriate in this context to add something along these lines:

One solution might be to incorporate regular exercise into daily life, as The

(WHO) recommends : "engaging in daily moderate physical activity for at least 30 minutes". A little more is better but all regular exercise will help in mitigating the effects of obesity. Cycling advocates make a strong point that cycling or walking to and/or from work or school (or part of the way) can be the perfect daily exercise that integrates into daily life for very many.

References :

• Lawlor DA et al(2003):The challenges of evaluating environmental interventions to increase population levels of physical activity: the case of the UK National Cycle Network
• WHO webpage "Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health " with links to documents
• A little is good, more is better. Hinted at integrating moderate exercise into daily life

The following paragraph probaly needs rewriting or moving : Cycling for transport is an untapped potential in most countries. It can scarcely become a 100% universal mode of transport, but in several Cities like Copenhagen, Denmark and Groningen, Netherlands, it supasses a 30% modal share. People who cycle or walk are in high probability more likely to keep it up than people who visit health studios (Lawlor, DA, 2003 ). Other benefits claimed are: Fresh air, improved local and global environment, increased self confidence and personal indepenece, low rates of serious injury per hour and money saved. In many places improved provisions for pedestrians and cyclists would boost these healthy and natural forms of exercise, and could do their part in combatting obesity, while delivering positive side-effects.

I couldn't agree with you more. Could you link to the WHO recommendation? I doubt specific forms of exercise should be mentioned here, unless there is strong evidence that they are effective in obesity. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are the references included above usable, or something in the right direction ? Mokgand 20:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mokgand 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC) : Here is a study that concludes makes suggestions for research into a connection between the built environment and obesity:

• Katie M. Booth, Megan M. Pinkston and Walker S. Carlos Poston (2005), Obesity and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 105, Issue 5, Supplement 1, May 2005, Pages 110-117

Here is a literature review that has been cited 83 times in scholarly journals. The review concludes : "Physical environment factors have consistent associations with physical activity behavior. .."

• Humpel, N., Owen, N., Leslie, E., Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: A review (2002) American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22 pp. 188-199 (DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00426-3)

Here is an article that has found a clear connection between walkability and the level of exercise:

• Frank, L.D., Schmid, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.E., (2005), Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28 (2 SUPPL. 2) , 117-125

The abstract is available through the link and states "Individuals in the highest walkability quartile were 2.4 times more likely (confidence interval=1.18-4.88) than individuals in the lowest walkability quartile to meet the recommended ≥30 minutes of moderate physical activity per day."

The soft drinks paragraph is out of proportion with all the energy-dense food, and should go. I think individual studies should be avoided, as these will terribly clutter the article. Rather use systematic reviews, as done with the ACP guidelines. JFW | T@lk 18:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was added by the Anti-Soda Vandal (See

t

21:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The follow was deleted from "causal factors". I think it's interesting, and would be good to give the following a proper treatment: i.e. mention the following hypothesis or arguments against it. The reason for its deletion was:

rv toxin stuff - this is not the mainstream explanation (you may put this in an "alternative medicine" section) - also removed "overall poor quality of diet" (?which standard)

Deleted section follows my sig.

—Pengo 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Pengo. The reason for the deletion is that there are no arguments for it. This vestige of knowledge is filled exclusively by "expert opinion" from the

original research with no merits whatsoever. JFW | T@lk

16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

IMAGE!!!

Is there really no Wikipedian who is happy to take a photo of his beer belly, or several chubby folks having a McDonald's? The two mice at the top are essentially a laboratory experiment, and have very little to do with the epidemiological and human factor of obesity. JFW | T@lk 00:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you eat up on the issue then get snapping. --zippedmartin 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. JFW | T@lk 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dixon JB, Dixon ME, O'Brien PE. Depression in association with severe obesity: changes with weight loss. Arch Intern Med 2003 Sep 22;163(17):2058-65.

.

Is this notable enough? It was not a very large study. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Jondel (talk · contribs) gave no reason for protection. There has not been any recent vandalism. I have unprotected now. JFW | T@lk 11:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The page was edited a few seconds ago --82.42.151.164 22:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Article, unprotected now, hopefully the vandalism will stop.

----- 22:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is not neutral, hence the NPOV tag. --The Bad Tax Man 11:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Give reason, please, or I'll remove the tag. --Zootm 11:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's biased, and Violetriga and Pigsonthewing know that for a fact. --The Bad Tax Man 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, or I'll remove the tag. --Zootm 11:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I would explain if I knew, but Pigsonthewing and Violetriga can tell you. Post on their talkpages! --The Bad Tax Man 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag since you haven't actually mentioned which content is NPOV. If you add it back, please post examples or an explanation here. Saying "it's NPOV because it's biased" is void of meaning. --Zootm 11:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Check his contributions list - it's a serial troll/vandal account (which I've now blocked). This isn't the first time the same person has used this tactic (earlier today, and a couple of times before this) - he just puts NPOV tags on a bunch of articles without explanation. His knowledge of wikipedia shows he's an old hand at this kind of nonsense. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Noted. Cheers for clarification/blocking. --Zootm 12:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by User:Floating Voter. FV made this article a circular redirect between Obese and Obesity - but the fact that s/he initially made it redirect to Girls Aloud clearly indicates the intention was vandalism. Time to protect again? I urge the next admin to see this to block the user after taking one glance at this obvious sockpuppet contribution list ~ 85.210.18.139 20:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry forgot to log in. I claim the above edit ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Curps has permanently blocked him. I'm sure he'll be back - if so, revert on sight, and report at

Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Manchester_.2F_obesity_.2F_Girls_Aloud_vandal. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)