Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the keep-your-skeleton-happy dept.

Science 218

grrlscientist writes "New research has shown that the skeletal system may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals. This may also be true for humans, and thus represents an important development for the treatment of these health conditions. From the article: 'Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured), that regulates bone formation, but this hormone also protects against obesity and glucose intolerance by increasing proliferation of pancreatic beta cells and their subsequent secretion of insulin. Osteocalcin was also found to increase the body's sensitivity to insulin and as well as reducing its fat stores ... "The skeleton used to be thought of as just a structural support system. This opens the door to a new way of seeing the bones," said Dr. Gerard Karsenty, chairman of the department of genetics and development at Columbia University Medical Center in NYC, who headed the team that made the discovery.'"

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Still have to eat well. (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 7 years ago | (#20205335)

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

Re:Still have to eat well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205381)

See! I always knew Skeletor did not have diabetes.

Re:Still have to eat well. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205399)

Really? It seems that the US really isn't as high [illovosugar.com] as what you'd expect.
 
Stop being a fucking troll and blaming Americans for everything.

Re:Still have to eat well. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205447)

The OP had a point though.

No matter what your bones are doing, if you eat correctly, you will not be obese
No matter what your metabolism is doing, if you eat correctly, you will not be obese
No matter what your hormones are doing, if you eat correctly, you will not be obese
No matter what your genetics are doing, if you eat correctly, you will not be obese.

People need to realise that their body ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS takes energy just to maintain it at a certain size. If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level.

Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that.

Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of their control, instead of just PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG.

Re:Still have to eat well. (5, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#20205573)

This is true on the most primitive level. However, for a significant number of people "eating correctly" will mean a 1000 calorie-a-day diet of pure protein and in addition to not being obese they will be constantly hungry and lethargic, lose muscle mass and suffer from various diseases associated with malnutrition. They really need medication as well as medically designed diet/exercise program to take care of those genes and hormones.

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Zekasu (1059298) | about 7 years ago | (#20205629)

And while you're at it, take away their computers. The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits. That being said, so long as MySpace goes away, I'd still be content, kids sitting at their computers all day reading forwards definitely does not help the obesity problem. (And yes, I realize the example I posted is extreme in any case, if not impossible, but it's just an example.)

Re:Still have to eat well. (3, Interesting)

E++99 (880734) | about 7 years ago | (#20205663)

The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits.

As none are present to defend themselves, I'd like to point out that neanderthals had larger brains than ours.

Re:Still have to eat well. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205733)

And I'd like to point out it's not the size that matter, but how you use it.

Not so hard, though (4, Informative)

localroger (258128) | about 7 years ago | (#20205727)

Actually, having metabolic syndrome myself, I can say that if you catch it in time it responds well to a low carbohydrate diet. You don't need to restrict calorie intake at all, just carbohydrate intake; if you do that you'll find you lose your appetite quickly when you're thinking of eating too much, and your weight settles to a much more reasonable setpoint with no effort or hunger pangs at all.

Also, you cannot eat pure protein; if you are eating low carb, you must eat fat. My blood pressure and cholesterol have confirmed that this isn't unhealthy as long as you aren't poisoning yourself with too much sugar and corn syrup (which is in a lot of foods you'd normally consider healthy, unfortunately.)

Re:Not so hard, though (1, Interesting)

nido (102070) | about 7 years ago | (#20206037)

For the audience, localroger wrote a k5 story on his metabolic syndrome: The Great Modern Glucose Poisoning Epidemic [kuro5hin.org] .

What's interesting is when you get down into the comments (#18), you mentioned that the condition snowballed after a surgery when you were 28.

In Traditional Chinese Medicine, the fight or flight response is governed by the Triple Warmer (TW) meridian. When one's TW meridian is overactive, it takes energy from all the other meridians (save Heart meridian), but especially from the Spleen Meridian, which is opposite TW on the flow wheel. The Spleen meridian controls the pancreas and insulin production. Your surgery likely caused the TW to go into overdrive, and if you get your TW/Spleen meridians balanced, you could drink fine meads and ales again. :)

A. For the blood sugar to stay balanced, it is crucial that spleen meridian be kept strong. This is done primarily by sedating triple warmer--which drains energy from spleen--and then by directly strengthening spleen. In Energy Medicine, you'll note that there are several ways to do this, and I'd have your daughter use every way possible since what is required with this illness is to literally retrain a deeply held energy habit in her body. To strengthen spleen meridian:

[list of exercises]

Changing the deep habit of a spleen/triple warmer imbalance will not only help keep her blood sugar in better balance, it can help create a new pattern of insulin production in her pancreas. The type of diabetes determines how much the illness can be turned around. If she was born without the ability to create insulin, she will probably always need to have it supplied externally, but even in that situation, the procedures described here will help her pancreas to function more optimally.

-Donna Eden on Diabetes [innersource.net]


Donna Eden is a modern mystic who, like the chinese sages of old, can 'see' the bodies energies. She's famous in her hometown of Ashland, Oregon, and had to move away because whenever someone saw her on the street they'd ask about their particular health problem, and she can't turn someone down. I haven't met her myself, but I had a few sessions with one of her long-time teaching assistants some 3 years ago (who can also see the body's subtle energies quite well, though not as well as Mrs. Eden), and I've been doing much better ever since.

The book is a good introduction - most libraries have a copy.

Re:Still have to eat well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206477)

Yeah I can see how that evolved. Drugs + medically designed exercise? PLEASE!

Its an excuse for a fat slob who doesnt like sweating. "Its my genes" - no its just you jeans biatch

Re:Still have to eat well. (2, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#20206557)

So are you saying that there are no health conditions that cause obesity and require medical treatment in addition to lifestyle changes? Even if that's a tiny minority of obese, millions of people in US are affected.

Re:Still have to eat well. (2)

daeg (828071) | about 7 years ago | (#20206841)

If any of you are attempting a similar diet on your own (with a doctor or similar overseer), make sure you drink PLENTY of water. Half gallon a day at least. When you go to a low calorie diet, your body should go into ketosis. Ketosis (buring fat stores for energy) is an effective weight loss mechanism but is very water intensive. You can purchase test kits to test your urine for ketosis. Your diet should consist of almost entirely protein (lean sources only, fish, etc), around 5-800 calories a day for normal/moderately overweight. Don't forget a quality daily multi-vitamin or you'll do long term harm (just take note of the contents of th vitamin, some cheap vitamins use very unhealthy binders -- you want something under 5 calories ideally). Small amounts of calcium may also be needed, but most people only stay on such a diet for a few weeks at a time. You may also find laxatives helpful, as all-protein diets can be, uh, hard on your digestive system at first.

(Disclaimer: I'm in the weight loss industry, but you should at least consult your general practitioner prior to pursuing a diet on your own like this. It isn't for everyone, and some health conditions can make such a diet very risky.)

Re:Still have to eat well. (2, Insightful)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206167)

"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."

Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.

"Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that."

Yes, but you couldn't define "eat correctly" to save your life. It isn't just "eat less".

"Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of their control, instead of just PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG."

You obviously don't know a thing about the subject.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206267)

"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."

Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.


Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?

Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?

It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206425)

"Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?"

Are you trolling?

Yes, I do. The body has builtin regulation mechanisms to control weight. Neither the body nor the mind desires to be obese, no one sets out to be fat, and the fact is that the body wastes energy that it doesn't need and doesn't desire to store. When the body thinks that it needs to gain weight and is faced with an energy deficit, it goes into conservation mode. In that respect, yes, there is a way to do exactly as you describe. The body lowers its needs in response to starvation.

"Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?"

Of course not, but it's clear I'm having a discussion with an idiot.

"It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing."

But the overeating and overlazing are caused by an underlying hormonal failure, not that fatties are hopelessly inferior to you. No one desires to be obese and the body doesn't naturally either. The body, however, gets tricked into thinking that it is starving when it is, in fact, too fat. When that happens, hormones cause the person to feel lethargic and to constantly eat. That's why obese people cannot control their appetites and cannot find the energy to exercise. You've clearly not experienced this. I have.

Perhaps you'd like to stop being an arrogant, juvenile asshole and read some science on the matter:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm [abc.net.au]

That article pretty much sums it up, including explaining how wrong you are. Good luck.

Re:Still have to eat well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206805)

Mod parent up, he obviously knows what he's talking about.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Hubbell (850646) | about 7 years ago | (#20206431)

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, isn't that one of the core laws of modern physics? All that fat has to come from somewhere buddy. You don't just wake up one day weighing 400 lbs.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206469)

Conservation of matter has nothing to do with it. Metabolism is highly variable, and fools who believe that weight gain is a simple matter of balancing equations must completely ignore that fact in order to cling to their ignorant opinions. Their arrogance is eventually overcome, however, when they hit their 30's and realize that weight management is far more complicated than they imagined when they were 18.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Hubbell (850646) | about 7 years ago | (#20206501)

Actually it has everything to do with conservation of energy/matter because all that weight comes from someplace, namely the food you're putting into your mouth. Don't stuff your face, you won't get fat!

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206767)

I see you've thought about this in depth. ;-) Have you ever been fat? How much? How old are you? Any history of diabetes in your family? Just curious of your qualifications, if any.

The bulk of any weight gain is water, so I assume that you are suggesting that, if we don't want to get fat, we should avoid drinking all liquids, right? Make sense to me, conservation of matter and all.

Your body has regulation mechanisms that control weight and those include punishing lethargy in times of famine. Anyone who attributes his skinniness to willpower either uses drugs or has never experienced what a body will do when it thinks it is starving. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that weight management has simply to do with conservation of energy clearly has no experience with weight problems. The vast majority of energy consumed in a typical diet is wasted and a body is capable of gaining weight on a diet that all of us would consider difficult to follow. Obese people don't wish to be obese and many eat less than it is assumed they do.

Let me guess, you're a 'healthy' 250 pounds? (3, Insightful)

Dan B. (20610) | about 7 years ago | (#20206887)

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.

"You obviously don't know a thing about the subject."
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.

Re:Still have to eat well. (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 7 years ago | (#20206329)

Actually you are WRONG. People who are on only a below needed calorie diet will eventually plateau. The reason is that a bunch of your involuntary calorie usage such as slow muscle twitching and non-instructed nervous actions will cease as your body adjusts to what it considers to be the equivalent of a famine. That is why you must balance a complete, body type appropriate meal plan with the correct amount of cardio exercise. Even then is very difficult for most people to lose and keep off a significant percentage of body fat because evolution has setup all of our bodies systems to maintain body fat as we historically have not had enough calories in our diet.

Re:Still have to eat well. (4, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206483)

People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 years ago | (#20206913)

Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that.
With the caveat that you're otherwise healthy, of course. For example, if your thyroid becomes AFU, so will you.

I'm waiting for the research to show that high-fructose corn syrup wreaks havoc with the human system, in the long term.

Re:Still have to eat well. (4, Insightful)

shawb (16347) | about 7 years ago | (#20205563)

I notice a distinct lack of high fructose corn syrup in that data. It simply measures cane and beet sugar. Also such extremely inexpensive calorie laden ingredients such as "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" are missing as well.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | about 7 years ago | (#20206397)

Really? It seems that the US really isn't as high [illovosugar.com] as what you'd expect.

Stop being a fucking troll and blaming Americans for everything.

Those other countries may have a higher per-capita consumption of sugar, but I'd bet my white ass that they also have a higher per-capita level of activity.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 7 years ago | (#20206807)

Your response is misleading at best. That table shows only sucrose (table sugar) consumption. Americans get fully 2/3rds of their sugar from high-fructose corn syrup. Reference: http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_ 05/article5.aspx [iastate.edu]

One needs to be clear whether on is using the term "sugar" to mean "any monosaccharide or disaccharide" or specifically "sucrose" (table sugar).

What sugar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205415)

We don't have sugar over here in the US. Sugar is for our betters, gov'nah. Thank you, sir, may I have another bowl of high fructose corn syrup and strange chemicals that also appear in inedible products?

Re:What sugar? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 7 years ago | (#20205619)

Well, I have to agree with you there, real sugar is far better. Even table sugar, though, is processed.. corn syrup is even worse than table sugar. Far worse. High fructose corn syrup is awful.

To the "quit blaming it on Americans" person, I AM American, so I blame Americans for their own health. Instead of blaming the European Union, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or some other random company or government for Americans' bad health. I don't expect the government to make me eat right, nor make companies feed me right. If I can't think enough to look at the ingredients of something before eating it, I apparently am rather stupid. Furthermore, if I expect to be healthy AND eat at MacDonald's all day... well, I may as well believe that Windows ME is by far the best operating system ever produced. It'd be just as logical... :)

Re:What sugar? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 7 years ago | (#20205633)

In fact, looksie at these links. http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/corn_syrup_diab etes.htm [mercola.com] - Corn syrup linked to diabetes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-200 3Mar10?language=printer [washingtonpost.com] - Average American consumes, in 2001! ... about 62 pounds of corn syrup per year... no wonder we don't have that much real sugar, we replaced it with a chemical :)

Re:What sugar? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#20205911)

Sugar (all the different sugars) are chemicals. All life is composed of chemicals. What you mean is, we replaced one chemical in our diets that was unnecessary and very unhealthy with another one that is just as unnecessary but even more unhealthy.

Re:What sugar? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 7 years ago | (#20206119)

Yes, scientifically a "chemical" just refers to the chemical compound, even water is a chemical...

But, I think in modern slang, "chemical" refers to an unnatural or synthetic (whether synthetically produced/processed or manufactured) substance...

*shrugs*

Re:What sugar? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#20206581)

Yeah, I know. Sorry to be so pedantic. But it irks me when people refer to food products as "natural" or "real" as if such things don't involve chemistry, but are made of some magically pure unadulterated goodness that no mere chemicals can hope to match.

Re:What sugar? (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206091)

No, HFCS and cane sugar are equally unhealthy. Both are essentially poisonous to your liver and their effects on your body are the same since they are effectively identical once they hit your mouth.

Claiming the two are somehow different, while popular here, is absurd. HFCS is processed so that is specifically the same as cane sugar; it's fructose content is not higher and its health ramifications are not different.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | about 7 years ago | (#20205439)

Sugar? You have sugar in the US?

I would have thought you only had "great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products... ;-)

- Jesper

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

CptNerd (455084) | about 7 years ago | (#20206181)

..."great tasting sugar-flavored carbon hydrate substitute" products...
Part of this complete breakfast!

Re:Still have to eat well. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205463)

If Americans only ate massive amounts of sugar, things wouldn't be so bad. The problem is that Americans eat massive amounts of high-fructose corn syrup. If we did eat real sugar, developments like this might help. Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't. So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism.

The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206219)

"Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't."

You are completely mistaken. HFCS, the kind used as a sugar replacement, has functionally the same ratio of glucose to fructose as cane sugar. It's horrifying effect on insulin levels and its long term destruction of the liver are the same.

"So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism."

Cane sugar does that exactly the same way as HFCS does. The natural regulation mechanism you refer to is interfered with by the long term exposure to fructose. Cane sugar is half fructose.

"The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!"

Yes, the horrible thing about HFCS is that the government subsidizes the cheap and plentiful poisoning of its citizens. Make no mistake, though, if all our comsumption of HFCS were replaced by cane sugar we'd be equally fucked.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Jartan (219704) | about 7 years ago | (#20205859)

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like. Having to eat a horrid diet might give you a healthy body but it's not optimal in any way. Most of the people who have to do it against their wills are still suffering. Substituting mental suffering for physical suffering is not a be all end all cure.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 7 years ago | (#20206437)

Really? So are you trying to say science shouldn't be used to allow me to eat more sugar? Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like.
I suppose you have a point if your country forces you to pay for the healthcare you'll need as a result of your "eat-what-I-want" diet.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206529)

Sugar IS a horrible diet, and whatever "the hell" you feel like eating is very much a function of the diet you have, healthy or not. All the "mental and physical suffering" you imagine occurs from eating a good diet has no basis in fact if you had eaten a good diet all along, while the "mental and physical suffering" that results from obesity and adult-onset diabetes is very real.

Re:Still have to eat well. (1)

Desipis (775282) | about 7 years ago | (#20206661)

Because I'm pretty sure I want to eat whatever the hell I feel like.
You do realize that a significant change in diet and activity level will actually change what you're body feels like eating right?

Having to eat a horrid diet might give you a healthy body but it's not optimal in any way.
A healthy doesn't have to be horrid. Of course if you're as addicted to sugar/fat as a smoker is to cigarettes, I can see how change might be difficult.

Substituting mental suffering for physical suffering is not a be all end all cure.
A healthy lifestyle will contribute significantly to a better mental state. So not only are you getting a dose of extra fat with that super-sized coke, you're getting a dose of depression and anxiety.

That said issues such as genetics and hormones do affect one's mental state ("will power") as well as the strength of the desires for certain types of food and lack desire for exercise. A person who's body that does poorly at metabolizing fat will require struggle with exercising for fat loss and will use more 'effort' than a normal person.

Of course history indicates that most people are more than capable of keeping a relatively healthy weight and the majority of the problem is caused by modern diets.

"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205337)

That's what millions of lazy, overeating fat people around the world are saying right now!

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!" (1)

alfs boner (963844) | about 7 years ago | (#20205555)

Fat people are a blight on any organization. I would gladly take my business to any company that practices weight-discriminations towards employees. I wish there was a mutual fund that invested in companies that weight discriminate, too. I would happily put money in one.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!" (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206553)

How many "lazy, overeating fat people" have personally told you that they set out to be fat? How many of them would not choose to be lean if given the choice? Why do you assume that fatness is a reflection of their lack of character? Have you ever been fat?

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!" (1, Interesting)

budword (680846) | about 7 years ago | (#20206845)

I have been fat. Over 300lbs twice in my life. It's because I ate too much and sat on my ass too much. Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie. It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation.

Re:"YAY! It's not my fault! I KNEW it!" (2, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206939)

"Fat people eat too much, and don't burn enough off. Saying anything else is a damn lie."

Whoever said otherwise? The fact is, though, that it doesn't have to be much food to be "too much". There are plenty of thin people that vastly overeat fat ones and yet are totally sedentary. If it were as simple as you say, then that wouldn't exist. There is something biologically complicated afoot.

"It's easier for some people to eat less or burn those pounds off, but that doesn't change the basic equation."

Yes, and perhaps it was easier for you to lose your weight than it is for others. Not every fat person is diabetic, though it's likely they will all eventually be. Some people get fat young and find it easier, particularly males, to lose excess weight. When I was in my 20's I weighed 260 and eventually dropped that to 190. I'm now 20 years older, weigh 210, work out at least three days a week, and have a body fat percentage of about 12%, yet controlling my weight now is much more difficult than ever.

What is interesting is why some people have so much easier time naturally controlling how much they eat than others. This is how naturally everyone should be and willpower has nothing to do with it. If a body degenerates into obesity we should naturally assume it is not working properly, not that the person has weak character. Instead, we assume the opposite and many feel inclined to post messages on the matter. It is not just sloth that causes obesity.

Always an excuse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206879)

"I'm not obese because I sit on this couch all day long and eat pizza. No. It's because [insert lame excuse here] and not my fault."

Almost all fat people, probably 99.999% of them, are fat because they eat too much of the wrong kind of foods (ie junk food) and get almost no exercise at all.

Pictured? (1)

woot account (886113) | about 7 years ago | (#20205341)

Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured)


I thought that was Einstein pictured...

Re:Pictured? (1)

ookabooka (731013) | about 7 years ago | (#20205403)

That's what happens when you model the folding of proteins utilizing distributed computing; someone thinks its funny to hack the client to submit whatever they want. . .

imagine that (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 years ago | (#20205355)

that old nice way of saying "she's fat": "she's just big boned", might actually be true?

Re:imagine that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205431)

She's just got a big bone up her ass.

No, fatties are still lazy and undisciplined... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205561)

Same as always. Eat less, walk more. You don't even need to work out hard, just go for a walk in the evening, and do some push-aways from the dinner table once in a while.

Why are fat people so disgusting? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205999)

We should make them sit outside at least 15 feet away from the entrance to a building like we do the smokers.

I'm not fat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205375)

I'm just big boned!

Big-boned? (0, Redundant)

Big Nothing (229456) | about 7 years ago | (#20205423)

So when she says "I'm not fat, I'm just big-boned" she might actually be telling the truth.

Re:Big-boned? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 years ago | (#20205789)

Actually, if I got that right, it sounds more like the absence of a protein that would get you "big bones" makes you obese.

Re:Big-boned? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 7 years ago | (#20206775)

I know some people who are legitimately "big-boned".

A girl I knew in junior high and high school had about 20 inch waist, but wore a size 10 jeans and women's large or extra large shirts. Her pants were baggy at the waist, but just barely fit over her hips. Her shirts hung, but anything smaller wouldn't fit over her very broad shoulders. She's never been fat or flabby.

I have a friend who has to do pull-ups with his hands about 2 or 3 inches apart at the most, because any farther apart and his shoulder blades touch. His chest after being in Kuwait and Iraq in the desert heat wearing boy armor for months was still over 50 inches. Even when he's got nearly an fat on him, the guy's much bigger around than most people his height. He does sometimes carry some extra weight, but he's big even when he doesn't.

While it can be used as an excuse by the overweight, there really does appear to b a difference between slightly built people and people with larger frames. Keeping the muscles toned and the fat down to a healthy level is what matters. Height/weight guides and the body mass index are not a true replacement for body fat percentage. They are much easier to get data to compare against, and they work pretty well for most people, which is why they are so popular. The BMI at least gives someone an idea of the range they should be close to, even if they might end up being a little above or below that and be perfectly healthy.

Re:Big-boned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206863)

You do realize that you wrote practically the same thing as two other people who posted 8 minutes and 6 minutes before you did? How about next time you RTFComments and don't post redundant crap like this.
 

Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205455)

Tagged 'boner'

Ultra Mega Diet (1, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 7 years ago | (#20205495)

may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals.

Y'know what else prevents obesity and type-2 diabetes? Eating less!

You're correct. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20205603)

By far the best method of combatting obesity is exercise and "eating right". That means cut out the fats and sugars as much as possible.

But people don't want to hear that, any more than they want to hear that credit cards don't magically pay themselves off, or that blowing the trust fund on film school won't automatically get them an Oscar-winning gig in Hollywood.

We have become soft. People aren't chasing their food anymore.

Re:You're correct. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206259)

Except it's not true. The decade's old claim that fats are bad for you turns out to be bullshit. It's the overloading of carbohydrates in the diet, the processing away of dietary fiber, and the abundance of fructose and simple sugars that are the problem. A low fat diet is helpful in keeping total calories down, that's all. Many fats are, in fact, good for you.

Re:Ultra Mega Diet (1)

Fizzol (598030) | about 7 years ago | (#20205665)

Eating isn't the be-all and end-all of diabetes. There's also significant genetic component. If you don't have the genetic disposition you can eat all the junk and crap you want and not develop diabetes. If you have the genes for it, you can be normal weight and still develop it. Eating less helps but it isn't all there is to it.

Re:Ultra Mega Diet (1, Informative)

chris_eineke (634570) | about 7 years ago | (#20205669)

Eating less!

That's one half of the equation. The other half is to lower your blood sugar level. Get a meter and after every meal (absolutely everything you eat or drink) check your sugar level. If it stays above 100 for a long period time (about 2-5 hours), you have identified something you shouldn't eat or drink. A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy, 800 is like a nuke for your brain. Read an article on Kuro5hin for the whole explanation [kuro5hin.org] .

Re:Ultra Mega Diet (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206367)

Informative? What the devil are you thinking? A blood glucose between 80-100 is NORMAL. A NORMAL person will bump up to MAYBE 120 after even a bad meal, but rapidly come back to the 80-100 level. If you get below 70, you're running into HYPOGLYCEMIA territory, enjoy your seizures.

800 is indeed a "nuke for your brain" but unless you're a Type I diabetic without ANY endogenous insulin production, or a horribly controlled type II, you're not gonna see that. Hell, I'm not sure I've even seen a fingerstick capable of registering above 550-600!

Respectfully, parent is full of hockey. I'm sure you're an excellent CS student, but you've not had biology for a long time, friend. Don't check your own Fingerstick blood glucose unless you have reason to (ie: a medical condition), but if you're suspicious, then GO TO YOUR DOCTOR. Get a Fasting Blood glucose drawn, not those crap fingersticks. And if you're not satisfied, push for a glucose tolerance test, where you drink RAW glucose, then follow your venous blood sugar levels to see how your body reacts. If it can't keep up with the load, then welcome to the wonderful world of Diabetes. If it DOES, count your lucky stars, go home, and throw out your ho-ho's, Oreo's and Jolt Colas, and try a lovely dose of Moderation In All Things for a change.

Jebus help me...

Hehe, code was "criteria."

Re:Ultra Mega Diet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206411)

IIRC, above 250-300 is bad. I can feel if I'm below 70- never noticed myself above 130 that I recall, even after some fairly bigtime sugar binges.

but yeah, GP is a load of crap- even wikipedia would help more.

Mod Parent Down - Bad Numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206451)

The numbers posted are very, very wrong.

A glucose level between 70 and 140 is normal, with anything below 70 indicating hypoglycemia (with or without symptoms), and anything above 140 representing a spike.

You'll probably be unconscious (or at least wonder where you are) before you reach 40, and going above 80 is not "unhealthy".

(These numbers are in mg/dL. mmol/L numbers are slightly different -- divide by 18 to get mmol, afaik.)

blood sugar levels (3, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 7 years ago | (#20206567)

> A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy

40?! You're nuts. If you're below 50, you need to get some orange juice in your body ASAP. Between 80-110 is normal (closer to 80 is better, though). In fact, from the article you linked to, "A measurement of 40 is grounds for an immediate trip to the hospital." Really low glucose levels are more immediately dangerous (easily fatal) than high ones. Consistently high ones will destroy your body in ways you don't want to think about (blindness and limb amputation is common, among many other things).

If you go above, I think, 245 or so, your body goes into 'ketoacidosis' and starts eating itself and the chemical Acetone (nail polish remover) winds up in your bloodstream. I can tell you from personal experience that this feels about as good as it sounds.

Re:blood sugar levels (5, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 7 years ago | (#20206947)

Ketoacidosis is when your body, which creates acetones naturally, can't clean those acetones out of the blood. So, you get nail-polish breath, which, if medical personnel aren't careful, can smell like booze. That's bad because hyperglycemia can produce mental symptoms similar to drunkenness.

P.S. I'm a NJ EMT-B, and we frequently get calls where policemen want us to check out a drunk, with booze breath and all the mental signs like belligerence. They were really a diabetic at least 10% of the time.
Sorry for the OT

I don't think so (1, Funny)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#20205533)

Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

Come on, we all know that fat people and diabetics find themselves unable to bone even when they get a rare opportunity.

Bone hormone? (5, Funny)

edittard (805475) | about 7 years ago | (#20205541)

You mean viagra? (Or as we scientists call it, \/1@gr@ )

Endocrine Function (5, Insightful)

LightPhoenix7 (1070028) | about 7 years ago | (#20205643)

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs? The original paper from Cell is here: http://download.cell.com/pdfs/0092-8674/PIIS009286 7407007015.pdf [cell.com] .

Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising. The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow.

Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising? I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it.

May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (2, Interesting)

BlackGriffen (521856) | about 7 years ago | (#20205829)

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. The only alternative explanation I've heard involves endorphins and whatnot. I've suspected that it may be due to the fact that repairing the damage done to one's body during exercise is metabolically more expensive than just doing the motions, but had no idea whether this was true or not. This possibility, however, is far more interesting and direct - exercise puts stresses on the bones that may stimulate the production of a hormone that aids in the proper regulation of energy metabolism.

Kind of like how certain immune functions cease working in the absence of a gravitational field.

Granted, the root of the problem is energy intake exceeding energy expended, but until one understands better the reasons why a person would eat more than they need it is futile to tell people to just stop.

I've also wondered if part of the problem isn't that the modern, refined, carbohydrates are so concentrated. I mean, I would imagine that the human digestive system is capable of absorbing nutrients down to a certain concentration in the digestive fluids. If the calories are more concentrated, eg the food lacks fiber to give it indigestible bulk, then the body will absorb a larger fraction of the calories. So, another question I have is if it is significant to not just consider calories ingested, but calories ingested minus calories expelled.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (1)

maxume (22995) | about 7 years ago | (#20206017)

People burn off about 1 calorie for about every pound of their body weight when they run about a mile. So running about 3 miles is going to burn off a cookie for most people. I leave it to the reader to decide whether that is insane or not.

I thought the going theory (2, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | about 7 years ago | (#20206041)

was corn-based byproducts (corn syrup?). Most cookies, like most snacks (in box listed portions of course) are around 180 calories. I run about 1 mile at a 10% grade for just over 10 minutes to burn that. My treadmill has on of those digital counters. Changes the way I think about having a beer or buying that bag of potato chips. But I wouldn't call 1 mile insane, just a bit of a disincentive.

Re:I thought the going theory (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206715)

The only reason that corn syrup is the biggest culprit is that it is corn syrup that is the dominant sweetner. If HFCS were entirely replaced with cane sugar, nothing regarding obesity would change at all. People here fail to realize that, but then, if they can blame HFCS for everything then they have a convenient enemy and don't have to face the facts.

Yes it is true that HFCS is the devil. That doesn't mean that sugar isn't.

Weight management isn't simply a matter of running off the calories you take in. Your body expects a natural diet that is much different than what we eat today, and equating all calories makes any evaluation of diet virtually useless. It's not how many calories contained in a cookie that matters, it's the chemical results that ultimately take place as a result of eating it that do. Of course, it's not one cookie either but the overall diet and its effect on the body over time.

Read here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007 /1969924.htm [abc.net.au]

yes, refined carbohydrates are not good (1)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | about 7 years ago | (#20206245)

I know this from personal experience.

Refined carbohydrates put me to sleep and give me headaches.

Unrefined carbohydrates give me gas.

Engineering tradeoffs?

Re:yes, refined carbohydrates are not good (1)

Graff (532189) | about 7 years ago | (#20206485)

Get tested for diabetes now.

"Unrefined" carbohydrates (complex starches) give you gas because many of them are difficult to break down and so bacteria in your gut do the job, producing byproducts such as methane gas. This is natural although you may be able to take enzymes to reduce the effect.

Now the fact that "refined" carbohydrates (simple sugars) put you to sleep and give you headaches probably means that you have a bad insulin response to them. This means that you either don't produce enough insulin (type 1 diabetes) or that your cells have become resistant to insulin (type 2 diabetes). When you eat simple sugars they are quickly absorbed into your bloodstream and your blood sugar spikes. Insulin would normally temper the spikes but something is wrong with that system and so you are getting wild swings in your blood sugar levels. This has a ton of detrimental affects upon your health.

I'm not a doctor and there may be other reasons for your reactions but I wouldn't take a chance. Getting tested for diabetes is very simple and worth doing regularly.

In the end it's not the "unrefined" or "refined" sugars which are the problems, it's how our sugar-regulating systems have evolved. Our bodies just aren't built for the sedentary lifestyles we are living. We need to make changes in our activity levels, as well as keeping an eye on what foods we are eating. Simple sugars are just fine when taken in moderation and when combined with a decent amount of physical activity.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (4, Insightful)

Graff (532189) | about 7 years ago | (#20206403)

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems.
The amount of calories burned during exercise is only the tip of the iceberg.

Exercising burns up glucose and puts a demand on your body to change how it processes foods. As a result of these changes your body's metabolism increases not only the rate at which it burns calories during exercise but it will also be elevated for a good amount of time afterwards. This means that you burn calories for the actual exercise done but you will also burn more after you have finished exercising, taken your shower, and sat down at your desk to do some work. Here is an article [about.com] on this phenomenon.

In addition, by exercising you are telling your body that changes need to be made. Part of exercise is the microscopic tearing of muscle fibers, stress on capillaries and other transport systems within your body, and the release of various hormones related to your exertion. Your body's overall response is to rebuild and bolster these systems. You grow more muscle tissue, your capillaries increase their ability to carry more blood, various organs and cellular structures configure themselves for the next bought of exercise. All of these actions take energy and they put food to a better use than simply turning into fat around your waist.

Finally, now you have more muscle mass, better circulation, and so on. This generally results in an overall higher metabolic rate because your body has prepared itself to provide you with more energy at all times. The higher metabolic rate burns more calories even when you aren't exercising and allows you to exert yourself even more the next time you do exercise.

So there's a lot more going on than the simple "1 Calorie will lift 155 pounds to 20 feet in the air". You body changes with exercise and that is where the real weight loss begins.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (1)

PenGun (794213) | about 7 years ago | (#20206833)

Lift weights. A pound of muscle burns about 50 calories a day just to maintain it's self.

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (1)

nacturation (646836) | about 7 years ago | (#20206971)

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems.
One 12oz McFlurry at 560 calories would take just over an hour [calorieking.com] of jogging to burn off -- the site shows that's for a 35 year old 144 lb female, adjust as appropriate for weight/gender. On the elliptical machines in the gym, I can sustain about 20 calories per minute so this would be a 28 minute intense sweat-soaked workout just to break even after eating one of those!
 

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | about 7 years ago | (#20206989)

It's true that exercise doesn't directly burn off THAT many calories, unless you exercise long and hard.

What exercise does do though, is build muscle mass. Muscles (even at rest) use a higher number of calories than fat cells do. So running those kilometers and lifting those weights burns some calories off directly, and then the new muscles you have will continue to burn off calories while you sit on your progressively more muscular butt watching TV.

Trying to lose weight off of pure cardio is difficult, cardio + resistance/weights is the way to go. You don't need to be Mr Universe, but a couple pounds of muscle distributed over your body will do some good.

Re:Endocrine Function (0)

linguizic (806996) | about 7 years ago | (#20205839)

'Eating right' and 'getting exercise' run counter to what we have evolved to do. For our ancestors to be successful they have had to have the urge to cram their gullets while expending the least amount of calories to do so. What these studies point out is that our bodies are designed this way and that our environment today is vastly different from that of our ancestors. High calorie food was rare to our ancestors, as well as ways of obtaining resources where all we had to do was sit on our butts 8 hours a day. When you have an environment that has both of those things together what you get is a body that's in storage mode. It's because of our evolutionary past that we have this condition today, and if it were just as simple as 'eating right' and 'exercise' than more people would be able to lose weight, but the sad fact is once that weight is on, it's very very hard to get off. Our bodies DO NOT WANT us to lose that weight unless we absolutely have to (which is why we put it on to begin with). No medication is a silver bullet when it comes to weight loss, but neither is 'eating right' and 'exercise'. Medication should be used to break the bodies resistance to weight loss and help us form healthy habits.

Re:Endocrine Function (1)

jguthrie (57467) | about 7 years ago | (#20206341)

Speaking as someone who has lost a lot of weight recently, I have to say that anyone who says "the reason you are fat is because you make bad choices and all you have to do is make better choices and you will suddenly stop being fat" is so clueless about how it works that they're not worth listening to.


If your economic status is above subsistence, there's more to food than nutrition. A lot more. Good food has a strong sensual appeal quite independent of whether or not you're hungry. Also, food has a strong social aspect to it. Going to lunch with my coworkers is something I want to do despite the fact that it screws up my diet. We talk and joke and interact as friends while eating far more than enough food simply to keep oneself alive. Giving that up is difficult.

To be sure, there are strategies for dealing with those issues (and the others that you may run into, I'm just talking about what I find difficult about making better choices in my life) but it's not a simple matter to figure out where your motivations lie and address each issue with workable solutions. You're talking about making major changes in your life. Imagine living your whole life in a major city and then having to choose between living the life you know for a reduced time, or moving to a small town somewhere far from where you live now so that you can live a longer, happier life. Do that and none of your daily habits will work any more. You've got to constantly watch to keep yourself from doing your comfortable old routine. It's no wonder people hope for a pill to make their life better without making any of these scary changes.

Re:Endocrine Function (1)

happyhamster (134378) | about 7 years ago | (#20206463)

Must some ignorant a$$hole always mention their simplistic eating/exercising nonsense despite numerous scientific articles pointing out that obesity is a complex problem with no single cause for everyone? Get a clue.

Re:Endocrine Function (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206655)

"Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising?"

If such a "magic bullet" existed, then yes they would. Why would anyone simply take it for granted that the problem is simply overeating and lack of exercise? Perhaps those that look for other explanations realize that such a naive explanation is false and useless. Why would the scientific method be discarded in this case?

"I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it."

Yes, of course, researchers are only looking into obesity because of funding. There's no public health concern there. Regardless, why shouldn't there be a profit motive to solve one of the greatest health problems facing society?

"Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising."

Must every slashdot article have arrogant comments trivializing discoveries by saying they are "not exactly surprising"? Of course, such a statement is inevitably followed by a nonsensical justification. Here is yours:

"The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow."

Right, and from that "observation" we should conclude that bones are involved in the regulation of weight. Somehow I doubt you'd make such a statement had the article not already stated it, especially considering your view that obesity is nothing more than a failure of willpower.

Re:Endocrine Function (0, Flamebait)

PenGun (794213) | about 7 years ago | (#20206825)

Hey half wit here's the deal. If you take in more calories than you burn you get fat.

Re:Endocrine Function (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 7 years ago | (#20206969)

With a comment like that, one would get the impression you were referring to yourself.

When was the last time you were fat, PenGun? If you never were, then what qualifies you to comment on the subject at all? If you were, you'd know better than to say anything so stupidly simplistic. The only people I've known to make this comment, and I've been hearing it for 20 years, are those who are skinny.

Re:Endocrine Function (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | about 7 years ago | (#20206701)

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs?

Although I also wish that the summary included a link to the original paper, I found the blog entry by GrrlScientist to be a good layman's summary of the research, and was glad it was linked.

Uh oh (0)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 years ago | (#20205703)

We're boned.

Breaking News: (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | about 7 years ago | (#20205767)

SCIENCE: Being a greedy, unhealthy, sedentary slob linked to Obesity and Diabeetus! ... Who knew?

cowboy neal is still a fatass (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20205791)

hirez proof. [cmdrtaco.net] Is it a wonder he can't get laid? Half of slashdot looks like him. Put down the cheez poofs and try a crystal meth diet you fucking piece of shit.

Simple solution to Obeseity.... (0)

edwardpickman (965122) | about 7 years ago | (#20205807)

Boneless humans.

Obligatory Eric Cartman quote (1)

Sodki (621717) | about 7 years ago | (#20206151)

I'm not fat, I'm big boned!

Also Linked to Obesity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206257)

Over eating and lack of exercise. Will this make Slashdot's front page?

Viagra? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20206781)

Oh please don't tell me it's Viagra!

BMI replaced by waist measure (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 7 years ago | (#20206889)

When I visited the doctor the last time they measured my waist, and said (to my great surprise) that 92 cm (36 in) is the recommended measure for men of ANY length.

Well isn't that special? (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 7 years ago | (#20206917)

More feel-good junk science to feed the rightfully low self-esteem of the Buffet Buffalo population. Many years ago a doctor candidly revealed to me that chronic pathological causes for acute Lardus Assimus account for about 2% of all cases. The rest of the up-right walking hog population is just lazy and eats too much, but doctors can't say that, at least not in public. Life experience tends to confirm this. If you want to be a pig, that's fine, but don't expect any sympathy from the healthy population.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>