Follow me on

Obesity & Energetic Offerings, March 8, 2013

David Allison, PhD, Distinguished Professor, University of Alabama

David Allison, PhD, Distinguished Professor, University of Alabama

For several months now, my colleagues at the University of Alabama have been compiling a weekly list of selected obesity related articles in a list they call Obesity and Energetic Offerings.

The list is compiled by David B. Allison, Michelle Bohan-Brown, Emily Dhurandhar, Kathryn Kaiser, and Andrew Brown.

The following is a selection of articles from this week’s list that caught my attention:

Findings Contrary to Hypotheses or Popular Beliefs

  • Proximity to supermarkets associated with higher body mass index among overweight and obese preschool-age children. Click Here
  • Obesity rates in us workers: comparatively low in food service workers. Click Here
  • Editorial: The prevalence of obesity is comparatively low among foodservice employees. Click Here
  • Systematic review concludes: Educational interventions are effective in treatment, but not prevention, of childhood obesity. Click Here
  • Equivocal results for associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities. Click Here
  • Health Promoting Schools: interventions and strategies to increase physical activity: Little evidence for benefit on obesity. Click Here
  • Morbidly obese appear to benefit more than do super obese from bariatric surgery and yet seem to be disadvantaged in the UK for access to surgery. Click Here
  • RCT: Acute sodium ingestion has no effect on short-term food and water intakes, subjective appetite, thirst and glycemic response. Click Here
  • RCT: An incentive-based outdoor physical activity program increases activity but has no effect on obesity. Click Here
  • RCT: No effect of 6 weeks of interactive group classes followed by 6 months of culturally sensitive monthly lifestyle coaching on weight in Latino children. Click Here
  • RCT: SSB and cookie reduction treatment did not produce weight loss. Click Here
  • RCT: Treatment which reduces SSB consumption and alters other lifestyle factors in young children has no effect on BMI. Click Here

Correcting Misinformation

  • Discovery Magazine Corrects ABC’s Sensationalist Errors on Physical Activity Study. Click Here
  • Reality Check: There is No Such Thing as a Miracle Food. Click Here

Brown Fat

  • Brown adipose tissue as a regulator of energy expenditure and body fat in humans. Click Here
  • Numerical 3D modeling of heat transfer in human tissues for microwave radiometry monitoring of brown fat metabolism. Click Here


  • Audio: NPR – Your child’s fat, mine’s fine: Rose-colored glasses and the obesity epidemic. Click Here
  • It is time to define metabolically obese but normal-weight individuals. Click Here
  • Video: Gary Taubes offers his views on obesity. Click Here


  • Economic globalization, inequality and body mass index: a cross-national analysis of 127 countries. Click Here
  • NYT: How Economics Can Help You Lose Weight. Click Here

Physical Activity

  • The association of variety on physical activity: A cross-sectional study. Click Here
  • Why four workouts a week may be better than six. Click Here

Policy – Related

  • Restricting marketing to children: Consensus on policy interventions to address obesity. Click Here
  • The aftermath of the 2005 Institute of Medicine Report on food marketing and the diets of children and youth. Click Here
  • IOM Report: Challenges and opportunities for change in food marketing to children and youth – workshop summary. Click Here
  • Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges called for ban on advertising for foods high in saturated fats, sugar and salt before 9pm. Click Here

Translational – Drugs & Surgery

  • RCT: Metabolic Effects of Bariatric Surgery in Patients With Moderate Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: surgery vs. intensive medical treatment. Click Here
  • Exenatide as a novel weight loss modality in patients without diabetes. Click Here
  • Science, clinical outcomes and the popularization of diabetes surgery. Click Here

Food & Nutrition

  • Food as a hormone. Click Here
  • Estimated portion sizes of snacks and beverages differ from reference amounts and are affected by appetite status in non-obese men. Click Here
  • Impact of dairy products on biomarkers of inflammation: a systematic review of randomized controlled nutritional intervention studies in overweight and obese adults. Click Here
  • Effects of a higher-protein breakfast on the appetitive, hormonal, and neural signals controlling energy intake regulation in overweight/obese, “breakfast-skipping,” late-adolescent girls. Click Here
  • Normal protein intake is required for body weight loss and weight maintenance, and elevated protein intake for additional preservation of resting energy expenditure and fat free mass. Click Here
  • Whey protein sweetened beverages reduce glycemic and appetite responses and food intake in young females. Click Here

Translational – Other

  • How does time poverty affect behavior? A look at eating and physical activity. Click Here


For a complete list and to directly join this list, please click here.

Edmonton, AB


  1. I still can’t understand why the scientific obesity Community doesn’t try to discuss the obesity epidemic from the body point of view! Nobody apparently cares about the fact that the differences in the PERSONAl daily caloric need are mainly dependent from the differences in the the INDIVIDUAL Resting Metabolic Rate! These two links might help appreciating the problems araising if people are supposed to need 2000 kcal per day BY DEFINITION!
    Read the details in the BOOK: <>
    Leoluca Criscione, Switzerland

    Post a Reply
  2. Dear Dr. Sharma,

    Thanks so much for offering these selections each week! It is lovely to see the fruits of shared participatory efforts among colleagues from distant places. You’ve presented some wonderfully diverse and appealing samples of current research and theoretical foundations.

    Of course it would be far more useful if many more of the articles—IN FULL—were made available to the general public (as opposed to our limited access to only the abstracts in most cases.) But that omission is obviously a limitation for which you cannot and should not be held responsible! 🙂

    I often find that my own conclusions (based on the research data reported, methodology, etc) differ significantly from the conclusions of the authors. Much of the time, the problems I observe are related to rhetorical limitations (not using that term, “rhetorical”, in any pejorative way, please understand), which perhaps reveal the authors’ educational gaps (related to discourse analysis, for example) rather than any conscious intent to distort communication (e.g. implications of the findings.)

    For example, a claim such as “educational interventions are effective in treatment…of childhood obesity” underscores some of the problems to which I’m referring. People (including other scientists and professionals) may read that conclusion and easily arrive at false assumptions regarding the underlying realities associated with the use of “effective” as a descriptor in this context.

    In general, scientific discourses as they are currently practiced obscure many critical insights which could reveal hidden ideology (e.g. within metaphors commonly used by researchers and science writers.)

    Well, for once, I won’t belabor the point. 🙂

    I mostly wanted to convey my appreciation to you and your colleagues for this weekly series you’ve been offering. Thanks!

    RNegade (hopefuandfree)

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *