I liked this interview. There was a lot to think about in it. In relationship to what was discussed in the interview and the letters, the presence of a correlation is not the same as a cause. To my knowledge, depression, anxiety and metabolism have not been found to cause obesity even though they are correlated. And it makes sense that they can not be the root cause. As was pointed out in the interview mean weight is now increasing throughout an individual's life and not hitting some stable point, as was the previous norm. What that stable weight might be is likely affected by metabolism, or changes to it by depression. But that's not the case.

And before you get too caught up on metabolism as the root cause, just remember that it should be fairly straight forward to establish a pattern of appropriate caloric intake to meet an individual's metabolic needs. Moreover, compensation between metabolic needs and caloric intake should be maintainable. At least it used to be maintainable, which is something discussed in the interview.

Among the companies trying to come up with a pharmacological treatment to obesity, one point has become crystal clear. Weight regulation is a Gordian knot involving several neurological and physical feed back mechanisms. The dopanergic system seems to be a principle driver for obesity, but once the stimuli/response pattern is firmly established, it is difficult to control by just removing the stimuli. Although, this probably suggests one reason some people are able to control their weight better than others, as the sensitivity to dopenergic stimulation varies from person to person.

brightstar2, that line of reasoning always make me smile. The upward trend in obesity began well before GMOs were conceived. Sure, they may have an effect, but it would be insignificant relative to the effect of that yummy cheesy goodness. Think about it.

Patrick,

I know this stuff chaps your hide, but you'll probably want to set the record straight with the BBC and even other transportation industry publishers about the correct terminology for Pilots and their first officers...

This is from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8109327.stm

The fact that a Continental airlines flight from Brussels to Newark landed safely, despite the death of the pilot, is no surprise, says David Learmount, operations and safety editor of Flight International magazine.

That's what co-pilots are for, he says - to stand in for the pilot in case of emergency.

And it goes on like that.

Yeah, Sanford should go. I'd think he would have the decency to resign, but if not a public impeachment would be appropriate. The issue isn't that he had an extramarital affair. Fine, whatever, his wife kicked him out. But in skipping out to Argentina, he left SC without a constitutionally mandated leader. I wonder if there has ever been a case like this, where a governor was surreptitiously out of communication for a week, let alone out of the country. The man was completely incommunicado.

I don't think the response should be tempered by the fact that he wasn't called out of necessity during that week. Emergencies arise unpredictably, and it is his sworn responsibility to be there when they do. Where will he be when one does arise? Sanford walked out, turned his back on SC, and I believe they should forgive his failings, but also remove him from office.

The state's Republican leadership should have been pressuring Sanford to step down last week when it emerged that he irresponsibly left his state, and the country, secretly to continue an ongoing tryst in Argentina. Of course now that he's outed himself as a serial philanderer, and robbed himself of any sympathetic cloak, those Republicans that were crying along with Sanford are now calling for his head. Good for them, but they are still a week late.

I read this piece of revisionist drivel. Shame on me.

It was published in Salon, Shame on you.

Humans lack a functioning vomeronasal organ, a specialized organ in the respiratory track of most mammals responsible for detecting pheromones. Without that function, humans along with other old-world primates are unable to process pheromones per se. Fortunately for us, our outsized brains can still take subtle olfactory cues and decide if they are attractive. There is, of course, no accounting for taste. Luckily for Dial their pheromonal soap may still find a market in the captive breeding programs of new-world apes. They may not be human, but hey...a buck is a buck.

@ jaster, You might try wearing some tights or at least really tight socks/leggings when you fly. That'll help keep your circulation strong even on a long flight. As for the lack of feeling in your lower extremities, I would suggest it's a poor seat cushining or maybe your legs are too long for the seat bottom. You might experiment with a foam pad or, if you're tall, bring something to extend the seat bottom a few inches. You might find that extra support helpful. At the very least, there are some simple exercises and stretches that you can do in your seat that will probably alleviate some of your discomfort.

I dunno. Because of where I live, I end up taking long distance bus or high-speed rail trips a few times a month. Particularly when I'm already a bit tired, I experience many of those same symptoms described by most of the 'depressurize-ers'. And looking around at the most dozed and drooling people around me, I'm in no way special. I wonder if anyone has every tried to correlate the effects of sensory deprivation with those symptoms experienced by air travelers.

You have my sincerest condolences for your mother's passing.

And yet again, my appreciation for a well thought out column. Let me just say that it continues to be refreshing for a specialist in a technical field to explain its complexities without watering them down to the point of gibberish.