Obesity because of genetics

elevator wrote:

Is there truth in this? A lot of non-running friends say that they wish they were slim, but they were unlucky and their genes keep them fat. I understand in some cases people have a medical condition that they can't help, but I thought this was more like 1% of the population -- not 30%.

Thoughts?

Definitely genetic. It's called LAZYNESS.

There's a special place in Dante's Inferno for people like that.

The running community is partially to blame for the obesity epidemic. Runners perpetuate archaic, ass-backwards notions about what constitutes proper exercise, and these irrational ideas not only prevent laymen from adopting a sound exercise philosophy, but make them averse to exercise altogether. The idea that jogging is a good mode of exercise for achieving optimum health is on par with Biblical creationism in terms of scientific merit.

I Know Better wrote:

The running community is partially to blame for the obesity epidemic. Runners perpetuate archaic, ass-backwards notions about what constitutes proper exercise, and these irrational ideas not only prevent laymen from adopting a sound exercise philosophy, but make them averse to exercise altogether. The idea that jogging is a good mode of exercise for achieving optimum health is on par with Biblical creationism in terms of scientific merit.

True, but studies show that exercise, by itself, does little or nothing to cause weight loss as exercisers compensate by eating more.

The genetic composition of the US, which has experienced an explosion of obesity since 1980, has indeed changed over the last thirty years--we have far more Latinos and Latinos do appear to be more genetically predisposed to obesity than the average American--but even controlling for this--looking at White Americans, for example, the increase in obesity is still very large.

What has changed in the last 30 years?

1) Diet

2) Diet

3) Diet

lol lol lol lol wrote:

What has changed in the last 30 years?

1) Diet

2) Diet

3) Diet

ding ding ding

This is the first correct statement not posted by me so far in this thread. The primary culprit in the obesity epidemic is not lack of exercise, but dietary excess.

There is a book called "French Women Don't Get Fat" and the idea is that culturally in France meals are very important and most french people take a lot of time and effort to make each meal. This means that people eat a lot at each meal but don't graze, in fact almost no one in France eats snacks outside of the three main meals. The result is less casual eating and skinnier people.

Rates of obesity have increased dramatically over the last 30-40 years. Without extreme selection pressures, genetic changes just don't happened that fast in human populations. There's no possible way genetic changes are responsible for the increase in obesity.

Stop drinking sugar water (soda) and exercise a bit more. It's not that complicated.

Gen 10 wrote:

There is a book called "French Women Don't Get Fat" and the idea is that culturally in France meals are very important and most french people take a lot of time and effort to make each meal. This means that people eat a lot at each meal but don't graze, in fact almost no one in France eats snacks outside of the three main meals. The result is less casual eating and skinnier people.

That may have been true 20 years ago, but the fact that almost 50% of France is considered overweight or obese, shows that that's no longer the case.

Also, it's not as simple as diet diet diet.

If you look at the stats, we eat more and expend less energy through activity than in previous decades. So, it's both sides of the coin.

I can see kids expending less energy with video games, but most adults still have to do the same types of chores. The main difference is less time prepping and cooking and more time eating.

Also no one except competitive athletes went to the gym in the 70's. Prior to the running boom, only competitive runners were out running. And certainly women weren't allowed to do much athletics at all. So I don't think people were necessarily more active in the 60's for example.

It's the microwaveable foods I tell you, and it hits the lazy people the worst. Back in the day, if you were too lazy to cook (or drive to the restaurant), you starved and actually LOST weight. Now if you're too lazy to cook you can zap a whole meal and pack in another 1000 calories.

jjjjjj wrote:

The government needs to do something to help people to not help themselves.

What the hell do you want the government to do? Send bureaucrats from the Department of Diet and Exercise to people's houses and escort them on forced walks?

The motivation to eat right and exercise can only come from one's own judgment that health and fitness are important to him/her. The government can do nothing to curb obesity or change peoples' lifestyle habits. And if you believe otherwise, you are an idiot and are part of the overall problem in this country.

Has there ever been a weight loss study where participants ran 1 1/2 hours a day?

Because I'd guarantee you that's effective regardless of diet.

Until you hit your genetic parameter.

Lost 50 plus myself while eating a couple bowls of ice cream every other night-- or the same amount of calories in fruit and honey, nuts, chocolate etc.

If you don't get injured (big if) and can handle the soreness/injury pain, high mileage is the panacea for obesity.

Totally changed the way I metabolize sugar, insulin response etc.

Cum Hoc wrote:

Because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are related. Obesity could just as easily be related to the rise in Hip Hop music.[/quote]

You may be on to something there. Those hippity hopsters do lay down some phat trax!

jjunk wrote:

Has there ever been a weight loss study where participants ran 1 1/2 hours a day?

Show me a weight loss study where the participants ran 90 minutes a day and I'll show you a weight loss study where half the participants dropped out due to injuries.

The genetics line is 100% bullshit. If all these people have genes that make it impossible for them to lose weight, then why are the lap-band and gastric bypass(procedures that force you to eat less) so effective? How are the enormous people on Biggest Loser able to lose so much weight?

Why are obesity rates skyrocketing despite no change in genetics?

Show me a fat guy who can't lose weight "because of genetics" and I'll show you a soda addict.

Just half? I'd put it at 90 % or more.

You'd have to do it over years. No?

But show me a study on ANY diet alone that works with obese people for more than 20-30 % long term (and that's high), besides gastric surgery.

I Know Better wrote:

jjunk wrote:

Has there ever been a weight loss study where participants ran 1 1/2 hours a day?

Show me a weight loss study where the participants ran 90 minutes a day and I'll show you a weight loss study where half the participants dropped out due to injuries.

It's hard to keep weight on doing half that. I've been doing about 50-60 a week lately, don't watch what I eat at all, and can still count my ribs. Of course I may just be genetically pedisposed to being skinny.

jjunk wrote:

Has there ever been a weight loss study where participants ran 1 1/2 hours a day?

Because I'd guarantee you that's effective regardless of diet.

One of the few good articles ever seen in this wretched magazine:

lol lol lol lol wrote:

jjunk wrote:

Has there ever been a weight loss study where participants ran 1 1/2 hours a day?

Because I'd guarantee you that's effective regardless of diet.

One of the few good articles ever seen in this wretched magazine:

http://www.timehttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1998644,00.html.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

I also loathe time magazine, but it did have at least one other good article.

Bullet-proof cure for obesity:

1) *Eat healthier* (which means more fruits & veggies, less processed food)

2) *Eat less* (which will mostly happen naturally by adhering to #1, but also reduce snacking)

3) *Run more* (which means making exercise part of your lifestyle, doing it regularly, and learning to enjoy it)

Less talking, less excuses, more doing.

Did you read that? That's exactly what I'm talking about-- a 5.5 mile run? 30 minutes on a stairmaster? An hour and twenty minutes at the gym where you're waiting 3 minutes between sets and taking water breaks and doing 3x8/12 reps on the machines. Not even bare minimum for health let alone weight loss.

A 5.5 mile run is about what most people here run as their first run of the day before a hardworkout.

No one here calls 5.5 a long run.

Except Maggie Vessey...lol...

But try and find a doc to recommend 70-90 miles a week for weight loss.