Obesity because of genetics

This might help, but I don't think we know the answers:

The genetics of obesity:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/10/genetics-of-obesity-thrifty-gene.html

Read "Rethinking Thin," by Gina Kolata to start with, if you are really interested.

I wonder we are seeing an epigenetic pandemic of obesity in this county related to rise in use of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usda_sweeteners.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Figures1.gif

Another factor is failure of the medical establishment to raise minimum exercise requirements.

Good luck losing weight if you "exercise" 30 minutes a day five days a week.

IMO Tim Noakes was onto something with the idea of reaching a genetic parameter when you hit 1:30 minutes of running a day.

Sad thing is, once you've been fat it will always been easier for you to get fat again.

That's an interesting article.

In a similar vein, I wonder if humans will devolve in their running ability over time. What if some point far in the future, no one breaks 13:00 again? (I don't believe this, but it's just an idea).

What's Noakes' theory?

even if your genetics want you to be fat, if you eat less/smarter and exercise more, you will, in fact, loss weight.

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?

If I didn't run I'd have a gut, just like the other men in my family. That's genetics. My 40 years of running is not genetic, it's smart (in a healthy sort of way).

Blaming genetics is a nice excuse to make yourself feel better about being lazy.

Junk Master wrote:

I wonder we are seeing an epigenetic pandemic of obesity in this county related to rise in use of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usda_sweeteners.svghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Figures1.gif

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.

Genetics are involved in all physiological processes, so to dismiss their significance with respect to obesity is idiotic. We already have firm knowledge that genetics strongly influence one's caloric requirements, and, by extension, the amount of food that he can consume without accumulating excess calories. It is also safe to assume that genetics probably influence one's propensity to eat as well.

Right. That's the usual science establishment party line.

We all know correlation does not imply causation.

But there are too many variables when dealing with something as complex as the human body to move research into real world results without making that leap.

Look at the abjectly ridiculous way science refused to accept steroids improved performance...years...

IMO the new research on epigentics will force a paradigm shift eventually.

I actually think the contrary. To be honest, I think humans will evolve in their running ability. Millions of people per year sign up and run races all around the world. With much, much more people running i'm guessing that someone will get a genetic advantage and be great.

There was a thread blaming the fast foot industry also. But McDonald's and KFC have been around for over 50 years. I remember in the 70's there were A LOT more additives being used in foods. People were still drinking soda (and waaaaay less bottled water).

Yet growing up in the 70's there was only 1 or 2 "fatso" kids in a class of 25. Now it looks like 1 out of 4 kids are chubsters.

If it was purely genetics, then it appears nature is phasing out the "skinny gene" which of course I don't believe.

My opinion is that it is just easier for people to stuff their face now. Microwave food back then was horrible so you had to prepare and cook everything yourself if you wanted something that tastes good.

Now everything is microwavable and good tasting, plus you can buy a ton of it at Costco. Now if you are still hungry after a meal, you can just pop something in the microwave. Back in the day, if you were still hungry after eating, you had to cook it up.

And as a kid "back in the day" if I wanted a snack, I made a jam sandwich or had a bowl of cereal. Now kids can just zap a pizza pocket, or pop corn chicken.

If your family pictures from the 70's don't show any fat people, then guess what, it's not "genetics."

There was a thread blaming the fast foot industry also. But McDonald's and KFC have been around for over 50 years. I remember in the 70's there were A LOT more additives being used in foods. People were still drinking soda (and waaaaay less bottled water).

Yet growing up in the 70's there was only 1 or 2 "fatso" kids in a class of 25. Now it looks like 1 out of 4 kids are chubsters.

If it was purely genetics, then it appears nature is phasing out the "skinny gene" which of course I don't believe.

My opinion is that it is just easier for people to stuff their face now. Microwave food back then was horrible so you had to prepare and cook everything yourself if you wanted something that tastes good.

Now everything is microwavable and good tasting, plus you can buy a ton of it at Costco. Now if you are still hungry after a meal, you can just pop something in the microwave. Back in the day, if you were still hungry after eating, you had to cook it up.

And as a kid "back in the day" if I wanted a snack, I made a jam sandwich or had a bowl of cereal. Now kids can just zap a pizza pocket, or pop corn chicken.

If your family pictures from the 70's don't show any fat people, then guess what, it's not "genetics."

What he said. I grew up in the 70's. Ran a lot, walked to and from school (1.5 miles) walked to friends houses, we walked all over, including to the local McDonalds and Burger King. We DID NOT play video games- they didn't exist.

It's the inactivity of kids that causes obesity.

if genetics "caused" obesity (if there was a necessary connection between certain genes and obesity), then some people would be fat without eating or drinking or taking in any calories. Instead, yes, they starve to death. So enough with the genetic determinism. Similarly, we can see social factors far outweighing any genetic predispositions to hold and gain weight in the sense that a given population over time changes very much in its BMI, as its culture changes. If you go to poor countries, you see very few fat people. Now it is SINCE the late 1970s that obesity has increased dramatically, an increase tracking increases in daily caloric intake (portion sizes, soft drink consumption), while total exercise has decreased. And it's going to get much worse in its social cost as supposedly 1 in 3 Americans will have diabetes by something like 2050. The government needs to do something to help people to not help themselves.

classof89 wrote:

If it was purely genetics, then it appears nature is phasing out the "skinny gene" which of course I don't believe.

Why wouldn't you believe that? Humans are become less immune to "bad" genes every single generation exponentially. There's new allergies, tons more cases of disorders like Chron's disease, asthma, etc. etc.

Human's are going to become naturally weaker and weaker as medicine continues to preserve the genetically "disfunctioned" and those genes continue to be passed down.

Another factor is the fact that Americans work much longer hours than they did in the past, which contributes to the high demand for fast food and microwavable food. It's pretty standard for people to work 50 hrs per week and many people work even more than that. Combine longer work weeks with the increase in single parent homes, and people have a lot less time to spend on cooking healthy meals, exercising, or paying attention to what their kids eat and making sure that they're exercising.

Actually, the entire notion of exercising is a fairly modern concept. My dad,( who grew up in the 40s and 50s) said that back in the day, people didn't jog for fitness, or exercise for fitness. Gyms didn't really exist and it was strange to see people running just for the sake of running. People just simply walked a lot more and spent a lot more time outside.

All of my cousins, my aunts, and my mother look honestly like large human bowling balls with legs. But I have no problem keeping my weight in the low 120s at 41 years old with healthy eating and running. Genetics is a true cop-out when it comes to weight IMHO.

lalala wrote:

But I have no problem keeping my weight in the low 120s at 41 years old with healthy eating and running. Genetics is a true cop-out when it comes to weight IMHO.

^^^aren't you the gal who binges on granola and rations cookies for herself?

The truth is that visceral fat actually keeps people fat. Belly fat is much harder to lose than fat found elsewhere in the body and it secretes hormones/cytokines which stimulates both the maintenance and growth of fat cells. So, in essence, obese people are correct in saying (at least to some degree) that they have a medical condition they can't help. The medical condition is actually a hormonal imbalance caused by too much visceral fat.

You should read this book: