quick thought on modern nutrition/medicine popular knowledge

[stronger]

Everyone has heard of the "genetic component" of common ailments. Heart disease, obesity, diabetes are all diseases which people have a "family history" of having.

Now, I'm sure there are genetic inclinations to being fat, stupid or prone to heart attacks, but isn't it possible that a family which supposedly has a genetic propensity towards fatness doesn't have any particular genetic element towards such a misfortunate physical appearance, they just happen to be a family of fat people, and not a fat family?

Maybe less of a blame should be put on mom and dad and more of one on ourselves. It would be very interesting to see a western diet person put in a Maasai or Inuit tribe to test how genetically exclusive these meat-eating, non obese peoples are.


Please tell me if this is completely idiotic, because I wonder why obesity was a thing of rarity 100 years ago, and how those genes of a family magically transformed into ones that make you fat for life, or guaranteed to have a heart attack.

Sorry that this isn't weightlifting related, I will post a deadlift video soon to make up for it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Looks like a perfectly obvious observation to me.

[BradyB]

The genes didn't change over time. People are genetically prone to insulin resistance on a continuum. The more prone you are, the lower your threshold of (refined) carbohydrate intake. More carb intake = more obesity. It really is that simple. Carb intake goes up, more thresholds get breached.

These "fat" genes that people talk about can be anything really: genes that code for kinases or phosphatases that help maintin proper insulin signaling, LPL transcription factors, etc. Anything that is substandard and related to metabolism. Under proper diet conditions, these minor metabolism flaws wouldn't be noticeable. But put them under massive strain with excessive amounts of refined carbs and watch the pathology develop.

[Ian Kovtunovich]

I dunno, seems like an oversimplification to me, and probably a false dichotomy - must it be either only genetics or only environmental? Nature or nurture, but not some of both? While there's no doubt that someone in an environment where exercise and proper diet are of no concern will likely fall prey to that lifestyle, I suspect that the study of genetics has a pretty good handle on the fact that genes can influence one's build, body type, etc.

Duke sums it up nicely: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/CareGuides/WeightLossSurgery/TreatmentInstructions/CausesOfObesity

[matclone]

"Component" means a part of something. A "genetic component" thus suggests that your genes may have something, but not necessarily everything, to do with your health, body type etc. So, I don't understand your complaint, stronger. You acknowledge the component piece of the equation but then seemingly ignore it by running down some sort of straw argument that people are blaming their genes solely for their girth. You haven't been listening to talk radio, have you?

It goes without saying that we have the power (will) to shape and strengthen our bodies (or not). It always goes without saying that most fat people wish they weren't fat. Will power is an important factor but it is not the only consideration.

You asked a very relevant question: why do we have an epidemic (per the CDC) of obesity now, when obesity was rare 100 years ago. I suggest to you that it is not merely an exertion of will or absence thereof, and that other factors come into play like
--cultural influences,
--the availability of food in general (today: the store, aplenty; yesterday: the farm, sometimes not plentiful),
--the availability of specific types of food (fast and convenience food that basically didn't exist even 50 years ago),
--video games, television (also recent developments)
--the continued move from an agricultural to industrial society and the continued transtion to life where manual labor is not necessary to work or survive.

[Brad Davis]

I think you're mostly right, but I've seen exceptions.

The one that's most clear was a girl at my HS. She ran track and worked harder than anybody I knew. I'd guess that she averaged 5 miles/day at least and competed in road races year round. Lifted weight also. She was always chunky even with all that work, probably about 5'6" and 150 with some noticeable flab. That was 20 years ago. I saw a picture of her the other day for the first time since then. She looked to be about 300 lb. I'd guess that at 36, she works to stay that light.

My 13 year old son, on the other hand, eats starch and other garbage like mad and he doesn't seem to have any fat at all. He's also fairly inactive. There's definitely some kind of innate component (careful not to say "genetic") also.

[Gottatri2lift]

Obesity was a thing of rarity because people were still very active and didn't sit on their ass all day long and then whine about lack of energy when the leave the office at 1700. Food wasn't manufactured but grown. Also as Coach Rip states in Strong Enough? page 191 - "Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

[tremorviolet]

Obesity was a thing of rarity because people were still very active and didn't sit on their ass all day long and then whine about lack of energy when the leave the office at 1700. Food wasn't manufactured but grown. Also as Coach Rip states in Strong Enough? page 191 - "Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

I see this argument all the time and I don't buy it. It seems like people think we were out slaving in the fields back in the 70s and that's why people weren't so fat then. I think most people vastly overestimate the amount of exercise an accountant got in the 70s, 50s, 20s, or even the 1800s. Yeah, they walked more but I know plenty of hugely fat poor people who walk. The big difference was diet: way less processed carby crap stuffed with high fructose corn syrup. We didn't start to get really fat until the 80s when conventional wisdom started pushing the low-fat dogma which meant people avoided real food like eggs, whole milk, meat, etc.

[Brad Davis]

..."Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."
I find that to be very interesting and easy to believe.

This also came up in a recent article, USA Today, I think, about increased # of football player deaths during 2-a-days. Someone pointed out that it used to 90 in the house and 90 on the field during hte summer. Now they go from 70 in the house and 90 on the field. Duh.

[stronger]

I dunno, seems like an oversimplification to me, and probably a false dichotomy - must it be either only genetics or only environmental? Nature or nurture, but not some of both? While there's no doubt that someone in an environment where exercise and proper diet are of no concern will likely fall prey to that lifestyle, I suspect that the study of genetics has a pretty good handle on the fact that genes can influence one's build, body type, etc.

Duke sums it up nicely: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/CareGuides/WeightLossSurgery/TreatmentInstructions/CausesOfObesity

No, I'm cautious to say it's one and not the other, which is why I qualified my statement in the 2nd paragraph. I'm just saying that there seems to be an overemphasis on the genetic component and this explanation has almost become a crutch. Ask any fat person, and most blame it on someone else.

[OITW]

Also as Coach Rip states in Strong Enough? page 191 - "Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

Don't know about AC and obesity, but modern AC is the reason Congress is in session year-round now, rather than getting together for a few months to make a taxation plan to meet the President's budget and then getting gone before the swamp heated up. Talk about a danger to your health in every conceivable way.

[scotts]

...I'm just saying that there seems to be an overemphasis on the genetic component and this explanation has almost become a crutch. Ask any fat person, and most blame it on someone else.

I would agree. Genetic research is popularly being used as an excuse for the human race to go to pot. People blame their genes for all their woes, but the simple fact is that if you move to little and eat too much you will slowly get fatter. A couple years later, you're overweight; a few years more and your obese. The reason more and more people are getting fatter is because modern society continuously makes it easier to do less and consume more. It's called progress and were progressing ourselves into obesity. The problem is that they don't have the exercise pill yet, but they are working on it. Really.

[matclone]

I'm just saying that there seems to be an overemphasis on the genetic component and this explanation has almost become a crutch. Ask any fat person, and most blame it on someone else.

And your evidence for the "overemphasis on the genetic component" and the "most blame it on someone else" is? I don't think you have any.

[nisora33]

I see this argument all the time and I don't buy it. It seems like people think we were out slaving in the fields back in the 70s and that's why people weren't so fat then.... The big difference was diet: way less processed carby crap stuffed with high fructose corn syrup. We didn't start to get really fat until the 80s when conventional wisdom started pushing the low-fat dogma which meant people avoided real food like eggs, whole milk, meat, etc.

Not to imply that you should consume carbs with reckless abandon or anything, or that the kinds of carbs that you consume have absolutely no impact on body composition in particular contexts, but I think you may be as guilty of oversimplification as the person to whom you were replying.

Read what Lyle has to say here

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

And here

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html

What I have gathered from reading his articles and sifting through his forum responses is that he thinks the two most important factors for the average (READ: non-advanced) dieter is to keep protein intake adequate if not high and choose your calories correctly based on your goals: is your goal to lose weight, gain weight or to stay the same? If it's to lose weight, you need to create a calorie deficit, keep your protein where it should be, and use a muscle-sparing weight routine (a program that incorporates sets of 5 reps like Rip's).

In this case, what good ole mom said rings true: Everything in moderation. Of course, there's even more to consider here than the factors raised in just these two articles. At this point in time what we're seeing is a convergence of multiple factors all leading to the so-called obesity epidemic. And the high-fat/low-carb camp at one extreme and the low-fat/high-carb at the other are oversimplifying the issues, making one or the other macronutrient out to be the devil when that just is not the case.

What I see in most of my trainees is too many carbohydrates coupled with too few grams of protein, and a woeful lack of lean body mass. The low levels of lean body mass has to do with the lack of protein AND the fact that they don't train; and if they do train, it's all low-weight high-rep shit and/or long slow distance cardio for an hour or more at a time. In fact, usually if I just set their caloric intake where I think it should be AND ensure that their protein stays high, then the carb intake will go down automatically without their even having to consider reducing it because you can't satisfy the above dietary recommendations and overconsume carbs and sugars at the same time. And to date, this has always worked.

[stronger]

And your evidence for the "overemphasis on the genetic component" and the "most blame it on someone else" is? I don't think you have any.

What do you think about the relative dearth of obesity, 50, 100, 200, years ago?

Unless we are to assume that genetic mutations in human makeup can happen so fast (and those who follow or recognize the Paleo Diet know that they cannot) as to exponentially increase obesity generation to generation, to the point that it is known as an epidemic, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the genetic element is overstated, as human genetics don't change much generation to generation as far as I know. Have the environmental factors changed? You betcha.

What do you disagree with?

[matclone]

What do you think about the relative dearth of obesity, 50, 100, 200, years ago?

I addressed that particular question in a prior post--as did others.


Unless we are to assume that genetic mutations in human makeup can happen so fast (and those who follow or recognize the Paleo Diet know that they cannot) as to exponentially increase obesity

No one has suggested that mutation is a factor.



I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the genetic element is overstated

You keep repeating the claim that that it is overstated, but you still haven't presented any evidence of the same. You haven't even admitted to knowing one person who "blamed" his obesity on genetics. Just because somebody else says that fat people say (as if they were one in the same or even most the same) that genetics are to "blame" doesn't mean squat.



Have the environmental factors changed? You betcha.

It seems we all generally agree on this point.

[BryanM]

I think it's unlikely that "people" have somehow gotten lazier overnight - we're exactly as super lazy as we've always been.

There may be one thing that'd be a fair primary target of blame: corn syurp. And how much people love to eat and drink it. Back in the olde days (~pre 80's) they used sugar as a sweetener in soda, and I find a lot of my obese friends prefer this drink over water.

Amusingly, there is a book on the subject called Omega 6 - The Devil's Fat, which tries to link vegetable fats to a number of undesirable things. My favorite part is the link in omega 6 consumption and an increased homicide rate - the idea that food flowing through your blood can be the difference in deciding to kill someone or to not kill them is hilarious to me.

There have been studies linking corn syurp to diabetes as well. And Japan hasn't been doing well with obesity as our fast food franchises have strengthened their presence there over the decades.

I know this all comes across as some hippie "profit is what is killing people!" sort of thing, but really. Would it make a difference if they'd put the god damn sugar back into the god damn soda?

[jgrube]

And your evidence for the "overemphasis on the genetic component" and the "most blame it on someone else" is? I don't think you have any.

You want evidence? Go up to a fat person and ask him why he is fat. I'd advise that this person be a friend so that you dont get punched in the face. They'll most likely blame it on their parents or job or kids or something else. Very few people will say, "I eat too much. I really need to change my diet and start hitting the gym."

[tremorviolet]

Not to imply that you should consume carbs with reckless abandon or anything, or that the kinds of carbs that you consume have absolutely no impact on body composition in particular contexts, but I think you may be as guilty of oversimplification as the person to whom you were replying.

Read what Lyle has to say here

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

And here

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html

What I have gathered from reading his articles and sifting through his forum responses is that he thinks the two most important factors for the average (READ: non-advanced) dieter is to keep protein intake adequate if not high and choose your calories correctly based on your goals: is your goal to lose weight, gain weight or to stay the same? If it's to lose weight, you need to create a calorie deficit, keep your protein where it should be, and use a muscle-sparing weight routine (a program that incorporates sets of 5 reps like Rip's).

In this case, what good ole mom said rings true: Everything in moderation. Of course, there's even more to consider here than the factors raised in just these two articles. At this point in time what we're seeing is a convergence of multiple factors all leading to the so-called obesity epidemic. And the high-fat/low-carb camp at one extreme and the low-fat/high-carb at the other are oversimplifying the issues, making one or the other macronutrient out to be the devil when that just is not the case.

What I see in most of my trainees is too many carbohydrates coupled with too few grams of protein, and a woeful lack of lean body mass. The low levels of lean body mass has to do with the lack of protein AND the fact that they don't train; and if they do train, it's all low-weight high-rep shit and/or long slow distance cardio for an hour or more at a time. In fact, usually if I just set their caloric intake where I think it should be AND ensure that their protein stays high, then the carb intake will go down automatically without their even having to consider reducing it because you can't satisfy the above dietary recommendations and overconsume carbs and sugars at the same time. And to date, this has always worked.

This is a very long post that totally misses my point. I'm not talking about ketogenic or the special effects of high fructose corn syrup or any sort of gym training. My point is that people tend to drastically overestimate the role of exercise for weight loss.

We (Americans in general) started to get really freaking fat in the 80s, a trend which continues to this day. (animated chart thingy (http://www.uvm.edu/~astarins/obesity.html)) In discussions, a lot of people tend to blame it on a lack of exercise, as if in the 1970s, we all still worked on the farm and burned off the fat doing chores. I remember the 70s, they weren't all that different from now for the average person with an office job. Yet people weren't humongous hambeasts.

What changed? Food. Based on very poor research, nutritionists and the government started advising people to eat less fat. What took up the slack? Carbs. Crap carbs because this was also a time when women moved en masse to the workplace and home cooking seemed to wane. Fast food, for all its bad rep as high fat, is loaded with empty calories like white bread, white potatoes, high sugar sodas, etc. Snack foods based on corn proliferated because they were low fat so they had to be good for you, right? We actually thought a huge white bread bagel was better for you than an egg.

Carbs aren't the devil. Shitty processed foods are. It's a lot more difficult to overeat real foods like eggs, meat, vegetables, whole milk, etc. than it is boxes of cereal or bags of potato chips. Too many carbs trigger a rise in insulin which leads to binging and overeating. Foods with fat and protein don't and are naturally satiating.

[stronger]

You keep repeating the claim that that it is overstated, but you still haven't presented any evidence of the same. You haven't even admitted to knowing one person who "blamed" his obesity on genetics. Just because somebody else says that fat people say (as if they were one in the same or even most the same) that genetics are to "blame" doesn't mean squat.


Of course I know obese people who blame it on genetics, I'm sorry I didn't mention it earlier, I thought it was a given. I also know people who are skinny in an obese family and think they've worked a miracle by not becoming fat.

Going back to my original post, the main point was to call into question a general understanding that a fat family is fat because of fat genes, and not fat diets. Controlling for genetics, we have changes in diets, activity levels, environments etc. What sort of evidence for an urban legend/"understanding" are you looking for? If 100 years ago the obesity rate in America was x, and now it is a substantially higher y, and the only things that have changed are the aformentioned factors, would you not say a generic statement of "it runs in the family" might be overstated? It probably hasn't run in the family for long.

Why should genetics even be mentioned, as they typically are, unless there are extreme circumstances (like those previously listed of a large, active girl) which, when controlled for healthy diet, activity level etc. still reveals an obese person? If obesity is a rarity in nature, the mentioning of genetics as a primary cause (this goes with many other diseases I might add) seems odd and ignorant of a few million years of human history.


You acknowledge the component piece of the equation but then seemingly ignore it by running down some sort of straw argument that people are blaming their genes solely for their girth.

I'll address this too. What part of "Maybe less of a blame should be put on mom and dad and more of one on ourselves. " makes you think I was completely ignoring one part of the equation and saying it (being genetics) was solely what was blamed? Diet, work schedule and other things are often popularly blamed, and for good reason in my opinion. I was addressing the proportion of blame, as I further expounded upon later in the thread. I don't see how it was a strawman, because I didn't deny a genetic factor, I'm simply questioning how large a role it plays. Admitting components and then questioning the proportion of one of the components is not the same as denying something that you just admitted. Reasonable?

[matclone]

You want evidence? Go up to a fat person and ask him why he is fat.

I asked for evidence from Stronger cause he made the claim you're making. Since he and you made have this claim, the burden is on you, not me--to show evidence that it exists. I see he has offered none and neither have you.


I'd advise that this person be a friend so that you dont get punched in the face. They'll most likely blame it on their parents or job or kids or something else.

You don't really know. You guys apparently are just looking for someone to despise. It seems to be a popular trend these days.

[mlentzner]

I have a little anecdote:

Recently, I had my fence replaced. The company who replaced it had an all Mexican crew and did the whole job in a day. I assume they do jobs like this 5 days a week - hard backbreaking labor digging holes with a digging bar and a scoop. The only power tool they used was a circular saw.

They were almost all fat.

If anybody wants to have an opinion on why people are fat then you have to read Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's kind of like the way you have to have read Rip's PP book if you want to have an opinion on Strength Programming. You don't have to agree with Taubes, but you need to address the points in that book simply because it is the best researched, most logical, least contaminated with dietary Silly Bullshit (TM).

In a nutshell, people don't get fat because they overeat. They overeat because they are fat - or more accurately, they overeat because their hormones are telling them to store fat. They have to eat enough to satisfy their storage requirements as well as maintain their body systems. Fat people on calorie deficit diets are literally starving and people label them as weak willed.

Does this mean that fat people are helpless victims? I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. High carb diets are probably the biggest cause of obesity by over-stimulating insulin production. I think the willpower comes into play as far as eating healthy, less convenient and/or more expensive, food. Junk carb calories are the cheapest thing going. Obesity and poverty go hand in hand. I see that a lot of more affluent people are willing to mortgage their long term health in order to save money/time in the present.

Also, there's 30 years of misinformation to overcome. Most people still think fatty food is bad for you and breakfast cereal is good. Get the word out.

Matt

[Christopher]

Concerning the over-estimation of the usefulness of exercise in weight loss, I think people like those found on this forum will look at it from a different angle than everyone else(including much research). We feel like what we do is the hidden-in-plain-sight key to getting stronger and and living a healthy life, and it is, but when the general population thinks of exercise they picture sweating on a treadmill or reclining bicycle for the sole purpose of lowering the number on the scale and it is an entirely different animal. For them it would be a question of trying to burn more energy than they consume on a 1-for-1 basis while continuing to eat their low-fat processed rubbish, and it just doesn't yield good results. Our kind of training on the other hand seeks to increase our lean mass and make us stronger regardless of its effect on the scale. It's a completely different thought process.

This is just a part of the obesity problem, though; the state of nutrition in America(and the world?) is just awful too, and on this related note I'd like to share this lecture from UC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2Fuctelev ision&feature=player_profilepage) on how sucrose/fructose is processed in our bodies and why the ubiquity of HFCS in our food is such a terrible thing for us.

I'd like to see anything anyone can show me contrary to what Prof Lustig says here, so I can see all sides of the issue, but I think I'll have trouble ever being convinced the overprocessing of foods is not bad for us.

[SkinnyWimp]

On the nurture vs nature, or genes vs environment discussion: You can't separate genes from environment. Your genetic makeup dictates your reaction to the environment.

A person who is tall had to have the 'tall' genes in addition to enough protein and other nutrients to be tall. Without the food, the potentially tall person ends up being short like the rest of us. Same with fat people.

Anybody who says it's either genes or environment but not both is wrong. You can't get around it. You want to quantify how much is because of genes and how much is environment? I really don't think you can do that for an individual. If you can, let me know. And don't tell me about probabilities based on statistics that show correlation between this that and the other based on population samples. I want to know concrete numbers for a specific individual. Am I going to get lung cancer because I smoked for 15 years? I'll donate some DNA and an entire life history if you can tell me. No percentages. I want yes or no.

Regarding comparing the number of fat people today with that of previous decades is difficult because so many factors have changed. I could go on but I'm at work and I gotta go.

[Jefferson]

If great differences in height can happen from generation to generation (eg Denmark), ie in the expression of genes, then why not body composition. It might be genetic?

[di1an]

My brother is 5' 7", weighs 225lbs. Bf is 35-40%. He is FAT.
I am 5' 10", 150lbs, Bf 12-15% tops. We live together. Yet he is a fatass. He's been greedy for treats his entire life. Donuts. candy bars, sugar sugar sugar. I blame that on my parents/grandparents spoiling him early. Nurture, not nature. As soon as the whole "genetics MAY have a role" argument appeared, he, and every other overweight person I know, many in my family (shared genes! but most of us aren't fat. go figure) jumped all over it. I don't blame them - everyone wants an excuse outside thier control to explain their shortcomings. And that's the problem with the "genetics make me fat" argument. It robs overweight people of the power to take ownership of thier own problems and do something about it. Thus contributing to the whiny wimpy lardasses jacking up medical costs in the UK to treat their diabetes epidemic. And just what is the mechanism for genetics causing obesity? That implies that your "genetics" can magically turn a regular 2000-3000 cal diet into 100lbs of fat. The physics of it is impossible, the same as saying genetics will turn 2000 cal a day into 100lbs lean mass. Where does all the mass come from, thin air? We're living in a pass the buck culture. Obese people need to take responsibility for themselves. The genetic argument is bandied about so that Pharmaceuticals can thus market a shitty drug aimed at the gene they discovered as 'responsible', thus obtaining a patent and billions in revenue. Take this new obesity pill "Alli" just released. It's already screwing with society. I saw two girls yesterday trying to buy the stuff, who were rejected because they weren't fat enough. And they weren't. They just needed to drop the fucking donuts and close thier mouths for a while. Of course, that's way too much effort for even just chubby people in the UK. Please excuse while I pay more taxes to help obese people stay obese.

[matclone]

Ask any fat person, and most blame it on someone else.


Of course I know obese people who blame it on genetics, I'm sorry I didn't mention it earlier, I thought it was a given.

No, it's not a given. You?re trying hard to make it so by insinuation, but it's not.

If I did what you're doing, I might proclaim to the world that "guys with blond hair are lazy", just because I know of one lazy guy with blond hair. Or, because I might infer that there is more than one lazy blond person in the world given that there are plenty of blonds and plenty of lazy people, I might proclaim that "most guys with blond hair are lazy". However, neither of my statements would be accurate. We see and hear similar nonsense with statements that "they" just want to be victims or that "they" don't want to learn English or that "they" (bodybuilders) are gay. The latter statements sometimes work because their intended audience is predisposed to think the worst of "they". That doesn't mean they're accurate. Likewise, you want us to adopt your view (and share your ire) that "they" (obese people) are somehow flawed even though you really haven't presented any evidence other than a vague reference to people you know, and a dubious claim that you know what they think.


Going back to my original post, the main point was to call into question a general understanding that a fat family is fat because of fat genes, and not fat diets.

This is your straw man, for no one here except you, and those who subsequently agree with your loaded presumption, have claimed that fat people are fat solely, or primarily, or mostly because of their genes.


Controlling for genetics, we have changes in diets, activity levels, environments etc...If 100 years ago the obesity rate in America was x, and now it is a substantially higher y, and the only things that have changed are the aformentioned factors, would you not say a generic statement of "it runs in the family" might be overstated? It probably hasn't run in the family for long.

One, you haven't presented evidence that the view you decry is overstated. Two, genetic predisposition times changes in diet and the other factors you mention may equal obesity.

[QUOTE=stronger;37332]
I'll address this too. What part of "Maybe less of a blame should be put on mom and dad and more of one on ourselves. " makes you think I was completely ignoring one part of the equation and saying it (being genetics) was solely what was blamed?

I dunno.

Bottom line: if you know a fat person who is actually blaming his condition on genetics without reference to other factors, then maybe you are right to think less of him. But don't expect the rest of us to look down upon all, or most, fat people, or make presumptions about people we don't even know, much less about what they think.

We can and should encourage overweight people to exercise as Rip does in Starting Strength.

[stronger]

Likewise, you want us to adopt your view (and share your ire) that "they" (obese people) are somehow flawed even though you really haven't presented any evidence other than a vague reference to people you know, and a dubious claim that you know what they think. your assumptions that I have ire are overstated as well. I will agree that I cannot assume what a large group of people have or lack as feelings towards their condition, I can say that I don't find it very appealing, just like bad manners and being illiterate despite living in a civilized nation. I won't go so far as to say that bodybuilders are not gay though. You cannot convince me there...


This is your straw man, for no one here except you, and those who subsequently agree with your loaded presumption, have claimed that fat people are fat solely, or primarily, or mostly because of their genes. wrong, all I'm claiming is that the genetic explanation is given too much attention. I assumed bolding "less" and "more" respectively would point this out pretty clearly.


One, you haven't presented evidence that the view you decry is overstated. Two, genetic predisposition times changes in diet and the other factors you mention may equal obesity.

how do drastically increased obesity rates in a short period of time while assuming that the genetic makeup of human beings is not going to change drastically in that same time frame, as diets and other factors have changed drastically not count as evidence? And even if the genetic predispositon "times" diet equals obesity, which I don't have an opinion on, the diet is the factor that has changed so greatly.



I'll address this too. What part of "Maybe less of a blame should be put on mom and dad and more of one on ourselves. " makes you think I was completely ignoring one part of the equation and saying it (being genetics) was solely what was blamed?

I dunno.


Alright then.

Bottom line: the fact that the genetic explanation is now a common one, offered as one of the main factors to explain obesity, when given the scarcity of obesity until historically very recently, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that the genetic predisposition is not as large of a factor as diet, lifestyle, activity level, etc. Unless you disagree that there is a general public knowledge that obesity is influenced in a substantial, worth-mentioning way by a predisposition, I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that genetic predispositions are overstated.

And I completely agree, I've encouraged overweight friends to take up some form of strength training or high intensity activity. Most have said walking or biking is enough. Fight the good fight...

[TPrewittMD]

Skinny raises an interesting question about which I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding.

When people talk about "genes", I believe they mistakenly assume this means a known, inherited, genetic defect that will likely lead to cancer. Certainly there are genes that fall into this category, e.g. FAP for colon cancer and BRCA for breast cancer.

In other situations, the actual genetic defect has not been identified. An example would be women with family histories of breast cancer.

I am a breast cancer surgeon and regularly assess women's risks of breast cancer based on family history. Most women at increased risk for breast cancer due to family history do not have a specific identifiable genetic defect that can be measured. For these folks, we can only give them percentages, not "yes or no" as Skinny suggests.

Same for smoking for lung cancer. You can estimate your risk of lung cancer based upon epidemeologic studies but will not be able to get a binary "yes/no" answer. Would be nice, but not there yet scientifically.

Cancer is simply defined as cells that either spread to other organs or invade surrounding tissue. These changes occur to do some type of mutation that can be environmentally induced or inherited. (see protooncogenes, tumor-suppressor genes, etc). Also, consider the concept of "penetrance" where one can have have a genetic defect yet not have the associated disease, and one realizes that this a very complex scientific soup.

[Heather]

Yes, overconsumption of processed carbs contributes to obesity, and yes, many people, obese or otherwise, use the "genetic" card to deny responsibility for their own health. However, epigenetic changes in the human population probably aren't exactly helping the situation either. It's not just nature and nurture, genes versus environment. An individual's environment directly affects that individual's phenotype, and the phenotype of his or her progeny via DNA methylation, which essentially makes a piece of genetic code unavailable for translation and thus expression. Genetic mutation isn't the only way for gene expression in a population to change over time. We don't know yet, but epigenetics could be a significant contributing factor in the so-called obesity epidemic. That said, I have no doubt that if most Americans adopted a higher protein, lower carb diet, and made an effort to gain some muscle, WalMart would be a much less scary place.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Obesity-Epigenetics-and-Gene-Regulation-927

[danlightbulb]

Another factor in the obsesity increase could be mate selection. Quite often you will see overweight people partnering overweight people. The offspring then will a) have a tendancy to overeat because its what their parents do, and b) have the right combination of genes to metabolize exessive fat.

I have a good anecdote about a couple of friends of mine, brothers, about 30 ish, both weighing over 350 lb, both over 6'5, both also well muscled but also alot of fat on them. Beer monsters too, 20-30 pints in a sitting not uncommon. Mom and dad both overweight too. Their sister, now about 20ish is, by extreme contrast, about 120 lb, super skinny. Brought up in that household, it must have been her genetics that prevented excesive size.

Genes play a part but only where a person's individual makeup happens to provide the right set of circumstances for fat creation when combined with the right diet for this to happen. Its no different to the mesomorph having the right combination of genes to build muscle, when presented with the right diet and training, or no different to the ecto who, by chance, didn't get the muscle building or fat building genes handed down from his parents.

I very much doubt that any evolution of our genes has taken place in the last 30 years, but maybe the abundance of food has allowed people with 'fat genes' to flourish, whereas in the past these people would have been unsuccessful due to their incompatibility with the low food environment.

In summary i think that genetics + diet is what causes fatness, exactly the same as genetics + diet is what causes skinnyness (like me). and if someone carries the right gene combinations for fat storage, and they are presented with an abundance of food - well its not rocket science to work out that they have the ideal environment to fluorish...natural selection working exactly as it should do.

[Patrick]

The direction this discussion took sort of hits home for me because I come from a family of obese people -- my father is 5'10 and doesn't know how much he weighs because the household scale only goes up to 350. My mom and brothers aren't quite as extreme but they're in the same boat.

I absolutely hate people who throw around credentials like it should make their arguments better than the substance can do it on its own, but I have extensive training in biology and understand genetics in a way that only a guy committed to becoming really pale and dorky can. The fact of the matter is that it's not so simple as we might like it to be. Yes, our diet makes us fat. Yes, our genetics make us fat. But, it is quite possible that one has the genetics to become fat but because of environmental factors -- like diet and exercise -- he expresses those genes at a lower level than someone who didn't hit the gym or eat a salad. This is true of simple biological systems like E. coli, where powerful enzymes that promote the expression of literally dozens of genes can be supressed by slight manipulations of environmental factors, and it's equally true of complicated bastards like humans.

I spent childhood as skinny as a rail, became a skinnyfat lump later on when I first decided I didn't want to be a toothpick, and now weigh in as "overweight" on the BMI chart despite the fact that I have visible abs and lifts that peg me as advanced in everything but bench press (fuck bench press, by the way). I'm not looking for a pat on the back -- I mention this to say that while genetics are so damned powerful that they determine whether we're human or pumpkin, their impact is somewhat maleable, and the extent you deviate from your predisposition is determined by your commitment. For me it was a load of study and time in the gym plus about seven years. And that's just to get respectable under a bar. If your genes suck worse than mine it could be more.

The truth is, if your genes predispose you to be fat and weak like mine do, you gotta work very smartly to avoid it. If you're like some of my friends growing up then a pizza and a beer will do nothing but make you more muscular. The genetic puzzle, insofar as it's a puzzle, is solved when you recognize what level of nit picking and ass busting you're going to have to do to get where you want. Once you know how much it will take then the only question is whether you're willing to sac up and do it. I'm probably not going to be much bigger or stronger than I am now -- at least not dramatically -- and for me that's fine cause I put food on my table doing something else. But really, is the fact that we can't all be King Kong a revelation?

[jgrube]

The direction this discussion took sort of hits home for me because I come from a family of obese people -- my father is 5'10 and doesn't know how much he weighs because the household scale only goes up to 350. My mom and brothers aren't quite as extreme but they're in the same boat.

I absolutely hate people who throw around credentials like it should make their arguments better than the substance can do it on its own, but I have extensive training in biology and understand genetics in a way that only a guy committed to becoming really pale and dorky can. The fact of the matter is that it's not so simple as we might like it to be. Yes, our diet makes us fat. Yes, our genetics make us fat. But, it is quite possible that one has the genetics to become fat but because of environmental factors -- like diet and exercise -- he expresses those genes at a lower level than someone who didn't hit the gym or eat a salad. This is true of simple biological systems like E. coli, where powerful enzymes that promote the expression of literally dozens of genes can be supressed by slight manipulations of environmental factors, and it's equally true of complicated bastards like humans.

I spent childhood as skinny as a rail, became a skinnyfat lump later on when I first decided I didn't want to be a toothpick, and now weigh in as "overweight" on the BMI chart despite the fact that I have visible abs and lifts that peg me as advanced in everything but bench press (fuck bench press, by the way). I'm not looking for a pat on the back -- I mention this to say that while genetics are so damned powerful that they determine whether we're human or pumpkin, their impact is somewhat maleable, and the extent you deviate from your predisposition is determined by your commitment. For me it was a load of study and time in the gym plus about seven years. And that's just to get respectable under a bar. If your genes suck worse than mine it could be more.

The truth is, if your genes predispose you to be fat and weak like mine do, you gotta work very smartly to avoid it. If you're like some of my friends growing up then a pizza and a beer will do nothing but make you more muscular. The genetic puzzle, insofar as it's a puzzle, is solved when you recognize what level of nit picking and ass busting you're going to have to do to get where you want. Once you know how much it will take then the only question is whether you're willing to sac up and do it. I'm probably not going to be much bigger or stronger than I am now -- at least not dramatically -- and for me that's fine cause I put food on my table doing something else. But really, is the fact that we can't all be King Kong a revelation?

wow. i totally agree with this post. excellent. we cant all be 300lbs with abs. not naturally anyways. some can. i wish i was a mesomorph. but you and me were born ectomorphs, and have to eat a whole lot more than the average guy to gain weight. same thing with endomorphs, they have to eat less than the average guy to not be fat.

[Kate]

....An individual's environment directly affects that individual's phenotype, and the phenotype of his or her progeny via DNA methylation, which essentially makes a piece of genetic code unavailable for translation and thus expression. Genetic mutation isn't the only way for gene expression in a population to change over time. ....
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Obesity-Epigenetics-and-Gene-Regulation-927

Thanks for the link, Heather -- interesting article, cool Web site, and very cool "Browse Visually" feature.

~Kate