Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Genetics and weight
Replies
-
Build I would say is genetic. Weight isn't. Don't use genetics as an excuse as to why you're over weight and can't lose it. It won't help you on your journey.
Now health issues is a different story. I have a nephew with a rare metabolic disorder and he has to drink special formula every day,which is high in calories, and eat a certain amount so he's a little over weight. But it's either that or he could die, and I'd rather he be around.
Good grief no. To think that height and bodyfat distribution is genetic but deny that the ease with which someone puts on weight or loses weight isn't is bizarre. Especially since there's already convincing published evidence that there are genetic factors in weight gain/loss.
It might not be a major factor (it's down to CICO, basically) but it might be enough to make it difficult for some people.3 -
Genetics is one piece of the puzzle without question. Our macro, environment, mental state, etc are factors as well. See link at the bottom for greater details.
We are a whole unit. Our pre programmed features seem to be modified by epigenetics and many other things.
The root cause of most all diseased states we now understand is long term internal inflammation. Removing the triggers of most all disease causes is my main eating goal today. We do have total control over what we eat and how we think if we are mentally and physically healthy. It my case it is turning out to be a stair step process taking years to recover lost health.
As long as my C-Reactive Protein (CRP) levels are going lower year by year I know I am on the road to the best mental and physical health possible in my case.
https://selfhacked.com/2016/11/04/c-reactive-protein/Everything You Need to Know about the C-reactive Protein (CRP)
6 -
cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »krisb1701d wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »
This is not true, the ratio is closer to 1:1krisb1701d wrote: »Bacteria outnumber our cells ten to one, and if the drive you to eat... There is little you can do in the short term to combat that.
http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136
Interesting paper, thanks for that. While his findings are still under review it does note that there is still a higher concentration in the gut. I believe the point about the GI microbiota driving us to eat still stands.
At this time, some correlations between gut bacteria population and weight/obesity have been found, but I believe it would be a drastic overstatement of the evidence to date to suggest that there is causation of any sort causing folks to overeat. Folks who are overweight also tend to eat more/differently and be less active. My gut (
) feeling is the causation is likely the other way and the differences in bacterial populations found is due to the lifestyle differences that lead to obesity.
They also discovered that the gut bacteria is directly linked to what foods we eat. So once again, people need to stop eating McDonalds. That stuff is terrible, all chemicals, killing off those good bacteria
What about the fresh cracked Round eggs that are cooked in real butter? What about the side salad? I only know about their USA stores. I do agree we do not need to kill off good bacteria. I am questioning your knowledge of all of McDonalds menu items in the USA. Do you have science as to why one should not drink their black regular coffee?2 -
Bones only get "big" if the physical exertion done using that bone causes the bone to need to get big. For instance, a baseball pitcher will have thicker arm bones in his throwing arm than in his non-throwing arm. Yet a violinist does not have bigger bones in his bow hand. Instead, the violinist has more neuronal synapses in the left hemisphere of her brain.
Now you know.
As far as people being destined to overweight and obesity by their fat parents, hogwash.
If people were destined to a body shape by our parents, then we'd all be skinny because our parents' parents were skinny.
That said, it's also been shown that a child born to an older mother tends to be overweight.
6 -
My "genetics" made me fat, yet when I cleaned up my eating and exercised regularly, my "genetics" suddenly made me fit and healthy with a total weight loss of 80 pounds.
People love excuses....
I loved those excuses too. I don't deny it. But since losing as of today 96 lb and discovering how easy it is, I know it's hogwash.2 -
My father, 6'2" and 220 lbs, had a quadruple bypass surgery on Thursday. It's a genetic thing, every man in the family going back at least 4 generations, and a fair number of the women, have had this problem.
The surgeon said that my father made him work harder than hes' worked in his 30+ year career as a surgeon. He said that he'd never seen a ribcage as large, or bones so big and thick.
If you looked at my dad you'd say he's tall and strong. Football, track, swimming, wrestling.. I grew up watching him compete in triathalons. When I was young, he was a ditch digger, and though he moved onto another career, he's always on the move, and has maintained both cardio and weight lifting into his sixties. Very few people would call him "fat" either, though he's not at his high school fighting weight any more. He intends on reaching that weight though in the next few months (right here with MFP) to give him a better shot at another 30-40 years though.
But at any rate, he's LARGE. Big bones. Big muscles. My ankles are big enough I register as a large-framed man (yes, I'm a woman) .. and my ankles are dwarfed in size by his, my size women's 10.5 feet looking downright petite next to his men's size 13 shoes. And no, he doesn't have remotely fat feet.
Genetics and hard manual labor, people. It's a real thing.10 -
Being "big boned" doesn't mean you can't be fit. Having a large skeleton doesn't mean you also have to have a bunch of extra fat on your body. People with small frames are fat, too. Not sure how the term "big boned" came to signify someone is forever doomed to fatness. Might just be a way for people to make excuses. If you say something is genetic, you can pretend you don't have any control over it.3
-
krisb1701d wrote: »...Bacteria outnumber our cells ten to one, and if the drive you to eat... There is little you can do in the short term to combat that.
Bacteria made me do it...
5 -
Favorite read of the day!JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Bones only get "big" if the physical exertion done using that bone causes the bone to need to get big. For instance, a baseball pitcher will have thicker arm bones in his throwing arm than in his non-throwing arm. Yet a violinist does not have bigger bones in his bow hand. Instead, the violinist has more neuronal synapses in the left hemisphere of her brain.
Now you know.
As far as people being destined to overweight and obesity by their fat parents, hogwash.
If people were destined to a body shape by our parents, then we'd all be skinny because our parents' parents were skinny.
That said, it's also been shown that a child born to an older mother tends to be overweight.
0 -
People are taller and shorter...but have you ever seen skeletons? There are no big bones.
7 -
JustDoIt987 wrote: »Hey guys ! Sorry for asking another question , but today a friend of mine said '' I can never be slim , my parents are both big boned''
My question is : Do genetics determine your weight ?
If someone's 'natural weight' is 130lbs , can they get to a lower weight and healthily maintain it ?
To some extent sure. Genetics do not determine how much fat you have on your body, diet does. But how you are built can certainly prevent you from getting a certain look you may desire. I'll never be short. I would have to get down to an unhealthy weight to ever have slim hips or calves.
So, it depends on what your friend means by "slim". They can get to a healthy weight. But they may not ever fit into a size 0.0 -
I'm an xray tech and I have never seen a heavy person with a skeleton that matched it.16
-
I have a borderline large frame and I'm far from being overweight. As to genetics, I take after my paternal grandmother in looks, height, general build, etc...but she was morbidly obese with diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, and had 2 heart attacks and a stroke before she died. I may have her bone structure, but I chose my own path in terms of weight, health, and fitness level.7
-
People are taller and shorter...but have you ever seen skeletons? There are no big bones.
Actually, and this is speaking from a forensic examination I did of 137 skeltised remains, there are "big" bones. Skeletons come in a range of big (robust) to small (gracile). This is a separate measurement from length which you use to calculate height. Generally, you will find more robust bones amongst those who have engaged in heavy physical labour whereas the gracile bones will come from those who engage in more low impact cardio type activities. You can tell all sorts of things from a person's bones...can tell if they regularly ride horseback, or were a keyboard tapping desk jockey, or a roofer, or a ballet dancer. Living bones are very adaptable and more malleable than people think. Why else is one of the key recommendations to increase bone mass is to lift weights? Your bones are getting both denser and more robust.15 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Bones only get "big" if the physical exertion done using that bone causes the bone to need to get big. For instance, a baseball pitcher will have thicker arm bones in his throwing arm than in his non-throwing arm. Yet a violinist does not have bigger bones in his bow hand. Instead, the violinist has more neuronal synapses in the left hemisphere of her brain.
Now you know.
As far as people being destined to overweight and obesity by their fat parents, hogwash.
If people were destined to a body shape by our parents, then we'd all be skinny because our parents' parents were skinny.
That said, it's also been shown that a child born to an older mother tends to be overweight.
But why? Genetics/epigenetics? Or something behavioral, like older women tending to be heavier and less active on average than younger ones, thus modeling "heavy and inactive is normal"; or being more indulgent food-wise with late in life children?
My mom was 43 when I was born in 1955, her first and only child. I was fat, and am now thin. Will it be harder for me to maintain than it would be for someone whose mother was young? (I doubt it.)1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »It's the availability of food. If you give an animal too much food it will get fat, unless it's very active. We are no different.
This is rather simplistic.
Sure, readily available food and never having to go without is a factor in obesity. It's not the only one though.
And there are plenty of people living in an abundant, first world environment who maintain healthy weight without being 'very active'.
meh- I don't know about that- all of the people I know who aren't fat are quite active.1 -
People are taller and shorter...but have you ever seen skeletons? There are no big bones.
Actually, and this is speaking from a forensic examination I did of 137 skeltised remains, there are "big" bones. Skeletons come in a range of big (robust) to small (gracile). This is a separate measurement from length which you use to calculate height. Generally, you will find more robust bones amongst those who have engaged in heavy physical labour whereas the gracile bones will come from those who engage in more low impact cardio type activities. You can tell all sorts of things from a person's bones...can tell if they regularly ride horseback, or were a keyboard tapping desk jockey, or a roofer, or a ballet dancer. Living bones are very adaptable and more malleable than people think. Why else is one of the key recommendations to increase bone mass is to lift weights? Your bones are getting both denser and more robust.
Surgeons will also attest to this, as well anatomy professors.2 -
People are taller and shorter...but have you ever seen skeletons? There are no big bones.
Actually, and this is speaking from a forensic examination I did of 137 skeltised remains, there are "big" bones. Skeletons come in a range of big (robust) to small (gracile). This is a separate measurement from length which you use to calculate height. Generally, you will find more robust bones amongst those who have engaged in heavy physical labour whereas the gracile bones will come from those who engage in more low impact cardio type activities. You can tell all sorts of things from a person's bones...can tell if they regularly ride horseback, or were a keyboard tapping desk jockey, or a roofer, or a ballet dancer. Living bones are very adaptable and more malleable than people think. Why else is one of the key recommendations to increase bone mass is to lift weights? Your bones are getting both denser and more robust.
Surgeons will also attest to this, as well anatomy professors.
I don't know if there's a genetic component to this. In gross anatomy there is a visible difference and even after a few autopsies begin to make an educated guess on if the subject was physically active.
We've discovered much of this through the space program and the massive decrease in bone density in the early astronauts. Body maintenance is terribly taxing and energy intensive. Our bodies are designed for efficiency and will cease activity if it is not needed - e.g. providing calcium to bone structures. To stimulate this in space requires ~2.5 hours of exercise/daily.2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Bones only get "big" if the physical exertion done using that bone causes the bone to need to get big. For instance, a baseball pitcher will have thicker arm bones in his throwing arm than in his non-throwing arm. Yet a violinist does not have bigger bones in his bow hand. Instead, the violinist has more neuronal synapses in the left hemisphere of her brain.
Now you know.
As far as people being destined to overweight and obesity by their fat parents, hogwash.
If people were destined to a body shape by our parents, then we'd all be skinny because our parents' parents were skinny.
That said, it's also been shown that a child born to an older mother tends to be overweight.
But why? Genetics/epigenetics? Or something behavioral, like older women tending to be heavier and less active on average than younger ones, thus modeling "heavy and inactive is normal"; or being more indulgent food-wise with late in life children?
My mom was 43 when I was born in 1955, her first and only child. I was fat, and am now thin. Will it be harder for me to maintain than it would be for someone whose mother was young? (I doubt it.)
Why are some bones robust or gracile? The genetics portion is just XX or XY. Men are genetically predisposed to more robust bones than women. Anything beyond that is down to behaviour...as in the type of physical activity or lack thereof.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions