Im Obese because my family is Obese! True/False

smotheredincheese

I've known people who have used genetics as an excuse not to do anything about their weight e.g. "Everyone in my family is fat, we're just built like this, I'll never be thin because I've got broad shoulders so obviously I'm supposed to be broader".
I don't know if they truly believe that, or just find it a handy excuse.

LiftAllThePizzas

senecarr wrote: »

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

fbinsc wrote: »

sheldonklein wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

There's also epigenetics

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/07/epigenetics-heredity-diabetes-obesity-increased-cancer-risk

"There are many definitions of epigenetics, but simply put, says Professor Marcus Pembrey, a geneticist at University College London and the University of Bristol, it is a change in our genetic activity without changing our genetic code. It is a process that happens throughout our lives and is normal to development. Chemical tags get attached to our genetic code, like bookmarks in the pages of a book, signalling to our bodies which genes to ignore and which to use.

For decades, we have thought of our offspring as blank slates. Now, epigeneticists are asking whether in fact our environment, from smoking and diet to pollution and war, can leave "epigenetic marks" on our DNA that could get passed on to subsequent generations. They call the phenomenon epigenetic inheritance."

Stated generously, the article, and epigenetics, is highly speculative and controversial. Less generously, it is dangerous hooey. I'm not feeling generous.

There is nothing speculative or controversial about epigenetics.

In order for genetics or epigenetics to even be applicable or relevant here, there would need to be people somewhere whose observed TDEE was way lower than expected without any other explanation. Lots of them.

That's if you're assuming the question of genetics is ONLY in regards to calorie burn. Epigenetics does have an effect on behavior and eating patterns. Do look up the Dutch Famine, and the studies done on the population born around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944#Legacy

The Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study, carried out by the departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Gynecology and Obstetrics and Internal Medicine of the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, in collaboration with the MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit of the University of Southampton in Britain, found that the children of pregnant women exposed to famine were more susceptible to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, microalbuminuria and other health problems.

This is not to say it is destiny, or that these people have differences in TDEE.

Have there been famines in these populations within first world nations shortly before they started having obesity problems?

How is this relevant?

It's not only obvious which factors changed (availability of excess calories and ability to get away with extreme laziness) but these factors applied to the way we know the body works indeed predict the exact result we are looking at, and changing those factors back in individual cases also reverses the results.

BTW learned/copied behaviors would be memetic, not epigenetic.

jmule24

FALSE

aarar

Alatariel75 wrote: »

I think DNA and genetics has less to do with it than people learning their habits from their family. If your family is overweight because they eat a lot, chances are you will be raised eating a lot and will also end up overweight.

I didn't read the replies beyond the first one and I think it pretty much sums up my opinion on the OP's question.

Drewlssix

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Drewlssix wrote: »

Again, there is little difference between the fattest and the fittest on earth, except the choices each made.

Not entirely true.....there is a degree of variability in rates of nutrient / calorie absorption.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/6/1650.full

Furthermore in terms of fitness there are varying degrees of responsiveness to exercise and genetic differences that predispose people to suitability to different sports (ie a world class sprinter is born with more fast twitch muscles than a champion marathoner)

Having said that, blaming your genes is a convenient excuse for many people, it save them the trouble of having to make an effort.

I may have confused the matter by using the word "fit". In terms of weight loss only there is no marked difference between people. There are many variables that determine how much weight one will put on for a given input (wether that's fat or muscle) but there is a hard line where anyone (or any thing for that matter) existing at a calorie deficit must lose weight.

The idea that your particular genome will allow you to maintain or even gain mass at a deficit is the most erroneous but persistent myth in the health and fitness world.

DawnieB1977

We get height, intelligence, hair/eye colour etc from our parents, so why not a genetic pre-disposition to gain weight? My son is tall, with long, slim limbs, just like my husband, yet his hair and eye colour are mine. My daughters both have blonde hair, like my husband, whereas I have very dark hair. It's like saying their blonde hair is nothing to do with genetics.

I'm teaching my kids from a young age about healthy eating, and I make sure we stay active all the time. I want them in good habits, so I lead by example. We always ate healthily as kids, but exercise then wasn't the big thing it is now with gyms everywhere, and my parents didn't exercise as such, although we walked everywhere as my mum didn't drive.

My parents are overweight, although they haven't always been, but they've never been skinny either. Even when my mum was having chemo for leukaemia, throwing up and not really eating, she didn't lose that much weight.

I've gained weight in my pregnancies, despite doing everything right.

My brother and I both work really hard to lose weight and be slim (although 14 months post partum with no.3 I'm not quite back where I was), but we have to exercise loads and be careful with what we eat to do so, whereas my sister doesn't really exercise and eats whatever, and she is very overweight.

I think we all have different metabolism but some people just don't eat within calories, whatever their calorie allowance may be. As I'm so active my calorie allowance is quite high so I lose weight, but someone else my height may be able to eat more, and some may not.

sheldonklein

fbinsc wrote: »

sheldonklein wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

There's also epigenetics

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/07/epigenetics-heredity-diabetes-obesity-increased-cancer-risk

"There are many definitions of epigenetics, but simply put, says Professor Marcus Pembrey, a geneticist at University College London and the University of Bristol, it is a change in our genetic activity without changing our genetic code. It is a process that happens throughout our lives and is normal to development. Chemical tags get attached to our genetic code, like bookmarks in the pages of a book, signalling to our bodies which genes to ignore and which to use.

For decades, we have thought of our offspring as blank slates. Now, epigeneticists are asking whether in fact our environment, from smoking and diet to pollution and war, can leave "epigenetic marks" on our DNA that could get passed on to subsequent generations. They call the phenomenon epigenetic inheritance."

Stated generously, the article, and epigenetics, is highly speculative and controversial. Less generously, it is dangerous hooey. I'm not feeling generous.

There is nothing speculative or controversial about epigenetics.

There's nothing speculative or controversial about the idea that behavior can alter genes or be transmitted genetically? That explains why Lysenko is held in such high regard.

tomatoey

sheldonklein wrote: »

fbinsc wrote: »

sheldonklein wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

There's also epigenetics

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/07/epigenetics-heredity-diabetes-obesity-increased-cancer-risk

"There are many definitions of epigenetics, but simply put, says Professor Marcus Pembrey, a geneticist at University College London and the University of Bristol, it is a change in our genetic activity without changing our genetic code. It is a process that happens throughout our lives and is normal to development. Chemical tags get attached to our genetic code, like bookmarks in the pages of a book, signalling to our bodies which genes to ignore and which to use.

For decades, we have thought of our offspring as blank slates. Now, epigeneticists are asking whether in fact our environment, from smoking and diet to pollution and war, can leave "epigenetic marks" on our DNA that could get passed on to subsequent generations. They call the phenomenon epigenetic inheritance."

Stated generously, the article, and epigenetics, is highly speculative and controversial. Less generously, it is dangerous hooey. I'm not feeling generous.

There is nothing speculative or controversial about epigenetics.

There's nothing speculative or controversial about the idea that behavior can alter genes or be transmitted genetically? That explains why Lysenko is held in such high regard.

My understanding is that the idea is that environment and behaviour alter not the genes themselves, but may affect signalling to turn on (or off) this or that phenotypic expression. And that it's proposed that that altered signalling is what is carried over.

wikipedia:

In genetics, epigenetics is the study of cellular and physiological trait variations that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; in layman's terms, epigenetics is essentially the study of external or environmental factors that turn genes on and off and affect how cells read genes.[1] Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable, although the use of the term "epigenetic" to describe processes that are not heritable is controversial.[2] Unlike genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the prefix epi- (Greek: επί- over, outside of, around).[3][4]

...

Epigenetic changes can modify the activation of certain genes, but not the sequence of DNA. Additionally, the chromatin proteins associated with DNA may be activated or silenced. This is why the differentiated cells in a multicellular organism express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity. Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime, but, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.[23] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA (see Evolution, below), a form of Lamarckism.

Specific epigenetic processes include paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, X chromosome inactivation, position effect, reprogramming, transvection, maternal effects, the progress of carcinogenesis, many effects of teratogens, regulation of histone modifications and heterochromatin, and technical limitations affecting parthenogenesis and cloning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
***
That's just for interest, though. Anyway, it's pretty clear that calories in or out makes the most difference for any person, no matter what is going on genetically (or epigenetically).