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
Options
Replies
-
If that were true - I'd not been able to get to the point where I am now (nearly middle of my healthy BMI)
I was always told, and believed, and said I could not loose the weight round my legs that was genetic. guess what? As of entering the healthy BMI range I am loosing from my thighs, less, butt and knees. There is other shred fat available, my body will use it, but it is the very last place it wants to move fat from storage from.
It is always possible1 -
This thread came to mind lately, so I'm just putting this out there:
Our old neighbors have a daughter with down syndrome. When I was little, we used to play badminton together and she loved it. She was determined to lose weight because obesity + one of her lungs not working properly made activity increasingly harder for her as she grew older and heavier. She dieted and lost a lot of weight and I remember her maintaining her figure until we moved and I did not see her again for years. 2 days ago her mother died and we went to the funeral. 14 years later and she is still just the way I last remember her, looks a reasonable weight. As per genetics, she is very short and very prone to weight gain, more so than many people who complain about their weight issues being genetic. I wanted to ask her how she managed to keep the weight off all these years, but I didn't think it was appropriate given the situation. If we cross paths again in different circumstances I'm very curious about her maintenance strategy. You can be pre-disposed, but you aren't doomed.11 -
Genetics don't let you violate the laws of physics, contrary to popular belief.9
-
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.
Not sure, we have two dogs who are each about 50 pounds at a healthy weight, and they play with each other and walk with us, so are about equally active. Well, if anything the girl is more active because she'll go back and forth between windows to look for squirrels all the time while the boy naps. But somehow the girl will gain weight more easily and has to eat slightly less. It's weird.2 -
I think it's more learned behavior...someone coming from an obese household is more likely to be obese because they've taken on similar eating habits and attitudes towards food and exercise (or lack thereof). If you grow up thinking sitting on the couch and watching t.v. while eating pizzas and drinking Big Gulps is normal, that's probably what you're going to do.4
-
wackyfunster wrote: »Genetics don't let you violate the laws of physics, contrary to popular belief.
I don't think anyone is suggesting genetic components violate the laws of physics. Genetics, however, can influence unconscious (instinctual) behavior. Some people are wired to be "movers" and others aren't. NEAT (calories used during non-exercise activity) increases by differing amounts during calorie surplus. One person may be prone to larger decreases in NEAT during calorie restriction than the next person. Restrict them both by 500 calories/day for a month and, with identical diet and exercise plans, the one who maintains a higher NEAT will lose more. The physics aren't changing, the pressure to preserve mass is just more prominent in some people than others.2 -
Yes, genetics definitely do play a role in weight, they actually have identified the "fat" gene(s). But generics are just one factor. Those people with the fat gene will have to work harder, be more fastidious than people who don't. Judging from relatives does not mean you carry the fat gene, it could mean a family learned eating style of atrocious eating habits. My mother-in-law eats a healthy diet, exercises and eats around 1200. calories a day...she is morbidly obese...fat gene. There are people with severe food addictions who may not have the fat gene but are eating 20,000 calories a day...they will be obese no matter what...4
-
FreyasRebirth wrote: »wackyfunster wrote: »Genetics don't let you violate the laws of physics, contrary to popular belief.
I don't think anyone is suggesting genetic components violate the laws of physics. Genetics, however, can influence unconscious (instinctual) behavior. Some people are wired to be "movers" and others aren't. NEAT (calories used during non-exercise activity) increases by differing amounts during calorie surplus. One person may be prone to larger decreases in NEAT during calorie restriction than the next person. Restrict them both by 500 calories/day for a month and, with identical diet and exercise plans, the one who maintains a higher NEAT will lose more. The physics aren't changing, the pressure to preserve mass is just more prominent in some people than others.
So one person might need a 500 calorie deficit and another might need 700. Seems rather ludicrous to chalk it up to "genetics" when there are a ton of factors (stress/sleep) that play a much larger role than any genes we have identified to date. Any interestingly, in studies where food intake is strictly controlled, most of these "genetic" differences vanish, and people who have magically been unable to lose weight at 800 calories/day start dropping a pound a week at 2000 calories. Almost like people being slightly less than honest about their actual diet/exercise is more common than legitimate medical issues.5 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »wackyfunster wrote: »Genetics don't let you violate the laws of physics, contrary to popular belief.
I don't think anyone is suggesting genetic components violate the laws of physics. Genetics, however, can influence unconscious (instinctual) behavior. Some people are wired to be "movers" and others aren't. NEAT (calories used during non-exercise activity) increases by differing amounts during calorie surplus. One person may be prone to larger decreases in NEAT during calorie restriction than the next person. Restrict them both by 500 calories/day for a month and, with identical diet and exercise plans, the one who maintains a higher NEAT will lose more. The physics aren't changing, the pressure to preserve mass is just more prominent in some people than others.
Yeah, but what practical use does knowing that have? No one is denying genetics and other physical factors play a role. I'm a shining example of that - very few people pass the 300 pound mark without this being at least somewhat true. What you do is recognize that, understand that you will have to consciously mimic some of the processes that are otherwise unconscious for some, and move on. The uncontrollable influence of genetics ends there and your own control starts. Genetics/environment/health/ingrained habits...etc stop being the defining factors for your weight right there.
5 -
From my understanding of the literature, here are a few possible primary roles that genetic factors could play in obesity:
- Satiation - a genetic predisposition to overeat OR a lack of a genetic predisposition to eat appropriately
- Body composition - genetic factors that mean LBM is more difficult to build/maintain or some "preference" for preserving fat over LBM
- "Metabolism" - a genetic predisposition to have a "slower metabolism" OR the lack of a genetic predisposition to have a "normal" metabolism; maybe the "fidgeters" versus the "non-fidgeters" can fit in here
There may be other minor factors. It is highly probable that obesity polygenic - there is no single "fat gene" and that multiple genes are at play and these combine with the environment in different ways. Also it may be that the "I love physical activity" and "I benefit from physical activity" genes can trump the "can't lose weight" genes. You get the idea.
Furthermore, not every overweight or obese person is that way because of "muh genetics".
Out of the factors listed, the first is by far the most important with the second two contributing (much?) less. Nothing here breaks the laws of physics but with regards to CICO, satiation will obviously have an effect on the CI part and the other two on the CO part of the equation.
So on a deficit, an overweight person may be presdisposed to feel hungrier than "normal" for a "normal" calorie intake. The drive will be to eat some more; the constant hunger makes it difficult to eat less.
On top of this, they may lose at a slower rate than "expected" for their activity and calorie consumption. Only by a small amount perhaps, but it still adds to the frustration of trying to lose weight.
Taken together though, there will be some people who are genetically predisposed to be big and find it difficult to lose weight. Weight loss can be achieved but it will be *more difficult* and *slower* than someone without these genetic predispositions.
Psychologically, this can be extremely difficult but it's not insurmountable as we see on MFP every day. This is perhaps a big contributor to the "CICO is simple but not easy" trope.6 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »Eskimo bodies evolved to be short and round to retain heat. Sudanese bodies evolved to be tall and thin to survive in the heat and the humidity. We inherit a genetic disposition, AND tend to eat like our parents. BOTH of these things make us resemble them. However, twins separated a birth tend to look like their ADOPTIVE families. This demonstrates that obesity can be defeated with eating for strength and exercise, but it would be very difficult for Eskimos to become very thin.
What? So if I want red hair I should have been adopted by gingers?
This is not how evolution works. Genetic factors enable a population to be more successful at adapting to specific circumstance.
You are confusing behavior with genetics.3 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »Eskimo bodies evolved to be short and round to retain heat. Sudanese bodies evolved to be tall and thin to survive in the heat and the humidity. We inherit a genetic disposition, AND tend to eat like our parents. BOTH of these things make us resemble them. However, twins separated a birth tend to look like their ADOPTIVE families. This demonstrates that obesity can be defeated with eating for strength and exercise, but it would be very difficult for Eskimos to become very thin.
I dunno--if those Eskimos went to live in Sudan........2 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »My Nutrition teacher (who has her degree in exercise physiology) believes someone can be healthy/athletically fit/metabolically normal and still be overfat. I would say it is normally an excuse but she says there are some people whose bodies are just really good at storing fat. Twin studies have shown that genetics can play enough of a part that fat-prone children will still weigh more than their peers when they are adopted by a normal weight family.
Having a larger frame would mean your 'ideal weight' is a little bit higher but it isn't like we're talking about 30 lbs higher. The difference between medium frame and large frame is only like 10 lbs, and it is likely at least some of that is going to muscle and bone mass.
Perhaps she is correct for a 20 year old but perhaps not so much for a 70 year old.0 -
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
5 -
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.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.
Since the gut is about 80% for our immunity system we are well or sick based on the health of our gut. Long term inflammation (CRP test scores) is the only main factor in developing health issues that can lead to premature death in humans. Any cause of inflammation may start a fire the will burn us to the ground.1 -
krisb1701d wrote: »http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/zoom-map.html
You can see here an old map of some of the 100s of societal, neurological and physiological factors that influence obesity. Since then further research into the microbiological and bacteriological processes means that anyone here saying anything about the relation of someone's epigenetic predisposition to obesity is ignorant at best.
This is a huge area of research and it is entirely possible that someone can be overweight and have very little control over it, regardless of their understanding of calorie deficit. 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.
You have a brain in your head and free will, that should suffice for most people. Worked for me just fine.6 -
Wrong link0
-
I think it's somewhat foolish to completely disregard genetics, it's just that we can't do anything about our genetics.
But to say they don't play any role is not accurate, IMO.
Just for one of many examples, differences in rates of weight gain in overfeeding trials seem pretty suggestive that people have varying responses to NEAT upregulation as a compensatory response to being over-fed.
Of course, this isn't me saying that there is a singular cause of obesity, but it's myopic to think that genetics are irrelevant.9 -
I think it's somewhat foolish to completely disregard genetics, it's just that we can't do anything about our genetics.
But to say they don't play any role is not accurate, IMO.
Just for one of many examples, differences in rates of weight gain in overfeeding trials seem pretty suggestive that people have varying responses to NEAT upregulation as a compensatory response to being over-fed.
Of course, this isn't me saying that there is a singular cause of obesity, but it's myopic to think that genetics are irrelevant.
To add to this... Whilst in our recent history, there were situations where people ended up emaciated (you know what I'm talking about here), no-one has ever said that they progressed to emaciation at the same rate.
1 -
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.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions