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.

Commentary: What Thin People Don't Get About Dieting

123457»

Replies

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,589 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.

    Most people think thin people have faster metabolisms, but in fact the heavier person will have the faster metabolism under normal conditions. I say normal because there are people with metabolic conditions and there are some perfectly healthy people that have either unusually fast or unusually slow metabolic rates for their size, age and sex. Metabolic rates, that we use for the calculators are pretty narrow in range but there are outliers and there are some people that might have some other condition that shows up in metabolism but are otherwise benign.

    So you might be one of those outliers who have an unusually slow metabolism and Nicky might have an unusually fast metabolism, but this is far from the normal case because outliers are very rare by their very nature. The best way to determine this is to have your metabolism measured to be sure. If you suspect it's either very low or very high finding this out might also be a marker of a condition that you didn't even know you had.

    Standard deviation for RMR is somewhere around 5-8% of the mean. About 68% of the population will be within plus or minus 5-8% of the mean, and about 96% within plus or minus 10-16%, by definition. Which, of course, leaves about 4% out in the tails somewhere.

    Someday, I'll get around to having my RMR tested. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure I'm healthy - docs keep a very close eye on us cancer survivors, especially when we lose weight faster than expected. ;) And I'm not "heavier" these days, at BMI 22 this morning. Theory would suggest that I might even be likely to be "metabolically" suppressed after losing around 1/3 of my body weight in less than a year. So: Yeah, probably statistically an outlier (possibly partly because modern lifestyles distort the population stats for my older age group, I suspect).

    But that's not the point: The point is that being an outlier really changes very little, when it comes to becoming obese. Even at an extreme degree of outlier-hood in the lucky direction, there's no ability to eat whatever, whenever. It's not an automatic "naturally thin" outcome. Outlier-hood is a few hundred calories, making around the same difference as most people can achieve with a little more exercise, or improving their non-exercise daily activity.

    Even the best possible (though still statistically improbable) healthy "metabolic" advantage is not a magic ticket. People who assume it is, aren't thinking through the numbers.

    I definitely agree with you. You need to eat and exercise to achieve a healthy weight and variations just mean you need to change what you do.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,824 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-thin-people-dieting-weight-food-resolutions-0101-20171227-story.html

    I am not sure what made me more mad when I saw this commentary piece in the Chicago Tribune this morning....

    The statement that "cutting calories alone doesn't lead to long-term weight loss".

    The myth that there are "naturally thin" people who just have good genetics and high metabolism.

    Or, the conclusion that if you are overweight, you do not have any chance of losing weight long term so you shouldn't even try.

    So angry right now....

    I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this dreary op-ed article.

    Not sure there are 'skinny' genes but it is true in a functional sense that cutting calories does not lead to long term weight loss for most people that I have ever known including myself.

    Finally at the age of 63 I decided to NEVER go on another diet to lose weight just to have another 100%+ regain. Now turning 67 I have lost 50 pounds and maintained that loss for over two and half years by changing the kind of calories that I eat.

    Cutting calories can be a short term fix in an emergency but it is not likely to fix the cause of the wrong way of thinking, eating and moving that lead to the need to go on a "diet" in the first place.

    For over three years now I have eaten only to improve my health and health markers. When I did that the weight started to normalize (decrease) after the first 45 days without any dieting effort yet staying stuffed most of the time.

    Thinking about losing weight seems to be a good way to gain weight for many people it seems perhaps.

    And do you know why your weight decreased? Because you were taking in less calories than you were burning. Whether you viewed what you were doing as cutting calories or not, that is exactly what you were doing if you lost weight. I'm sure you will spout all sorts of nonsense to try to explain otherwise, because that is what you do best around here, but the simple fact is your weight is directly affected by CICO.

    Do you know why I was taking in less calories when starting Oct 2014 (and still continue to eat that way today) cold turkey I cut add sugars and all forms of all grains that over time has resolved my binging, pain, IBS, limited health in general, etc?

    Did I know going LCHF Oct 2014 would functionally give me hope for a future? NO I did not but I was willing to try anything to avoid the medical side effects of starting on Enbrel injections Nov 2014. I did not even know what I was doing but just acting to a hunch that cutting out the sugar and grain that I might be able to dodge the Enbrel bullet coming my way. I added about a 1000 calories daily at the same time from coconut products trying to prevent Alzheimer's.

    That is how out of ignorance I accidently started the LCHF WOE. As noted before I had to leave sugar and grains cold turkey after trying to taper off of them for 60 days and failing. I learned I was a carb addict then I realized I was going to have to stop eat food containing added sugar and any form of any grain instead of just reducing these highly processed carb food sources.

    As I have stated for years how one eats is their own business and how I eat is my business. At the age of 63 I willfully decided to eat for longer life instead of eating for a premature death.

    Yep, there's the long, drawn out, nonsense explanation I was expecting and forgive me, but I am having trouble following. You say you were taking in less calories, but then say you added about 1000 calories a day at the same time. So which is it? Were you taking in less calories or more? Were the 1000 calories of coconut products included in your daily total which was less than before? If so, then it I have some news for you: it wasn't the fact that you were taking coconut products that helped you lose weight, it is the fact that you were taking in less calories overall. You could have been ingesting 1000 calories of pure sugar instead of coconut, and as long as your CI were less than your CO you would lose weight. You found something that worked for you which is great, but it blows my mind how you still try to argue that your weight loss was somehow not attributed to a caloric deficit. The fact of the matter is, what worked for you was eating at a deficit, and just because you don't view it that way, it doesn't make it any less true.

    CICO will never medically explain why some people overeat.

    No, but it will explain why they gain/lose weight. Lack of willpower and CICO are 2 completely different things.

    Would you agree 100% of people who legally log into these MFP forums already know it is calories or lack of calories from the food they eat that causes them to gain/lose weight?

    People need to know WHY they under/over eat and it has nothing to do with willpower long term. People that use willpower to lose weight are called yo-yo dieters. :)

    Are we really back to the 'everyone who is overweight has a physical or mental disorder' argument?

    No. It is a metabolic disorder medically speaking.

    No it clearly is not.

    I'm beginning to suspect your credentials, despite repeated claims of a terminal degree.

    Is it my real photo, real name and real profile data that confuses you or is my willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required?

    I am not into fake medical dieting info from fake profiles. I could care less about fake profiles but I draw the line on harmful eating advice from any source. There are hurting people coming to MFP for real info and to give them fake advice is just plain wrong. Not all of them have the background to filter out the fake stuff.


    What does "willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required" even mean? Seriously -- what scenario are you picturing here?

    I consider the theory that every single overweight person has a metabolic disorder to be "fake stuff," by the way. Isn't that one of your pet ideas?

    Now I am imagining @lemurcat invoking Daubert and tearing him up on the stand five ways to Sunday.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/daubert-challenge/

    edit: added an "and"

    Oh my gosh, internet court would be entertaining in so many ways!

    I am taking dibs on Lemur. I will send her a retainer cuz that girl can debate.

  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.

    And, from my perspective it is not merely non-trivial it is EVERYTHING. A few hundred calories is 1/5 to 1/4 my TOTAL daily calories. If I could eat 17xx calories a day and not gain weight I’d not have been overweight at all. I call strawman, no reasonable person on this side thinks anyone who is in the normal range “get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.”

    But one extra sandwich a day every day (or a glass of wine, or a potato with dinner, or two cookies after dinner) would be a HUGE change in my quality of life.

    At the the high end (which you say you are) a few hundred calories is what, 1/10 or 1/x of your daily calories. Yeah, if I were that lucky, maybe I could call it trivial or “not significant” too. But as a relative proportion of the calories you or I have to work with? It is a huge proportion of mine and a “not significant” proportion of yours.

    But saying so invites the extreme types of arguments here, so that what I’m really saying will be strawmanized and illogically “restated”.

    @ryenday, I think I'm just not communicating well. I don't dicount your experience. It's absolutely true that someone in your position can gain from only small additions, and that if you want to get in your essential nutrition, it's difficult to impossible to fit in any indulgences at all.

    But I don't think I'm making a straw man argument. I'm arguing that the whole concept of "Naturally Thin Nicky" is nonsense, from another perspective - that even with a "metabolic advantage", it's pretty easy to get fat.

    While the extra food involved is an amount that would be very meaningful to someone on the lower side if the bell curve, it's still not enough that someone out at the lucky end of the bell curve can eat extremely large extra amounts and stay thin.

    The stereotypes like "Naturally Thin Nicky" in the article, and some (not all) things I see in MFP dialogs about the advantages of a "fast metabolism", exaggerate the actual arithmetic in a straw-man-ish way. "Metabolism" definitely is a key factor, but it's far from the only factor - appetite, culture, upbringing/habits, occupation, and much more are in that picture, too, and have effects that (in terms of calorie impact) are arithmetically of similar magnitude to "metabolism".

    @AnnPT77 ok, please accept my apologies too, I read what you wrote carefully, BUT I neglected to filter it through the context of the original post.

    Still, to me, someone who can eat in excess of 2000 calories a day - well, in my mind they can eat whatever they want. Maybe not evertyhing and all the time, but way closer than I could dream about.

    I get the woos for the opposite reason you do btw, I have to IF 5:2 (confine calories two days a week to 500 in order to be able to eat 200 extra calories in the other five days) in order not to be hungry, dissatisfied, and longing for a treat constantly. Those extra 200 calories? Well worth two very hungry restricted days a week for me. So “a few hundred calories is not significant” was interpreted through MY experience lense, not as you intended as a response to Naturally Thin Nicki.

    G’day
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,824 Member
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    edited January 2018
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.

    Sorry, but... You worked for "one of those DNA companies," but you don't understand what a variant is? Were you, what, cleaning staff? accountant?

    Or did you just mean you don't know what specific variants those 700 that related to weight predisposition that they looked at are? Because I don't either, I'm just starting to go through the reports.

    All the report claims is that based on the variants of those particular genes that I have, I should expect to be about average weight. That is, I'm not really predisposed to be heavy or light. That's the genotype. The phenotype (what I actually am) will therefore have much more to do with environment (that is, in this case, how much I eat vs. how much I burn). Just like the cancer example earlier; genetic predisposition one way or another is not a predetermined fate. Nurture vs. Nature is an old debate. Identical twins can have very different phenotypes if they are in different environments.

    They do claim to that their genetic health risk and carrier status reports meet FDA criteria for being scientifically and clinically valid, but these days who knows how stringent the FDA criteria are.


    Edit: This blog post gives an interesting take on specifically 23andMe's error rate (spoiler alert, statistically speaking they're all wrong!): https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/23andme-genotypes-are-all-wrong/


  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,589 Member
    edited January 2018
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.

    Sorry, but... You worked for "one of those DNA companies," but you don't understand what a variant is? Were you, what, cleaning staff? accountant?

    Or did you just mean you don't know what specific variants those 700 that related to weight predisposition that they looked at are? Because I don't either, I'm just starting to go through the reports.

    All the report claims is that based on the variants of those particular genes that I have, I should expect to be about average weight. That is, I'm not really predisposed to be heavy or light. That's the genotype. The phenotype (what I actually am) will therefore have much more to do with environment (that is, in this case, how much I eat vs. how much I burn). Just like the cancer example earlier; genetic predisposition one way or another is not a predetermined fate. Nurture vs. Nature is an old debate. Identical twins can have very different phenotypes if they are in different environments.

    They do claim to that their genetic health risk and carrier status reports meet FDA criteria for being scientifically and clinically valid, but these days who knows how stringent the FDA criteria are.


    Edit: This blog post gives an interesting take on specifically 23andMe's error rate (spoiler alert, statistically speaking they're all wrong!): https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/23andme-genotypes-are-all-wrong/


    Interesting thing to point out on genotype vs phenotype, my identical twin (same genotype) has 20/20+ vision and I was short-sited since grade 12. We grew up together so our environments were fairly congruent.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,824 Member
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.

    Sorry, but... You worked for "one of those DNA companies," but you don't understand what a variant is? Were you, what, cleaning staff? accountant?

    Or did you just mean you don't know what specific variants those 700 that related to weight predisposition that they looked at are? Because I don't either, I'm just starting to go through the reports.

    All the report claims is that based on the variants of those particular genes that I have, I should expect to be about average weight. That is, I'm not really predisposed to be heavy or light. That's the genotype. The phenotype (what I actually am) will therefore have much more to do with environment (that is, in this case, how much I eat vs. how much I burn). Just like the cancer example earlier; genetic predisposition one way or another is not a predetermined fate. Nurture vs. Nature is an old debate. Identical twins can have very different phenotypes if they are in different environments.

    They do claim to that their genetic health risk and carrier status reports meet FDA criteria for being scientifically and clinically valid, but these days who knows how stringent the FDA criteria are.


    Edit: This blog post gives an interesting take on specifically 23andMe's error rate (spoiler alert, statistically speaking they're all wrong!): https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/23andme-genotypes-are-all-wrong/


    Yes. How did they arrive at those particular 700 variants as being relevant at. all.

    I just know the actual proven uses of particular variants as applied to something like weight is ridiculous. They don't have the data to back that up.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    edited January 2018
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.

    Sorry, but... You worked for "one of those DNA companies," but you don't understand what a variant is? Were you, what, cleaning staff? accountant?

    Or did you just mean you don't know what specific variants those 700 that related to weight predisposition that they looked at are? Because I don't either, I'm just starting to go through the reports.

    All the report claims is that based on the variants of those particular genes that I have, I should expect to be about average weight. That is, I'm not really predisposed to be heavy or light. That's the genotype. The phenotype (what I actually am) will therefore have much more to do with environment (that is, in this case, how much I eat vs. how much I burn). Just like the cancer example earlier; genetic predisposition one way or another is not a predetermined fate. Nurture vs. Nature is an old debate. Identical twins can have very different phenotypes if they are in different environments.

    They do claim to that their genetic health risk and carrier status reports meet FDA criteria for being scientifically and clinically valid, but these days who knows how stringent the FDA criteria are.


    Edit: This blog post gives an interesting take on specifically 23andMe's error rate (spoiler alert, statistically speaking they're all wrong!): https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/23andme-genotypes-are-all-wrong/


    Yes. How did they arrive at those particular 700 variants as being relevant at. all.

    I just know the actual proven uses of particular variants as applied to something like weight is ridiculous. They don't have the data to back that up.

    Ah, yeah, that is a good question. I was assuming that they were basing it off of data that showed some correspondence between those alleles and weight. From what I understand, the point of the company is less about selling customers like myself reports and more about data mining so that more may be learned about links between genotype and phenotype; that's where the real money comes in for them.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,824 Member
    edited January 2018
    I worked at one of those DNA companies.

    Let's just generously say that "Hm. Pretty liberal application of genetics, there on that test."


    "You have half and half a chance of being normal weight." Out of 700 variants (whatever those are) there was a difference of about 30. Boy, that sure narrows things down, doesn't it? lololololololoolooooooool


    Such bogusness, those tests. Yes I made up a word.

    Sorry, but... You worked for "one of those DNA companies," but you don't understand what a variant is? Were you, what, cleaning staff? accountant?

    Or did you just mean you don't know what specific variants those 700 that related to weight predisposition that they looked at are? Because I don't either, I'm just starting to go through the reports.

    All the report claims is that based on the variants of those particular genes that I have, I should expect to be about average weight. That is, I'm not really predisposed to be heavy or light. That's the genotype. The phenotype (what I actually am) will therefore have much more to do with environment (that is, in this case, how much I eat vs. how much I burn). Just like the cancer example earlier; genetic predisposition one way or another is not a predetermined fate. Nurture vs. Nature is an old debate. Identical twins can have very different phenotypes if they are in different environments.

    They do claim to that their genetic health risk and carrier status reports meet FDA criteria for being scientifically and clinically valid, but these days who knows how stringent the FDA criteria are.


    Edit: This blog post gives an interesting take on specifically 23andMe's error rate (spoiler alert, statistically speaking they're all wrong!): https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/23andme-genotypes-are-all-wrong/


    Yes. How did they arrive at those particular 700 variants as being relevant at. all.

    I just know the actual proven uses of particular variants as applied to something like weight is ridiculous. They don't have the data to back that up.

    Ah, yeah, that is a good question. I was assuming that they were basing it off of data that showed some correspondence between those alleles and weight. From what I understand, the point of the company is less about selling customers like myself reports and more about data mining so that more may be learned about links between genotype and phenotype.

    Yeah, right now at this point in history it is absolutely about data-mining.

    Weight...I've had my DNA run against diagnostic criteria - known diagnostic criteria - and sure, some of that data is valid. Not weight, though.

    It's a very narrow field of usable data. And sure, the science around running the test is pretty straight-forward (that's the bit the FDA is concerned about, and is the only "science") it's interpreting the data and applying it against some random lifestyle thing that is problematic. But if you can get people to pay you to increase your database, that's just good marketing.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited January 2018
    I love chiming in on the "naturally thin" posts, just to say that after being "naturally thin" for years, and having folks tell me "you'll be fat some day when you [get old/have kids/blah blah blah]," "you can't eat that way forever," and (accurately) "you have no idea what you're eating." Since "they" were right on that last one, I started tracking and continued because, honestly, I love playing with numbers and spreadsheets. The big take home after years of tracking is that......
    ......It turns out I eat an appropriate amount of food for my size and activity level.

    I've posted all that before. The new info that I have to add to this one in particular addresses this claim from the article: "Nicky thinks she’s thin because of the way she eats, but actually, genetics play a huge role in making her thin. Nicky gets all the credit, though, because people see the way she eats and they can’t see her genes."

    I just got the results back from one of the genetics tests that you can do. According to the report on genetic weight, of the DNA variants they tested for, I had 379 variants associated with lower weight and 347 variants associated with higher weight. 23andme's conclusion on this was that I was "genetically predisposed to weigh about average."

    z7k9kbkuveqy.png

    I weigh 117 lbs at the moment (currently working on a slow bulk).

    I would take that test with a grain of salt though. I've heard a lot of negativity about those tests and that they are not accurate,to the fact where its telling some they are not predisposed to things like cancer and yet end up with it..if you really want genetic testing see a professional who tests for genetic issues and defects

    Just for the sake of argument (this is on the debate forum, after all), if someone tested negatively for a variant of a gene that would predispose them to a particular cancer, and then he or she got that cancer, that wouldn't actually make the genetic test wrong. They still don't have that gene variant.

    And that is actually the point. Being genetically predisposed to be thin will not keep you thin if you eat more than you burn. Being genetically predisposed to be overweight does not mean that you will be overweight if you maintain a caloric deficit.

    just saying that there is a lot of flack coming from these tests. they are saying that you should not fully trust in the test. Im sure though you found out where your calories should be to maintain your weight for you. thats all trial and error. no test is needed for that though.basically they are saying that these tests are a waste of money. but hey if people want to spend money on them thats their choice.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,824 Member
    I agree with you, @Zodikosis

    Maybe someday there will be a genetic link that is possible to pinpoint. I think it's very likely. Some people have a lot of trouble with sugar, for instance. Some people can have two cookies and walk away. There is some issue that is causing the impulse or compulsion to be greater for some people than others. I'm willing to believe it is at least partly biological and not merely psychological.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I guess the difference is that some people 'eat to live', and others 'Live to eat'. Could be as simple as that..
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,588 MFP Moderator
    Closed for moderation
This discussion has been closed.