naturally thin people
Options
Replies
-
QUOTE:
The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%. Having a rough idea of how large a role genes play in your weight may be helpful in terms of treating your weight problems.
Excellent, Hornsby.
To date, more than 400 different genes have been implicated in the development of overweight or obesity, although only a handful appear to be major players. Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
Above is another quote form the Harvard link.
There is NO causality. Look at the waffle words. "implicated", "appear", "suggest", "may".
There has NEVER been a gene identified that directly causes obesity.
Genes have nothing to do with being overweight, just as they have nothing to do with being underweight.
Genes define a mechanism for metabolism that responds to the calorie load presented to it.
Learned behavior and social cues are the culprits.
Again, NO causality can be found in ANY study.
I'll take Harvard's word over yours. No disrespect intended though.0 -
QUOTE:
The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%. Having a rough idea of how large a role genes play in your weight may be helpful in terms of treating your weight problems.
Excellent, Hornsby.
To date, more than 400 different genes have been implicated in the development of overweight or obesity, although only a handful appear to be major players. Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
Above is another quote form the Harvard link.
There is NO causality. Look at the waffle words. "implicated", "appear", "suggest", "may".
There has NEVER been a gene identified that directly causes obesity.
Genes have nothing to do with being overweight, just as they have nothing to do with being underweight.
Genes define a mechanism for metabolism that responds to the calorie load presented to it.
Learned behavior and social cues are the culprits.
Again, NO causality can be found in ANY study.
MRAP2 acts in the brain to control weight. Let's do one gene at a time.0 -
But this the "General Diet and Weight Loss Help" forum within the MFP forums. I'm not implying anyone needs to be overweight to read and post here. I was just curious. I have no interest in the weight gain forums because I don't have that specific problem so it would be odd for me to be reading/posting there. To me.I don't care what science says about this, some people are just THIN.
I used to work with a girl who was lucky to be a size 6 Australian (I'm guessing that size 0 US). She would eat McDonalds for breakfast, Burger King for lunch, KFC for dinner. In between, she'd snack on things like banana bread, chips, chocolate. She never exercised. She never ate at home. She always ate takeaway and processed food. She drank on weekends, and then had junk food for the hangover. She just couldn't gain.
I know a few other girls like this, and their mums are also rake thing as well so I believe genetics plays a huge role in someone being naturally thin, or someone being naturally larger (and no, I'm not excusing FAT, I'm saying some people are just naturally larger and will never be "rake thin").
I'm curious why you read a weight loss forum if you're stuck at 99 lbs. trying to gain.Ohhh, I'm quite serious. It's hard for me to gain weight or muscle. No health problems, I just don't gain easily.
Because this is a health and fitness forum, not specifically a weight loss forum? We have many people here who are toning, trying to gain weight, at a healthy weight and use this to track and log.
Weight loss forum? Try fitness forum. I log to track macros and micros, and adore my friends here.0 -
I'm also interested in discussing this, if you're interested.Characterization of cytochrome P450 and glutathione S-transferase activity and expression in male and female ob/ob mice.
Roe AL, Howard G, Blouin R, Snawder JE.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To characterize the effect(s) of gender, age (glycemic status) and obese state, on hepatic biotransformation activities, expression of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) mRNAs and glutathione transferase activity in the ob/ob mouse.
DESIGN:
Male and female, ob/ob or ob/+ mice were killed at 3-4 months or 7-8 months of age. Hepatic microsomes, cytosol and RNA were prepared from each animal.
ANIMALS:
Male and female ob/ob and ob/+ mice, 3-4 or 7-8 months of age.
MEASUREMENTS:
CYP450 form-specific activities of CYP1A1/1A2, CYP3A and CYP2B were estimated by determining the 0-dealkylation of alkoxyresorufin substrates (ethoxy-EROD, benzoxy-BROD and pentoxy-resorufin, PROD, respectively). CYP2E1-dependent, 4-nitrophenol hydroxylase (PNP-OH) and CYP3A-dependent erythromycin N-demethylase (ERY-DM) were also measured in hepatic microsomes. CYP1A2, CYP2E1 and CYP3A protein in microsomal fractions was determined by ELISA. Glutathione transferase activity (GST) was determined in hepatic cytosol and CYP1A2 and CYP2E1 mRNA was estimated by Northern blot analysis.
RESULTS:
Female mice, regardless of glycemic status, showed an obesity enhanced level of CYP2E1-dependent PNP-OH activity and CYP2E1 protein as shown by ELISA. These increases were observed to be independent of the diabetic state, since 7-8 month-old mice had blood glucose levels identical to lean mice. The mRNA level of CYP2E1 in female mice also exhibited age-and obesity-influenced decreases in expression. No significant differences in CYP2E1 activity or expression were observed in male mice. CYP3A-dependent ERY-DM activity was significantly higher in young males, regardless of phenotype. CYP3A and CYP2B activities did not differ among any animals; however, CYP1A activity, while depressed in obese animals of both genders, was significantly different in old animals. Glutathione S-transferase activity was lower in obese male mice, whereas no difference was observed between lean and obese females
CONCLUSION:
This study supports earlier observations in man and rats that the obese state produces alterations in the expression of important oxidation and conjugation pathways. In addition, this report more thoroughly examines the role of gender and glycemic status on biotransformation activities in the ob/ob mouse as demonstrated by increased CYP2E1 protein and CYP2E1-dependent activity in obese females, decreased CYP1A2 protein and CYP1A2-dependent activity in obese animals, and obesity had no effect of glutathione transferase in female mice, in contrast with the previously reported obesity-dependent decrease of this activity in male mice.0 -
Also, why does your profile say you're 77? And where was your broken clavicle a week ago when you posted a flexed bicep selfie? You're looking pretty healthy for 99 lbs. at 5'2".But this the "General Diet and Weight Loss Help" forum within the MFP forums. I'm not implying anyone needs to be overweight to read and post here. I was just curious. I have no interest in the weight gain forums because I don't have that specific problem so it would be odd for me to be reading/posting there. To me.0 -
I've always been a "naturally thin" person but I agree with a lot of the comments. My mom was diabetic so I was raised to eat healthier so my typical meals are relatively healthy but I do have binges of eating terrible without seeing any significant gains. I'm also very fidgety (always shaking my legs and wiggling around in my chair at work) so I think those habits probably slowly burn extra calories throughout the day.0
-
Yes "naturally thin" does seem to exist, despite the best amateur scientist calculations of activity and intake. Some people refer to it as having a "body set point" of a lower weight too, and as far as I've seen we aren't really sure why some people's bodies react like this. And I've also seen if they are identified in a study, they tend to be taken out of it, or labeled as cheaters and taken out. Even the great starvation experiment some were labeled as cheaters that they could never figure out how they were actually cheating, but if a doctor suspected, they were "out".
Yes many are wrongly labeled "naturally thin" by people not realizing they dont eat like this other times, or they have a huge activity level not seen by others, etc, its also part of jealousy, large people seeing some eating the same things and not fat: easy excuse is they are "naturally thin". But there are some real unexplained by pure "calories in calories out" formulas, "naturally thin" people.
Naturally thin, presuming some natural genetic hormonal, or physiologic process, does not exist.
Think about it.
If there were a safe way to short-circuit some part of the metabolic process in humans so they could remain at a desired weight, and without the side effects of meth-type drugs, or thyroid-class drugs, and without dietary restrictions or exercise, the medical researchers would be all over it in a second.
The NIH would give researchers a gazillion dollars to work with.
That's the holy grail of weight researchers- a safe way to stabilize weight.
So that guy who was kicked out of USAF studies because he was naturally thin, where there was probably more to it than that.
It does exist, think about it, if it didnt, why is there a certain small percent that "dont fit" for metabolic studies for reasons other than illness/medical conditions and are thrown out? The fact is there are other considerations, probably metabolism plus a way some people's bodies can have a "set point" and have more difficulty than others gaining or losing past it. You are also aware of basic body "set points" without knowing it: why does one girl have a lot more fat around her hips than another or one have bigger breasts, or another have bigger thighs even though they may all eat similar calories? There are a lot of things we still dont know how to do with the body, including repairing telomeres, reversing Alzheimer's, etc.
It is true however that MOST people claimed to be "naturally thin" are really not, but more active/eat less etc. This further confuses the issue. Also, this effect also seems to reduce with age in many.
Also, the probable reason for most of this is genetic, and there would be no "pill" for this. Maybe gene therapy in the future of some sort.0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't think one person has said otherwise in this entire thread.0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes you are right, that's probably more than 99%++ of the cases: eating less when not observed, or more active than estimated. But people come on and keep making these blanket statements of "Well because math" kind of stuff which, sorry, how you do your math is wrong if you don't take into consideration some factors of the equation
Just because a multiplier is usually 1, doesn't mean you can ignore it at rare times when its .91 or 1.06 Its true though that many will take the tiny percent as an "excuse" and label anyone thinner than they are who seems to eat what they eat as "naturally thin". I happen to have known several who fit this category, but most of them were due to a known rare genetic abnormality (inheritable), one was...unknown and the effect seems to be reduced as he aged.
Probably on average you don't even know anyone who is truly "naturally thin"...which is a horrible term anyways, it just means there is some underlying mechanism going on in that person's body that is very outside "average" that results in increased burn, decreased nutrient metabolism, or...we don't know yet, but it will probably be explainable outside of leprechauns and unicorns as we learn more.
In_the_stars, quick, take off your green hat so they know you exist! 0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes you are right, that's probably more than 99%++ of the cases: eating less when not observed, or more active than estimated. But people come on and keep making these blanket statements of "Well because math" kind of stuff which, sorry, how you do your math is wrong if you don't take into consideration some factors of the equation Just because a multiplier is usually 1, doesn't mean you can ignore it at rare times when its .91 or 1.06 Its true though that many will take the tiny percent as an "excuse" and label anyone thinner than they are who seems to eat what they eat as "naturally thin". I happen to have known several who fit this category, but most of them were due to a known rare genetic abnormality (inheritable), one was...unknown and the effect seems to be reduced as he aged.
Probably on average you don't even know anyone who is truly "naturally thin"...which is a horrible term anyways, it just means there is some underlying mechanism going on in that person's body that is very outside "average" that results in increased burn, decreased nutrient metabolism, or...we don't know yet, but it will probably be explainable outside of leprechauns and unicorns as we learn more.
In_the_stars, quick, take off your green hat so they know you exist!
yeah... see the thing is, if your metabolism is faster, you NEED to eat more to reach TDEE and maintain weight.
I think it's a red herring though. We should be looking at how we present food to each other, since a food's container has a huge effect on what "feels" like a normal portion. Do you ever .94% of a banana?0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes you are right, that's probably more than 99%++ of the cases: eating less when not observed, or more active than estimated. But people come on and keep making these blanket statements of "Well because math" kind of stuff which, sorry, how you do your math is wrong if you don't take into consideration some factors of the equation Just because a multiplier is usually 1, doesn't mean you can ignore it at rare times when its .91 or 1.06 Its true though that many will take the tiny percent as an "excuse" and label anyone thinner than they are who seems to eat what they eat as "naturally thin". I happen to have known several who fit this category, but most of them were due to a known rare genetic abnormality (inheritable), one was...unknown and the effect seems to be reduced as he aged.
Probably on average you don't even know anyone who is truly "naturally thin"...which is a horrible term anyways, it just means there is some underlying mechanism going on in that person's body that is very outside "average" that results in increased burn, decreased nutrient metabolism, or...we don't know yet, but it will probably be explainable outside of leprechauns and unicorns as we learn more.
In_the_stars, quick, take off your green hat so they know you exist!
yeah... see the thing is, if your metabolism is faster, you NEED to eat more to reach TDEE and maintain weight.
I think it's a red herring though. We should be looking at how we present food to each other, since a food's container has a huge effect on what "feels" like a normal portion. Do you ever .94% of a banana?
About as often as I 1/2 cup (66g) of ice cream.0 -
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes you are right, that's probably more than 99%++ of the cases: eating less when not observed, or more active than estimated. But people come on and keep making these blanket statements of "Well because math" kind of stuff which, sorry, how you do your math is wrong if you don't take into consideration some factors of the equation Just because a multiplier is usually 1, doesn't mean you can ignore it at rare times when its .91 or 1.06 Its true though that many will take the tiny percent as an "excuse" and label anyone thinner than they are who seems to eat what they eat as "naturally thin". I happen to have known several who fit this category, but most of them were due to a known rare genetic abnormality (inheritable), one was...unknown and the effect seems to be reduced as he aged.
Probably on average you don't even know anyone who is truly "naturally thin"...which is a horrible term anyways, it just means there is some underlying mechanism going on in that person's body that is very outside "average" that results in increased burn, decreased nutrient metabolism, or...we don't know yet, but it will probably be explainable outside of leprechauns and unicorns as we learn more.
In_the_stars, quick, take off your green hat so they know you exist!
yeah... see the thing is, if your metabolism is faster, you NEED to eat more to reach TDEE and maintain weight.
I think it's a red herring though. We should be looking at how we present food to each other, since a food's container has a huge effect on what "feels" like a normal portion. Do you ever .94% of a banana?
my daughter does, she'll randomly break off a piece and give it to me to eat, so I have things like 45gr or 60gr of banana in my diary :laugh:0 -
i have a friend like that and she tried to gain weight while i sit here trying to lose more and more0
-
The people who are "naturally thin" are the ones that picked up good eating habits or eat less meals (consuming less calories overall). There really is no such thing as naturally thin as you can't be the law of thermodynamics. Now, genetics can determine BMR to a certain extend but it's not going to be much greater than few hundred points.
I disagree. My roommate lives on party pizzas and other forms of junk food, and I've literally watched her eat 3 double cheeseburgers and an order of fries from BK in one sitting. Her only exercise is the walking she does at work. She's weighed 120 pounds (plus or minus 2 or 3 at any given time) for the past ten years. So yes, there are people whose metabolisms are just naturally quicker. She's not necessarily healthy, but she's thin.0 -
I have a somewhat skinny friend, no medical condition, whom I don't meet very often. When the bunch of us decided to meet up, it's always during dinner time and we often noticed how much she can eat, compared to the other ladies (us). I always thought she is one of the naturally thin people and bless with this gene. Until one day I realised she has the habit of skipping lunch or eat light when she know she have social events involving food. That meal alone could be 2 meals combined.
And she clears her intestines daily.0 -
I have a somewhat skinny friend, no medical condition, whom I don't meet very often. When the bunch of us decided to meet up, it's always during dinner time and we often noticed how much she can eat, compared to the other ladies (us). I always thought she is one of the naturally thin people and bless with this gene. Until one day I realised she has the habit of skipping lunch or eat light when she know she have social events involving food. That meal alone could be 2 meals combined.
And she clears her intestines daily.
I'm afraid to ask.0 -
I don't think I've literally laughed out loud at my computer in weeks. Thanks for that. :laugh:0
-
For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some people are blessed with incredible metabolisms0 -
So a remarkably inefficient metabolism...one that uses more fuel than necessary to accomplish the same work...is a thing to be envied now?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions