Is WEIGHT GAIN caused by genetics or not? **For my Paper**
Replies
-
Thermodynamics and weight loss
4. October 2007, 13:19 UhrMetabolism, Obesity, Weight lossmreades94 comments
4
Probably no laws of physics have been so over invoked and less understood than the laws of thermodynamics. Everyone it seems is using the laws of thermodynamics to justify every position imaginable in the field of weight loss. Journalists often throw out the laws of thermodynamics to prove or disprove dietary regimens they’re writing about. Authors of various blogs and other online sites rabbit on about how the laws of thermodynamics are aligned with their pet theories. And even worse, research scientists – who really should know better – more often than not misquote the laws of thermodynamics, especially when talking about the possibility of a dietary metabolic advantage. ‘It can’t be valid,’ they sniff, ‘it violates the laws of thermodynamics.’
So, I figured is was time to delve into these mysterious laws so that readers of this blog at least can know thermodynamic nonsense when they see it.
When you get a grasp of the laws of thermodynamics it becomes pretty easy to see how they can be confusing not only to the great unwashed masses but even to scientists who have never really taken the time to study them. Thermodynamics are seemingly simple at first glance, but the more you dig into them, the more complex they become. To see what I mean, take a look at the syllabus for the thermodynamics course at MIT and skim through a few of the lectures.
Before we jump into these laws, I want to show you why scientists typically heap scorn on anyone who claims to have somehow violated the laws of thermodynamics.
The author of a book of thermodynamics that I have writes the following:
No violation of any law of thermodynamics is known to have occurred in over 200 years of research in this area.
Most physicists consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics the most universal ‘governor’ of natural activity that has ever been revealed by scientific study.
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in 1915
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
And Ivan Bazarov wrote the following in a thermodynamics text from 1964:
The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwell’s laws of electricity or Newton’s law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity. The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century.
Now that you somewhat understand the strong feelings of those in the know about thermodynamics, you can see why they would disparage anyone purporting to break or repeal these laws. And it helps to understand the vituperation heaped on Robert Atkins who wrote one of the most hubristic and outright ignorant statements imaginable showing a total lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics when he said:
When I make this claim, that you can lose more weight on a higher number of calories, I seem to be breaking the law—one of the hallowed laws of thermodynamics. Many powers-that-be get terribly provoked when I repeal their laws. But the calorie theory is a false law that is meant to be broken, and ketosis/lipolysis is the instrument for breaking it.
As reported in Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, this comment and others like it may have lead John Yudkin to say of Atkins’ book that its “chief consequence [may have been] to antagonize the medical and nutritional establishment.”
But, since Atkins wasn’t really a physicist, it’s easy to see how he could have become confused.
There are four laws of thermodynamics, but we’re going to concern ourselves in this post only with the first and second laws. The other two laws – the zeroth law and the fourth law involve temperature, are highly theoretical, and aren’t really relevant to the discussion at hand.
The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy law and states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Another way of stating this law is to say that the energy of a system plus surroundings is constant in time. This first law is where the mistaken idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ that misguided people always want to parrot comes from. And on the surface it seems to make sense. If energy can’t be created or destroyed why wouldn’t a calorie always be a calorie? That’s where the second law comes in.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process. What this means is that it is impossible for a system to turn a given amount of energy into an equivalent amount of work. It is this second law that is really the ‘a calorie is a calorie’ law, and, in fact, the second law shows, in terms of weight loss at least, that a calorie isn’t necessarily a calorie.
These two laws of thermodynamics can be summed up cleverly. The first law says you can’t get something for nothing, and the second law tells you that you can’t break even.
Since it’s the second law that applies to living, breathing animals, and since it is the one most often confused in the calorie issue, let’s look at it a little more closely. The second law is the law driving chemical reactions, and since we’re nothing but a bunch of walking chemical reactions it is the one that applies most to us.
The second law is a dissipation law in that it says that in any reaction that is irreversible (most of the chemical reactions that give us life) there is a loss or dissipation of energy in that reaction. If substance A converts to substance B via a chemical reaction in the body, then substance B has a lower energy than substance A. In other words energy is lost to the universe in that reaction. There is no reaction that doesn’t end up without a loss of some energy to the universe. This loss of energy is called entropy.
The second law can kind of be summed with this equation:
calories in = calories out + entropy
If we substitute numbers in the above equation it could look like this:
100 calories in = 70 calories out + entropy
If we solve this equation for entropy, we can see that entropy is 30 calories. Or, in this case, 30 calories of energy are lost.
The larger the number for entropy, the more inefficient the system is, i.e., more energy lost from the system forever.
For example, when you drive a car only about 10-12 percent of the energy contained in the gasoline actually is converted to the work of propelling the car – the rest is lost to heat (entropy). This irretrievable loss is the reason a perpetual motion machine can never be built although many have tried. No matter how efficiently such a machine might be designed it will ultimately run down because of these little energy (entropy) leaks here and there. (I’ve used entropy as if it is synonymous with energy when in technical terms it really isn’t, but it’s easier to think of it that way.)
How does this apply to weight loss?
Each of the many chemical reactions in the body end up dissipating energy. We get our energy in the form of calories from the food we eat. This energy gets consumed in all the countless chemical reactions that go on all the time. Just like an automobile, we are not all that efficient. We don’t convert calories to energy on a one to one basis because of the loss of energy to the universe described by the second law.
This is all basic stuff, but it gets interesting when we start to look at how the different macronutrients (fat, protein and carbohydrate) affect the process.
As I’ve discussed in this blog frequently, we need to maintain our blood sugar in a fairly narrow range. We need blood sugar to supply energy to certain cells that can’t use it in any other form (the red blood cells, some brain cells and others). We can get plenty of sugar into our blood and have no trouble keeping our blood sugar up if we eat carbohydrates. The carbohydrate-containing foods get broken down into their sugar molecules that are then absorbed from the intestines directly into the blood. In our high carb world our problem isn’t too little sugar but too much. But in the early years of our existence on the planet it wasn’t like this. We didn’t have access to the bounty of easily absorbed carbs that we do today, yet we still had the need for sugar in our blood. As a consequence we evolved mechanisms to convert other nutrients – primarily protein – into sugar.
If we have a diet containing plenty of carbohydrate, the carbohydrate goes into the blood as sugar. There are very few chemical reactions along the way, and there is a loss of energy to the universe with each of these reactions. But, since there aren’t many conversions, there isn’t a lot of energy loss.
If we have no carbohydrates (or few) in the diet, however, it’s a different story. In order to maintain the necessary sugar level in the blood the body is forced to make sugar out of protein, which isn’t a simple operation. Look in any basic biochemistry textbook and you can see all the reactions required to convert protein to sugar, and each one of these reactions consumes energy just to take place but loses energy to the universe in the process as well. It’s much less efficient for the body to convert protein to sugar than it is to simply take the sugar as it comes in already formed.
The second law of thermodynamics virtually mandates that there be a larger loss of energy when one has to convert protein to sugar instead of merely using the sugar as it comes in. Since there are 4 kcal of energy in a gram of sugar and 4 kcal of energy in a gram of protein, it should be apparent that less of the 4 kcal in a gram of sugar will be dissipated than will be the 4 kcal in a gram of protein if this gram of protein has to first be converted to sugar.
And, consequently, one would think that a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat (both of which have to be converted to sugar) would bring about a greater weight loss than a diet of the same number of calories but with higher levels of carbohydrate. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics predicts this very phenomenon. But despite this rather obvious notion that complies perfectly with the second law, many ignorant people continue to cling to the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ despite that idea flying in the face of the second law. I suppose these people discount the second law. If so, then they should spend their time putting together a perpetual motion machine, which, if they could, would garner them a lot more fame than their inane posturing on the inevitability of the second law might do.
A classic example of how the second law works is in the difference between regular and premium gasoline. Both regular and premium have the same exact number of calories per gallon, but premium burns more efficiently. In other words, the calories contained in the premium gas get ‘wasted’ at a lower percentage in propelling the car along the road than do the calories in the regular. A high-performance automobile designed to squeeze the most out of a gallon of gas will get better mileage on premium than on regular gasoline, yet the calories in are exactly the same.
In the human body this inefficiency can be measured as an increase in metabolic rate and an increase in body heat being produced under laboratory conditions. One would assume that since the second law is inviolable and always in operation that people eating a diet low in carbohydrates and high in protein would produce more heat than those consuming the same number of calories but composed of a much higher percentage of carbohydrates. And that is exactly what is found.
In a paper (full text here) published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition researchers examined this effect in ten healthy young women who consumed either a high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a lower-protein, higher-carb diet of the same number of calories. The researchers used these women as their own controls, providing them with the first diet followed by measurements in the lab, then 54 days later with the second diet and lab evaluation.
Precise measurement of heat and metabolic rate showed that when the women followed the high-protein, low-carb diet they produced almost twice as much heat as they did when consuming the higher carb diet of the same calories. In the higher-carb diet the entropy was smaller than in the higher-protein diet, which would be expected from the second law.
As the authors of the paper put it:
These data demonstrate that meal-induced thermogenesis at 2.5 hours post-meal averages about twofold higher on a HP, low fat diet versus a HC, low-fat diet. Generally, postprandial thermogenesis has been associated with the protein content of a meal, and our data confirm this relationship. However, the difference in the energy cost of HP versus HC diets, particularly in the context of weight loss promotion, has not been addressed by healthcare professionals. Increased diet-induced thermogenesis, in association with the preservation of REE [resting energy expediture], may contribute to the reported weight loss success of diets high in protein with moderate levels of carbohydrate and lends credence to the observation that weight loss on HP diets is predominately body fat, not body water.
Bear all this in mind the next time you tell someone that it is possible to lose more weight on a greater number of calories as long as those calories are low-carb calories, and that someone pooh poohs you with the old ‘That can’t be possible. It violates the laws of thermodynamics. A calorie is after all a calorie.’ Ask them precisely which laws of thermodynamics it violates and ask them to tell you how. Then sit back and watch the fun.0 -
Thermodynamics and weight loss
4. October 2007, 13:19 UhrMetabolism, Obesity, Weight lossmreades94 comments
4
Probably no laws of physics have been so over invoked and less understood than the laws of thermodynamics. Everyone it seems is using the laws of thermodynamics to justify every position imaginable in the field of weight loss. Journalists often throw out the laws of thermodynamics to prove or disprove dietary regimens they’re writing about. Authors of various blogs and other online sites rabbit on about how the laws of thermodynamics are aligned with their pet theories. And even worse, research scientists – who really should know better – more often than not misquote the laws of thermodynamics, especially when talking about the possibility of a dietary metabolic advantage. ‘It can’t be valid,’ they sniff, ‘it violates the laws of thermodynamics.’
So, I figured is was time to delve into these mysterious laws so that readers of this blog at least can know thermodynamic nonsense when they see it.
When you get a grasp of the laws of thermodynamics it becomes pretty easy to see how they can be confusing not only to the great unwashed masses but even to scientists who have never really taken the time to study them. Thermodynamics are seemingly simple at first glance, but the more you dig into them, the more complex they become. To see what I mean, take a look at the syllabus for the thermodynamics course at MIT and skim through a few of the lectures.
Before we jump into these laws, I want to show you why scientists typically heap scorn on anyone who claims to have somehow violated the laws of thermodynamics.
The author of a book of thermodynamics that I have writes the following:
No violation of any law of thermodynamics is known to have occurred in over 200 years of research in this area.
Most physicists consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics the most universal ‘governor’ of natural activity that has ever been revealed by scientific study.
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in 1915
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
And Ivan Bazarov wrote the following in a thermodynamics text from 1964:
The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwell’s laws of electricity or Newton’s law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity. The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century.
Now that you somewhat understand the strong feelings of those in the know about thermodynamics, you can see why they would disparage anyone purporting to break or repeal these laws. And it helps to understand the vituperation heaped on Robert Atkins who wrote one of the most hubristic and outright ignorant statements imaginable showing a total lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics when he said:
When I make this claim, that you can lose more weight on a higher number of calories, I seem to be breaking the law—one of the hallowed laws of thermodynamics. Many powers-that-be get terribly provoked when I repeal their laws. But the calorie theory is a false law that is meant to be broken, and ketosis/lipolysis is the instrument for breaking it.
As reported in Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, this comment and others like it may have lead John Yudkin to say of Atkins’ book that its “chief consequence [may have been] to antagonize the medical and nutritional establishment.”
But, since Atkins wasn’t really a physicist, it’s easy to see how he could have become confused.
There are four laws of thermodynamics, but we’re going to concern ourselves in this post only with the first and second laws. The other two laws – the zeroth law and the fourth law involve temperature, are highly theoretical, and aren’t really relevant to the discussion at hand.
The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy law and states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Another way of stating this law is to say that the energy of a system plus surroundings is constant in time. This first law is where the mistaken idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ that misguided people always want to parrot comes from. And on the surface it seems to make sense. If energy can’t be created or destroyed why wouldn’t a calorie always be a calorie? That’s where the second law comes in.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process. What this means is that it is impossible for a system to turn a given amount of energy into an equivalent amount of work. It is this second law that is really the ‘a calorie is a calorie’ law, and, in fact, the second law shows, in terms of weight loss at least, that a calorie isn’t necessarily a calorie.
These two laws of thermodynamics can be summed up cleverly. The first law says you can’t get something for nothing, and the second law tells you that you can’t break even.
Since it’s the second law that applies to living, breathing animals, and since it is the one most often confused in the calorie issue, let’s look at it a little more closely. The second law is the law driving chemical reactions, and since we’re nothing but a bunch of walking chemical reactions it is the one that applies most to us.
The second law is a dissipation law in that it says that in any reaction that is irreversible (most of the chemical reactions that give us life) there is a loss or dissipation of energy in that reaction. If substance A converts to substance B via a chemical reaction in the body, then substance B has a lower energy than substance A. In other words energy is lost to the universe in that reaction. There is no reaction that doesn’t end up without a loss of some energy to the universe. This loss of energy is called entropy.
The second law can kind of be summed with this equation:
calories in = calories out + entropy
If we substitute numbers in the above equation it could look like this:
100 calories in = 70 calories out + entropy
If we solve this equation for entropy, we can see that entropy is 30 calories. Or, in this case, 30 calories of energy are lost.
The larger the number for entropy, the more inefficient the system is, i.e., more energy lost from the system forever.
For example, when you drive a car only about 10-12 percent of the energy contained in the gasoline actually is converted to the work of propelling the car – the rest is lost to heat (entropy). This irretrievable loss is the reason a perpetual motion machine can never be built although many have tried. No matter how efficiently such a machine might be designed it will ultimately run down because of these little energy (entropy) leaks here and there. (I’ve used entropy as if it is synonymous with energy when in technical terms it really isn’t, but it’s easier to think of it that way.)
How does this apply to weight loss?
Each of the many chemical reactions in the body end up dissipating energy. We get our energy in the form of calories from the food we eat. This energy gets consumed in all the countless chemical reactions that go on all the time. Just like an automobile, we are not all that efficient. We don’t convert calories to energy on a one to one basis because of the loss of energy to the universe described by the second law.
This is all basic stuff, but it gets interesting when we start to look at how the different macronutrients (fat, protein and carbohydrate) affect the process.
As I’ve discussed in this blog frequently, we need to maintain our blood sugar in a fairly narrow range. We need blood sugar to supply energy to certain cells that can’t use it in any other form (the red blood cells, some brain cells and others). We can get plenty of sugar into our blood and have no trouble keeping our blood sugar up if we eat carbohydrates. The carbohydrate-containing foods get broken down into their sugar molecules that are then absorbed from the intestines directly into the blood. In our high carb world our problem isn’t too little sugar but too much. But in the early years of our existence on the planet it wasn’t like this. We didn’t have access to the bounty of easily absorbed carbs that we do today, yet we still had the need for sugar in our blood. As a consequence we evolved mechanisms to convert other nutrients – primarily protein – into sugar.
If we have a diet containing plenty of carbohydrate, the carbohydrate goes into the blood as sugar. There are very few chemical reactions along the way, and there is a loss of energy to the universe with each of these reactions. But, since there aren’t many conversions, there isn’t a lot of energy loss.
If we have no carbohydrates (or few) in the diet, however, it’s a different story. In order to maintain the necessary sugar level in the blood the body is forced to make sugar out of protein, which isn’t a simple operation. Look in any basic biochemistry textbook and you can see all the reactions required to convert protein to sugar, and each one of these reactions consumes energy just to take place but loses energy to the universe in the process as well. It’s much less efficient for the body to convert protein to sugar than it is to simply take the sugar as it comes in already formed.
The second law of thermodynamics virtually mandates that there be a larger loss of energy when one has to convert protein to sugar instead of merely using the sugar as it comes in. Since there are 4 kcal of energy in a gram of sugar and 4 kcal of energy in a gram of protein, it should be apparent that less of the 4 kcal in a gram of sugar will be dissipated than will be the 4 kcal in a gram of protein if this gram of protein has to first be converted to sugar.
And, consequently, one would think that a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat (both of which have to be converted to sugar) would bring about a greater weight loss than a diet of the same number of calories but with higher levels of carbohydrate. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics predicts this very phenomenon. But despite this rather obvious notion that complies perfectly with the second law, many ignorant people continue to cling to the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ despite that idea flying in the face of the second law. I suppose these people discount the second law. If so, then they should spend their time putting together a perpetual motion machine, which, if they could, would garner them a lot more fame than their inane posturing on the inevitability of the second law might do.
A classic example of how the second law works is in the difference between regular and premium gasoline. Both regular and premium have the same exact number of calories per gallon, but premium burns more efficiently. In other words, the calories contained in the premium gas get ‘wasted’ at a lower percentage in propelling the car along the road than do the calories in the regular. A high-performance automobile designed to squeeze the most out of a gallon of gas will get better mileage on premium than on regular gasoline, yet the calories in are exactly the same.
In the human body this inefficiency can be measured as an increase in metabolic rate and an increase in body heat being produced under laboratory conditions. One would assume that since the second law is inviolable and always in operation that people eating a diet low in carbohydrates and high in protein would produce more heat than those consuming the same number of calories but composed of a much higher percentage of carbohydrates. And that is exactly what is found.
In a paper (full text here) published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition researchers examined this effect in ten healthy young women who consumed either a high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a lower-protein, higher-carb diet of the same number of calories. The researchers used these women as their own controls, providing them with the first diet followed by measurements in the lab, then 54 days later with the second diet and lab evaluation.
Precise measurement of heat and metabolic rate showed that when the women followed the high-protein, low-carb diet they produced almost twice as much heat as they did when consuming the higher carb diet of the same calories. In the higher-carb diet the entropy was smaller than in the higher-protein diet, which would be expected from the second law.
As the authors of the paper put it:
These data demonstrate that meal-induced thermogenesis at 2.5 hours post-meal averages about twofold higher on a HP, low fat diet versus a HC, low-fat diet. Generally, postprandial thermogenesis has been associated with the protein content of a meal, and our data confirm this relationship. However, the difference in the energy cost of HP versus HC diets, particularly in the context of weight loss promotion, has not been addressed by healthcare professionals. Increased diet-induced thermogenesis, in association with the preservation of REE [resting energy expediture], may contribute to the reported weight loss success of diets high in protein with moderate levels of carbohydrate and lends credence to the observation that weight loss on HP diets is predominately body fat, not body water.
Bear all this in mind the next time you tell someone that it is possible to lose more weight on a greater number of calories as long as those calories are low-carb calories, and that someone pooh poohs you with the old ‘That can’t be possible. It violates the laws of thermodynamics. A calorie is after all a calorie.’ Ask them precisely which laws of thermodynamics it violates and ask them to tell you how. Then sit back and watch the fun.
This was extremely interesting, on the same token...concerning this thread the basics still apply nobody is stating that the way her body uses energy is not different or that calories appear to have a different effect of her. The main point is regarding a unit of energy can not be created out of nothing therefor it came from somewhere. I am one who will normally say a calorie is a calorie but at the same time I do understand the body processes different delivery systems of the calorie differently. In the basics of weight loss and gain a calorie is a calorie but at a smaller level I can see efficiency of the calorie changing. One flaw in the article is the analogy of premium gas verse regular, they do not have the same "calories" premium gas by definition is higher octane which makes it more nutritional and energy dense because it increase combustion. Think of it like a protein shake vs skim milk shake, if the protein shake has higher calories and is more nutritionally dense the body lasts longer on it and burns it more efficiently but if the skim milk shake has lower calories and less nutrients the body doesn't get as far on it and is less efficient. Just because they are both 8oz. does not mean the same calories. So 1 gallon of 87 octane gas has less calories then 93 octane gas. This article also uses a high mpg efficient car. So yes a efficient body with a low body fat % and lean muscle will burn more efficient. But comparing the 2 is apples to oranges.
If someone was to say I have a condition that I pee out all carb calories (say their body will not process carbs) and they ate 500 calories in carbs over TDEE, most would say they would gain weight but they are expelling the surplus it still went somewhere (wasted energy). The same as if someone has a condition that will only convert carb calories to fat (this is still using the calorie) and refuses to use them as energy, because of the definition of TDEE as being the amount of energy the body uses...by definition the body is still using the calorie (a unit of energy) and it originally had to come from somewhere because of the first law of energy.
If my thoughts are hard to follow sorry, I do believe in a efficient vehicle (the body) the type of unit that the calorie came from will effect the efficiency of the metabolism but on an inefficient build and the body has excess the difference would be too small to gage. Also a protein calorie builds muscle that makes it more efficient because muscle burns more calories than fat. In energy usage this actually makes it inefficient but for what our preferences are ( to burn as much energy as possible in the least time, we want to be gas guzzlers) it makes it a plus for us.0 -
nevermind.0
-
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/
The answer isn't yes or no. Yes, genetics can, and often do, cause people to be overweight or obese. Random mutations can cause that morning muffin to be either burned for fuel, or stored as fat. That being said, there are plenty overweight and obese people whose genetics do not predispose them to weight gain, they have gained weight solely through their own behavior. Oh, wait, much of our behavior is influenced heavily by genetics...
There are also cases like me out there - I was always thin until I got a pituitary tumor. The pituitary tumor has messed up my hormones so much that I have gained weight - all of it in my stomach. I look perpetually six months pregnant. I can lose weight, but only when I restrict to a level way beyond anything recommended here (or anywhere). So I keep trying, and failing, and trying again. I am surrounded by skinny people who live on pizza and beer, while I eat protein shakes and kale. Then go running.
If your point is that people shouldn't use genetics as an excuse to not make positive changes in their lives, then I completely agree with you. Even if I'll never look like I did before the tumor, I know that I feel better, physically and mentally, when I'm eating well and working out.
It sounds, however, like the real thesis of your paper is "Fat people are just lazy and should stop eating so much". If this is your stance, maybe you should spend some time examining your motivation for writing it. Because yes, some fat people are lazy and should just stop eating so much, but often, things are more complicated.0 -
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/
The answer isn't yes or no. Yes, genetics can, and often do, cause people to be overweight or obese. Random mutations can cause that morning muffin to be either burned for fuel, or stored as fat. That being said, there are plenty overweight and obese people whose genetics do not predispose them to weight gain, they have gained weight solely through their own behavior. Oh, wait, much of our behavior is influenced heavily by genetics...
There are also cases like me out there - I was always thin until I got a pituitary tumor. The pituitary tumor has messed up my hormones so much that I have gained weight - all of it in my stomach. I look perpetually six months pregnant. I can lose weight, but only when I restrict to a level way beyond anything recommended here (or anywhere). So I keep trying, and failing, and trying again. I am surrounded by skinny people who live on pizza and beer, while I eat protein shakes and kale. Then go running.
If your point is that people shouldn't use genetics as an excuse to not make positive changes in their lives, then I completely agree with you. Even if I'll never look like I did before the tumor, I know that I feel better, physically and mentally, when I'm eating well and working out.
It sounds, however, like the real thesis of your paper is "Fat people are just lazy and should stop eating so much". If this is your stance, maybe you should spend some time examining your motivation for writing it. Because yes, some fat people are lazy and should just stop eating so much, but often, things are more complicated.0 -
Yes, I realize this is probably insulting.....It must have taken hours upon hours upon hours for Mrs. Ratfire to write so many posts. Perhaps sitting in front of the computer all day is a part of the problem??? I have a relative who swears she can eat only 500 calories a day and still weigh close to 400 pounds (nevermind that I grew up with her and know that she used to hide food and compulsively eat it in secret- and I have serious doubts that she changed that behavior). However, said relative literally sits all day on her couch and does nothing but surf the internet. Nothing. Tells her husband to feed the kids and clean the house and go to work.....
I don't care how little you eat, if you don't move, you're not likely to lose much weight.0 -
@MrsRatfire
At this point you are the one being rude, you are calling people names (2 wrongs don't make a right) and you are quoting me as if I backed up the statements you were making. I was disagreeing with the girl with a condition claiming she ate under what she burnt. The truth is the majority of people are fat because they made themselves that way. The rare few may have a condition that makes their TDEE extremely out side the curve that still does not mean they eat at a deficient, (for them they do NOT) they may eat at my deficient but not theirs. The odds that so many that come across this website have an extremely rare illness and then even have stats that are at the extreme end of their illness is unlikely. I am sorry but that is how it is. When I gained weight I was hoping my doctor found a reason, you know what she said: she said yea, you stopped being as active and increased portions and snacking; stop and you will go back to your normal self. It is a hard truth but since it normally takes 600 calories just to keep organs from dying I find it very unlikely that a human that is awake even with the most extreme medical condition is in a surplus at 1000 or 1200, the odds are astronomical for that to be the case and I am not a gambler. Health issues can make weight maintenance harder for some it can even lower their TDEE but it is still math. The other truth is if their are those that their TDEE is 800-1000 they truly are a miracle of evolution they are much more efficient at using available energy and will survive much better then most fit people if food was ever short and if they could eat less than they burn and still gain weight they would be an abundant resource for the creation of energy. They would scientific marvels that are the next step in human evolution.0 -
Of course genetics plays a part in weight gain. It is not something that should be used as an excuse, but it's a FACT. For example, YES, your weight is determined by if you are eating at a deficit or a surplus, but the specific amount of calories required by the individual is determined by genetics. Also, stomach length is determined by genetics- a longer stomach requires more food to reach the level of satiety required to give us the "full signal". A propensity toward building muscle easily is genetic. Appetite and the production of appetite stimulating hormones is GENETIC... So while yes, obesity is the result of overeating according to your caloric requirements, there are genetic components that factor into WHY some individuals are more likely to eat more than their bodies require than others. Of course there are also mental, emotional and environmental factors as well.. but to say that genetics does not play a role is ridiculous.
Bottom line, many of us DO have our genetics stacked against us, we need to recognize it and gain control over it.0 -
People can be genetically predisposed to overeating through malfunction in the body's appetite regulation systems, i.e they never get the "full" signal when they've eaten enough so are prone to overeating. This can also happen due to damage to the hypothalamus, i.e it's not genetic it's environmental, but it still causes the person to have a tendency to overeat.
To some extent humans in general have a tendency to overeat, probably because Homo erectus didn't have a guaranteed food supply and thus people who overate when there was plenty of food and stored up fat for leaner times came through food shortages better and thus left more genes in the population. We're all the descendents of generation upon generation of people who survived food shortages - we're adapted for surviving in an environment where food was sometimes scarce and food always required effort (sometimes very strenuous effort) to acquire, not for living in a world where you can order pizza and mcdonalds over the telephone to be delivered through your living room window without even leaving the sofa. And if something is the result of natural selection, then it does come from genetics, because genes are what are passed from generation to generation and what natural selection acts upon. And when something comes from genes, there is nearly always variation. So there is definitely genetic variation in the extent to which people are predisposed to overeat. And that includes some people being predisposed to undereat - i.e. the "hard gainers" who do all kinds of weight lifting programmes and try their best to eat at a surplus but still don't gain weight because their appetite set point won't let them (and trying to eat more when you're full to the point of nausea is something no-one can do very easily).
This question is a highly complex one, and the issue of people thinking that they're the only one that finds fat loss difficult and that maintenance of a healthy weight requires effort and vigilance, or that being like this is abnormal and everyone else finds it easy, is not the same as the question as to whether some people are genetically predisposed to get fatter more easily than others.
However, going back to the OP's aim in this - whether someone's genetically predisposed to overeat more than average, that does not condemn them to a lifetime of obesity.... the obesity can be overcome through exercise and portion control (for someone prone to overeating, then exercise is probably even more important)........... the myth that "I have a genetic tendency to obesity therefore there's nothing I can do about being obese" is probably what needs to be challenged the most. Just because you're genetically predisposed to something doesn't mean it's impossible to mitigate that thing through controlling the environmental factors that interplay with the genetic factors. In the case of obesity that means ensuring an active lifestyle and good portion control.
I guess my definition may be a bit too black and white. The way I have looked at is, even if you have a medical condition, do you still have the ability to lose weight? If so, then it isn't a genetic issue, but rather environmental. To me environmental =/= genetic; I more see that as a variable. So I guess that question would be how the scientific community views genetic factors, which I would have to investigate more.
I view it this way because when I think genetics (eye color, skin color, bone structure, blood type) those are all things you cannot change (outside of surgery). And weight is something that can change.
yes, your definition is too black and white... many characteristics are the result of interplay between genetics and environment... take skin colour for example... you're born with skin a certain colour, and most people are born with an ability to tan when exposed to sunlight... so the actual colour is determined both by genetics and the environment (i.e. degree of exposure to sunlight). Even bone structure - malnutrition in childhood (e.g. rickets or calorie restriction) can change the size and shape of the skeleton. Lack of calories and/or protein in childhood can result in someone never reaching adult height, etc.
things you can't change frequently don't come from genetics... e.g. if someone loses a limb in an accident, they're stuck with 3 limbs for the rest of their life, that's not genetic but it's not something they can control. The degree to which someone can control something also often depends on genetics, for example I have very pale skin and freckles... I can tan very slightly but mostly my skin stays white, burns and has freckles.... however I know Mediterranean people who will be white in the winter and really dark in the summer if they choose to tan.
So skin colour is a good example of something that's genetic, yet some people can control it to a large degree through the environment and their choices (i.e. if they choose to sunbathe or cover up/use sunscreen)........ others like me have very little choice, and even though I can tan a tiny bit I choose not to because my skin's in the highest risk category for skin cancer and it's not worth it. Plus I like being pale. This example illustrates that just because someone has control over a particular characteristic it does not mean that characteristic isn't controlled by genes..... even the degree to which it can be controlled is genetic.....
re obesity - there are factors related to obesity that don't come from genetics, as in if you deprive anyone of food they will eventually starve to death and during that process they will stop being obese at some point.... and with a strict enough diet anyone can not be obese... but genetic factors are definitely at play as well... if you take a whole bunch of people and starve them they won't all die on the same day, some will survive longer in the food shortage than others... those that survive longer will probably also have a harder time fighting against obesity when not being starved, because their bodies are more predisposed to store fat and more predisposed to slow the metabolism in response to a food shortage... they may also have appetite regulatory systems that predispose them to eat more when they can eat... etc etc etc. and what gives someone an advantage in a food shortage gives them a disadvantage when on a diet to reduce body fat percentage... there are ways around it but ignoring the genetic factors and just assuming we're all the same in this respect isn't helpful, because if someone's finding something more difficult than average then acknowledgement of their struggle, together with tailored advice for how they can lose in spite of their difficulties is a lot better than just denying that they're struggling more than average. Note that in this paragraph I'm referring to normal variation in healthy people.... there are additional medical issues, some of them genetic some of them non genetic but akin to losing a limb in an accident, which can make it a whole lot harder again to maintain a healthy body composition.0 -
Genetics does not determine your weight. What genetics can affect is: muscle and bone structure, blood pressure, medical issues, cholesterol.
THIS....for example, thyroid issues run in my family. I don't believe it has caused me to gain weight, but before I was diagnosed and put on medicine, I worked out hard with a trainer and ate well. However, my metabolism was barely functioning. That's genetic for me. Other people have genetic issues/diseases that may cause weight gain/hard to lose. There are also mental health disorders that are genetic that could lead to behaviors that drastically increase/decrease weight.0 -
Dear Kassiebby, I am new to MyFitnessPal, so please forgive me if I belabor any points already made by prior users. Your original post is relatively new, so I am astonished at the quick and voluminous response that new posts typically receive on the community boards.
It appears to me that Mrs. Ratfire and Neandermagnon have given you excellent, scientifically sound information already. I agree very much with their posts. Your question is indeed a scientific one with underpinnings in biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, endocrinology, and several other disciplines, the purview of which is beyond this forum and would require extensive research within peer-reviewed, respected clinical journals (which, by the way, has already been done in the form of various books).
Now, on to your thesis -- there are problems with your main topic points:
(Note: to avoid plagiarism, sources are included with page numbers. An impeccably researched resource is "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes, and any of Dr. David Kessler's work.)
Point one: "Genetics does play a role" in a metabolic set point, which you refer to as "ideal weight", but it also plays a role in how much weight an individual gains, albeit IN CERTAIN PLACES (emphasis mine). This is determined by hormonal factors as well as phenotype. Some of this was already expounded upon by Neandermagnon.
Twin studies, studies on Steatopygia (a genetic trait), and lipodystrophy (genetic and drug-related) all provide evidence that, while genes don't determine how many calories humans and animals consume, they play a key role in what our bodies DO with those calories. That is to say, genes do not determine our relative adiposity, but rather how we PARTITION energy. pp. 67-68.
Your point is more or less sound because the preceding explanation does not refer to overall obesity as created by our obesogenic society, but genetics does determine, to a degree, how much weight one individual might gain in comparison to another individual.
Point two: "Weight gain is caused by increased caloric intake; if you eat more than you burn, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose it."
This is a widespread, universally-believed assumption that, like all partially true assertions, has become a conventionally accepted rule. The book I referenced debunks this myth soundly. Overweight and obesity are not caused exclusively by overeating and sedentary behavior. They are caused by fat dysregulation, which is brought on by the TYPE of calories ingested, not how much. Perhaps at one time in history, prior to the advent of mass production of processed food and the introduction of fructose and artificial sweeteners into our food supply, before our most recent generations were born with a predisposition to higher circulating insulin levels as babies than their predecessors, this was true. Now, it is not as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss or maintenance.
The paradigm will take a while to shift from the ubiquitous stereotype of the indolent modern-day person engorging themselves on food at home or the office, sitting all day without exercising (though such behavior will surely bring about excess adiposity) to the realization that our food supply and its sugary staples, coupled WITH a modern, computerized, sedentary lifestyle, increase our evolutionary tendency to store fat exponentially more than ever.
Hence, it is the QUALITY of those calories, the macronutrients, that determine weight gain, NOT THE QUANTITY (how much people eat -- the calories-in premise). It is high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, sugars, and their substitutes that create the biological cascade of events that results in overweight, obesity, and their concomitant diseases (diabetes, etc), and it is all about the insulin (leptin and ghrelin plays their parts, too, but that is beyond the scope of your English paper).
The Process:
carbs & sugar, ESPECIALLY fructose, create insulin surges;
insulin repackages these triglycerides into fatty acids to be stored in fat cells;
these fat cells release cytokines (inflammatory molecules);
insulin tells the liver to convert carbohydtes into fat;
this fat is sent off into the bloodstream on the particles that eventually become dense LDL;
insulin works on the kidneys to raise blood pressure by reabsorbing sodium;
insulin works on the artery walls to stiffen them and create atherosclerotic plaques from cholesterol; and oxidative stress runs rampant throughout the body. (pp. 197-199)
"Point three: Many people focus on blaming genetics when they do not want to put in the effort it takes to lose weight or to maintain weight loss."
Obviously, this is an opinion. Though it is deemed "blaming the victim", it is true in some cases. However, if you look at obesity studies, there are many, many other reason why people cannot lose weight or maintain weight loss that are not on the macro level, not in an individual's control, as well as the hormonal and physiological levels which have been compromised in a complex interplay between government food policies, the endless pesticide and hormone-disrupting chemicals in our food and water, and the myriad examples already mentioned by the excellent posters in this thread. It is quite fascinating, really, because our genetics are slowly being altered due to our environment, as with the increased insulin production seen in recent generations.
Kassiebby, your paper brings up excellent points and speaks to an issue that millions are passionate about, making it very relevant and timely, however, it is important to base your argument on science and established research as you argue your points. If I may, I would suggest that your position would be better served were it an exploration of the innumerable reasons (maybe focus on three or four principal common ones) why Americans have such difficulty losing weight and/or keeping it off.
Thank you and good luck.0 -
First, I apologize for sparking such a debate..I didn't mean to upset anyone and cause disputes; I just wanted some opinions, not a cyber war, lol.
Second, for those of you addressing my thesis in particular, what would be YOUR ideas to improve it and make it something arguable? From what I'm seeing, mine is too generalized and it needs to be tapered. Any input on that?
Lastly, thank you all so, so much for giving such great feedback. Aside from a few snarky comments (not directed at me, though), this is has really been informative and helpful. For those who didn't see my thesis and points, I posted them here. How would I go about either scaling them down to a less generalized, yet arguable opinion or change it completely? My English professor likes my stance but apparently from the thread it's a bit more in depth than a college level English paper should be.
Here is my current outline for those who didn't see it:
Thesis: While genetics play a role in how quickly food is processed and where it is lost first when one loses weight, it is in no way associated with weight gain.
Point one: Genetics play a role in an individual’s “ideal weight,” not how much they gain.
Point two: Weight gain is caused by increased caloric intake; if you eat more than you burn, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose it.
Point three: Many people focus on blaming genetics when they do not want to put in the effort it takes to lose weight or to maintain weight loss.0 -
First, I apologize for sparking such a debate..I didn't mean to upset anyone and cause disputes; I just wanted some opinions, not a cyber war, lol.
Second, for those of you addressing my thesis in particular, what would be YOUR ideas to improve it and make it something arguable? From what I'm seeing, mine is too generalized and it needs to be tapered. Any input on that?
Lastly, thank you all so, so much for giving such great feedback. Aside from a few snarky comments (not directed at me, though), this is has really been informative and helpful. For those who didn't see my thesis and points, I posted them here. How would I go about either scaling them down to a less generalized, yet arguable opinion or change it completely? My English professor likes my stance but apparently from the thread it's a bit more in depth than a college level English paper should be.
Here is my current outline for those who didn't see it:
Thesis: While genetics play a role in how quickly food is processed and where it is lost first when one loses weight, it is in no way associated with weight gain.
Point one: Genetics play a role in an individual’s “ideal weight,” not how much they gain.
Point two: Weight gain is caused by increased caloric intake; if you eat more than you burn, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose it.
Point three: Many people focus on blaming genetics when they do not want to put in the effort it takes to lose weight or to maintain weight loss.
Regarding point 1 & 2 Weight gain is based on consuming more than burnt but for genetic reasons the proper burning rate may not be known also a genetic condition can hinder a persons ability to receive the proper signals from their body making the individual only realize their intake is too high after they have already gained the weight. As far a genetics and ideal body weight that is genetic but genetics can create a situation that causes weight gain prior to the individuals knowledge of the issue. Kind of like when a woman starts birth control, she keeps everything (in her mind) the same but either her TDEE lowered and now she is in surplus or her signals in her body are different, so a woman who was fit and only ate when hungry would now easily gain if her body changed the signals. To this woman she is helpless and the pill made the weight gain, is a way she is correct but she is also wrong because when her body changed she did not adapt.
I know your paper is already covering much more than planned but honestly you can not discus this topic without environment playing a role, from nurture to chemicals to hormones in our food.0 -
Well, that is not exactly what happens in genetics. Unfortunately, the testing is ungodly in price and usually only covered by insurance for infants and children. People die from the disorders all of the time for lack of ability to get tested. This is just a basic full genome panel - any full genome panel called out by the geneticist- usually are declined to be paid for. That leaves thousands of possible diseases to shot gun at by the geneticist and doctors he then refers you to to prescribe something- with risk- as they do NO care at all. They do not have time. In my area, where there are two huge infamous medical systems, there are 3 doctors in the entire state I live in. Two only take children and flatly are not accepting anyone new at all. The third is primarily a researcher (they are all researchers, not regular MD's- they have MD's as one credential), it took me 6 years find him. I then waited about 11 months for my appointment. You do not leave his office and make an appt. They call you back once you are in, and tell you when your appt. is, when he decides to see you.
And if you are not of interest to this particular researcher, you will just be overflow and not seen at all. Which is the boat the majority of the country is in. Very few adults can get the genome panels run at all, they cannot get an appointment. Insurance rarely if ever covers it, all those who are not infants or children rushed in on a gurney, are left to die in the ER. As I was left for dead several times in the ER- screaming in agony- well, I do speak from experience. I know of one woman who had an FOD father, she was an adult- in her thirties. She was rushed in, dying- they discovered her liver was failing (this actually happened to me once). As it was liver failure they argued with the family and the patient when she came to, that she was an alcoholic. the lady does not drink.
Eventually, even showing the idiots of the day at the hospital the father's diagnosis, and begging them to please read it- begging them to consider the failure due to FOD and treat accordingly- they finally decided to take a shot as they were killing her.
She lived. She is FOD. If you have gotten this far, you think this story is rare. You would be quite wrong. it is common. Things like this happen to people with metabolic diseases ALL of the time. I have it in writing, on the letter head of my doctor,the protocol. The last time I went to the ER, they threw it aside and said they did not care WHAT my doctor said, they would determine if I needed blood or fluids, or glucose. Not kidding. And the letter head was from the very same hospital I sought help in. That is how ignorant the medical community is in general, to metabolic crisis. Yes, we end up dead all of the time over it. All of our support sits have an in memorial section. Usually filled with children. Again, adults of the deceased are adults themselves and rarely are involved in those groups of the deceased to even report it.
When someone dies, they just stop participating. Eventually someone who does know them, figures it out- calls and finds the family of the deceased in, or whatever. Most of us jut drop out of site.
So. I hope you understood where I am coming from here. For people with metabolic disorders the correct diagnosis and medicine is not usually available. Until there are more doctors joining this field and testing is cheaper, it will also stay this way.
I haven't done any scientific experiments but I'd be shocked if it was found that genetics wasn't a factor. It's true that it's calories in minus calories out but appetitite and body types are still genetic. And no, I'm not making excuses because I'm 5'11" 175 pounds.Point one: Genetics play a role in an individual’s “ideal weight,” not how much they gain.
Point two: Weight gain is caused by increased caloric intake; if you eat more than you burn, you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose it. Point three: Many people focus on blaming genetics when they do not want to put in the effort it takes to lose weight or to maintain weight loss.
[/quote]
Biochem grad here. I second this. Genetics definitely affects appetite, digestion, psychological components, and other contributing factors. Just because genetics doesn't directly cause weight gain doesn't mean that it isn't a significant influence. Most people accept that skin tone, hair color, and many other things are determined by genetics, but those things have environmental components as well. Just because there is an environmental component that you can somewhat control doesn't discount the fact that genetics matter.
[/quote]
But you can't confuse environmental factors as part of genetics. If it genetic, then it means you are predisposition to have that destiny. Would you suggest that a person is predisposed to being overweight? I understand that medical conditions make things difficult and can throw a wrench into things until it's properly diagnosed and medicated, but regardless of the condition, you can be skinny or obese. It just depends on finding the right combination of medical and diet that works.
[/quote]0 -
I did not mean to imply you backed me at all, it was clear to me you were not. And I did read your posts and you seem to understand what you are posting about. I agree, my two wrongs don't make a right. But, again, I am flawed. I actually thanked them initially for posting, no problem, but they kept coming. I have rules. will let anyone take a shot- no problem. But on and on, criticizing my background, etc. Well, I just won't. And I do not expect you are anyone else to agree with me or endorse me. If someone replies directly to me and insults me specifically, no, I will not let them continue without a reply. But that would not be your style, I get that. Were good. I realize you do not agree with my response, but I am good with it. Thanks for your posts, they are excellent.0
-
Oh you are exhausting. I did not state amount of calories anywhere that I was eating or not eating. it was about the very nice young lady with the endocrine disorder that was stating actual consumptions and issues that were all calculated by many people. And yes, it was a ridiculous piece of time I was on the computer on this thread, but done is done. If you have questions about my lifestyle, computer time, posting, amount of exercise, please address me or I will likely not see it. Personally your
commet on me seemed pre-mature to anything I actually said. If you learn to read more, I and I learn to type less, we will be great friends! thanks for posting!
Yes, I realize this is probably insulting.....It must have taken hours upon hours upon hours for Mrs. Ratfire to write so many posts. Perhaps sitting in front of the computer all day is a part of the problem??? I have a relative who swears she can eat only 500 calories a day and still weigh close to 400 pounds (nevermind that I grew up with her and know that she used to hide food and compulsively eat it in secret- and I have serious doubts that she changed that behavior). However, said relative literally sits all day on her couch and does nothing but surf the internet. Nothing. Tells her husband to feed the kids and clean the house and go to work.....
I don't care how little you eat, if you don't move, you're not likely to lose much weight.
[/quote]0 -
I did not mean to imply you backed me at all, it was clear to me you were not. And I did read your posts and you seem to understand what you are posting about. I agree, my two wrongs don't make a right. But, again, I am flawed. I actually thanked them initially for posting, no problem, but they kept coming. I have rules. will let anyone take a shot- no problem. But on and on, criticizing my background, etc. Well, I just won't. And I do not expect you are anyone else to agree with me or endorse me. If someone replies directly to me and insults me specifically, no, I will not let them continue without a reply. But that would not be your style, I get that. Were good. I realize you do not agree with my response, but I am good with it. Thanks for your posts, they are excellent.
What? You've thrown around more insults than the rest of the posters in this topic put together. Frankly, you're reading far too much into what people were posting, almost as if you're looking for a fight. It would help your cause if you put more effort into figuring out what people were saying and less time assuming that everything is somehow a personal attack against you. If this topic ultimately ends up closed, the majority of the blame will fall on your shoulders. Think about that before you call me an idiot.0 -
It's LEARNED BEHAVIOR not genetic.0
-
yep - I think so, too0
-
I am hitting the button "quote" as one person did, I hope this hits the right place. But I am good with your disapproval- your right but I really do not care. However I implied I thought you backed me, no, I understood that you did not and I am good with it. Hope my reply came to you correctly. Best wishes.
@MrsRatfire
At this point you are the one being rude, you are calling people names (2 wrongs don't make a right) and you are quoting me as if I backed up the statements you were making. I was disagreeing with the girl with a condition claiming she ate under what she burnt. The truth is the majority of people are fat because they made themselves that way. The rare few may have a condition that makes their TDEE extremely out side the curve that still does not mean they eat at a deficient, (for them they do NOT) they may eat at my deficient but not theirs. The odds that so many that come across this website have an extremely rare illness and then even have stats that are at the extreme end of their illness is unlikely. I am sorry but that is how it is. When I gained weight I was hoping my doctor found a reason, you know what she said: she said yea, you stopped being as active and increased portions and snacking; stop and you will go back to your normal self. It is a hard truth but since it normally takes 600 calories just to keep organs from dying I find it very unlikely that a human that is awake even with the most extreme medical condition is in a surplus at 1000 or 1200, the odds are astronomical for that to be the case and I am not a gambler. Health issues can make weight maintenance harder for some it can even lower their TDEE but it is still math. The other truth is if their are those that their TDEE is 800-1000 they truly are a miracle of evolution they are much more efficient at using available energy and will survive much better then most fit people if food was ever short and if they could eat less than they burn and still gain weight they would be an abundant resource for the creation of energy. They would scientific marvels that are the next step in human evolution.
[/quote]0 -
oh my god..this thread is exhausting...0
-
Well, I am afraid this thread is getting very boring, for all of us. I will check back tomorrow between other things. And yes, I am a real witch- the PC version…..I mean last birthday, my husband wrote "Witch!" on the outside of the card, threw it in the mailbox and it came right to my door….no address or stamp….in Guam! And my present…..he was so cheap….he did a portrait of me, a lousy portrait….it was a chalk outline of my body on the kitchen floor……..And yes ….I have a rare disorder - it s a cross between ESP and PMS….which means, I can _itch about things that haven't even happened yet!
And I am fat ! wow, I am so fat, I had my ears pierced and gravy poured out! Fat…I am so fat in a brown dress I look like a UPS truck!
OK- have I made everyone happy yet? To the person who over and over sent me messages that I was thin skinned and could dish it out but could not take it- by the way, he did this based on knowing I had an entertainment background- noting I said- just some odd ball weirdness he has. And that my 15 years in that business was "sad" and now he knew I was definitely wrong based on that…..I mean it is downright weird in here!
And the people who think I am just really super fat and making excuses,,,,,,yes, yea, I applaud you! but if you have a brain, you would see i have said actually nothing about being in the super 100 pound over club or whatever you are imagining……. and yes, I am rude and brass…… and no, it is not the end of the world.Blah, blah blah…..
I bent over backwards over and over, trying to be nice and say all is great - but for a few select idiots, it simply did not work. If they have the right to message me with a direct comment on my personal life- then I will probably respond, if I see it.
Well, back to the rock pile. And for the recent lady who thinks my problem is sitting by a computer all day, hence AGIAN another judgmental voice heard from, check your ID. there may be a village missing their idiot. I run a business……its description is concealed on my profile!
Please turn me in the the post. I have reported my self twice already in this thread and no dice!
Thanks for posting! Ta Ta! If I miss a post that should be directed to me- please feel free to bring it to my attention my messaging me- the thread is getting boring for all of us I believe and I expect it will be dropping off. Again, I can't pay for entertainment like this.0 -
It's likely a combination of factors, including genetics. No one knows the definitive answer, although there have been many interesting studies done and are continuing to be done on the matter.0
-
It's LEARNED BEHAVIOR not genetic.
Genetics determines how you learn.0 -
I am sure the people following this thread are no longer- as I am not either. I did turn in the picture and the comments including my own as I said. I know the picture came down but not sure about the rest. I probably am going to remove my account here, not over this silly thread, but over I data base called Fat Secret that I like much better. It has a lot of great tools, very attractive, and recipe sites with pictures and such that members can post, and i am really into that.
Thank you all and I think MFP is a good place to reach for your goals and hit them. I doubt there will be any questions about metabolic disorders I will get, but as I will be over at Fat Secret- put my name into member search and I will be there. I leave this just in case there is someone out there that suspects they have one of the actual medical disorders that is not diagnosed yet, I may be able to direct you to some diseases to investigate. However, the journey is maddening and testing is incredibly difficult to get.
If you have questions, I will check on my own page here a few days only, then I will delete- but I can be found on Fat Secret. Thank you and best of luck.0 -
In case OP is still working on this paper and tired of reading, have a lecture on the genetics of obesity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOwxLGXOZuQ 0 -
One flaw in the article is the analogy of premium gas verse regular, they do not have the same "calories" premium gas by definition is higher octane which makes it more nutritional and energy dense because it increase combustion. Think of it like a protein shake vs skim milk shake, if the protein shake has higher calories and is more nutritionally dense the body lasts longer on it and burns it more efficiently but if the skim milk shake has lower calories and less nutrients the body doesn't get as far on it and is less efficient. Just because they are both 8oz. does not mean the same calories. So 1 gallon of 87 octane gas has less calories then 93 octane gas. This article also uses a high mpg efficient car. So yes a efficient body with a low body fat % and lean muscle will burn more efficient. But comparing the 2 is apples to oranges.
I wasn't so keen on that either.
0 -
It's LEARNED BEHAVIOR not genetic.
What?!
Every cell in your body contains the same DNA. 2 complete sets of chromosomes with all the genes containing all the instructions you need to build every type of protein and every type of cell.
The exception is germ cells. The cells that combine to produce offspring.
Almost every human cell contains mitochondria. Most scientists believe that mitochondria were once independent, parasitic bacteria that evolved a mutually beneficial relationship with our pre-mammal evolutionary predecessors. They have their own inheritable DNA, mtDNA. They also believe that a third of your DNA is from viruses.
So, our evolution has been shaped by integration of viruses and and bacteria.
*nature and nurture?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You are correct. But I will tell you, there are so many variations and we are all affected at different ages- and of course it progresses. Many people have one and at this time do not know it. Then they drop dead of a heart attack or something else, and no one is none the wiser. I do agree, that the unbelievable waive of obesity around the world is not genetic. It is hard to even imagine as I see it all over, I lived in a time when obesity was not the norm. I just can hardly believe how many fat young people and teenagers there are. No way they all have diseases. But- there are many of us out there. Thank you for your understanding.
But weight isn't a factor of genetics. Your family history can dictate if your will have naturally high cholesterol, if your are prone to certain disease (cancers, thyroid, pcos, etc..) but it doesn't mean you will automatically be obese. You can control your weight through the correct medicine (which may take time to get), diet and exercise. You can have very obese parents and still be skinny if you change your habits. I know for a fact it's not as easy to lose as compared to someone with no health issues, but its possible for everyone to lose weight.
Just because it is possible for everyone to lose weight doesn't mean that genetics has no role.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions