Is WEIGHT GAIN caused by genetics or not? **For my Paper**

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.

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.

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.

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.

yep - I think so, too

oh my god..this thread is exhausting...

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.

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.

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.

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.