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

Options
145679

Replies

  • Halasana
    Halasana Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    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.
  • kassiebby1124
    kassiebby1124 Posts: 927 Member
    Options
    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.
  • _KitKat_
    _KitKat_ Posts: 1,066 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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.

    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.
    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.
    [/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]
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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.
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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]
  • thesupremeforce
    thesupremeforce Posts: 1,206 Member
    Options
    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.
  • gracie11lexi13
    gracie11lexi13 Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    It's LEARNED BEHAVIOR not genetic.
  • sabinekiwi
    sabinekiwi Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    yep - I think so, too
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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]
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    Options
    oh my god..this thread is exhausting...
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    It's LEARNED BEHAVIOR not genetic.

    Genetics determines how you learn.
  • MrsRatfire
    MrsRatfire Posts: 102
    Options
    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.
  • Jestinia
    Jestinia Posts: 1,153 Member
    Options
    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
  • in_the_stars
    in_the_stars Posts: 1,395 Member
    Options
    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. :)
  • in_the_stars
    in_the_stars Posts: 1,395 Member
    Options
    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?
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    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.