1200 cals is just fine. 1100 is just fine too. If....

I think the OP was just stating that 1200 is not dangerous. Not that everyone should do it. She was giving her opinion, and her success story. Why is everyone so upset about ones OPINION? Congratulate her on her loss! Not one person here is perfect with their nutrition or exercise...otherwise you wouldn't be on this site. I wish MFP wouldn't be so negitive, and actually support people. It's not like she said she ate 800 calories a day...Even then, offer help, not such criticism.

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Thank you. I wasn't challenging your position by asking - pretty much everything has genetic influences, I was truly interested in reading studies one might be reading here. I'm kind of a study geek - and since I'm traveling over the weekend, I like to have some reading material on the plane. The first two have less to do with the genetics of fat distribution but more on BMD.
The third looks like an interesting read - especially as the author goes into some length to look at the phenotype of fat storage.

Aside from the influences of genetics, for all individuals some form of exercise and getting back to a normal weight (whatever that might be for the person) are likely to be greater factors than the genetic hand we get. I understand that you currently have difficulty exercising - I won't belabor the point - just wish you luck in finding a place/situation that is more livable and open to an active life. Consider that perhaps some of the OTC anti-allergy treatments might help (I do suggest the whole doc thing first, but if you can't - and are in an extreme situation where even basic exercise is awful...).

Best of luck, thanks for the links.

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

That study has been solidly debunked but why even bring it up? It has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Gee...it's so nice to see so many people that are experts on diet and nutrition. i'll let my doctor know that i'm starving myself and punishing myself for being fat on the days i eat below 1200 cals (as instructed by him).

OP - you do what works for you

Everyone else who keeps telling her she is wrong - c'mon now. how can you know everything about what everyone needs? we are all different. telling people to eat under 1200 cals is just as bad as telling people to eat over 1200 cals. Unless you really are an expert and know each person individually. Everyone is different and everyone has to take a different path.

Your doctor put you on that. Don't assume because your doctor put you on that, that it's the way for everyone. We are not all different. We are all humans. Hang around a little longer before you start criticizing what the community says. You might learn a thing or two.

The whole expert thing fan go both ways here. The OP came off that way also, no?
Don't be part of the "omg people are so mean" group. No one likes a whiner.

No one likes bullies, either.

Quite frankly, if I didn't teach at a big campus, I would put my activity at sendentary. I have worn a pedometer for years, and when I stayed at home or worked an office job, my typical "mileage" stepcount was under a mile/2000 steps a day, not too many calories burned. Even a 30 minute walk for a small person burns under 100 calories -- what's that -- a Fiber One bar -- not an extra meal.

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

That study has been solidly debunked but why even bring it up? It has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Oops. I didn't realize that. Source?

I eat 1200 a DAY and i am fine I eat every 2-3 hours lost 30 pound sand I work out 2 x daily Doctor is pleased ...you know what your body can take

I'm not getting all the snark on this thread - and I actually agree with OP: 1200 is a suitable calorie amount for weight loss for some people- those who are very short, older and have sedentary lifestyles.

I notice most of the posters saying I am short and I can eat much more are also young and active.
Height is only one factor, age and activity are the others.

That said, I am talking netting 1200, not neccesarily actually eating only 1200. Reading the OP, it seems to me she was talking net calories too.

I feel as if we need some perspective here. OP is a smaller person, and we're talking 1104 calories, not 800. It's only 96 calories short of the magic 1200. I'm 5'1.5" , 55 (with a lower metabolism) in the 120 lb. range, and for me to lose, MFP says i need to eat 1200, which is about what I net every day. In fact, my goal weight is the same as OPs -- 114 lbs. I looked at OP's diary, and she eats about what I eat every day. 94 extra calories is what -- a big apple, a lowfat yogurt? Also, on the day she exercises, she eats more, "eats back" exercise calories. For someone who is small, it's hardly a starvation diet. She lost 30 lbs. in 6 months -- good for her. When she goes on maintenance, she'll probably up her calories a bit.

A lot of the people chiming in are against 1200, too. Bless their cardio-reinforced hearts, I don't think most of them have the necessary slothiness to understand what it is like to be truly sedentary and simply not lose weight by eating over 1200. Good for them, actually. I know the human body was meant to move more than mine does.

Although I am going to let my inner troll out for just a moment here:

Runners! Don't run so much! Stop it, now! You will die! Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, but running too much will kill you! Run less, or you will die at the same time as us ultimate extreme couch potatoes, and then you won't even get to enjoy that superior, healthy feeling. Also, on the basis of this study, the Exercise portion of the forum should have mods banning anyone who advocates too much running.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-running-tied-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find/

The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.

That study has been solidly debunked but why even bring it up? It has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Oops. I didn't realize that. Source?

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/too-much-running-myth-rises-again

Heh. Thanks. That's what I get for being snarky. :laugh:

When I went to your link, I saw it was older than mine, and I thought I was in the clear. But there is a newer one that debunks my source even better:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

I must be crazy in thinking that it's awesome to lose weight while being able to eat as much food as possible. People gain weight end up here then they are looking to eat as little as possible. Just makes no sense.

Heh. What do you have on the end of that bar? Looks like two VW Bugs. If I was a spry young man instead of a creaky old woman with asthma, allergies, busted knees, and the beginnings of all-over arthritis, I bet my daily activities would let me eat whatever I wanted, too. Don't judge everyone else based on what you're capable of, and enjoy your healthy youth. I know you work hard for it, but some of us will never be able to do what you're doing. It just isn't physically possible.

^^^^THIS

Although if you tell me getting all my required vitamins and minerals every day and eat healthy I'll look like a fitness model, I'll try my hardest to believe you, because I'd really love for it to be true. :happy:

Anybody can be more fit, and you should be able to do something, even if it is walking, but it is easy to make excuses why you cannot. I have thyroid disease, but it doesn't have me, I don't let it slow me down at all. I will tell you what, when I am ready I will post before and after pics in a bathing suit (I only have one in a 2-piece after 20 lbs. down but that is good enough), then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Jiggling fat means you are out of shape, it is not genetics, it is called not being fit.

Actually it is genetics to some extent, according to recent studies.

Regardless, if I can't breathe, I can't walk. But I certainly agree, fitness does matter. However, that was my point. Eating 1200 calories a day if one is sedentary regardless isn't going to make things any worse. However, if I were exercising, I'd be eating more than that, personally, at least over the long haul.

What studies?

OMG you're going to make cite sources? :sad:

Fine, be that way.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bone mineral density (BMD) is under strong genetic control and a number of candidate genes have been associated with BMD. Both muscle strength and body weight are considered to be important predictors of BMD but far less is known about the genes affecting muscle strength and fat mass. The purpose of this study was to investigate the poly adenosine (A) repeat and the BsmI SNP in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in relation to muscle strength and body composition in healthy women. DESIGN: A population-based study of 175 healthy women aged 20-39 years was used. METHODS: The polymorphic regions in the VDR gene (the poly A repeat and the BsmI SNP) were amplified by PCR. Body mass measurements (fat mass, lean mass, body weight and body mass index) and muscle strength (quadriceps, hamstring and grip strength) were evaluated. RESULTS: Individuals with shorter poly A repeat, ss and/or absence of the linked BsmI restriction site (BB) have higher hamstring strength (ss vs LL, P=0.02), body weight (ss vs LL, P=0.049) and fat mass (ss vs LL, P=0.04) compared with women with a longer poly A repeat (LL) and/or the presence of the linked BsmI restriction site (bb). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the VDR is correlated with muscle strength, fat mass and body weight in premenopausal women. Further functional studies on the poly A microsatellite are needed to elucidate whether this is the functionally relevant locus or if the polymorphism is in linkage disequilibrium with a functional variant in a closely situated gene further downstream of the VDR 3'UTR.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.12.2076/full


Abstract
Lean body mass and muscle strength are both associated with bone mineral density (BMD), which is known to be under strong genetic control. In this classical twin study, we examine the size of the genetic component of both muscle strength and lean body mass and to what degree they account for the genetic component of BMD. In all, 706 postmenopausal women were examined; 227 pairs of monozygous (MZ) twins and 126 pairs of dizygous (DZ) twins. Grip strength was measured using a hand-help grip bulb and leg strength using a dynamic leg extensor power rig. Lean body mass and BMD at multiple sites were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD correlated with both leg extensor strength (r = 0.16–0.26) and grip strength (r = 0.12–0.21). Lean mass was significantly correlated with BMD at all sites (r = 0.20–0.39). All three muscle variables have a moderate genetic component with heritability estimates of 0.52 for lean body mass, 0.46 for leg extensor strength, and 0.30 for grip strength (all p < 0.05). The genetic component of BMD was not significantly reduced after adjusting for lean mass and muscle strength, with less than 20% of the genetic variance of BMD explained by the muscle variables. In conclusion, these data suggest that the three muscle variables have a modest genetic component, suggesting the potential for clinical intervention and lifestyle modifications. The genetic component to muscle bulk and strength accounts for little of the genetic component to BMD, confirming the rationale for research into bone-specific genes.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/53/6/1561S.short

Abstract

Four types of human obesities are defined by topography of fat deposition. The focus of the paper is on the genetic determinants and the nongenetic correlates of the first type, which is commonly defined as excess weight-for-height or excess body fat without a particular concentration of fat in a given area of the body. The heritability of fat mass or percent body fat derived from underwater-weighing assessment of body density reaches approximately 25% of the age- and gender-adjusted phenotypic variance. The within-identical-twin-pair resemblance in the response to a standardized overfeeding protocol emphasizes the importance of the genotype in determining individual differences in body weight and body composition. In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus.




There are many more studies. I don't even pretend to understand them all. Nor do I say, 'give up, it's hopeless, eat all the food, sit on the couch, forget the gym, you aren't genetically blessed'. I'm just saying genetics plays a role in body composition. I don't know why I need studies to know that, though, I can see it. My sister and I are completely different. She builds muscle mass much faster and easier than I do, but when I do build some muscle I get bigger. She is lean and tall, I am short and, even when thin, round.

I had a skinny friend who sat around on his butt all day and did nothing and ate what he wanted (he did smoke like a fiend, though). He had plenty of muscle. Another friend sat around, did nothing, smoked like a fiend and had about as much muscle as your average catwalk model. Five pounds of extra fat on the former would barely show, on the latter it would be much more obvious Both are super thin, both are built completely differently.

Thank you. I wasn't challenging your position by asking - pretty much everything has genetic influences, I was truly interested in reading studies one might be reading here. I'm kind of a study geek - and since I'm traveling over the weekend, I like to have some reading material on the plane. The first two have less to do with the genetics of fat distribution but more on BMD.
The third looks like an interesting read - especially as the author goes into some length to look at the phenotype of fat storage.

Aside from the influences of genetics, for all individuals some form of exercise and getting back to a normal weight (whatever that might be for the person) are likely to be greater factors than the genetic hand we get. I understand that you currently have difficulty exercising - I won't belabor the point - just wish you luck in finding a place/situation that is more livable and open to an active life. Consider that perhaps some of the OTC anti-allergy treatments might help (I do suggest the whole doc thing first, but if you can't - and are in an extreme situation where even basic exercise is awful...).

Best of luck, thanks for the links.

Thanks! I couldn't find the specific one I was looking for. It was a mouse study cited in a documentary. It was much more on point, basically if I remember right no matter what you fed the mice, no matter how you exercised or dieted them, some had a genetic tendency to store energy as fat more than the others.

And even so, I absolutely agree with you on exercise, no matter what genetic hand we're dealt. Which is one reason I'm so aggravated with my current issues.

I do take Sudafed, but it's just so-so and the other stuff does nothing. Tried them all. And one reason I don't go pester the doctor for something like an inhaler to stop the wheezing is that the possibility of being put on one of the steroid medications. It scares me. I don't like the side effects list at all!