Obesity research-impossible to lose weight long term?
Replies
-
I was never a big person until 3 years ago when I stopped working the gene of being obese doesn't run in my family so I think once I am down to 140 pounds I will be able to keep it off I don't exercise and have lost 10 pounds in a month I think ones determination to do something is alot0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.
Private companies are not accountable? How have you decided that? There's mandatory nutrition labels, strict safety guidelines, and sites like this that promote nutrition education thereby making an educated consumer that can choose how to gote with their money.
If private companies are accountable at all, it's because the government makes those labels mandatory, and established those safety guidelines.
Okay? That's not the government telling what they can or can't make.
Um, that's the government imposing constraints on production, as far as the safety standards are concerned, absolutely.
Obviously, that's why I mentioned those constraints. I'm not against all government involvement. That's not what the researcher was proposing as those already exist. What he's suggesting and what you don't seem to be bothered by, is removing foods that will be labeled as "bad" by central planners.0 -
Sure.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. No, it isn't."An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Want to explain why not?
A massive sinkhole of tax money with crony capitalists and rent-seekers all vying to have the laws written to favor their particular segment of the industry while accruing more power to a centralized government at the expense of choice for all, for the purported benefit of those who can't be bothered to make their own nutritional decisions but that won't be successful because people will find a way to eat what they want anyway is a poor course of action.
You're basically talking about Prohibition for food. It didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it sure as hell won't work for food. It will help no one but lobbyists, government officials, and companies that warp the process to their benefit.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false0 -
"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Considering that the govt (in my country anyway) tends to ignore, misrepresent or outright loathe science I'm thinking I don't want them in charge of my diet thanks.0 -
crazycatwoman79 wrote: »I was never a big person until 3 years ago when I stopped working the gene of being obese doesn't run in my family so I think once I am down to 140 pounds I will be able to keep it off I don't exercise and have lost 10 pounds in a month I think ones determination to do something is alot
Hi,
This is your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist popping in to say that there is no fat gene.
Have a nice day
0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
0 -
You CAN lose weight and keep it off, but you have to do it by changing your life and your attitude towards food and exercise. A diet isn't going to work, but totally changing how you look at food and what you put in your body, now that will work.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
Agree0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Considering that the govt (in my country anyway) tends to ignore, misrepresent or outright loathe science I'm thinking I don't want them in charge of my diet thanks.
good point0 -
I don't know what I think of that phrasing, "impossible." That seems to imply that it cant be done rather than just that most people don't do it, for whatever reason.0
-
Not to mention that the anti-vaxxers would get to vote. I'd rather decide what I eat that have them involved.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Considering that the govt (in my country anyway) tends to ignore, misrepresent or outright loathe science I'm thinking I don't want them in charge of my diet thanks.
0 -
This article is misleading. It does not give the cause of weight regain. Now, if scientists discovered that a previously obese person somehow managed to put weight back on eating at a calorie deficit thus defying chemistry, that would be news. No, folks, the reality is that the vast majority of people regain weight because bad habits die hard. It still comes down to calories in, calories out. Want to stay healthy? Log for the rest of your life.
It's worth it.0 -
Well, afaik, they have discovered that a previously obese person eating the same number of calories that an otherwise comparable person -- height, weight, age, etc. -- eats for maintenance will put weight back on. It's still CICO, but the CO has been altered.This article is misleading. It does not give the cause of weight regain. Now, if scientists discovered that a previously obese person somehow managed to put weight back on eating at a calorie deficit thus defying chemistry, that would be news. No, folks, the reality is that the vast majority of people regain weight because bad habits die hard. It still comes down to calories in, calories out. Want to stay healthy? Log for the rest of your life.
It's worth it.
Logging, per se, won't fix that. The person will need to know that CI must go down or CO must go up relative to a person who was never obese and the period for which this must be done could extend for years.
0 -
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
Sadly there are many here on MFP that ignore the data...if not we wouldn't have so many "sad" threads started.
There is also a fair share of those that are back for the 2nd...3rd...and more times.
Regardless sometimes...what we know doesn't always match what we do...life happens.
Also...the members of MFP is just a small percentage of people that are trying to lose weight. Many people NEVER research anything...they just try the next thing that comes along. People are desperate...they will try anything that "sounds" good. When it doesn't work out so "good"...they give up...
I will say that in the past couple of years I have learned more about nutrition and my body than I ever thought that I would.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
Sadly there are many here on MFP that ignore the data...if not we wouldn't have so many "sad" threads started.
There is also a fair share of those that are back for the 2nd...3rd...and more times.
Regardless sometimes...what we know doesn't always match what we do...life happens.
Also...the members of MFP is just a small percentage of people that are trying to lose weight. Many people NEVER research anything...they just try the next thing that comes along. People are desperate...they will try anything that "sounds" good. When it doesn't work out so "good"...they give up...
I will say that in the past couple of years I have learned more about nutrition and my body than I ever thought that I would.
Oh to be SURE... you can easily spot the looking for the quick fix people on here quite easily. And it's sad.
It's also fairly easy to spot those who have a good chance of making a real go of it, something drastic in their life smacking them sideways and derailing them out of nowhere notwithstanding.
I would guess the same could probably be said for your average Weight Watchers meeting, if you got to know the people well enough.
The bottom line, though? Thankfully, it's easier now than it was the first time I ever tried to lose weight to access all sorts of information. There was no internet back then! There wasn't as much shared information, there wasn't as much research that had been done.
The knowledge is out there if someone is willing to avail themselves of it and apply it in a way that it never has been before. That's a good thing. Hopefully, as time goes on, that will lead to better long-term successful outcomes.
0 -
First I would like to say that this friend of yours is no friend. This comes off as a gesture from someone who is working to sabotage your efforts by telling you it can't be done.
Next, I have to say that the study is correct... to an extent. If a person goes into weight loss with the wrong attitude and the overall belief that, "Once I lose this weight, I'm done with this diet." They seem to ignore the fact that DIET is everything you eat, not just a restricted food intake or an increased food intake to modify and/or change your weight. The people who are successful go into that weight loss program with the full awareness that this is a lifestyle change, not a temporary, starvation program. People who lose weight and then gain it back (usually with more weight besides) do that because they do not alter their basic attitudes. They don't change their lifestyle and, in most cases, return to the same lifestyle after the weight loss that got them into the obesity problem in the first place.
And, THAT is something this half-asterisked study does not seem to take into consideration.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
Sadly there are many here on MFP that ignore the data...if not we wouldn't have so many "sad" threads started.
There is also a fair share of those that are back for the 2nd...3rd...and more times.
Regardless sometimes...what we know doesn't always match what we do...life happens.
Also...the members of MFP is just a small percentage of people that are trying to lose weight. Many people NEVER research anything...they just try the next thing that comes along. People are desperate...they will try anything that "sounds" good. When it doesn't work out so "good"...they give up...
I will say that in the past couple of years I have learned more about nutrition and my body than I ever thought that I would.
Hey! This is my second time back! :P
Of course my first time on MFP was waaaaaaaay back when and logging sucked! My BIL told me to give it another try and it's so much easier now!
So :P to you my friend!
(Yes I realize this was very lazy of me, but eh, it works!)0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Hey: we've already discussed this: we are both the very special snowflakes who will make it!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
Therein lies the problem with the article. It's all BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY but doesn't show that the reasons are biological. I'm not saying there aren't factors, buy laypeople tend to hear the words "biology" or "genetic" and equate that with certainty or fate. Very very false
TRUDAT. There are a couple of posters around these parts who spread the doom and gloom about the hormonal stuff.
I think we all have an advantage here on MFP in that we're better informed about this stuff than the average person, though.
Sadly there are many here on MFP that ignore the data...if not we wouldn't have so many "sad" threads started.
There is also a fair share of those that are back for the 2nd...3rd...and more times.
Regardless sometimes...what we know doesn't always match what we do...life happens.
Also...the members of MFP is just a small percentage of people that are trying to lose weight. Many people NEVER research anything...they just try the next thing that comes along. People are desperate...they will try anything that "sounds" good. When it doesn't work out so "good"...they give up...
I will say that in the past couple of years I have learned more about nutrition and my body than I ever thought that I would.
Oh to be SURE... you can easily spot the looking for the quick fix people on here quite easily. And it's sad.
It's also fairly easy to spot those who have a good chance of making a real go of it, something drastic in their life smacking them sideways and derailing them out of nowhere notwithstanding.
I would guess the same could probably be said for your average Weight Watchers meeting, if you got to know the people well enough.
The bottom line, though? Thankfully, it's easier now than it was the first time I ever tried to lose weight to access all sorts of information. There was no internet back then! There wasn't as much shared information, there wasn't as much research that had been done.
The knowledge is out there if someone is willing to avail themselves of it and apply it in a way that it never has been before. That's a good thing. Hopefully, as time goes on, that will lead to better long-term successful outcomes.
Life events can definitely throw you. They can help, too though: I've seen research too that suggested that on the motivational side, dramatic events can also prompt a commitment to weight loss. (Big things like divorce and health scares, maybe not so much "Going to Mexico in three weeks and need to fit into a size 0 bikini noooooooowwwww")0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »The bottom line, though? Thankfully, it's easier now than it was the first time I ever tried to lose weight to access all sorts of information. There was no internet back then! There wasn't as much shared information, there wasn't as much research that had been done.
The knowledge is out there if someone is willing to avail themselves of it and apply it in a way that it never has been before. That's a good thing. Hopefully, as time goes on, that will lead to better long-term successful outcomes.
But it seems like the short attention span culture that we have, even with older ones now, and the apparent inability to look something up, and then think critically about what they read, seems to be wasting all that great info.
How many times does someone start a new topic with a question without hitting the search button to discover the oodles of answers already given that day on it?
Is it laziness, or they think they are so unique (perhaps parental "you are so special" syndrome) that no prior question could possibly be the same as theirs and therefore need unique answers.
And many just want an answer given to them as to what to do exactly, not the why. Therefore when things change (uh, things change?), they don't actually understand what or why they need to change something too.
Now they think something doesn't work, when in reality they failed to understand and change as required.
I see it getting worse actually, compared to 20+ years ago and forum/usenet groups where people came with their own research, wanting to make application of info learned or confirm what they had.0 -
This is why I will have to log obsessively for the rest of my life so I hope this website and the app never disappear. I don't trust myself.0
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazycatwoman79 wrote: »I was never a big person until 3 years ago when I stopped working the gene of being obese doesn't run in my family so I think once I am down to 140 pounds I will be able to keep it off I don't exercise and have lost 10 pounds in a month I think ones determination to do something is alot
Hi,
This is your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist popping in to say that there is no fat gene.
Have a nice day
There might be. IRX3 interaction with FTO.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature13138.html0 -
herrspoons wrote: »You know, if I was a cynic, I'd say that the multi billion dollar food, diet, and exercise industries may have a vested interest in churning out studies that show people put weight back on and then have to take it off again.
It's almost as if they want them locked in a cycle that benefits all of them.
Yes, that's how WW and other slimming clubs make their money - people come back a second or third time... I guess weight can sneak up to you over the years and keeping it off is like a full time job0 -
I think when you have a study that includes historical data, it will paint a less than positive picture. VLCD diets were the gold standard for many decades. I suffered through many of them as a youth when my mother put the whole house on a diet with her. Unlimited iceberg lettuce and yellow mustard, and 6 vitamin supplements a day, chocolate flavoured laxatives, chocolate flavoured appetite suppressant, plain rice cakes, unsweetened yogurt and 3 slices of tinned peaches, and list goes on. Of course diets fail.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazycatwoman79 wrote: »I was never a big person until 3 years ago when I stopped working the gene of being obese doesn't run in my family so I think once I am down to 140 pounds I will be able to keep it off I don't exercise and have lost 10 pounds in a month I think ones determination to do something is alot
Hi,
This is your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist popping in to say that there is no fat gene.
Have a nice day
There might be. IRX3 interaction with FTO.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature13138.html
(I can only read abstract btw)
Ehhhhh.....
Ok, so IRX3 is a hox gene, it is essential for embryonic neural development. When a mouse is deficient in the protein this gene codes for they end up weighing less.
This a neural development Hox gene. It's inlikely this is gonna make you fat. I can see it controlling appitite or satiety, but not anything like intestinal absorption etc.
So I accept your research, and it's interesting stuff (but I'd still not call it a fat gene.
Also, apparently IRX-2 makes boobs. Seriously0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Someone already mentioned the national weight control registry. They study long term weight maintenance (the average weight maintenance for their members is 5 years). I like to read the articles that they have on how maintainers have maintained.
Here's a summary of their findings:
"There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day."
Aside from continuing to monitor your diet, I really think that the weighing once a week and exercise has a lot to do with it. You catch it before your weight balloons again and, for me, I naturally eat less when I exercise regularly (don't know why, I just do).
I just got the initial packet from NWCR this past weekend and I'm filling it out now-the only thing on that list that I do is weigh myself regularly (I've been a daily weigher for three years now). Can't wait to add my info to the database
0 -
" If "my biology" allows me to lose 100 pounds, it will sure as heck allow me to keep it off if I do the work."
Oh Boy!!! Do I love that comment! That is so true. It's up to each one of us if we are going succeed or fail.
I am the master of my own ship.
0 -
I've already learned that the day I stop dieting (weighing and counting and logging) is the day I start gaining.
I hope knowing that is going to help me beat the odds. I do think the studies about hormone/leptin dysfunction in people that have ever been overweight are interesting and a bit discouraging because it's kind of depressing to think there will probably never be a time when I'm not hungry/thinking about food for the majority of my waking hours.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions