Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
NYT article about obesity stating it's genetic, not lack of willpower
Options
Replies
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »@jenniferinfl You don't know what they eat or don't eat when they get home, nor do you know their activity level. I bet people see me in a McDonald's and curse me just the same. Never mind the 12-15K steps I take in a day or the lifting 3/week.
I do know, she's my fitbit friend. It wouldn't matter if she ate nothing when she got home. I've logged her at over 3000-5000 calories at work, just the things I've seen her eat.. and I KNOW she hasn't taken more than 3500 steps per day in the last 5 months. She has been 120 lbs the whole time.
Almost anyone would become obese on those calories. You are quite obviously way overestimating her intake because no one is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics. Is she seeking medical attention or being studied by science for being a unicorn?
There are a rare number of people who are true hard gainers. Typically they have trouble gaining because they don't have sufficient appetite, but they also do have their metabolism go up disproportionally when they eat more. Is this enough to mean they could regularly do no exercise, eat 3000, and not gain at, say 5'2 and 110? No, not really, but there are some people who have much more trouble than others.
Anyone significantly out of the norm on this is, of course, very unusual, and worrying about it because one thinks one's friend is one such person makes no sense to me. Obviously most people are not. So like you, I think it's impossible, but even if not, I don't get why it's supposed to matter.
I don't really see anyone around me who seems to be way out of the norm with eating and weight (but like the poster I wouldn't know). Pretty much everyone around my age, or even in their 30s, seems to have to pay attention and watch what they eat somewhat to stay a healthy weight, and most everyone I know does. Some people seem not to be interested in food, some exercise more than others, but I really don't see around me all these people who supposedly never gain weight despite eating huge amounts of calories and not moving.2 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »@jenniferinfl You don't know what they eat or don't eat when they get home, nor do you know their activity level. I bet people see me in a McDonald's and curse me just the same. Never mind the 12-15K steps I take in a day or the lifting 3/week.
I do know, she's my fitbit friend. It wouldn't matter if she ate nothing when she got home. I've logged her at over 3000-5000 calories at work, just the things I've seen her eat.. and I KNOW she hasn't taken more than 3500 steps per day in the last 5 months. She has been 120 lbs the whole time.
Why are you spending so much time and energy thinking about your friend's activity level and estimating what you believe that she consumes calorie wise?
Why not just focus on how you are going to achieve your own goals?
I do mostly try to focus on my own journey, but, I'm lucky to have the cognitive ability to be capable of focusing on many things at once. You know, I don't just log my food and walk and chat on message boards. I also go to a full-time job, home-school my daughter, entertain family and so on. But, since my coworker draws attention to it constantly by pressuring me to eat with her and since it lines up well with the topic of this thread, I couldn't help but mention it.
I'm really tired of science being shushed. I'm just tired of it. I wasn't a 240 lb 12 year old because I was eating a lot more or moving less than my siblings. I just WAS. It was what I was fated to be. I know I can fight it, I've lost 100 lbs before and kept it off for 10 years. But, then I was depressed for a couple months, (Not clinically obviously, but, just depressed about job loss) and gained nearly 100 lbs back in around 3 months. It should have been impossible. I would have had to have eaten over 10,000 calories per day and I absolutely didn't. I just ate single servings of regular meals with my normally sized family. That shouldn't be enough to gain 100 lbs in 3 months. It shouldn't. I knew my weight the day before I got laid off. 3 months later I got on the scale again to a complete nightmare. Meanwhile, in Ethan Sim's Vermont prison study, he had men who couldn't gain on 10,000 calories a day and I could gain 100 lbs in 3 months on what HAD to be less than 3000 calories per day even assuming my mom used whole sticks of butter in her food.
It should be impossible to gain 100 lbs in 3 months. But, it wasn't impossible for me. I've done it. I've spent years since gradually trying to take it back off.
I think that's why watching my coworker really bothers me. I gained 100 lbs in 3 months eating no fast food at all, eating less than I see her eat every single day.
Have you had your thyroid checked? (Apologies if this has been asked/answered previously)0 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »
@CSARdiver
Since you cannot find the science in my post, here it is: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
And another study: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n3/abs/nrg1556.html
And another study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
And yet another study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400613?rss=searchAndBrowse&#t=article
Obesity is genetic. Science knows that beyond refute. Scientist's KNOW that obesity and thinness are genetic. It's the entire fat-shaming population that wants to plug their ears to it the same as they plug their ears and hum over global warming.
I don't mean that people cannot lose weight, they can, just for a lot of the population it is going to be very, very hard to lose weight and keep it off. It can be done, but, it is not the same as being a person who is genetically thin.
None of these articles support your contention of genetics equating to fate. There was a recent flat earth experiment conducted that went about as well as this exercise.
Despite the volume of evidence contradicting your contention you are desperately clinging to one study conducted by Ethan Sims? That’s a sound plan to keep yourself a victim.
I do understand the effort to shift the blame from behavior to fate, but the evidence is quite simply…lacking. One of my favorite points in this site are the success stories where people shift from the victim mentality to one of ownership and accountability. Once people do this the impossible becomes possible.
I think you need to sort out precisely what you mean, because at this point this is coming across as excuses. You state that people are genetically fated to a set point weight, but can engage in behavior to change this. So which is it?
13 -
http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
Rat study, as noted, but interesting because of the following:
"In the midst of this obesity epidemic, one-third of people remain lean. A key trait that predicts resistance to weight gain is activity-related energy expenditure or non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). It is therefore crucial to identify the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying this increased NEAT..."
In other words, the study is not about the idea that some people are just fat, or born to be fat -- something that makes 0 sense given the huge increase in obesity in recent years. It is about the fact that some people seem to be immune to it. Related to this, one thing we talk about here off and on is the idea that people should be able to just intuitively eat (even mindlessly not overeat). My view is that it makes total sense that most of us would not be able to -- genetically it seems to convey an advantage to be able to eat when food is available and not just up to your TDEE for the day or week. However, it also makes sense that some people might be different and have more of an internal barometer of how many calories they need. It's a difference that can be observed among domestic animals, for example.
So some people may be naturally thin (although the average thin person likely is not, but puts some thought into it). It doesn't follow that obese people were destined to be obese. The better evidence is that the same genes 50 years ago would not have resulted in obesity, which suggests there's a huge environmental and habit element.7 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »
@CSARdiver
Since you cannot find the science in my post, here it is: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
And another study: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n3/abs/nrg1556.html
And another study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
And yet another study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400613?rss=searchAndBrowse&#t=article
Obesity is genetic. Science knows that beyond refute. Scientist's KNOW that obesity and thinness are genetic. It's the entire fat-shaming population that wants to plug their ears to it the same as they plug their ears and hum over global warming.
I don't mean that people cannot lose weight, they can, just for a lot of the population it is going to be very, very hard to lose weight and keep it off. It can be done, but, it is not the same as being a person who is genetically thin.
None of these articles support your contention of genetics equating to fate. There was a recent flat earth experiment conducted that went about as well as this exercise.
Despite the volume of evidence contradicting your contention you are desperately clinging to one study conducted by Ethan Sims? That’s a sound plan to keep yourself a victim.
I do understand the effort to shift the blame from behavior to fate, but the evidence is quite simply…lacking. One of my favorite points in this site are the success stories where people shift from the victim mentality to one of ownership and accountability. Once people do this the impossible becomes possible.
I think you need to sort out precisely what you mean, because at this point this is coming across as excuses. You state that people are genetically fated to a set point weight, but can engage in behavior to change this. So which is it?
I see this community is exactly the same as ever.
I'm not saying that fat people can't lose weight, I've done it and kept it off for years. I see you've conveniently missed the part where I lost 100 lbs and kept if off for nearly a decade? That's right, wouldn't fit the way you perceive me. But, when I got down to those last 10 lbs, I was eating 800 calories, hadn't had my period in 6 months and walked 12 miles a day and could BARELY maintain it. Because, oh yeah, science indicates that genetically obese people who lose more than 10% of their body weight burn around 25% less than naturally thin people of the same size/age. Which, you would have read had you legitimately read the articles I posted. That's a pretty huge difference. That's being able to eat 1200 calories to maintain 120 lbs with a sedentary lifestyle versus having to eat 900 calories to maintain a sedentary 120 lbs. (I'm just using sedentary because it's the easiest to calculate, not actually suggesting that it's a good idea). I'm sorry, that may not seem like a big deal to you, but, if you'd ever done it you'd see why that's a huge deal. 300 more calories is a pretty big deal.
To the other poster, yes, I'm borderline hypothyroid, my doctor says it's not worth treating; I beg to differ a bit. I use a fitbit Blaze to track calories burned. I measure and weigh everything I eat. I track with trendweight. Supposedly the Blaze has a caloric overburn by about 2-3%. I'm a pretty active person and usually walk/jog enough to burn around 3200 calories per day. When I eat 2200 calories, which should be a 1000 calorie deficit (every single thing logged, even a single mini M&M) according to Trendweight my actual loss indicates that I am at a 638 calorie deficit per day. The most the Blaze should be off for me is by about 96 calories, but, I burn 362 calories less than I should or 266 calories allowing for the Blaze to be off. I'm sure that a big part of that is the fact that I just burn 10% less than the average. That would make sense with the borderline thyroid numbers. This is with my metabolism at pretty much the best it's been in awhile. I know that will keep dropping as I lose weight even after factoring in that light people burn less. Right now I'm losing 1.5 lbs a week, which is fine with me.
I'm still a bit annoyed though about how the lies we tell fat people just have ruined huge parts of my life. I destroyed my metabolism eating a 1200 calorie diet because I believed the people who told me I was sedentary. My fitbit has been a lifesaver. I can finally KNOW that I'm not lazy. I KNOW it. No one can hurt me with that ever again. I had 10,000 steps in before 3 pm and I didn't go for a walk. That was just wandering around the house taking care of my kid and pets and light housework and the pacing/fidgeting I've always done. I made myself so sick last time I tried to lose weight, I did the math here and everyone told me that I was probably sedentary or assume sedentary so I was eating 1200 calories or eating 1500 if I'd gone for a walk. I woke up one morning vomiting and had to use Pepto Bismal to be able to go to work. I was nauseous every single day for months and I know it was my diet here that caused it. The only thing my doctor could find wrong with me was borderline low albumin (a marker for anorexia) and low Vitamin D. I only quit having to bring a coffee can with me in my car to barf in around 5 months ago.
So, yes, I'm pretty touchy about all this. I'm just glad I finally tried a Fitbit. I thought they were the dumbest gimmick. I was over the moon when I looked at it at the end of my first day and saw my numbers.
Most of the fat people I know are fully aware of what they are eating. I know my skinny coworker is a fluke, most of my coworkers are at least somewhat mindful of what they eat. I've only met one other person like her and that was an exboyfriend from years ago. Back when the cops around here still had minimum weight limits to join, he tried so hard to get up to weight and just couldn't do it. He had to gain 20 lbs to qualify and just couldn't do it. But, those are the only two I've known. Most people I know are more the go up and down 10 lbs regularly people.
I also know that in some ways, I'm really lucky. No matter what, my crazy body stops at 240 every time. 100 lbs is a lot to lose. But, dear lord, those poor people who have a body that stops at 340 or 440? I just can't even imagine. As annoyed as I get about it, it could always be much worse.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
Rat study, as noted, but interesting because of the following:
"In the midst of this obesity epidemic, one-third of people remain lean. A key trait that predicts resistance to weight gain is activity-related energy expenditure or non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). It is therefore crucial to identify the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying this increased NEAT..."
In other words, the study is not about the idea that some people are just fat, or born to be fat -- something that makes 0 sense given the huge increase in obesity in recent years. It is about the fact that some people seem to be immune to it. Related to this, one thing we talk about here off and on is the idea that people should be able to just intuitively eat (even mindlessly not overeat). My view is that it makes total sense that most of us would not be able to -- genetically it seems to convey an advantage to be able to eat when food is available and not just up to your TDEE for the day or week. However, it also makes sense that some people might be different and have more of an internal barometer of how many calories they need. It's a difference that can be observed among domestic animals, for example.
So some people may be naturally thin (although the average thin person likely is not, but puts some thought into it). It doesn't follow that obese people were destined to be obese. The better evidence is that the same genes 50 years ago would not have resulted in obesity, which suggests there's a huge environmental and habit element.
Well, obviously.. Even 50 years ago there were less government benefits programs and more poor people starved. My parents went to bed hungry, they were born in the 50's. My Dad's family frequently ate only one meal per day. Children who couldn't thrive on reduced calories died. My dad lost a few cousins in childhood (not to actual starvation, but, they were malnourished and couldn't fight off disease). I'm sure they would have been these genetically thin people. We've been selected for famine survival. I'm sure if you would have gone back to the 30's with modern food in today's quantities, everyone would be obese, because the kids who could eat more calories without gaining weight already died.
The only way you would see more balance is if you could find a population that hadn't experienced starvation in 1000 years. Then you would probably see more selection to naturally thin. But, that population doesn't exist. We are selecting for them now. The genes for obesity have already been identified. We're probably only a few short years away from being able to select offspring without obesity. Even something extreme like gastric bypass doesn't really cure obesity since you still pass it on to your own children.
This holds promise: (I would find the real scientific article, but, it doesn't seem like anyone's reading them anyways): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2288991/Switching-obesity-gene-prevent-weight-gain-EVEN-eating-high-fat-diet.html
Ugh, I couldn't stop myself, here's the science should anyone be fascinated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3622329/
Basically, the cure to the obesity epidemic is starvation. Mass starvation. That's what prevented the obesity epidemic up until now, periodic starvation. Though, let's face it, that would just kill off all the genetically thin people and then we would be obese again as soon as food was available again. So, not really a solution.
Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors? Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use. We just haven't had any good old fashioned starvation recently enough here in the US to prove the genetic superiority of fat people.
If some mass food shortage ever happens, it would be obvious that 70% of the population was equipped for it with bodies which are more efficient with less calories.3 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »
@CSARdiver
Since you cannot find the science in my post, here it is: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
And another study: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n3/abs/nrg1556.html
And another study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
And yet another study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400613?rss=searchAndBrowse&#t=article
Obesity is genetic. Science knows that beyond refute. Scientist's KNOW that obesity and thinness are genetic. It's the entire fat-shaming population that wants to plug their ears to it the same as they plug their ears and hum over global warming.
I don't mean that people cannot lose weight, they can, just for a lot of the population it is going to be very, very hard to lose weight and keep it off. It can be done, but, it is not the same as being a person who is genetically thin.
None of these articles support your contention of genetics equating to fate. There was a recent flat earth experiment conducted that went about as well as this exercise.
Despite the volume of evidence contradicting your contention you are desperately clinging to one study conducted by Ethan Sims? That’s a sound plan to keep yourself a victim.
I do understand the effort to shift the blame from behavior to fate, but the evidence is quite simply…lacking. One of my favorite points in this site are the success stories where people shift from the victim mentality to one of ownership and accountability. Once people do this the impossible becomes possible.
I think you need to sort out precisely what you mean, because at this point this is coming across as excuses. You state that people are genetically fated to a set point weight, but can engage in behavior to change this. So which is it?
I see this community is exactly the same as ever.
I'm not saying that fat people can't lose weight, I've done it and kept it off for years. I see you've conveniently missed the part where I lost 100 lbs and kept if off for nearly a decade? That's right, wouldn't fit the way you perceive me. But, when I got down to those last 10 lbs, I was eating 800 calories, hadn't had my period in 6 months and walked 12 miles a day and could BARELY maintain it. Because, oh yeah, science indicates that genetically obese people who lose more than 10% of their body weight burn around 25% less than naturally thin people of the same size/age. Which, you would have read had you legitimately read the articles I posted. That's a pretty huge difference. That's being able to eat 1200 calories to maintain 120 lbs with a sedentary lifestyle versus having to eat 900 calories to maintain a sedentary 120 lbs. (I'm just using sedentary because it's the easiest to calculate, not actually suggesting that it's a good idea). I'm sorry, that may not seem like a big deal to you, but, if you'd ever done it you'd see why that's a huge deal. 300 more calories is a pretty big deal.
To the other poster, yes, I'm borderline hypothyroid, my doctor says it's not worth treating; I beg to differ a bit. I use a fitbit Blaze to track calories burned. I measure and weigh everything I eat. I track with trendweight. Supposedly the Blaze has a caloric overburn by about 2-3%. I'm a pretty active person and usually walk/jog enough to burn around 3200 calories per day. When I eat 2200 calories, which should be a 1000 calorie deficit (every single thing logged, even a single mini M&M) according to Trendweight my actual loss indicates that I am at a 638 calorie deficit per day. The most the Blaze should be off for me is by about 96 calories, but, I burn 362 calories less than I should or 266 calories allowing for the Blaze to be off. I'm sure that a big part of that is the fact that I just burn 10% less than the average. That would make sense with the borderline thyroid numbers. This is with my metabolism at pretty much the best it's been in awhile. I know that will keep dropping as I lose weight even after factoring in that light people burn less. Right now I'm losing 1.5 lbs a week, which is fine with me.
I'm still a bit annoyed though about how the lies we tell fat people just have ruined huge parts of my life. I destroyed my metabolism eating a 1200 calorie diet because I believed the people who told me I was sedentary. My fitbit has been a lifesaver. I can finally KNOW that I'm not lazy. I KNOW it. No one can hurt me with that ever again. I had 10,000 steps in before 3 pm and I didn't go for a walk. That was just wandering around the house taking care of my kid and pets and light housework and the pacing/fidgeting I've always done. I made myself so sick last time I tried to lose weight, I did the math here and everyone told me that I was probably sedentary or assume sedentary so I was eating 1200 calories or eating 1500 if I'd gone for a walk. I woke up one morning vomiting and had to use Pepto Bismal to be able to go to work. I was nauseous every single day for months and I know it was my diet here that caused it. The only thing my doctor could find wrong with me was borderline low albumin (a marker for anorexia) and low Vitamin D. I only quit having to bring a coffee can with me in my car to barf in around 5 months ago.
So, yes, I'm pretty touchy about all this. I'm just glad I finally tried a Fitbit. I thought they were the dumbest gimmick. I was over the moon when I looked at it at the end of my first day and saw my numbers.
Most of the fat people I know are fully aware of what they are eating. I know my skinny coworker is a fluke, most of my coworkers are at least somewhat mindful of what they eat. I've only met one other person like her and that was an exboyfriend from years ago. Back when the cops around here still had minimum weight limits to join, he tried so hard to get up to weight and just couldn't do it. He had to gain 20 lbs to qualify and just couldn't do it. But, those are the only two I've known. Most people I know are more the go up and down 10 lbs regularly people.
I also know that in some ways, I'm really lucky. No matter what, my crazy body stops at 240 every time. 100 lbs is a lot to lose. But, dear lord, those poor people who have a body that stops at 340 or 440? I just can't even imagine. As annoyed as I get about it, it could always be much worse.
Thankfully my weight always stopped increasing at 250 pounds regardless of my calorie intake. For two years I have maintained at about 200 eating all I want to eat as long my daily carb intake stays just under 50 grams daily since Keto fixed my cravings nearly three years ago.
We are all different but that is not universal knowledge perhaps.0 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
Rat study, as noted, but interesting because of the following:
"In the midst of this obesity epidemic, one-third of people remain lean. A key trait that predicts resistance to weight gain is activity-related energy expenditure or non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). It is therefore crucial to identify the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying this increased NEAT..."
In other words, the study is not about the idea that some people are just fat, or born to be fat -- something that makes 0 sense given the huge increase in obesity in recent years. It is about the fact that some people seem to be immune to it. Related to this, one thing we talk about here off and on is the idea that people should be able to just intuitively eat (even mindlessly not overeat). My view is that it makes total sense that most of us would not be able to -- genetically it seems to convey an advantage to be able to eat when food is available and not just up to your TDEE for the day or week. However, it also makes sense that some people might be different and have more of an internal barometer of how many calories they need. It's a difference that can be observed among domestic animals, for example.
So some people may be naturally thin (although the average thin person likely is not, but puts some thought into it). It doesn't follow that obese people were destined to be obese. The better evidence is that the same genes 50 years ago would not have resulted in obesity, which suggests there's a huge environmental and habit element.
Well, obviously.. Even 50 years ago there were less government benefits programs and more poor people starved. My parents went to bed hungry, they were born in the 50's. My Dad's family frequently ate only one meal per day. Children who couldn't thrive on reduced calories died. My dad lost a few cousins in childhood (not to actual starvation, but, they were malnourished and couldn't fight off disease). I'm sure they would have been these genetically thin people. We've been selected for famine survival. I'm sure if you would have gone back to the 30's with modern food in today's quantities, everyone would be obese, because the kids who could eat more calories without gaining weight already died.
The only way you would see more balance is if you could find a population that hadn't experienced starvation in 1000 years. Then you would probably see more selection to naturally thin. But, that population doesn't exist. We are selecting for them now. The genes for obesity have already been identified. We're probably only a few short years away from being able to select offspring without obesity. Even something extreme like gastric bypass doesn't really cure obesity since you still pass it on to your own children.
This holds promise: (I would find the real scientific article, but, it doesn't seem like anyone's reading them anyways): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2288991/Switching-obesity-gene-prevent-weight-gain-EVEN-eating-high-fat-diet.html
Ugh, I couldn't stop myself, here's the science should anyone be fascinated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3622329/
Basically, the cure to the obesity epidemic is starvation. Mass starvation. That's what prevented the obesity epidemic up until now, periodic starvation. Though, let's face it, that would just kill off all the genetically thin people and then we would be obese again as soon as food was available again. So, not really a solution.
Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors? Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use. We just haven't had any good old fashioned starvation recently enough here in the US to prove the genetic superiority of fat people.
If some mass food shortage ever happens, it would be obvious that 70% of the population was equipped for it with bodies which are more efficient with less calories.
Nonsense.
11 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »...Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors? Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use. We just haven't had any good old fashioned starvation recently enough here in the US to prove the genetic superiority of fat people.
No, we've replaced it with science showing all the comorbidities that go along with being obese, and the accordingly shortened lifespans and diminished quality of life from said comorbidities.
LOL at fat people being genetically superior. If "good old fashioned starvation" happened again, it would be survival of the fittest - not the fattest.9 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
Rat study, as noted, but interesting because of the following:
"In the midst of this obesity epidemic, one-third of people remain lean. A key trait that predicts resistance to weight gain is activity-related energy expenditure or non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). It is therefore crucial to identify the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying this increased NEAT..."
In other words, the study is not about the idea that some people are just fat, or born to be fat -- something that makes 0 sense given the huge increase in obesity in recent years. It is about the fact that some people seem to be immune to it. Related to this, one thing we talk about here off and on is the idea that people should be able to just intuitively eat (even mindlessly not overeat). My view is that it makes total sense that most of us would not be able to -- genetically it seems to convey an advantage to be able to eat when food is available and not just up to your TDEE for the day or week. However, it also makes sense that some people might be different and have more of an internal barometer of how many calories they need. It's a difference that can be observed among domestic animals, for example.
So some people may be naturally thin (although the average thin person likely is not, but puts some thought into it). It doesn't follow that obese people were destined to be obese. The better evidence is that the same genes 50 years ago would not have resulted in obesity, which suggests there's a huge environmental and habit element.
Well, obviously.. Even 50 years ago there were less government benefits programs and more poor people starved.
Hmm. Then why were people thinner across classes? Also, please show some evidence to support the idea that the only reason our obesity rate was lower 50 years ago (1967!) was that people were starving or struggling to find adequate calories in large percentages. (Remember the overweight rate now is about two-thirds and obesity about a third, higher in some states.)
[quote[Children who couldn't thrive on reduced calories died. [/quote]
The child mortality rate in the US in 1967 was not high enough for this to make a difference in the obesity rate then vs. now, even if this were true.I'm sure if you would have gone back to the 30's with modern food in today's quantities, everyone would be obese, because the kids who could eat more calories without gaining weight already died.
Got some numbers to support this? It's pretty absurd on its face.The genes for obesity have already been identified.
Not really, not in any causative sense. You talk about this like having some such gene makes you automatically unable to not be obese, and again this makes no sense if you just look back a few years. When I was a kid in the '80s there were vanishingly few obese kids. That's not true now.Ugh, I couldn't stop myself, here's the science should anyone be fascinated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3622329/
This has nothing to do with someone being genetically programmed to be fat.Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors?
I'm not shaming fat people (and I've been fat, although I think calling that evolutionarily superior is absurd. Calling anything "superior" in evolutionary term is inconsistent with how evolution happens, really, it's about fitness for a particular environment.)Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use.
Not really. It's just as likely that there was no evolutionary advantage to having an off-switch when it comes to consuming calories, not that there was some advantage to not having one.9 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »
@CSARdiver
Since you cannot find the science in my post, here it is: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/32/3732324.html
And another study: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v6/n3/abs/nrg1556.html
And another study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
And yet another study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400613?rss=searchAndBrowse&#t=article
Obesity is genetic. Science knows that beyond refute. Scientist's KNOW that obesity and thinness are genetic. It's the entire fat-shaming population that wants to plug their ears to it the same as they plug their ears and hum over global warming.
I don't mean that people cannot lose weight, they can, just for a lot of the population it is going to be very, very hard to lose weight and keep it off. It can be done, but, it is not the same as being a person who is genetically thin.
None of these articles support your contention of genetics equating to fate. There was a recent flat earth experiment conducted that went about as well as this exercise.
Despite the volume of evidence contradicting your contention you are desperately clinging to one study conducted by Ethan Sims? That’s a sound plan to keep yourself a victim.
I do understand the effort to shift the blame from behavior to fate, but the evidence is quite simply…lacking. One of my favorite points in this site are the success stories where people shift from the victim mentality to one of ownership and accountability. Once people do this the impossible becomes possible.
I think you need to sort out precisely what you mean, because at this point this is coming across as excuses. You state that people are genetically fated to a set point weight, but can engage in behavior to change this. So which is it?
I see this community is exactly the same as ever.
I'm not saying that fat people can't lose weight, I've done it and kept it off for years. I see you've conveniently missed the part where I lost 100 lbs and kept if off for nearly a decade? That's right, wouldn't fit the way you perceive me. But, when I got down to those last 10 lbs, I was eating 800 calories, hadn't had my period in 6 months and walked 12 miles a day and could BARELY maintain it. Because, oh yeah, science indicates that genetically obese people who lose more than 10% of their body weight burn around 25% less than naturally thin people of the same size/age. Which, you would have read had you legitimately read the articles I posted. That's a pretty huge difference. That's being able to eat 1200 calories to maintain 120 lbs with a sedentary lifestyle versus having to eat 900 calories to maintain a sedentary 120 lbs. (I'm just using sedentary because it's the easiest to calculate, not actually suggesting that it's a good idea). I'm sorry, that may not seem like a big deal to you, but, if you'd ever done it you'd see why that's a huge deal. 300 more calories is a pretty big deal.
To the other poster, yes, I'm borderline hypothyroid, my doctor says it's not worth treating; I beg to differ a bit. I use a fitbit Blaze to track calories burned. I measure and weigh everything I eat. I track with trendweight. Supposedly the Blaze has a caloric overburn by about 2-3%. I'm a pretty active person and usually walk/jog enough to burn around 3200 calories per day. When I eat 2200 calories, which should be a 1000 calorie deficit (every single thing logged, even a single mini M&M) according to Trendweight my actual loss indicates that I am at a 638 calorie deficit per day. The most the Blaze should be off for me is by about 96 calories, but, I burn 362 calories less than I should or 266 calories allowing for the Blaze to be off. I'm sure that a big part of that is the fact that I just burn 10% less than the average. That would make sense with the borderline thyroid numbers. This is with my metabolism at pretty much the best it's been in awhile. I know that will keep dropping as I lose weight even after factoring in that light people burn less. Right now I'm losing 1.5 lbs a week, which is fine with me.
I'm still a bit annoyed though about how the lies we tell fat people just have ruined huge parts of my life. I destroyed my metabolism eating a 1200 calorie diet because I believed the people who told me I was sedentary. My fitbit has been a lifesaver. I can finally KNOW that I'm not lazy. I KNOW it. No one can hurt me with that ever again. I had 10,000 steps in before 3 pm and I didn't go for a walk. That was just wandering around the house taking care of my kid and pets and light housework and the pacing/fidgeting I've always done. I made myself so sick last time I tried to lose weight, I did the math here and everyone told me that I was probably sedentary or assume sedentary so I was eating 1200 calories or eating 1500 if I'd gone for a walk. I woke up one morning vomiting and had to use Pepto Bismal to be able to go to work. I was nauseous every single day for months and I know it was my diet here that caused it. The only thing my doctor could find wrong with me was borderline low albumin (a marker for anorexia) and low Vitamin D. I only quit having to bring a coffee can with me in my car to barf in around 5 months ago.
So, yes, I'm pretty touchy about all this. I'm just glad I finally tried a Fitbit. I thought they were the dumbest gimmick. I was over the moon when I looked at it at the end of my first day and saw my numbers.
Most of the fat people I know are fully aware of what they are eating. I know my skinny coworker is a fluke, most of my coworkers are at least somewhat mindful of what they eat. I've only met one other person like her and that was an exboyfriend from years ago. Back when the cops around here still had minimum weight limits to join, he tried so hard to get up to weight and just couldn't do it. He had to gain 20 lbs to qualify and just couldn't do it. But, those are the only two I've known. Most people I know are more the go up and down 10 lbs regularly people.
I also know that in some ways, I'm really lucky. No matter what, my crazy body stops at 240 every time. 100 lbs is a lot to lose. But, dear lord, those poor people who have a body that stops at 340 or 440? I just can't even imagine. As annoyed as I get about it, it could always be much worse.
Clinical evidence does not indicate this long term. Adaptive thermogenesis studies show diminished calories required in the short term, very similar to adding fuel to a furnace. The more fuel you add the hotter the fire. The more calories you add to a metabolic pathway, the more energy required to fuel the cascade. This does not mean that you had to eat 800 calories/day to maintain. This is disordered thinking and unhealthy. BMR is only the baseline. Any additional activity should of course be incorporated into you personal plan.
I have hypothyroidism resulting from a total thyroidectomy, yet I gain and lose weight depending on my caloric intake and output. Please explain how this occurs. Having access to a metabolics lab I have monitored my BMR/REE and only observed a ~5% decrease in BMR after being unmedicated for 30 days. Clinical evidence from other thryoid disorder patients show similar results.
There is no set point to weight. This is primarily reliant on your caloric intake and output.
Did you watch the Secret Eaters episode? If you believe this strongly that you are correct, why not prove this? Submit to a study and get your BMR tested.
"Luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey
You've mentioned the behavior that led you down bad paths before. Why not identify and change this behavior?12 -
I have often thought that I'd rather enter an ebola crisis overweight than at w low bmi though.1
-
jenniferinfl wrote: »Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors? Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use.
[citation needed]2 -
Knowing a scientific fact doesn't mean that you are using it as an excuse. It just means that you know the fact.
For instance, most people accept that 50% of marriages end in divorce is a fact. (Not sure about this crowd, but, it was the least controversial statistic thing I could come up with. ) Most people know this fact. At least, I've heard it enough to assume most people know it.
Knowing that fact results in several different reactions. Some people use it as an excuse to not get married at all. Some people know it, but, have other excuses for never marrying. Some people know it, know the risks and get married anyways. Some people know it, but believe they are special and divorce will never happen to them.
Denying it doesn't make it not true. I posted the scientific studies, you either didn't read them or couldn't comprehend them. That's fine, that isn't my problem.
Now, if we accept that genetic obesity is a thing like SCIENCE says it is, that can lead us to the same type of reactions as the divorce statistic above.
Some people will use it as an excuse to never lose weight. Some people will know it but use other reasons as excuses not to lose weight. Some people will use that knowledge, they will know the risks, they will make informed decisions when they lose weight- they will know that obesity (not overweight, obesity) is a lifelong disease. (They won't assume like I did that my obesity was cured, they won't assume they can put their scale away because they've kept the weight off for 10 years. They will KNOW it is always lurking. They will know those fat cells are waiting to refill at a rate that defies belief.) And then there is probably the most harmed group, the ones who believe they are fully cured when they lose the weight. The ones who don't believe that obesity is a lifelong thing. If you have ever been obese then you absolutely need to know that you are never cured. Never. You may not have to count everyday, but, you will always need to own a scale and weigh regularly, you will go through periods where you will have to go back to logging. It takes vigilance on at least a weekly basis to keep off the visible signs that you have obesity.
I gained back my 100 lbs because I believed I was cured. Everyone told me I was, I was a success story, I'd kept it off for 10 years. I had it figured out. Just 3 months of not weighing had me back at my original weight.
I didn't share those scientific articles for people to use them as excuses. I shared them so that people would fully understand what fighting obesity means. It is a fight that is NEVER over. As soon as you think it's over, you are in dangerous territory.
This time, thanks to science, I know that even when I lose the weight I am not cured. I am never cured. Knowing that is empowering and allows me to make good judgements and you can't steal that from me.
2 -
armchairherpetologist wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »Or, we could just quit shaming fat people for being evolutionary superiors? Because, after all, that's why obesity is prevalent, because people who used less calories hunting/gathering survived longer to have children and the children who survived without starving were also selected to be thrifty with calorie use.
[citation needed]
Silly. Neel disputed his own hypothesis half a century ago.
Thrifty, drifty.
0 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »I'm going to try this one more time. None of you will get it, but maybe it will help someone else.
Knowing a scientific fact doesn't mean that you are using it as an excuse. It just means that you know the fact.
For instance, most people accept that 50% of marriages end in divorce is a fact. (Not sure about this crowd, but, it was the least controversial statistic thing I could come up with. ) Most people know this fact. At least, I've heard it enough to assume most people know it.
Knowing that fact results in several different reactions. Some people use it as an excuse to not get married at all. Some people know it, but, have other excuses for never marrying. Some people know it, know the risks and get married anyways. Some people know it, but believe they are special and divorce will never happen to them.
Denying it doesn't make it not true. I posted the scientific studies, you either didn't read them or couldn't comprehend them. That's fine, that isn't my problem.
Now, if we accept that genetic obesity is a thing like SCIENCE says it is, that can lead us to the same type of reactions as the divorce statistic above.
Some people will use it as an excuse to never lose weight. Some people will know it but use other reasons as excuses not to lose weight. Some people will use that knowledge, they will know the risks, they will make informed decisions when they lose weight- they will know that obesity (not overweight, obesity) is a lifelong disease. (They won't assume like I did that my obesity was cured, they won't assume they can put their scale away because they've kept the weight off for 10 years. They will KNOW it is always lurking. They will know those fat cells are waiting to refill at a rate that defies belief.) And then there is probably the most harmed group, the ones who believe they are fully cured when they lose the weight. The ones who don't believe that obesity is a lifelong thing. If you have ever been obese then you absolutely need to know that you are never cured. Never. You may not have to count everyday, but, you will always need to own a scale and weigh regularly, you will go through periods where you will have to go back to logging. It takes vigilance on at least a weekly basis to keep off the visible signs that you have obesity.
I gained back my 100 lbs because I believed I was cured. Everyone told me I was, I was a success story, I'd kept it off for 10 years. I had it figured out. Just 3 months of not weighing had me back at my original weight.
I didn't share those scientific articles for people to use them as excuses. I shared them so that people would fully understand what fighting obesity means. It is a fight that is NEVER over. As soon as you think it's over, you are in dangerous territory.
But, go ahead, pick all that apart. LOL Love that all of you have your weight loss set to private. You all can read mine, I'm clearly not making excuses, I'm making informed choices.
This time, thanks to science, I know that even when I lose the weight I am not cured. I am never cured. Knowing that is empowering and allows me to make good judgements and you can't steal that from me.
Disagreeing with you =/= unable to get it. Glad you realized that maintaining healthy weight requires ongoing commitment.10 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »I'm going to try this one more time. None of you will get it, but maybe it will help someone else.
Knowing a scientific fact doesn't mean that you are using it as an excuse. It just means that you know the fact.
For instance, most people accept that 50% of marriages end in divorce is a fact. (Not sure about this crowd, but, it was the least controversial statistic thing I could come up with. ) Most people know this fact. At least, I've heard it enough to assume most people know it.
Knowing that fact results in several different reactions. Some people use it as an excuse to not get married at all. Some people know it, but, have other excuses for never marrying. Some people know it, know the risks and get married anyways. Some people know it, but believe they are special and divorce will never happen to them.
Denying it doesn't make it not true. I posted the scientific studies, you either didn't read them or couldn't comprehend them. That's fine, that isn't my problem.
Now, if we accept that genetic obesity is a thing like SCIENCE says it is, that can lead us to the same type of reactions as the divorce statistic above.
Some people will use it as an excuse to never lose weight. Some people will know it but use other reasons as excuses not to lose weight. Some people will use that knowledge, they will know the risks, they will make informed decisions when they lose weight- they will know that obesity (not overweight, obesity) is a lifelong disease. (They won't assume like I did that my obesity was cured, they won't assume they can put their scale away because they've kept the weight off for 10 years. They will KNOW it is always lurking. They will know those fat cells are waiting to refill at a rate that defies belief.) And then there is probably the most harmed group, the ones who believe they are fully cured when they lose the weight. The ones who don't believe that obesity is a lifelong thing. If you have ever been obese then you absolutely need to know that you are never cured. Never. You may not have to count everyday, but, you will always need to own a scale and weigh regularly, you will go through periods where you will have to go back to logging. It takes vigilance on at least a weekly basis to keep off the visible signs that you have obesity.
I gained back my 100 lbs because I believed I was cured. Everyone told me I was, I was a success story, I'd kept it off for 10 years. I had it figured out. Just 3 months of not weighing had me back at my original weight.
I didn't share those scientific articles for people to use them as excuses. I shared them so that people would fully understand what fighting obesity means. It is a fight that is NEVER over. As soon as you think it's over, you are in dangerous territory.
But, go ahead, pick all that apart. LOL Love that all of you have your weight loss set to private. You all can read mine, I'm clearly not making excuses, I'm making informed choices.
This time, thanks to science, I know that even when I lose the weight I am not cured. I am never cured. Knowing that is empowering and allows me to make good judgements and you can't steal that from me.
None of the articles you cited state that genetic obesity is a fact. You have yet to establish this and as such any reasoning you have based upon this is fundamentally flawed.
CICO is a fact. Denying it does not make it true.
You weren't cured because you never had a disease. You simply ate more than you were aware of to maintain a desired weight. Your body stored these extra calories as energy reserves. There's no judgement involved other than your own.
This is no different than financial management and balancing a checkbook. There is nothing intuitive to maintaining weight. What is disordered is the notion that somehow people are supposed to know how many calories they need to maintain.
7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Disagreeing with you =/= unable to get it. Glad you realized that maintaining healthy weight requires ongoing commitment.
Well said @nutmegoreo and @CSARdiver
I don't understand how someone can think they would be "cured" of the fundamental biological functions that cause every living mammal to store excess calories as body fat or otherwise ignore basic thermodynamics.
If obesity is a disease then I guess every living mammal on the planet has it.
Why are mostly (only?) humans from First World countries, poor and/or uneducated populations -and house pets- showing symptoms of it? I wonder...
When a fat house cat goes feral or semi-feral why does it often become lean and sleek in a matter of months?
Did this "obesity disease" go into remission or did it run out of food and fat stores?
Sharing what you call "scientific articles" when they are little more than funded self-promotion pieces from lobbying / marketing groups is not helping anyone.
Show me a real scientific, peer-reviewed study saying this class of people have x number of these "FAT GENES" and that it means they are somehow doomed to be obese no matter what their TDEE, CI:CO or other factors are and then we will talk.
A headline including "Evidence It’s Genetic" does not get you off the hook.
Do genes "cause" obesity? Duh Genes cause everything about you.
My genes say I will be obese if I eat too much, just like everyone else.
So why do I float between 10% and 15% body fat on average?
Because I use discipline, willpower, self-control, or whatever you choose to call it to make sure I don't eat too much!
If your alleged "special snowflake" genes really say you are 25% more likely than me to eat too much and get fat then I guess it is your responsibility to work at least 25% HARDER to make sure that doesn't happen.
If your alleged "special snowflake" genes really say you are 25% less efficient than I am at nutrient partitioning or that your metabolism is somehow 25% slower than mine then I guess you again need to work at least 25% HARDER to account for it.
Stop making excuses and feeling sorry for yourself.
If you want to compare sob stories or how hard your life is/was then I will take that bet.
In the meantime don't use something like a "survey of 1,509 adults" funded by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery as some sort of "proof" that when you over eat it is not your choice or responsibility.
Also don't bother trying to use it to justify why you do not get sufficient exercise.
The Scientific Method is not up for debate here and I take offense when people try to twist and misuse the word "science" to suit their purposes.
Before you use the term "scientific fact", maybe make sure you know what you are talking about and what the term actually means.
scientific fact: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
8 -
Oh! Viruses. Adenoviruses?
Hmm... haven't looked at the research in years. Obesity MIGHT be contagious.
I'm off to wash my hands.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions