"Fat" Gene Found by Scientists

[Burner]

The absolutely soaring rate of obesity (with morbid obesity rising the fastest at least in the U.S.) is not due simply to genetics. Our genetic make-up has not changed so dramatically in the last couple of decades to account for the HUGE and rising number of obese people. What has changed? Our consumption of processed and fast food has increased, portions are bigger, and our physical activity has decreased. Doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to figure out what's going on.

Exactly. Where's the evidence that proves human(or at least American) DNA has changed significantly over last 50 years?

 

[skeptifem]

But this is not new, yet the rate of obesity has risen sharply in the past two decades. It's not like we were in starvation mode back in the 70s.

no, but average portion sizes were much, much smaller in the 70's, and people had to actually go places more often. you can do so much from home now that people dont walk as much as they used to.

 

[Katana]

no, but average portion sizes were much, much smaller in the 70's, and people had to actually go places more often. you can do so much from home now that people dont walk as much as they used to.

Right. Our behavior has changed - not our genes.

 

[skeptifem]

Insulin resistance is primarily a result of obesity, and not the other way around.

And no doubt it's a complex issue. But what I absolutely loathe is the mindset that says "I can do nothing because it's in my genes". No, your genes may have given you a handicap but there's a lot you can do.

And theres a lot that you cant do. You want an example of something? How about hormones. Women and men can be the same height, eat and work out exactly the same, and the man will put on much more muscle and most likely lose more weight because of the testosterone in his system. Anabolic steroids are synthetic versions of male hormones and are used as a muscle building aid, and muscle being added to a body raises its metabolism. You could start juicing, but it would defeat the purpose(health). People can have hormone levels on the low end of normal (not having a disorder of any kind) and still be at a disadvantage. Then there are tyroid problems, which people really dont control. I draw blood for TSH's (thyroid tests) all day long from overweight people, these are regular people that you would probably assume are lazy when they absolutely arent.

One thing I hate about this attitude is that a lot of people DO lose weight to improve their health and still get ridiculed about being fat. People who diet down from a very high weight will most likely never be considered thin despite working extremely hard, harder than naturally thin people who hurl these insults. Im not fat and havent really ever been, but ive taken extreme and unhealthy measures to lose weight before and understand how hard it is to do the opposite of what your body says, it makes you feel like **** 24/7 to try and do so much, and these people with those genes would have to work extremely hard to get anything NEAR an ideal body. Its not easy at all, and everyone will aknowledge that, but on the other side of their mouth say 'just stop eating so much, fatty' like it is just so very simple to become 'acceptable' to others. A lot of anorexic women were very overweight when their disorders started, and **** like that just fuels the self hatred that encourages people to go off the deep end with their weight loss. I wish fat was seen as just another part of the body like fingernails or hair, something that you just decide you either want a lot of or not and do it. I think all the shame of fat being seen as this terrible mark of being a lazy glutton does nothing but discourage anyone from losing weight, it starts a cycle where people feel ashamed and bad and try way too hard- to the point where they feel pysically bad and then give up and decide they dont care because they will never be as thin as everyone thinks they should be. I think just about everyone has seen this happen. My uncle did this, a new diet every time i saw him, following it to the letter, still being fat, and then shame and a feeling of being disfunctional for still being fat. then saying '**** it' and eating the pain away because it doesnt seem like the effort matters at all. Doing things in moderation to lose weight dont seem like a good option because you are so ashamed of you fat you have to get rid of it NOW. Genes are a handicap when it comes to losing weight, but I find it offensive for anyone to pretend they understand what its like to try and lose a large amount of weight when they dont.

 

[skeptifem]

Right. Our behavior has changed - not our genes.

Its not like lifelong overweight people didnt exsist then either. its silly to pretend that genes are not a factor. I also dont see why we should assume that the percentage of the population with those genes is exactly the same as back then.

 

[Katana]

Its not like lifelong overweight people didnt exsist then either. its silly to pretend that genes are not a factor. I also dont see why we should assume that the percentage of the population with those genes is exactly the same as back then.

Why would you assume that it's different?

 

[Tief]

no, but average portion sizes were much, much smaller in the 70's, and people had to actually go places more often. you can do so much from home now that people dont walk as much as they used to.

Portion sizes were no smaller in the 70's - heck I used to get the triple-meat,triple cheese at Whataburger, with large onion rings, as a matter of course. I remember clearly stuffing my face with all I could eat at restaurants then, without ordering extra food, just 1 appetizer and the main meal. Sharing the appetizer with friends.

I have seen no appreciable difference in proportions in restuarants, at the grocery, or in containers over the years.

One thing I find interesting - about 15 months ago I went on a drug for my bipolar called Geodon. My appetite dropped, and lost 30 lbs. in the next 8 months or so. I am now going off the Geodon, and my appetite has gone up, I have started gaining weight.

There seem to be many influences on appetite, and other reasons for obesity as well.

For skeptics, it is difficult to credit any evidence beyond 'weight will not be gained if excess calories are not consumed'. This is only demonstrable fact in the question; it seems to me that all other evidence is anecdotal, so not scientific (though I am no scholar on the matter). Science is just beginning to be able to address the matters involved.

 

[RandFan]

Another excuse for the fatties - it's my genes!!

A simple physical fact - you can't get something from nothing. Fat people take in more calories than they use, end of. If your metabolism (or genetic make-up) is such that you 'put on weight easily' then you need to eat less and exercise more. It's about finding your own level. 2000 calories a day might be fine for some, but for others it can be way too much (or too little). One thing's for sure though; if you are genetically predisposed or have glandular problems - you can't put on an ounce of weight if you dont eat. (Breatharians excepted)

It's all so simple. Thank you.

Oh, and drunks just need never drink. Problem solved.
Oh, hey, people addicted to drugs just never need take drugs.

Wow, what an amazing discovery.

Did you come up with that on your own Einstein?

{sheesh}

 

[RandFan]

The absolutely soaring rate of obesity (with morbid obesity rising the fastest at least in the U.S.) is not due simply to genetics. Our genetic make-up has not changed so dramatically in the last couple of decades to account for the HUGE and rising number of obese people. What has changed? Our consumption of processed and fast food has increased, portions are bigger, and our physical activity has decreased. Doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to figure out what's going on.

Sound right to me.

 

[RandFan]

I have seen no appreciable difference in proportions in restuarants, at the grocery, or in containers over the years.

Anecdotal.

For skeptics, it is difficult to credit any evidence beyond 'weight will not be gained if excess calories are not consumed'. This is only demonstrable fact in the question; it seems to me that all other evidence is anecdotal, so not scientific (though I am no scholar on the matter). Science is just beginning to be able to address the matters involved.

Bill Orielly says that drunks, drug addicts and the obese simply chose to be the way we are. Perhaps he is right. Science doesn't agree but hey, what the hell do scientists know anyway? Let's bring back blood letting.

Fact: If you take in fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight.

Ok everyone, this has been known for quite sometime now and that fact has not reversed the trend of increased obesity.

I am obese. It is seriously affecting my health. I may become bedridden and it is the source of much pain and heartache in my life.

I have embarked on many attempts to lose weight. I've tried life plans. Diets. Many, many things. I have failed and all of the snobbish BS that I just need to eat less and excercise more does absolutely nothing but make the person who spouts such obvious crap feel better about themselves.

Yes, I understand the math. Everyone who is overweight understands the math.

My weight has made me suicidal at times. I don't want to be overweight.

So what's up?

ETA: I'm not looking for an excuse (fat gene). I don't need one to justify myself to anyone. If you don't like who or what I am then your are just an ignorant bigot. Go screw yourself.

 

[El Greco]

And theres a lot that you cant do. You want an example of something? How about hormones. Women and men can be the same height, eat and work out exactly the same, and the man will put on much more muscle and most likely lose more weight because of the testosterone in his system. Anabolic steroids are synthetic versions of male hormones and are used as a muscle building aid, and muscle being added to a body raises its metabolism. You could start juicing, but it would defeat the purpose(health). People can have hormone levels on the low end of normal (not having a disorder of any kind) and still be at a disadvantage. Then there are tyroid problems, which people really dont control. I draw blood for TSH's (thyroid tests) all day long from overweight people, these are regular people that you would probably assume are lazy when they absolutely arent.

The different hormonal profiles and subsequently the different muscle masses between men and women result in diferent caloric requirements. So the average woman should not eat as much as the average man in the first place. If any woman sticks to her maintenance calories she will NOT get fat.

Do you have any idea how much exactly does hypothyoidism reduce the basal metabolic rate ? And do you know that this simply means that the person consumes LESS calories and so needs LESS food ?

Nobody assumes anything about "laziness". Not even about food portions as I have repeateadly said, but apparently to deaf ears. What I assume, and I am 100% correct, is that at some point a fat person ate more than his/hers requirements and now s/he doesn't have the motivation/ability/interest to lose it.

One thing I hate about this attitude

What "attitude" ? Why people assume this is my "attitude" when in fact I just present FACTS ?

is that a lot of people DO lose weight to improve their health and still get ridiculed about being fat. People who diet down from a very high weight will most likely never be considered thin despite working extremely hard, harder than naturally thin people who hurl these insults.

If you are referring to me then you apparently have completely lost it. And since you quoted my post, then I must conclude you have completely lost it. What "insults" are you talking about ?

Im not fat and havent really ever been, but ive taken extreme and unhealthy measures to lose weight before and understand how hard it is to do the opposite of what your body says, it makes you feel like **** 24/7 to try and do so much, and these people with those genes would have to work extremely hard to get anything NEAR an ideal body. Its not easy at all, and everyone will aknowledge that, but on the other side of their mouth say 'just stop eating so much, fatty' like it is just so very simple to become 'acceptable' to others. A lot of anorexic women were very overweight when their disorders started, and **** like that just fuels the self hatred that encourages people to go off the deep end with their weight loss. I wish fat was seen as just another part of the body like fingernails or hair, something that you just decide you either want a lot of or not and do it.

Did you see me anywhere, EVER, either in this thread or anywhere else in this forum, ever since I registered here, saying it's easy ? On the contrary, I've said many times it's very very hard. In this very thread, in my reply to CardZeus I said "Well, I agree that there are a lot of excuses, but also for some it's easier than it is for others". I never called anyone a "fatso" or a "fattie". In that thread I made some of my very first posts. Read what I say over there. And now I have to endure all your bullflop because I simply said that losing weight is possible. Perhaps I should have said it's impossible and those poor souls are doomed.

I really don't give a damn about your notions. I'm here to discuss this issue calmly and scientifically.

I think all the shame of fat being seen as this terrible mark of being a lazy glutton does nothing but discourage anyone from losing weight, it starts a cycle where people feel ashamed and bad and try way too hard- to the point where they feel pysically bad and then give up and decide they dont care because they will never be as thin as everyone thinks they should be. I think just about everyone has seen this happen. My uncle did this, a new diet every time i saw him, following it to the letter, still being fat, and then shame and a feeling of being disfunctional for still being fat. then saying '**** it' and eating the pain away because it doesnt seem like the effort matters at all. Doing things in moderation to lose weight dont seem like a good option because you are so ashamed of you fat you have to get rid of it NOW.

All these are true, but have nothing to do with what I said.

Genes are a handicap when it comes to losing weight, but I find it offensive for anyone to pretend they understand what its like to try and lose a large amount of weight when they dont.

I find offensive the whole of your post. You have no idea whether I've lost weight myself or what the **** I know about the subject. You have no idea how many fat people I know, how many I've worked with, how many I've seen succeding, how many I've seen failing and quitting or failing and trying again. Yet, you accuse me of "pretending I understand what it's like to try" when I don't even get into this. All I said is that it is perfectly doable and that there are a lot of people who have done it. People with bad genes. This is a damn FACT.

Do not address me anymore. I'm not interested in "discussing" with you.

 

[El Greco]

nails3jesus0's and Molinaro's posts highight exactly why I prefer not to say much in such threads. I offered to discuss anything on a skeptical and scientific basis. I offered to discuss the difference between cravings and appetite. You'd think that people would be interested. "Gee, yes El Greco, this sounds like an interesting topic". Instead I get pathetic attacks when all I have posted is FACTS. And those pathetic attacks unfortunately drive me too in a labyrinth of stupid bigotry, which I'm not about to accept on a subject I love and study. If there's anyone really interested in discussing diets, appetite, fat loss, nature vs nurture etc, I suggest we do so in a moderated thread.

 

[Molinaro]

Actualy what you did was totaly ignore the concept that to understand the weight problems any one person may be having, you need to have an understanding of all relevant medical conditions that person may be suffering.

Instead, you simply write it all off as a question of will.

A self richeous insult is not a discussion based on scientific facts.

 

[frank462]

Bill Orielly says that drunks, drug addicts and the obese simply chose to be the way we are. Perhaps he is right. Science doesn't agree but hey, what the hell do scientists know anyway? Let's bring back blood letting.

Fact: If you take in fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight.

Ok everyone, this has been known for quite sometime now and that fact has not reversed the trend of increased obesity.

I am obese. It is seriously affecting my health. I may become bedridden and it is the source of much pain and heartache in my life.

I have embarked on many attempts to lose weight. I've tried life plans. Diets. Many, many things. I have failed and all of the snobbish BS that I just need to eat less and excercise more does absolutely nothing but make the person who spouts such obvious crap feel better about themselves.

Yes, I understand the math. Everyone who is overweight understands the math.

My weight has made me suicidal at times. I don't want to be overweight.

So what's up?

ETA: I'm not looking for an excuse (fat gene). I don't need one to justify myself to anyone. If you don't like who or what I am then your are just an ignorant bigot. Go screw yourself.

Ah, but you forget about an overwhelming psychological "hunger" that some people never overcome:
"Everyone needs to have someone to look down on."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

nails3jesus0's and Molinaro's posts highight exactly why I prefer not to say much in such threads. I offered to discuss anything on a skeptical and scientific basis. I offered to discuss the difference between cravings and appetite. You'd think that people would be interested. "Gee, yes El Greco, this sounds like an interesting topic". Instead I get pathetic attacks when all I have posted is FACTS. And those pathetic attacks unfortunately drive me too in a labyrinth of stupid bigotry, which I'm not about to accept on a subject I love and study. If there's anyone really interested in discussing diets, appetite, fat loss, nature vs nurture etc, I suggest we do so in a moderated thread.

This is quite interesting. Leptin is part of a negative feedback system (a.k.a homeostasis). I.e. whatever weight you are your body tries to maintain it. I've got more details about appetite and feeding behaviour in a neuroscience book.

 

[casebro]

Looks to me like it comes down to "Fat Gene vs Apetite Gene" and "Nature vs Nurture".

Given that "calories in minus calories out = weight gain/loss" , the real problem is apetite control and the lack thereof.

Does anybody here know of a scientific system of improving apetite control in the obese? Some published study? with longer term follow up?

I would suspect that mental problems would be linked to apetite. Somebody above mentioned anti-depressant therapy medication - Geodon? Possible to link obesity to addiction therapy? But then many drug addicts are underweight...

 

[Modified]

I also dont see why we should assume that the percentage of the population with those genes is exactly the same as back then.

I can't think of any pressure that would cause them to decrease. It is likely that more people today are dying before reproductive age from the complications of being overweight than were 30 years ago. Of course, I'm only basing this on the "fat baby" episodes of daytime talk shows that I've seen.

 

[Earthborn]

Does this look to you like "ignoring the fact" ?

Yes, it does. Saying that it does not enter the equation at all is saying that it makes no difference how much is absorbed, even in severe malabsorption conditions. You claim that people with a lower absorption rate compensate by eating more, and that it therefore does not enter the equation at all, is claiming that the absorption rate can be safely ignored. I don't think there is any evidence that are able to compensate a lower absorption rate in this way.

Do you have any data, ANY DATA AT ALL, that show significant variance of absorption rates - barring certain malabsorption conditions ? If yes, I'd be very very very interested to know them.

I can't find any large measurements of individual differences of nutrient absorption rates, but it would be weird if they don't exist; all other phenotypical properties show significant variation.

However, here is a study about differences between enthnicities and possible influence of light levels in carbohydrate digestion.
here is a study that indicates that it changes with age.

It is also well known that how much is absorbed also depends on what you eat. Some substances increase or inhibit the absorption of other substances.

How much nutrients are available to the body also depends on the intestinal flora. Here is some evidence from animal studies that suggests that your weight is partly dependent on which bacteria are living inside you, because they influence how much nutrients are available to absorb.

They CAN'T eat more, that's why they don't.

That's not quite true. Obesity surgery still has a fairly high failure rate because people can eat more. It just makes it really uncomfortable to eat more in one go, but unfortunately that does not stop all people.

Does this suggest that there's much more than tension receptors in the control of appetite ? yes, it does.

Obviously. It also suggests that there is more to the control of appetite than how much nutrients are absorbed, which is why you can't say that the absorption rate "doesn't enter the equation at all".

 

[RandFan]

Obesity surgery still has a fairly high failure rate because people can eat more.

What do you consider a "fairly high failure rate". My understanding is quite different. I understand it has a high success rate. I'm looking for numbers but first I need to know what you mean.

Thanks.

 

[Earthborn]

What do you consider a "fairly high failure rate". My understanding is quite different. I understand it has a high success rate. I'm looking for numbers but first I need to know what you mean.

As you can read here, the most common form of obesity surgery produces some weight loss in 80% of patients. That's certainly a lot better than most treatments, but still a 1/5 failure rate is fairly high for something that is often misrepresented as near fail safe solution. "They CAN'T eat more, that's why they don't." is misrepresenting how it works.