"Fat" Gene Found by Scientists

[El Greco]

When it comes down to the very basics, obesity comes from taking in more calories than one burns.

But there are other factors involved.

For example, brain scans of carb addicts show brain activity similar to drug addicts. The reward center demands carbs the same way a heroin junkie's brain demands smack. Is it genetic? Maybe.


Most times people eat until the body signals the brain they have had enough. If something interferes with that signal they will overeat. I've read reports of studies that show that high fructose corn syrup, which is found in a wide range of foods, is interfering with the full signals to the brain.

There is a condition called insulin resistance, often a precursor to diabetes, where frequent high levels of insulin in the blood make cells resistant to insulin so even though there is plenty of fuel available in the body, the cells aren't getting what they need and send hunger signals to the brain. Insulin resistant people can eat until they can't fit in another bite and still feel the urge to eat more.

It is a very complex issue that involves more than just portion control and exercise for many.

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.

 

[Molinaro]

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.

Do you see it as an either or situation only? I most certainly don't. Many people have illnesses that affect their weight. Many people eat too much and that puts them overweight. There is no reason to latch onto one explanation and apply it to everyone.

 

[Molinaro]

Look, my own mother is obese and I haven't managed to make her diet down. Not yet, at least. But I'm trying. What I have managed to do though, is make her quit the excuses and realize the culprit is not her "metabolism" but her eating and living habits. There are many reasons that someone may resort to overeating: Loneliness, depression, anxiety, boredom. But this has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

And it's your annectdotal experiences with your mother that leads you to discount illness and instead call out overweight people as having a lack of will. How nice.

 

[Katana]

Do you see it as an either or situation only? I most certainly don't. Many people have illnesses that affect their weight. Many people eat too much and that puts them overweight. There is no reason to latch onto one explanation and apply it to everyone.

No. It's not necessarily an either or situation. Genetics has an impact - I won't deny that, but there is much more going on than genes in the fattening of our population over the past two decades. Of course, some people have illnesses that affect their weight (many have illnesses because of their weight), but the vast majority of people are obese due to behavioral reasons.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that that makes it any more easy a problem to fix. If anything, it's just the opposite. Human behavior is very difficult to change.

 

[El Greco]

And it's your annectdotal experiences with your mother that leads you to discount illness and instead call out overweight people as having a lack of will. How nice.

Not only you have no idea what you're talking about, but you are also malevolent. I didn't offer the anecdote for any other reason than to show I can relate, and perhaps start again the discussion on new grounds. And you used it as if it were my argument. Among all the things I said and which you chose not to answer, this is what you focused on.

End of discussion.

 

[Earthborn]

What I mean is that what doesn't get absorbed doesn't enter the equation at all (or perhaps only insofar as a fraction of the appetite is concerned). People with ineffective GI tracts will not be getting the energy they need and they'll be feeling hungry so they'll be eating more. People with high absorption rates will be feeling fuller with less food.

You are assuming that the mechanism behind feeling full and feeling hungry is very simple and only has something to do with the nutrients that are absorbed. You are ignoring the fact that part of feeling full is caused by a full stomach and intestines, which is rather odd. Obesity surgery is usually focussed on that aspect of feeling full by reducing the capacity of the stomach, or by making the GI tract ineffective by shortening it. That doesn't necessarily cause people to feel hungry and eat more.

The mechanism behind 'feeling hungry' has many aspects and is very complex and still somewhat mysterious. The first person who figures out how all those aspects interact is probably going to win a Nobel Prize.

 

[El Greco]

You are assuming that the mechanism behind feeling full and feeling hungry is very simple and only has something to do with the nutrients that are absorbed. You are ignoring the fact that part of feeling full is caused by a full stomach and intestines, which is rather odd.

No I'm not. This is aexactly what I said:

doesn't enter the equation at all (or perhaps only insofar as a fraction of the appetite is concerned

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

What you have ignored though, is this sentence:

unless we're talking about very specific diseases, I doubt that absorption rates can vary significantly

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.

Obesity surgery is usually focussed on that aspect of feeling full by reducing the capacity of the stomach, or by making the GI tract ineffective by shortening it. That doesn't necessarily cause people to feel hungry and eat more.

The main way this works is by making people feeling ill when they eat more. They CAN'T eat more, that's why they don't. And it also has great emotional impact to those who have received the surgery. Does this suggest that there's much more than tension receptors in the control of appetite ? yes, it does.

The mechanism behind 'feeling hungry' has many aspects and is very complex and still somewhat mysterious. The first person who figures out how all those aspects interact is probably going to win a Nobel Prize.

This is an area I'll be happy to discuss anything about. Starting with the difference between cravings and appetite, perhaps ?

 

[Walk The Line]

Overcome? How?

I'm skeptical of diets.

Show me one study of a 'plan' that loses even 10% of weight for the majority of entrants, and keeps it off permanently. 5-10 year followup. Ain't none.

If there was, we'd all hear about it. From the NIH. None of the "Diet Plans" give out any real numbers. Would anybody sign up for Jenny Craig if her ads said "but you are just gonna put it back on anyhow"?

It just don't happen. Every fatso puts it back on. Short of a concentration camp setting, but you'll have to let them out someday....hmmm, whats the weight gain/loss in prisons?

Call it "The Apetite Gene". The only thing that nearly works is gastric surgery. Make it impossible to gain weight. Yet that isn't permanent for many patients either.

To ignore the nutritional component of weight gain is foolish.

I speak from personal experience because about 5 years ago I started putting weight on and went from my normal weight of about 160lbs to 185lbs. I was trying to put on muscle mass, but I didn't eat the right kinds of foods and most of it ended up as fat. So, about 3 years ago I altered my diet (I quit drinking sodas, started eating leaner foods, etc) and began exercising. The weight came off in no time and has stayed off for the past three years.

During my diet, I was burning more calories than I was taking in. However, after about the first three months I stopped being as rigorous with my diet (but I still exercised) and my weight stabilized. To this day, I still exercise about 2-3 times a week and manage to keep that weight off.

There are lots of changes that the average person could make to increase their activity level. For example, there are several parking garages close to where I work. One is right next to my building, another is probably a quarter of a mile away. I chose to park in the parking lot that is a quarter of a mile away because I enjoy the exercise (though not as much during winter).

Those little things add up.

 

[frank462]

During my diet, I was burning more calories than I was taking in. However, after about the first three months I stopped being as rigorous with my diet (but I still exercised) and my weight stabilized. To this day, I still exercise about 2-3 times a week and manage to keep that weight off.

Is that you in the blue shirt on the right?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Great, now that they found it, SOMEBODY GET IT OUT OF ME!!!!

 

[tkingdoll]

I was discussing this fat gene story with a friend today, and he asserted it's completely useless science because it has no practical application - you can say 'obesity is caused by this gene' but the only answer to that is 'so what?'.

Any thoughts on that?

 

[Walk The Line]

Is that you in the blue shirt on the right?

Well I've been busted

 

[El Greco]

I was discussing this fat gene story with a friend today, and he asserted it's completely useless science because it has no practical application - you can say 'obesity is caused by this gene' but the only answer to that is 'so what?'.

Any thoughts on that?

First we'd have to attach a very specific meaning to the phrase "causes obesity". Because even if you take complete ectomorphs, who are really skinny and have trouble putting on a single gram, they can still become obese (at least as long as they're healthy) if they start overeating. And why would they start overeating, you may ask. Simply because food satisfies many psychological needs besides the obvious biological ones. And you never know how exactly one's mind may take a sudden turn and find consolation to food. Even an extreme ectomorph has some maintenance calories; if s/he goes above them systematically s/he will eventually become obese.

What I mean by the above: Even if things were pretty simple and there was a single gene responsible for obesity, and even if we had right here and right now the technology to engineer and inactivate that gene, the best we could achieve is turn an endomorph into an ectomorph. Which is pretty impressive in itself, but it still wouldn't completely eliminate obesity. As Katana pointed out, it's the altered habits that have resulted in the obesity pandemia and not any genetic factors. In simple words, when you know you are full and satiated but you still crave for that chocolate ice-cream the moment you see it, you know that psychology is at least as important as biology (and yes, in the end psychology is biology, but I use the terms in that superannuated way simply for clarity).

If we disregard the "psychological" factor and if we were so lucky as to be able to say 'obesity is caused by this gene', then this would mean a lot. We would be in our way of solving a large part of the problem via near future genetic engineering. Unfortunately we will never be able to say 'obesity is caused by this gene' because there is a multitude of factors involved. The road to the solution is going to be very long.

 

[tkingdoll]

We would be in our way of solving a large part of the problem via near future genetic engineering.

I think that was the crux of my friend's complaint: what is the 'near future genetic engineering'? Is that actually happening or is it something that gets touted as a phrase but with no real progress? Are there specific objectives for genetic engineering, and if so, what are they, and what are the timescales?

Any experts here?

 

[El Greco]

I think that was the crux of my friend's complaint: what is the 'near future genetic engineering'? Is that actually happening or is it something that gets touted as a phrase but with no real progress? Are there specific objectives for genetic engineering, and if so, what are they, and what are the timescales?

Any experts here?

I know next to nothing about the details of gene therapy, but Wikipedia has some interesting info.

 

[Iamme]

Fat gene uncovered ~ Fat people can't help it!

I always knew that. For years I have known that. I didn't need a scientist to uncover the fat gene.

I can go home and eat an entire pizza in one sitting and also munch on chips all day, ansd eat a coupel fast food burgers and fries and have several cans of soda and binge on chocolates...every day as a ritual I consume and consume...far more than my ex work partner did who outweighed me by about 80 pounds...and he even smoked and I don't, therefore it should be *I* who should have been fat!...and he did the same physical work as me (he was shorter than I)...as I was aroudn him most the day and even saw how he ate at night.

Yet I have alsways had a hard time maintaining my weight...trying to figure what else I can eat, without getting full first, so that I don't lose weight!

I really feel sorry for the truly obese person (not talking people who gain a little weight as one normally would if they over ate and did no manual labor or excercise).

It is really unfair how those poor fatsos have to even have their stomachs stapled because they can gain weight practically by just looking at food.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Genes and environment interact.

In an environment like the East Africa of 100,000 years ago, where our ancestors' food supply was always at the mercy of climate and other events, a gene which better enabled the body to store food for lean times would be advantageous. Enter natural selection.

In the environment of the modern west, where food is cheap and abundant - and indeed the highest calorie density food is most cheap and abundant- the same gene ceases to be advantageous.

A classic example of what Matt Ridley describes as "Nature via Nurture".

 

[Katana]

Genes and environment interact.

In an environment like the East Africa of 100,000 years ago, where our ancestors' food supply was always at the mercy of climate and other events, a gene which better enabled the body to store food for lean times would be advantageous. Enter natural selection.

In the environment of the modern west, where food is cheap and abundant - and indeed the highest calorie density food is most cheap and abundant- the same gene ceases to be advantageous.

A classic example of what Matt Ridley describes as "Nature via Nurture".

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.

 

[kellyb]

I think that was the crux of my friend's complaint: what is the 'near future genetic engineering'? Is that actually happening or is it something that gets touted as a phrase but with no real progress? Are there specific objectives for genetic engineering, and if so, what are they, and what are the timescales?

Any experts here?

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this necessarily applies to something like "fat genes", but this is really interesting, and we're getting close.
Very interesting and exciting stuff.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/02.html

 

[skeptifem]

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)

this is just like the 'abstinence is the only way to be safe' argument. great in theory, in reality, it just doesnt work very well, because you are expecting people to fight their very nature, to go against what their body is insisting they do. Working out is a much better idea, to 'even out' the disadvantage they are at.

I read a study once that indicated that portion sizes get set in your mind as a young child. Kids were split into three groups where their portions of food were either large, normal, or small. When they could help themselves to the whole pot of food the kids chose the same amount that they had been eating before. If your metabolism is slow and youve grown up eating 'normal' portions its going to be a very hard thing to change.

I dont appreciate you referring to overweight people as 'fatties' either, and telling people not to eat, considering that the people being discussed eat the same friggin amount as you do. You just try not eating for awhile, see how far you get and how you feel. It basically drives you insane to not eat.