Fat gene

[Chanileslie]

Hey, that Bowel is the component that brings the whole "Inside the human Body" decorating scheme of our living room together. We also have an enormous liver hanging on a wall. a pancreas serves as the centerpiece for our dining room table.

In case you are wondering why I am answering for Chanileslie, I should point out that she is my wife.

Yes, I am. And a fine wife I am too!!

 

[Dr. Imago]

Yes, but I would guess that in times of famine, there are some who lose weight at a slower rate than others.

Well, now we're talking about physiology, pure and simple. It would depend, of course, on basal metabolic rate, how much the person weighed was before the famine started, what they were actually doing during the famine (sitting around waiting for someone to bring them food vs. out looking for food), etc.

As simple as eating less and exercising more?

Did I say that? I don't think so. In fact, I think I argued the exact opposite (if you'll re-read what I wrote).

Originally posted by Chanileslie
The only time I have ever lost weight with ease was when I was literally starving myself because I couldn't afford to feed my children and myself on a regular basis, so I made a choice, and my kids' got plenty of food, and I did without much of the time.

You felt like you were starving because of your appetite drive. This is the key to weight loss. Figuring out a way to get aberrant (i.e., not "in-tune" with the body's true metabolic needs) appetites under control. This is where the bulk of the science is focused.

-TT

 

[Skeptical Greg]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0030930/od_uk_nm/oukoe_health_iceland_obesity


So if you're fat, sue your parents.

What is more astounding, is that the role of this gene has become dramatically more visible in the last 50 years or so; and particularly in the U.S.

I thought evolution worked a lot slower than that..

 

[RSLancastr]

Well, now we're talking about physiology, pure and simple.

And a person's physiology, such as their metabolic rate, depend in part on their genes, correct?

Did I say that? I don't think so. In fact, I think I argued the exact opposite (if you'll re-read what I wrote).

I don't see you "weighing in" on either side of that particular statement.

However, you say that "I can't help it, it is in my genes" is a copout. True. My point was, so is "Just eat less and exercise more". They are both oversimplifications of a process that is far more complex than most people realize.

And I have heard far more non-obese people say the latter than I have heard obese people say the former.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

LOL! I loved the bowel jokes!

The gene might not be a 'fat' gene simply for low metabolism, or is it for a big appetite, or is it big bones? We don't really know what they mean by "fat gene"

 

[RSLancastr]

The gene might not be a 'fat' gene simply for low metabolism, or is it for a big appetite, or is it big bones? We don't really know what they mean by "fat gene"

Personally, I'm just glad my name isn't "Gene"...

 

[Dr. Imago]

And a person's physiology, such as their metabolic rate, depend in part on their genes, correct?

Perhaps. For example, there may be certain subtle differences between levels of key enzymes involved in metabolism, or genetic preponderances to produce more "fast twitch" rather than "slow twitch" fibers, or differences in hunger drive (which would be moot during a famine). But, on the whole, I think the genetic case is far overstated and environmental factors play a FAR greater role.

I don't see you "weighing in" on either side of that particular statement.

However, you say that "I can't help it, it is in my genes" is a copout. True. My point was, so is "Just eat less and exercise more". They are both oversimplifications of a process that is far more complex than most people realize.

Agreed. No argument. That's why this is a hot area of research that is yielding some interesting new data.

And I have heard far more non-obese people say the latter than I have heard obese people say the former.

Well, this is why we need to stop expecting quick fixes and instead adopt a long-term, biopsychosocial approach to weight loss addressing as many contributing factors as possible. It is a very complex problem, and (unfortunately) eating less and exercising more is a necessary part, if not the only focus, of the solution.

-TT

 

[tracer]

My kids get dessert after supper. That's the only junk food they get. We don't have kool-aid in the house, and no white bread.

You ever tried making Aspartame Kool-Aid? It's not bad! You get the kind of Kool-Aid that you have to add your own sugar too (in the cheap little packets), but then instead of adding a cup of sugar, you add 26 packets of Equal. Voila! Kool-Aid without the calories.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You ever tried making Aspartame Kool-Aid? It's not bad! You get the kind of Kool-Aid that you have to add your own sugar too (in the cheap little packets), but then instead of adding a cup of sugar, you add 26 packets of Equal. Voila! Kool-Aid without the calories.

Meh, fruit juice tastes better. I get the stuff without sugar added, but fruit sugar is probably just as bad as any other sugar, but they don't drink it all day, only at meals, so it's not like they are downing sugar all day.

Kool Aid just has no vitamins or anything, so why bother? If I don''t fill them up with Kool Aid I can give them something like popsicles

 

[tracer]

Aspartame popsicles?

 

[Terry]

Yet another study which points to genetic factors in weight gain.

And yet, so many opinionated idiots say "it's simple, just eat less and/or exercise more".

If only it were that simple.

I don't get it. I'm overweight, and I'm working on bringing my weight down first into the healthy zone, then towards the athletic zone. This is difficult. It's taking a lot of determination, and involves putting up with feeling hungry.

But it really is a simple process, and it really does boil down to eat less and exercise more.

Before I started, I worked out how many calories per day I was taking in to maintain my (too high) weight. Now I make sure I take in about 1000 calories per day less than that, and have upped my exercise some too. I track the moving average of my daily weight (because there is some randomness in daily weights due to hydration levels (guess)), and man, that thing is like I drew it with a ruler.

It sure does seem like 1 lb of weight loss happens when I eat 3500 calories less than I expend. Simple as that. What's the complication that I'm missing, opinionated idiot that I am?

--Terry

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Good to hear Terry

Aspartame popsicles?

Blech, no. That's their dessert, normal popsicles. All good things in moderation. I wouldn't deny my kids some great things I remember from my childhood. I only got pop on my Birthday, and popsicles when I managed to make enough money by collecting bottles to get them. Freezies are cool too. If I don't stuff my kids full of Kool-Aid, then a popsicle or freezie is fine.

Course, there are the healthy popsicles made from fruit juice, but they're more expensive and have tons of sugar too.

 

[RSLancastr]

But it really is a simple process, and it really does boil down to eat less and exercise more.

Have you actually read this thread?

It sure does seem like 1 lb of weight loss happens when I eat 3500 calories less than I expend. Simple as that.

Thank you, Nancy Reagan.

I'm glad for you that you find it simple. There are a hell of a lot of others who do not.

 

[Terry]

Have you actually read this thread?

Thank you, Nancy Reagan.

I'm glad for you that you find it simple. There are a hell of a lot of others who do not.

Yes, I've read the thread. I'm not trying to claim losing weight is easy. On the contrary, I'm finding it very challenging, as I already said.

What I still don't understand is what makes this a complex problem. Is the suggestion being made that some people lose less than a pound when they have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories (in the long term)? I've not seen any evidence to support that. (The link at the head of the thread was very light on details.) Well, actually, I did read something anecdotal about very small daily deficits being "worked-around" by one's metabolism.

So one more time. I'm not trying to pick on anyone; I'm not trying to put down fat people (I are one); I'm not saying losing weight is easy; but can someone point me to somthing that explains why this isn't a simple subtraction sum?

--Terry "just say know" H.

 

[RSLancastr]

I find it easy to believe that there is a genetic component to weight loss.

Rephrased, I find it difficult to believe that there is NOT a genetic component to it.

But even if there were NO genetic component to it, saying that "losing wait is as simple as eating less and exercising more" is useless, and is insulting/patronizing to those for whom eating less and exercising more is anything BUT simple.

Semantically, the statement is accurate. In reality, where the majority of us live, it is useless.

Here are some other equally true-but-useless statements:

"Becoming a billionaire is simple: obtain a billion dollars."

"Being healthy is simple: don't get sick."

"Reaching outer space is simple: escape earth's gravity."

... all true, but all totally useless to anyone trying to obtain those goals.

As to your question about calories: I do not know. There are others here more qualified to answer.

 

[Terry]

But even if there were NO genetic component to it, saying that "losing wait is as simple as eating less and exercising more" is useless, and is insulting/patronizing to those for whom eating less and exercising more is anything BUT simple.

Semantically, the statement is accurate. In reality, where the majority of us live, it is useless.
[...]

I disagree that it's a useless statement. What I see presented in the media is "Losing weight is complicated, you have to follow all the rules in <random diet book>. But if you do that, it's easy. A few weeks, and you're done".

Whereas I think the reality is the exact reverse. Losing weight is really easy to understand but really hard to do I think we do people a dis-service by pretending there is something magic you can do for a few weeks, when the truth is that you need to commit to a permanent lifestyle change - at least if you plan to keep the weight off. And by pretending that it is such a complex thing that you need a book about it.



--Terry.

 

[RSLancastr]

... And by pretending that it is such a complex thing that you need a book about it.

I understand your point, but that isn't what I am talking about.

Most severely/morbidly obese people I have spoken to about the subject ALREADY KNOW exactly how to eat healthy, and how to lose weight.

 

[EvilYeti]

So one more time. I'm not trying to pick on anyone; I'm not trying to put down fat people (I are one); I'm not saying losing weight is easy; but can someone point me to somthing that explains why this isn't a simple subtraction sum?

Its a more difficult discussion when someone like RSL is involved. I've tangled with him before on this issue and discovered he's a morbidly obese food addict, not simply overweight.

The difference is largely psychological. To an addict, its impossible to imagine life without their chosen addiction. They will rationalize their habit, i.e. creating a belief system that genetics, not lifestyle choices, is responsible for their current situation. Read RSL's contributions to this thread for an example of how important this sort of mythology is. It allows them to continue their self-destructive behavior without all the unpleasant depression and self-loathing of facing reality.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of addictive behavior. Although of course, ultimately, the course of action is fairly simple. Stop indulging the addiction. Whether its food or heroin, the only cure is for the individual to make their number one priority in life kicking their addiction. In practice, that can be quite difficult. If the addict has convinced himself he's not responsible for his addiction, like RSL has, its impossible.

 

[RSLancastr]

Its a more difficult discussion when someone like RSL is involved. I've tangled with him before on this issue and discovered he's a morbidly obese food addict, not simply overweight.

You "discovered" this, did you?

Did you "discover" I was morbidly obese in the thread where I said I was morbidly obese, and I posted my height and weight? Good work, Sherlock!

Did you discover I was a food addict when I posted a typical day's intake for me? Holmes, you astound me!

The difference is largely psychological.

For many, yes. I have spoken of this here and elsewhere.

They will rationalize their habit, i.e. creating a belief system that genetics, not lifestyle choices, is responsible for their current situation. Read RSL's contributions to this thread for an example of how important this sort of mythology is.

Oh really? If you actually read this thread, you would have noticed that I've said more than once that I have no idea how much a role genetics plays. You dismiss as "mythology" studies which indicate a possible genetic factor?

Not to make you cry and run away again, but you don't sound like a scientist.

It allows them to continue their self-destructive behavior without all the unpleasant depression and self-loathing of facing reality.

On the contrary: I have my full share of both. But perhaps that is because I don't put the blame on genetics, as you seem to think I do.

If the addict has convinced himself he's not responsible for his addiction, like RSL has, its impossible.

How many times can you use the same strawman, Yeti? I know I'm fully responsible for my behavior. Genetics may play a role in how strongly that behavior impacts me, but I am fully responsible for everything I eat, and every exercise I don't do.

So, let us all know when you apply for the million dollar challenge, based on your professed ability to read my mind. So far, you are batting zero.

 

[EvilYeti]

Did you discover I was a food addict when I posted a typical day's intake for me? Holmes, you astound me!

The forum should note irrational aggression when confronted is a common trait among addicts.

For the record, I did discover you were a food addict when you posted an example of your daily diet. If I remember correctly, you then asked "Now, is that what you think an obese person would eat?". The example you gave contained about three times the recommended caloric intake of someone with your lifestyle (sedentary). Your inability to rationally examine the scale of your problem is another hallmark of addiction. Much like the alcoholic whom doesn't see a problem with having a few beers every night, meaning a twelve pack of course.

Oh really? If you actually read this thread, you would have noticed that I've said more than once that I have no idea how much a role genetics plays. You dismiss as "mythology" studies which indicate a possible genetic factor?

You haven't read any of the studies, so you are not qualified to comment on what they contain. Reading articles written by journalists eager to sell papers to obese junk-food addicts like yourself results in junk-science conclusions.
Read this if you are interested in the reality of genetics and obesity:
Don't Buy the 'Fat Gene' Myth

Not to make you cry and run away again, but you don't sound like a scientist.

The last person who said that thinks astrology is science, so you are in poor company for questioning my credentials.

On the contrary: I have my full share of both. But perhaps that is because I don't put the blame on genetics, as you seem to think I do.

It's clear from your posts you feel genetics play a signifigant role in your inability to lose weight. Anyone can scroll back and read that.

How many times can you use the same strawman, Yeti? I know I'm fully responsible for my behavior. Genetics may play a role in how strongly that behavior impacts me, but I am fully responsible for everything I eat, and every exercise I don't do.

Then why do you persist in compulsive self-destructive behavior? I've said many times now its not hard to make first step, like cut out sugar drinks from your diet. You drink more calories per day then I eat in any of my meals!
If you can't do that the only logical conclusion is that you are either an addict or suicidal (or maybe both).

So, let us all know when you apply for the million dollar challenge, based on your professed ability to read my mind. So far, you are batting zero.

Fine, you are deliberately eating yourself to an early grave. Thats much better than being a food addict.

Just remember to leave enough in your will so your family can super-size your coffin.