[jansan]

Originally from Meg: <<I’m outraged! Here I am, drinking my coffee and reading the morning paper and what do I see? An article comparing diet plans (it’s been an on-going series since the beginning of the year) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04169/332980.stm. No problem until I get to this paragraph:
Quote:
What discourages me, though, is something I read in The New York Times on June 8, quoting noted obesity expert Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, who says that "body weight is genetically determined, as tightly regulated as height. Genes control not only how much you eat but also the metabolic rate at which you burn food. When it comes to eating, free will is an illusion.
"People can exert a level of control over their weight within a 10-, perhaps a 15-pound range," Dr. Friedman said. But expecting an obese person to decide to simply eat less and exercise more to get below the obesity range, below the overweight range? It virtually never happens, he said. "Any weight that is lost almost invariably comes right back." >>


Hi all, as I have read past posts on this forum, this thread has jumped out at me more than once. The researcher says body weight is genetically determined. I dont think he is right, but its scary to read such stuff in the midst of such a stuggle. Not only are there all the people on this site who have lost and kept weight off, but the numerous successes chronicled in Thin for Life, and the National registry. And the miriad of others who have not made anyone's lists. (And how would he explain identicle twins who do not weight the same?)

To address his theory that weight is 'genetically' determined, exactly which of my weights over my lifetime is my 'genetically' pre-determined one? The relatively constant weight of about 150 in my youth and early-mid 20's? Or my single shot up to 170's quickly lost and kept off for many more years? Or my all time high of 250 where I didnt stay too long? Or my weight of 200 now? Or when I get back to 150 ish? Does he assume one's all time high weight is one's preset weight? Or the weight where one has spent the most time? Is it automatic that one's low weight is the temporary fluke? Or is it the high weight? Even one's height is influenced by more than genetics (hormones and nutrition). And one's metabolic rate, another of his examples, is influenced not only by genetics but also by muscle mass, exercise, food eaten, environmental temperature, and perhaps time of day and time of year.

Another thing about the genetics of weight. Its only been the past few decades when man has had all the food available to him consistently in super markets, etc. to enable him to gain all the weight so many of us have. In the history of man there has been no other time like this with nutrient dense foods available 24/365. Never. In general, life was hard for ancestral man. The upper limits of genetically predetermined weight would rarely have been tested -- and that would have been necessary for anything to be set genetically.

Numerous overweight individuals is a relatively new phenomenon in mankind. At their highs, very few of our ancestors would have weighed much over 150-170 pounds, much less 200 pounds. For one thing, where would they have consistently found that much rich fatty food to reach that size, and then maintain it? And even if they had, they would most likely have been selected against in the blind maw of natural selection.

So which is more likely to be selected for and hence (perhaps) genetically fixed? The smaller bodies of our more agile, svelt ancestors who were more likely to survive an attack from their neighbors, or our present day obese fellow citizens who in order to survive would would find it difficult to run or climb a tree in an emergency? Arent they always telling us being fat is unhealthy and will kill us? If so, other than as a successful antidote for famine, why would being severely overweight be selected for genetically??? It doesnt make biological sense.

Jan

[Only Me]

I agree, that quote is both ridiculous and maddening. How on earth have our genes changed over the past 30 years that so many more people are obese than in the past? It's the abundance of high calorie food and the way that exercise is being engineered out of our lives that's causing the rising levels of obesity, not genetics. Yes, we're all programed to eat lots of food when it's available. Yes some people gain weight more easily than others. Yes some people are going to be bigger than others. But to claim that we only have a 10-15lb window to work with is ridiculous and defeating to anyone starting a diet, even if they need to lose weight for health reasons.

[Lyria]

Please, no one jump on me, but I get the feeling that the "genetically pre-determined overweight" people being refered to by this person would be people who were chubby babies, overweight children and then obese adults whose parent/s or relatives were the same ie. having a family history or predisposition to it...like heart conditions i guess. Not so much people who were relatively stable and in the "healthy range" for a good part of their life and then the weight went up.

As to why genetics may not have played such a role in the past, we did lead a much more active life years ago and while the food still may have been fatty, it wasnt in such large portions. Also, it wouldnt surprise me if there WAS a gene or two regarding weight, fat and it's storage. After all, we're basically built to store fat for leaner times...arent we? Any genes for "Obesity" havent just appeared over the last 30 years, they've always been there. Our bodies genetic makeup unfortunately can't adapt as quickly to our modern changes in circumstance and diet as we'd like. That takes thousands of years. In eons past those people who were able to store more fat and/or with lower metabolisms would have been the ones to survive the lean times while those with quicker and "slimmer" genes would have died.

Thankfully we don't live in such times anymore, but try telling that to our bodies which have evolved for those conditions.

To hear people say that just because we *may* have a gene that predisposes us to putting weight on is harsh, but not necessarily wrong. What it doesnt mean however, and those people have no right to suggest, is that we just throw our hands up and give in. With effort and determination anyone can do anything, the people here are living proof of that!

Livi

[Meg]

Originally Posted by Lyria

To hear people say that just because we *may* have a gene that predisposes us to putting weight on is harsh, but not necessarily wrong. What it doesnt mean however, and those people have no right to suggest, is that we just throw our hands up and give in. With effort and determination anyone can do anything, the people here are living proof of that!

I completely agree with what you said so well and to me, that's the bottom line. There's so much left to be determined about the causes of obesity - I suspect the roots are very complicated and intertwined with genetics, environment, hormones, culture, socialization, biochemistry and probably other factors. Clearly some of us are dealt a more challenging hand to play than others.

But ... to me the 'why' of obesity doesn't matter a whole lot. Because I think we're all basically saying the same thing: biology does not determine destiny. We're in control; we're the architects of our lives. We have free will and self-determination and we make hundreds of little choices every day about what we eat and how we move our bodies. Those decisions are what ultimately determines whether we'll be overweight/obese or not. No one (here, at least ) ever said that losing weight/maintaining a weight loss - especially when it's a lot of weight - is easy but everyone here will say that it can be done. And it's is totally worth doing.

[jansan]

There absolutely are genes that influence our weight. My family tends to carry a plump gene or two. You can tell by just looking at us all together. The objection is to what this particular researcher said: that no matter what one does, there is only a 10 to 15 pound range that the body will return over time to no matter what else we do. This is simply silly, and is more proof that not all scientists understand all other scientific disciplines.

As to the 'why' of obesity, that frankly interests me greatly out of sheer curiosity in wanting to know everything I can about a battle I have fought for years. Who knows what might help. In fact in searching out root causes, I have come to believe obesity, mine anyway, has more of its roots in psychology and ineffective life skills rather than in biology or genes or food itself. What's that old line? Its not what you are eating but what is eating you.

I also agree with Meg that no matter what the interlocking causes and all their subtle ripple effects, it is up to us to do the work to solve it. You cannot solve a weight problem solely by understanding it, eventually you have to eat less and exercise more. Period. Knowing does not equate to doing.

Jan

[AnneWonders]

The 'why' question was an issue I had to get past in order to lose weight successfully. It didn't really matter why. Perhaps genetics makes it easier or harder for some of us to successfully balance our energy needs against our energy intake, in fact I think it's highly likely that's the case. But, in the end, like Meg & Jan both said, it comes down to doing something about it.

Scientists and researchers of other sorts have their own biases, interests, and opinions and can be counted on at any given moment to say something remarkably stupid, even in their own field. Since I qualify as a scientist, I feel comfortable making that statement, possibly remarkably stupid in and of itself, with some confidence. Show me a well designed study with some hard data, and I'm impressed. Another doc spouting an unsupported opinion is really no more or less authoritative than pretty much anybody else--she probably just likes to hear herself talk.

Dr. Anne