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