Genetics and Obesity- NYT article

I say this article and thought someone would post it. However, since nobody has yet, it's on me. I think it is interesting but horribly flawed. I'm sure anyone who reads it will see why- there is some bad science in the study, at least according to my understanding of human biology.

Here the article .

Just incase the link dies soon, the text is below:

 

I'd like to hear what you think is bad science in this. I haven't though through the methodology that well but it would be interesting.

 

I was hoping someone else would say it, but I'll just go ahead- the calorie limit in the original experiement. It was 600 cal/day! The doctor fed fat people 600 cal/day for a good period of time (the article isn't specific how long), they lost a lot of weight, and then he was surprised when, at the end, they looked like they were starving. They looked like they were starving because, in fact, they were.

Other parts of the article- ie: the prisoners losing gained weight, and the twins similarities- are more compelling. But that first study really jumped out at me.

 

They don't include enough info about the studies to really make a judgment.

But i can see some problems.
After the first study, after everyone left the hospital they all regained weight.
As said above, the diet was crazy. There's plenty of research around to show that crash diets like this don't work, because people always put the weight back on. It also doesn't state if they tried to change people's lifestyles to help keep the weight off. Did they give them diet education? An exercise program? Or did they just go back to the lifestyle they had before?

The prison one also has too little info.
There's no indication that they took into account the physical activity level of the inmates. Those inmates might have been eating 10000 calories a day. But maybe they spent all day in the exercise yard running and doing weights?
Again there is no indication that after the study anything was done to try to KEEP them overweight. They went back to their normal life (as normal as it can be inside prison).

The twins study is an epidemiological study. Studies like this can only show associations/correlations and do not give causal evidence. So to conclude that genes are responsible is flawed. There could be many confounding factors: Socio-economic status, education, smoking, physical activity, diet and more. There's no indication if they took these into account or not.

Really, there is just too little info to really tell if these studies are any good or not.

 

Interesting, actually they don't necessarily have to be starved if they where eating 600 cal a day, if they where getting the proper nutrients in the goop they where being fed then they wouldn't be showing those signs of starvation (IIRC).

 

Really? I think they would because they'd be significantly below the calorie threshold all people need to avoid starvation mode. I might be mistaken, but my understanding is that if you get less than about 1,200 cal/day over any significant period of time, especially while exercising, your metabolism will decrease. I'm only regurgitating what I've read here and other places though, so I could be mistaken.

 

If being fat is genetic, how come there isn't fat people in Somalia, Sudan and other places suffering from malnutrition.

 

That's the argument I use too.
How come the Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pols, Gypsies etc in concentration camps were all skinny? Burn off more than you consume and you lose weight.
Being fat because of genetics is just another excuse to provide comfort to lazy sods who don't want to admit that it's their own fault.

 

Because the article is saying people with particular genes burn less fat than those without them. You may notice that they still lost weight on a severely restricted calorie diet, even with these genes.

Just a wild guess here but I reckon the people in Somalia, Sudan and the Nazi concentration camps are also on a severely calorie restricted diet.

This article may be flawed especially since the portion where subjects regained their weight was outside of lab conditions, but whether it's due to nature or nurture some peeople do find it harder to lose weight.

 

genetics is the ultimate cop-out IMO.

its not the 30 big macs a day, its your genetics

no sympathy for tubs, i had a fair size gut over the winter during my bulk and i do find fat loss hard... because i cant stick to a rigid eating plan.
My exericse is spot on but i find the diet hard to stick to on a cut.

i dont look at my DNA wondering where things went wrong when it really lies with the 10pm craving for cheescake and poor will power...hmmmmm...cheeeesecake

 

which is kind of like saying - if you want to reduce obesity levels, don't let fat people breed...

 

i see a new signature

 

Fat people shouldn't breed anyway. There arn't enough hospital beds available as it is and fat people will take up two beds when giving birth

 

I actually meant it as a critisism of the article as being bigotted and err.. fat-ist, but what the hell its a good quote, use it anyway...

reminds me of the Jimmy Carr Joke

 

I don't condone the use of "genetics" as an excuse for obesity but at the same time, I think it's premature to dismiss it completely as a factor. The study cited by the OP is far from conclusive but I think it demonstrates enough correlation to be worth following up on.

 

Even if the metabolic rate will change to try and push you back to your 'normal weight', that doesn't mean you're going to be permanently stuck at that weight range. I would just assume that it's a biochemical process based on current circumstance rather than an unchangable, genetically spurred one: fat people may have to get fat before their metabolism then considers that their 'normal weight', thus it would be logically possible that if one were to remain at a lower weight the body would then consider that the 'normal weight', thus reversing the process and making it easier to maintain that weight.

Even if I'm wrong, this is one instance where I think living in ignorance can be somewhat beneficial, as believing that you're going to forever be fighting against something that is inherited and unchangable is motivation-shattering.

 

The article suggests to me that the more important focus in exercise might be the alteration of metabolic raterather than concentrating on shifting weight, don't know if that's accurate or not though.

Speaking from experience, I know that when I lost weight big time I was eating in excess of 3,500 calories a day at best guess and I put on weight when I went back to eating about 2,500 because I wasn't doing the same level of exercise.

My brother has managed to loose weight and his case the change is permanent (Or at least has been maintained) but he is ridiculously active, he bikes about 12 miles a day, goes rock climbing a couple of times a week and even then he has to REALLY watch what he eats, this is when he's at home, at Uni he's less careful about food and a lot more active, if I had to guess, his calorie intake at home during this level of exercise is probably 2,000 a day and he's above average size and pretty well built.

 

genetics probably counts for 20% of someone's weight at most. it could be more like 10%. the other 80-90% is due to environmental factors, all of which can be changed. thing with obese people is that they've spent so many years being obese that the body has adapted to that weight, and the internal mechanisms run by hormones & such will fight to keep the current weight. if the weight is lost quickly, these mechanisms will fight hard to gain the weight back. but this isn't really a genetic factor, it's just an environmental adaptation, strengthened by prolonged exposure.

 

are you basing those figures on any form of factual knowledge or research or did you just pick some small sounding numbers out of thin (or should that be fat) air?

 

i'm quoting what my professor said in class. of course he didn't tell us what source he got that from, but he just said it was around that number from the research he's seen.