I sort of have a question. I know Reinhard has mentioned that a very small percent of the population is genetically fat. But most people are not. That said, wouldn't a genetically fat person be overweight as a kid? I am thinking, if a person is a slim kid, then you can't blame genes on you being a fat adult, but rather overeating. I was a slim kid and teenager. Therefore, I don't think I can argue genetics.
What are your thoughts?
a question about genetics
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
a question about genetics
The destiny of nations depends on the manner in which they feed themselves. Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
I do think that genetics play a role, because people tend to have different metabolisms.
With that said, genetics is not destiny, and a tendency turns into an excuse FAR too often.
My family tends to be heavy, with all the associated diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.). However... I am NOT overweight. I do have to watch what I eat, because it is easy for me to gain weight. I fall into "sugar addiction" cycles (or used to, before No-S) that can be hard to pull out of. To maintain weight, I need to pay attention, to eat properly, and to exercise.
At one point, one of my roomies fell into the opposite end of the spectrum - she had to monitor her weight to keep it at a reasonable level, because she dropped weight too easily. It was no easier for her than for me, truth be told (though she got far less general sympathy). Still, both of us were about the same size when we roomed together.
So yes, there are genetic differences. But that doesn't mean that you're "doomed" to be fat. It just means you have to pay a little more attention than someone else might.
With that said, genetics is not destiny, and a tendency turns into an excuse FAR too often.
My family tends to be heavy, with all the associated diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.). However... I am NOT overweight. I do have to watch what I eat, because it is easy for me to gain weight. I fall into "sugar addiction" cycles (or used to, before No-S) that can be hard to pull out of. To maintain weight, I need to pay attention, to eat properly, and to exercise.
At one point, one of my roomies fell into the opposite end of the spectrum - she had to monitor her weight to keep it at a reasonable level, because she dropped weight too easily. It was no easier for her than for me, truth be told (though she got far less general sympathy). Still, both of us were about the same size when we roomed together.
So yes, there are genetic differences. But that doesn't mean that you're "doomed" to be fat. It just means you have to pay a little more attention than someone else might.
-
NoelFigart
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:23 pm
- Location: Lebanon, NH
- Contact:
Genetics does play a part, and yes, you're right that it isn't "destiny". Very very few people are genetically doomed to weight issues, and they're probably on some heavy duty enocrinological meds, too!KCCC wrote:I do think that genetics play a role, because people tend to have different metabolisms.
With that said, genetics is not destiny, and a tendency turns into an excuse FAR too often.
What a lot of us miss, I think, is that "healthy" is such a wide range. A woman is perfectly healthy if she has between 18% and 28% body fat. At my lean body mass, that's a range of over 25 pounds!
While it's fashionable to try to hit the low end of the range for looks, for health, it's not necessary.
Genetically speaking, I do tend to add body fat easily. But healthy habits will get me to a healthy (not fashionable, HEALTHY) weight with no real issue.
I think the interaction between genetics and environment on this (and most) issues can get very, very complicated.
But there's no genetic reason why anyone has to overeat. Most of us stuff ourselves like pigs and move like slugs. There's no reason on earth to do that. On no-s (plus some moderate exercise program like urban ranger and/or shovelglove) you won't. That's a good in itself, right off that bat, even apart from results. And results will almost certainly follow.
Reinhard
But there's no genetic reason why anyone has to overeat. Most of us stuff ourselves like pigs and move like slugs. There's no reason on earth to do that. On no-s (plus some moderate exercise program like urban ranger and/or shovelglove) you won't. That's a good in itself, right off that bat, even apart from results. And results will almost certainly follow.
Reinhard
-
ThomsonsPier
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:18 pm
- Location: Reading, UK
Aha! Then the secret of success is to reverse the trend; eat like a slug and move like a pig! No, that's not right...reinhard wrote:Most of us stuff ourselves like pigs and move like slugs.
I think the limit of genetic influence (barring major genetic abnormality) is at overall body type/shape rather than the overall constituency at which it arrives. This article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype
- has probably been posted before, but it's an interesting (if basic and rather outdated) read and started me off on a substantial improvement in diet for my body type.
Please excuse the poor formatting above; I seem to be having some BBCode issues...
ThomsonsPier
It's a trick. Get an axe.
It's a trick. Get an axe.
There are real genetic differences
I have two dogs. They get an identical amount of exercise. They don't get an identical amount of food - the fatter one (Boris) gets about 75% of the amount the thinner one (Mishka) gets. I know they don't cheat - they can't.
Sadly, my own metabolism is more like Boris's than Mishka's. I have been very thin in the past, but it meant living off a daily 800-1000 calories and meant I became obessed with food. Now I eat around 2000 calories a day, and I'm a couple of stone overweight. There is some kind of happy medium, but I haven't found it for more than a few months at a time.
Sadly, my own metabolism is more like Boris's than Mishka's. I have been very thin in the past, but it meant living off a daily 800-1000 calories and meant I became obessed with food. Now I eat around 2000 calories a day, and I'm a couple of stone overweight. There is some kind of happy medium, but I haven't found it for more than a few months at a time.
-
NoelFigart
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:23 pm
- Location: Lebanon, NH
- Contact:
Re: There are real genetic differences
Okay, I don't know if you're male or female, short or tall or whatever, but I can guarendamntee that if you've been living on 800 calories a day you've cannibalized muscle to make the scale give you a pretty number.zingano wrote:Sadly, my own metabolism is more like Boris's than Mishka's. I have been very thin in the past, but it meant living off a daily 800-1000 calories and meant I became obessed with food. Now I eat around 2000 calories a day, and I'm a couple of stone overweight. There is some kind of happy medium, but I haven't found it for more than a few months at a time.
I know what I'm talking about. I used to be a a Diet Center counselor and the diet was about 900 calories a day for a woman. When I started doing body fat analysis of people who had lost and regained weight, we started noticing a disturbing trend. When you got back up to your former fat weight, your body was at a higher body fat percentage.
If you think about it, this is reasonable and logical. Your body thinks you're starving and will use the muscle first. You can live without too much muscle, and then the stored fat will keep you alive just that much longer. Your body doesn't know you want to look like Kate Moss (if you do, I'm just throwing a "skinny person" name out there).
The real answer is to do strength training and put the muscle back on and EAT real food (but not too much!)