quick thought on modern nutrition/medicine popular knowledge

[stronger]

Everyone has heard of the "genetic component" of common ailments. Heart disease, obesity, diabetes are all diseases which people have a "family history" of having.

Now, I'm sure there are genetic inclinations to being fat, stupid or prone to heart attacks, but isn't it possible that a family which supposedly has a genetic propensity towards fatness doesn't have any particular genetic element towards such a misfortunate physical appearance, they just happen to be a family of fat people, and not a fat family?

Maybe less of a blame should be put on mom and dad and more of one on ourselves. It would be very interesting to see a western diet person put in a Maasai or Inuit tribe to test how genetically exclusive these meat-eating, non obese peoples are.


Please tell me if this is completely idiotic, because I wonder why obesity was a thing of rarity 100 years ago, and how those genes of a family magically transformed into ones that make you fat for life, or guaranteed to have a heart attack.

Sorry that this isn't weightlifting related, I will post a deadlift video soon to make up for it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Looks like a perfectly obvious observation to me.

[BradyB]

The genes didn't change over time. People are genetically prone to insulin resistance on a continuum. The more prone you are, the lower your threshold of (refined) carbohydrate intake. More carb intake = more obesity. It really is that simple. Carb intake goes up, more thresholds get breached.

These "fat" genes that people talk about can be anything really: genes that code for kinases or phosphatases that help maintin proper insulin signaling, LPL transcription factors, etc. Anything that is substandard and related to metabolism. Under proper diet conditions, these minor metabolism flaws wouldn't be noticeable. But put them under massive strain with excessive amounts of refined carbs and watch the pathology develop.

[Ian Kovtunovich]

I dunno, seems like an oversimplification to me, and probably a false dichotomy - must it be either only genetics or only environmental? Nature or nurture, but not some of both? While there's no doubt that someone in an environment where exercise and proper diet are of no concern will likely fall prey to that lifestyle, I suspect that the study of genetics has a pretty good handle on the fact that genes can influence one's build, body type, etc.

Duke sums it up nicely: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibr...ausesOfObesity

[matclone]

"Component" means a part of something. A "genetic component" thus suggests that your genes may have something, but not necessarily everything, to do with your health, body type etc. So, I don't understand your complaint, stronger. You acknowledge the component piece of the equation but then seemingly ignore it by running down some sort of straw argument that people are blaming their genes solely for their girth. You haven't been listening to talk radio, have you?

It goes without saying that we have the power (will) to shape and strengthen our bodies (or not). It always goes without saying that most fat people wish they weren't fat. Will power is an important factor but it is not the only consideration.

You asked a very relevant question: why do we have an epidemic (per the CDC) of obesity now, when obesity was rare 100 years ago. I suggest to you that it is not merely an exertion of will or absence thereof, and that other factors come into play like
--cultural influences,
--the availability of food in general (today: the store, aplenty; yesterday: the farm, sometimes not plentiful),
--the availability of specific types of food (fast and convenience food that basically didn't exist even 50 years ago),
--video games, television (also recent developments)
--the continued move from an agricultural to industrial society and the continued transtion to life where manual labor is not necessary to work or survive.

[Brad Davis]

I think you're mostly right, but I've seen exceptions.

The one that's most clear was a girl at my HS. She ran track and worked harder than anybody I knew. I'd guess that she averaged 5 miles/day at least and competed in road races year round. Lifted weight also. She was always chunky even with all that work, probably about 5'6" and 150 with some noticeable flab. That was 20 years ago. I saw a picture of her the other day for the first time since then. She looked to be about 300 lb. I'd guess that at 36, she works to stay that light.

My 13 year old son, on the other hand, eats starch and other garbage like mad and he doesn't seem to have any fat at all. He's also fairly inactive. There's definitely some kind of innate component (careful not to say "genetic") also.

[Gottatri2lift]

Obesity was a thing of rarity because people were still very active and didn't sit on their ass all day long and then whine about lack of energy when the leave the office at 1700. Food wasn't manufactured but grown. Also as Coach Rip states in Strong Enough? page 191 - "Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

[tremorviolet]

Obesity was a thing of rarity because people were still very active and didn't sit on their ass all day long and then whine about lack of energy when the leave the office at 1700. Food wasn't manufactured but grown. Also as Coach Rip states in Strong Enough? page 191 - "Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

I see this argument all the time and I don't buy it. It seems like people think we were out slaving in the fields back in the 70s and that's why people weren't so fat then. I think most people vastly overestimate the amount of exercise an accountant got in the 70s, 50s, 20s, or even the 1800s. Yeah, they walked more but I know plenty of hugely fat poor people who walk. The big difference was diet: way less processed carby crap stuffed with high fructose corn syrup. We didn't start to get really fat until the 80s when conventional wisdom started pushing the low-fat dogma which meant people avoided real food like eggs, whole milk, meat, etc.

[Brad Davis]

..."Mike McConnell - has suggested that the single most important contributing factor in the "obesity epidemic" is the relatively recent introduction of air conditioning and heating."

I find that to be very interesting and easy to believe.

This also came up in a recent article, USA Today, I think, about increased # of football player deaths during 2-a-days. Someone pointed out that it used to 90 in the house and 90 on the field during hte summer. Now they go from 70 in the house and 90 on the field. Duh.

[stronger]

I dunno, seems like an oversimplification to me, and probably a false dichotomy - must it be either only genetics or only environmental? Nature or nurture, but not some of both? While there's no doubt that someone in an environment where exercise and proper diet are of no concern will likely fall prey to that lifestyle, I suspect that the study of genetics has a pretty good handle on the fact that genes can influence one's build, body type, etc.

Duke sums it up nicely: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibr...ausesOfObesity

No, I'm cautious to say it's one and not the other, which is why I qualified my statement in the 2nd paragraph. I'm just saying that there seems to be an overemphasis on the genetic component and this explanation has almost become a crutch. Ask any fat person, and most blame it on someone else.