regarding high risk obesity gene

[ICBINEG]

link

I think I have it.... this sounds so very like me....particularly the protein working better than anything else to reduce appetite.

So anyone else think they are in the 1:6 with a high risk obesity gene?

AIBU to think it really does help to know WHY it is harder for some people to lose / keep weight off than others?

There are just so many problems with the genetic approach to obesity.
It's fine on a population level, just find the right treatment to turn the gene off.
In theory. Bit like stomach stapling. There will be drawbacks and risks.
And for some it will become a kind of excuse to not try to do what they can. I don't care about the morality of that but it bothers me to give the Pharma companies any more opportunity to make ordinary things into a profit-making opportunity. For those who can afford it, that is.

What makes you doubt most were, Techno? Do you think I lived in a different 50s-60s than other children?

Basically because rationing didn't end till the mid 50's Garlic and so not many families were 'lavished' with anything foodwise.

Children of the 50's generally remember food shortages and not eating 'lavishly' as you describe. Perhaps you came from a more affluent family but all the people I know of that era tell a decidedly different tale to yours.

From what you are describing you may well be someone that does not carry fat easily due high metabolism. Women don't generally pack on muscle easily so this may explain you eating as you're describing and not being fat (I'm assuming you weren't a fat child).

I grew up as a 70's child and attitudes to food were much different to what they are today. Things like suet pudding was a 'treat' as were things like fish & chips. They weren't daily occurrences like the turkey twizzlers and chips that schools have been feeding kids for years up until very recently. In fact, shops just were not packed to bursting with junk food like they are today. I honestly don't know how you can liken the 50's & 60's to the mountains of dirt cheap junk food that we see in supermarkets on a daily basis.

Re: the calories-in/calories-out. Yes it's simplistic but I was simply highlighting the relative differences between the two i.e. how long it takes to consume/burn off 300 cals. Just one Tesco choc chip cookie is 300 cals. You can eat a cookie in less than 60 seconds but it takes 60 mins to burn the same amount off.

But essentially it's a fair equation, even if simplistic, as it gives us an indication of what we're faced with.

This is a ramble away from the topic, Techno, but perceived history isn't always the same as what really happened. I am a nutrition geek along with my other faults, so I'd like to correct this misapprehension slightly. I was born in 1955. You are right, I remember rationing. We were dirt poor - I mean really hard up, as many young working-class families were then; living in the Black Country.

Things like suet puddings and pies exist to bulk up the meat, veg or fruit within. They're also very high in fat, because this keeps us feeling fuller for longer. Bulk and satiety were primary goals in wartime & post-war foods. You may have seen the WW2 recipe suggestion for toast sandwiches! They're actually quite nice, especially with sugar, but hardly a mine of nutrients. Jam sandwiches, toast & dripping or lard, flapjacks, fried bread, and similar snacks were staples. Chocolate was in short supply when I was small, but everyone always had a bag of boiled sweets about their person - children and adults. We didn't have crisps, either, but every other manner of fried spud abounded (we used to make crisps, but they weren't all that crispy). All households had a big pan of lard on the cooker at all times, since something would be deep fried every day. Fizzy pop was delivered in pint & gallon containers, from a van like a milk van.

The fact that less money was spent doesn't mean less 'crap' was consumed at all! In fact, the much-lauded 'wartime' diet would be heavily frowned on these days.

Things like suet pudding was a 'treat' - By the '70s, most families had much bigger food budgets, in terms of cost by hours worked, and new-fangled ideas from France & Italy had been adopted. In my childhood, sweet suet puddings were more or less daily - if not that, it would be rice or semolina pudding or pie with custard. Heavy puddings twice a day, then, with the savoury course also a pie or suet pudding as often as not. Stews always had dumplings. The mothers would all "make the pastry" every single morning, as a pie or suet base would be needed every day.

Jam tarts! Another 'always there' snack. And puff pastry baked with more butter, cinnamon and sugar - I still make that sometimes :)

I think this is quite significant.

All the research into so-called 'fat genes' to date have concentrated on genetic influences that cause the body to lay down and store weight. They only make a difference of a few lbs so do nothing to counteract the "move more, eat less" argument.

Of course the "move more, eat less" argument is the solution, but if it were that easy to follow we wouldn't have the obesity epidemic that we have. This is one of the first studies to look at why some people struggle more than others when it comes to regulating their food intake.

The mental associations with food cannot be underestimated in terms of importance. Cultural context, childhood experiences with food, personal neuroses - all these things play a part. A genetic influence on that is only one part of the picture, but I think it's a significant one and will benefit quite a lot of people who do possess the willpower to make changes to their diet but lose it when nothing happens or their appetite tries to sabotage them every step of the way.

I am not a big foodie and I exercise a lot. I usually find it quite easy to resist temptation, but when I really want something, I really want it. Feeling like that all the time would definitely make a difference to my weight, no matter how much I exercised.

Ok Garlic if we accept for one minute (not that I believe it) that there is no significant difference between the 'crapness' of food between the 1950's and today then exercise must be the only feasible difference.

Except the level of obesity that we are seeing nowadays cannot be solely down to not doing enough exercise. The rate at which people are becoming obese is far greater than the differential in exercise. Apart from your theory being totally unfeasible it just isn't true.

It is accepted nowadays that exercise plays only a small part in weight loss or maintaining weight. Diet is by far the biggest factor. Otherwise our hunter/gatherer ancestors would have died well before they did as the task of hunting/gathering would have wasted them away.

It is true that many kids are exercising less but doing a few less hours of exercise a week isn't going to cause an obesity epidemic. This should be obvious from the many anecdotes and friends we see who do not change their diet, exercise like mad for 8 weeks and fail to make any significant progress.

I don't know enough about the metabolic effects of different kinds of exercise to quantify that. All I know is it's more interesting than calories in/out, and different individuals' bodies respond differently to exercise. This varies throughout a lifespan, as well as between people, and is also impacted by other health & lifestyle considerations.

I think oestrogenic compounds in the food chain will turn out to have been significant, along with other factors.

Agree strongly with what you said, Dahlen. It's an exciting discovery.

Childhood obesity has flattened out, by the way, Techno. Insignificant increase since 1995. Knew I'd seen this somewhere; took ages to find it: reliable graph.

.. sorry, should have said from 2006. Increase in overweight+obese children is from 26% in 1995 to 30% in 2010.

You do see a bigger increase if you compare to the 1960s, however statisticians wouldn't make this comparison as the data was evaluated differently back then. Looking at photos from the era, I think you see somewhat fewer fat people than today but it's really not as if everyone was an icon of physical perfection 50 years ago. One of my best friends at primary school was enormous, and certainly plenty of adults were. I would agree people were probably fitter, body size notwithstanding.

Fact 1. We live in the same environment yet some of us with a particular gene are far more likely to be obese.

This proves that genetics is an important factor in obesity.

Fact 2. Our children have broadly the same genetics as our grandparents yet childhood obesity is massively higher now than ever before.

This proves that environment is an important factor in obesity.

Which is more important of these will depend on the individual.

Does anyone actually disagree with this analysis?

"Basically, I'm pretty sure that if ICBINEG chewed through 200 cals of celery then she'd be fine (as would most people that struggle with their weight)."

I absolutely would not. I HATE celery with a passion rarely seen in the middle aged. Seriously you would NOT want to be in a room with me after I'd done that.

I already told you I could stuff down 1000 kcals of fruit easily...given my calorie balance for maintaining my weight appears to be around 1400 kcals per day, I also get to have a few cups of tea and a yogurt or something...lucky lucky me.

I don't think we live in the same environment. Our environment has changed massively since the 50's, 60's and 70's both in terms of technology and food. We have adapted to suit our new environment and hence the obesity problems we have.

Of course genetics is a factor in obesity. I have no doubt that in past generations the most successful humans were those with the fat gene. We have evolved through centuries where efficient fat storage has been an essential part of life but now food is so abundant it has turned the other way.

The gene itself isn't the problem IMHO. If our grandparents had this gene and they were not all obese then it stands to reason that some other factor is at play.

In my mind that factor is food (and to a lesser extent exercise).

Garlic

Of course it's more complex than calories in/out but is an easy concept for 99% of the population to understand.

In fact I would assume it's a lot worse than that because you will never burn the total calories consumed. A lot of the food we eat is converted simply to maintain body temperature. We then burn calories to maintain our BMR i.e. bodily functions, muscle mass etc.

Anything we don't use gets stored or converted to waste.

You are right that we all burn and convert the food we eat differently but ultimately it all boils down to calories in/out. Basically if you burn more than you consume then you will lose weight. There may be exceptions but by and large if you don't stick it down your neck then it won't stick to your wasteline.

If you look back of photos of people in the 40s and 50s they are all v thin.
Rationing would have had an influence but when I was at school in the 60s I can't think of anyone who was fat, a bit hefty maybe, but not fat. Not teachers or pupils. The gene must have evolved since them

I absolutely would not. I HATE celery with a passion rarely seen in the middle aged. Seriously you would NOT want to be in a room with me after I'd done that.

Ok maybe celery isn't your thing but the concept is the same.

Previously you were talking about feeling hungry all the time and feeling the need to eat.

My point is, if you gave in and substituted X/Y/Z with something as bulky but low calorie as celery then you wouldn't likely have a problem.

techno are you actually reading any of my replies?

I already said TWICE that I could happy eat 1000 kcals of fruit with no difficulty whatsoever and still feel hungry for the rest of the day.

Same with veg. A whole pack of carrot sticks has like feck all calories in it...but my body isn't fooled. I will eat the whole bag and an hour later be all so whats for lunch?

Forever why do people feel fuller eating protein?

I have said it like 15 times already but here goes again...

If your body/brain is demanding more calories than you burn to achieve balance then it doesn't matter that much where those calories come from or go to. You will still put on weight.

I have (excluding when I had hyperemisis) always had a reasonable whole-foody 5-a-day diet and done regular exercise (I played sport at county level before becoming pregnant). This has done nothing to stop me putting on weight, throughout my life....because the more exercise you do the more calories your body demands. The lower the calorie density of the food, the more your body demands of that food.

You make some good points techno although it could be that this gene is more prevalent now or it is involved in protein metabolism. If I understand it correctly from this yhread ive not read the link people with a faulty gene don't metabolise protein efficiently?? As we probably have more protein in our diets now it will be more noticeable

Fruit and veg just isn't filling, is it? Bananas maybe, potatoes yes. Loads of celery or carrots or similar isn't going to fill you up at all.

LEM - protein takes longer to digest, and it doesn't cause insulin spikes like carbs do, so you don't get that hunger 2 hours after eating. If you have more lean protein for lunch rather than sandwiches for example, you shouldn't get that 3pm slump and feel like reaching for the biscuits...
(BIWI will probably explain it much better than me though)

ICBINEG

I'm reading you correctly.

What I am saying is this.

Eat a decent, well researched diet that works best for you. If you eat 3 meals a day then snacking inbetween on something like celery will give you calories but also bulk. For instance, 200 cals of celery is about 1.5kgs of the stuff. I'm not seriously suggesting that you eat 1.5kg of celery (you don't like it anyway) but there is no denying that little/often of something similar will go some way to seeing you through the day.

Naturally if you have this 'gene' then you are unlikely ever to feel satisfied for long so sadly you will have to find some middle ground where you accept that you're just going to feel hungry. Just maybe not completely starving but just hungry.

Irrespective of this gene, those that have it ultimately have to reconcile the fact that you cannot simply satisfy hunger pangs infinitely. As I mentioned previously I don't find being virtuous particularly easy either but sadly that's life. I have no idea how to measure effort/resistance to cravings/willpower so maybe I feel hungrier than most but have greater willpower? Who knows but one thing's for sure and that is there's no wonder drug currently out there to eliminate hunger pangs so we just have to do what we can to stop piling on the pounds.

In my view, this research just indicates why some people find it harder to resist the temptations of the modern processed diet. Its part of the the jigsaw but it isn't the whole picture.

I suspect, as I indicated above, that there is a genetic componant in the weight gain on my dad's side of the family. There may even be an explanation why this gene was advantageous as my dad comes from an area where the Irish potato famine was severe so being overweight might have had a survival advantage at that time so people who had the gene were more likely to make it through (note this is pure speculation on my part).

However, the change in the western diet to one high in refined carbs and sugar is also problematic. I cut out all processed food about a month ago and only eat starchy carbs (e.g. potatoes, brown rice or wholewheat pasta) once a day. The rest of the time its fruit, veg, fish, nuts, eggs etc. I've lost a lot of weight and my appetite has decreased noticeably.

a growing attitude that as soon as someone feels hungry, they should eat

Unless you think the human nervous system evolved an overwhelming signalling system for no reason at all, it should be bloody obvious that hungry people should eat!

You're being disingenuous garlic which does your argument no favours at all.

Of course hungry people should eat

But if you read my post properly, I said there's a growing attitude that as soon as someone feels hungry they should eat.

Hunger is (especially between meals) is often a small pang that passes. Sometimes a glass of water is all that's required.

Nowadays (compared to when I was growing up in the 70s/80s) people can't seem to walk down the street without eating something.

As soon as they feel that hunger pang, in goes the food...regardless of whether they've already eaten a meal a few hours before.