Avg Obese Woman Gets 1hr Excercise Per Year

Off Topic
41

[quote]magick wrote:
therajraj-

Then wouldn’t you have had fat people comparable in number to today back in the 18th century, etc?[/quote]

Whether we accept that BMI is heritable or not, we definitely accept that environment plays a larger role on the scale of the entire populous, and thus we wouldn’t expect fat people comparable in number to today, because our modern environment encourages it/discourages it less, and I don’t just mean ‘fat acceptance’ style but sedentary lifestyles and whatnot.

42

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
According to this study, BMI is 75-80% heritable

http://www.tweelingenregister.org/2012/Nan_EJE_2012.pdf[/quote]

And there are a bunch of studies to just the opposite conclusion. One study does not a case make. Soo…?[/quote]

There are a bunch of causal studies showing BMI isn’t heritable?

There’s also this one

Should add this result is supported by genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA

http://www.twinsuk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Hemani-AJHM-2013.pdf

I began to wonder about my belief that obesity is almost all environmental and not heritable after reading this article by Bret Contreras

" 16 weeks of progressive dynamic exercise involving 66 human subjects failed to yield any measurable hypertrophy in 26% of subjects. Wow, sucks to be them!"[/quote]
I wouldn’t debate that propensities for a certain BMI are hereditary. What I do maintain though is that a lack of willpower to stop overheating is not hereditary, that’s just laziness. If all these genetically fat people suddenly stopped eating, what would happen? They would whither away and die just like everyone else. They are still mammals, and their bodies still must obey basic biological principals. All they have to do is create a caloric deficit.

43

[quote]red04 wrote:
Whether we accept that BMI is heritable or not, we definitely accept that environment plays a larger role on the scale of the entire populous, and thus we wouldn’t expect fat people comparable in number to today, because our modern environment encourages it/discourages it less, and I don’t just mean ‘fat acceptance’ style but sedentary lifestyles and whatnot.[/quote]

I agree.

That’s why I find the entire concept of “BMI is heritable” ridiculous.

Just 60 years ago most people were skinny, if nothing else than because most people were eating somewhere between 2.3-3k calories a day and also walked everywhere.

But, if BMI truly is heritable, then one would expect a certain % of the populace to be overweight to some degree, no matter what.

Conversely, if BMI truly is heritable, then one would expect a certain % of the populace to be skinny to some degree, no matter what.

But, given that a 1/3 of the U.S. populace is reaching obesity levels these days, (and this doesn’t even account for the likely greater number of people who are overweight), then the entire concept just doesn’t seem to make sense.

If it’s heritable, then there must be some sort of evidence outside of genetics that only look at one or two generations. It wouldn’t make sense that you suddenly have a sudden increase in the number of overweight to obese people in the last 20 years. That points firmly to an environmental reason, not genetics.

44

There’s a certain part that confuses me, which is why hasn’t the appetite adapted to the lifestyle demands.

Heavy physical demands drive the appetite up.

But why isn’t the appetite downregulated with a sedentary lifestyle?

I think a case could be made that “food just tastes better now”, due to all the manipulation by the flavor industry. But is there more to it than that?

45

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s a certain part that confuses me, which is why hasn’t the appetite adapted to the lifestyle demands.

Heavy physical demands drive the appetite up.

But why isn’t the appetite downregulated with a sedentary lifestyle?

I think a case could be made that “food just tastes better now”, due to all the manipulation by the flavor industry. But is there more to it than that?[/quote]

Because your body can be tricked into thinking it needs more food by the amount of food you eat to begin with.

Studies suggest that severe overeating for a prolonged period outright shuts down your brain’s ability to recognize when it’s full.

Conversely, you body can be tricked into thinking it needs less food by the amount of food you eat + the physical activity you do.

Plus, as has been noted numerous times, large consumption of simple carbs encourage greater consumption of simple carbs. That’s why people get addicted to sugar, etc.

My understanding is that it is definitely possible to get addicted to sugar. Note that most people aren’t overeating fat and meat, they overeat sugar and other simple carbs.

In short- Your body only works and does what it’s supposed to when everything is done in moderation.

46

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

I remember doing this when I was in university. I was doing a ketogenic diet and was too lazy/broke to cook, so I just buy various types of cheeses in blocks and eat them like that throughout the day.

47

[quote]Mizery wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

I remember doing this when I was in university. I was doing a ketogenic diet and was too lazy/broke to cook, so I just buy various types of cheeses in blocks and eat them like that throughout the day. [/quote]

hahahahahaha

48

Alcoholism runs in my family.
Dad and Mom both drank a lot around my siblings and i.
I’ve had my fair share of benders and realized it was a real, and could be a problem.

It would be easy to be a drunk and blame my genetics for my problems, but guess what? I dont drink that much, maybe 3-4 beers a week. Personal accountability is not rocket science.

fat people should only blame themselves for their disgusting choices.

49

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s a certain part that confuses me, which is why hasn’t the appetite adapted to the lifestyle demands.

Heavy physical demands drive the appetite up.

But why isn’t the appetite downregulated with a sedentary lifestyle?

I think a case could be made that “food just tastes better now”, due to all the manipulation by the flavor industry. But is there more to it than that?[/quote]

Because your body can be tricked into thinking it needs more food by the amount of food you eat to begin with.

Studies suggest that severe overeating for a prolonged period outright shuts down your brain’s ability to recognize when it’s full.[/quote]

I wish I could figure that out. I overeat for awhile, and after a few weeks, my body wants to go without food for a few days.

[quote]Plus, as has been noted numerous times, large consumption of simple carbs encourage greater consumption of simple carbs. That’s why people get addicted to sugar, etc.

My understanding is that it is definitely possible to get addicted to sugar. Note that most people aren’t overeating fat and meat, they overeat sugar and other simple carbs.[/quote]

I understand that in concept, but I don’t understand that in reality.

I don’t know what fat people eat. (Sorry “overweight”.)

I don’t know what most people eat. Growing up, I ate a lot of pasta, and really really dry chicken breast with italian vinaigarette seasoning. And microwaveable meals. We occasionally had some crackers to snack on. Usually a snack was a pb&j sandwich. (I’m sure I ate more than that, but that’s what I remember.)

And lots of milk. Usually just a glass of “instant breakfast” in milk in the mornings. Occasionally cereal.

My girlfriend grew up in a traditional Chinese household, with lots of vegetable dishes, a few meat dishes, and white rice. Everyone in her family varies between thin to “normal”. 1990s normal, not current normal.

My friends ate what we had at the school cafeteria, but I don’t know about the rest of the time.

I don’t really know what other people eat. Literally just ignorant about this.

When I do go out to lunch or dinner with people, I’ve always eaten quite a bit more than them, no matter how thin or fat they are.

Do most people just eat thousands of calories snacking during the day or something?

Where do all these sugars come from?

I know I sound stupid saying all that, but I really don’t know.

50

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
therajraj-

Then wouldn’t you have had fat people comparable in number to today back in the 18th century, etc?[/quote]

Whether we accept that BMI is heritable or not, we definitely accept that environment plays a larger role on the scale of the entire populous, and thus we wouldn’t expect fat people comparable in number to today, because our modern environment encourages it/discourages it less, and I don’t just mean ‘fat acceptance’ style but sedentary lifestyles and whatnot.[/quote]

Look at height, people are quite a bit taller today than they were a century ago. Indeed, this change was much faster than any plausible change that could be wrought by evolution. However, you don’t see people arguing that height is less heritable than we thought because of that. Heritability is only a measure of the extent a trait is corresponds with genes in a given environment. If you change the environment, you can change the expressed phenotype all without altering the genes.

^ That’s how it was explained to me.

51

[quote]magick wrote:
therajraj-

Then wouldn’t you have had fat people comparable in number to today back in the 18th century, etc?[/quote]

No - See what I wrote about height.

52

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I wish I could figure that out. I overeat for awhile, and after a few weeks, my body wants to go without food for a few days.[/quote]

Certainly could be genetic, or you’re simply not used to it. It might help to slowly increase the amount of food you eat. Give your stomach time to grow instead of stuffing it full and freaking your body out.

[quote]LoRez wrote
I don’t know what fat people eat. (Sorry “overweight”.)[/quote]

Fat is more appropriate. Significant difference between “overweight” and fat, and one that needs to be maintained.

[quote]LoRez wrote
Do most people just eat thousands of calories snacking during the day or something?[/quote]

Yes. Cola and other sugary drinks help too.

That and no physical activity whatsoever.

If you want to really gain weight though, go see what bodybuilders eat during bulking and just try to follow that, even when your stomach hates you.

I generally eat as much carb as I possibly can on Sundays these days. It really isn’t all that fun. It’s one thing to eat carbs for fun, another to eat as much as your stomach allows because you know that you probably need it.

53

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Heritability is only a measure of the extent a trait is corresponds with genes in a given environment. If you change the environment, you can change the expressed phenotype all without altering the genes.
[/quote]

Hm. That makes sense. My father is 5ft 3-4ish? My mom is also around that height. Me and my brother are right between 5ft 7.5, based on my latest height check at the hospital. My male cousins are all taller than me by an inch or so, but my uncles are also much taller than my dad so…

I can see what you mean by environment influencing the way our genes are actually expressed.

But wouldn’t that merely mean that the entire concept of “X is heritable” isn’t as “blame-proof” as people seem to use it as?

What I mean is this. When you hear people say that BMI is largely determined by your genes, that some people have genes that predispose them to eating, and so on and so forth, you typically assume that you are just meant to be that way. That you are just inevitably determined to be fat, etc.

But you’re saying that is not true. While our genes may strongly predispose us to something, our environmental factors still play a strong role in what ultimately happens.

54

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s a certain part that confuses me, which is why hasn’t the appetite adapted to the lifestyle demands.

Heavy physical demands drive the appetite up.

But why isn’t the appetite downregulated with a sedentary lifestyle?

I think a case could be made that “food just tastes better now”, due to all the manipulation by the flavor industry. But is there more to it than that?[/quote]

Check out “Fat Chance” by Robert Lustig. He is a neuro-endocrinologist and has some interesting insights about obesity. This question is one he tries to answer in the book. The regulation of the appetite (and metabolism) is largely done in the ventro-medial hypothalamus. The hormone leptin is the primary signaling agent for the VMH; insulin blocks the leptin signal. So, a person who eats too much sugar (and simple carbs) on a long-term basis becomes insulin resistant; they then have an abnormally high amount of insulin in the blood stream, blocking the leptin signal. The VMH doesn’t “see” the leptin and thinks the body is starving. Appetite is driven up and metabolism is driven down. A person then becomes the “lazy glutton” that typifies an obese person. Dr. Lustig’s theory is that they become a lazy glutton BECAUSE they are obese, not the other way around.

55

Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.

56

[quote]debraD wrote:
Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.
[/quote]

I would imagine sometime in the past it actually was a factor though.

You know, like back when the velociraptors are chasing you and all you can do is waddle away.

57

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.
[/quote]

I would imagine sometime in the past it actually was a factor though.

You know, like back when the velociraptors are chasing you and all you can do is waddle away.[/quote]

I doubt you had access to that much food AND downtime. If you ate a lot, you most likely hunted a lot.

Hell, up until the past century, most fat people were rich people.

58

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.
[/quote]

I would imagine sometime in the past it actually was a factor though. You know, like back when the velociraptors are chasing you and all you can do is waddle away.[/quote]

I think fat storage as a calorie reservoir is vastly overblown. The numbers I’ve seen 10% bodyfat would give you a month or more of calories. Basically, you’d have deficiency problems first and adding more fat than that really wouldnâ??t help survive longer.

59

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.
[/quote]

I would imagine sometime in the past it actually was a factor though. You know, like back when the velociraptors are chasing you and all you can do is waddle away.[/quote]

I think fat storage as a calorie reservoir is vastly overblown. The numbers I’ve seen 10% bodyfat would give you a month or more of calories. Basically, you’d have deficiency problems first and adding more fat than that really wouldnâ??t help survive longer.[/quote]

Well, if an enormous amount of blubber really added that much of a survivial benefit we would instinctively find it attractive.

60

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Obesity doesn’t prevent someones offspring from surviving so there would be no advantage to having the ability to reduce your appetite when food is in excess. Unlike the opposite, being able to pack away as much as possible at once, that is highly advantageous to survival and makes sense that it would be a trait that would not die out.
[/quote]

I would imagine sometime in the past it actually was a factor though. You know, like back when the velociraptors are chasing you and all you can do is waddle away.[/quote]

I think fat storage as a calorie reservoir is vastly overblown. The numbers I’ve seen 10% bodyfat would give you a month or more of calories. Basically, you’d have deficiency problems first and adding more fat than that really wouldnÃ?¢??t help survive longer.[/quote]

Well, if an enormous amount of blubber really added that much of a survivial benefit we would instinctively find it attractive. [/quote]

It is attractive in poorer nations.