Another consideration in the never ending ' nature vs. nurture ' debate when it comes to obesity.


BBC NEWS | Health | Obesity 'may be largely genetic'

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng...-reformulation

that's an awful way of putting it.. as it makes it sound like there is nothing you can do if you have the genes to be obese.. if you're obese you might have genes to be, but I'm pretty sure that if you exercised hard and ate properly you wouldn't be.

It just means some people have to work harder throughout their lives not to be obese.

That is some bull. Enviromental factors play a large factor. Compare America to the many other countries, most there is a clear difference in environmental factors. Also America is the most diverse country, so if all countries had the same eating habits, logically, America would be somewhere in the avg. Also, obesity should not be weighed by BMI, but rather BF%. So they have larger BMI... ok... well that means they have more muscle to compensate for the fat. Sure genes play a large role, but I think the article is exaggerating it a bit.

I agree.

You can be prone to it yes but I also think there are ways of preventing it through diet/training. It's sad that people are looking for every excuse in the book to justify them being overweight.

I completely agree with you LV. I dont care what the scientific study indicates, diet and fitness with appropriate application can defy many, many biological factors. I didnt even read the article, its not worth the sweat on my brow. I have two very obese sisters, and my family has a history of being obesely over weight. I think its fairly safe to assume I have some of these genetics. I made myself the absolute exception, baby!

EDIT: Even knowing this genetic history, I also learned during my goal journey, that I have some absolutely fantastic bodily genetics that I would not have known if I had not altered my genetic disposition through diet and fitness.


Chillen

Exactly.

I think the relevant point of the study is in trying to highlight the possible role that genetics may or may not play in someone's potential toward becoming overweight or obese.

The point being, that genetics may represent some form of ' predisposition ' - i.e Chillen's " family has a history of being obesely over weight " - rather than an ' inevitability ' - i.e " there is nothing you can do if you have the genes to be obese " - toward being overweight and or obese.

Well, our genetics certainly haven't drastically changed in the last 50 years, so why has the obesity rate skyrocketed?

This study can not be taken seriously at all and they really wasted a golden oppurtunity but like most studies missed the boat.

The parents did all the measuring and sent the results back in and only measured height, weight, and 4 inches above the navel. Too many variables here from a high bloating diet, to off measurements or inconsistent measure times. Obesity was found through BMI measurements of just these measurements alone.

"On average, the measures taken by researchers showed children to be 1.7 cm taller and 2.6 kg heavier than the parental measurements found, "

They also only tested themselves a few times. Also..

"Children with height <1.10 m or with weight <13 kg or >84 kg were excluded. When BMI was calculated from the cleaned data, we also excluded children with a BMI < 12."

Why?

Being that the difference in WC was so small...

62.40 ± 7.08 62.15 ± 6.77 62.55 ± 7.25 62.70 ± 7.45 62.40 ± 7.03 62.28 ± 6.44 62.03 ± 7.04 62.68 ± 6.81 62.71 ± 8.03

and weight difference was so small...

33.63 ± 7.89 33.24 ± 7.49 33.85 ± 8.09 33.89 ± 8.14 33.81 ± 8.03 32.83 ± 6.96 33.60 ± 7.92 33.41 ± 7.49 34.35 ± 8.71

and the really large and really small kids were taken out of the game and those that had healthy problems I say a study that doesn't prove anything except

-Don't leave valid scientific importance to be done by mail with parents who may or may not really give a damn.

Grade of this study get an F.

Why is everyone so cynical about the study.
Stop picking strawman arguments

As the researcher said. Its not be all end all but certainly predisposes someone to becoming obese especially in such an unfavourable environment.

Matt there is a difference between a strawman argument and just a crap study.
You can't leave valuable data collection to thousands of different hands.

As for why it is important, the real problem of obesity is peoples lack of self awareness and accountability. The lack of understanding energy expenditure versus intake. Giving people yet another reason to blame it as to why it isn't their fault is just fueling the happy meal fire.

where did you get all those details o fthe study i didnt see any?

From what i know, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is pretty good.

Now matt how do you know it is a good journal if you don't know how to research the study it comes from eh...

Evidence for a strong genetic influence on childhood adiposity despite the force of the obesogenic environment -- Wardle et al. 87 (2): 398 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Just roughing ya.

You can see that there are some other flaws in the study beyond just what I mentioned. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting, it just means that it didn't prove anything about the genetically aspects of obesity.

Whether the obesity rate has changed or not in the past 50 years, this observation - either way - doesn't represent an adequate challenge to the validity on any contention / conclusion that obesity has a genetic component.

Obviously, the problem of obesity isn't a solitary issue of simply how one eats - but a multi faceted problem that is affected not only by one's eating habits, but by one's genetics, by a person's activity level, their lifestyle, the medications they take, their metabolism etc.

The debate is the extent to which the genetic influence on obesity is greater or lesser than the social influence on obesity - which is probably why obesity studies involving twins is somewhat intuitively intriguing.

Thats a rediculous conclusion. Of course it has its limitations, it even has a whole paragraph explaining them - as most journals do. Of course it didnt prove anything but provides further evidence that genetics plays a significant part. Journals dont get published it resources like the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition if they are flawed or meaningless - as you clearly claim. Seems as though you have a polarised bias yourself for environmental influences.