You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Article on today's BBC website
"This research shows for the first time that healthy thin people are generally thin because they have a lower burden of genes that increase a person's chances of being overweight and not because they are morally superior, as some people like to suggest," she said.
"It's easy to rush to judgement and criticise people for their weight but science shows that things are far more complex.
"We have far less control over our weight than we might wish to think."
So, it is more difficult for some people than others. Who'd have thought it? I, for one, won't stop trying though.
Oh and in case anyone is flexing their fingers ready to bash this woman's opinion, she is Dr Sadaf Farooqi of Cambridge University, fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and has been researching obesity for 15 years. If you're going to disagree with her let's see your credentials.
I'm not sure this is revelation though.
Gemma Collins?
Not a relevation to me, but the prevailing opinion on here is that anyone who claims that it's more difficult for some people to stay thin is a whiney excuse maker and of poor moral fibre in denial about how many cakes they stuff.
In a shocking statement, he added:
"Most obesity is acquired in adult life and is linked to the obesogenic environment we live in - a sedentary lifestyle and abundant access to calorie-dense foods."
Who would have thought it.
If you're not burning off what you are putting in, you're getting fatter. So eat less.
That was a different bloke.
The point is that your over-simplification Hob Nob is not the whole story. As I've been trying to say for years. And oh look, TWO leading researchers agree with me despite your selective quoting.
Anyway, Hob Nob, where are your credentials?
Not a relevation to me, but the prevailing opinion on here is that anyone who claims that it’s more difficult for some people to stay thin is a whiney excuse maker and of poor moral fibre in denial about how many cakes they stuff.
Yeah I ignore them as they've clearly never met anyone like me.
As I’ve been trying to say for years. And oh look, TWO leading researchers agree with me despite your selective quoting.
It's been known for years this is just the first 'accurate' study.
Well no fattie bashing from me. I still love riding them and not just down on the beach either!
The point is that your over-simplification Hob Nob is not the whole story. As I’ve been trying to say for years. And oh look, TWO leading researchers agree with me despite your selective quoting.
Or we're obsessed with over complicating everything in a justification for an unhealthy lifestyle.
I'm not sure I need to be a doctor to understand the simple fact that if I live in a calorie deficit, I will lose weight.
Of course I appreciate that the issue in the real world is made more complex by potential issues of social, health, wealth, education, etc. But the simple fact is if you eat less than you burn, you're not going to put weight on.
Hobknob your wrong . This study proves that overweight people gain weight via osmosis.
But the simple fact is if you eat less than you burn, you’re not going to put weight on.
I eat shit loads and quite a bit of the wrong stuff. I really only put weight on in the last year or 2 and don't do a lot of exercise. It frustrates friends and colleagues as they would balloon just thinking about what I can eat. While you're right there or those at both ends of the scale, boom boom, that's what this science stuff is referring to.
Most folk in my office that are fat are (and that's most of them) are in the canteen at the moment walloping into morning rolls and square sausage. I never seen any of them having a roll in genes.
Who would've thought that appetite and metabolism could be governed partly by genetic factors?
I’m not sure this is revelation though.
Exactly! My son could've made this report... Only 2 days ago he said how his friend eats 4 chocolate bars a day, crisps and all sorts of crap and remains skinny, whereas he has to be careful not to overeat, despite being active. I tell ya, the boy is a medical genius.
But, Hobnob also isn't wrong.
It's really not a revelation though.
Just because it's harder for some people to stay a healthy weight, it doesn't mean that they then have an excuse to be an unhealthy weight.
Hobknob
hehe
Who would’ve thought that appetite and metabolism could be governed partly by genetic factors?
Well there's at least 2 in this thread.
Hob Nob is not really correct. Many people eat way more than they 'burn' via exercise and don't get fat. That woman who was fetishised on here for being a competitive eater recently would appear to be one.
It is correct *to an extent* but only focusing on part of the story is damaging. This is what I am complaining about.
I've lost 2kg this month but through a level of self denial that most of you skinny bastards have never even heard of.
In my simple, naive mind, there's -
1. lots of folk out there that are fat because they eat the wrong stuff, and don't do much.
2. There are people who do this but aren't fat, however they are a lot fewer in number.
3. And there are people who don't do this, but are still big. These are the folk this paper talks about.
In general, I'd say the vast majority of obese folk are no.1 - I have no science on this, nor do I intend to go looking for it, but it makes sense to me. YMMV.
Loving that i’m getting Cadbury’s adverts on this thread
I have no science on this, nor do I intend to go looking for it, but it makes sense to me
Very 2019.
While you cannot dispute the science, I personally know a few obese people that will be quoting this research as the reason for their weight gain while shovelling mountains of cake into their mouths.
Pretty sure this study was based on people with a BMI of 18 and under, that seriously ****ing thin even when people told me I looked ill I wasnt that I'm 73ish kg and 5foot10 which is about 23-24 I think. To get to 18 I'd need to be under 60kg. These people are right at the extremes of the distribution and so are not that helpful when looking at populations.
While genetics will play a part, poverty is probably the biggest cause of obesity in some sections of society. Most of us on here are comfortably off and have the time to prepare and eat healthy food. There are some sections of society that are time poor, holding down 2 jobs, bringing up small children who don't have this luxury.
New readers start here. The first section is a tad off-beat but he's rather good on socio-economic factors in obesity.
It used to be the case here and elsewhere in the world that to be fat meant you were privileged and well-fed. Nowadays obesity is more associated with poverty. It's more about social context and inequality than about genes.
lapdog
Member
Well no fattie bashing from me. I still love riding them and not just down on the beach either
Gemma Collins?
Pretty sure this study was based on people with a BMI of 18 and under, that seriously **** thin even when people told me I looked ill I wasnt that I’m 73ish kg and 5foot10 which is about 23-24 I think. To get to 18 I’d need to be under 60kg.
All that demonstrates is perception skew. Ie what people think is healthy these days.
the prevailing opinion on here is that anyone who claims that it’s more difficult for some people to stay thin is a whiney excuse maker and of poor moral fibre in denial about how many cakes they stuff.
I think in view of your "let's see your credentials" stance, I'd like to see this claim substantiated with figures (no pun intended).
I'm not really talking about obesity, my point was (and Dr Farooqi's) that it is not a simple linear relationship between the number of calories that go into your mouth and your weight.
Munro +1
Many of my cousins (23 girls and just 3 lads including me, and that's just on my mum's side) are overweight.
Of the lads none of us are overweight,other than Paul, but he is competing at strong man events and works as tv/film extra usually playing vikings or hardman heavies. Of the girls more than half are overweight. Not one of the fatties do any kind of sport, love the meal deals at Harvester or McDonald's and are generally adverse to anything that involves walking.
Those that aren't fat are active, either going to the gym or cycling because they don't have money for a car (so it's not a case of no money = fat.... It's more a mentality).
And when it comes to genes.... My gran was fat. All my aunts and my mum were fat (all bar the one who runs around cleaning houses all day and going to the gym). Strangely all my uncles are normal. So all my cousins share at least 50% of their genes with each other. In some cases one sister is fat, the other a size 8/10.
As I've said before, most of it is to do with choice. It's the lifestyle we chose to live that determines our waistlines. If you are genetically predispositioned to being fat it doesn't automatically follow that you have to be fat.
I think that its quite unlikely......
that I am the only person who copied/pasted the name into a google image search and then just rolled their eyes
All that demonstrates is perception skew. Ie what people think is healthy these days.
Partly but in the context I was talking about it helps to demonstrate that the study looking at 18bmi and under has little application to the general population.
I'm fat, on a diet and i'm paying no attention to this.
Eat less/move more, it's simple enough really and no matter how many of these studies they do, it's hard to argue against the fact that more people are sitting about, watching telly and playing on the internet than previous generations. A lot more jobs are desk based than they ever used to be and we're marketed food that tells us that we should be super happy that the ready meal that we're about to scoff only has 10% pure fat running through it........not to mention all the sugar and salt.
Fatty bashing is still the number one place people go to when it comes to trying to show their superiority over other people. Not the first time I've had "Fat Bastard" shouted at me by some twonk in a car park because they've decided to turn the place into their personal racetrack and i'm getting in the way of that. People are just dicks
I think that its quite unlikely……
guilty
Just because it’s harder for some people to stay a healthy weight, it doesn’t mean that they then have an excuse to be an unhealthy weight.
This x1000.
I’m overweight by 2-3 stone. I find it very hard to lose weight even with careful eating. Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try.
I think this new trend of bashing anyone who “fat shames” people is very dangerous. No you shouldn’t abuse people because they are fat but it has spread to such extremes that I can see a time where they are telling doctors and other professionals that they can’t tell people that they are fat or they are living unhealthy lifestyles or they are at risk from heart disease etc.
I think that its quite unlikely……
that I am the only person who copied/pasted the name into a google image search and then just rolled their eyes
So, she does 15 years of acclaimed research, and you think you know better because, just look at her?
What an utterly shitty thing to say. Seriously, you need a word with yourself.
I’m fat, on a diet and i’m paying no attention to this.
I'm trying to lose weight too, and I DO pay attention to it, because it can explain why it's difficult for me. It's not that I'm useless or weak, it really is harder for some people than others.
i find it really hard to lose weight, but mostly because I'm currently sat at my laptop eating a packet of pom bears rather than a stick of celery.
if I ever do have the discipline to run a calorie deficit, (a proper one, not just a rough underestimate of what I eat and overestimate of exercise), the weight falls off...
if I could just stop eating, I might do a venn diagram of the people from your article and the ones from this article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43112790
Just because it’s harder for some people to stay a healthy weight, it doesn’t mean that they then have an excuse to be an unhealthy weight.
+2
It should be looked at a different way; everyone should eat less, it's not a divine right to be able to stuff yourself with yummy food, for many (most) people it will make you overweight or obese, a lucky few can eat what they want.
A tiny percentage of those who are overweight, are because of genuine medical reason, these genuine reasons are easy to adopt by people (including me) who have no self-control.
I am overweight (not massively) by the way.
if I could just stop eating
Genuine (leading) question - why can't you?
i'm hungry.
and pom bears are tasty.
I'm in total agreement that some people don't put on weight as much as others (or lose it as readily). I am one. I've eaten like a horse all my life and always been skinny. I'm reasonably active but by no means "athletic". I don't train, I don't race. My dad was the same as me, so genetics does seem to me to be a factor. BUT... given that, ultimately it IS a balance between calories in and calories out. How many calories will differ between individuals, but why should that be surprising? Is it due to differences in basal metabolic rate, i.e. do I burn more energy sitting around than some other bloke? I don't know, but I'm sure individuals are different.
DISCLAIMER - no expertise other than my own eating habits.
given that, ultimately it IS a balance between calories in and calories out
But that's just it - what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go? Are you radiating heat all the time? Or does it come out of your arse? If either of those two things - then why?
i’m hungry.
Why?
alright, i'm not hungry. I just like eating pom-bears.
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
so I eat them. if there wasn't, i'd probably find something else to snack on.
I don't need to eat them, I want to eat them. and I can, because I'm not an elite athlete and frankly being 5-10kg over my ideal weight doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the world.
I'll add to ledger on Molgrips side.
My GF can put away food like she's been starved for weeks, when in reality she's probably eaten a couple of hours beforehand, she can quite happily eat a volume of food that is frankly disturbing given her size. She's Gluten intolerant, so no wheat, but as she perhaps rightly says, that just frees up space for the nicer stuff. She's also ridiculously skinny, but gives off heat like a radiator turned fully up, and yet says she feels constantly cold. She walks about 10 miles a day to and from her work, but the only other form of exercise she does is a yoga class once a week.
If you told her that Obesity didn't have a genetic component, she'd probably laugh at you.
if there wasn’t, i’d probably find something else to snack on.
Ok, but not everyone does this. Some people just don't bother snacking. Some people just love food more than others. Wonder why...
But that’s just it – what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go? Are you radiating heat all the time? Or does it come out of your arse? If either of those two things – then why?
Contrary to what I posted previously, I also find it hard to lose weight. I'm hardly a fatty at 188cm & 86kg, but I would be more comfortable at my usual 80. My gain has been due to a long period of injury, not being able to exercise as much & not watching what i'm eating.
Having 'invested' a bit of time into understanding where the tipping point is for me, it comes out at approximately 2000 calories a day. If I consistently eat over this, I put weight on. If I consistently eat under this, I lose weight. It really is as simple as that.
As someone who in the past, who could literally eat & drink anything & everything I wanted & be 80kg I don't believe for one second my genes have 'changed'.
Also, reading it back, she's talking about people with a BMI of less than 18. That's 2% of the population apparently. 60%+ are overweight of varying degrees.
I’ve managed to overcome my genetics to become the fine specimen I am today.
For many years, I was burdened by being naturally skinny and attractive. No matter how much I ate, I stubbornly retained a body like an Ethiopian Racing Snake.
A concerted effort of needless gluttony over the last ten years or so have finally made me into the chunky biffa I always wanted to be.
Wasn’t easy though. I had to work hard and make a lot of sacrifices.
But that’s just it – what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go?
It's been posted here before, but this:
Nah, that looks fun but it's not the whole story at all. Tells us nothing.
I don’t believe for one second my genes have ‘changed’.
No, but gene expression changes, and (what's probably more significant) your gut biome can also change.
Just to be clear, in case anyone is having trouble - I'm not saying the amount you eat has NO effect (obviously) I'm saying that there is a strong genetic and environmental component which both drives what you eat and what effect it has.
i'm not really sure what you are trying to prove. its not your fault you are fat? (i don't actually believe you are fat anyway), its not fair that others aren't fat?
i have no issue there may be some genetically influenced variability on how hungry you may feel, how efficiently your body processes/absorbs calories etc. but you cannot get away from the fact that if you exert more energy than take in, you will lose weight.
It’s been posted here before, but this:
" ... eat less, move more and keep breathing ..."
Plus strong determination as people like to stuff their face ... 😀
i’m not really sure what you are trying to prove.
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
Nah, that looks fun but it’s not the whole story at all. Tells us nothing.
Well let me just throw this back at you...
"let’s see your credentials".
The study doesnt say what the different alleles do so it could be fatties eat more or burn it slower but the energy in energy out equation is very simple and true.
So "fattie bashing" isn't a euphemism?
I thought this thread was going to be about this : proper fatty bashing :
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
how much harder? 1%? 10% 50%
far more likely that people underestimate how many calories they take in.
the energy in energy out equation is very simple and true.
It's not simple. No-one's been able to give an answer as to how the calories might leave your body.
If it were true, if you ate even slightly more than you exercised you'd get gradually fatter all the time and as old people most of us would be gigantic immobile blobs. This is clearly not happening.
Food doesn't magically turn into fat inside your body. There are a load of processes driven by hormones that cause fat cells to take up energy. There's a feedback loop that tends to stabilise our weight. So if the food you eat doesn't end up as fat and you don't burn it off, where does it go? Out of your arse. So yes, it's calories out, but not in the form of smug self-righteous exercise.
It's more complicated than you think. It just is.
Well let me just throw this back at you…
“let’s see your credentials”.
I have none beyond an appreciation of the scientific method, but that's why I started the thread because the highly qualified scientist in the article does in fact agree with me. As do most of the scientists who I've read about, which is why I have the opinion I do.
how much harder? 1%? 10% 50%
far more likely that people underestimate how many calories they take in.
I'm sure many of them do. But then again some people don't give a shit how many calories they take in, have no need for any kind of will power and they stay thin. Then they have the cheek to criticise fat people.
what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go? Are you radiating heat all the time? Or does it come out of your arse? If either of those two things – then why?
Well looking at it from a purely engineering standpoint it seems pretty straightforward. As an animal there is only one source of energy and that is food. The calories you burn will pretty much come out of your mouth (in the form of CO2). Some water will also be formed and be excreted in the normal way (breath, sweat, urine, faeces. Any excess calories will either be stored by the body in various forms or excreted. Any deficit will be made up from the bodies stores.
One thing that is "interesting" about the article is that people who have the "thin gene" (for want of a better expression) are lucky, but this is only the case recently. In evolutionary terms people with the ability to store food on their bodies had the evolutionary advantage.
If it were true, if you ate even slightly more than you exercised you’d get gradually fatter all the time and as old people most of us would be gigantic immobile blobs. This is clearly not happening.
This is a miss representation of what people actually say. For example Hob Nob said that were he in calorie deficit he would lose weight. This is correct. He did NOT say that if he were in calorie surplus he would gain weight (although that is what happens albeit at different rates for different people) as there is another "exit" from the body.
So yes, it’s calories out, but not in the form of smug self-righteous exercise.
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the "energy out" part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
No-one’s been able to give an answer as to how the calories might leave your body.
Heat? Fatties are better insulated
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the “energy out” part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
I have none beyond an appreciation of the scientific method, but that’s why I started the thread because the highly qualified scientist in the article does in fact agree with me
I'm not sure she does - assuming Prof Tom Sanders is correct the study "[confirms] that precocious severe obesity is often genetically determined and showing convincingly that those who are very thin are genetically different from the general population". This study doesn't cover the vast majority of us.
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
This. But that doesn't mean you should give up trying. Some people find it harder to give up smoking than others, doesn't mean they should just carry on smoking.
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the “energy out” part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
No, I'm saying that fattie bashers need to realise that there is a lot more going on than they assume. Many people seem to think that they're thin because they have more willpower and are consequently better than fat people. When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don't have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day. And being nasty to those people is just shit.
This. But that doesn’t mean you should give up trying. Some people find it harder to give up smoking than others, doesn’t mean they should just carry on smoking.
Of course.
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Even Sweetcorn?
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Of course it's got calorific value. Flies don't eat it just because it's delicious.
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes.
That's not a fact, it's a factor.
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Poop has calorific value, so be careful with that. Not eating mind, but you can burn it and, if you are eating a lot of fat, then you will be getting rid of that as well, which also has [useful] calorific value. Whether you would want to try and re-use it is another matter.
I do agree that, for something like hyperproteinurea or peeing glucose tainted urine you should be seeing the doctor. Mind you, it's probably that you would be told of both of these whilst having a medical, so that's pretty redundant.
Back to the main topic though, I think it is safe to say that weight gain in humans can be best summarised as 'complicated'. I think that a lot of obesity and T2 diabetes _is_ environmental/lifestyle (as a nation, food is easier to get hold of and our lifestyle _are_ less active), but that there will be a small proportion of the population that will be genetically predisposed to weight gain outside the norm (think hypothyroidism). I also think that, because of the way that evolution is and genes work, this will become _more_ normal. People have generally become taller over time, so maybe humans will respond to this change in lifestyle by becoming fatter. Who knows?
Credentials: BSc Applied Biochemistry. Not that it makes much difference any more.
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don’t have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day.
Just to re-iterate, it specifically states in the article the 'skinny' genes was aimed at the people with a BMI of less than 18. Which is less than 2% of the UK population.
Are we suggesting genes have evolved/mutated (I don't know what the scientific term is) in (very) recent times which is why obesity rates have soared?
Just to re-iterate, it specifically states in the article the ‘skinny’ genes was aimed at the people with a BMI of less than 18. Which is less than 2% of the UK population.
Well, it seems to me that by taking the extreme ends and the middle of the spectrum and comparing the rate of incidence of certain genes they are extrapolating a relationship that affects all of us.
Are we suggesting genes have evolved/mutated (I don’t know what the scientific term is) in (very) recent times which is why obesity rates have soared?
No. I am stating that it is harder for some people to gain and lose weight than others, because their genes affect the feedback mechanisms that control the creation of fat. This has always been the case. When the population starts eating more, on average they will get fatter, but some more so than others.
However I have also read other articles that say that gut biome has a significant affect on weight, and other articles again that say that our gut biomes have changed a lot in recent years since that is affected by how and what we eat and even how we live.
Poop has calorific value, so be careful with that.
Poop is not excreted its egested, if sweetcorn is coming out of the hole you wee through...GO STRAIGHT TO HOSPITAL!!
Want another perspective? I used to be slim but my weight has increased by nearly 50% and am now close to obesity. I was in any case under the tragedy that is UK Endocrinology and both consultants were joint head of endocrinology. These two ****ers, despite my proving photographic evidence and detailing my decades of outdoor sports, showed zero intellectual curiosity. They've both been called out and one had the cheek to tell me that he wasn't concerned about my symptoms. I am not the only female to have experienced this.
#EndocrinologyDustbinOfTheNHS
I used to be slim but my weight has increased by nearly 50% and am now close to obesity.
Did you start by losing 50% of your will power? Guessing not.. like I say, not as simple as some people make out.