
The Real Cause of Obesity: It's not gluttony. It's genetics. - edw519
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215115/output/print
======
Derrek
What really irks me about this article is that the author uses anecdotes and
vague references to science to strengthen his stance. Not only is this shoddy
reporting, but it commits a much worse crime. It commits the crime of giving
the obese an easy out, a way to say, "Hey, it's not really my fault so I
shouldn't even bother to try to lose weight." No. Wrong.

I've personally seen dozens of people go from being very overweight to being
healthy and fit. How'd they do it? Through lots of very dedicated, smart work
in their diets and exercise. Now, maybe those experiences were simply
aberrations that somehow converged on my life--but I doubt it.

~~~
ajscherer
Those people are definitely aberrations, especially if they have managed to
keep the weight off for 5 or more years. Also, isn't the second paragraph of
your comment doing the exact thing you were criticizing in the first (using
"anecdotes and vague references" to strengthen your stance)?

I don't think the obese are looking for an easy way out. I think they are
looking for a way to lose weight. How many obese people do you know that
haven't even tried to lose weight?

It is certainly true that it is physically possible for most people to lose
weight (I personally took off 110 lbs and kept it off for 2 years now), the
fact remains that most people who want to lose weight and try to lose weight
fail. This suggests to me that it requires some trait that the average person
simply doesn't have enough of.

I view the situation as very similar to drug addiction. Everyone who suffers
from one knows what they need to do, and most of them try, but very few are
successful. The difference is kids aren't provided drugs like they are crap
foods, and you don't need to take drugs every day to stay alive. So in some
ways obesity is even thornier (although I think the brain chemistry a dieter
is up against isn't as strong as that of a drug addict).

Ultimately it is easy for a non-obese person to say "this is what obese people
need to do and they are choosing not to", and maybe that feels good to you,
but it accomplishes nothing.

~~~
Derrek
But I'm able to use anecdotes because I'm not a MD/PhD writing an article in a
major US publication

------
jbrun
I personally guarantee that if you eat less, eat higher quality fresh produce,
less sugar, less meat, and less processed food you will lose weight and live
longer. If this revolutionary new diet does not work, please contact me.

~~~
sgift
I think you miss the point of the article. The article doesn't say that this
won't work. It says that obese people have genes which tell them to eat more
than they should. For example: You need 2200 kcal a day. Your genes tell you
to be hungry until you've eaten 2300 kcal a day. The consequence is obvious:
You will gain weight.

That is the statement of the article, nothing else. It doesn't say "obese
people cannot be lean" or "diets won't work on obese people." It simple states
that obese people are obese 'cause their genes tell them to eat more than they
should eat. And that we shouldn't prejudice people because they have 'bad'
genes.

~~~
jasonkester
And yet somehow we have entire continents full of thin people living outside
the McDonalds belt, many of whom must have this same genetic disorder. How are
they managing to keep the pounds off?

------
DanielBMarkham
Interesting to compare this article to the earlier one on Turing.

For the Turing article, the gist was that Gordon Brown forgave the harsh and
inhumane treatment of Turing that happened a long time ago. Nobody around
today was directly involved and this -- like it or not - is more symbolism
than substance.

For this article, the gist is that fat people are fat because of genetics.
There are lots of fat people around today. Billions are spent on trying to
make fat people thin, and millions die from the results of being fat. It's a
current and immanent threat to our fellow citizens.

For the Turing article, most of the comments were along the lines of "way to
go!" and "it's about time!" -- very encouraging that something was being done.

For the fatso article, most of the comments (so far) are along the lines of
"Those damn fat people, they should just stop eating so much!" -- very
discouraging that anything besides blaming behavior (which amounts to blaming
the fat person) amounted to much. I believe one commenter said it was "just
giving fat people an excuse to stay fat" (it was subsequently deleted)

I'm sure you guys will tell me that my comparison is all wrong, but I find
some interesting parallels nonetheless.

~~~
sp332
The comparison is wrong because the gays didn't want to be "cured". Fat people
spend billions to "cure" themselves. If fat people were content to be fat,
there wouldn't be so many people saying "well just don't eat so much!".

~~~
DanielBMarkham
So these commenters are being helpful?

I don't see where the motives of the people involved as the object of the
story come into it. The point I was making was the motives of the people
commenting right here on the article. We have two situations: one in the past
where nothing can really be done and one in the present where we have this
catastrophe. For the thing in the past, commenters are generally very happy
and enthused that a symbolic step was taken. For the thing in the present,
commenters are angry that fat people have brought this on themselves, and seem
immune to any idea that there's anything involved except a morality play in
which fat people are the guilty, ie, nothing should be done except shaming the
people involved.

To put a fine point on it: people are very moral. Don't let anybody fool you.
There are groups which are okay to trash and groups that are not. Distant,
symbolic action is preferred over immediate threats. Modern righteousness
generally consists of making yourself feel superior to other folks, whether it
is tormentors of Turing or the fatso sitting in the cube next to you (and I
speak as a fat person, for whatever that's worth)

Now I'm probably smoking crack, but that's my thesis, in case you missed it.

~~~
jongraehl
I agree that people are blind to contemporary stupidity and self-
congratulatory about past stupidity they have overcome. People love visiting
museums that make them appreciate how far we've come in overcoming racism,
genocide, and medieval torture (well, scratch that last one, we have to fight
the War on Terruh after all).

Nonetheless, I think the Turing spectacle is valuable because public shows of
support will influence fence-sitters to emulate us in support of awesome gay
people.

------
amix
It's not pure genetics alone, it's a combination of genetics and gluttony.
It's really simple: if you intake more energy than you consume, then you will
gain weight. Our energy utilization varies and is regulated by genes, to beat
this problem means simply to eat less (intake less energy) or to exercise more
(burn more energy).

~~~
jodrellblank
No it's not really simple. If you eat more energy than you use you may not
gain weight, and if you eat less energy than you use you may lose weight but
gain fat at the expense of muscle and other tissues.

~~~
amix
"If you eat more energy than you use you may not gain weight"

The normal body will convert excessive energy to fat, so if you intake more
energy than you use you will gain fat. Care to explain your case?

"if you eat less energy than you use you may lose weight but gain fat at the
expense of muscle and other tissues"

I didn't claim a person eating less will only lose fat.

~~~
jodrellblank
_The normal body will convert excessive energy to fat, so if you intake more
energy than you use you will gain fat. Care to explain your case?_

IANA(Biologist), and I can't remember the details of what I was reading about
it, but it's not like filling a bath and if you put too much in the rest goes
through the overflow and into your fat cells. Leptin signals fat cells to
store energy as fat, and if it doesn't do that then you wont get fatter.

Where else could it go? Maybe you take in more energy and become more active
to use it up? Maybe it goes straight through you - is sensed and less is
digested, or is taken into the blood stream, then filtered out again. Maybe
some of it is used in rebuilding and repair that wouldn't have happened
otherwise.

I don't, for instance, binge on 3500 calories extra of junk food in a day and
put on 1lb of fat that same day (I don't think).

------
jodrellblank
_would also allow us to collectively focus on what is most important - one's
health rather than one's weight_

You mean - one's health rather than one's _fat_ , yes?

<http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/l_pyecra.htm> (Short story - H.G.
Wells - The Truth about Pyecraft)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Amusing story.

My girlfriend has two hindu grandmothers. I've always wondered why she didn't
just use their recipes to lose that 5lb she always complains about. Now I
know.

------
oliveoil
Eh, then how come America has become more fat in the last 30 years? Do the
genes degenerate that fast? The article is so bad that I suspect the author is
trying to score with a fat chick and published this to make her feel better or
something;-)

~~~
sgift
From the article:

"Although our high-calorie, sedentary lifestyle contributes to the
approximately 10-pound average weight gain of Americans compared to the recent
past, some people are more severely affected by this lifestyle than others.
That's because they have inherited genes that increase their predisposition
for accumulating body fat. Our modern lifestyle is thus a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition for the high prevalence of obesity in our population."

Which basically gives you the answer to your comment. You've read the article,
haven't you?

------
omgsean
It's both. Some people can eat like garbage and not get fat, others can't. If
you can't, don't eat like garbage.

~~~
ctbarna
Well, even if you can, eating like garbage will probably catch up with you
eventually.

------
Tichy
Quote from the article:

"Our modern lifestyle is thus a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for
the high prevalence of obesity in our population. "

So some people cope better than others with the modern diet, presumably
because of their genes. That doesn't imply that there is nothing they could do
about obesity. But they presumably have it harder than the people with more
favorable obesity-genes.

~~~
pkjones3399
right. they gotta work harder to lose the fat. it's like slow metabolism vs. a
fast metbolism. either way folks gotta take responsibility

------
tocomment
Another thing about genetics is that it could probably affect appetite. You
know how you feel if you haven't eaten for a day, no amount of will power is
going to stop you from eating. Now what if your genetics made you feel like
that all the time?

So sure you could lose weight if you ate less, but your genetics wouldn't make
the motivation equation work out.

------
chasingsparks
I have a question (an actual question, not meant to be a nudge towards any
conclusion): is there any research that suggests your level of body fat may be
set (i.e. almost like an annealing process) by your level of body fat in
childhood? I know there has been research that suggests that body fat plays a
very large role in your endocrine system -- therefore causing positive
feedback -- but does it do the same for any other systems that might affect
metabolism?

------
jongraehl
There are two very unreasonable sides to this issue:

One is, as in this article:

> Be nice. There's nothing the obese can do; you're not superior to them in
> any way other than fortunate genetics.

The other (and more common):

> Low body fat (with optional huge muscles for men) is and should be valued by
> all, so my modest efforts at staying lean are just too heroic for those
> weak-willed fatties.

The truth is that the majority of obese Americans could of their own
initiative (without fat camp, medication, surgery, involuntary famine) become
not-obese. Regardless of a "heritability" statistic shows (it's probably not
what you think), people can significantly influence their weight and body fat
in a way they never can for height.

The other truth is that it's incredibly more easy for some people to become
lean (or muscular) than others; I'd say almost to the same extent as people
vary in native intellectual or musical talent.

So, the main point: "be nice; don't assume superiority of moral fiber based on
superior physique" is absolutely valid and needs widespread appreciation by
smug bastards everywhere.

------
jasonkester
Indeed. You're not fat through any fault of your own. Certainly not because of
anything you ate. It's genetic. Now you can feel good about yourself and not
have to try.

This is us, several miles down the road we started down in the '70s when we
started teaching kids Self Esteem without any correlation to the things they
need to do to actually _earn_ that self esteem. You're special just the way
you are.

Combine that with the basic American right of "nothing is ever your fault",
and here we are. A whole country full of people who refuse to take any
responsibility for their own actions.

And we just got done doing this a month ago...
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=751311>

------
jongraehl
Noise, even at the level of 10%, in actual calorie content of food compared to
nutritional labels, is irrelevant (there are other, more significant sources
of variance in your own metabolism and activity in any case).

If, over the course of a week, you haven't lost any weight, decrease your
target calorie count by 50. Eventually the odds of predicted vs. actual noise
giving you an "over maintenance" intake for a given week fall to epsilon.

Counting calories is not even necessary.

------
gruseom
Whatever the "real cause" of the recent prevalence of obesity in the US may
be, it isn't either gluttony or genetics, because those things don't change
that much.

------
moron4hire
bullshit. The cause of obesity is and always was gluttony. Quit trying to
apologize for overeating. I don't care if "you have a low metabolism". Quit
listening to the FDA's bullshit on what a "balanced" meal means. You need to
figure it out for yourself.

~~~
randallsquared
Angry, much? :)

~~~
moron4hire
We should all be angry, because a culture of denying accountability is about
to saddle us with the biggest paternalistic program of transfer payments ever.
We're going to get to pay for Bubba's heart surgery because _he_ couldn't
control how many cheeseburgers he ate in one sitting.

~~~
randallsquared
_We're going to get to pay for Bubba's heart surgery because he couldn't
control how many cheeseburgers he ate in one sitting._

No, we're not being made to pay for Bubba's heart surgery _because_ of his
overeating. Don't lose sight of who's making us pay for Bubba's surgery;
direct your anger, should you feel it, at those who are making and enforcing
this, rather than at the bystander whose issues are used as a pawn to justify
it.

I'm also against public health care, but the solution isn't to outlaw and
punish anyone who does something less than perfectly healthy, but to strike at
the root of the problem. In this case, of course, the only way to do that may
be to move to a cheaper jurisdiction; I don't think there's any way to stop
the expanding juggernaut without collapse. All things considered, I'm staying
for at least a while.

~~~
moron4hire
While I agree that we _shouldn't_ be paying for it, and that it _is_ the
government's fault for making us pay for it, once the "system" is known,
shouldn't the overeater be as much to blame? While an individual is still
responsible for paying for their own healthcare, then how they abuse
themselves is up to him. In a world were others are responsible for his
healthcare, he has a social responsibility to not abuse himself, a social
responsibility that I am all too sure will be ignored.

This is the fundamental issue with paternalistic programs. If you give the
public responsibility over a person's well being, they will also require the
means to control that person's activities.

Unfortunately, I think national healthcare is a foregone conclusion, and not
just single-payer-health-insurance, I mean full the "doctors are government
employees" thing. Too many people have conflated health care with a right.

------
thras
What an awful article. The salient fact about the obesity epidemic is that it
has more than tripled in frequency (in America) since the 1970s. It can't be
genetics. It's unlikely to be gluttony.

------
zeynel1
There is also the asymmetry. You can gain in one day what you lost in a weak.

