
What If Obesity Is Nobody’s Fault? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/what-if-obesity-is-nobodys-fault?utm_source=tss&utm_medium=desktop&utm_campaign=linkfrom
======
dkural
Very misleading article. The vast majority of human obesity is not caused by
genetics - indeed, this is why we have many more obese people now than we did
a century, although we have the same genetics. Our great grandparents gave
their genes to us, but they didn't suffer as much from obesity because they
ate only what they needed and were more active.

For the unfortunate minority that truly does have a very strong genetic
component, the fact remains that eating slightly less - just 10-15% less, will
allow them to match their metabolism.

This is not to say we should "blame" people - social and environmental factors
are very important. Lack of sleep due to too much work / artificially lit
environment causes more eating, lots of food is engineered to be super tasty
for us, there were no cookie trees in our ancient past :)

~~~
rayiner
In all this discussion of HFCS and other things, this is the chart I'm shocked
nobody ever mentions:
[http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/11/nutri...](http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/11/nutrition-
circles).

Calories per capita per day is up from 2168 in 1970 to 2673 in 2008. If you're
at maintenance weight, that extra 500 calories per day will cause you to gain
about a pound a week until you reach equilibrium again ~50 pounds heavier.

~~~
glenra
Sure, caloric intake is up. But we don't know whether calories per capita per
day increasing is a cause, an effect, or both. Maybe all it means is that
something changed to make people hungrier than they were before. For instance,
there's the "fat virus". It's possible that obesity is _literally contagious_
and more people caught it with, say, the growth of air travel.

[http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070820/obesity-virus-
more-b...](http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070820/obesity-virus-more-bigger-
fat-cells)

------
imroot
So, I'm obese. I have no problems admitting that -- at my heaviest, I was 400
pounds, and while I'm nowhere close to the weight that I want to be, I watch
my diet, work out every day, and try to live a life that promotes a great body
image.

My mom is/was obese -- before she had a lap band installed. My dad is obese.
My significant other is/was obese.

Being a 'bigger' person is something that I grew up in, and something that I
attribute to being normal.

I didn't realize that being a "bigger" person was a problem until I went off
to college and noticed that I was the exception, and not the norm. I only
dated bigger women, because that's basically the only type of woman who would
date someone who's bigger, and you can begin to see a cycle move forward
again.

My SO got a full gastric bypass surgery in 2009 (after we had been through the
second round of our post-grad work), and went from 400 pounds down to 150
pounds (for a 6' tall woman). She's been egging me on to get a lap band or
bypass, but, I've already dropped a good 100 pounds from my heaviest weight,
and will be able to drop the last 100 pounds on my own. My SO no longer has
diabetes, heart issues, or anything like that -- other than some vitamin
deficiencies, she's a pretty healthy (and stubborn) woman.

I don't think it's a genetic thing -- I think it's an environmental thing; you
don't see a lot of chubby kids in a smaller household, and vice versa -- I
don't see a lot of skinny/smaller children in a household that has obese or
overweight people in it.

~~~
dllthomas
_" you don't see a lot of chubby kids in a smaller household, and vice versa
-- I don't see a lot of skinny/smaller children in a household that has obese
or overweight people in it."_

That's liable to be the case whether it's environmental or genetic (or, most
likely, some sort of combination - though one may well dominate).

------
dpweb
Isn't there a social problem in calling something genetic in that regardless
of what genetic component may be a factor, it absolves one of personal
responsibility. It reminds me of the "chocolate and wine are good for you"
news stories. Very pleasing news, but ultimately net harmful.

~~~
nitrogen
Personal responsibility is only as good as a person's ability to choose. Since
there is no dualistic free will, this ability to choose is based entirely
within their brains and bodies, which are 100% the product of their genetics
and environmental influences.

Thus, "personal responsibility" is a red herring if you are trying to get
people to stop making bad choices. Instead, find out what neural, genetic, or
environmental influence makes those bad choices more appealing than good
choices, and fix that influence.

If this is the same study as a recent Ars article, then no choice is involved
_at all_. Nobody chooses to have more or fewer immune cells converting white
fat to beige fat.

------
einhverfr
Interesting article. One of the obvious problems in the typical discussion is
that folks think of human bodies as mechanistic and identically so. I.e. we
can reduce obesity to calories in/out because all human bodies are effectively
identical or can be assumed to be such.

But we know that assumption is false (this happens with remarkable regularity
in the sciences, that important theories that generally work are built on
assumptions known to be false). People metabolize pharmaceuticals differently
(google "cytochrome P450 defect", and try to convince me that such natural
variation in metabolism of certain pharmaceuticals _is_ a defect from any
perspective other than big pharma's).

Now, the assumption, even though it is false, is generally useful because we
know also that exercise changes metabolism. In other words, the human body
isn't even static and so the abstractions generally work to an extent even
though we know they are wrong. I think this sort of thing is why Heisenberg
argued at book length that data does not imply theory.

~~~
gooseus
Indeed, even comments here present the (calories in) < (calories out) ==
(weight loss) simplification.

Currently reading Antifragile by Taleb and it goes in to these fallacies at
length (machine vs body and data vs theory).

~~~
fredophile
Could you explain what's wrong with (calories in) < (calories out) == (weight
loss)? This article doesn't refute this idea and specifically talks about it.
This is just showing that some genetic mutations affect metabolism in ways
that reduce (calories out) independent of activity level. This shouldn't be
shocking. Metabolism varies across different people and across the same person
over time.

~~~
einhverfr
There are all kinds of cases where calories in < calories out which could
result in weight gain. For example, if you already have an excess of body fat
and you are building muscle quickly, remember muscle has 4kcal/g while fat has
9. If you are building muscle 1-2x breaking down fat, you will gain weight
while losing fat, and expending more calories than what you are taking in.

Again, it's an abstraction which mostly works but it is also clearly not
entirely true.

~~~
fredophile
Obviously there are issues that can mask the weight loss from losing fat in
the short term (water retention is a prime culprit here). However, in the long
term (at least 8-12 weeks) the trend should be fairly obvious. The situation
you described where someone is packing on 1-2 lbs of muscle for every lb of
fat lost is very hard to achieve and generally only seen in beginners. Once
the beginner gains are out of the way they'll see the same pattern as everyone
else.

~~~
einhverfr
I am saying delta weight does not necessarily relate to delta fat. Delta fat
contributes to delta weight but to say that other factors mask weight gain or
loss makes me wonder if there is a fundamental confusion here...

~~~
fredophile
I didn't say other factors mask weight loss. I said other factors mask weight
loss from fat. Most of the time when someone says they want to lose weight
they really mean they want to lose fat.

------
PaulHoule
A dangerously wrong article.

Obesity is a hot topic because it is epidemic. There may be a genetic
predisposition in some people, but there is no way the gene pool could have
changed so fast since Reagan got elected.

Most likely obesity has become the new normal thanks to some environmental
toxin. (Ex. Bisphenol A). So there is someone to blame somewhere.

As for the in != out stuff I'll say that scientists have been wrong on this so
long in face of the evidence; for instance, based on that theory long term
weight control could be attained by cutting one cookie a day from your diet,
which doesn't work. Also if you look at the metabolic charts, there are enough
alternate pathways that the efficiency of metabolism could vary by 10% or
more.

~~~
vinbreau
This is the point not made in the article. We did not historically have so
many obese people until very recently in history. Looking at the 'fat'
brothers in an old Guinness Book I noticed how much they resembled an average
'fat' person today. They aren't even near the far end of the overweight
spectrum. Heck, even watching movies from the early 80s, what is often called
'fat' is considered average or normal today. We've changed our cultural
definition of fat to make the average feel better about themselves.

~~~
waterlesscloud
You definitely should not use a Hollywood movie for any sort of understanding
of body norms whatsoever.

~~~
beagle3
Yes, you shouldn't.

And yet, when you watch a show from the 70s, say "Soap" (highly recommended -
passes the test of time with flying colors), you'll notice that all the actors
there -- and they all look considerably thinner than modern actors (e.g., take
Friends for a nineties comparison). Standards have changed, regardless of
Hollywood, and you can measure relative changes (though not absolute values)
on through Hollywood.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Actors now are generally much more fit than actors from the 70s. Don't mistake
bulk for fat.

------
MisterBastahrd
What if the sky were peuce?

If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight,
period. With a rational approach to food intake, that 10-15% the researchers
claim is like cutting the crust off of a sandwich. It's nothing. You don't see
a lot of obese animals in nature, regardless of any genetic metabolic
mutation, because they have to actually work to acquire their food.

It's funny that when I see people stick to traditional diets, they gain weight
at a vastly slower rate than people who eat fast food and drink sodas. They
may still end up being technically obese, but it will be at age 70 instead of
age 35.

~~~
nitrogen
Calories in and calories out are not simple knobs that anybody can tweak at
will; they are complex functions that, if we could define them, would depend
on genetics, temperature, types of food eaten, energy expended recently, etc.
It's meaningless to say "CalIn==CalOut" when each is defined in terms of the
other.

~~~
jacques_chester
Steam engines are surprisingly complex too, but you can control them by
ignoring everything except shaft rotation and a steam inlet valve.

What kind of coal? Doesn't matter.

What's the hill gradient? Doesn't matter.

Is the driver tired? Doesn't matter.

Boiler size? Number of driving wheels? Who the engineers were dreaming of
marrying when they designed the pistons? Track width? Hardness of the water?

 _Doesn 't matter_. You can control the whole system by observing one output
and using one input.

~~~
waterlesscloud
What method do you suggest will measure calories in and calories out exactly?

If these cannot be observed exactly, what's the point in being so insistent
about them?

~~~
revelation
My car can't even observe speed exactly, it's off by a few km/h. It doesn't
matter because the cops measuring speed expect the error and subtract the
margin for me.

For "eating less to lose weight" you're looking at megajoules/week change.
Theres plenty of room for impreciseness here.

------
gpcz
For the people asking questions about the experiment details, here is the full
paper in Science (registration required):
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/275.full](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/275.full)
.

Based on the paper, it appears that they performed targeted mutations to
manipulate the Mrap2 gene and fed the mice equal quantities of chow, and then
they did the tests described in the parent article. At least to me, this is
strong evidence that this gene affects obesity in mice.

------
BrainInAJar
> Only when they were fed 10 to 15 percent less did they slim down to the size
> of their unaltered siblings.

So, it has a fault. Metabolic efficiency means if one has a slower metabolism,
one requires less fuel. Eat less.

------
lectrick
DNA may or may not be one factor; gut flora may be another.

The fact is that we now have proof that 2 mice can eat the same energy, burn
the same energy and poop the same energy, and yet 1 will become fat and the
other won't.

Say what you will about responsibility when it comes to obesity, you can no
longer argue with authority that "calories in - exercised calories out =
weight" due to this single counterevidence.

------
lotsofmangos
I have often wondered if my shit would burn well compared to people who put on
weight. I can increase the amount I eat while really doing nothing and I still
remain skinny. I put on muscle if I exercise and eat, but I do seem to have a
digestion that ignores stuff unless I am busy. Though it might just be that
when I am not busy I tend to poison it with spirits.

------
autokad
what a terrible headline. a subset of mice have a predisposition towards
obesity, so america's exploding obesity epidemic may not be the individuals
fault despite: #1 genetic ratios couldn't possibly be changing that much #2
most people who do go on diets and exercise DO lose weight. #3 as the article
points out, the gene in study is rare in humans.

~~~
DanBC
We know that dieting is a terrible method for losing weight. It's untrue to
say thT most people who diet lose weight - they only do so in the short term
while they maintain that diet. As soon as they stop they regain weight, often
settling at a higher weight.

Unless by "dieting" you mean "permanent lifestyle change" which is fair
enough.

~~~
autokad
I am addressing the article's statements about mice not loosing weight despite
changing their diet and exercising. the length of time they loose the weight
is less important, and the fact that the reason why they put the weight back
on after reverting to their previous habits only works against the article
that argues the obese may be at the mercy of their genes - diet and exercise
wont help them.

------
vmarsy
Sure, some people may have a DNA more prone to obesity. But some questions to
ask:

What kind of food were the mice given?

What would happen if we gave them some "healthy"(mice-wise) food?

------
pollinaise
We can play the blame game but we can't disregard the laws of thermodynamics.

Too much energy intake and not enough expenditure means that energy goes
somewhere. We can examine the science and sociology of how it happens, but the
only thing pieces like this accomplish is to make people feel better about
their health issues and filled the coffers of snake oil salesmen.

Don't read the article and read the studies instead.

~~~
lotsofmangos
_we can 't disregard the laws of thermodynamics._

Given the less controllable tail end of the process creates a widely variable
amount of flammable solids and gases, it isn't as though it is just the inputs
you should be considering. I'm skinny and fairly sedentary and I know damn
well that with a different set of genetics and the same behavior, then I would
be fat. Also, seems that in terms of lifespan, I may be better off being a bit
overweight than slightly under, really, the benefit seems mainly aesthetic for
most people, which is a crap reason to guilt-trip a society.

------
mratzloff
Feel-good blather.

