0
   

Genes in charge; their relation to weight

 
 
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:00 pm
Much in this article isn't news to me - I know I've read about the Hirsch reseach and some of the other reports.

All this doesn't mean that an obese person can't control weight, but I think it will be helpful for them to have the naturally thin have more understanding of their weight situation.

Genes in Charge (Gina Kolata article, NYT)

I'll post some of the article here, see link for rest of it.


Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside

By GINA KOLATA
Published: May 8, 2007
It was 1959. Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, had gotten curious about weight loss in the obese. He was about to start a simple experiment that would change forever the way scientists think about fat.

Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, conducted a simple but groundbreaking experiment on obesity nearly 50 years ago, changing the way scientists think about fat.

Obese people, he knew, had huge fat cells, stuffed with glistening yellow fat. What happened to those cells when people lost weight, he wondered. Did they shrink or did they go away? He decided to find out.

It seemed straightforward. Dr. Hirsch found eight people who had been fat since childhood or adolescence and who agreed to live at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while scientists would control their diets, make them lose weight and then examine their fat cells.

The study was rigorous and demanding. It began with an agonizing four weeks of a maintenance diet that assessed the subjects' metabolism and caloric needs. Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight. Finally, the subjects spent another four weeks on a diet that maintained them at their new weights, 100 pounds lower than their initial weights, on average.

Dr. Hirsch answered his original question ?- the subjects' fat cells had shrunk and were now normal in size. And everyone, including Dr. Hirsch, assumed that the subjects would leave the hospital permanently thinner.

That did not happen. Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, "they all regained." He was horrified. The study subjects certainly wanted to be thin, so what went wrong? Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat.

So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

Before the diet began, the fat subjects' metabolism was normal ?- the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.

The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged.

The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: "It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals."

Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life's work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.

"Did those who stayed thin simply have more willpower?" Dr. Hirsch asked. "In a funny way, they did."

One way to interpret Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel's studies would be to propose that once a person got fat, the body would adjust, making it hopeless to lose weight and keep it off. The issue was important, because if getting fat was the problem, there might be a solution to the obesity epidemic: convince people that any weight gain was a step toward an irreversible condition that they most definitely did not want to have.

But another group of studies showed that that hypothesis, too, was wrong.

It began with studies that were the inspiration of Dr. Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont, who asked what would happen if thin people who had never had a weight problem deliberately got fat.

His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.

Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.

When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.

(see link for rest, registry required)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,877 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:02 pm
Hey Osso:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2649262#2649262

I'm glad you started a new thread though. It's really fascinating stuff. I'm interested in her book, too, may get it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:10 pm
I'll go ahead and post part two.

    The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body's metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed. That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch. The message never really got out to the nation's dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds. The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard's mind. He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question ?- a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees' biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents. Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young ?- 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were. The scientists summarized it in their paper: "The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect." In other words, being fat was an inherited condition. Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: "Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight." A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together. The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes. [b]The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples' weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.[/b] The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight. The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true ?- each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks. The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss ?- the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more ?- that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight. He published it in the journal Science in 2000 and still cites it: "Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one's breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe," Dr. Friedman wrote. "The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight." [i]This is an excerpt from Gina Kolata's new book, "Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss ?- and the Myths and Realities of Dieting" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).[i]


(Bolded a part that I found particularly striking.)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:11 pm
Sorry! I saw it was dated 5/8 but didn't see a thread, duh.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:13 pm
Oh it wasn't a thread, just a post within a thread. I think it totally deserves its own thread, and didn't realize that registration was required to read the article.

I know that you and I have been on the same page about this stuff for a long time, probably at least in part because we've read much of the same research. This article gathers it nicely and makes the case well.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:16 pm
I think you have to register to read the NYT or Chi Tribune or LA Times online, but not sure if it's still true - I registered at all of them a long time ago.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 12:22 pm
I seem to remember knowing even in the sixties that one always has the same number of fat cells. Which makes sense if Hirsch did that report in '59.

I wonder if there's any way to figure if it's the number of cells that is similar re genes, or different metabolic, uh, triggers.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 08:10 am
Two points:

Fat families not only share a DNA code, they tend to share a fat-friendly environment.

Your chances for "normal" weight are improved if the family standard for a serving of pie is one eighth of the whole pie as opposed to one sixth or one quarter--or even, "Isn't he cute? He can put away a half a pie at a sitting."

I'm willing to admit that once you accumulate 100 pounds of fat cells, those fat cells are part of your burden for life. Still, it seems illogical that the current obesity epidemic has been caused by mass genetic mutations.

Once you have the fat, it is hard to lose the fat--but did the fact accumulate in the first place because of genetic doom or spoonful by forkful of extra calories.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 01:56 pm
That's exactly what the studies cited above address, though, Noddy.

Quote:
He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question ?- a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees' biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.

Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young ?- 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.


Fat parents (who bestow lots of extra pie) adopt a child who was the product of two thin parents -- that child grows into a thin adult. Thin parents adopt a child who was the product of two fat parents -- that child grows into a fat adult.

As the scientists summarized it,

Quote:
"The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect."
0 Replies
 
caribou
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 02:30 pm
Not meaning to be rude or flip....

But does this all mean that fat people are breeding more?

Cause I love people watching but I am disturbed by the fact that the majority of people walking by, are fat.

So, if it is in the genes....

(Still thinking that some of those people are eating half a pie, not because their bodies demand it, but cause it's sitting there)

Interesting data though. Thought provoking.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 04:38 pm
caribou wrote:
(Still thinking that some of those people are eating half a pie, not because their bodies demand it, but cause it's sitting there)


Pretty much.

The quote I mentioned when I posted this was, "We are a species that has evolved to survive starvation, not resist abundance."

Abundance -- cheap and easy to get food -- is a relatively new development. The genetic predisposition to fatness has to interact with enough food for someone to end up being fat. The thing is, "enough" is far less than most people think, if the predisposition is there. Eating the pie isn't what does it, per se, as the person who doesn't have that predisposition can eat the same pie -- the same amount of food as the fat person, in general -- and not gain weight.

My thing here is not fatalism -- if someone is fat, I don't wish upon them that they read this and say "It's hopeless, I'll be fat forever, it's in my genes." Weight loss CAN happen.

My main interest is in how fat people are viewed. Don't be so sure that the fat person is gorging him- or her-self if he or she happens to be fat -- that person's diet might not be so dissimilar from a thin person's, it's just that the thinner person won the genetic lottery. And if a person with "thin" genes can eat less and exercise a bit and lose weight, that doesn't mean that a person with "fat" genes can put in only that much effort and also lose weight -- it might need to be a whole lot more effort. If the person does it, great! What an achievement. But if the person isn't able to do it, it's not necessarily fair to extrapolate from your own experience -- and that's something I see a lot of. (I'm somewhere in the middle I think -- I've been mostly thin and sometimes not-as-thin-as-I'd-like but not fat. My mom is very fat, which is part of my interest in this subject. My dad's thin, but has always exercised a lot and recently has been gaining weight after an injury. Not sure what my genetic place is.)
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 04:51 pm
One difficulty here is that "fat" can mean everything from endomorph chunky to downright obese.

One of my stepsons dropped by today and I notice that like his father and one uncle, he's gone from scrawny/lanky through his teens, twenty's and thirties to a bit of a pot belly in his forty's. This fits the family pattern and the cited study.

On the other hand, he has an older brother, a heavy drinker, who developed the pot gut in his twenties and a younger brother who was a pudgy kid is now lean.

Both my father-in-law and my step-father-in-law died heavy men. Obviously they were not related to each other. The common factor was
my m-i-l who always cooked an extra portion of dinner, just-in-case. She liked seeing men eat and she loathed leftovers. She force fed each of those gentlemen an extra 300-500 calories a day.

Heredity and enviroment.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 05:45 pm
If being fat is determined primarily by the genes, why then is there this sudden and dramatic increase in the number of overweight people?

Perhaps fat individuals marry other fat people, produce fat kids, who then grow up to marry more fat people...
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 06:40 am
sozobe wrote:


My main interest is in how fat people are viewed.


Soz! Looking down upon fat people is one of the last things we can do to spill some hate without getting called on.

Well, and smoking.

No, you can't take it away from us! Laughing

In all honesty though, is any of this study news to anyone? Are there seriously people walking around thinking all people are born with cookie-cutter-skinny one-size-for-all genes?

Of course not. And if so, the percentage is tiny.

We all know someone who eats like a pig and yet doesn't gain weight. Or someone who eats really well and takes care of themself, yet always stays a bit plumper - and curses that skinny one who dares to talk about diet and exercise. haha.

Here's how I see it: people are growing more and more disguisted with obesity. And they should be! It's a concern.
That doesn't mean go around poking fun at anyone who isn't a certain shape or size.

It just means that we all know that a certain level of obesity is bad, on a level beyond cultural and personal prejudice. Because it cripples and kills.

No more lame excuses for being fat. That isn't the answer.
Like Noddy and others pointed out: various shapes is one thing, obesity is another.

With what is available to today, there are no good excuses to blame anyone or anything for being obese. Genes or whatever, it's your personal responsibility to take care of yourself.

Is it really so wrong to have a certain aversion to those who appear like they do not take care of themselves? Again: I'm not saying acting on it in a shallow jerk fashion.
Simply noting. Hey, he's got gold teeth , she is fat.

I don't want to celebrate Obesity. Is that so wrong?

Middle ground is all I want to see.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:13 pm
Are thin people really healthy?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:18 pm
I started a thread on that a while ago, something about "belly fat", not the usual apple pear thing, but about abdominal fat in particular, with small response. The question is in the news again this week. (no links, see google).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 05:49 am
Yep, I saw that too, on the Yahoo homepage.

This isn't what I saw, I don't think, but contains good info:

Quote:
You may think belly fat is limited to the stuff out front that you can grab with your hand ?- but it's the fat you can't see that's really a cause for concern. Visceral fat lies deeper inside the abdomen, surrounding the abdominal organs. Gaining this type of fat has been linked to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other health problems. Subcutaneous fat, located between the skin and the abdominal wall, is more visible but also less likely to be a health risk.

While a slowing metabolism and decreased physical activity contribute to overall weight gain as you age, those factors don't influence visceral fat accumulation directly. Heredity may be the culprit ?- you may simply have inherited a tendency to gain weight in your midsection. Hormones also play a role. Hormonal changes after menopause may change the way that your body breaks down and stores fat, leading to more fat accumulating in your belly.

Some women even experience a widening waist without gaining any weight. Although you may not be gaining extra fat, your abdominal fat is increasing as limb and hip fat decreases. Even in women of a normal weight, too much fat concentrated in the midsection is unhealthy.


More here:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/belly-fat/WO00128

That idea is probably a good shorthand -- don't assume that thin = healthy or that fat = unhealthy.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 04:30 pm
And -- just to weigh in (heh) quickly -- the assumption that overweight people have given up, or aren't worth being kind to, or are lazy, or don't eat right, or are poor or stupid, etc. -- man! There are an awful load of stereotypes thrown around.

Even knowing that there is a genetic component how, exactly, does one put the horse back in the barn after the door's been open, or unring a bell? E. g. how to become thin again after the excess fat cells are there and it's too late and oops, guess what! You were supposed to be rigorous and nutty about it when you were 20 but you were too busy having a regular old life that suddenly, ha, it's all over and the whole thing is irredeemable unless you devote your life to weight loss.

As for the proliferation of overweight people, yes, of course, more calories and a sedentary lifestyle are a part of it, but what if the tendency to becoming overweight is a dominant gene? Or is it perhaps really turned on by the X chromosome? Does anyone address that? 'Cause I'm the product of a thin father and an overweight mother. Guess where I ended up? And guess where my brother did? It's not just us and not just now. Go back a few generations, both sides, and it's the same: thin or regular weight men and overweight women. A few exceptions, but only insofar as it's some very overweight men. Few thin women, and not without monumental lifelong struggles.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 05:49 am
ossobuco wrote:
I started a thread on that a while ago, something about "belly fat", not the usual apple pear thing, but about abdominal fat in particular, with small response. The question is in the news again this week. (no links, see google).


Belly fat is often a prelude to ovarian cancer and heart disease.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 06:48 am
jespah wrote:
Go back a few generations, both sides, and it's the same: thin or regular weight men and overweight women.


This is an important point -- while there are MORE overweight people now, it doesn't mean that it's something new. There have been overweight people for a long, long time. (When was the Venus of Willendorf created?)

Imagine that the genetic weight predisposition is a sort of a Kinsey scale. 0 is thin, 6 is fat. Throughout history, those who are 0 through 5 on the scale have tended towards thin-ness because food was simply not cheap and plentiful, and/or because a lot of energy had to be expended just to get the food. But the sixes were still fat -- their genetic predisposition was that strong. Then there were also the zeroes through fives who did have access to plenty of food, historically. The zeroes would stay thin no matter what -- their genetic predisposition was that strong -- but the ones through fives would get fat if they had enough food, fives more easily than ones.

So these days, there is plenty of food (and of dubious quality, but that's another issue). Sixes and fives get fat very easily. Threes and fours can manage things fairly well if they are careful. Ones and twos don't have to try very hard. Zeroes would have to put in a concerted effort to GAIN weight.

Yes, there will be some twos that gorge themselves and sit on the couch all day and if they were more careful and more active they'd be thin. But that doesn't mean fives and sixes could do the same.

Make sense?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Genes in charge; their relation to weight
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/14/2026 at 05:03:02