Interesting study that proves being fat is genetic

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Interesting study that proves being fat is genetic

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Ive heard fat people can't be cremated easily either, too much fuel for the fire.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2016 04:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:57

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

ElGroucho posted:

Is self-control genetic or what

You know how doctors talk about stuff like alcohol addiction and how some people are more prone to it than others? I'm guessing it's a bit like that. For a lot of people having a couple drinks at a social event and then stopping so they are safe to drive later is easy, for some people it's not. Substitute booze for hamburgers and blamo you have a fatty.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 05:07

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

waitwhatno posted:

Alcohol addiction is different though. That poo poo turned out to be a genuine illness, where your brain chemistry shits itself and drinking becomes a compulsion for you. It has to do with the long term accumulation of some specific transcription factor, that I can't the remember the name of. Some people can get sick faster and easier than others, but it can potentially affect anyone.

I'm not fat expert but couldn't that be the same sit for modern foods that are literally designed to be addictive? Like there are food scientists who are paid bank to come up with ways to trick people to eat more, it seems pretty fair to guess that some people are more susceptible to those tricks than others.

The easiest way to diet is basically to avoid all processed foods but considering the trends it's pretty obvious that's something that's harder to do than it should be. Sure you can just write it off as a willpower problem among the entire world but I feel like the more pragmatic approach would be to engage the new stuff that's caused these obesity trends.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 09:47

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Quote-Unquote posted:

I really hate the term 'processed food' because it is meaningless

Not really? I mean stuff like organic is p vague but processed vs unprocessed is p simple, are you eating food that comes in a box or bag that was prepped for you or are you eating stuff that's either raw ingredients or made from raw ingredients. I guess you could could argue for some vagueness when it comes to stuff like flour, spices, or the variety of cuts of meat but that's really only if you're being pedantic.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 10:24

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Quote-Unquote posted:

but this definition doesn't make sense to me. It was all raw ingredients at some point.

All you're saying here is 'somebody cooked it for me and put it in a package' = processed

(If that's not what you're saying then sorry, but please tell me what 'processed' means)

Yeah hypothetically there's no difference between someone else cooking your food for you and you cooking it yourself but in practice the nutrient breakdown is vastly different and they'll use way more fat/sugar/salt than you would in your own homecooked meals.

There's also the matter of a lot of pre-packaged foods being stuff you wouldn't really have the ability or inclination to cook at home, junk food mostly.

So yeah if you're careful it's certainly possible to have a reasonable diet on stuff that's been prepped for you but for the most part it's a lot easier to control what you're eating when you're making it yourself at home and the rise of obesity certainly meshes with the trend of people relying more on processed garbage.

e: here's like the first scholarly hit for the topic I found if you're gonna be a weiner about it
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7947991&fileId=S1368980010003241

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 21:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:57

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

katkillad2 posted:

The last time I exercised, I was unemployed and taking advantage of it by at least trying to get healthy. I was lifting weights following some popular weightlifting plan about 3-4 times a week and was doing cardio 6 times a week. I'm 6 foot tall and was like 300lbs and that was after like 9 months of working out. I did my cardio on elliptical machines because I was afraid I was too fat that running on a treadmill would destroy my knees/ankles.

This is no exaggeration, I was doing 50-60 miles of cardio a week on the elliptical machines, usually 2 hours a day and I was working out twice a day for lifting and cardio on some days. (I was taking days off from lifting to rest.) The month before I quit working out I lost like 2lbs and was getting frustrated so I switched things up, doing the burst thing with cardio where you go as fast as you can at intervals... forget what it's called. I lost zero pounds for the entire month. I was asking about "starvation mode" in the goon thread and most said it doesn't actually exist.

I basically made exercising my job for almost an entire year.

This is usually the part where people tell me my diet must be poo poo. I was keeping myself to like 1400 calories I think? I was measuring everything and actually keeping track, eating mostly grilled chicken with brown rice. I was drinking water primarily.

TLDR: If genetics, a persons metabolism and/or some other uncontrollable factor like gut bacteria or one's own body perception negatively influencing the brain aren't the primary issues for obesity in some portion of the population then I would be really surprised.

Can you link the redit thread for this I tried a google search and couldn't find it.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 10:25

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Interesting study that proves being fat is genetic