Predisposition towards obesity is genetic

Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same meaning: fat,
overweight, obese, unfit?


Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: Before people start flaming me without thinking, let me preface this
:: excerpt from a study with this.
::
:: Predisposition towards obesity is genetic. It turns into obesity by
:: environment (too much food, wrong food and lack of exercise). Pima
:: indians were not fat 300 years ago (we think). Predisposition can be
:: overcome, sometimes, by diet and exercise.
::
:: But, people blaming their childhood home environment for their
:: obesity, may be wrong. According to the article, ``a number of
:: studies have described a closer relationship between the weights of
:: adoptees and their biological parents rather than their adoptive
:: parents''. So, environment in adoptive homes did not have nearly as
:: much effect on adoptees, compared to who was their biological parent.
::
:: A question that is open is this. As parents, we try to create some
:: sort of healthy environment for our children, so that they grow up as
:: fit people. Are our efforts statistically doomed to be irrelevant to
:: their final health? It is hard to believe, and does not, strictly
:: speaking, follow from the adoptee finding, but it is a disconcerting
:: thought.
::
:: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:: read this and weep...
::
::
http://www.med.nus.edu.sg/paed/medic...cs_obesity.htm
::
:: ``Studies in twins, adoptees and families indicate that as much as
:: 80% of the variance in the body mass index is attributable to genetic
:: factors. Twin studies suggest a heritability of fat mass of between
:: 40-70%. Concordance between monozygotic twins is 0.7-0.9, compared
:: to
:: 0.35-0.45 between dizygotic twins. While these associations may in
:: part be explained by sharing the same childhood environment, a number
:: of studies have described a closer relationship between the weights
:: of adoptees and their biological parents rather than their adoptive
:: parents. These genetic influences are not confined to the extremes
:: of obesity, but exert their effect across the whole range of body
:: weight and are consistent with a polygenic inheritance of fat mass.
::
:: The potential implication of genetic factors in the development of
:: human obesity is well demonstrated by the description of six
:: monogenic forms of the pathological human obesity to date. These
:: genes encode proteins of the leptin axis and brain-expressed targets
:: of leptin involved in the melanocortin pathway. They include
:: leptin, the leptin receptor, pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC),
:: proconvertase 1 (PC1), Peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor g2
:: (PPARg2), and the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4-R). Except for
:: MC4-R, mutations in these genes cause rare, recessive, syndromic
:: forms of obesity, associated with multiple endocrine abnormalities.
:: ''

Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed
to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the
root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.


The properly selected life-style can counter-act predisposition.
Predisposition
is not a cause but an indicator that we have to watch the factors we can
control.

BJ

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed
to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the
root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.


The properly selected life-style can counter-act predisposition.
Predisposition
is not a cause but an indicator that we have to watch the factors we can
control.

BJ

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed
to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the
root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

IMHO the changes the world has gone through in the last 20, 30, 50, 100
years is a contributing factor. Hard physical labor has been reduced by
heavy equipment; never-ending housework has been reduced by labor-saving
appliances; as service jobs increase more people work at desks; the plethora
of fast-food and convenience stores makes it easy to eat on a whim, at any
time of day or night, and often without having to leave the car. Prepared
foods which offer convenience if not good nutrition are available
everywhere, and cheap. Advertising bombards us with offers of tasty food,
usually with the tastiness of fat, salt, and sweet.

It used to be the case (generally) that it took physical work to earn a
living, keep house, and maintain your possessions. Food took time and work
to prepare. Simple, basic ingredients were all that were available and a
lot of foods were seasonal, not available year-round. People, again
generally, usually didn't make enough money to eat to excess. Gout was a
rich man's disease. Children had chores (work, real work) to perform to
help the family day-to-day. Television (and leisure/games/entertainment)
was not a major factor in people's lives.
I think that the prevalence in obesity is due at least in part to these
relatively rapid changes in the world, and our collective inability to deal
wisely with the changes. Like the proverbial kid in a candy shop, the
opportunity to overindulge is now within the grasp of almost everyone in the
developed nations, and we are not dealing with it properly.

- Dewolla

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus22273 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Why is it that all of these words seem to always have the same
::: meaning: fat, overweight, obese, unfit?
::
:: They have different meaning.
::
:: For example, one can be slim and unfit.
::
:: or, overweight but not obese.
::

And one can be overweight and fit, too. Of course, the more overweight one
is, the harder it is to remain fit (for much).

Whenever people talk about this stuff, these terms get all intermingled.
How can there ever be useful discourse when the terms all get blurred.

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed
to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the
root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

IMHO the changes the world has gone through in the last 20, 30, 50, 100
years is a contributing factor. Hard physical labor has been reduced by
heavy equipment; never-ending housework has been reduced by labor-saving
appliances; as service jobs increase more people work at desks; the plethora
of fast-food and convenience stores makes it easy to eat on a whim, at any
time of day or night, and often without having to leave the car. Prepared
foods which offer convenience if not good nutrition are available
everywhere, and cheap. Advertising bombards us with offers of tasty food,
usually with the tastiness of fat, salt, and sweet.

It used to be the case (generally) that it took physical work to earn a
living, keep house, and maintain your possessions. Food took time and work
to prepare. Simple, basic ingredients were all that were available and a
lot of foods were seasonal, not available year-round. People, again
generally, usually didn't make enough money to eat to excess. Gout was a
rich man's disease. Children had chores (work, real work) to perform to
help the family day-to-day. Television (and leisure/games/entertainment)
was not a major factor in people's lives.
I think that the prevalence in obesity is due at least in part to these
relatively rapid changes in the world, and our collective inability to deal
wisely with the changes. Like the proverbial kid in a candy shop, the
opportunity to overindulge is now within the grasp of almost everyone in the
developed nations, and we are not dealing with it properly.

- Dewolla

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:11:41 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

It's a combination of environmental and genetic factors.

Environmental: portions are getting larger, we move less.

Genetic: The effects of obesity, gestational and type-2 diabetes in
the mother make metabolic changes in offspring. That group of children
is the most likely to be obese before the age of 5.*

*Risk factors for childhood overweight: A prospective study from birth
to 9.5 years. Agras WS, et al. J Pediatr. 2004 Jul;145(1):20-5.

Predicting preschooler obesity at birth: the role of maternal obesity
in early pregnancy. Whitaker RC. Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e29-36.

So it's both.



Barbara Hirsch, Publisher
OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS
The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development
http://www.obesity-news.com/

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:11:41 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

Getting back on topic, it is easy to see that some of us are predisposed to
being overweight. Being predisposed, being sedentary, and eating too much
would seeem to be the obvious factors at work to get many people into the
danger zone. But why it is that so many of us now seem to be predisposed?
Or is it that the latter two factors (sednetary and eating too much) are
really the root cause? It seems (to me) as if lifestyle are really the root
cause more much moreso than predisposition.

It's a combination of environmental and genetic factors.

Environmental: portions are getting larger, we move less.

Genetic: The effects of obesity, gestational and type-2 diabetes in
the mother make metabolic changes in offspring. That group of children
is the most likely to be obese before the age of 5.*

*Risk factors for childhood overweight: A prospective study from birth
to 9.5 years. Agras WS, et al. J Pediatr. 2004 Jul;145(1):20-5.

Predicting preschooler obesity at birth: the role of maternal obesity
in early pregnancy. Whitaker RC. Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e29-36.

So it's both.



Barbara Hirsch, Publisher
OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS
The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development
http://www.obesity-news.com/

"Dewolla Stepon" wrote in message news:uRSJc.105174$Oq2.58778@attbi_s52...

I think that the prevalence in obesity is due at least in part to these
relatively rapid changes in the world, and our collective inability to deal
wisely with the changes. Like the proverbial kid in a candy shop, the
opportunity to overindulge is now within the grasp of almost everyone in the
developed nations, and we are not dealing with it properly.

yup. Modern society is designed to make you fat, as a side-effect of
both consumption and convenience. Supersized portions, engineered
sugars and fats, powered wheelchairs for the unfit at stores.

eat-drink-consume - wheel yourself around