Genes Don't Doom You to Overeat

Reader Comments
Back to blog

yqbLGV

Ickzupmd of CA 2:01AM July 15, 2009

Look back to 1960. America did not have an obesity problem. Now 2 out of 3 adults are overweight and 50% of that number are obese. What changed. Our diets? No, our diets were worse then with a higher degree of animal fat consumption. Do we eat more now? A little, yes. Approximately 100 calories more per day. The biggest change is the amount of movement.
Americans burn 700 calories less per day on average than during the 1960's. Do the math and it is not hard to see why we keep growing larger every year. The nature of work and recreation are largely to blame. Both are becoming increasingly sedentary.
Employers are discovering that if they keep their employees moving during the day they not only increase their productivity but they regain their health and lose weight in the process. How do they accomplish this? They are using a variety of techniques.
One of the more interesting methods is use of a treadmill desk. You can read more about all of this on the website of TrekDesk, a treadmill desk manufacturer.

Josh SImms of AZ 1:22PM April 06, 2009

I find it fascinating that non-obese people seem to thrive on giving useless, empty advice to obese people.
I guess it's easier than admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about, have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation on obesity, and feel fearful/anxious because you see the world-wide increase in obesity and have no idea of what to do to reverse this trend.
The fact is, obesity is a very complex, multi-faceted problem that results from a witches brew of genetics, life-style choices, emotional issues, and macro-level changes in how humans work, transport ourselves, relate to one another in groups and in families, grow food, prepare food, store food, etc.
Fixing the obesity epidemic won't be fast or easy, and it will involve sweeping changes in how we live our lives. As long as we're sitting at desks or on couches for 12-15 hours per day, driving everywhere in cars or on buses/trains/taxis, surrounded by massive amounts of high-sugar/high-fat prepared food in long-storage containers (freezers, cans, boxes and packages with a along shelf-life, fast-food and junk-food stores on every corner), and have high-stress, low-exercise lives (massive amounts of cortisol, little restorative sleep, long work hours at sedentary jobs, etc.) then obesity levels will continue to rise.
It's complicated. It's ugly. And it's coming to a belly near you VERY soon. Blaming the obese may give you relief in the short term, but in the long term, we ALL have our work cut out for us. Being inquisitive and receptive to each new piece of the puzzle as it is found will go a long way towards reversing the trend. Handing out ignorant, useless "advice" makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Jean Vignes of WA 1:09PM November 06, 2008

Very interesting take on the 'scientific study' which probably overlooked what you observed.

5:51AM October 20, 2008

So overweight people have an opposite, seemingly illogical reaction to a dulled appetite: they eat more rather than less. To me, that suggests the psychological issues are more important than the genetic one in this case. Overweight people of this sort basically don't listen to what their body is accurately telling them...eat less because there is no pleasure in it.
Such people need to understand that if they can't get pleasure in what they eat, then they must find pleasure outside of simply eating more food. As people age, all will undergo some modification to their appetite, and I would guess, with no more difference than the subjects in this research were born with. Unfortunately long-standing cultural and social expectations impose a contradictory psychological environment that is at complete odds with these people's internal physical logic.
I imagine if a person had both this defect and an OB gene defect (eliminating "fullness" as a secondary regulation to appetite), then they would be really in trouble. There are obviously several genetic regulators of appetite...but it only takes one unattentive person to defeat all of them.

max k. of CA 10:54AM October 18, 2008

Why does it take doctors so long to figure out the obvious? Most junk food nowadays is more wax than chocolate, more preservatives than food, so why else would people eat it like its going out of style?
The only way I can avoid weight gain is to avoid sugar altogether; that includes sweet juice, really sweet fruit, even flavored yogurt.
Howabout figuring out why had-a-baby fat is so hard to get rid of? Or perhaps the link between food allergies and weight gain? Doctors are so shortsighted.

Jen of UT 9:51AM October 18, 2008

I am overweight, but not obese. I love the taste of foods, but not sweets. That chocolate milkshake would do nothing for me. Give me a hunk of smelly cheese, dense bread, red wine and then more smelly cheese, and I'd be in heaven. Is this why I'm only 15-20 lbs. overweight, and not obese? I don't understand this study at all. Can't some obese people not even like sweets??

kristina of CA 8:49AM October 18, 2008

I'm not sure that attacking an obese person's self-discipline or other character attributes is useful here, even if the person has had so many binges that their pleasure receptors have simply worn out. Maybe like the pancreas of someone with Type II diabetes.
The fact that food can be like a narcotic, and can therefore become an addiction, suggests that we can use the same tools to arrest food addiction as we have used with some success to arrest other addictions. To me, that's the implication of this research- much more so than speculating about what kind of drug can be developed. There may someday be a useful drug, but there are still help and solutions available today as evidenced by the many people who have come clean from drugs or alcohol.
Now, when I think about those solutions, I can't recall any that are as simple as, for example, telling a herion addict to find some other pleasurable activity to engage in, i.e., take a yoga class. I'm sure that may be part of a solution, but I think there is more to it.
Finally, there is little doubt that eating is somehow "hardwired" to pleasure in every human being. That helps keep us from starving ourselves. No doubt about that. But, for whatever reason- a gene, need for relief from emotional distress- this research shows that some people need more food to reach that same pleasure level and this can lead to emotionally and physically ruinous results that no one could seriously describe as desirable or beneficial. That is the basic problem. I just hope that the reseach drives a more robust discussion of the solution that goes beyond waiting for drugs that may or may not de developed, or statements about an obese person's character. None of that seems very useful.

Diane Hahn of MD 8:33AM October 18, 2008

I'm no scientist but could the lowered response in the brains of the obese young women be a conditioned one? It is commonly known that alcoholics and drug addicts require more and more of what they are addicted to in order to maintain the high that they seek. Could this not also be true of obese people? If obese people are addicted to the pleasure eating food brings, wouldn't they, like the alcoholic and drug addict, need more and more of it to achieve the same high? Wouldn't we expect a young woman who had never had a bourbon and Coke to respond more powerfully to it than a young woman who is an alcoholic?

MeMyself&I of NC 8:16AM October 18, 2008

Hmmmm....which am I going to trust- a study in a peer-reviewed journal by PHDs, or a fluff-piece by a journalist that suggests "shaking things up a bit." It's difficult, but I'd do a bit more homework, Deborah, if I were you, before dismissing research results that don't fit in a fluff-piece (like this one)

Kurt 7:53AM October 18, 2008