Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Born with Couch Potato Genes? 357

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the rationalization-is-a-dangerous-foe dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Science Daily is reporting on an experiment that suggests that an individual's activity level shows a genetic basis. From the article: 'Research conducted by scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University reveals that a person's level of activity is likely an intrinsic property of that individual. [...] Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Born with Couch Potato Genes? More

Born with Couch Potato Genes?

Comments Filter:

  • Dangerous game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:38AM (#14136096)
    How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?

    • Re:Dangerous game (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:20AM (#14136364) Journal
      Who says everything isn't to blame on genetics?

      • Re:Dangerous game (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bakes ( 87194 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @07:04AM (#14136611) Journal
        I saw a show not long ago about a guy who was extremely overweight, and of course he blamed his weight on genetics. He was finally starting to do something about it (due to being told "do something or you will die").

        They showed him doing some exercise, then pausing to ask his wife to bring him a cherry soda. I thought "perhaps WATER would be a better choice there". Later he was shown eating a bucket of KFC. Hey buddy, try eating some VEGETABLES once in a while. The whole time, he was complaining that his weight was a "genetic problem".

        Perhaps he did have a genetic pre-disposition to put on weight, but he definitely could have made some better choices in his diet. I'm pretty sure he didn't because he would have to take responsibility for his own weight, in which case he might be seen as a 'failure' for being overweight. It's far easier to blame someone else (your parents) than take responsibility for yourself.

        My own experience: I have never had any issues with my own weight (actually, I have trouble putting on weight). My wife, however, was VERY overweight, and made all the usual excuses for it. About 18 months ago she decided she was going to take responsibility for her own weight. She now eats a far healthier diet, gets lots more exercise, and has so far lost nearly 50 kilograms (and still going).

        Maybe you can blame everything on genetics. Doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.

        • I saw a show not long ago...

          Sounds like kind of a baited, made-by-TV reaction you had, but...

          About 18 months ago she decided she was going to take responsibility for her own weight.

          The Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) M.O. of bowing to "a higher power" has always seemed suspicious to me because of the basic premise you're talking about here. AA as an institution has a strong religious side that would cloud any attempt to take responsibility for oneself. You're supposed to give up a big measure of your self-

          • I can't speak for other religions but coming to faith in Christ is all about personal responsibility. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more". Peter said, "Prepare you minds for action; be self controlled." Solomon said, "Have the wisdom to show restraint". The message of personal responibility is woven throughout the Bible.

            • Re:Compare: AA's "spiritual" side (Score:4, Insightful)

              by The Snowman ( 116231 ) * on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:40AM (#14137432)

              I can't speak for other religions but coming to faith in Christ is all about personal responsibility. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more". Peter said, "Prepare you minds for action; be self controlled." Solomon said, "Have the wisdom to show restraint". The message of personal responibility is woven throughout the Bible.

              Modern Christianity has about as much to do with the Bible's teachings as McDonald's does with health food.

              • Would you really want to follow the Bible's teachings? Have you actually read the Bible? It is full of insane contradictory stories and advice. If you applied it literally to your life, you would be locked up for being a menace to yourself and others, if not for outright crime.

                The Bible is not anything that you can base your life on. Those who claim to be doing so are picking and choosing which parts to pay attention to. Which they have to becase the Bible contradicts itself all over the place.
          • If the "spiritual" side becomes nothing more than an outside force to which you're ceding control, it's never been clear to me how that'd be any different than shrugging and saying it was in your genes.

            It's simple enough. Blaming the genes does ABSOLUTELY zero to encourage the drunks/fatties/whatever to improve their habits and actually reinforces the behavior. Externalizing it to a parental substitute, god in the case of AA, is at least a disapproving force that attempts to get them to improve.

        • Re:Free Will is Bunk (Score:5, Interesting)

          by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @10:04AM (#14137643)
          They showed him doing some exercise, then pausing to ask his wife to bring him a cherry soda. I thought "perhaps WATER would be a better choice there". Later he was shown eating a bucket of KFC. Hey buddy, try eating some VEGETABLES once in a while. The whole time, he was complaining that his weight was a "genetic problem".

          Well if his genetics or at least social disposition lead him to believe that he wanted a cherry soda and a bucket of KFC he had no choice in the matter. Well... He sort of did, but the neurons in his brain automatically fired off saying he needed or at least desired the cherry soda. His mind was simply unable to comprehend the desire for water so it did not happen.

          Now saying people have no free will make many people angry and start talking about personal responsibility and he mearly had to choose the water.

          Well... If you study Buddhism you will discover there is free will but it doesn't work like that.

          Where as the normal free will person will say "I shouldn't drink the cherry soda because it is making me fat." and he will more likley fail to do so because he will come up with a counter reason like "Maybe just this one time" or "I'll drink one now but tommorrow I won't..."

          That doesn't solve the problem. Chances are he'll just keep drinking the soda.

          The more self-aware Buddhist person will go "I am aware for my desire for cherry soda. This maybe because of my genetics and I know it tastes better than water." and then goes on to meditate or at least rational and seperate themselves from that desire... (And maybe speculates on what makes a cherry soda and water taste the way it does and why he desires one over the other) not the obtainment of cherry soda itself.

          It sounds hokey but it works. Or at least better than sheer willpower... But you have to learn a bit more about Buddhist meditation to really understand.

    • Re:Dangerous game (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:20AM (#14136365)

      How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?

      Presumably very long, afterall lots of people are just gonna sit on their ass and do nothing to help the "blame DNA first" crowd.

    • Re:Dangerous game (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nurture or nature? Either way, it's Mom's fault....
    • Well, not knowing what is to be blamed on genetics is far more dangerous.

      See...I have heard that some people are niggers, and it's their own fault ;)
    • How soon before we realize that everything IS partially to wholly due to genetics, and that that fact does not excuse us from our own choices.

      So, you killed someone in cold blood, and your parents were murderers too - sorry, bud, you're still going to jail. No amount of genetic "blame" will ever allow us to trust you or your choices.

      Steven Pinker did a thorough exploration of this in "The Blank Slate" [harvard.edu].

    • Re:Dangerous game (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )

      How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?

      Well if it turns out to be true, what do you want to do, bury the truth?

      I was reminded of another recent study [bbc.co.uk], in which it was show that some people do not benefit from exercise(!?)

      Anways, I like how they stated it: "these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive." To me that confirms common sense - t

  • Bah! Effort... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:38AM (#14136098)
    To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"
    Insensitive clods! It's already hard enough to reach for the remote control!

  • How convenient (Score:4, Insightful)

    by damnfuct ( 861910 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:38AM (#14136099)
    Oh, great. Things like these always give people a scapegoat; "I'm not lazy, it's my genes." I'm not saying that it not true, but people like "solid" excuses to be even more lazy.

    • Re:How convenient (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )
      GATACA. This says it all.

    • No excuses (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rlauzon ( 770025 )
      I've been there. Been overweight all my life. Weighed over 350 lbs and was taking root in my LazyBoy chair.

      That was 2 years ago. Over a year and a half, I lost 140 lbs and am a much more active person.

      It wasn't easy, but it's definately do-able. Besides, as the saying goes, "If it's easy, it isn't worth doing."

      • "If it's easy, it isn't worth doing."

        This saying always amuses me. Personally, I find breathing relatively easy (very rarely have to actively remember to do it), but I suspect it's probably worth doing.

        • Well, "If it's easy, it isn't worth doing, unless (in the interest of pedantic accuracy) it's an activity that is required for your continued survival" just does not have the same ring to it. Don't worry about it, I'm sure most people figure out the true meaning of that saying before they drop dead of asphyxiation.

    • Re:How convenient (Score:5, Insightful)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:24AM (#14136377)
      Oh, great. Things like these always give people a scapegoat;

      It's not a scapegoat if it's true.

      "I'm not lazy, it's my genes."

      And if that's the case?

      I'm not saying that it not true, but people like "solid" excuses to be even more lazy.

      And some people want any "solid" excuse to not feel pity on the less well-off.

      Some people deserve their lot in life (whether at the top or bottom of society), and others, try as hard as they might, have the deck stacked against them. The science from this research will better help to distinguish between the two, making for even better allocation of resources. This should satisfy people of both political leanings: the "bleeding-heart" liberals who want to help those who truly need it, and the "cruel" conservatives who abhor spending money on the undeserving.
      • I am not a liberal, and I want to help those who truly need it. There are certainly people out there who have the deck stacked against them and there is no reason we shouldn't collectively help them out.

        But in the case of obesity, I really have a hard time believing that any more than a very small percentage of obese people actually have a disorder. If that was the case, then why has this 'disorder' only become a problem in the last 20 years or so? No. It is cultural/psychological.

        The help these people

        • Re:How convenient (Score:4, Insightful)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @10:04AM (#14137646)
          Telling them they have a genetic predisposition will not help them at all.
          Are you so sure? I know that I have a genetic predisposition to skin cancer. This helps me by making me careful to cover myself or wear sunscreen and go to the dermatologist to get myself checked.

          I know a former alcoholic who "buys the line" (as you would put it) that addiction has a genetic basis. His response? To never, ever have a drink since pulling things together 15 years ago.

          Similarly, people have different, genetically-based risks of heart disease. Nobody doubts this. But most people do not take this as an "excuse" to have a heart attack; rather many of them take medicine, exercise, and get checkups - even though they know the outcome is not guaranteed and genes may prevail out in the end.

    • I don't know if it's true or not, but honestly my first reaction was: "Great. More encouragement to feel like I'm hopeless. :(" But my second was, "Ah, well, it probably isn't fully true, anyway, and in any case I know it doesn't take superhuman effort to get out and take a walk every day or lift weights. I just have to want to and to schedule my time." I know I enjoy going out to walk every night at Christmastime, at least.

      I also wondered (though of course I didn't actually read the article!) if the

  • Naturally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elronxenu ( 117773 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:42AM (#14136113) Homepage
    It seems obvious that if a person is habitually lazy or idle that it would take more of an effort to break out of that than, say, a person who typically had a high activity level but was forced to be idle by sickness.

    The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor. All they say is that it's intrinsic to the individual - being a rhesus monkey in this case - that a given individual displays similar activity levels in both a stimulating and a non-stimulating environment.

    • Article summary wrong; Unsupported conclusions. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by David Hume ( 200499 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:05AM (#14136176) Homepage
      The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor.
      You are correct. The article says nothing about genetics.

      Plus, it appears the experiment itself was pretty meaningless, and the conclusions therefrom unsupported. Basically, they observed that some monkeys were active and others weren't, and that the level of activity didn't depend on the amount of space a particular monkey had to be active in. Wow.

      The only attempt to change an independent variable appears to be as follows:
      A follow-up study was performed with an additional 10 monkeys, which were housed in single cages and then moved to larger group housing. Again, a high degree of individual variability was found in activity level. However, activity level did not significantly change when monkeys were moved between types of housing. Sedentary monkeys remained sedentary even when they had a great deal of space to move around in and companions to interact with, while active monkeys remained active even when they were housed in a smaller space with limited interaction with other monkeys.
      From this, the scientist concludes:
      Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think," said Judy Cameron, Ph.D., senior scientist in the divisions of Reproductive Sciences and Neuroscience at the OHSU Oregon National Primate Research Center.
      I don't think so. How do we know any particular monkey made an "conscious effort," much less a "significant conscious effort," to change its level of physical activity? Perhaps more fundamentally, there is not evidence the scientists even provided any incentive for the monkeys to do so. Simply putting a monkey in a bigger cage may not have given it any incentive or reason to be more active.

      There seems to be an assumption that because they gave a sedentary monkey more space, it should have wanted to be more active, and because it wasn't, in fact, more active, this must be because its inactivity was "an intrinsic property of that individual." The scientist's argument assumes his conclusion. What if the money+ simply did not want to, and indeed had no reason to, move?

      Put a banana at the other end of cage, and watch Mr. Sedentary Monkey take off like a rocket.

  • No, not really. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nirvelli ( 851945 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:43AM (#14136115)
    "...if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think"

    No, I've always thought it would be too hard. Why do you think I'm still a couch potato?

  • Ouch... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:43AM (#14136116)
    To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think

    How much harder than impossible can you get? :(

  • More harm than good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimmyhat3939 ( 931746 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:43AM (#14136117) Homepage
    Research like this often does more harm than good, in my opinion. Not only does it give people an excuse for their situation, it knocks off part of the drive they might have had to go ahead and change things. Though we admittedly do share many characteristics with the animals studied here, we also have the ability to override many of those with conscious decisionmaking.
    • Such research definitely does more harm than good. That's a good reason not to do such research; in fact, it's a good reason to not do much of anything. As good a reason as any; now, hand me that remote, will you, science-boy?
    • Research like this often does more harm than good, in my opinion. Not only does it give people an excuse for their situation, it knocks off part of the drive they might have had to go ahead and change things. Though we admittedly do share many characteristics with the animals studied here, we also have the ability to override many of those with conscious decisionmaking.

      Igorance is bliss? An 'excuse' is just an excuse not to do something you weren't going to do anyway. You can never hide knowledge or not d
    • Research like this often does more harm than good, in my opinion.

      Maybe people might be more selective in their breeding habits? Doubtful, but I guess genetics is still a pretty new thing for most people to know about and grasp.

      Though we admittedly do share many characteristics with the animals studied here, we also have the ability to override many of those with conscious decisionmaking.

      I'm not too familiar with conscious decisionmaking, but there is relatively little "wrong" with being overweight. Most o

  • sure, if we're monkeys (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:46AM (#14136125) Journal
    Then again, I see nothing in the article that suggests such behavior/attitudes isn't learned from parents at an early age.

    They need to do a lot more study, involving actual humans, twins separated early, adopted children, blah blah blah.

    Nothing to see here, move along. (Never thought I'd actually say that on here, but this article is wildly speculative, with little evidence put forth for a true genetic basis. It fully warrants such a comment.)
  • ...because the last thing people in this society need are more excuses. Sure this may lead to some treatments... but it will feed into the culture of victimisation. "Well I'd like to get in shape, but some of us don't have it as lucky as you do... we are cursed with lazy genes." Really it may be true, but I think we'd be better not knowing. I think the same thing goes for a biological of sexuality. Because when some government starts doing some "cleansing" we'll wish we didn't know. I think we need a *real*

  • I always knew (Score:5, Funny)

    by wannabgeek ( 323414 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:47AM (#14136130) Journal
    it is my parents' fault that I'm such a lazy bum. Now I can fwd this link to them.

  • Well, that's the last of it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:51AM (#14136142)
    I'm giving up on free will.

  • correct me if i'm wrong........ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dartarrow ( 930250 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:54AM (#14136149) Homepage
    ....but the fact that we are here is directly related to the fact that our foreforefathers had to run away from scary predators; like tigers and dinosaurs and macrosoft. If they weren't athletic they'd be dead - and therefore we would not be here. SO if its couch-potato in our genes then technically our ancestors would have been bloody lazy. And dino food. Survival of the fittest anyone?

    Besides, if it's in the genes then /. would have had ancestors who woulda been too friggin lazy to uh... procreate anyway.
    • Where did it say that everyone is lazy, and hence give the conclusion that everyone in the past must have bene lazy too to account for this? Populations have variation.
    • Being athletic has its own drawbacks. All those muscles require protein and calories. I'd rather be smart than strong. Physical strength didn't save other early human species from extinction. The puny. and social, tool makers became the dominant species. Running away from predators is for idiots, who will end up as something's lunch.

      God created Man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.

    • our foreforefathers had to run away from scary predators

      We (/.) are geeks. Maybe our forefathers were the Shamans of our tribes, so they had to be smart, cryptic, and sneaky rather than fast.

    • If they weren't athletic they'd be dead - and therefore we would not be here. SO if its couch-potato in our genes then technically our ancestors would have been bloody lazy. And dino food. Survival of the fittest anyone?

      OK, lets get that athletic person in the middle of an ice age with little food and a big person and see who lasts longer.
      • OK, lets get that athletic person in the middle of an ice age with little food and a big person and see who lasts longer.

        Hmm. One fit, athletic, strong person... and one large local source of calories who isn't in terribly good shape and probably wouldn't be able to defend themselves as well. What was that you were saying about "little food?"
        • Hmm. One fit, athletic, strong person... and one large local source of calories who isn't in terribly good shape and probably wouldn't be able to defend themselves as well. What was that you were saying about "little food?"

          Funny. However, there does appear to be a variation in metabolism rates like height, and I guess that is there for some reason. Maybe its there just to feed more people with higher metabolism during ice ages. I don't know. I have no credible source beyond talking with a friend of mine
    • Actually, the last million years or so the major limiting factor on population size has been food. The human body has adjusted to that by getting fat easier and holding on to fat longer. That's the reason that when dieting you will lose muscle mass very easily if you don't excercise. And being lazy limits your energy consumption, therefore it's an advantageous trait.

  • I can see the spam now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by SkyFire360 ( 889512 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:21AM (#14136212)
    Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive.

    New!
    Pr-escr|ptioN gene therapy delvred r|ght t o y0u r door. 3nl4rg you_R worK ethic by four-00 percnt!

  • Hmm... do we now have a 4th monkey? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mrRay720 ( 874710 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:44AM (#14136272)
    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil... ..and their long lost brother "can't be bothered to do any evil"
  • Activity is overrated. One thing done well is better than 100 things done wrong. And please don't denigrate potatoes. Anyway good timing with this thread [slashdot.org] (Introverts Have More Brain Activity?).

  • So what the article is saying is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rogerzilla ( 575012 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:01AM (#14136317)
    If you're a couch potato, you're just a *chip* off the old block?

    /I'll get me coat

  • I knew I wasn't a lazy fatass! I am the product of millions of years of precise evolution. Really, I am the apex of man, highly evolved to conserve stores of fat energy. Those atheletes will die out with the next ice age. Dinosaurs!

  • Speak for yourself (Score:3, Funny)

    by Atario ( 673917 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:18AM (#14136359) Homepage
    if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think
    Not harder than I think.
  • Problem with the article: Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut.

    In Brazil, a large percentage of the population has the same genetic background as people in the U.S., because they are immigrants from the same countries. But people in Brazil are not nearly as grotesquely obese.

    I'd say the obesity is caused by depression, and the depression is caused by the strong
    • Nice theory, but I think cheap gasoline and fast food in supersize portions had more to do with it.
    • Wow. You got modded up for such a ridiculous non-sequiter? We're fat because we're depressed, and we're depressed because we feel guilty as a nation?

      How bout we're fat because we started and continue to support Mcdonalds, whose high-calorie food no one can eat without feeling hungry 90 minutes later? (By design, most likely.)

      How bout we're fat because our dietary habits are different? For example, American meals are generally served all courses at the same time, where as in Europe each course/type of food i
      • There are McDonald's in Brazil, but people are happy, and not fat, and not depressed.

        "... much of American violence is contained within inner cities and is perpetuated by criminals on each other."

        Much of American violence is killing Iraqi civilians [iraqbodycount.net]. If you are a citizen of the U.S., you pay for this, and, if you don't protest, share in it.
        • You're still on that non-sequitir train. It does not follow that Iraqis being killed = Americans getting fat. Aside from that, we'll not go into a discussion on the ins and outs of Iraq in a thread about couch potatoes.

          McDonald's in Brazil blah blah blah

          Like I said, many of those elements exist in other countries, but combine them all together, and you get a bunch of fat Americans.

          It's really quite amusing how far the depths of deranged America-hating has taken some of those on the supposedly sophisticated

    • More to the point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rjstanford ( 69735 )
      The best summary I ever heard of the whole, "Genetics make me fat," argument, is this one:

      We have the same genes, by and large, that we had 50 years ago.

      This rapid rise in obesity is very, very recent. Yes, change can be difficult, but its not that difficult - this coming from someone who lost 80lbs and went from a couch potato to a long distance runner the "easy" way, by eating less and doing more. No pills/shakes/meetings, just good ol' fashioned exercise. Heck, I don't even eat terribly healthily - ju
    • Your post made a lot of sense up till the third paragraph. I think you're reading into it things a bit too much.

      Americans are fatter because we have the wealth to be. We've got tons of food, an automobile based society, and plenty of entertainment that caters towards sitting in a chair and not moving. Many of us can make it through the day and earn a living without doing any sort of serious physical activity. And while sports and athletic activity and whatnot is great, there are plenty of more relaxing leis
    • The U.S. government has killed perhaps 4 million people since the end of the 2nd world war.

      Either your estimate is very conservative, wrong, or what I've heard is wrong. 4 mil / 58 years is _only_ about 68,000 a year. I thought it was more like 100,000 a year when I first read about it back in 2001.

  • Inactivity and fatness are different phenomenons (but clearly related).

    Americans are disgustingly obese (as a group). This isn't true of all the others who live in rich modern societies. E.g. Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria. I don't think Americans are the fattest: rich Africans and Arabs tend to be terribly fat.

    Some suspect America has more "fat genes" because the people who left for the New World starved through more famines than the more prosperous folks who stayed in the Old World.
    • America's fatness has nothing to do with genes. It's all about TV, Corn Syrup, and McDonalds.
    • Not so sure about that, I think a lot of American immigrants from the British Isles came from Scotland & Ireland to avoid the various famines and lack of food in those places. I don't think the Scottish & Irish people who didn't emigrate are as fat as Americans now.
    • Americans are disgustingly obese (as a group). This isn't true of all the others who live in rich modern societies. E.g. Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria. I don't think Americans are the fattest: rich Africans and Arabs tend to be terribly fat.

      Some suspect America has more "fat genes" because the people who left for the New World starved through more famines than the more prosperous folks who stayed in the Old World.

      We weren't fat in the '50s. Not like we are today. Have we all experien
  • Tell me something , these Genes you speak of , do they come with an elasticised waist

  • ive heard this before (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tezbobobo ( 879983 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @06:02AM (#14136492) Homepage Journal
    This crap has come up before. I'm thinking of The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. They claimed then that a whole raft of things were inherited which have since been debunked. These things included intelligence, financial ability, criminal inclination and etcetera...

    Unless they have the evidence, I shall reserve my judgement. This isn't news, just a guess. No matter how educated, this is not news, just a glorified blog report. Flame me if you want, this is a serious criticism.
  • I don't know about this, I used to be very active up until my early 20's and since then I have been very lazy although occasionaly I can become very active again for short periods if necessary I prefer being lazy.

  • Thermodynamics trumps Genes any day (Score:5, Informative)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @06:57AM (#14136592) Journal
    I know lots of Fat people... how can I not? I am an American. I am surrounded by fat people all the time. Hell, I used to BE a fat person, but after losing 70 lbs and becoming the poster-boy for weight loss, I've discovered that it all comes down to one thing:

    If you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. PERIOD. Of course, there are many ways to go about doing this, and the only sustainable way is to exercise to maintain muscle mass.

    The whole idea behind long-term weight loss is to increase your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) by increasing your muscle mass, while at the same time decreasing your caloric intake to below your BMR. That's all it takes. The rate at which you lose weight will be proportional to the delta between your Daily Caloric Intake and your BMR - on average.

    One pound of fat contains approximately 3600 calories. So, for example, you consume 200 fewer calories per day than you expend on average, you'll lose one pound of fat every 18 days. Of course, fat is not the only thing you can lose, so weight loss will vary somewhat.

    Also, exercise adds to your daily caloric expenditure, which can accelerate weight loss significantly. One might expend 1800 calories by riding a bike 50 miles at a high rate of speed, or expend 800 calories by running 6 miles, or expend 400 calories shoveling snow for an hour.

    In any case, what it all boils down to is being aware of the simple fact that you have to get your energy from somewhere, and if you do not get enough energy from the food you eat, your body will turn to its fat stores. It doesn't matter what excuse a fat person uses, whether that be, "It's my glands," or "It's my genes," or whatever. Thermodynamics is LAW, and excuses cannot break it.

    • Problem: Body says "Eat until you aren't hungry." Instinct says "Eat this, it smells like it will give you lots of energy, you need energy." Mind says "Do things this way, it saves energy."

      Outcome: You get fat. Not because you are inherently lazy, but because you have an ingrained drive to be more efficient, while your unconscious mental and physical processes haven't adapted to the extent to which you've reduced your energy needs for survival.

      As has been pointed out, the whole stable weight thing is a bi
      • At 6' and 200lbs., I am "overweight" according to BMI charts, but with a 44" chest and a 36" waist, I certainly don't have a belly to speak of, and my arms and legs are pretty solidly muscled, with perhaps 20% body fat. Is it remotely possible that "over-weight" is not something that can be determined by two or three factors alone?

        You know, I used to think this too, when I hit 200. I had been up around 240 with a 38" waist, and 200 felt really good. Maybe a couple extra pounds, but surely not overweight,
        • BMI doesn't account for muscle mass, so it's not useful for people who do any sort of strength training. It doesn't tell you anything that you can't get by just looking in the mirror.

          I'm 6'1" and about 180 lbs. I was definitely stronger over the summer when I was able to lift more regularly; I was close to 190 lbs. and I could see my abs. Yet, my BMI was borderline overweight.
          • I would agree that its not as useful for anyone who does a lot of strength training. Generally, though, I think that the vast majority of people are well-served by it. If you work out all the time, have very little body fat, etc, then its not for you. The GP was talking about being "fit" with 20% bodyfat and a 36 inch waist...

            I think that one issue is that rather than being "fit" we think of ourselves as "normal." 20% bodyfat is probably below-normal in this country for an adult male ... but its not exa
            • I'm skeptical whenever someone guesses at bodyfat percentages. I can't eyeball my own or anyone else's. I doubt that anyone but a person who regularly checks other people's bodyfat percentages can do it accurately (since they've seen a wide range of body types and know the associate percentage). So I didn't put much stock in the number the GP threw out.

              Back to the BMI, I think it's worthless for an individual. It's useful if you're trying to get data over a large population. But the BMI is just a ratio of h
      • First of all, I agree that the BMI is completely useless, unscientific, and about the worst measure of health the government could have possibly come up with. I never ever use the BMI for anything. Bodyfat percentage is much more useful and indicative of overall health, along with blood pressure, resting heart rate (related to stroke volume and VO2), and other factors.

        20% bodyfat is indeed pretty high for a Male, but it is not in the realm of unhealthy. Because you are on the borderline, I would consider th
  • The genetic basis for lying around and shoveling potato chips in your mouth all day has been know for some time. It's mainly due to overproduction of fritoceptors which heighten sensitivity to snaxamine-2. [theonion.com]

  • To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think

    Stating it equally plainly, "if you're an active person, then becoming a couch potato might be harder than you think." Now, why didn't that sound right?

    Anyway, are we going to slowly figure out that everything has a genetic basis one thing at a time? Next story - liking broccoli has genetic basis, being a Slashdot reader has genetic basis, scoffing at the whole thing has a genetic basis etc etc

  • Validity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by InstantCrisis ( 178129 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @07:26AM (#14136670)
    When I saw the title, I expected a study involving hundreds of separately adopted twins. 29 female monkeys in cages is a methodological joke. No conclusions can be made about genetics from this study, and the conclusions made should not necessarily be generalized to humans.
  • From now on, tell me I am couch potato again and I will sue you for racism...

  • Jabba the Hutt - Potato Gene Model (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:01AM (#14137176)
    Jabba perfected the art of the couch potato, now it must be asked how he is able to convince so many rogues and scoundrels to obey his commands from such a slovenly perch?

  • My wise old grandmother once said... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneSmartFellow ( 716217 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @10:38AM (#14137935)
    The less you do, the less you want to do.

    I have found this to be very true, and when I find myself getting lazy, I recall these words, and force myself into action.

Slashdot Top Deals

The best defense against logic is ignorance.

Close