# What do you think about this womans theory? Intelligent opinions?



## Pixzelina (May 25, 2013)

There's this woman on this site who helps people with eating disorders, anyway she basically claims that your weight is pre-determined 100% by your genetics and the amount of eat (no matter how much) is determined by your genetics. When you lose any weight "you are damaging your organs." Which she explains is why we tend to feel so ravenously hungry when we lose weight. Anyway you probably will need to read some of her stuff to understand this completely, but do you think this is true? She says that your weight is not at all affected by your eating habits, and that you're not "healthy," unless you can eat whatever you want and not gain weight. (Homeostasis) 

Anyway here's the first blog she posted that kind of outlines her ideas about weight and genetics.
Your Eatopia - Blog - I Need How Many*Calories?!!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I guess biochemistry books should be re-written then.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Pretty much flies in the face of nutrition science.


----------



## Husgark (Nov 14, 2012)

I didn't read everything, but I see a few problems with her claim that weight is genetically predetermined. 

First of all, having a predetermined weight(or ideal weight) is very impractical, especially for pre-historic humans. When food was plentiful for the pre-historic human, eating a lot and gaining weight was necessary for survival. Our ability to gain excess fat meant that we had extra energy to survive food scarcity. It would simply be impossible to maintain the so called ideal weight because the access to food wasn't predictable. Animals are also dependent on being able to store extra energy, especially animals who hibernates.

Today it's different of course because we have good access to food(here in the west), so we don't really need that adaptability to survive. However, our genetics haven't changed much from the pre-historic human, which means that our genetics aren't in tune with our environment. Genetics plays a role in determining our weight, but I think it's more correct to says that our weight is determined by how our genetics responds to our environment. Our genetics haven't changed, but the environment has. Refined sugar for example doesn't exist in nature. It's always coupled with fiber(think of apples, oranges, sugarcane's etc. they all have lot's of fiber) which slows down how fast we can digest sugar. Today on the other hand, refined sugar is everywhere which means that we might be genetically designed to eat in a way that is unhealthy for us.

Besides, if it was really true that our weight is genetically determined the obesity rate in America should be stable since our genes changes veeery slowly. The data on the other hand shows that the obesity rate started climbing quite rapidly around 1980.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

You should consider that if you eat lets say real meat, poultry, fish and over the ground vegetables, you can pretty much eat all you want without gaining weight because it's bloody hard to be able to ingest 2300 - 3000 calories pure consisting of high amounts of protein and mid-high fat. 

On the other hand, when I do a dirty carb refeed consisting of sugars, pastries, assorted other baked goods and wash that down with a coke or two, I can hit 4k calories no problems in about 3 hours.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

I'd like to know how the percentage of obese children tripled in some first world countries during a 20 years span if weight is completely hereditary.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

I think she is missing a lot of factors. She suggests just eating a lot of calories to regain weight if you have brittle, dry hair for instance. That actually sounds like a mineral and vitamin deficiency, which would actually point to quality over quantity. Also she doesn't account for the fact that so many foods have weird chemical junk that is actually addictive and causes a person to want to eat more and more and to still feel hungry, because they aren't getting the nutrients they actually need. She might be right to a certain extent, but she needs to realize that if you eat a smaller portion of food with good nutrition in it you will feel fuller and healthier than if you eat a lot of crap calories with no nutrition. People in the US in particular are starving for nutrition not calories. I do think weight is partially determined by genetics though. So people are just naturally bigger boned and weigh more, which can certainly mess up the whole BMI thing. I, for instance, am constantly considered underweight by my BMI. Nothing I can do about it though. It's just the way everyone in my close family is-mom, grandma, siblings.


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

There is no such things a bigger boned, unless you were Andre the giant.








Big problem is that most people don't know about BMI, and don't have the time to count their caloric expenditures. If everyone did, then there would be a sharp reduction of fat people in many countries.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

dalex said:


> There is no such things a bigger boned, unless you were Andre the giant.
> View attachment 76733
> 
> 
> Big problem is that most people don't know about BMI, and don't have the time to count their caloric expenditures. If everyone did, then there would be a sharp reduction of fat people in many countries.


Your post is a huge part of the problem with the weight loss industry today. There is such a thing as different sized bone structure, bone density, fat storage patterns, carb tolerance, insulin resistance, leptin resistance, food allergies, muscle mass, and so on. Of course, BMI ignores this. BMI is another part of the problem because it's used as a religion, but is totally useless. It ignores bone structure, it ignores the mass distribution of your body, someone who is 6 feet tall and weights 160 lbs, but have 35% body fat are considered "normal" whereas someone who is 6 feet but 190lbs with 13% body fat ("normal" range for men) is considered to be well on their way to obesity. 

BMI is one of those funny things where if you add strength training to your program as a part of weight loss (and everyone should do that) you can actually get more overweight/obese the more you work. 

Your entire "there is no such thing as bigger boned unless you were Andre the Giant" is self-contradictory, as a more general restatement of it is "there is no such thing as bigger boned unless you have bigger bones".

This is the kind of stupid shit that keep people on constant yo-yo diets on insanely low calories, running 7 miles per day resulting in busted knees, only to regain the weight in 3 days after they stop because:

A) Their efforts didn't result in permanent change. 
B) Their efforts resulted in most likely a 3:1 or 2:1 loss of fat to muscle, meaning that their BMR went down, so now even less calories can be consumed. 

The sooner people stop treating weight loss and getting healthy as a "one size fits all" problem and actually look into what protocol is suitable for the person in question based on their underlying cause rather than the symptom (overweight) the better. 

If you're using a "Biggest loser" type program, you have to put your subjects in a controlled environment. 

If your client is someone who has willpower issues and a carb addiction, you may not want to give them refeeds since they can often spill-over from a "carb meal" to a "carb day" to a "carb week". 

If your client has an emotional issue with food, you may want to send them to a shrink and perhaps get them some cognitive behavioral therapy to "reset" their patterns. 

Most of the protocols in the market "work" to some degree, but the reductionist and simplistic "calories in vs calories out", "eat less, move more", "6 small meals per day", "avoid fat", "avoid carbs" etc needs to be put in context.


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

Andre the Giant is a metaphor for acromegaly which is a serious medical condition that causes a person to grow more than what is necessary. Therefore people with this condition are more propense to have an abnormal bone structure. BMI does take bone structure into consideration to some extent, as it matches weights with certain heights. A person who is 6'5 is going to require more calories than a person who is at 5'0, due to sheer size. Generally the width and the thickness of the bones from one human to another rarely differences much from another. People who are fat do have their bones expand for the same reason that they are fat, since a lot more bone density is required to support that person in their shape. I rarely see somebody with a Neanderthal thickness of a frame.

Now I'm not saying BMI, by any form is perfect, but is it is a good thumb of measure to calculate what is the most ideal shape for a body at a certain height. There are more accurate ways to determine these subtleties like x-rays, blood tests, and machines that calculate how much fat you have distributed through your body. I was a skinny a little bitch at 5'10.5 at 125 lbs, and was at 10 percent body fat. I felt weak and fragile, and quite frankly my body didn't feel really good. I used BMI in conjuction with a Tanita machine, and skin calipers, which gave me a more accurate reading where I needed to be.

Those fucking ********* idiots that do run on the treadmill for 7 miles, and crash diets, have no idea how to manage their body correctly. That is complete ignorance of proper fitness, and the required intake of micro and macro nutrients. Most professionals would agree that a person who is around my height should not let their caloric intake fall below 2000 calories. BMI is just a tool, and its just that. By no means is it a propagator of stupid media over sound medical advice. Just because the media likes to use BMI doesn't mean that it discounts all merit of it working.

Then again it was kind of my fault saying for making it sound that BMI alone can cure these ailments, as it only works if you have other things in conjunction. However knowledge of the BMI is what lead me discover other medical methods to gauge my bodyfat, and where I should be in terms of lean mass, and fat. Most people don't go beyond that, and they listen to Jimmy Struthers advice on how snap your back, expand your stomach, and light exercises that don't solve anything. Poor, uneducated people are the ones more likely to be victims of this sort of behavior.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

dalex said:


> BMI does take bone structure into consideration to some extent, as it matches weights with certain heights. A person who is 6'5 is going to require more calories than a person who is at 5'0, due to sheer size.


I'm 5'11" and 225 lbs. According to BMI, I'm obese.

But wait: I'm pretty trim, but about 5' around at the chest/shoulders. And I ten-rep 800 pounds on the leg press.










I understand that you went on to say that BMI is by no means a one-size-fits-all solution and just a tool, but I tend to think that it's not even that.



> I rarely see somebody with a Neanderthal thickness of a frame.



I guess that's me, lol.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BMI is used for average people who do not work out with the purpose of building muscle or are athletes/dancers etc, and any professional who uses it knows that they have to take that into account. It doesn't mean it's useless because it doesn't work good at a particular category of people.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

At the end of my senior year of college, I hadn't lifted in about seven months (due to time constraints: I took 22 units my last quarter; don't ask me what the hell was going through my head), but was still solidly "overweight" at 190 lbs. There are different body types, and the BMI doesn't account for them. I agree that a professional would know this and account for it.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

dalex said:


> Andre the Giant is a metaphor for acromegaly which is a serious medical condition that causes a person to grow more than what is necessary. Therefore people with this condition are more propense to have an abnormal bone structure. BMI does take bone structure into consideration to some extent, as it matches weights with certain heights. A person who is 6'5 is going to require more calories than a person who is at 5'0, due to sheer size. Generally the width and the thickness of the bones from one human to another rarely differences much from another. People who are fat do have their bones expand for the same reason that they are fat, since a lot more bone density is required to support that person in their shape. I rarely see somebody with a Neanderthal thickness of a frame.


Height alone is not enough of a variable, the national institute of health (US) for instance uses 3 different frame sizes based on wrist width in relation to height. One of the calculators I checked that included frame size in their ideal weight for someone that's my height (6.1) had a span of a full 10kgs or 22lbs on ideal weight. 




> Now I'm not saying BMI, by any form is perfect, but is it is a good thumb of measure to calculate what is the most ideal shape for a body at a certain height. There are more accurate ways to determine these subtleties like x-rays, blood tests, and machines that calculate how much fat you have distributed through your body. I was a skinny a little bitch at 5'10.5 at 125 lbs, and was at 10 percent body fat. I felt weak and fragile, and quite frankly my body didn't feel really good. I used BMI in conjuction with a Tanita machine, and skin calipers, which gave me a more accurate reading where I needed to be.
> 
> Those fucking ********* idiots that do run on the treadmill for 7 miles, and crash diets, have no idea how to manage their body correctly. That is complete ignorance of proper fitness, and the required intake of micro and macro nutrients. Most professionals would agree that a person who is around my height should not let their caloric intake fall below 2000 calories. BMI is just a tool, and its just that. By no means is it a propagator of stupid media over sound medical advice. Just because the media likes to use BMI doesn't mean that it discounts all merit of it working.
> 
> Then again it was kind of my fault saying for making it sound that BMI alone can cure these ailments, as it only works if you have other things in conjunction. However knowledge of the BMI is what lead me discover other medical methods to gauge my bodyfat, and where I should be in terms of lean mass, and fat. Most people don't go beyond that, and they listen to Jimmy Struthers advice on how snap your back, expand your stomach, and light exercises that don't solve anything. Poor, uneducated people are the ones more likely to be victims of this sort of behavior.


The problem with "most professionals" is that I've done just about everything they say not to do and I've dropped over 100lbs now. I've eaten 2 large meals per day rather than 5 - 6, I've increased my fat intake until it was 80% of my consumed calories, I've also dropped calories to half of my metabolic rate at rest, plus working out with weights 3x a week and walking 4 hours per week. In June alone I cut my caloric intake by well above the recommended 500 per day, and I'm not experiencing any problems what so ever. That's what I mean by context. 

The thing is, knowing your BMI is less important than knowing what to eat and having access to the foods you should eat.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

BMI is simply a height-to-weight ratio and is terribly outdated.

Body fat % is far more important.

And that Eatopia website is ridiculous. I'm 5'1-ish and 130 lbs. I tested my BMR with two different machines and it is in the 1250 range. If I am very active, I can eat around 1900 calories and NOT gain weight...if I want to lose, I have to drop to around 1400 (to lose 1 lb per week). 

If I ate 2500 calories a day without being VERY active, I'd gain weight.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

kashiee322 said:


> There's this woman on this site who helps people with eating disorders, anyway she basically claims that your weight is pre-determined 100% by your genetics and the amount of eat (no matter how much) is determined by your genetics. *When you lose any weight "you are damaging your organs." Which she explains is why we tend to feel so ravenously hungry when we lose weight. * Anyway you probably will need to read some of her stuff to understand this completely, but do you think this is true? She says that your weight is not at all affected by your eating habits, and that you're not "healthy," unless you can eat whatever you want and not gain weight. (Homeostasis)
> 
> Anyway here's the first blog she posted that kind of outlines her ideas about weight and genetics.
> Your Eatopia - Blog - I Need How Many*Calories?!!


The life expectancies and number/severity of diseases among skinny and overweight people contradict that assumption.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

I guess wrestling in high school killed my organs.


----------



## Nyu (Jun 29, 2013)

Obesity is not always genetic it is an addiction to eating foods. Sugary foods are highly addictive. Once you remove bad carbohydrates from your body it becomes easier to resist the urge for these foods. Eating fruits and vegetables with small amounts of fish and chicken along with regular exercise will keep you I shape. The exception is with diabetes. I think a lot of diabetes is self inflicted by people who never have watched what they put I their mouth (no offense I know sometimes it is genetic) but obesity can be fixed or cured.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Kristindork said:


> Obesity is not always genetic it is an addiction to eating foods. Sugary foods are highly addictive. Once you remove bad carbohydrates from your body it becomes easier to resist the urge for these foods. Eating fruits and vegetables with small amounts of fish and chicken along with regular exercise will keep you I shape. The exception is with diabetes. I think a lot of diabetes is self inflicted by people who never have watched what they put I their mouth (no offense I know sometimes it is genetic) but obesity can be fixed or cured.


This. I also had an emotional relationship with food for years, where I'd handle emotions I didn't like by eating once I dealt with that habit the weight just started coming off.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

I find the idea of us having a predisposed weight controlled by a) our eating habits and b) our tendency to lose or gain weight interesting. To be honest, as someone who puts on weight extremely easily, I do have to consciously limit the amount I eat just to stay thin. Maybe I'm meant to be fat.

HOWEVER, we evolved this tendency back in the days where finding an excessive amount of calories was near-impossible. Today, we have shelves of nutritionally devoid calorie-rich foods at our disposal. I would suggest allowing our eating habits to run completely amok is a terrible idea, as this leads to obesity. 

Sure, maybe if you eat boring foods, but who is going to do that?


----------

