Fat Leo pic

[purerogue]

Interesting topic, only thing that I can say from observation is that body adapts to lifestyle, notice how people who are skinny have it quite difficult gain weight even if they sit on proper diet to gain weight , depending on person it can take months , or up to year until you start to get serious gains in weight, it is like you reach point and it spikes your weight, same with losing weight , it can be difficult to lose big amount of weight for a while, but you keep up with it, it starts to become way easier and faster process. 

Some people can gain 10 or more kilograms  in one week, some would not gain even 2 kilograms eating the same in such short time. 

 

[Nivsch]

@Andreas the question is how big is the genetic difference. I can give an example of me and my brother that we both obviously grew up in the same house and family (same psychology and same environment) and still we are significantly different people, and that is  also because our genetics differences.

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Interesting topic, only thing that I can say from observation is that body adapts to lifestyle, notice how people who are skinny have it quite difficult gain weight even if they sit on proper diet to gain weight , depending on person it can take months , or up to year until you start to get serious gains in weight, it is like you reach point and it spikes your weight, same with losing weight , it can be difficult to lose big amount of weight for a while, but you keep up with it, it starts to become way easier and faster process. 

Some people can gain 10 or more kilograms  in one week, some would not gain even 2 kilograms eating the same in such short time. 

 

I agree with you. I think this is what's called epigenetics. 

[Derek White]

From my everyday anecdotal experience some people are just a certain way from the get go. Like some people in my close family just gain weight by drinking water and some are just stick thin. Two people can eat, and perform the same food and activities from the time of birth and have vastly different bodies in my experience. 

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@Andreas the question is how big is the genetic difference. I can give an example of me and my brother that we both obviously grew up in the same house and family (same psychology and same environment) and still we are significantly different people, and that is  also because our genetics differences.

Well you and your brother would have the same genetics though? I think this just proves my point. 

[Nivsch]

@Andreas why it proves?

We have different genetics.

Only identical twins i think have close to equal genetics.

[Andreas]

Just now, Nivsch said:

@Andreas why it proves?

We have different genetics.

Only identical twins i think have close to equal genetics.

I mean I am no expert in Biology but it just doesn't make sense in physics or history. I think brothers also have pretty close genetics because of the same parents. 

[Forestluv]

28 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well I assume this would show up in the results when they are trying to modell how much bodymass a person has. If someone is physically bigger they would weigh more. 

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions- some of which are misconceptions.

Regarding the above assumption, we would need to read the primary article and examine the results, would we not? For example, how did they define “weight”? Did they consider both fat composition and physical body structure? How did they perform their genome-wide association screen? Did the screen the entire genome? Did they simply screen through metabolic genes? Such as genes functioning within insulin pathways and cellular respiration? Did they include psychological genes like those involved in dopamine reward pathways? There are a lot of nuances here that you have no idea exists. And I am not taking an opposite opinion, in my view your concepts have fundamentally errors, so the opposite concept would also be flawed. 

[Forestluv]

@Nivsch @Andreas Identical twins share 100% nuclear DNA similarity - they  both started out as the same cell. However, there will be slight differences that arise due to spontaneous mutations. And there will be epigenetic differences that will arise over time. 

Regular siblings have, on average, 50% DNA sequence similarity. 

@Andreas you have an over-emphasis on environment impact which is muddying the waters such that you cannot see genetic impacts. 

For example, some cases of cancer have a predominantly environmental cause, some cancers have a predominantly genetic cause and some are more of an even mix between genetics and environment 

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions- some of which are misconceptions.

Regarding the above assumption, we would need to read the primary article and examine the results, would we not? For example, how did they define “weight”? Did they consider both fat composition and physical body structure? How did they perform their genome-wide association screen? Did the screen the entire genome? Did they simply screen through metabolic genes? Such as genes functioning within insulin pathways and cellular respiration? Did they include psychological genes like those involved in dopamine reward pathways? There are a lot of nuances here that you have no idea exists. And I am not taking an opposite opinion, in my view your concepts have fundamentally errors, so the opposite concept would also be flawed. 

Well in my view the evidence speaks for itself. Genes have about a 3% effect on peoples weight. I am obviously no expert and I do not really have an idea what I am talking about, but that being said weight refers to the mass of an object. And I think peoples bodymass may provide a good indicator of approximately how big they are. I don't think it needs to be that complicated. You can read the links I found if you want more detailed information I am not able to provide. 

[Andreas]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nivsch @Andreas Identical twins share 100% nuclear DNA similarity - they  both started out as the same cell. However, there will be slight differences that arise due to spontaneous mutations. And there will be epigenetic differences that will arise over time. 

Regular siblings have, on average, 50% DNA sequence similarity. 

@Andreas you have an over-emphasis on environment impact which is muddying the waters such that you cannot see genetic impacts. 

For example, some cases of cancer have a predominantly environmental cause, some cancers have a predominantly genetic cause and some are more of an even mix between genetics and environment 

Well I know almost nothing about Biology but it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Especially in Leo's case. When you are a kid you eat what you get or follow what the parents say. The fact that the weight of our population has changed so fast and drastically makes me think it's largely environmentally driven. There are docs who studied this stuff and agree too! At least this guy.. 

 

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well in my view the evidence speaks for itself. Genes have about a 3% effect on peoples weight. I am obviously no expert and I do not really have an idea what I am talking about, but that being said weight refers to the mass of an object. And I think peoples bodymass may provide a good indicator of approximately how big they are. I don't think it needs to be that complicated. You can read the links I found if you want more detailed information I am not able to provide. 

So you haven’t read the original research paper and you say you do not have an idea what you are talking about - and then run off and create this elaborate story about the genetic and environmental basis of weight and size. 

The links you provided are non-geneticists trying to interpret scientific results and create a story. These articles are notorious for misinterpretations, misleading statements and conflicts of interest. Often the authors have good intentions and the problem is due to both author and scientist miscommunicating. It can be very difficult to communicate. As is evident when I try to communicate underlying scientific concepts. It’s hard to do. As a geneticist I’m much more interested in the primary research article and the geneticist researchers. 

Imagine you speak Japanese fluently and someone gave you a transcript of a translation by a high school student with little knowledge of Japanese. Wouldn’t you prefer to read the original Japanese article, prior to the translation?

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well I know almost nothing about Biology but it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Especially in Leo's case. When you are a kid you eat what you get or follow what the parents say. The fact that the weight of our population has changed so fast and drastically makes me think it's largely environmentally driven. There are docs who studied this stuff and agree too! At least this guy.. 

 

Imo, you are contracted within a storyline and seeking  affirmations of that storyline. That will keep you contracted. 

And I am not saying you are wrong. This isn’t a binary thing. I am not saying the opposite of your view is correct. I am saying you have a contracted view and cannot see the bigger picture. When you extrapolate your view into a bigger picture, misconceptions arise. 

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

So you haven’t read the original research paper and you say you do not have an idea what you are talking about - and then run off and create this elaborate story about the genetic and environmental basis of weight and size. 

The links you provided are non-geneticists trying to interpret scientific results and create a story. These articles are notorious for misinterpretations, misleading statements and conflicts of interest. Often the authors have good intentions and the problem is due to both author and scientist miscommunicating. It can be very difficult to communicate. As is evident when I try to communicate underlying scientific concepts. It’s hard to do. As a geneticist I’m much more interested in the primary research article and the geneticist researchers. 

Imagine you speak Japanese fluently and someone gave you a transcript of a translation by a high school student with little knowledge of Japanese. Wouldn’t you prefer to read the original Japanese article, prior to the translation?

Well I know for a fact that it takes thousands of years for genes to change. I am clearly not an expert or anything but if a population changes drastically in 50 years and it can't be genes responsible because they simply don't change then it really is seems to be an environmental thing. Right? You can do this with Climate science too. Same thing. Temperature doesn't shoot up from the industrial revolution naturally. Probably a lot more complicated but it seems to be the basics of what's happening. Temperature and weight goes hand in hand with capitalism and environment.

This doc is correct right? He was saying something like you can turn of your genetics through epigenetics and then you don't have a problem at all. 

Sad subject though..

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well I know for a fact that it takes thousands of years for genes to change.

And that “fact” would be incorrect. It is true in a certain context, yet you are extrapolating it into a falsehood. Your assumptions are inhibiting learning from taking place. As well, you are seeking affirmations from dubious sources to validate and reinforce  those assumptions. A double-whammy.

Yet you seem to be enjoying this storyline you have created for some reason. Have fun.

(btw, I teach genetics at a University level ?)

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

And that “fact” would be incorrect. Your assumptions are inhibiting learning from taking place. As well, you are seeking affirmations from dubious sources to validate and reinforce  those assumptions. A double-whammy.

Yet you seem to be enjoying this storyline you have created for some reason. Have fun.

(btw, I teach genetics at a University level ?)

Yes and I am in high school and don't even take biology. My mom used to tell me "when you are in deep waters, it's best to keep your mouth shut" and there is some real truth to that. But it just doesn't seem to make sense? 

I know that im no expert but could you adress what the doctors are saying? If what you said was a " "fact" " (I assume you meant it was incorrect) is not a fact, then that doctor is wrong. What storyline? 

 

[Forestluv]

@Andreas

 He speaks a lot of truth, especially regarding environmental impacts on childhood obesity. Yet he is not a geneticist and does a poor job integrating genetics, environment, the cellular level, the organismal level, short time frames and long time frames. This takes a lot of expertise and can be difficult to communicate in layman’s terms. I think he has a basic understanding of the underlying genetics, yet my sense is his understanding Is rudimentary. Quite often a scientist will try to simplify complex underlying mechanisms in explanations to laymen. It would take hours or days to describe it thoroughly. Yet my sense is he does not have strong understanding of the underlying genetics and he is making some misinterpretations. His claim that genetics is only related to less than 1% of all human illness is laughable. I’m not sure of his schtick or agenda, yet he is steering people in a way that isn’t quite tight. He is a mixture of true and not-quite true. Is he associated with some type of product line of health foods, diet or supplements. If so, that would explain the character he is playing. 

Don’t let the “Dr.” title mislead you. In certain areas he has surface level understanding and makes some fallacious claims. Again, he makes some good points as well.

[Girzo]

@Andreas This whole argument is pointless. You have wrongly interpreted what was being said in the beginning. The ecto-, meso-, endomorph example was brought up not to say that certain people are just fat or thin because of their genetics, but to highlight the fact that fat will look different on them.

Someone can be overweight but look fairly normal, thanks to their body type. I don't know what's so hard to grasp there.

[still_no_satori]

The thing I liked best about Leo's picture was that HE IS WEARING THE BLACK T-SHIRT, its just hidden underneath the overshirt. He may not have looked like the Leo we know now but the Superman was there waiting to get out!

[kieranperez]

@still_no_satori lol I love your username