Gina Kolata Is Back.

Is that good for our fight against obesity?

In a world that's increasingly fatter, every attempt to examine and understand obesity's root cause, with the intent to understand and stop the epidemic, is important.  In Rethinking Thin, NY Times science writer Gina Kolata tackles the issue, but I'm concerned that the message isn't necessarily a good one.

Essentially, her message is that a majority of individuals trying to lose weight are wasting their time because genetics has predisposed them to a specific weight range.  This (dangerously) has the potential to send out a "why bother?" message to scores of obese people striving to lose fat.

Picture average Joe vegetating on a couch, stuffing his mouth with crappy food, sitting on his ass 8 hours a day, getting fatter by the second.  Miraculously, though, he's come to the realization that he's killing himself with his bad choices.  He decides he's going to try changing his lifestyle and shed the excessive blubber from his frame.

And then a news report flashes on the screen, reporting a link between genetics and obesity. . .                                                                                                            

The anchors open their story with:

Ever wonder if all that exercise and dieting is worthwhile?  Well, new studies have shown that trying to burn body fat with all your hard work and healthy eating may very well be a ginormous waste of your time.  Why?  Because your weight is determined by your genes. . .

They continue on with an abridged version of the actual scientific facts, leaving an opening for Joe (and everybody else watching) to misinterpret the issue and fail to recognize his reality.  Joe suddenly thinks, "Wow.  My genes are what make me fat, not my couch potato, face-stuffing lifestyle.  So, why bother doing anything?  It won't help me anyway. . ."  And just like that, he goes from motivated to improve his health and fitness to motivated to find a beer and bag o' chips.

That's just great.

Too far fetched, you say?

People misinterpret "low carb" as "no carb." 

They misinterpret "dark chocolate is better for you than milk chocolate" as "dark chocolate is good for you so eat a lot of it." 

They misinterpret "wine is good for cardiovascular health" as "alcohol is good for you. . . Bottoms up!"

So, if a large percentage of the population has trouble discerning between reality and ridiculous for such topics as carbs, fat and alcohol, how are they going to define the fine line between "genetically determined body type" and "obesity due to overconsumption of sugar and processed food?"

Gina Kolata is always good for a thought provoking read and, personally, I appreciate how she motivates me to further explore the topic she's covered.  But in this case, I think the book's message may be more harmful than good to the obese people who read it.

There is an obesity epidemic ravaging the US and consuming the rest of the developing world -- and genetics is not the root cause.  It is incumbent upon us as part of the human species -- whether obese, or helping somebody win the battle against obesity -- to take responsibility for our lifestyle choices and beware the temptation to use genetics as an unjustifiable excuse for our growing waistlines.

Comments

[Eugene Thong]

Here's the problem:

If you do some Pubmed searching or some perusal of the Big Studies on long-term weight loss, a worrisome trend emerges. Long-term weight loss is FAR below what you would predict in a supervised clinical setting (see a recently publicized study, The A to Z Weight Loss Study, for a high-profile example). In post-experiment follow-up, an extremely high number of participants regain weight, many all of their weight.

Why?

Why, if they follow all the approaches that "should" work, are they failing? Even under supervision?

(Personally, I think they should do more strength training in those studies myself.)

Corollary to The Problem:

If one knows about a problem, then one is obligated to disclose it. In other words, if I know that saturated fat and cholesterol have little to no bearing on mortality due to CHD, and my client is on statins (which do clinically cause muscle wasting, liver dysfunction, and, in some cases, DEATH), don't I have a professional obligation to advise that they stop taking them?

If, scientifically speaking, the cards are stacked against an individual regarding fat loss, studies show that longevity is not tied to bodyweight so long as a healthy lifestyle is maintained, and the pursuit of so-called health is potentially harmful to quality of life (in terms of injury sustained during exercise), then wouldn't it be remiss to say to Morbidly Obese Client X, "Look, I know it won't help you at all, but get off your fat ass and take a jog around the block."?

I support your contention to preach healthy lifestyle behaviors to all folks, ESPECIALLY overfat people (they need it the most!). But I do think you might be misinterpreting the intent of Gina Kolata's book.

That cat seriously needs some strength training and curtailing of carbohydrates. The alcohol sugars alone are stopping his liver's efforts at fat-burning in its tracks.

[Christopher Warden]

Eugene,

I agree with your anecdotes completely, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting Gina's intent. I recognize that genetics will play a large roll in the transformations people achieve or don't achieve when taking on a healthier lifestyle.

I recognize that Gina has done extensive research and has referred to hundreds of studies, experienced scientists and points of view and that this research trends toward showing that "long-term weight loss is FAR below what you would predict in a supervised clinical setting."

And I can appreciate the idea that there are people who's cards are so stacked against them (from a scientific perspective) that their bodyweight may not change at all, but they should still "get off their ass and do something" because being active vs sloth-like will be much better for them. (Note -- 'Bodyweight' term used loosely, because you and I both know that there's a difference between a person who's healthy and "big" -- genetics' role in this whole conversation -- and a person who's truly obese. . . )

My main point was to reach those who might be Morbidly Obese Client X, who might read a book like this, misinterpret it, and choose to stay sitting on the couch rather than taking said jog around the block. Like you stated in your recent post "What Color is your Inner Belt," a person has to identify with his/her reality to truly achieve and maintain success. My current post is reaching out to individuals and "warning them" to not lose sight of their reality, to honestly evaluate where they are in their current state and to not mistakenly use ANY crutch (genetics, in this case) as an excuse to not make ANY attempt at improving their health.

Thank you very much, as always, for your well thought out input!