Slashdot Mirror
Study: Body Weight Heavily Influenced By Heritable Gut Microbes
FirephoxRising writes Our genetic makeup influences whether we are fat or thin by shaping which types of microbes thrive in our body, according to a new study. Scientists identified a specific, little known bacterial family that is highly heritable and more common in individuals with low body weight. So we are what we eat, and what we got from out parents. From the article: "The study, funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH), researchers sequenced the genes of microbes found in more than 1,000 fecal samples from 416 pairs of twins. The abundances of specific types of microbes were found to be more similar in identical twins, who share 100 per cent of their genes, than in non-identical twins, who share on average only half of the genes that vary between people. These findings demonstrate that genes influence the composition of gut microbes."
Here we go, endless posts about how it's all down to pure willpower and entirely the fault of the individual. Maybe we could try looking for more practical solutions and simply berating people this time?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The microbs thrive in different environments. I went from a standard american diet to something more high fat low simple carbs diet with lots of fermented foods. Not only did I lose a bunch of weight but most digestive, allergy, and skin problems went away as well. I think there was something about the microbial environment that a high sugar diet caused that was giving me trouble.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I'm just big genetic'd
If the fetus is in a sterile sack, how do these heritable "gut" microbes get in there? For instance, e.coli isn't in there, but comes from the environment. Wouldn't these microbes follow the same path, in which case they aren't actually heritable, but instead environmental?
I think "-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview" is entirely valid in this case.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Both identical and non-identical twins (typically) grow up sharing a household. The most obvious relevant thing different about them is their genome. Yes, it's possible there's some other effect, but both types of twins grow up in the same households exposed to the same foods. So the fact that significant differences are observed between identical and non-identical twins suggest that genetics is at play.
We are what we eat is a lie. We are that we intake but do not poop.
"If two people grow up in the same house, are raised by the same parents, and exposed to the same food, it would naturally follow that they would develop the same gut microbes, regardless of their DNA."
That's why they compared identical twins to non-identical twins.
"If they actually wanted to study if gut microbes were influenced by DNA, they should have ALSO done the same study on the same number of adopted siblings, and compared them to the twins."
And that would improve the data over non-identical twins in what way?
You're fat because you eat more calories than you burn plain and simple.
That's a stupid thing to say right on the face of it, mostly because it just isn't true. Hmm, actually, completely because it isn't true. At all. First, the "caloric content" of foods is based on the amount of energy you get back when you set them on fire. Your body does not contain tiny furnaces into which magical goblins heave small pieces of the food you've eaten. The process for getting energy out of food may sound like that when mitochondria is described, but there's a number of steps between mastication and elimination which affect the amount of nutrition you derive from what you take in.
What this research demonstrates, in fact, is that two people eating the same food will have different results in the area of nutritive uptake due to their intestinal environment. It proves, in fact, the exact opposite of what you're saying. But since you were saying something we already knew to be false, it did not bear saying at all.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How can you tell difference between a Male microbe and a Female microbe ? .. .. ..
Pull down it's jeans
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
I believe the "runners high" to be a placebo thing for the same reason, I've never felt a "rush" or "buzz" after exercise.
It exists. I've experienced it and I can introduce you to plenty of others who've experienced it during their athletic careers. You have to be quite fit for it to happen in most cases. (much more fit than I am presently) Last time I had a runners high was back when I was competing in college. (wasn't during running but the effect was the same) You just feel like you are floating and everything you do seems almost effortless. It happens rarely - I've only experienced it four times in my life but the sensation is very real.
Then again perhaps they are only felt by people who've never had an actual buzz.
Nope. I've never had a drop of alcohol or other drugs that could elicit a high in my life. The smell of alcohol makes me nauseous and I feel no need to get high. I've no problem with others getting a buzz (safely) but I've never had a chemically induced buzz.
How do you know that us morally superior thin people aren't Person B types who are hungry all the time but don't use it as an excuse to eat when we don't need to?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
If you eat certain food, you could theoretically gain more than 1 gram of weight for every gram of food you eat. The human body is mostly made out of water and you can't go on a "drink less fluids" diet. That means that if you add 1 gram of solids from your food, you could very well add more than one gram of water to your body weight, even if that water holds no calories at all.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I find a lot of people who claim to have "tried" diet an exercise haven't effectively done either. "Exercise" does not mean sitting on a recumbant bike for 30 minutes while reading a magazine a few times a week. Sure, it's better than nothing, but it's not going to burn significant calories or increase your basal metabolic rate much. Likewise, "diet" does not mean switching to the "low fat" or "diet" versions of the foods you usually eat.
Effective exercise involves BOTH cardio and strength training. Cardio 5x a week, strength 3x. Unless you have a diagnosed health condition other than weight, it should not be moderate- It should be vigorous. Cardio can be pretty much anything, but it should involve periods above 80% max heart rate. Endurance exercise (1hr+ exertion) at a lower heart rate should be mixed in as well. Proper strength training involves doing sets of major exercises (deadlifts, squats, bench press, rows) until or near failure. Things like dumbell curls and kettlebell swings are fine supplements, but you won't see much in the way of gains from doing endless reps of curls on a 5lb dumbell.
Effective diet involves eating whole unprocessed foods with a lot of micronutrients. Don't drink your calories (most caloric drinks get that way through sugar). While the exact components of an ideal diet are a matter of debate, it's pretty clear than anything that comes in a box or can or sealed bag is a lot less likely to be healthy.
If you do the above, you will burn significant calories from the cardio and significantly increase your basal metabolic rate by adding muscle. Your total calories will likely decrease without any conscious reduction efforts because fresh fruits and veggies will fill you up a lot faster than a bag of Doritos. None of this is rocket science, but sadly is ignored by most people looking to loose weight. Mostly because it involves a lot of hard work (it will take a year of consistent training for your strength efforts to be visible), and because there is no gimmicky product to sell. All you need is the produce aisle, a good barbell set/bench/power rack, and a pair of running shoes.