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."

Comments

Oh no

[AmiMoJo]

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?

Re:Oh no

[orasio]

That's what is being done nowadays, counting calories.

The problem is that calorie consumption is not constant. It's more like household economy.

If you earn (eat) a lot every day, you will probably end up with a lot of savings (belly fat).

One way of getting rid of those savings (belly fat) is taking a lower paying job (dieting). The problem is that your savings don't magically dissappear, and you can make changes that allow you to keep your savings (fat), even with a lower income (daily calorie intake).

Another way you can get rid of your savings is just spending more daily (like exercise). The problem is that, if you have a good enough income (daily intake), and sizable savings, you will only lose capital (weight) in the long run, no sizable short term effect.

So, a fat person body works, in what respects to calories, like a financially savvy household. Going skinny would be like going broke. Some of us could benefit from a way to teach our bodies to do a bit worse in the calorie finance department. Could be a lot easier than just dieting, exercising or both.

Re:Oh no

[Luckyo]

Reducing intake will reduce weight regardless of state of your gut. Microbes don't generate energy out of nothing.

This is a story about the fact that microbiome of the gut is being widely recognised as essentially another organ of the body, and differences in microbiome can affect things like how well your gut absorbs energy and so on. However reducing intake will cause weight loss regardless of it. The only question is, "how much of a weight loss per reduced intake".

Re:Oh no

[AmiMoJo]

In the 1950s food was less processed, tended to have less added calories. Women were much less likely to work, so were preparing food from scratch at home. Modern life has created a situation where many people find it hard to eat well due to time pressure and sedentary jobs. Even the fit ones have to make a special trip to the gym or go out running to get enough exercise.

Re:Oh no

[CastrTroy]

This is why I think exercising is so essential to maintaining a healthy weight. Because living without calories sucks. Nobody wants to live on 1000-1500 calories a day because you will feel exhausted and will probably have trouble getting all the needed nutrients while eating so little food. If, on the other hand, you exercise enough such that (on average) your body takes 2500-3000 calories a day maintain, you can eat a lot more food, have a lot more energy available for the body to do things, and still be at a point where you're losing weight, simply because you are using so much energy.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Reducing intake will reduce weight regardless of state of your gut. Microbes don't generate energy out of nothing.

This is a story about the fact that microbiome of the gut is being widely recognised as essentially another organ of the body, and differences in microbiome can affect things like how well your gut absorbs energy and so on. However reducing intake will cause weight loss regardless of it. The only question is, "how much of a weight loss per reduced intake".

What it shows is another reason why the same diet doesn't work for everyone. Some people can cut back a small amount and lose weight easily, others have to go to such extremes that either their willpower inevitably breaks down or their body panics and goes even further into hording-mode. People who seem to be able to eat as much as they want without gaining much may be "lucky" to have inefficient microbes so they're not absorbing as much of the calories.

Re:Oh no

[daremonai]

There's actually been serious study of this, and it really is tied to potential for weight gain/loss. Here's one recent summary: Energy-balance studies reveal associations between gut microbes, caloric load, and nutrient absorption in humans.

Re:Oh no

[Roodvlees]

But some people stay thin much longer, their microbes cause the food to be turned into fat much less.
Also it's not so simple as "just eat less", the body has a concept of what your 'normal' weight is. If you lose some the chemical processes will change to make more fat and compensate for the weight loss. It probably takes about 6 months of holding an amount of weight before this concept changes.

Eventually being fat is a combination of many factors, several of which you do have control over.

Re:Oh no

[BradleyUffner]

At the calorie level they are EXACTLY identical. Those foods are only different in the WAY they are turned in to calories. A Calorie is just a measure of energy.

Re:Oh no

[transporter_ii]

You can turn genes on and off with diet and lifestyle. Check out the field of epigenetics. Genes are influencers, but your fate is not written in stone because of them.

See: http://www.livescience.com/418...

The types of bacteria in your gut today may be different tomorrow, depending on what kinds of food you eat, a new study suggests.

Re:Oh no

[NatasRevol]

I always ask my wife (a dietitian) how many calories I release as waste.

All {calorie in minus calorie out} calculations completely ignore calories in your waste.

Re:Oh no

[rockmuelle]

The first few weeks of any training program typically suck. That's where willpower (or encouragement if you're in a group) plays such an important role.

Once I'm passed the initial hump, I always feel the "addictive" need to get more exercise and chase the high. In my specific case, the "high" comes after sustained exertion in the med/high effort range. I rarely see it biking (I'm a bike commuter and never really push myself). But running, climbing, mountaineering, and snowboarding all bring it out. For running, on long runs at a moderate pace it kicks in around mile 5 or 6. For short, faster runs, it kicks in about 30 minutes after the run and lasts for a few hours. Other sports have similar patterns. In my experience, the feeling is most similar to hydrocodone (which, unfortunately, I also know about from running).

Wikipedia's description of the "runner's high" covers some of the suspected mechanisms for it.

-Chris

Re:Oh no

[beelsebob]

To a certain extent, that's meaningless. Those calories are bound up in a way that you can't use them--which is why they're waste). It may be that there are some usable calories in there if you went back and ingested them again, but obviously there are significantly diminishing returns.

Of course it's not meaningless. Those calories are energy. If I ingest 1800 calories, and burn 1400, but poop out 400, I will maintain my weight, despite not burning as many calories as I ingested. If I have gut bacteria that break down certain long chain sugars so that that I can now ingest them, I will instead only poop out 200, and start gaining weight, despite eating the same thing, and doing the same amount of exercise.

The point here is not really that the solution to my weight gain in that situation is either eat 200 calories less, or do 200 calories more work (or some combination of the above), it absolutely is.

Instead, it's that there's a large part of the world out there that will eat the exact same food, and do the exact same exercise, and maintain or loose weight, because their gut bacteria is not the same. These people (as the person at the root of this thread said) are very likely to sit there screaming that all these "fatties" are just gobbling up donuts, and that's why they're fat. Instead, some of them are actually doing more, and eating less already, but will still gain weight by doing that.

Basically, these studies don't change the correct approach to maintaining weight - but what they do do is highlight that people should be a bit more sensitive to each other, and stop assuming that anyone who gains weight is eating a lot, or exercising a little. There are more factors than those alone.

Re:Oh no

[doug141]

Food calorie content is commonly measured in a bomb calorimeter, using a energy-release process totally different from the human body, and in some cases giving very different values. For example, Olestra releases calories in a bomb calorimeter, but not in the body. Same with sawdust, or "microcrystalline cellulose" as the fast-food places call it.

Re:Oh no

[AK Marc]

I knew a guy that ate so few calories that he was malnutritioned. He also didn't lose weight. The less he ate, the more efficient his digestion and metabolism got. His energy levels dropped, reducing activity levels, and he maintained weight. "Eat less" is not always the answer. In fact, it's not even usually the answer. Anyone who says it is, is just proving they don't understand the question.

Diet causes change in those microbes

[trout007]

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.

Re:Diet causes change in those microbes

[Derec01]

Diet doesn't really change the microbes.

That is not what recent science indicates at all.

"Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome", Nature 505, 559–563 (23 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12820
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

"Here we show that the short-term consumption of diets composed entirely of animal or plant products alters microbial community structure and overwhelms inter-individual differences in microbial gene expression. "

I'm not fat

[WormholeFiend]

I'm just big genetic'd

Re:Remember, I'm not a real scientist

[mwvdlee]

I think "-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview" is entirely valid in this case.

NO!!!!!!

[JimSadler]

We are what we eat is a lie. We are that we intake but do not poop.