Matching DNA To a Diet Doesn't Work (statnews.com)

DNA testing won't guide dieters to the weight-loss regimen most likely to work for them, scientists reported on Tuesday. From a report: Despite some earlier studies claiming that genetic variants predict whether someone has a better chance of shedding pounds on a low-carbohydrate or a low-fat diet, and despite a growing industry premised on that notion, the most rigorous study so far found no difference in weight loss between overweight people on diets that "matched" their genotype and those on diets that didn't. The findings make it less likely that genetics might explain why only some people manage to lose weight on a low-carb diet like Atkins and why others succeed with a low-fat one (even though the vast majority of dieters don't keep off whatever pounds they lose). Unlike cancer treatments, diets can't be matched to genotype, the new study shows. The results underline "how, for most people, knowing genetic risk information doesn't have a big impact," said Timothy Caulfield, of the University of Alberta, a critic of quackery.

Comments

Viome

[goombah99]

Check out the company Viome. They do exactly that. Matching biome to diet

Re:gut biome?

[Kjella]

Easiest diet is this: expend more than you take in. I lost 30lbs over 3 months my senior year of college eating mostly 2 things that most diets tell you to stay away from: meat and rice. But I kept what I consumed to a minimum and worked out regularly.

Everybody can lose weight working out. But I've found that to exercise enough to offset a constant calorie surplus is almost impossible unless you're an athlete or something. When I was fairly fit I could burn 1000 calories in a 1.5 hour workout. One Big Mac with medium fries and non-diet Coke and it's all a waste (997 kcal says the calculator here in Norway). One 0.5 liter beer = 200 kcal, 100 grams of potato chips = 500 kcal so binge at one party and spend forever paying it off. Sure you don't do that every day but you probably don't work out every day either.

Realistically I'd do maybe do 2-3 workouts of 6-700 kcal a week so 1500/week average. It's still a rounding error compared to the 2500*7 = 17500 kcal they calculate for a regular diet. It's not even 10%. And you need room in the budget for some luxuries too or the boredom will kill you, which means that most days you need a light deficit. That said, I have a pretty clear minimum threshold before hunger drives me crazy. If I want to lose more than that, I need to exercise. And there's other reasons to exercise too, fat to muscle ratio for one. And muscle is far more compact, you look better.

I found losing weight to be relatively easy, it's a "project" where you eat healthy and exercise with no stupid calories. Sustaining a weight though, in a lifestyle you can imagine doing for years that's the hard part. I'd exhaust my motivation, snap and gain back a lot of weight pretty quickly. Same with exercise - I once ran a half marathon on too thin a foundation, threw my running shoes in the closet and found them six months later with the tag still attached. So I've worked a lot on how I can trim the corners without feeling like I'm dieting. Because even 300 g/week is 15 kg in a year, if you can't keep it steady there's no point.

I think my biggest victory is that I've found the willpower to wait for the "second hunger", you know how you get tired, overtired, then *really* tired? I've found it's the same for hunger, if you make it past that first "hey, you got some snack for me I could store as fat for the winter" hunger the body will kinda shut up about it for a while until the warning lights come on to say "hey, this body could really use some energy right now because we're running on fumes". I guess it's the old hunter-gatherer instincts kicking in, no reason for your body to wail about food if there's none to be had right now. They didn't have well stocked fridges 24x7x365.