I’ve seen a derivative of the phrase, “being fat is not your fault”, many times.
It comes up in various forms. Some of these are videos, like this one that cites Gary Taubes, stating that “your’e not getting fat because you’re eating more, you’re eating more because you’re getting fat”. Even in books like ‘Mean Genes’ and ‘Living With Our Genes‘ (both with a favourable mention from biologist E.O Wilson), we find quotes like, “Body weight is more determined by inheritance than by any other factor”. The next sentence follows, “Experiments have shown that mice with a certain type of gene grow fat even when they are given almost no food.” [1]
I am one to believe (because the evidence is there) that body fat is regulated. The problem that I have with all the above sources of information is that:
(a) The statements are ambiguous and can be interpreted falsely; they were not scientific statements
(b) They were targeted at a mainstream audience
Claims
Let’s stay on topic and get to why I dislike the simplistic “fat is not your fault” argument. The first reason is that it simply isn’t true, at least not in its entirety.
There is some truth to the statement, but certainly not in the simplified and ambiguous form as above. For a detailed explanation for why and how bodyweight is regulated I recommend the Leptin series and Bodyweight Regulation Part 1 and Part 2 articles by Lyle McDonald.
If you don’t have the time to go through those admittedly long and slightly technical articles, then I’d suggest to take it for a fact that bodyweight is determined in part by genes, but it is far from a scapegoat for widespread obesity.
In other words, anyone can purposefully reduce body fat percentage in a way that vastly improves their health. No one, except those with the rare cases of mutated genes, is doomed to be obese.
Ambiguous and Misleading Statements
Let’s dissect the above statement, “Experiments have shown that mice with a certain type of gene grow fat even when they are given almost no food.”
The first question would be what experiments, and can they even be trusted? Many issues from commercial bias, publication bias, to plain old bad reporting may lead us to question the veracity of a source of information. For a good overview, read ‘The Fitness Skeptic‘ by Jamie Hale. For now, we should all accept that some research is poor and the second-hand reporting of such research even poorer.
The next question would be what is the definition of ‘almost no food’? In the article, ‘Why do Obese People not Lose Weight on Low Calorie Diets‘, we find horrendous under-reporting of caloric intakes. Just like my posts, ‘How much Are You Eating?” and “Chinese New Year Goodies” show, people are really bad at judging their food intake.
But wait, the study was done on mice, so the above problem should be solved. It was. In fact, we know the details of the exact type of study in which the ambiguous statement was referring to.
Those of you who painstakingly went through all of Lyle McDonald’s articles above will find out that there was a documented study with a type of mouse the researchers called the OB (obese) mouse. It produces none whatsoever of the hormone called leptin. It has a depressed metabolic rate, and truly gained fat while eating very little.
Now the question to ask is, “Is this applicable to humans?” Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. It turns out that while there are documented cases of humans with no leptin, thereby experiencing the problems of the OB mouse, these people are extremely rare. For the vast, vast majority of people, this particular finding is meaningless.
No doubt, the research did find out other things that have some application to humans. To those who are interested, I once again highly recommend the articles stated above.
In any case, my point is that statements like those above can be ambiguous and thus thoroughly wrongly interpreted. That brings me to my final point.
A Mainstream Audience
There are implications when writing to a mainstream audience, and the most important one being that the writer must assume that the audience has no scientific knowledge whatsoever.
The problem therein is the fact that statements like the ones above are interpreted without reference to the scientific research they were based upon and therefore generate a completely false impression in the mind of the mainstream reader.
For example, the fat phobia that overtook the 1980s cost some people their health, be it their true physical well-being, or their emotional health from all the worry and stress over what they were eating. The carb phobia of today is somewhat similar to that.
Both of the above stem from the same problem: Some research showed specific trends that were applicable under specific sets of conditions. Trends, not data, were reported. The people interpreted trends and simplified them in a way that didn’t match the data. Then the idea spread.
If you were the rational, mainstream person who lived through all these eras, one logical conclusion would be to give up with science. After all, one moment it tells us fat is bad, and then the other moment it says that fat is good. What a bunch of hypocrites those scientists are!
It isn’t fair to assume that a mainstream audience is able to appreciate the vagaries of the scientific method and the results it produces. It isn’t fair to blame the (good) scientists who report their data accurately. It isn’t fair to blame the (honest) journalist searching for a good story to report.
We can blame the people who publish vague remarks and ambiguous claims are either stupid (lacking the necessary knowledge) or irresponsible (spurred by ulterior motives to mislead). They create sensationalism, and an urge for simplistic explanations. They create a haze of nebulous remarks that shroud good reporting and diminish its demand. Most importantly, they make looking for good information increasingly difficult for the mainstream reader.
Unfortunately, the only defence is to acquire the necessary knowledge. Until the mainstream public is willing to do that, we will always be vulnerable to faults in knowledge.
In light of that, I’m one to believe that those with good information should still do their best to spread it. However, the more realistic expectation is to reach out to those who are already sceptical. To those people, best they can do is to gain the required knowledge for themselves, and apply it.
—
Disclaimer:
What I said above appeals to the majority of people. I will acknowledge that the term ‘majority’ implies that the above information applies to more than 50% of the population.
Needless to say, I am also concerned about the minority, however small that I have neglected and probably wrongly accused in the above post.
Why I say this is because there are legitimate cases where the situation is not so straightforward. Of these cases, I think the most common one would be that of diabetes. As Jenny Ruhl stated in her article, “You did NOT eat your way to diabetes” , there are likely genetic roots to this disease that plagues millions.
In this case, it is possible that someone who is diabetic but eating a higher carbohydrate diet in caloric deficit to have much more difficulty losing fat. The problem then is a lack of knowledge, of which if this case describes you, I highly recommend you check out Blood Sugar 101.
In the above post, I am trying to highlight faults in the publication of information. But do realise that though there are exceptions to the rule, making recommendations based on the exceptions should never be the first step, especially to a mainstream audience.
Notes:
[1] These quotes were taken from ‘Living with Your Genes’.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
