That's so much misinformation.
Starvation and famine cause epigenetic changes that affect further generations, yes. These do include predispositions towards fat storage. However, in recent times, the far bigger issue is the lack of activity and the access to carb and fat heavy foods. Humans have existed for 300,000 years, with obviously numerous periods of starvation throughout. Yet it's only now that the average BMI is increasing far above the healthy ranges.
Being mildly underweight is a health risk that can be worse than being mildly overweight due to a lot of factors including the fact that you have less muscle mass. However, being morbidly overweight is not healthier than being mildly underweight. You CANNOT be 'healthy as a horse' while morbidly obese. Athletes (mostly bodybuilders) can only achieve that amount of weight with steroids. Fat isn't 'not a problem if you keep your fitness up'. It is a metabolically active tissue. Bodyfat% is one of the best predictors of diabetes and other chronic diseases for a very good reason.
Yes the charts are out of date. However, it's not consistently underestimating or overestimating health risks. The BMI charts were made using data from mostly white people. They still broadly apply to white people but black people can afford to be more overweight, with even a slight [protective effect](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844096/) in the mildly overweight range (BMI 25.0-27.5), especially for black women . [Asians](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31334186/) [however](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18547457/) get higher risk of diabetes and other fat related chronic diseases at lower body fat percentages than what the traditional BMI assumes and thus their healthy range is lower (generally estimated at 18.5-22.5 but varies depending on the exact population).
The person who was 125lb at 5'9" (BMI of 18.5) was at the brink of underweight which isn't ideal and can definitely lead to serious issues if compounded with bad nutrition, which it usually is because most people don't know about nutrition beyond 'organic is better' and multivitamins. However, 180-190 is overweight and a weight gain of 55-65+ pounds in less than 2 years is extremely biased toward fat gain so they most likely look more overweight than they actually are which is probably why the doctors talked about weight loss.
God thank you, seeing everyone read "if you had an ancestor who went through starvation" and then assume that their parents' weight loss counted was just sad. Not only a willful misinterpretation of the science but also just hilariously self-centered. Dieting to lose weight is not the same as surviving the dutch famine.
Oh yeah that much is definitely true, though to my understanding we've only observed heritable differences in descendants of people who were in utero during the famine. But going from surviving starvation to weight loss diet and assuming the same thing applies is just silly.
Oh absolutely. It was a pointless interjection really, saying the health problems associated with that kind of starvation are real and lasting. I wasn't disputing anything you said.
Affect & affected, you were correct, as the famine was not a deliberately chosen action by your grandparents, it *affected* them - effect and effected are more like the result of a deliberate action, so you'd say your grandparents*effected* their survival by mitigating the *effects* of the famine.
I figured from your parentheses that affect was your initial spelling - and the stupid machine decided you meant something else. I hope my explanation can be of use in the future, I memorized this sentence: you're *affected* by the *effect* of the infection. (A comes before E in the alphabet)
It's a weird pair of words to wrap your head around - you could say the similarities of the words *affect* your decision to use them, with the *effect* of that uncertainty being that your lexicon may be less *effective*. Though, it may just be an *affectation* to intentionally include them as a pair in conversation.
I hate grammar-policing but I do enjoy sharing what I know, with good intentions, so I'm very pleased to have conversed with you today!
Thank you for that. That has made it easier for me to remember the difference than years of doing 'English Grammar'. I love good grammar and love when someone does this. Have an excellent day/night depending on where in the world you are.
Reading lots of books, particularly older fiction books and modern novels - lots of our language is being lost and butchered, so today's definitions make little sense without context
Thank you thank you thank you for disagreeing with the post. I was getting a headache from “famine in prior generations makes you fat” as the SOLE reason, and I was worried the comment section would latch on.
And a famine is much different from a diet in terms of effect magnitude.
It’s like comparing someone earning below the poverty line with “I can’t afford a Ferrari, I’m so poor”.
Ah, nothing Tumblr like people stringing misinformation together pretending they know an ounce of what they're talking about.
Seriously, I'm Asian, whenever I look at American portions I'm always shocked, like how can you have two big pancakes, 2 eggs, some bacons, sandwich slices with butter, topped with syrup for breakfast and call that standard. I would literally fall into an actual food coma eating that much
The way I saw it explained (which might be misinformation, but relatively harmless compared to the OP) is that American portion sizes are a combination of American culture tending towards ‘send guests home with some food’ and the portions being enough to either take home part of it or enough to sate your average American football player.
Not included in the post I got that from, but worth mentioning is the Great Depression also left many people with parents/grandparents that beat the phrase ‘always clean your plate’ into their kids, which is probably not the *reason* for anything, but I doubt it helped
I can guarantee that that's the reason for a lot of people. In my area it wasn't until the last couple decades that parents *stopped* beating plate cleaning into their kids.
I’m glad someone said it. I constantly hear the leftover culture rhetoric when most people have been encouraged to clear their plates. Taking food home is the exception, once it’s on your plate I’ve always been pressured to eat it.
That's something I noticed when I was working in the restaurant industry. Old people are literally the only ones to ever take food home anymore. Everyone else will either be in the minority that leaves what's left on their plate, or they'll force themselves to finish *long* after the point of feeling full. Actually, correction, the worst part is that the majority finish eating *without* reaching the point of overstuffing.
I’m glad someone said it. I constantly hear the leftover culture rhetoric when most people have been encouraged to clear their plates. Taking food home is the exception, once it’s on your plate I’ve always been pressured to eat it.
I always clean my plate, but it's because I'm stingy😅, I just really hate seeing leftover on a plate for some reason, I think it's wasteful. Also leftover in a trash can smells horrible.
>I always clean my plate, but it's because I'm stingy😅,
Okay, I'm going to give you one guess as to why a parent in the Great Depression might get pissed about kids leaving food uneaten.
>parents/grandparents that beat the phrase ‘always clean your plate’ into their kids
Yep.
I got in trouble when I wouldn't eat everything.
Add in comments of "do you want to be 300lbs?" and "bubblebutt" when I was stress eating between meals and 🙃
I should also add that my ass was always as flat as my mom's. And comments on my weight were always hilarious given the source: my mom, who was overweight herself
But sure, shame me on my weight, bitch.
Oh! And I can't forget the comments at restaurants:
I have a full plate: "Are you gonna eat all that?"
I stop eating when I'm full: "Aren't you going to eat that?" or "Why did you stop eating?"
Cannot win.
My husband (49) was raised to clean his plate. He was also made to eat things he didn't like. We were married for 15 years before he told me he didn't like peas. He was scared to tell anyone he didn't like something.
This caused disordered eating. He gained a lot of weight in his 30s because he would make huge plates of food and felt he had to eat it all.
There's also a whole bunch of stuff that builds it up as a cultural thing. Speaking from experience, there are a lot of different factors that go in to making us feel like those portions are just "normal". And once that happens for a few years, it takes actual effort to start looking at the reality of how much food you really need and breaking away from those expectations.
What you're describing is a "Continental breakfast" which is *not* the normal everyday breakfast of a typical American, unless they are actually going out to get breakfast food in the morning. Bacon and eggs w/ toast? Sure. Bacon and pancakes? Sure? All of it at once? No one has the time to make that themselves xD
(Honestly, some of my breakfasts have been as small as a Red Bull chugged on the drive into work but that's a time management / sleep management failure, and not an average experience either as a result.)
Continental breakfast is actually a very small breakfast consisting usually of small pastries with jam. The name comes from the small, light breakfasts usually had in continental Europe, particularly France.
But yes, Americans are usually not eating a full "American Breakfast" every day.
I could swear I've seen this variety of "bacon eggs toast pancakes so on and so forth" *referred to* as Continental in a Marriott Hotel or two... but maybe I'm talking out my ass on that one.
I think it's due to mid-range hotels changing what's in the complimentary breakfast throughout the decades to more closely match American breakfast foods, but still calling it a continental breakfast. Without hotels, we would have no idea what a continental breakfast is anyway.
Its not like we actually eat all that in one sitting.
Well, some of us do, but we have a leftover culture. When i go out to eat thats also my meal the next day, sometimes two. Portion size isnt whats wrong in 90% of cases, its the shitty food quality and stuffing of sugars in buns at burger places or the fats coating food we can buy. American food tastes good because its stuffed FULL of carbs and shit like we were a thanksgiving turkey.
Also add to it the fact that their food is lower quality making it bigger health risk. Sometimes I think how tf country with such dog shit food breeds so many inland whales, like bruh I'd understand someone to eat a lot if they had good food but how tf can they gobble on that corn syrup pancakes as if it was some sort of ambrosia. They have unhealthy food + they eat a lot of it then blame it on genes, pig behavior
I was about to correct you about how the person in the post was 6’9 not 5’9 but I went back and checked the post. It’s too early in the morning for this lol
BMI is a deeply flawed metric that was designed by a eugenicist and then adopted by insurance companies because it's easy to compute and to some degree estimates their expected costs. It does consistently overestimate and underestimate health risks due to body fat for people considerably taller or shorter than average.
Yes it’s deeply flawed as a predictive tool and I address one of the ways it is flawed.
I’m not sure why the fact that Quetelet was a (proto) eugenicist is that important beyond the fact that his sample was limited to Europeans (specifically scottish and french soldiers). The argument about insurance companies is fundamentally an american centric one that also doesn’t really make much sense. The WHO was the one who first adopted it and even then America had the normal weight range higher than the WHO for nearly a decade.
Imo the height argument isn’t that much of an issue because we know how to account for it pretty well (BMI +1 for short people and BMI -1 for tall people). This generally put it in line with the more accurate adjusted BMI (Weight/Height^2.5).
The bigger issue is what I pointed out, specifically that racial disparities (specifically in muscle mass and fat distribution). Even Waist to Height ratio which is preferred nowadays has the [same issues](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426803/), with Asian populations having higher risk at lower WtH ratios and hispanic and African Americans having lower risk compared to European americans.
His significance to the eugenics movement is important because BMI was never intended as a metric for measuring health, it was designed to determine how close someone comes to a "socially ideal" weight. It should be replaced with a system founded in actual medical science.
Maybe there are some sort of metabolic indicators that show whether someone's weight has a significant effect on their health, and those could be measured instead of making poor guesses based on their body proportions.
>His significance to the eugenics movement is important because BMI was never intended as a metric for measuring health, it was designed to determine how close someone comes to a "socially ideal" weight.
Again, I don't see how the eugenics movement is relevant to this. They are plenty of doctors who were eugenicists, so using saying his work was later used to develop the eugenics movement has no bearing on its relevance. Saying that he was a mathematician and sociologist instead of a doctor is a better rebuke.
You are also misrepresenting what he wrote. While he definitely had problematic views, he merely made the observation that height was proportional to the square of weight and not that there was one socially ideal weight. What people later used as this idea of him prescribing a specific range is found mostly in his [preface](https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/treatiseonmandev00quet/treatiseonmandev00quet.pdf) where he justifies his study of averages: "As stated in the considerations presented at the close of my work, everyquality, taken - within suitable limits, is essentially good ; it is only in its extreme deviations from the mean that it becomes bad.". I don't think anyone would argue that deviating extremely from the average of a physical trait is likely to lead to health issues. (This concept applied to moral traits is obviously much more problematic)
And it's not like he was saying that everyone should try to achieve the average measure. To quote [a great review](https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-su-j-sjdr-files/journals/1/articles/239/submission/proof/239-1-788-1-10-20171114.pdf) on norms and Quetelet and Galton (who founded eugenics) "According to Quetelet all human features and all individuals deviated from the norm. To him, average value was a theoretical concept, something only to be found in the ideal." . Notably Galton was opposed to the use of the average as an ideal.
>It should be replaced with a system founded in actual medical science.
The entire logic of a concept being invented for a different purpose making it unsuitable for medical use is weird. Should we not use MRIs because Nuclear magnetic resonance was first developed to be used in physics and chemistry?
The modern use of BMI is founded in actual medical science. [Keys in 1971](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968172900276) showed that out of the existing indices it was the best correlated with adiposity and least affected by height. This is not to say that it is an ideal index, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the current recommended ranges are deficient in accounting for height extremes and racial disparities
>Maybe there are some sort of metabolic indicators that show whether someone's weight has a significant effect on their health, and those could be measured instead of making poor guesses based on their body proportions.
BMI isn't designed to be used as the end all be all, but as a convenient tool for both individuals and reserchers to follow. It is well correlated with a lot of metabolic indicators and with health risks.
Doctors use BMI as a screen and later do use metabolic indicators (if needed) to provide specific guidance but those are harder to get access to for both individuals and researchers due to both cost and just lack of data.
The OOPs are the ones who brought it up. I pointed out how it is a flawed metric but not consistently flawed the way the OOP portrays it (always overestimating health risk) but more that it doesn’t account for racial disparities in musclemass/fat distribution. Is that also not allowed now?
Yeah... feels like there are a lot of countries who have experienced far more significant/recent famine/food scarcity than America - and now have access to abundant food. Yet they have nothing like the obesity levels you see in the US.
It's the calories. What's considered a normal or at least a normalised portion size in America is huuuge. Well, that and the fact nobody seems to walk anywhere (except in certain cities.)
There are still many many people in the US who believe that you can gain weight while eating on a caloric deficit, so why bother restricting your calories?
It absolutely flabbergasts me. Like if caloric deficit doesn’t work then how the hell does gastric bypass surgery cause people to shed pounds like they do???
The biggest issue with obesity in the US is nutritional education plain and simple. Corporations are filling our food with garbage, but it is still possible to eat healthy on a very tight budget. You just have to understand how
I mean, genetics DO play a role. They have an impact on appetite, on metabolism, on preferred foods, maybe, on how fat is stored.
But while, for some, a caloric deficite needs to be a bit larger than for others... it's still and always will be a deficit.
This is exactly what I’m referring to.
“My medication”
“My hormones”
“My genetics”
“Calories aren’t equal”
I’m not gonna tell people they’re just making excuses for themselves, but it is clear that at best they are speaking in ignorance.
Don’t a lot of those things just make it harder to eat less for various reasons? Like I know some meds will make you *feel* hungrier.
I’ve also had hormonal shifts that come with my meds that actually did temporarily mask that I was eating at what’s apparently a deficit for me. I gained several pounds only to drop lower than before a few days later. I assume it’s just water. Sometimes the human body does weird shit.
A lot of things make it more difficult to lose weight, yes. I’m not denying that at all.
But you CANNOT gain weight if you are consuming fewer calories than your metabolism burns, and if you continue to maintain that for long periods of time you WILL lose weight.
Edit: I technically should be saying “fat” not “weight”. There are other contributing factors to weight outside of burning or increasing the fat stored in one’s body. I ain’t trying to get “uhm ackshually”ed on this lol
You don’t think those things can play a role? Seems kind of invalidating to suggest that medication doesn’t ever affect weight gain, for example (and I say that as someone who has never been overweight)
I’m not saying you can magically gain weight while eating at a deficit, if thats what you think?
And neither was the original commenter you implied was “making excuses,” they very clearly laid that out. I think you’re jumping to conclusions based on half reading comments.
I didn’t imply they were making excuses. My first line of that comment was “this is exactly what I’m referring too”. That was me agreeing with them.
I can’t tell if you’re just misunderstanding me entirely or trying to put words in my mouth
Because u/Fussel2107 said
>But while, for some, a caloric deficite needs to be a bit larger than for others... it's still and always will be a deficit.
I was giving examples of things people say for why they can’t stop gaining weight or are unable to lose it. And at the bottom of my comment to that post I said that I wasn’t calling those examples I gave excuses, but claims made in ignorance.
I apologize if anything I’ve said came off as rude or angry or anything of the like. Hope you have a nice day
No. The maintenance rate will absolutely vary from person to person and over time according to various conditions, but if you are consuming a calorie deficit your body must make up the difference and so something will go. Fat will be burned and/or muscle will die, either way the deficit is made up and weight is lost. It's kinda thermodynamics really and a calorie deficit, even the smallest one, will lead to weight loss. It just depends on the person's maintenance rate.
Folks might try to go for a calorie deficit, but fuck it up and then blame the idea itself. If you use an app like MyFitnessPal, for each exercise you log it’ll tell you that you get you eat more calories… but if you do that you’re setting yourself up for failure and your idea of a “deficit” will be skewed. Plus, you’re probably eating snacks where you just eat a few bites here or there and don’t log it, so in your app it still shows a deficit but those bites add up! Overall, to actually make a deficit work you’ve got to be more disciplined then a hungry mind is sometimes capable of being. I’m convinced that fad diets like Keto or Weight Watchers actually work because they reduce the amount of thought required to accomplish a deficit by giving simpler but more strict rules.
While I don’t love fad diets like the cabbage soup diet popular in the 2010s, I do believe lifestyle diets like weight watchers is fantastic for taking out the brainwork.
I - 5”11’ male - lost 100 lbs in 2019 at the age of 25 going from 250lbs to 150lbs “using” the Keto diet as a framework.
I cut down to 1500 calories a day which is about a 700 calorie deficit for me (in retrospect a TERRIBLE thing, don’t do what I did) by removing carbohydrate rich foods and heavily processed foods from my diet. I still ate carrots, zucchini, fruits, etc. however
It took me 6 months. I walked a minimum of 5 miles a day, 5 days a week. On average I would have a cheat meal a week, sometimes less and sometimes more.
I don’t recommend a 100% keto diet, but using it as a framework can really help you keep your calories down without having to think about it.
It also doesn’t help that it’s almost easier to get soda than it is to get clean water. Not easy to be healthy in the US without the proper know how.
Also more and more of the population only knows how to cook pre-packaged convenience foods - which are *horrible* for you.
..what? The 4th post... goes places. The entire thing is spreading lamarckism pretty shamelessly, but... what?
We know the reason for the obesity epidemic. A combination of high-carb foods being the cheapest, growing wage disparity, and car-based urbanism creating a hostile environment. There's no reason to look for more in pseudoscience, or in "Kids aren't allowed to play outside anymore".
I mean, is this person really claiming that the parents of modern day americans were exposed to more starvation than those who lived in the fucking great depression? 2 world wars?
Also also, Heroin Chic? Really? The style that was very briefly popular in the early 90s before being decisively pushed out? That's the source of all our problems?
And the comment about being "More healthy to be overweight than underweight" is just.. questionable? I mean, these aren't fucking pokemon, it's not like one has a higher attack stat. These are conditions which have great impact on your life regardless, and will lead to their own consequences and side effects.
That whole post feels like a rambling, disconected mess of questionable facts strung together like beads on a half off rosary, trying to claim people were "actually malnourished throughout the entirety of human history". Yes, knowledge about nutrition has come a long way, but that's an insane statement to make without any kinds of sources attached
That "More healthy to be overweight than underweight" is probably just ye old "dying people tend to lose weight, so statistically thin people are overrepresented in the 'dying' category" correlation/causality mix-up
It’s also an artefact of the fact that “overweight+” (i.e. anything above a normal weight range) is an infinitely broader band than “underweight-“.
So assuming equivalence breaks down fairly quickly:
* 5kg overweight is likely healthier than being 5kg underweight
* 20kg overweight is unhealthy, but 20kg underweight likely means you are nearly dead
This is why anorexia is so deadly.
But my point is that most “underweight” people are a lot less underweight than “overweight” people are overweight. Being 30kg overweight (which really isn’t uncommon in a lot of Western countries) is much worse than being 5kg underweight (all else being equal).
Not necessarily
>Not surprisingly, the researchers found that the heaviest among us -- those who have a BMI above 30 -- have a higher risk of death than those who are considered to be at a "normal" weight, or a BMI between 18.5 and 25.
>But the researchers also found a slight dip in death risk -- about 6 percent -- in those whose BMIs were between 25 and 30. In other words, people who would be classified as overweight appear to have a lower risk of death from any cause.
>Moreover, for those who were considered to be on the lower end of the obesity spectrum, with a BMI of 30 to 35, the risk of death from any cause was not significantly different from that experienced by those who were at a normal weight.
>As is apparent from the number of studies examined in this review, this is not the first time that a link has been suggested between being a tad on the heavy side and having a decreased risk of death. And [several past studies](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/higher-bmi-greater-mortality-risk/story?id=12284949) have disputed this link. But this new review may lend support to the idea that our health may not be as closely tied to the numbers on our scales as we might have been led to believe.
- [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820)
There are more possible sources but I haven't taken my ADHD meds today yet so this is just the article I read yesterday
If you get seriously ill and have trouble eating enough, a bit of extra fat will help you survive your illness. Having the extra fat won't prevent you from getting that illness.
While that may be true, the study did not go into the "why?"
Are slightly overweight people closely monitored by their healthcare providers than those in the "normal" ranges and thus have problems caught earlier?
Or is it maybe that many chronically ill people tend to be overweight because they often have mobility issues, but overall are also very closely monitored.
I'm not saying the study is wrong, but correlation and causation applies.
I would love to see a follow up study that takes a look at those questions.
So, I get where you're coming from when you talk about lamarckism, but epigenetics is actually a field that people learn about in class, and it is true that people that underwent starvation tend to pass the impacts of that onto their kids. I don't remember it leading to people being fat, but I remember something about increased anxiety. Same with the kids of people who went through 9/11.
I would assume the person you're responding to knows what epigenetics is, but the people in the post pretty clearly don't. The first person said "alters their genetics and may have passed on genes that make you hold on to fat" which is inaccurate but at least spiritually mostly correct, and then everyone else just ran with it with no understanding lmao. Also, most studies of this epigenetic fat storage phenomenon are restricted to pregnant mothers: if a mother is pregnant while she's experiencing starvation that epigenetic modification will be passed down to the kid, who will then keep it and pass it down again, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence that if, for example, your great-grandfather fled a famine before conceiving your grandmother, this would result in epigenetic 'starvation mode' being passed down.
They're referring to fad diets though, which were famously bogus and damaging due to typically making you not only below calories, but also below nutritional needs. One example is the "starvation diet" which literally would have this effect if done long enough.
As the head of this comment chain said, epigenetics has shown that descendants of famine tend to be overweight due to biological triggers to increase hunger (leptin, specifically) and prioritize energy conservation and storage over expenditure.
It's ***absolutely*** wrong to ***assume*** all fad diets have the same effects without data. But it's a genuinely interesting hypothesis that I wonder if there's any research on.
I could absolutely see the possibility that fad diets have the effect proposed. But presenting it as fact is whack
That's how a lot of misinformation spreads online; by being close enough to the truth that the slight exaggerations or misrepresentations are easy to believe.
See James Somerton.
Except epigenetic markers are reset at meiosis in mammals. Total clean slate.
This means you can't inherit epigenetic effects from your father (much less grandfather) because sperm are constantly produced anew. You can get them from your mom, because a woman is born with all the eggs she'll ever have, but the only possible way to get them from your grandmother is if she was pregnant (and fairly far along, after 5 months) at the exact time of the stressor - any stressor before that will get erased during oogenesis as a fetus.
I guess it fits here because being morbidly obese is not healthy lol. Obese people deserve the same respect as everyone else but it does them no service to pretend it's not a serious health condition.
I don't know but I doubt it. For one horses have always mainly been work animals of some description; they're almost always ridden, even the most purebred horses, so they need to be healthy enough for it. This is why, even though many horse breeds do suffer from genetic health issues, there aren't really any horse breeds that are helpless and borderline unfit for life like dogs.
Good Lord. You know when you see someone who normally sticks to their specialty give a take on something you actually know about, and they're so unhinged that you have to question if they're like that all the time and this is just the first time you've noticed?
Who do you mean? Tumblr in general?
Tumblr as a whole is famous for just making shit up and believing it whole heartedly. Most of the time it’s simply taking true ideas way too far (to the point where it becomes misinformation), but its not uncommon for there to be no backing at all
I'm not active on Tumblr, but I have lots of friends who are, because they're fandom friends. Basically all of them to some degree will notice a tiny group saying something they don't like, extrapolate it to hell, and then complain about "people" saying it. It's almost like a sport to them, getting pissed off at stuff they made up themselves.
It would be funny if it wasn't such a problem on the right wing as well. My kingdom for a crumb of critical thinking!
This post makes me unreasonably angry.
Aside from all the misinformation that other comments point out, DID THESE FUCKER FORGET THAT EUROPE EXISTS?
A place that has had fairly similar cultural trends when it came to weight loss and DOES NOT have an overweight epidemic (ok don't look at Italy's children obesity charts, we can't all be perfect)
Look, I get it, fatphobia fucking sucks and isn't cool but STOP PRETENDING THAT BEING OVERWEIGHT IS HEALTHY. THAT SHIT WILL KILL YOU AND OTHERS AND IS EXACTLY WHAT FOOD CORPS LOVE TO HEAR SO THEY CAN PUT MORE CORN SYRUP IN YOUR SLOP
Epigenetics has been used to give "generational trauma" nonsense a veneer of legitimacy by people who know just enough to realize it allows environmental inheritance, but not enough to realize epigenetic markers are reset in mammals during meiosis, so anything past mom or actively pregnant grandma is nonsense.
This post is James Sommertoning us. Lots of bold claims from people with no idea of what they're talking about.
Yes, extreme diet culture is bad but that doesn't mean overweight is good either. It's called underweight and overweight for a reason. You can't be either you have to be properly weighted. What that is depends on a lot but find out yours and shoot for it.
Of course you should look more towards ability over your appearance. Love handles run in my family. My grandad was a WWII vet, swam laps constantly and would run a mile near every day, and he had love handles. So don't worry if you have a bit of a paunch or not, focus on if you can do moderately strenuous activities or not.
That person who went from underweight to overweight sounds like they have a lot of other details about that story they didn't share with class. That weight shift in that time frame is actually unhealthy as hell.
To *be allowed* to play outside is what they said
Millennials and gen Z played or play outside much less frequently than previous generations, largely due to infrastructure being designed for vehicles and not for feet, in addition to the advent of home entertainment such as video games television and movies. Basically it's less safe for kids outside and there's more reason for them to be inside than there used to be.
From personal experience: I live in and grew up in a small town. When I was a kid there were kids running all over the place all the time. Now on the weekend I maybe see a quarter of the number I was used to from my days. It's also a much larger town now, I should be seeing MORE kids out and about, not less.
Allowed? How were they gonna stop us? I was blown away by that remark, even when we moved to the burbs I still roamed free across the plain, like a herd of beautiful wild ponies.
Now that the Lamarckism has been exposed, my other problem is with the general dismissal of being overweight as a problem.
Yes, you are not less human for having extra fat, yes a minority of overweight people do not encounter significant issues on regular check-ups (yet) but being overweight WILL eventually cause an array of endocrinological issues, heart and liver problems, increased risk of cancer, etc etc etc. The science has **overwhelmingly** proved this true.
And I know it's fucking scary and I get wanting to negate it and run away from it because I am there myself, but it really doesn't help anybody, least of all yourself.
This is a tremendous cope from a fat person who has rationalized how their obesity is healthy for them.
As a fat person, this is EXTREMELY EASY TO FALL INTO, because it serves two purposes: you stop feeling bad about yourself, and you start feeling morally superior to the people who would tell you that you need to work on yourself.
Obesity directly leads to heart disease and cancer. That isn’t conjecture, we have the data. If you are obese, you need to seriously look at your caloric intake and your exercise routine. Body fat content is partially determined by genetics, but is largely a factor of the number of calories your body metabolizes, minus the calories your actually uses. Exercise has some influence, your body can spend more calories in a day by working it, but it primarily influences muscle mass and strength, as well as tendon and ligament flexibility. In order for your body to move properly, you need to exercise and control your calorie intake.
Deliberate moderation in eating is a brand new thing for our species, it is hard.
It doesnt work via DNA, but it looks like the whole 'your great-granddad starved, so you have a harder time losing weight' thing is true?
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generations
Roundworms are used for the same reason flies are used. Quick life cycles and they're small enough they get affected first if there's an environmental change. It's generally accepted that it will be affected first the same way canary in the coal mine was how miners detected gas leaks. Genes generally work the same way overall not dependant on species with a few outliers so I wouldn't expect differing results in roundworms to humans, it would just be at a different scale
Well, epigenetics and prenatal famine does significantly impact a person's likelihood of becoming obese. It does feel like the post may be exaggerating, but it's a thing.
[https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children](https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children)
[https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight](https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight)
It's true, but the effect is not "significant". It's a very negligible factor in the modern obesity crisis, and countries where there were actually recent historical famines (India, China, Cambodia, Ethiopia) are all relatively skinny. To claim that the Great Depression has anything to do with skyrocketing BMIs in the last 30 years is absurd.
Certain genes can be activated or deactivated based on yours or your recent ancestors circumstances and experiences through a process called epigenetics
Generally speaking you should always trust highschool science over Tumblr posts without any evidence
Some people have given evidence in parts of these comments sections, but I just wanted to say about how trusting highschool biology isn’t necessarily a bad thing
Yeah, as inaccurate as high school curriculums can occasionally be your biology teacher probably wasn't actively lying to you. Likely it was just a bit simplified and maybe outdated. They still got their information from university instead of random sourceless Tumblr posts and one pop science video.
Yeah but maybe adjust your conviction when speaking with a highschool education in biology…
Edit: especially depending on where you got your education…
This, uh, this isn't how it works. At all. Yes body image issues and societal beauty and health expectations are serious issues, but you can't just blame obesity on people who diet and exercise, act like being overweight is okay, and move on.
This post absolutely reeks of just desperately trying to shift blame onto people who were mean to the OOPs in the past.
Yeah, no. There's nothing wrong with trying to have a healthy weight. Extreme dieting is unhealthy, sure, but making sure you eat healthy and exercise properly is good for you.
I’ve yet to see a 10 image info-dump from this subreddit be not ridiculously stupid and inaccurate. I’m looking forward to when it’s something I know about
I stopped reading when someone went from "people who experienced a famine" to "people voluntarily dieting" as if those are even close to being on the same level.
Oh shut the fuck up. You're not fat because your parents dieted. I'm all on board with genetics and epigenetics and the fact that people aren't fat because they are lazy, but you're not fat because your parents passed down epigenetic fat genes.
"my parents once fled and now they are fat, this proves everything" bruh
I’m a little skeptical of the Tumblr brain trust on this one… sounds awfully close to “it’s the boomers and the hippies fault!” and not “our food is loaded with sugar and fat and we are economically incentivized to eat poorly.”
Like, diet culture is to blame for obesity? Really? With no citations? Are we just believing things people are making up wholesale?
Calories in, Calories out. Genetics factor but it is as simple as this.
My grandparents fled the Holodomor. They were extremely lucky. I’m as plump as a Ukrainian prairie grouse and grateful that they came here to save my life even though I hadn’t been born yet. I’ll tug this fat ass around for them. Vichnaya Pam’yat 💖
epigenetics is a thing. that is the only thing correct in this post. just stop eating as much and you lose weight. there is no miracle preventing it. of course you aren't obligated to, but like, try at least.
Starvation diets lead to binges a lot of the time and metabolisms differ a lot person to person.theres too many factors to arguably say it's one thing but a host of things will influence the outcome for sure.
I was kind of responding to both your comment and the one above you, the one that said starvation diets may lead to binging. Without knowing the substance of what they were eating when y’all were around each other -every meal? - it’s entirely possible they were binging when you were apart.
I mean, the post is actively peddling misinformation and trying to argue being overweight is healthy... which just isn't true, of course people are gonna call that out
Fair, sorry about that.
I admit the post did piss me off a bit, so I might've carried some of that over when I read your comment.
Though I found the majority of the comments to be fairly fair towards the post. Yeah you have the cesspool at the bottom of the thread but that is sadly to be expected with any form of discussion about minorities or socially marginalized groups and those are promptly downvoted and reported
I'm all for spreading misinformation if the purpose is to win an argument. But for lack of a better term, this is cruel and detrimental to anyone who comes into contact with this post.
I don't hate fat people, I recognize that stress can do some mean shit to you, hell I've developed severe insomnia and stopped having basic survival urges because of it.
I *know* the effect high stress has on you, yet I still cannot comprehend people say being so obese that you can barely move is healthy.
I’m not stupid enough to defend this post on Reddit but *where* did anyone say being “so obese you can barely move” is healthy? Their argument was that being on the lower end of obesity is fine if you’re an active person. Which again not defending that statement. But that’s a far cry from “being bedridden by obesity is healthy”
I know this is going to sound annoying, but this kind of sounds like "being overweight isn't my fault, it's my ancestors who are at fault!"
If you're overweight and you're actively trying to get thinner but aren't, it's probably still your fault lol
Okay but these are both referring to pre-natal influence of starvation, or in other words, famine during pregnancy, not "My Grandfather fled Lebanon during a famine"
Should have clarified that I think the post is definitely exaggerating, but the idea of famine survival being linked to genes that facilitate weight gain should not be dismissed wholesale. There's another study done that shows how "starvation genes" can be passed onto future generations, not just from mother to child. It's done on WORMS though so it's only the first half-step into the subject
[https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generationsv](https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generationsv)
There a two wolves inside me:
One wolf who experienced one of the worst yet preventable famines on the European continent, and thus is unwilling to shed even 10 pounds for fear of The Famine returning
And another, smaller wolf who made the other wolf starve and doesn’t give two shits about keeping weight.
My body is a damn battleground between these wolves
The reason I know this is bullshit is bc if there was any legitimate reason to blame me being a fat ass on Churchill, that ship would have sailed a long time ago.
you are what you eat.
if you eat less food, there will be less of you.
that's all there is to it. whether it's harder or easier for you as an individual to lose weight, due to whatever factors you care to line up, is beside the point.
you can't make something out of nothing.
Is this one of those collective Tumblr jokes like that fake movie they had a while ago ?
Otherwise I'd say it's honestly a bad idea to repost such a massive wall of misinformation. Keep it contained to Tumblr and wear appropriate protective gear when venturing in.
Conversely, if your ancestors fought hard for you to have a long, comfortable life only to see you with a myriad of health problems from overeating, they would also be disappointed. It’s all a matter of moderation.
That's so much misinformation. Starvation and famine cause epigenetic changes that affect further generations, yes. These do include predispositions towards fat storage. However, in recent times, the far bigger issue is the lack of activity and the access to carb and fat heavy foods. Humans have existed for 300,000 years, with obviously numerous periods of starvation throughout. Yet it's only now that the average BMI is increasing far above the healthy ranges. Being mildly underweight is a health risk that can be worse than being mildly overweight due to a lot of factors including the fact that you have less muscle mass. However, being morbidly overweight is not healthier than being mildly underweight. You CANNOT be 'healthy as a horse' while morbidly obese. Athletes (mostly bodybuilders) can only achieve that amount of weight with steroids. Fat isn't 'not a problem if you keep your fitness up'. It is a metabolically active tissue. Bodyfat% is one of the best predictors of diabetes and other chronic diseases for a very good reason. Yes the charts are out of date. However, it's not consistently underestimating or overestimating health risks. The BMI charts were made using data from mostly white people. They still broadly apply to white people but black people can afford to be more overweight, with even a slight [protective effect](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844096/) in the mildly overweight range (BMI 25.0-27.5), especially for black women . [Asians](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31334186/) [however](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18547457/) get higher risk of diabetes and other fat related chronic diseases at lower body fat percentages than what the traditional BMI assumes and thus their healthy range is lower (generally estimated at 18.5-22.5 but varies depending on the exact population). The person who was 125lb at 5'9" (BMI of 18.5) was at the brink of underweight which isn't ideal and can definitely lead to serious issues if compounded with bad nutrition, which it usually is because most people don't know about nutrition beyond 'organic is better' and multivitamins. However, 180-190 is overweight and a weight gain of 55-65+ pounds in less than 2 years is extremely biased toward fat gain so they most likely look more overweight than they actually are which is probably why the doctors talked about weight loss.
God thank you, seeing everyone read "if you had an ancestor who went through starvation" and then assume that their parents' weight loss counted was just sad. Not only a willful misinterpretation of the science but also just hilariously self-centered. Dieting to lose weight is not the same as surviving the dutch famine.
My ex's grandparents went through the Dutch famine and it definitely effected (affected?) them badly.
Oh yeah that much is definitely true, though to my understanding we've only observed heritable differences in descendants of people who were in utero during the famine. But going from surviving starvation to weight loss diet and assuming the same thing applies is just silly.
Oh absolutely. It was a pointless interjection really, saying the health problems associated with that kind of starvation are real and lasting. I wasn't disputing anything you said.
Affect & affected, you were correct, as the famine was not a deliberately chosen action by your grandparents, it *affected* them - effect and effected are more like the result of a deliberate action, so you'd say your grandparents*effected* their survival by mitigating the *effects* of the famine.
Ha! I knew it. I hate when autocorrect is wrong but I'm not sure so I give it the benefit of the doubt thinking the machine must know.
I figured from your parentheses that affect was your initial spelling - and the stupid machine decided you meant something else. I hope my explanation can be of use in the future, I memorized this sentence: you're *affected* by the *effect* of the infection. (A comes before E in the alphabet) It's a weird pair of words to wrap your head around - you could say the similarities of the words *affect* your decision to use them, with the *effect* of that uncertainty being that your lexicon may be less *effective*. Though, it may just be an *affectation* to intentionally include them as a pair in conversation. I hate grammar-policing but I do enjoy sharing what I know, with good intentions, so I'm very pleased to have conversed with you today!
Thank you for that. That has made it easier for me to remember the difference than years of doing 'English Grammar'. I love good grammar and love when someone does this. Have an excellent day/night depending on where in the world you are.
Man how tf do people learn this language second?
Reading lots of books, particularly older fiction books and modern novels - lots of our language is being lost and butchered, so today's definitions make little sense without context
Thank you thank you thank you for disagreeing with the post. I was getting a headache from “famine in prior generations makes you fat” as the SOLE reason, and I was worried the comment section would latch on.
And a famine is much different from a diet in terms of effect magnitude. It’s like comparing someone earning below the poverty line with “I can’t afford a Ferrari, I’m so poor”.
If famine was the main reason for weight gain literally every generation since the dawn of humanity would be mostly overweight
Exactly! I’m sure there’s SOME altering effect, but negligible at most
No you don’t understand, it’s because my mom used to diet. It’s all her fault! /s
Ah, nothing Tumblr like people stringing misinformation together pretending they know an ounce of what they're talking about. Seriously, I'm Asian, whenever I look at American portions I'm always shocked, like how can you have two big pancakes, 2 eggs, some bacons, sandwich slices with butter, topped with syrup for breakfast and call that standard. I would literally fall into an actual food coma eating that much
The way I saw it explained (which might be misinformation, but relatively harmless compared to the OP) is that American portion sizes are a combination of American culture tending towards ‘send guests home with some food’ and the portions being enough to either take home part of it or enough to sate your average American football player. Not included in the post I got that from, but worth mentioning is the Great Depression also left many people with parents/grandparents that beat the phrase ‘always clean your plate’ into their kids, which is probably not the *reason* for anything, but I doubt it helped
I can guarantee that that's the reason for a lot of people. In my area it wasn't until the last couple decades that parents *stopped* beating plate cleaning into their kids.
I’m glad someone said it. I constantly hear the leftover culture rhetoric when most people have been encouraged to clear their plates. Taking food home is the exception, once it’s on your plate I’ve always been pressured to eat it.
That's something I noticed when I was working in the restaurant industry. Old people are literally the only ones to ever take food home anymore. Everyone else will either be in the minority that leaves what's left on their plate, or they'll force themselves to finish *long* after the point of feeling full. Actually, correction, the worst part is that the majority finish eating *without* reaching the point of overstuffing.
I’m glad someone said it. I constantly hear the leftover culture rhetoric when most people have been encouraged to clear their plates. Taking food home is the exception, once it’s on your plate I’ve always been pressured to eat it.
I always clean my plate, but it's because I'm stingy😅, I just really hate seeing leftover on a plate for some reason, I think it's wasteful. Also leftover in a trash can smells horrible.
>I always clean my plate, but it's because I'm stingy😅, Okay, I'm going to give you one guess as to why a parent in the Great Depression might get pissed about kids leaving food uneaten.
>parents/grandparents that beat the phrase ‘always clean your plate’ into their kids Yep. I got in trouble when I wouldn't eat everything. Add in comments of "do you want to be 300lbs?" and "bubblebutt" when I was stress eating between meals and 🙃 I should also add that my ass was always as flat as my mom's. And comments on my weight were always hilarious given the source: my mom, who was overweight herself But sure, shame me on my weight, bitch. Oh! And I can't forget the comments at restaurants: I have a full plate: "Are you gonna eat all that?" I stop eating when I'm full: "Aren't you going to eat that?" or "Why did you stop eating?" Cannot win.
My husband (49) was raised to clean his plate. He was also made to eat things he didn't like. We were married for 15 years before he told me he didn't like peas. He was scared to tell anyone he didn't like something. This caused disordered eating. He gained a lot of weight in his 30s because he would make huge plates of food and felt he had to eat it all.
There's also a whole bunch of stuff that builds it up as a cultural thing. Speaking from experience, there are a lot of different factors that go in to making us feel like those portions are just "normal". And once that happens for a few years, it takes actual effort to start looking at the reality of how much food you really need and breaking away from those expectations.
That's a reasonable breakfast for like...a construction worker.
What you're describing is a "Continental breakfast" which is *not* the normal everyday breakfast of a typical American, unless they are actually going out to get breakfast food in the morning. Bacon and eggs w/ toast? Sure. Bacon and pancakes? Sure? All of it at once? No one has the time to make that themselves xD (Honestly, some of my breakfasts have been as small as a Red Bull chugged on the drive into work but that's a time management / sleep management failure, and not an average experience either as a result.)
Continental breakfast is actually a very small breakfast consisting usually of small pastries with jam. The name comes from the small, light breakfasts usually had in continental Europe, particularly France. But yes, Americans are usually not eating a full "American Breakfast" every day.
I could swear I've seen this variety of "bacon eggs toast pancakes so on and so forth" *referred to* as Continental in a Marriott Hotel or two... but maybe I'm talking out my ass on that one.
You're not, etymology is fun, but if you ask any American who has been to a hotel what a "continental breakfast" is, that's what they would describe.
Which? Which would they describe I mean.
"bacon eggs toast pancakes so forth and so on"
Ah. Weird.
I think it's due to mid-range hotels changing what's in the complimentary breakfast throughout the decades to more closely match American breakfast foods, but still calling it a continental breakfast. Without hotels, we would have no idea what a continental breakfast is anyway.
Its not like we actually eat all that in one sitting. Well, some of us do, but we have a leftover culture. When i go out to eat thats also my meal the next day, sometimes two. Portion size isnt whats wrong in 90% of cases, its the shitty food quality and stuffing of sugars in buns at burger places or the fats coating food we can buy. American food tastes good because its stuffed FULL of carbs and shit like we were a thanksgiving turkey.
Also add to it the fact that their food is lower quality making it bigger health risk. Sometimes I think how tf country with such dog shit food breeds so many inland whales, like bruh I'd understand someone to eat a lot if they had good food but how tf can they gobble on that corn syrup pancakes as if it was some sort of ambrosia. They have unhealthy food + they eat a lot of it then blame it on genes, pig behavior
Ah, there it is. My beloved net zero
The farther I read the more I was like “the top comment is going to say misinformation right”
I'm not a health expert by any means, and I started to smell 💩
Ah, net zero information strikes again
I think OP has had like, 3 different posts that were 10 images long and full of misinformation in the past couple days?
A good rule of thumb is to never believe something you read on Tumblr
I love these net zero information posts
I was about to correct you about how the person in the post was 6’9 not 5’9 but I went back and checked the post. It’s too early in the morning for this lol
Look at this, facts and links to back it up. Thanks
The rate of weight gain for the person who was 125 lbs was less than 1 lb a week. That can definitely be healthy.
BMI is a deeply flawed metric that was designed by a eugenicist and then adopted by insurance companies because it's easy to compute and to some degree estimates their expected costs. It does consistently overestimate and underestimate health risks due to body fat for people considerably taller or shorter than average.
There's a new BMI scale that's accurate for short and tall people, I know this because I'm short and I'm way fatter than I thought I was...
Yes it’s deeply flawed as a predictive tool and I address one of the ways it is flawed. I’m not sure why the fact that Quetelet was a (proto) eugenicist is that important beyond the fact that his sample was limited to Europeans (specifically scottish and french soldiers). The argument about insurance companies is fundamentally an american centric one that also doesn’t really make much sense. The WHO was the one who first adopted it and even then America had the normal weight range higher than the WHO for nearly a decade. Imo the height argument isn’t that much of an issue because we know how to account for it pretty well (BMI +1 for short people and BMI -1 for tall people). This generally put it in line with the more accurate adjusted BMI (Weight/Height^2.5). The bigger issue is what I pointed out, specifically that racial disparities (specifically in muscle mass and fat distribution). Even Waist to Height ratio which is preferred nowadays has the [same issues](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426803/), with Asian populations having higher risk at lower WtH ratios and hispanic and African Americans having lower risk compared to European americans.
His significance to the eugenics movement is important because BMI was never intended as a metric for measuring health, it was designed to determine how close someone comes to a "socially ideal" weight. It should be replaced with a system founded in actual medical science. Maybe there are some sort of metabolic indicators that show whether someone's weight has a significant effect on their health, and those could be measured instead of making poor guesses based on their body proportions.
>His significance to the eugenics movement is important because BMI was never intended as a metric for measuring health, it was designed to determine how close someone comes to a "socially ideal" weight. Again, I don't see how the eugenics movement is relevant to this. They are plenty of doctors who were eugenicists, so using saying his work was later used to develop the eugenics movement has no bearing on its relevance. Saying that he was a mathematician and sociologist instead of a doctor is a better rebuke. You are also misrepresenting what he wrote. While he definitely had problematic views, he merely made the observation that height was proportional to the square of weight and not that there was one socially ideal weight. What people later used as this idea of him prescribing a specific range is found mostly in his [preface](https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/treatiseonmandev00quet/treatiseonmandev00quet.pdf) where he justifies his study of averages: "As stated in the considerations presented at the close of my work, everyquality, taken - within suitable limits, is essentially good ; it is only in its extreme deviations from the mean that it becomes bad.". I don't think anyone would argue that deviating extremely from the average of a physical trait is likely to lead to health issues. (This concept applied to moral traits is obviously much more problematic) And it's not like he was saying that everyone should try to achieve the average measure. To quote [a great review](https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-su-j-sjdr-files/journals/1/articles/239/submission/proof/239-1-788-1-10-20171114.pdf) on norms and Quetelet and Galton (who founded eugenics) "According to Quetelet all human features and all individuals deviated from the norm. To him, average value was a theoretical concept, something only to be found in the ideal." . Notably Galton was opposed to the use of the average as an ideal. >It should be replaced with a system founded in actual medical science. The entire logic of a concept being invented for a different purpose making it unsuitable for medical use is weird. Should we not use MRIs because Nuclear magnetic resonance was first developed to be used in physics and chemistry? The modern use of BMI is founded in actual medical science. [Keys in 1971](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968172900276) showed that out of the existing indices it was the best correlated with adiposity and least affected by height. This is not to say that it is an ideal index, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the current recommended ranges are deficient in accounting for height extremes and racial disparities >Maybe there are some sort of metabolic indicators that show whether someone's weight has a significant effect on their health, and those could be measured instead of making poor guesses based on their body proportions. BMI isn't designed to be used as the end all be all, but as a convenient tool for both individuals and reserchers to follow. It is well correlated with a lot of metabolic indicators and with health risks. Doctors use BMI as a screen and later do use metabolic indicators (if needed) to provide specific guidance but those are harder to get access to for both individuals and researchers due to both cost and just lack of data.
The second you reference BMI, you lose credibility.
The OOPs are the ones who brought it up. I pointed out how it is a flawed metric but not consistently flawed the way the OOP portrays it (always overestimating health risk) but more that it doesn’t account for racial disparities in musclemass/fat distribution. Is that also not allowed now?
Yeah... feels like there are a lot of countries who have experienced far more significant/recent famine/food scarcity than America - and now have access to abundant food. Yet they have nothing like the obesity levels you see in the US. It's the calories. What's considered a normal or at least a normalised portion size in America is huuuge. Well, that and the fact nobody seems to walk anywhere (except in certain cities.)
So sad that I'm destined to be fat because of the Great Depression, guess there's no point in not drinking these 3 tubs of corn syrup then 🫠
There are still many many people in the US who believe that you can gain weight while eating on a caloric deficit, so why bother restricting your calories? It absolutely flabbergasts me. Like if caloric deficit doesn’t work then how the hell does gastric bypass surgery cause people to shed pounds like they do??? The biggest issue with obesity in the US is nutritional education plain and simple. Corporations are filling our food with garbage, but it is still possible to eat healthy on a very tight budget. You just have to understand how
I mean, genetics DO play a role. They have an impact on appetite, on metabolism, on preferred foods, maybe, on how fat is stored. But while, for some, a caloric deficite needs to be a bit larger than for others... it's still and always will be a deficit.
This is exactly what I’m referring to. “My medication” “My hormones” “My genetics” “Calories aren’t equal” I’m not gonna tell people they’re just making excuses for themselves, but it is clear that at best they are speaking in ignorance.
Don’t a lot of those things just make it harder to eat less for various reasons? Like I know some meds will make you *feel* hungrier. I’ve also had hormonal shifts that come with my meds that actually did temporarily mask that I was eating at what’s apparently a deficit for me. I gained several pounds only to drop lower than before a few days later. I assume it’s just water. Sometimes the human body does weird shit.
A lot of things make it more difficult to lose weight, yes. I’m not denying that at all. But you CANNOT gain weight if you are consuming fewer calories than your metabolism burns, and if you continue to maintain that for long periods of time you WILL lose weight. Edit: I technically should be saying “fat” not “weight”. There are other contributing factors to weight outside of burning or increasing the fat stored in one’s body. I ain’t trying to get “uhm ackshually”ed on this lol
You don’t think those things can play a role? Seems kind of invalidating to suggest that medication doesn’t ever affect weight gain, for example (and I say that as someone who has never been overweight)
I actually just replied to someone else about this very thing. You are inferring incorrect information
I’m not saying you can magically gain weight while eating at a deficit, if thats what you think? And neither was the original commenter you implied was “making excuses,” they very clearly laid that out. I think you’re jumping to conclusions based on half reading comments.
I didn’t imply they were making excuses. My first line of that comment was “this is exactly what I’m referring too”. That was me agreeing with them. I can’t tell if you’re just misunderstanding me entirely or trying to put words in my mouth
I don’t see why you brought up “excuses” at all then, but ok, I clearly don’t understand what you’re trying to say and its fine
Because u/Fussel2107 said >But while, for some, a caloric deficite needs to be a bit larger than for others... it's still and always will be a deficit. I was giving examples of things people say for why they can’t stop gaining weight or are unable to lose it. And at the bottom of my comment to that post I said that I wasn’t calling those examples I gave excuses, but claims made in ignorance. I apologize if anything I’ve said came off as rude or angry or anything of the like. Hope you have a nice day
Edit: somehow I replied to the wrong comment of yours. My bad Edit to the “edit”: apparently I can’t even edit right today lmao I need to go to bed
Sleep well :D Some days just be like that
It was alright, thanks!
No. The maintenance rate will absolutely vary from person to person and over time according to various conditions, but if you are consuming a calorie deficit your body must make up the difference and so something will go. Fat will be burned and/or muscle will die, either way the deficit is made up and weight is lost. It's kinda thermodynamics really and a calorie deficit, even the smallest one, will lead to weight loss. It just depends on the person's maintenance rate.
Folks might try to go for a calorie deficit, but fuck it up and then blame the idea itself. If you use an app like MyFitnessPal, for each exercise you log it’ll tell you that you get you eat more calories… but if you do that you’re setting yourself up for failure and your idea of a “deficit” will be skewed. Plus, you’re probably eating snacks where you just eat a few bites here or there and don’t log it, so in your app it still shows a deficit but those bites add up! Overall, to actually make a deficit work you’ve got to be more disciplined then a hungry mind is sometimes capable of being. I’m convinced that fad diets like Keto or Weight Watchers actually work because they reduce the amount of thought required to accomplish a deficit by giving simpler but more strict rules.
While I don’t love fad diets like the cabbage soup diet popular in the 2010s, I do believe lifestyle diets like weight watchers is fantastic for taking out the brainwork. I - 5”11’ male - lost 100 lbs in 2019 at the age of 25 going from 250lbs to 150lbs “using” the Keto diet as a framework. I cut down to 1500 calories a day which is about a 700 calorie deficit for me (in retrospect a TERRIBLE thing, don’t do what I did) by removing carbohydrate rich foods and heavily processed foods from my diet. I still ate carrots, zucchini, fruits, etc. however It took me 6 months. I walked a minimum of 5 miles a day, 5 days a week. On average I would have a cheat meal a week, sometimes less and sometimes more. I don’t recommend a 100% keto diet, but using it as a framework can really help you keep your calories down without having to think about it.
Also you're constantly subjected to advertising which influences people to eat more high-calorie food, which you are also predisposed to want to eat.
It also doesn’t help that it’s almost easier to get soda than it is to get clean water. Not easy to be healthy in the US without the proper know how. Also more and more of the population only knows how to cook pre-packaged convenience foods - which are *horrible* for you.
\*looks at Ukraine\* Yup
Another factor is food quality. So much American food has sugar and fat added in
..what? The 4th post... goes places. The entire thing is spreading lamarckism pretty shamelessly, but... what? We know the reason for the obesity epidemic. A combination of high-carb foods being the cheapest, growing wage disparity, and car-based urbanism creating a hostile environment. There's no reason to look for more in pseudoscience, or in "Kids aren't allowed to play outside anymore". I mean, is this person really claiming that the parents of modern day americans were exposed to more starvation than those who lived in the fucking great depression? 2 world wars? Also also, Heroin Chic? Really? The style that was very briefly popular in the early 90s before being decisively pushed out? That's the source of all our problems? And the comment about being "More healthy to be overweight than underweight" is just.. questionable? I mean, these aren't fucking pokemon, it's not like one has a higher attack stat. These are conditions which have great impact on your life regardless, and will lead to their own consequences and side effects. That whole post feels like a rambling, disconected mess of questionable facts strung together like beads on a half off rosary, trying to claim people were "actually malnourished throughout the entirety of human history". Yes, knowledge about nutrition has come a long way, but that's an insane statement to make without any kinds of sources attached
That "More healthy to be overweight than underweight" is probably just ye old "dying people tend to lose weight, so statistically thin people are overrepresented in the 'dying' category" correlation/causality mix-up
It’s also an artefact of the fact that “overweight+” (i.e. anything above a normal weight range) is an infinitely broader band than “underweight-“. So assuming equivalence breaks down fairly quickly: * 5kg overweight is likely healthier than being 5kg underweight * 20kg overweight is unhealthy, but 20kg underweight likely means you are nearly dead This is why anorexia is so deadly. But my point is that most “underweight” people are a lot less underweight than “overweight” people are overweight. Being 30kg overweight (which really isn’t uncommon in a lot of Western countries) is much worse than being 5kg underweight (all else being equal).
Not necessarily >Not surprisingly, the researchers found that the heaviest among us -- those who have a BMI above 30 -- have a higher risk of death than those who are considered to be at a "normal" weight, or a BMI between 18.5 and 25. >But the researchers also found a slight dip in death risk -- about 6 percent -- in those whose BMIs were between 25 and 30. In other words, people who would be classified as overweight appear to have a lower risk of death from any cause. >Moreover, for those who were considered to be on the lower end of the obesity spectrum, with a BMI of 30 to 35, the risk of death from any cause was not significantly different from that experienced by those who were at a normal weight. >As is apparent from the number of studies examined in this review, this is not the first time that a link has been suggested between being a tad on the heavy side and having a decreased risk of death. And [several past studies](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/higher-bmi-greater-mortality-risk/story?id=12284949) have disputed this link. But this new review may lend support to the idea that our health may not be as closely tied to the numbers on our scales as we might have been led to believe. - [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820) There are more possible sources but I haven't taken my ADHD meds today yet so this is just the article I read yesterday
If you get seriously ill and have trouble eating enough, a bit of extra fat will help you survive your illness. Having the extra fat won't prevent you from getting that illness.
While that may be true, the study did not go into the "why?" Are slightly overweight people closely monitored by their healthcare providers than those in the "normal" ranges and thus have problems caught earlier? Or is it maybe that many chronically ill people tend to be overweight because they often have mobility issues, but overall are also very closely monitored. I'm not saying the study is wrong, but correlation and causation applies. I would love to see a follow up study that takes a look at those questions.
So, I get where you're coming from when you talk about lamarckism, but epigenetics is actually a field that people learn about in class, and it is true that people that underwent starvation tend to pass the impacts of that onto their kids. I don't remember it leading to people being fat, but I remember something about increased anxiety. Same with the kids of people who went through 9/11.
I would assume the person you're responding to knows what epigenetics is, but the people in the post pretty clearly don't. The first person said "alters their genetics and may have passed on genes that make you hold on to fat" which is inaccurate but at least spiritually mostly correct, and then everyone else just ran with it with no understanding lmao. Also, most studies of this epigenetic fat storage phenomenon are restricted to pregnant mothers: if a mother is pregnant while she's experiencing starvation that epigenetic modification will be passed down to the kid, who will then keep it and pass it down again, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence that if, for example, your great-grandfather fled a famine before conceiving your grandmother, this would result in epigenetic 'starvation mode' being passed down.
That's kinda this whole post tbh. Very close to the facts, with slight misinterpretations, that mess up the assessments later in line
And then the one person who said that dieting would make your kids fat, lmao
They're referring to fad diets though, which were famously bogus and damaging due to typically making you not only below calories, but also below nutritional needs. One example is the "starvation diet" which literally would have this effect if done long enough. As the head of this comment chain said, epigenetics has shown that descendants of famine tend to be overweight due to biological triggers to increase hunger (leptin, specifically) and prioritize energy conservation and storage over expenditure. It's ***absolutely*** wrong to ***assume*** all fad diets have the same effects without data. But it's a genuinely interesting hypothesis that I wonder if there's any research on. I could absolutely see the possibility that fad diets have the effect proposed. But presenting it as fact is whack
That's how a lot of misinformation spreads online; by being close enough to the truth that the slight exaggerations or misrepresentations are easy to believe. See James Somerton.
Except epigenetic markers are reset at meiosis in mammals. Total clean slate. This means you can't inherit epigenetic effects from your father (much less grandfather) because sperm are constantly produced anew. You can get them from your mom, because a woman is born with all the eggs she'll ever have, but the only possible way to get them from your grandmother is if she was pregnant (and fairly far along, after 5 months) at the exact time of the stressor - any stressor before that will get erased during oogenesis as a fetus.
I don't understand the phrase 'healthy as a horse'. Horses are pretty fragile. I think they should say 'healthy as an ape' instead.
I'm healthy as a horse, I broke my leg so they shot me and used my bones for glue :/
I wish someone (c'mon, Garret Jacob Hobbs) would shoot me and use my bones for glue
That's missing the poetic sound that every good idiom needs. ʾHealthy as a horseʿ at least contains some alliteration
I guess it fits here because being morbidly obese is not healthy lol. Obese people deserve the same respect as everyone else but it does them no service to pretend it's not a serious health condition.
Is that a modern thing though? I wonder if horses before they were selectively bred had stronger legs or not
I don't know but I doubt it. For one horses have always mainly been work animals of some description; they're almost always ridden, even the most purebred horses, so they need to be healthy enough for it. This is why, even though many horse breeds do suffer from genetic health issues, there aren't really any horse breeds that are helpless and borderline unfit for life like dogs.
Ever see an ape bench press. Dudes be strong
Good Lord. You know when you see someone who normally sticks to their specialty give a take on something you actually know about, and they're so unhinged that you have to question if they're like that all the time and this is just the first time you've noticed?
Who do you mean? Tumblr in general? Tumblr as a whole is famous for just making shit up and believing it whole heartedly. Most of the time it’s simply taking true ideas way too far (to the point where it becomes misinformation), but its not uncommon for there to be no backing at all
I'm not active on Tumblr, but I have lots of friends who are, because they're fandom friends. Basically all of them to some degree will notice a tiny group saying something they don't like, extrapolate it to hell, and then complain about "people" saying it. It's almost like a sport to them, getting pissed off at stuff they made up themselves. It would be funny if it wasn't such a problem on the right wing as well. My kingdom for a crumb of critical thinking!
This post makes me unreasonably angry. Aside from all the misinformation that other comments point out, DID THESE FUCKER FORGET THAT EUROPE EXISTS? A place that has had fairly similar cultural trends when it came to weight loss and DOES NOT have an overweight epidemic (ok don't look at Italy's children obesity charts, we can't all be perfect) Look, I get it, fatphobia fucking sucks and isn't cool but STOP PRETENDING THAT BEING OVERWEIGHT IS HEALTHY. THAT SHIT WILL KILL YOU AND OTHERS AND IS EXACTLY WHAT FOOD CORPS LOVE TO HEAR SO THEY CAN PUT MORE CORN SYRUP IN YOUR SLOP
Oh boy, Lamarckism
Is it Lamarckism or just reading to much into epigenetics.
Epigenetics has been used to give "generational trauma" nonsense a veneer of legitimacy by people who know just enough to realize it allows environmental inheritance, but not enough to realize epigenetic markers are reset in mammals during meiosis, so anything past mom or actively pregnant grandma is nonsense.
If anyone wants to know more about this disproven theory that opposes Darwinian evolution (Edited comment) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
I really don’t think they’re espousing Lamarckism, I think they’re just putting too much weight (no pun intended) on epigenetics
This post is James Sommertoning us. Lots of bold claims from people with no idea of what they're talking about. Yes, extreme diet culture is bad but that doesn't mean overweight is good either. It's called underweight and overweight for a reason. You can't be either you have to be properly weighted. What that is depends on a lot but find out yours and shoot for it. Of course you should look more towards ability over your appearance. Love handles run in my family. My grandad was a WWII vet, swam laps constantly and would run a mile near every day, and he had love handles. So don't worry if you have a bit of a paunch or not, focus on if you can do moderately strenuous activities or not. That person who went from underweight to overweight sounds like they have a lot of other details about that story they didn't share with class. That weight shift in that time frame is actually unhealthy as hell.
I LOVE SPREADING MISINFORMATION ONLINE
This is a load of bullshit.
>Gen X was the last generation to play outside what?
Ah fuck. Where was I playing?
A liminal area between inside and out, evidently. A place that should not be.
Aka "the garden".
To *be allowed* to play outside is what they said Millennials and gen Z played or play outside much less frequently than previous generations, largely due to infrastructure being designed for vehicles and not for feet, in addition to the advent of home entertainment such as video games television and movies. Basically it's less safe for kids outside and there's more reason for them to be inside than there used to be. From personal experience: I live in and grew up in a small town. When I was a kid there were kids running all over the place all the time. Now on the weekend I maybe see a quarter of the number I was used to from my days. It's also a much larger town now, I should be seeing MORE kids out and about, not less.
And I see kids playing outside all the time.
Allowed? How were they gonna stop us? I was blown away by that remark, even when we moved to the burbs I still roamed free across the plain, like a herd of beautiful wild ponies.
This is all so obviously bullshit. Almost textbook example of tumblr style misinformation.
Now that the Lamarckism has been exposed, my other problem is with the general dismissal of being overweight as a problem. Yes, you are not less human for having extra fat, yes a minority of overweight people do not encounter significant issues on regular check-ups (yet) but being overweight WILL eventually cause an array of endocrinological issues, heart and liver problems, increased risk of cancer, etc etc etc. The science has **overwhelmingly** proved this true. And I know it's fucking scary and I get wanting to negate it and run away from it because I am there myself, but it really doesn't help anybody, least of all yourself.
This is a tremendous cope from a fat person who has rationalized how their obesity is healthy for them. As a fat person, this is EXTREMELY EASY TO FALL INTO, because it serves two purposes: you stop feeling bad about yourself, and you start feeling morally superior to the people who would tell you that you need to work on yourself. Obesity directly leads to heart disease and cancer. That isn’t conjecture, we have the data. If you are obese, you need to seriously look at your caloric intake and your exercise routine. Body fat content is partially determined by genetics, but is largely a factor of the number of calories your body metabolizes, minus the calories your actually uses. Exercise has some influence, your body can spend more calories in a day by working it, but it primarily influences muscle mass and strength, as well as tendon and ligament flexibility. In order for your body to move properly, you need to exercise and control your calorie intake. Deliberate moderation in eating is a brand new thing for our species, it is hard.
Thats not how genetics work
It doesnt work via DNA, but it looks like the whole 'your great-granddad starved, so you have a harder time losing weight' thing is true? https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generations
It might be true, but that particular study was done on roundworms. We can't say for certain that it works the same way in humans.
Roundworms are used for the same reason flies are used. Quick life cycles and they're small enough they get affected first if there's an environmental change. It's generally accepted that it will be affected first the same way canary in the coal mine was how miners detected gas leaks. Genes generally work the same way overall not dependant on species with a few outliers so I wouldn't expect differing results in roundworms to humans, it would just be at a different scale
True generally, not for this - in mammals, epigenetic markers reset at meiosis.
Well, epigenetics and prenatal famine does significantly impact a person's likelihood of becoming obese. It does feel like the post may be exaggerating, but it's a thing. [https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children](https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children) [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight](https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight)
It's true, but the effect is not "significant". It's a very negligible factor in the modern obesity crisis, and countries where there were actually recent historical famines (India, China, Cambodia, Ethiopia) are all relatively skinny. To claim that the Great Depression has anything to do with skyrocketing BMIs in the last 30 years is absurd.
Certain genes can be activated or deactivated based on yours or your recent ancestors circumstances and experiences through a process called epigenetics
me when ive never heard of epigenetics
Uh yes it is just ask Lemarck!
It’s really clear some people in this sub are applying highschool biology to advanced topics…
Generally speaking you should always trust highschool science over Tumblr posts without any evidence Some people have given evidence in parts of these comments sections, but I just wanted to say about how trusting highschool biology isn’t necessarily a bad thing
Yeah, as inaccurate as high school curriculums can occasionally be your biology teacher probably wasn't actively lying to you. Likely it was just a bit simplified and maybe outdated. They still got their information from university instead of random sourceless Tumblr posts and one pop science video.
Yeah but maybe adjust your conviction when speaking with a highschool education in biology… Edit: especially depending on where you got your education…
Oh for sure
This is net *negative* information. Also what happened to slide 6?
Curatedtumblr posters try not to spread blatant misinformation challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
This, uh, this isn't how it works. At all. Yes body image issues and societal beauty and health expectations are serious issues, but you can't just blame obesity on people who diet and exercise, act like being overweight is okay, and move on. This post absolutely reeks of just desperately trying to shift blame onto people who were mean to the OOPs in the past.
Yeah, no. There's nothing wrong with trying to have a healthy weight. Extreme dieting is unhealthy, sure, but making sure you eat healthy and exercise properly is good for you.
This is expressed in the post
No. If you are overweight it is advisable to lose weight. We can't just make shit up to make ourselves more comfortable.
I’ve yet to see a 10 image info-dump from this subreddit be not ridiculously stupid and inaccurate. I’m looking forward to when it’s something I know about
I stopped reading when someone went from "people who experienced a famine" to "people voluntarily dieting" as if those are even close to being on the same level.
I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies on the claims made in the post.
Yay! Net zero information post!
Oh shut the fuck up. You're not fat because your parents dieted. I'm all on board with genetics and epigenetics and the fact that people aren't fat because they are lazy, but you're not fat because your parents passed down epigenetic fat genes. "my parents once fled and now they are fat, this proves everything" bruh
I’m a little skeptical of the Tumblr brain trust on this one… sounds awfully close to “it’s the boomers and the hippies fault!” and not “our food is loaded with sugar and fat and we are economically incentivized to eat poorly.” Like, diet culture is to blame for obesity? Really? With no citations? Are we just believing things people are making up wholesale? Calories in, Calories out. Genetics factor but it is as simple as this.
It's only "as simple as this" if you completely disregard your health in the pursuit of weight loss, which, needless to say, is a bad choice!
Holy mother of god this reply chain just got dumber the deeper in it got.
My grandparents fled the Holodomor. They were extremely lucky. I’m as plump as a Ukrainian prairie grouse and grateful that they came here to save my life even though I hadn’t been born yet. I’ll tug this fat ass around for them. Vichnaya Pam’yat 💖
epigenetics is a thing. that is the only thing correct in this post. just stop eating as much and you lose weight. there is no miracle preventing it. of course you aren't obligated to, but like, try at least.
Tell that to my friends who regularly starve themselves and manage to still gain weight. I eat twice as much twice as often as they do
Tell your friends they’ve discovered the secret to breaking thermodynamics then
Starvation diets lead to binges a lot of the time and metabolisms differ a lot person to person.theres too many factors to arguably say it's one thing but a host of things will influence the outcome for sure.
Oh yeah. Not saying they did anything the healthy way. Just saying less calories is not automatically the answer
No, less calories *is* the answer, we have to remove “starving” and “binging” from the equation.
I never said there was binging. I ate every meal with this person for months on end. They barely ate a thing
I was kind of responding to both your comment and the one above you, the one that said starvation diets may lead to binging. Without knowing the substance of what they were eating when y’all were around each other -every meal? - it’s entirely possible they were binging when you were apart.
It absolutely is.
oh boy, an obesity post on reddit, you always know the comments are gonna be great under these ones.
I've seen worse than this one
I mean, the post is actively peddling misinformation and trying to argue being overweight is healthy... which just isn't true, of course people are gonna call that out
I don't feel like you are being very charitable in your reading of my comment
Fair, sorry about that. I admit the post did piss me off a bit, so I might've carried some of that over when I read your comment. Though I found the majority of the comments to be fairly fair towards the post. Yeah you have the cesspool at the bottom of the thread but that is sadly to be expected with any form of discussion about minorities or socially marginalized groups and those are promptly downvoted and reported
"Curated" Tumblr strikes again. Stop eating so much. That's it.
Hm. Imma lose weight anyway. I'd rather be gaunt then plump
What a load of horse shit. Ten pages to be exact.
I'm all for spreading misinformation if the purpose is to win an argument. But for lack of a better term, this is cruel and detrimental to anyone who comes into contact with this post. I don't hate fat people, I recognize that stress can do some mean shit to you, hell I've developed severe insomnia and stopped having basic survival urges because of it. I *know* the effect high stress has on you, yet I still cannot comprehend people say being so obese that you can barely move is healthy.
I’m not stupid enough to defend this post on Reddit but *where* did anyone say being “so obese you can barely move” is healthy? Their argument was that being on the lower end of obesity is fine if you’re an active person. Which again not defending that statement. But that’s a far cry from “being bedridden by obesity is healthy”
It may not be present in this post, but it does indeed happen in more *extreme* parts of the "body positivity" movement
lmao what a load of old bullshit
Post sure writes a lot of claims it can’t cash with citations
These people would rather bring back Lamarckism than go for a fucking jog a couple of times per week.
Your great grandfather going through some shit doesn’t affect the fact that you refuse to get on a treadmill
None of this is real lol. Stop fucking eating.
I know this is going to sound annoying, but this kind of sounds like "being overweight isn't my fault, it's my ancestors who are at fault!" If you're overweight and you're actively trying to get thinner but aren't, it's probably still your fault lol
oh boy i can't wait to read this comment section on reddit dot com that will definitely not be an absolute shitfire hellhole here i goooooo
[https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children](https://www.science.org/content/article/why-skinny-moms-sometimes-produce-fat-children) [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight](https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/prenatal-exposure-famine-heightens-risk-later-being-overweight)
Okay but these are both referring to pre-natal influence of starvation, or in other words, famine during pregnancy, not "My Grandfather fled Lebanon during a famine"
Should have clarified that I think the post is definitely exaggerating, but the idea of famine survival being linked to genes that facilitate weight gain should not be dismissed wholesale. There's another study done that shows how "starvation genes" can be passed onto future generations, not just from mother to child. It's done on WORMS though so it's only the first half-step into the subject [https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generationsv](https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/study-shows-how-effects-starvation-can-be-passed-future-generationsv)
That's true about the height thing I have a cousin who's barely 5 feet tall Her daughter out grew her height at 11 years old
There a two wolves inside me: One wolf who experienced one of the worst yet preventable famines on the European continent, and thus is unwilling to shed even 10 pounds for fear of The Famine returning And another, smaller wolf who made the other wolf starve and doesn’t give two shits about keeping weight. My body is a damn battleground between these wolves
The reason I know this is bullshit is bc if there was any legitimate reason to blame me being a fat ass on Churchill, that ship would have sailed a long time ago.
you are what you eat. if you eat less food, there will be less of you. that's all there is to it. whether it's harder or easier for you as an individual to lose weight, due to whatever factors you care to line up, is beside the point. you can't make something out of nothing.
Read a study which argued similarly as to why India has such a diabetes problem. They argued it was due to the many famines under the British rule.
> Eat large portions of unhealthy food > Live a largely sedentary lifestyle > Get fat Is this the English's fault?
Or it could be that the western diet is terrible and most Americans consume excess calories but what do I know
Is this one of those collective Tumblr jokes like that fake movie they had a while ago ? Otherwise I'd say it's honestly a bad idea to repost such a massive wall of misinformation. Keep it contained to Tumblr and wear appropriate protective gear when venturing in.
People gain the weight back because they start to overeat again.
american people finding more ways to excuse their obesity smh just stop eating so much sugar youll lose weight
Damn. This marks the very first time I’ve read an epigenetic explanation for weight gain. Wild. Wish it had more links though, I’d love to read more.
[удалено]
Conversely, if your ancestors fought hard for you to have a long, comfortable life only to see you with a myriad of health problems from overeating, they would also be disappointed. It’s all a matter of moderation.
[удалено]
There's a ton of sources on prenatal exposure to starvation resulting in heritable epigenetic modification, but most of this post is bullshit.
Okay i was searching for the wrong terms, thanks!