Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/06/2007 8:49:14 AM PDT by nypokerface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: nypokerface
In the new study, researchers discovered the gene is likely a high-level "master switch"

My master switch is beer.
2 posted on 09/06/2007 8:51:27 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

Scientists discovered this gene is responsible for control the movement of the arms to the mouth region. In overweight people, the gene refuses to stop working, and they keep shoveling food into their mouths.


3 posted on 09/06/2007 8:52:43 AM PDT by flashbunny (<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
The gene, called adipose, was discovered more than 50 years ago but its mechanism was not determined.

Misleading headline.

5 posted on 09/06/2007 8:59:42 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

What is this about the 10th new study with the 10th new reason why it is impossible not to be fat


6 posted on 09/06/2007 9:00:23 AM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
The absolute weight control gene is right on the front of your face. It is call: the mouth. Keep the damned thing shut and don’t push 8,000 calories a day down your pie hole, and you won’t weight 455 pounds on your 5-7 frame.
9 posted on 09/06/2007 9:02:14 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The American Republic is slowing dying, and no one cares.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

I thought the “master switch” was called “self-control”?


10 posted on 09/06/2007 9:03:17 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Want authentic 1st century Christianity? Visit a local, New Testament Independent Baptist church!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
I like to look in the shopping carts of others at the grocery store. I notice the more bread based products in the cart the fatter the shopper and the more fresh produce in the cart the thiner the shopper.
12 posted on 09/06/2007 9:03:32 AM PDT by elizabetty (Ron Paul - Because Moonbats Need Choices Too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
"'This is good news for potential obesity treatments, because it’s like a volume control instead of a light switch; it can be turned up or down, not just on or off,' Graff said. 'Eventually, of course, the idea is to develop drugs to target this system, but that’s in the years to come.'"

It's always the same with this stuff.
The solution's always, "years to come".

Translated it means anyone amped-up over hearing the *good news* will be dead & gone.

...by then.

19 posted on 09/06/2007 9:10:22 AM PDT by Landru (That does it, no sleep number for you pal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

I don't know. Between the two of them, fat can look cool, especially when you don't give a damn.

20 posted on 09/06/2007 9:10:47 AM PDT by dragonblustar (Freedom of Speech is for everyone, not just liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

Most cultures surrender or conform to nature. For example leftists around the world want fat people to eat very little. So they can’t enjoy food as much, and are lethargic and tired. They also think we should give up automobiles and walk.

Some cultures, America imo near or at the top, try to play with nature’s laws to use them to our advantage. We want to enjoy foods from around the world, shipped to us in refrigerated ships.. And not have to exercise, and be a healthy body fat level.

Most cultures would say we do not ‘deserve’ to be thin without putting in the hard work. The same as they say its not ‘fair’ Americans are so rich when we don’t do 14 hours of back breaking labor a day like they do.


22 posted on 09/06/2007 9:12:16 AM PDT by ran20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

I could see that a gene might contribute to obesity, but it certainly isn’t the only factor. One’s chosen behavior often (not always) plays the biggest role.


23 posted on 09/06/2007 9:12:22 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

Actually the cure is not a gene but the bacteria that causes lock-jaw.


25 posted on 09/06/2007 9:16:21 AM PDT by inpajamas (Modern liberalism is merely fascism without balls - http://skarbutts.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
It's interesting that they discovered (or rather rediscovered) this gene, as it could certainly explain why some people can eat anything and never gain weight, while others may gain a little or a lot of weight from a caloric excess.

But all genes can really do is define a "baseline" of where people start if they eat whatever they feel like and exert as much or little effort as they feel like. It's a pain for those of us who tend to get fat if we eat what we like, but all it takes is knowledge and self-control. If calories out (via exercise and base metabolic rate, no matter how low that natural rate is) are greater than calories in (via eating), you will lose weight. It's not physically possible to do otherwise.

26 posted on 09/06/2007 9:16:28 AM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

As an addendum, since this thread is turning into a discussion of whether or not it's possible for some people to lose weight:

I would venture to guess that most people who have tried to lose weight and either failed or gained it all back did so because they followed advice that is utterly unworkable in the long term. They listened to the latest "fad" diets, which fundamentally all work by caloric deprivation and therefore will be successful in the short term, and basically either did or did not manage to starve themselves in the short term. If they failed, they didn't lose weight. If they succeeded, they lost fat and muscle, thus lowering their base metabolic rate, and then once they couldn't take starving themselves anymore and resumed their previous diet they gained even more weight back.

Here's a hint: there is one group of people whose hobby (or in some cases livelihood) depends partially on losing as much fat as possible and keeping it off. That group is very successful at those things. If one has the same goal, does it make sense to do what they have done for decades, or to listen to the fad of the month from fat Dr. Phil or dead Dr. Atkins?

40 posted on 09/06/2007 9:36:51 AM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

That’s like saying there’s a gene that causes homosexualty...so it’s okay to indulge.It’s just an excuse for a lack of self-discipline. I should know....I lost 100 lbs by simply “altering” my “gene” (i.e.,making smarter choices about food and getting exercise). No one says it’s easy,especially when you come from an overweight family and have an established eating pattern over a series of decades,but the cycle can be broken,if one really,REALLY tries. I was pretty close to Gastric Bypass Surgery at one point but it didn’t get that far,thank God.


75 posted on 09/06/2007 10:35:25 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee (Finally, Fred!...Welcome aboard!..Now,Go get 'em,boy!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface
Let's see if we can agree on some basic tenents of eating, exercising and body weight.

1) Human bodies are subject to the laws of mass and energy and the interconversion of the two, i.e. mass cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created without mass. E=mc2

2) The conversion of food to energy or to body fat is carried out by the body's biochemical processes. Like all chemical systems, there are varying degrees of efficiency. Some people's bodies process food (i.e. extract energy from food) more efficiently than others. If persons A & B each eat an identical bowl of ice cream, their actual net calorie gain may differ depending on their individual digestive efficiencies. This variance can account for SOME of the anecdotes that "Joe Blow can eat a ton of ice cream and never get fat"

4) However, in the absence of food all humans will starve and display an emaciated appearance. Look at pictures of concentration camp survivors or POW's from the Japanese camps in WW2. Going into the camps, you had a wide variety of peole, of all sizes, girths and metabolic efficiencies. Coming out, they were all emaciated. This proves that EVERYONE will lose weight in the face of a caloric deficiency.

5) Caloric deficiency (and the INEVITABLE weight loss that occurs, see #4 above) can be induced by:

a) restricting caloric intake (eating fewer calories)

b)increasing caloric output via exercise

c) blocking caloric processing by the body (drugs like Xenical block fat absorption in the intestines)

If you accept the above tenets (and you must, because they are all based on the laws of thermodynamics), you can arrive at the basic conclusion that body weight is a function of calorie intake times digestive efficiency, minus calorie consumption.

With that said, if you restrict calorie consumption and increase energy output, to the point were output exceeds input, you WILL lose weight.

How much weight you lose will depend on the magnitude of the deficit and will probably be a non-linear curve, i.e. you will lose weight at a different rate along the curve. Because of the variable of digestive efficiency for each person, your calorie input/output levels may need to be tweaked to lose weight, but you WILL lose it. You may have to eat less or exercise more to achieve the deficit.

The moral of the story is that no one is immune from the laws of thermodynamics. Some people will have to work harder to lose weight, but no one can say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism/genetics." If that were true, you'd see pictures of fat people coming off the Bataan death march or coming out of Auschwitz. Be sure and post those pics if you have them.

79 posted on 09/06/2007 10:45:41 AM PDT by Panzerfaust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

Hey, can I get some of them ‘skinny genes’ so someday I can fit into some ‘skinny JEANS’? ;o)


92 posted on 09/06/2007 11:36:52 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

heavy duty!


105 posted on 09/06/2007 12:24:34 PM PDT by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nypokerface

I understand that Rosie O’Donuts went into a restaurant advertising these adipose things.

She said: “Give me about ten of those between two loaves of bread and add mustard, ketchup, syrup, jam, butter, jelly, crackers, two heads of lettuce, three tomatoes, 14 big onions and seven cucumbers. I’ll also have three big bowls of grits and 10 orders of french fries.

Now after I finish my appetizer....”


141 posted on 10/01/2007 9:50:37 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson