In fact, all the data from the turn of the century, when colonial doctors consistently reported that traditional societies were free from the “diseases of civilization” - and were consistently found to deteriorate when influenced by western foodways - showed that it is indeed nature that is the key influence.

the reason why the establishment and researchers concentrate on drug treatment is both because that’s where the money is and because the failed low fat experiment has caused universal cynicism among nutritionists and the public. It doesn’t prompt them to question their theory’s failure, so they now seek desperately the drug route. It’s a recipe for disaster - note the recent ACCORD “study”. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/drmikenutritionblog/~3/232300613/

look how far we have come down the path of foolishness..

at least there are a few good voices in this medical wilderness.

all the best Mark (and everyone else posting)

Markus

There are so many factors involved, how do these quantitative analyses address the following:
1. Prenatal nutrition - if they’re twins, then they shared the same prenatal environment, regardless of if they’re monozygotic (identical) or dizygotic (fraternal). Prenatal nutrition is obviously out of the hands of the child, but is more due to mother’s choices of food than genetics.

2. Environment - how do the environments for these twins differ? is one twin active and the other sedentary? do their diets differ? My guess is that the environment between two twins with respect to diet/activity are fairly similar. The study would only achieve interesting results if the diet/activity of twins were widely varying, yet the twins still had similar BMI/WC (and body composition). The opening sentence of the article says “Diet and lifestyle play a far smaller role than genetic factors in determining whether a child becomes overweight” hinting that the study looked at these factors as part of their environment, but the study abstract makes no reference to these factors.

3. What does 77% genetics vs 23% environment even mean to the average lay person? It hints that genetics matters quite a bit more than environment does. But this is quantifying something that yields little meaning to anybody, and basically reinforces what all of us already know–that both genetics and environment take part in this equation; that is, if both of your parents are hugely obese, it’s going to be harder for you to lose weight than if both of your parents are muscular/fit. Everybody knows it’s possible for both people to lose weight, and most everybody will agree that the kid with the fatter parents will have a harder time.

This seems like a fairly worthless research study in that it doesn’t show anything we don’t already know intrinsically, and quantifying this knowledge into a meaningless number that nobody can really use to explain anything. Furthermore, it’s presented in such a way that the conclusions made are highly negative towards motivating people to change. This isn’t the sort of message people want to hear.
But I guess one way to (incorrectly) spin the numbers is to say that if you weigh 200 pounds, then you can lose 23% (46 pounds) of that weight if you change your environment. That conclusion isn’t true, but at least it’s more motivating than saying that you’re naturally fat and there’s not much you can do about it.