JFL "Incels are all fat neckbeards who need to lay off the Cheetos" Meanwhile on Cucktears...

[KingOfRome]

An adoption study of human obesity - PubMed

We examined the contributions of genetic factors and the family environment to human fatness in a sample of 540 adult Danish adoptees who were selected from a population of 3580 and divided into four weight classes: thin, median weight, overweight, and obese. There was a strong relation between...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If your eating habits are taught and not genetic, why does this happen?

Because you're citing a study from 1986 that looked at the Danish population. Less than 10% of Danes were obese in 1986 just FYI, compared to around 20% in 2016.

If obesity is genetic, how has obesity in Denmark increased so much over just 20 years?

 

[Arch Anemone]

Because you're citing a study from 1986 that looked at the Danish population. Less than 10% of Danes were obese in 1986 just FYI, compared to around 20% in 2016.

View attachment 151718

If obesity is genetic, how has obesity in Denmark increased so much over just 20 years?

Irrelevant that it has increased. We're arguing that it is self imposed or a choice.

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their biological parents, thin people too, end up looking like their biological parents?

If a fatty mom and dad adopted a biologically thin child, why doesn't the fat parents teach the thin kid to eat like them? And vice versa.

They don't so it's a simple reality that your genetics of your parents mean more than what you are taught and your choices.

Period.

Thin, normal, obese, very obese all groups looked like their biological parents and not their adoptive parents.

The fact that it is from 1986 shows how pervasive the bias is.

 

[KingOfRome]

Irrelevant that it has increased.

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their parents, thin people too, end up looking like their parents?

If a fatty mom and dad adopted a biologically thin child, why doesn't the fat parents teach the thin kid to eat like them? And vice versa.

They don't so it's a simple reality that your genetics of your parents mean more than what you are taught and your choices.

Period.

The fact that it is from 1986 shows how pervasive the bias is.

It's not irrelevant. It's crippling to your argument. If obesity is genetically determined, then the only rational explanation for increased obesity rates would be exponentially higher fertility rates among obese people, which is laughable as a concept.

The fact that is it from 1986 shows how pervasive your bias is. It's obvious to everyone reading this who isn't a HAES hamplanet that you're abusing mechanistic data and ancient population studies to justify being an obese slob. Which is fine, but keep it off the forum. We don't need you perpetuating the stereotype that we're all fat greasy neckbeards like you.

 

[Arch Anemone]

It's not irrelevant. It's crippling to your argument. If obesity is genetically determined, then the only rational explanation for increased obesity rates would be exponentially higher fertility rates among obese people, which is laughable as a concept.

The fact that is it from 1986 shows how pervasive your bias is. It's obvious to everyone reading this who isn't a HAES hamplanet that you're abusing mechanistic data and ancient population studies to justify being an obese slob. Which is fine, but keep it off the forum. We don't need you perpetuating the stereotype that we're all fat greasy neckbeards like you.

You have no answers to my questions and all you can do is insult.

Shrug. You lose.

Obviously there is a problem with obesity increasing, but if you look at the evidence, it isn't willpower suddenly disappearing either. It's unknown what is causing the problem. Which is the current science if you are paying attention.

But clearly I upset you because I brought actual facts that it isn't a choice.

Which means you aren't in control as much as you think you are and that's quite the ego hit.

Source of my 70 percent heritability (height 90) number:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005243222102

 

[KingOfRome]

You have no answers to my questions and all you can do is insult.

Shrug. You lose.

Obviously there is a problem with obesity increasing, but if you look at the evidence, it isn't willpower suddenly disappearing either. It's unknown what is causing the problem. Which is the current science if you are paying attention.

But clearly I upset you because I brought actual facts that it isn't a choice.

Whick means you aren't in control as much as you think you are and that's quite the ego hit.

What you brought was cherry-picked mechanistic data and one single study from the last millennium that looked at a population for which obesity was practically unheard-of and an anomaly. Thinly veiled whining about your own inability to control yourself around junk food. The very fact that obesity rates are increasing at such a rapid pace disproves your idea that obesity is genetically determined, and the only way you could save it would be to prove that people's genes are mutating en masse to make them obese, a ridiculous notion that Occam's Razor eviscerates with ease.

 

[Arch Anemone]

What you brought was cherry-picked mechanistic data and one single study from the last millennium that looked at a population for which obesity was practically unheard-of and an anomaly. Thinly veiled whining about your own inability to control yourself around junk food. The very fact that obesity rates are increasing at such a rapid pace disproves your idea that obesity is genetically determined, and the only way you could save it would be to prove that people's genes are mutating en masse to make them obese, a ridiculous notion that Occam's Razor eviscerates with ease.

Ever think those that aren't gaining weight are the abnormal ones genius?

A thrifty gene keeping people thin.

So rather than people who are gaining weight in the new environment being the abnormal ones, the people who aren't gaining weight are the anomaly?

You have yet to answer:

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their biological parents, thin people too, end up looking like their biological parents?

Regardless of what is going on with the overall populations weight increasing, if it was a choice there would be far greater variation.

That study from 1986 is cited in other papers over 1600 times. Hardly Fringe science.

Here is a meta study from 2010 that evaluated 14 different studies and found the same thing.

The genetic and environmental influences on childhood obesity: a systematic review of twin and adoption studies - PubMed

In this systematic review, we aimed to collect together all previous twin and adoption studies on childhood and adolescent obesity up to the age of 18 years. Using several sources, we identified nine twin and five adoption studies; all of these studies had used relative weight as an indicator of...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's cool, we all can't be science literate and it's easy to fall into unscientific pitfalls.

 

[KingOfRome]

Ever think those that aren't gaining weight are the abnormal ones genius?

A thrifty gene keeping people thin.

So rather than people who are gaining weight in the new environment being the abnormal ones, the people who aren't gaining weight are the anomaly?

You have yet to answer:

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their biological parents, thin people too, end up looking like their biological parents?

Regardless of what is going on with the overall populations weight increasing, if it was a choice there would be far greater variation.

That study from 1986 is cited in other papers over 1600 times. Hardly Fringe science.

Here is a meta study from 2010 that evaluated 14 different studies and found the same thing.

The genetic and environmental influences on childhood obesity: a systematic review of twin and adoption studies - PubMed

In this systematic review, we aimed to collect together all previous twin and adoption studies on childhood and adolescent obesity up to the age of 18 years. Using several sources, we identified nine twin and five adoption studies; all of these studies had used relative weight as an indicator of...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's cool, we all can't be science literate and it's easy to fall into unscientific pitfalls.

Some interesting tidbits I found.

Possible sources of bias in twin studies
Usually twin studies do not collected information on spouses or parents of twins, which is also the case in all above-mentioned twin studies on childhood obesity, and thus they need to make an assumption of random mating. This is, however, an unrealistic assumption as assortative mating, according to several physiological, social and psychological traits, has been well demonstrated.49, 50 Assortative mating can be because of phenotypic assortment, referring to the preference to marry somebody with similar characteristics. This type of assortative mating may inflate heritability estimates in twin studies as it generates a correlation between spouses' genotypes and thus increases the genetic correlations within DZ twins and ordinary siblings above 0.5, as assumed in the used quantitative genetic models. This would further inflate the estimates of common environmental variance if ignored in the modeling as this estimate is based on comparison between MZ and DZ correlations under the assumption of genetic correlation of 0.5 within DZ pairs.

Another issue that needs to be analyzed in detail is how representative the twin samples are when compared with the general populations. This question was analyzed in detail in a Swedish study including measures of BMI in early adulthood in virtually the total Swedish male population based on mandatory conscription examinations.59 This cohort included information on not only the twins participating in twin studies in Sweden, but also twins who had not participated and were thus of unknown zygosity. This study found that there was more variability in the general population for BMI than in those twins who participated in the surveys, and also the correlation of BMI within ordinary brother-pairs was lower than within DZ twin pairs. Age difference had only minimal effect on the size of correlations within brother pairs. This results in a modest overestimation of heritability of BMI when only information on participating twins was used. It is probable that this bias is related to selective participation, which has resulted in a decreased variation in twin samples. Thus, this is probably a general problem of all studies based on volunteer participation and not limited to twin studies.

A recent Finnish twin study found that physical activity reduces genetic variance of BMI and waist circumference in early adulthood.45 This suggests that the function of genes predisposing to obesity is suppressed in physically active persons. There is also evidence suggesting a modifying effect of physical activity on specific genes; a Danish study found that the rs9939609 polymorphism of the FTO gene is associated with greater BMI in sedentary persons than in physically active persons.62 Similar results have also been reported in an Amish population.63 The studies were cross-sectional in design and the findings therefore need confirmation in prospective studies, excluding an effect of development of obesity on physical activity.

These twin and adoption studies are inherently flawed and overestimate heritability, and physical activity seems to damper the effect of "fat genes" on active people. So no, sorry, you're still making excuses for being fat. You could lose weight if you put as much effort into portion control as you do into Google-fu.

 

[Adolf_Hitler]

nah. Most of us aren't fat we just have mental issues, recessed jawlines, bad hairlines, etc. Obese fags are pretty much volcel degenerates. Sound familiar?

 

[Arch Anemone]

These twin and adoption studies are inherently flawed and overestimate heritability

That's cute how you took criticisms of twin studies and extrapolated them to adoptive studies. Flaws adoptive studies don't have.

You still haven't answered my question.

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their biological parents, thin people too, end up looking like their biological parents?

Maybe you should read this article on the backfire effect.

The Backfire Effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challeng…

www.google.com

 

[KingOfRome]

That's cute how you took criticisms of twin studies and extrapolated them to adoptive studies. Flaws adoptive studies don't have.

You still haven't answered my question.

If it's a choice, how come people not raised by their biological parents, thin people too, end up looking like their biological parents?

Maybe you should read this article on the backfire effect.

The Backfire Effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challeng…

www.google.com

Seeing as you've failed to answer several of my questions to you, I don't see why you're so insistent on me answering this question, especially when I wasn't even denying that there are genetic factors involved, only that those genetic factors render your weight entirely outside your control when you have such a wide variety of options to help you control your weight.

The meta analysis you cited does criticize the adoptive studies as well. You'd know that if you weren't too busy stuffing yourself with French fries to read your own sources. It also admits that environment does also contribute to the increasing obesity rates, which is obvious since such a sudden spike in obesity rates would be impossible if obesity was entirely genetically determined.

 

[Deleted member 2047]

It's a pretty well known fact that incels, on average, have a greater percentage of lifters than the average population