ForumGarden

I recently read something very interesting regarding this.

According to David Sloan Wilson in his book Evolution for Everyone, he claims that there are two natural evolutionary factors concerning adult weight. During the formation of the fetus in the womb, certain genes relative to weight are switched on or off depending on the messages the growing fetus receives regarding the availability of food outside the womb. He asserts that if a mother eats healthy and often (not too often) and does not overly concern herself with weight gain and appearance that the child will be born on the large side but as an adult will not most likely be heavy and vise versa.

There is another contributing factor however and that is ones genealogy. But since at this point there hasn't been much in the way of regional hunger in either Europe or the U.S. for many years, that that factor is lessening.

So lets put it to the test. Those who do not want to record their actual adult weight for whatever reason need not, you can just tell us whether or not the assumption works out with you. For the rest what was your birth weight and your adult weight?

One caveat that I'm thinking of and that is artificial sweeteners such as fructose and sucrose which may throw this whole thing off center, but we can give it a look.

I'll go first.

Birth weight = 6lbs 7oz

Currently = 210lbs

Height 5'8"



I was a small baby, but am overweight as an adult Thats what Sloan Wilson would have predicted.

Birth--7lb 8 oz



Now--165- 170 lbs



Height--5' 10"

Watch only men are going to put their real weight. :wah: Sorry not getting this info from me.

CARLA;1269666 wrote: Watch only men are going to put their real weight. :wah: Sorry not getting this info from me.
You could always put it in stone, that way only the Brits would actually know the real weight.

YZGI;1269663 wrote: Birth--7lb 8 oz



Now--165- 170 lbs



Height--5' 10"I think both seem middle of the road, which would fit.

CARLA;1269666 wrote: Watch only men are going to put their real weight. :wah: Sorry not getting this info from me. ;)Sorry Carla. You can just say whether or not the assumption works.

Birth - 8lbs (3.6 kg)

Height - 5 ft 6 inches... (167 cm)

Weight - 134 lbs (61kg)

But I'm Australian, not American. We have fat people here of course, but nothing like I've seen in the US. Portion size always amazed me. What is normally served to one person for an evening meal out would feed at least three here.

AussiePam;1269684 wrote: Birth - 8lbs (3.6 kg)

Height - 5 ft 6 inches... (167 cm)

Weight - 134 lbs (61kg) As would have been predicted.

I have a 29 yr old son.



Birth weight was 9lbs 10 oz



Adult--250



height--6' 2"

YZGI;1269689 wrote: I have a 29 yr old son.



Birth weight was 9lbs 10 oz



Adult--250



height--6' 2"He's tall. Does he look heavy to you? I hate to use BMI because thats a rigged measurement for pharmaceutical companies. Don't know.

Ahso!;1269687 wrote: As would have been predicted.


So is this just another way to deny any personal responsibility. If we don't blame fast food outlets, the breakdown of family life-home cooking-eating together at mealtimes sitting down at the table, television forcing sedentary life of us, shopping centers being designed so you have to drive even between shops, evil private enterprise manipulation of our children, our socioeconomic probramming .... we can now also blame our mothers.

From there I can conclude that in my own case, getting up at 6 each morning to do a fitness class, climbing stairs instead of always taking elevators, walking often, buying healthy food, cooking at home, sitting my family round the table, eating only at meal times, fighting the urges to eat all the goodies temptingly and constantly offered to me ... is irrelevant. I'd have weighed the same whether I'd made any effort or not.

Bullshytte!!!

Ahso!;1269690 wrote: He's tall. Does he look heavy to you? I hate to use BMI because thats a rigged measurement for pharmaceutical companies.
Yeah he is a pretty big ole boy. Has a belly. He just lost almost 50 lbs and now that I think about it I think he is down to around 230.



We used to have a big ole mailman a few years ago also.

AussiePam;1269691 wrote: So is this just another way to deny any personal responsibility. If we don't blame fast food outlets, the breakdown of family life-home cooking-eating together at mealtimes sitting down at the table, television forcing sedentary life of us, shopping centers being designed so you have to drive even between shops, evil private enterprise manipulation of our children, our socioeconomic probramming .... we can now also blame our mothers.

From there I can conclude that in my own case, getting up at 6 each morning to do a fitness class, climbing stairs instead of always taking elevators, walking often, buying healthy food, cooking at home, sitting my family round the table, eating only at meal times, fighting the urges to eat all the goodies temptingly and constantly offered to me ... is irrelevant. I'd have weighed the same whether I'd made any effort or not.

Bollocks!!!I don't think its saying that at all. I think what its saying is that as we grow older and our metabolism slows whether or not our habits may catch up with us.



One thing about any evolutionary theory is you must avoid making value judgments. It's strictly science.

When you're taking an evolutionary view of something it's important to think of the subjects (in this case people) as a species.

Nobody is blaming anyone for weight gain in this thread.

this seeks to try and understand why some gain weight more easily than others. Mothers of course did not know they were flipping gene switches on and off in their children. This may be new vital information for people to move forward with. Whats Wrong With That?

As Maya Angelou said: I did the best I could with what I knew. When I knew better I did better.

Just call me a cynic, Ahso.

I haven't read the book you read in support of the theory. But do know from my worklife that it is possible to manipulate science to support just about anything. Some of the biggest financial supporters of scientific research are companies who might occasionally possibly have some vested interests. This doesn't mean anything is untrue, or even not untrue... but a bit of healthy scepticism never goes astray.

I don't know what proportion of Americans (or Aussies) are grossly, clinically obese. Or even just very large and chunky. But you would expect there would be a lot of money in showing that this expanding size is not only completely normal but also brings health and happiness..

[Links to sponsors removed]

Attached files

AussiePam;1269717 wrote: Just call me a cynic, Ahso.

I haven't read the book you read in support of the theory. But do know from my worklife that it is possible to manipulate science to support just about anything. Some of the biggest financial supporters of scientific research are companies who might occasionally possibly have some vested interests. This doesn't mean anything is untrue, or even not untrue... but a bit of healthy scepticism never goes astray.

I don't know what proportion of Americans (or Aussies) are grossly, clinically obese. Or even just very large and chunky. But you would expect there would be a lot of money in showing that this expanding size is not only completely normal but also brings health and happiness..

[Links to sponsors removed]i see your point, Pam. But think about it, this is really only common sense supported by science. This encourages pregnant mothers to be to eat properly and healthy - that's all this is saying.

Well, I'm all for that Ahso. But it's a motherhood statement, isn't it... :sneaky:

A pregnant woman is carrying a baby. And what she does during the pregnancy is going to affect her baby - smoking, doing drugs, drinking, eating badly whether it's too much, too little or too poor quality. Luckily babies are apparently the perfect parasite and may well thrive in spite of what we throw at them. Let's hope so, anyway.

On the genetic thing. In each of my four pregnancies I put on a great deal of weight, which pretty much fell off afterwards. My doctor said this is a throwback gene, and found still in some native populations where metabolism was based on feast and famine situations. Women who stored extra fat in pregnancy tended to survive during famine, while their thinner sisters and offspring were less lucky. These days, in western society where food is often only too plentiful, those throwback genes are unhelpful. This has also been used to explain the high incidence of diabetes and obesity related illnesses in Australian aborigines.

Anyway - anything that encourages people to take control of their lives, and responsibility for their health and wellbeing is, in my books, wonderful.

:-6



Sat morning, and I'm heading to used car yards to see what I can find for one of my offspring.. sigh Have a good weekend!