Jun 22, 2005 13:17
I am sure that they used a nifty regression equation or a similar statistical model and found that genes shared a great deal of the variance with overeating. They boasted a 70% 'relationship' between overeating and genetics, which if is their R2 value, I will admit is quite high. But, their interpretation of why their sample was overeating was very weak. Their theoretical foundation for their model was that a sample of aborigines somewhere were all really thin until they were given access to the Western diet. They argued that genetic change in the last few thousand years made them prone to eat everything in sight because food is scarce, but since food became abundant they started becoming chunky and diabetics. Okay, but maybe those people had a culture were they were encouraged to eat and when food became abundant their livers started producing enzymes to digest fatty and sugary foods, which made their bodies expect and desire these foods, making them large. Further, they go on to say that the reason we Caucasians aren't as big is because we come from the fertile crescent, and that an agricultural lifestyle made a genes change so that we conserve and that’s why we are thinner. But, I see a world full of cultural differences in eating styles that make think that their fertile crescent idea is a hot pile of crap.