Pages
Categories
- Commentary
- Interviews
- Motivation
- Nutrition
- Prehab / Rehab
- Product Review
- Research
- Research Review
- Training
- Uncategorized
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
My Newsletter
Sign up for my newsletter to be kept in the loop with the latest happenings at Mark Young Training Systems
Meta
Autor: markyoung
~ 09/04/10
So last week I fell asleep one afternoon rocking my daughter in the living room to go down for her nap. Shortly after I woke up to catch a segment of Doctor Oz on the television talking about a revolutionary new way to determine the ideal diet for each individual; genetic testing.
According to the show, a study was conducted comparing three different macronutrient compositions. Each group had either been put on a low carb diet, low fat diet, or balanced diet for a year. Weight loss was monitored. Of course, within the context of any diet there are those who lose more weight than others, but in this case scientists did genetic tests on everyone in the study. What they found was that those who are on the right type for their genetics lost 2.5 times more weight than those who were not. Moreover, the testing can be done for as little as $149 dollars! Obviously I was intrigued because if this were truly the case it would be much easier to assign diet protocols to ensure results.
Being the curious mind that I am, I decided to look up the study. As it turns out, the study has yet to actually be published in a peer reviewed journal, but was recently presented at the American Heart Association’s Joint Conference – 50th Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention – and Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism – 2010 and a summary of the study can be found on the Interlekin Genetics website HERE.
While Doctor Oz may have been technically correct in reporting that the groups using the appropriate diet for their genetics lost 2.5 times more than those who did not, the actual numbers from the study are actually a little less impressive.
Those who used the diet that best suited their genetics for one year lost approximately 5.3% of their body weight. Those who did not lost 2.3% of their body weight. That would mean for a two hundred pound person, testing your genetic profile would improve your weight loss in one year from 4.6 pounds to 10.6 pounds. While this might appear decent at first, it is still only less than 11 pounds in a year!!! After a night at the buffet I’ve probably had have bigger bowel movements.
In all seriousness though, that amounts to less than one pound per month which isn’t really that impressive at all. More importantly though, was that this study was actually piggy-backed on a large study called The A to Z Weight Loss Study. In the study they technically gave each participant a macronutrient (protein, carb, and fat) breakdown, but they were actually based on diet programs (Zone, LEARN, Atkins, and Ornish) and not just food intake. In other words, some people’s programs (Zone and LEARN) contained information on calorie restriction and other people’s programs (Atkins and Ornish) did not. Some also had information on physical activity and others did not.
While this is possibly a good indictation of which diet may work in the real world, it probably isn’t a great indication of which macronutrient composition best reflects our genetics because there are other confounding variables. Along the same lines, it is important to keep in mind that the population used for this study was women with BMI measures between 27 and 40 which is not necessarily representative of the whole population.
So am I against the science of nutrigenomics? Definitely not. I think it will bring many great things in the future. Would I use it for creating the “ideal” diet? Probably not. Still, if you want to give it a shot, you can get your test done pretty cheap at Inherent Health.
What do you think? Is genetic testing worth it?
Good post. I think people will always be drawn to these kinds of ideas because everyone thinks “If I just did what was natural for my body, then weight loss wouldn’t be so hard.” I also think it ties in with people’s desire to be “the best me.” So…my opinion is more “this is based in psychology more than physiology, but others may disagree.
I think it is very important to look at weight loss studies very critically as most people have a skewed perception of how they work. No one takes these people and locks them into a room for a year, let alone provides the actual food, training, or support. Reading “Rethinking Thin” by Gina Kolata (like her or not) made me much more cynical and angry about this area of research.
Comment by Amanda — April 9, 2010 @ 10:06 AM
Mark, you don’t need to come up with an excuse as to why you were watching Dr. Oz. It’s okay. It’s funny how percentages can sound good but when you do the math it’s not very impressive. Good post!
Comment by Bret Contreras — April 10, 2010 @ 1:09 AM
Agreed with Bret — 2.5x sounds much more impressive then +3.0% — the devils in the details once again!
On the other side of the coin, do you think people would look at genetic testing and say “this must be the best way since its based on my genes” and possibly lead to better adherence?
Comment by Chris Brown — April 11, 2010 @ 8:21 AM
@ Amanda – Generally speaking, there is a growing body of evidence for the science of nutrigenomics. Some people react to some substances (i.e., coffee, eggs) differently than others and it would be nice to know which category we fall into. The research tends to show that there are physiological differences that are dictated by our genetics. My only major contention with this “best diet for your genetics” idea was the way the media twisted it to make it seem like the effects were greater than they really are.
Of course, you’re absolutely right that the psychological component is what the media was trying to take advantage of by using the “2.5 times more weight loss” and “determined by genetics” captions in their headlines.
@ Bret – I may watch Dr. Oz, but I don’t read Muscular Development.
@ Chris – In this particular study the diets were assigned and completed before any genetic testing was completed so there is no way to know how this would have affected compliance. Truthfully, I think compliance is more than just a one time decision. Each time we choose to comply with a diet (or not comply) there are usually different sets of circumstances resulting in a different reason for the decision each time. In other words, I might first stick with a diet because it is based on my genes, but when at the beach I might stay on my diet that day because I don’t want to look like a tubby.
Does that make sense?
Comment by markyoung — April 12, 2010 @ 9:44 AM
Mark! Thanks for breaking down the research for us!
Comment by Derek — April 12, 2010 @ 10:20 AM
Good points Mark, Thanks!!
Comment by Chris Brown — April 12, 2010 @ 12:38 PM
Mark- found you off of Muscle & Fitness Hers… You’ve got some cool blogs here!
Seems like they’re making a pretty big deal out of common sense. Most “diets” out there will promote some sort of weight loss, be it healthy or not. I think your point on compliance is really the main component to any weight loss program. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you do as long as its safe and YOU DO IT! I say, if people believe it works, they’ll probably stick with it more, so let them believe it.
Comment by Erin — April 26, 2010 @ 3:02 PM
Thanks for the kind word Erin! I hope you enjoy the site.
I think we’re certainly on the same page with the biggest issue being compliance. But I’m not sure that I agree that believing it works will make you more likely to follow a plan. I’ve seen people lose plenty of weight only to regain it all. Plans like that have obviously “worked” for the person, but they fail to maintain them.
I tend to think that compliance is related to many factors that are different for everyone which is what makes it hard to figure it out. Would you agree?
Comment by markyoung — April 26, 2010 @ 5:15 PM
[...] This study spawned a discussion of the A to Z study that I’ve discussed previously. I think the key point to take home is that any meaningful weight loss is a result of consistency [...]
Pingback by Mark Young Training Systems » » Glycemic Index with Dr. Thomas Wolever — February 2, 2011 @ 5:43 AM