Sometimes I wonder how much nonsense researchers can collect in one study. A new study links obesity to a certain gene mutation. There are plenty of studies that have tried this, but this time there is something new. The mutation causes people to eat more fatty foods. And we all know that if you have too much fat on your body that is because you eat too much fat. If science were just that simple.
The mutation is “linked” to obesity, the study “indicates”. That is a completely meaningless statement. But you see this kind of terminology all the time in scientific studies. Everything is linked, but known causes are rare. Studies indicate an awful lot, but rarely prove something.
“at the effect on human dietary preferences of a mutation in the gene” Wow, I see an awful lot of assumptions here, before the study has even started. How on earth do you know if a gene mutation influences your dietary preferences? There are an awful lot of things that cause a preference for certain foods and genes are at the very bottom of the list. If they should be on the list at all, which is highly questionable.
“Defects in the MC4R gene are found in around 1–5 per cent of obese individuals” So what? How many people with a normal weight have this gene? Probably the same percentage, making this study immediately 100 per cent useless. But such things are never checked. When something is blamed for a certain disease there is rarely a control group to see how many healthy people have this marker. Which reduces the science to a wild assumption.
“presented a group of 14 people — some lean, some obese, and some with a genetic variant of the MC4R gene” Can I laugh? 14 people is way too small to come to any conclusion. Besides, I see three groups here, but isn’t there overlap? This is a study about the gene and obesity, so did the obese people have the gene or not? And did the lean people have the gene?
“ate almost double the amount of the high-fat meal” So these few people had a preference for fatty meals. And what else did they have in common? Maybe they all came from backgrounds where fatty meals are common? But actually it doesn’t matter. Fatty meals are healthy and are in no way the cause of obesity. So the whole basis of the study is already so wrong, that the rest of the study is utterly meaningless.
“liked the high-sugar version of the dessert much more than the individuals with the defective MC4R” Which means that the people with the gene should be leaner than the others. It’s hard to keep facts straight when you are doing fake science.
“Commenting on the findings, Associate Professor Amanda Salis said” Professor Salis, can you please go back to school and learn some basic biochemistry? Can you learn some facts about food and weight before you make a complete fool of yourself? How on earth can someone be a professor when they lack the most basic knowledge of the topic they talk about? (It makes you wonder how much such a title cost nowadays.)
Obesity is a complex problem, which goes a lot further than the combination of food and exercise. But as far as food plays a role, it’s the sugar and not the fat. If you want to lose weight by changing your diet, then the most important thing is to stop eating sugar and start eating loads of butter, coconut oil, dripping, lard, olive oil and other healthy fats. There’s no guarantee it will work, but at least you will have a healthy diet. And the professor? Let her please eat all that sugar and no fat, then she will get sick soon and quit her job. Which would be good for everyone.