Fat Girls the Theory II

Post Reply New Topic

Testosterone. You pass the same genes on to your sons and your daughters, besides that the father passes an X chromosome to a girl and a Y chromosome to a boy. (Well, you don't pass ALL your genes to your children, just half your genes.. but you know what I mean) Besides the Y chromosome, male and female genetics are identical, and there's very little on the Y chromosome.. mainly testosterone. It's the environmental differences (the hormones present) that cause different genes to be expressed and the child to develop differently.

Not just short men, I find that women often refuse the advances of a man slightly taller than her. I've even had women of 5ft4 say "your too short for me." I'm 5ft9.5. It's crazy but that's the way it is. I think they want their man to be at least a few inches taller....while in her heels. Women want tall (5ft11+) guys for the most part. Once more being a slim, fit, healthy man doesn't mean I'm entitled to have the equivalent female. When people say a man has to be "fit" it means tall, buff, athletic, powerful. I could beat him in a bicycle race but he's still fitter than me in womens eyes.

No wonder so many guys are single and repressed in the UK.

I dont think there is a 'fat' gene. At least not in the same way that determines our height or hair and eye color. Tall people cant make themselves shorter and short people cant make themselves taller, but fat people can lose weight and become skinny, just as skinny people can become fat. I think being fat has more to do with lifestyle choices and eating habits than with genes.

You're right, there is a definate balance. Back to that old supervisor I had the hots for, she was slowly in the process of letting herself go (I noticed her hips getting a little wider over time) and although I had always been convinced that my ideal woman was thin and fit, I didn't lose any attraction towards her. To be honest, her actions spoke louder than any of her bodily features, sure they were some attractive body features (that's just a foot in the door for me), but she was able to see someting worthwhile in me even though I was gradually feeling worthless. I'm still thinking about her, and I don't care if she let herself go a little more (at least not yet), the attraction is in place and she is an absolute goddess in every way to me. Back to the OP, the fat thing to me is the right substance in the right area, I won't lie, I love those DD knockers but more bodyfat isn't a turnoff, just a sign of her situation and if you love a woman you'll have to find a way to accept (or maybe love) her situation too, good theory OP.

More bounce to the ounce! More cushion for the pushion! The thicker the waist band, the deeper the quicksand!


On a more serious note and to rerail back to the original post, kinda. To me, if a women is comfortable, I dont care. Most women who start tipping the scales are typically not comfortable and self conscious about it and it usually shows. But you come across some 'big boned' gals who are still attractive.
But i tell you what, i'd consider a relationship with a big gal way before a skinny girl who complained she weighed too much. Women who are skinny and complain constantly are annoying as hell. I read more and more that the 'target' weights and what is written you should weigh are really not a standard to go by. You can be perfectly healthy if you are 10, 15lbs overweight, as long as you are not doing that by eating mcdonalds 5 times a week, and being a couch potato. So you may not walk 5 miles a day, but you dont binge on potato chips while watching oprah and you always take the stairs at work and dont drink soda every day.


And on the comment about tall people cant become short and short people get tall, but fat people can get skinny and skinny people can get fat.

Well, you can make yourself taller in a few ways =P. They have growth hormone therapy and bone lengthening, though they, out of ethical reasons, will only do this with little people, but it is done very often. And I know a ton of people who can eat non-stop and not gain a pound. A buncha guys I knew through highschool, guys on from football who would eat non-stop to try and gain weight but never could. Some people do just have an over active metabolism. Though that usually disapears with age. My brother was like that, drinking eggs every morning with 3,000 calorie protein shakes and would consider it a good week if he gained a pound, not working out. He is about to turn 35 and he said he's gained like 5 pounds in the last few months, first time he's ever gained weight without trying.

No fat gene. If I can’t prove this, there is zero chance of me explaining anything more complicated in regards to evolution. When you see some people who can eat like crazy and not put on weight compared to those who have a healthy diet with exercise and cannot lose weight.

I think most people, mainly NTs, subconsciously close their minds to science and logic for the perceived benefit to themselves or society as a whole. In this your subconsciously must be saying “The fat gene doesn’t exist because it isn’t in the interest of sociality to believe this. The belief in the fat gene would make people blame their genes not take affective dieting and exercise. I am not interested in reading the overwhelming scientific evidence that proves the fat gene exists”.

If there was no fat gene, both woman and men would have the same body fat. But the difference can be vast especially amongst black people. Yesterday at the car auction all the young black men were slim, the woman were considerably bigger. The woman cannot be eating more then the men?

This also supports the idea that woman, especially black woman, being a much choosier sex, are even in taking a man weight into consideration and many a fat black men are disadvantaged; unless they are really cool alpha males that can use their weight to achieve a great presents.

Not a great understanding of genetics. Most conditions even genetic ones are not a result of single genes. Single gene conditions are rarer. There are many more genes in a sponge than there are human genes. I would like to see this evidence you talk of a fat gene.

Yes it is true that through experimentation they have found some people are unable to exceed a certain weight, how this in itself does not mean there is a fat gene or even a thin gene. In fact it still doesn't conclusively prove there is genetic link to weight. even if may be likely there is some connection to weight. This is how real science works not the wild speculation and assumption chaining.

You seem to be confusing evolution with what you happen to think evolution is. Behaviour itself is not evolution, but is connected remotely through chains of events. Evolution is not conscious, it does not think, it is merely what is happening in the present.

I can't help but disagree with many of your evolutionary theories since you tend to skip and disregard that other factors may be involved such as genetics. True most people are able to lose and gain weight but there are those who have a genetic tendency to gain weight based on an imbalance of hormones, inactive thyroid, slow metabolism, and body build...etc.

Nevertheless, your posts never cease to entertain me with your comic euphemisms and picturesque metaphors.....

I wouldn't say there's a fat gene per se, but something close to it -- a gene that determines how to process starch, and how quickly you do so.

2 Cases I can think of, one personal --

I knew a family when I was a kid, where the Mom was obese (like 5 feet tall but 300+ pounds), the oldest son was obese, and the daughter was obese. The father was skinny and the middle brother was as well. The kids were the spitting image of the parents. Everyone ate the same starch-heavy diet -- I know, because I used to eat dinner with them on different occasions. All had about the same level of physical activity. In this case, it is quite clear that genetics is at work, and that a certain gene is more dominant in the mom, sister, and son, than the other two family members (or maybe the skinny ones have a fat-burning gene that is busier than the rest of the family).

Another example -- certain Native populations of North America and Africa developed for thousands of years in condition where high-starch foods were very hard to come by. There were no potatoes, corn crops were minimal due to harsh climate and poor soil quality, etc. All of a sudden, things have changed, and high-starch foods like the potato are everywhere. I saw a Nova episode on PBS many years back where they focused in on an Indian reservation in Arizona or New Mexico. The Native Americans there were all grossly obsese, yet had the same McDonald's oriented diet (so fried starch, basically) as everyone else in the area, yet they blew up like balloons while their Caucasian neighbors did not.

It's plain to see there is a gene or set of genes that makes one individual fat in the same conditions that someone else might not get obese in. Scientists can already breed mice with these qualities -- why would humans be any different?

duplicate

Last edited by billsmithglendale on 02 Jul 2009, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

People here are confusing between fatness (which is the excess of fat) and obesity which is a medical condition. Obesity causes fatness but fatness is not always caused by obesity.

Some no-initially-obese people tend to gain weight faster than others, that's where the "fat gene(s)" theory comes from.

I wasn't completely accurate. As I know that if any part of the human condition was down to a single gene, that gene could easily turned on or off. What I ment by gene is many gene(s) or whatever method the body used to send similar charactoristics to the next generations as a part of evolution.



It it had for me to believe that there is are other consistent factor that makes black woman much bigger then black men on average.

It is hard to believe that the two people can eat the same amount of food and one is 18 stone and the other is 7 and it isn't an inhereted condition.

Are they not inherited condition passed on to the next generation.

Because it isn't our best interest to balieve it regardless of overwhelming scientific evidance.

Ummm.....yes and no.

but fatness also significantly increases the death rate at childbirth, I don't think this is evolutionary advantageous in that regard....