You must log in or register to comment.

basmwklz OP t1_j2ll0v1 wrote

Abstract: >Elevated body mass index (BMI) is heritable and associated with many health conditions that impact morbidity and mortality. The study of the genetic association of BMI across a broad range of common disease conditions offers the opportunity to extend current knowledge regarding the breadth and depth of adiposity-related diseases. We identify 906 (364 novel) and 41 (6 novel) genome-wide significant loci for BMI among participants of European (N~1.1 million) and African (N~100,000) ancestry, respectively. Using a BMI genetic risk score including 2446 variants, 316 diagnoses are associated in the Million Veteran Program, with 96.5% showing increased risk. A co-morbidity network analysis reveals seven disease communities containing multiple interconnected diseases associated with BMI as well as extensive connections across communities. Mendelian randomization analysis confirms numerous phenotypes across a breadth of organ systems, including conditions of the circulatory (heart failure, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation), genitourinary (chronic renal failure), respiratory (respiratory failure, asthma), musculoskeletal and dermatologic systems that are deeply interconnected within and across the disease communities. This work shows that the complex genetic architecture of BMI associates with a broad range of major health conditions, supporting the need for comprehensive approaches to prevent and treat obesity.


powabiatch t1_j2lzr0n wrote

How did they control for community-associated dietary/exercise differences?


Terri_Schiavo275 t1_j2m3yzf wrote

So let’s say you were skinny, got fat for awhile, then worked your ass off (literally) and got skinny again. If you had a child after you got skinny again do your children still have the same risk factors? Is this a BMI at time of conception to birth thing? Or is it once you become fat your children have higher risk factors regardless?

Edit: spelling


Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j2mrix6 wrote

It's strictly looking at BMI and DNA.

So the answer to the question would be found by giving the kid a DNA test, and deriving a polygenic score from the results.


Jumpy-Effective-1151 t1_j2mdib3 wrote

I think it counts from the moment of pregnancy with the said child. I remember other studies suggesting that obese mothers already predispose their children for illness while they're in the womb. And some other studies suggesting inheritance of habits and patterns that form in childhood. It all can affect their future already. I doubt that there is any link if parents were obese in their own childhood. They probably overcame their predispositions a will pass on good habits and enviornment to their children. Just my opinion. Might be wrong.


Accidental-Genius t1_j2lnmj4 wrote

So should insurance be covering liposuction?


xnxkq t1_j2mtqhe wrote

Liposuction is not effective in the long-term, and there is no evidence that it improves any disease state, so no.

That said, insurance should 100% cover medical weight loss interventions.


TheDovahofSkyrim t1_j2mvuaf wrote

At the very least healthcare should be cheaper for individuals who can prove somehow that they are active for over 150+ minutes a week. I feel like this would go a long way to help the medical system and encourage people.

“Oh, this gym membership costs me $350 a year, but it is saving me $500 a year in medical insurance”.

I know it would be tricky to prove, but I’m sure there’s people with jobs in the industry who could figure out a way to make it work to a reasonable degree.


Xx_1918_xX t1_j2o0szh wrote

15+ hours a week maybe? 150+ leaves very little sleep time?

But ya, preventative care, mental health care, diet & exercise. These would all save people money, enhance quality of life, and reduce strain on the healthcare system. Things that should happen naturally in a 'free market,' allegedly.


IAm-The-Lawn t1_j2o5ojl wrote

You only need 6 hours of workout a week to get into good shape. 150 hours out of 168 hours a week and you’d probably be dead, given you would be sleeping about 2.5 hours a night.

Edit: Also, there are Wellness benefits that make your medical premiums cheaper depending on your employer. Exercise counts in one way or another.


AutoModerator t1_j2lkxzg wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


camynnad t1_j2mwwwm wrote

BMI is a horribly misguided measure to use that relays little of medical significance.


Final_Philosopher663 t1_j2my3tq wrote

BMI is a tool and we need to know when and how to use it. Your statement its like saying a scale is bad because it doesn't accurately depict body fat % /bone density/height etc. A tool is a tool , know how and when to use it.


Triumphant_Rider t1_j2n8g2i wrote

Agreed. As a dietitian, I have patients with an elevated BMI all of the time, and I commonly tell them not to use the number as a basis of their health, but a piece of the puzzle. BMI does not mean any ONE thing, but it definitely helps guide us for an overall picture of the patient and changes in BMI over time can help us decide if our interventions are working to a degree.

It’s also why we stress “non-scale” victories. These are improvements in health independent of any changes in the scale or BMI. Maybe their labs are improving, or they’re sleeping better, eating a whole balanced diet, pants fitting better etc. BMI guides, but is not the prime target of intervention