Mr. William Saletan,

Thank you for the clarification. I vaguely understood your point from last week's article, but it is now crystal clear and well taken. The broader point notwithstanding, your intimation that people "cursed with bad metabolism" do not bear the same level of personal responsibility as others, presumably those with a "normal" or "good" metabolism, when it comes to their obesity seems odd to me. What is a "normal" metabolism? Aren't we all responsible for being aware, to the extent possible, of the genetic hand we've been dealt? Wouldn't the very nature of personal responsibility require such people to realize that if they eat what is socially considered "normal" and still continue to gain weight at an unhealthy rate, they need to change their behavior? Are we more permissive of alcoholics and drug addicts who have a family history or some other predisposition toward substance abuse?

Your article of September 2, 2006 was fascinating in its juxtaposition of how humans evolved to survive periods of scarcity and the resultant irony of the current food surplus. It further points out the relatively recent link between poverty and obesity, primarily due to the creativity of the commercial "food" industry. In my opinion, in the United States at least, the only reasonable "excuses" for obesity are related to lack of education and/or economic well-being. I'm perfectly fine with whatever choices people make for themselves (I may be at my ideal weight but I'm also a fan of cigarettes, caffeine, and cocktails) but our education system should start treating junk food and fast food a little more like it treats cigarettes and alcohol, so that children grow up knowing it's not really "food" in the sense of necessary sustenance, but rather a treat that is enjoyable in moderation but potentially harmful.

Stigma is the wrong word, but education and responsibility are critical.

The broader point notwithstanding, your intimation that people "cursed with bad metabolism" do not bear the same level of personal responsibility as others, presumably those with a "normal" or "good" metabolism, when it comes to their obesity seems odd to me. What is a "normal" metabolism? Aren't we all responsible for being aware, to the extent possible, of the genetic hand we've been dealt? Wouldn't the very nature of personal responsibility require such people to realize that if they eat what is socially considered "normal" and still continue to gain weight at an unhealthy rate, they need to change their behavior?

That is an excellent point, and one that people tend to dust under the rug for the sake of political correctness.

In general, I find that there's a lot of confusion about metabolism. Many people claim they are "genetically cursed," have a "slow metabolism," or "just can't seem to lose weight." But what are they saying? Are there really legions of people who, if they adopted a sensible but strict daily caloric deficit, centered their diets on lean proteins and complex carbohydrates, and engaged in regular weight-bearing and cardiovascular exercise, their bodies would not change?

No, absolutely not. The real basis for these complaints is that such people have to work harder than others to achieve the same result. Some of this is genetic -- some people are more prone to storing an extra calorie as fat, whereas others are more prone to burning it off as heat. (I'm on the unlucky end of that dealing, so I know.) But there is enough within one's control that almost any person can lose weight if he or she sticks to the right program. Discipline, desire, and a belief that it is possible are all you need to succeed.

If physicians, scientists, and the media would refocus on the tried-and-true (proper diet + cardio + weights = physical fitness), and ignore so many of the fad theories and genetic excuses that demoralize people, everyone would be much better off.