A diet that works?

The obesity crisis is becoming yet another defining problem of our society, however unlike global warming and the AIDS epidemic, researchers and politicians are in this instance largely focused on saving the nation's children- presumably they assume its too late for the rest of us. It must be admitted, they do have a point- after all ,if Whitney Houston is to be believed, 'the children are our future'- and no-one really wants the human race of the future to be spherical balls of adipose tissue rather than super-intelligent cybernetic hybrids, do they?
Increasingly research into the 'obesity epidemic' is turning up more and more genetic components to weight gain, however it is important to note (because a failure to do so would be to enrage geneticists everywhere) that most of these 'fat' genes are not little switches: they might increase your risk of obesity or diabetes but your lifestyle is still the main causative factor (many loci influencing such traits account for less than 1% of variation).
One of the more interesting areas of this research is investigating the importance of eating rate in weight gain and the degree to which it is heritable. It is generally accepted that there is a positive correlation between eating rate and the amount of food consumed- a statement that led to my grandmother winning a long-term argument to the effect that eating slowly would make me lose weight- it seems, frustratingly, that once again she was right.
One study by Llewellyn et al. published in 2008, examined this correlation by filming 254 pairs of twins aged 10-12 eating a normal meal at home, then analysing the footage to identify eating rate and quantity eaten. The children were classed as obese, overweight, higher normal weight and lower normal weight and all were given more food than they could eat.
The results showed that the more overweight the child was, the faster they ate and, in addition, that the lower normal weight group ate significantly less than the obese or overweight groups. They also found a higher correlation of eating rate in eating rate between identical twins than there were between non-identical (fraternal) twins- results consistent with strong evidence for a genetic component.
Despite this evidence of heritability however, the study urged that early promotion of slower eating for children could lower the mean population weight and help control obesity, even citing a study in which it was found that simply encouraging children to put their knife and fork down between bites succeeded in both slowing eating rate and reducing the amount of food eaten over a six month period.
So for once it seems the older generation has the right of it: sitting down to dinner at the table and not bolting your food can benefit families- not because their children will become better mannered but because they'll significantly reduce their food bill.
So have geneticists unwittingly found a diet that works? I say its worth a try- after all its got to be better than eating half a grapefruit

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/6/1560

What, why and when- getting started

Science is not something anyone can escape from anymore- and by science here I mean research, new finds and the general activity of the scientific community rather than science itself because science is everything. Most major newspapers these days have a 'science' column of some sort and the big headlines often feature scientific research, wonder drugs, global warming, the fuel crisis, swine flu, GM crops and many more topics of a scientific nature. The problem is the terms 'mass media' and 'accuracy' don't exactly walk hand in hand into the sunset- in fact the situation is more like a western-style stand-off and accuracy is the cowboy who fired just a fraction too late. Even reputable magazines like the new scientist can be guilty of biased reporting and even without that if you're anything like me, you'll find the New Scientist can be just a little too focused on the cutting edge sometimes and you find yourself flicking through the five page article on the Large Hadron Collider and Yet Another Article on Why the Planet is Doomed to get to the funny bit at the back.
With this blog I want to look less at whats new and more at whats interesting- hence the name: Blonde Science is a self-mocking reference to my hair colour and its associated character traits, but the idea is that the science reported here will largely be 'fluffy'- things that might not be ground-breaking but that are far more likely to interest people and to relate to their daily lives. Despite this, nothing will be made up or over-exaggerated; everything I write about I will have read about first if its within my purvue or will have had carefully explained to me by one of my exceedingly boffin-like science friends if it isn't. In addition a link to at least one relevant scientific article will be posted at the bottom of each entry so you can judge for yourself.
I will most probably update once a week- more if I'm procrastinating, less if my dissertation heats up (its my final year so I need to be indulged :P).
I think I'm going to enjoy writing this and I hope you enjoy reading it- well I hope you read it at all actually.