Thanks for sharing. The fact that science is still delving into this and discovering new information is fascinating in itself. I remember reading a stat, pointing out that capitalism puts more money into researching male pattern baldness than into life-threatening diseases like malaria.
Down to the nitty-gritty, you’re essentially making the point that gut health is a major factor, with the microbiome playing a significant role in immune and inflammatory responses.
I don’t disagree with this at all, you’ve clearly presented the evidence that supports it. However, genetics are still foundational when it comes to baldness, and there are mountains of evidence to support this. The microbiome might act as the environmental trigger that dictates how and when those genes are expressed, but the underlying genetic predisposition, especially for androgenetic alopecia (pattern baldness), still has to exist in the first place.
Think of it like getting visible abs. You can do all the core exercises and drop your body fat, but your genetics ultimately dictate how your body stores fat and the actual shape of your abdominal muscles. If your genetics don’t favour it, it takes a significantly harder environmental effort (strict diet and training) to overcome that hurdle and get them to display.
Basically, genetics provide the foundational blueprint, and gut health acts as the environmental factor. It’s definitely more nuanced than just saying “baldness is genetic”, but it’s fundamentally not wrong to state that it’s genetic.
Think of it like getting visible abs. You can do all the core exercises and drop your body fat, but your genetics ultimately dictate how your body stores fat and the actual shape of your abdominal muscles. If your genetics don’t favour it, it takes a significantly harder environmental effort (strict diet and training) to overcome that hurdle and get them to display.
The FMT studies are certainly fascinating, but you’re fundamentally misinterpreting what that research actually proves. The microbiome doesn’t operate outside the laws of physics.
When FMT transferred obesity in those clinical studies, it didn’t mean the subjects started generating body mass out of thin air. What the research shows is that certain gut bacteria are much more efficient at extracting energy from food, and they can send signals to the brain that increase cravings for highly palatable, calorie-dense foods.
In other words, the microbiome can influence how efficiently you process calories, and it can make you feel hungrier. But it absolutely does not rewrite the first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed.
If you are consistently eating in a massive caloric surplus, you are going to gain weight, regardless of how pristine your gut health is. Conversely, you cannot maintain severe obesity in a sustained caloric deficit.
The microbiome is a modifier, it might mean someone has to work slightly harder to maintain a deficit because their gut extracts an extra 50 calories from a meal, or because their satiety signals are skewed. But using the microbiome to claim obesity “isn’t genetics” whilst simultaneously ignoring the reality of lifestyle choices, caloric intake, and personal accountability is a massive leap that the science simply does not support.
Please be better and stop trying to mislead people.
but you’re fundamentally misinterpreting what that research actually proves
You’re fundamentally misinterpreting what I’m saying.
When FMT transferred obesity in those clinical studies, it didn’t mean the subjects started generating body mass out of thin air
the microbiome can influence how efficiently you process calories, and it can make you feel hungrier. But it absolutely does not rewrite the first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed
I never made such a claim. Why are you suggesting I did? There’s something wrong with your reading comprehension.
The microbiome is a modifier, it might mean someone has to work slightly harder to maintain a deficit because their gut extracts an extra 50 calories from a meal, or because their satiety signals are skewed. But using the microbiome to claim obesity “isn’t genetics” whilst simultaneously ignoring the reality of lifestyle choices, caloric intake, and personal accountability is a massive leap that the science simply does not support.
Please be better and stop trying to mislead people.
Up until this, I was thinking you were a bot. Now I just think there’s something wrong with you. You’re the one spreading misinformation.
You made the claim:
your genetics ultimately dictate how your body stores fat and the actual shape of your abdominal muscles. If your genetics don’t favour it, it takes a significantly harder environmental effort (strict diet and training) to overcome that hurdle and get them to display
I proved that wrong. Then you replied with a bunch of irrelevant and erroneous gibberish.
Ugh, weirdo behaviour. It’s actually really disappointing that you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks (‘reading comprehension,’ ‘gibberish,’ ‘bot’) rather than engaging with the actual points I raised. Let’s clarify what’s actually happening here.
First, you are drastically misrepresenting my argument. I explicitly stated that the microbiome does act as a modifier and plays a role in how the body processes energy. My claim regarding genetics and abs was an analogy illustrating that both genetics and environmental factors (like gut health) are required to understand human physiology, a concept you seem determined to reject in favour of an ‘all or nothing’ approach where genetics play zero role.
Second, the FMT obesity study you keep relying on does not ‘prove my analogy wrong.’ It proves that gut bacteria influence energy extraction and metabolic efficiency. It does not prove that genetics are completely irrelevant to how fat is distributed or how muscle is shaped. You are taking a study about metabolic modifiers and stretching it to invalidate the entire field of human genetics.
Finally, you’re repeatedly citing humanmicrobiome.info as an authoritative counter-argument, but you conveniently omitted that you are the creator and maintainer of that website. It’s a self-published wiki run by a self-described ‘layperson’. Curating studies that support your worldview on your own personal website does not equate to a medical consensus, nor does it give you the authority to dismiss established science while insulting people who point out the nuance.
I am more than happy to discuss the fascinating role of the microbiome, but I won’t engage in a bad-faith debate where you misrepresent my words, use your own website as an independent source, and throw insults when your logic is questioned.
rather than engaging with the actual points I raised.
Yet more nonsense. I directly debunked them numerous times.
a concept you seem determined to reject in favour of an ‘all or nothing’ approach where genetics play zero role
More false statements.
Finally, you’re repeatedly citing humanmicrobiome.info as an authoritative counter-argument, but you conveniently omitted that you are the creator and maintainer of that website. It’s a self-published wiki run by a self-described ‘layperson’. Curating studies that support your worldview on your own personal website does not equate to a medical consensus, nor does it give you the authority to dismiss established science while insulting people who point out the nuance.
Irrelevant, false, and deceptive. The site lists systematic reviews, which are the top tier of evidence. You’ve presented nothing that refutes my citations.
I won’t engage in a bad-faith debate where you misrepresent my words
It’s annoying to see people so confident that “X is genetic”. Where do you get your confidence from to make such a statement?
Thanks for sharing. The fact that science is still delving into this and discovering new information is fascinating in itself. I remember reading a stat, pointing out that capitalism puts more money into researching male pattern baldness than into life-threatening diseases like malaria.
Down to the nitty-gritty, you’re essentially making the point that gut health is a major factor, with the microbiome playing a significant role in immune and inflammatory responses.
I don’t disagree with this at all, you’ve clearly presented the evidence that supports it. However, genetics are still foundational when it comes to baldness, and there are mountains of evidence to support this. The microbiome might act as the environmental trigger that dictates how and when those genes are expressed, but the underlying genetic predisposition, especially for androgenetic alopecia (pattern baldness), still has to exist in the first place.
Think of it like getting visible abs. You can do all the core exercises and drop your body fat, but your genetics ultimately dictate how your body stores fat and the actual shape of your abdominal muscles. If your genetics don’t favour it, it takes a significantly harder environmental effort (strict diet and training) to overcome that hurdle and get them to display.
Basically, genetics provide the foundational blueprint, and gut health acts as the environmental factor. It’s definitely more nuanced than just saying “baldness is genetic”, but it’s fundamentally not wrong to state that it’s genetic.
Again, it’s not genetics. The gut microbiome is heritable, and FMT can transfer obesity: https://humanmicrobiome.info/obesity/
The FMT studies are certainly fascinating, but you’re fundamentally misinterpreting what that research actually proves. The microbiome doesn’t operate outside the laws of physics.
When FMT transferred obesity in those clinical studies, it didn’t mean the subjects started generating body mass out of thin air. What the research shows is that certain gut bacteria are much more efficient at extracting energy from food, and they can send signals to the brain that increase cravings for highly palatable, calorie-dense foods.
In other words, the microbiome can influence how efficiently you process calories, and it can make you feel hungrier. But it absolutely does not rewrite the first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed.
If you are consistently eating in a massive caloric surplus, you are going to gain weight, regardless of how pristine your gut health is. Conversely, you cannot maintain severe obesity in a sustained caloric deficit.
The microbiome is a modifier, it might mean someone has to work slightly harder to maintain a deficit because their gut extracts an extra 50 calories from a meal, or because their satiety signals are skewed. But using the microbiome to claim obesity “isn’t genetics” whilst simultaneously ignoring the reality of lifestyle choices, caloric intake, and personal accountability is a massive leap that the science simply does not support.
Please be better and stop trying to mislead people.
You’re fundamentally misinterpreting what I’m saying.
I never made such a claim. Why are you suggesting I did? There’s something wrong with your reading comprehension.
Up until this, I was thinking you were a bot. Now I just think there’s something wrong with you. You’re the one spreading misinformation.
You made the claim:
I proved that wrong. Then you replied with a bunch of irrelevant and erroneous gibberish.
Ugh, weirdo behaviour. It’s actually really disappointing that you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks (‘reading comprehension,’ ‘gibberish,’ ‘bot’) rather than engaging with the actual points I raised. Let’s clarify what’s actually happening here.
First, you are drastically misrepresenting my argument. I explicitly stated that the microbiome does act as a modifier and plays a role in how the body processes energy. My claim regarding genetics and abs was an analogy illustrating that both genetics and environmental factors (like gut health) are required to understand human physiology, a concept you seem determined to reject in favour of an ‘all or nothing’ approach where genetics play zero role.
Second, the FMT obesity study you keep relying on does not ‘prove my analogy wrong.’ It proves that gut bacteria influence energy extraction and metabolic efficiency. It does not prove that genetics are completely irrelevant to how fat is distributed or how muscle is shaped. You are taking a study about metabolic modifiers and stretching it to invalidate the entire field of human genetics.
Finally, you’re repeatedly citing
humanmicrobiome.infoas an authoritative counter-argument, but you conveniently omitted that you are the creator and maintainer of that website. It’s a self-published wiki run by a self-described ‘layperson’. Curating studies that support your worldview on your own personal website does not equate to a medical consensus, nor does it give you the authority to dismiss established science while insulting people who point out the nuance.I am more than happy to discuss the fascinating role of the microbiome, but I won’t engage in a bad-faith debate where you misrepresent my words, use your own website as an independent source, and throw insults when your logic is questioned.
Yet more nonsense. I directly debunked them numerous times.
More false statements.
Irrelevant, false, and deceptive. The site lists systematic reviews, which are the top tier of evidence. You’ve presented nothing that refutes my citations.
Intense projection.