Carbohydrate digestion and obesity strongly linked


Do you think the official US gov. nutrient profile should be corrected given this finding?
Maybe now it should be 70%-80% of the current value for carbohydrates intake?


Very interesting article however I’m a bit confused at why this is the case.

All the article sais is:

The chance of being obese for people with less than four copies of the AMY1 gene was approximately eight times higher than in those with more than nine copies of this gene. The researchers estimated that with every additional copy of the salivary amylase gene there was approximately a 20 per cent decrease in the odds of becoming obese.

Why question is why is this the case? What is the relationship between the AMY1 gene and carb digestion / weight gain?

In regards to the articles claims on the following:

The number of copies of AMY1 can be highly variable between people, and it is believed that higher numbers of copies of the salivary amylase gene have evolved in response to a shift towards diets containing more starch since prehistoric times.

So basically the human body has been evolving over time by adding copies off this gene to aid in carb digestion. People who’s bodies are less “evolved” in this sense are at a greater risk of obesity due to sub-par carb digestion?


@croatiansoylent, no it shouldn’t be corrected, why? Because its highly variable, in which case the whole profile is a lost cause. Some people wouldn’t have an issue with the current one, some would, which means there should be more than one nutrient profiles.

@G_Force, The relationship seems to be inverse? Since its not from the original article it could be a miss type and be in need of proof reading. I also think the link to obesity is false/misconstrued. More AMY1 genes would mean more caloric intake from sugar chains like starches, which could lead to obesity, but it shouldn’t be a direct cause. But I don’t know much about the AMY1 gene, and it could be its linked to more than just aiding in carbohydrate digestion. That and there has been a bunch of bad science papers coming out, where people misconstrued their evidence or provided/used false evidence.