more than genetics

there was an article in the NY Times health & fitness blog that came out recently that i wanted to touch on. i see it as a motivation destroyer, not just for anyone trying to metamorphose from inactive sedentary lifestyles to more active energetic ones, but for anyone trying to make something better with their lives, and so i wanted to deal with it head-on.

the article relates to genetics, and references a European medical science paper that observes that people's propensity to exercise is in part a function of their genetics. you can see the article here:

• http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/phys-ed-do-our-genes-influence-our-desire-to-exercise/

this is not a new thesis. there have been prior studies done indicating a link between genetic makeup and exercise. you can compare the above to the following sample of material on the subject:

• http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/genetics-primer-for-exercise-science-and-health
• http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/59439.php
• http://newsblaze.com/story/20061011201420nnnn.nb/topstory.html
• http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392691
  

all the research deals with the issue of exercise and genetics from various angles, but essentially finds the same things, in that genetics determine 1) your body's capacity to accommodate an exercise regimen; 2) your body's ability to adjust to exercise (and hence, ability to pursue a fitness regime), 3) your mental/emotional proclivity to engage in exercise; and 4) your mental/emotional response to exercise. in short, the research suggests that genetics determine your potential for fitness.

while i won't disagree with the medical science, i do want to point out an issue with it. i see a problem in how the research may be interpreted, in that it is entirely possible--and entirely too easy--for people to take the science and use it as an excuse to quit or avoid fitness regimes and as a justification for inactive or sedentary lifestyles. that is, it's entirely conceivable that a person will take these studies and say "geez, no wonder i hate exercise so much, it's in my genes," from which point it's an easy step to say "geez, i must not be meant to exercise, it's in my genes." in which case, the loss of motivation is inevitable.

i think that's the wrong logic to apply. to me, the science simply explains the variation in human responses to exercise and the differences in human fitness. it doesn't make a broad leap to then say our lifestyles (including active ones) are predetermined. that is something beyond the genetics.

the research itself suggests this. the NY Times article notes that the European study surmises that genetics only comprises a percentage of our relationship to exercise. the researchers in the study give a figure of 60%, citing that the remaining 40% is a function of personal choices. even then, i suspect that these figures are just speculation, and something highly susceptible to a host of extraneous variables (i.e., family, community, work, lifestyle, etc.). our exercise and fitness levels, in other words, are not purely genetically predetermined, but instead very much affected by the way we live our lives.

i came across a couple of other pieces that state exactly this. our exercise and fitness is more than just our genetics. in fact, our lives as a whole are more than just our genetics. reference this article from the LA Times and a subsequent reader response:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/health/la-he-epigenetics-20100503
• http://www.healthkey.com/family/sns-health-dna-referees-epigenetics,0,6425344.story
• http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-he-letters-20100517-10,0,2057895.story
  

the studies referenced in these pieces support the notion that our genetics do not necessarily determine our destiny. they point to other factors that influence our behavior.

particularly interesting are the arguments made by epigenetics, which is a subfield studying how environmental variables affect the behavior of genetics. this are of research is finding that 1) genetic traits, while coded in our genes, are not always active, meaning that they are not always expressed, 2) the expression of genetic traits are influenced by external factors, namely our environment (i.e., family, community, work, lifestyle, etc.), and 3) despite our genes, we still have the ability choose what kinds of lives we want--unhealthy, self-destructive ones or healthy, constructive ones.

the logical implication of this is that genetics are not an excuse for the condition of our lives. we are still ultimately responsible for our behavior and ourselves. we are not just about genetics, but about our environment, and our environment is something that we can control. we can choose how we live and what we do and who we associate with. we can choose between things that make us worse versus things that make us better. we can choose between lives of misery and waste versus lives of joy and fulfillment. we can choose.

which means that we, and we alone, are ultimately responsible for our what happens with our own lives. we may not have a say in the way we start it, but we do have a say in the way we behave during it and we do have a say in the way we finish it. we, in short, make our own destiny.

which means that we, regardless of who we are, should not give up. we should not give up on making something better out of our lives. we should not give up on our dreams. we should not give up on who we are or who we were meant to be.

we should not give up on ourselves.