Revisiting the evolutionary origins of obesity: lazy versus peppy‐thrifty genotype hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent global obesity epidemic is attributed to major societal and environmental changes, such as excessive energy intake and sedentary lifestyle. However, exposure to 'obesogenic' environments does not necessarily result in obesity at the individual level, as 40-75% of body mass index variation in population is attributed to genetic differences. The thrifty genotype theory posits that genetic variants promoting efficient food sequestering and optimal deposition of fat during periods of food abundance were evolutionarily advantageous for the early hunter-gatherer and were positively selected. However, the thrifty genotype is likely too simplistic and fails to provide a justification for the complex distribution of obesity predisposing gene variants and for the broad range of body mass index observed in diverse ethnic groups. This review proposes that gene pleiotropy may better account for the variability in the distribution of obesity susceptibility alleles across modern populations. We outline the lazy-thrifty versus peppy-thrifty genotype hypothesis and detail the body of evidence in the literature in support of this novel concept. Future population genetics and mathematical modelling studies that account for pleiotropy may further improve our understanding of the evolutionary origins of the current obesity epidemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".