Seems to me evolution found a solution to human obesity problem (Familial natural short sleep). Do you agree with my reasoning?

Submitted by alex20_202020 t3_11pzib2 in Futurology

Couple of days ago when reading about sleep I've found about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_natural_short_sleep

>Familial natural short sleep is a rare, genetic, typically inherited trait where an individual sleeps for less hours than average without suffering from daytime sleepiness or other consequences of sleep deprivation.
>
>This trait is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait
>
>Another common trait among people with familial natural short sleep is an increased ability at recalling memories. Other common traits include outgoing personality, high productiveness, lower body mass index than average (possibly due to faster metabolism), higher resilience and heightened pain tolerance.

>This condition has no known health complications associated with it.

>It is estimated that approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population has the trait

​

Key facts: the train is dominant and results in lower body mass index than average (possibly due to faster metabolism). If it's dominant, results in higher productivity and w/out adverse effects, why it is in only 1-3%? My guess is because 100 years ago food was scarce and faster metabolism was not an advantage, now that obesity is more of a problem than hunger, the trait will increase its prevalence (provided no "revolutions" in human development and life) and gradually obesity will be gone. Does above sound reasonable? Please argue with me. TIA

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nurse-robot t1_jc0pwwt wrote

Evolution doesn't work like it used to for us. If the obese individual still reproduces as much as the person with this mutation does, there's no evolutionary advantage.

23

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc0qtnr wrote

It is valid point. Still I don't think situation is as bad as depicted in Idiocracy movie.

−5

Kelsey473 t1_jc1oojg wrote

Maybe not but Nurse-Robots observation is correct .. Evolution does NOT work good/bad it works on selection pressure, so the tiny number of people with the genes you talk of would need to breed VASTLY more than those without

SO

What the selection pressure to allow that to occur? If not then no the genes wont spread

4

Bulldogsleepingonme t1_jc4sx5n wrote

well, they are thin- Plus 100 Points on tinder.

They dont sleep much... so more opportunity...

2

TheRealDestian t1_jc2f5g4 wrote

Until people start including “short sleeper” in their online dating profiles because it’s actually helping them get matches, it’s not going to make a difference.

7

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc2lz6i wrote

Disclaimer: below is a hypothesis. Please argue against if know what to say, i like to argue.

Less sleep needed means one can more likely raise a child w/out sleep deprivation. So ones with the trait night have more kids on average. Hence back to my initial statement.

1

TheRealDestian t1_jc39eib wrote

That’s an advantage, yes, as needing only four hours sleep would help with many things, but it will take tens of thousands of years for such a trait to work its way into the general population.

1

davidfry t1_jc0rddf wrote

You saw the chart on the side about how autosomal dominance works? Two parents, one of which has the trait, will churn out kids, half of which have the trait. So if 2% have it now, unless this confers a substantial benefit in the survival and reproductive success, that percentage will likely stay the same for generations to come.

Also, the Notable People on your wikipedia link includes Donald Trump, who notably, does not have a lower body mass index than average. But his short sleep schedule is potentially less natural than chemical.

2

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc0saix wrote

> substantial benefit in the survival and reproductive success

Well. I somehow thought it does, success in what society values means more sex and more children.

I've watched Idiocracy, btw and know some studies show educated westerners tend to have less kids. So it (increasing of trait prevalence) is not definitive, I asked for arguing, which you did. Thanks a lot!

−2

Corsair4 t1_jc2fmtc wrote

>know some studies show educated westerners tend to have less kids

This isn't a westerner thing, this is a "literally every economically developed country, and most developing" thing.

Every economically developed country is under replacement rate. A lot of developing countries are dropping dramatically. India went from a rate of 6.something to replacement adjacent over the course of 50 years.

It has absolutely nothing to do with sleep schedules. Birth rate drops as a society becomes more economically developed, and - crucially - women have a greater emphasis on their own education and career.

4

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc2lvci wrote

Disclaimer: below is a hypothesis. Please argue against if know what to say, i like to argue.

Less sleep needed means one can more likely raise a child w/out sleep deprivation. So ones with the trait night have more kids on average. Hence back to my initial statement.

−4

aeusoes1 t1_jc1trji wrote

The problem with the theory behind ideocracy is that it assumes human variation in intelligence is largely genetic, which is unlikely.

1

sorped t1_jc0xqvx wrote

It doesn't necesssarily result in lower BMI, it's just common along with the trait.

2

goldygnome t1_jc22618 wrote

Since short sleepers are a tiny percentage, the traits in combination must not lead to more offspring surviving very often vs a regular human.

It might make a difference for animals, but we evolved in a society where we help each other and work as a group. Doing this probably means that less desirable traits stick around.

Take myself for example. I don't have wisdom teeth and I don't get cavities at all. You'd think that would be a huge benefit since bad teeth was a big killer in the past. But no, people like me are a minority. Apparently perfect, long lasting teeth are not a major competitive advantage.

2

[deleted] t1_jc48dm9 wrote

[removed]

1

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc5i60u wrote

Maybe you are correct, relationship does not seem logical. Faster, so what? But it was said in wiki, I just quoted.

However:

You seems to draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence and also from test that cannot isolate one factor influence from others.

BTW, how was your metabolism measured?

1