UK: BBC podcast and Maudsley Hospital blog: Janet Treasure on eating disorders and the quest for answers

F

FMMM1

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I found this interesting on a number of levels - the BPS bunch got the boot when genes turned up [it seems to be a highly genetic condition - prevalence in identical twins]! There is still a psychological treatment i.e. aimed at changing beliefs - evaluation? Trials on a drug.
My impression is that these are respectable scientists - not the usual bunch who often seem to turn up in ME/CFS!
 
FMMM1 said:
I found this interesting on a number of levels - the BPS bunch got the boot when genes turned up [it seems to be a highly genetic condition - prevalence in identical twins]! There is still a psychological treatment i.e. aimed at changing beliefs - evaluation? Trials on a drug.
My impression is that these are respectable scientists - not the usual bunch who often seem to turn up in ME/CFS!
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the BBC’s podcast The Life Scientific see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020xrk

Note It is free to listen to, but you do need to register with the BBC. I have not listened to the full 30 min yet.
 
FMMM1 said:
I found this interesting on a number of levels - the BPS bunch got the boot when genes turned up [it seems to be a highly genetic condition - prevalence in identical twins]! There is still a psychological treatment i.e. aimed at changing beliefs - evaluation? Trials on a drug.
My impression is that these are respectable scientists - not the usual bunch who often seem to turn up in ME/CFS!
Click to expand...
The twin study stuff has been the fodder of psychology for years so I wouldn’t just trust someone citing that sort thing (like you get correlations cited fir personality claims) as anyone being trustworthy or scientific , you get some naff people who do a good job on how to seem different’ or worse believe they are actually now showing they are scientific.
 
bobbler said:
The twin study stuff has been the fodder of psychology for years so I wouldn’t just trust someone citing that sort thing (like you get correlations cited fir personality claims) as anyone being trustworthy or scientific , you get some naff people who do a good job on how to seem different’ or worse believe they are actually now showing they are scientific.
Click to expand...
These (to my limited knowledge/understanding!) were objective genetic studies* i.e. not subjective psychological studies. However, it was clear that these diseases were highly genetic (based on the prevalence in identical versus non-identical twins) i.e. ideal candidates for genetic studies. We need to see the DecodeME results to see if ME/CFS is sufficiently genetic for GWAS to work, but it's already clear that ME/CFS certainly isn't as genetic as these diseases!

*
"Twin studies
To determine the genetic risk, twin studies have been performed, which have yielded a high heritability of 50–60%; for example, a large twin study performed by Bulik and colleagues led to a heritability estimation for AN of 56%, with the remaining variance attributable to both shared and unique environment factors.44 Holland and colleagues showed concordance rates for AN of 0.71 for monozygotic twins and 0.1 for dizygotic twins.45
Twin studies also revealed that genetic effects and environmental factors contribute to the liability to BN.36 BN aggregates in families of affected patients. The relative risks for BN have been reported as 4.2 and 4.4 for first-degree female relatives of patients with AN and BN, respectively.42 Twin studies of BED have reported heritability estimates between 41% and 57%, depending on the criteria for BED.46–48"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2045125318814734
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom