Mice Given an Experimental Gene Therapy Don't Get Fat (boingboing.net) 167
AmiMoJo shares a report from Boing Boing: Researchers at Flinders University knocked out a gene known as RCAN1 in mice, hypothesizing that this would increase "non-shivering thermogenesis," which "expends calories as heat rather than storing them as fat" -- the mice were fed a high-calorie diet and did not gain weight. In particular, the modified mice did not store fat around their middles -- a phenomenon associated with many health risks, including cardiac problems -- and their resting muscles burned more calories.
[Vice News reports:] The study's authors point out that there's a time and place for RCAN1's role in preventing calories from being burned: namely, back when food was scarce and calories weren't so readily available. In the modern world of "caloric abundance," however, too much fat is being stored and real health problems are ensuing as a result. The researchers suggest that "These adaptive avenues of energy expenditure [such as RCAN1] may now contribute to the growing epidemic of obesity." "We looked at a variety of different diets with various time spans from eight weeks up to six months," said Damien, "and in every case we saw health improvements in the absence of the RCAN1 gene. "Mice on a high-fat diet that lacked this gene gained no weight."
[Vice News reports:] The study's authors point out that there's a time and place for RCAN1's role in preventing calories from being burned: namely, back when food was scarce and calories weren't so readily available. In the modern world of "caloric abundance," however, too much fat is being stored and real health problems are ensuing as a result. The researchers suggest that "These adaptive avenues of energy expenditure [such as RCAN1] may now contribute to the growing epidemic of obesity." "We looked at a variety of different diets with various time spans from eight weeks up to six months," said Damien, "and in every case we saw health improvements in the absence of the RCAN1 gene. "Mice on a high-fat diet that lacked this gene gained no weight."
Wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to get the body to burn more calories is the wrong way to solve the obesity problem. People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories, not burn more. Eating less saves money and time you would otherwise need for food and eating. Also, increasing metabolism most likely has bad side effects on longer term, such as higher rates of cancer due to increased oxidative stress.
Of course, it's hard to make a profit on people eating less.
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with eating less, which was the original premise?
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not ideal for long term use, but as a way to lose weight it's very promising.
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
This gene seems to fix that. Say it could be turned on and off at will, or perhaps turned off but then the body regulated with medication instead. People could maintain a healthy 2500 calories/day diet with all the nutrition they need, and still lose weight and then maintain at that level.
Re: (Score:1)
When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode.
Source with actual measurements ?
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an interesting study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
A more readable write-up here: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
TL;DR the people studied lost weight but ended up in an unsustainable position, and put a lot of it back on. Not to mention the other health problems they suffered as a result.
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
There has never been a fat person who did not shed massive weight when reduced intake is combined with real physical activity.
Go read Gary Taubes' book "Why we get fat". He has an entire section of the book that covers individual and population studies of people who did demanding physical labor and gained weight, everything from oil field workers to a group sedentary people who trained for and ran a marathon and dropped only an average of about 5 pounds. This is the larger problem with the obesity debate. So much emphasis is on calorie reduction, exercise and the inevitable character critique that comes from berating "lazy fat people" who can't lose weight and keep eating".
There's almost no emphasis on the nature of the calories consumed and their relationship to the body's metabolic processes of lipogenesis. We've known that insulin controls lipogenesis and what causes insulin production, yet we're still talking about only in terms of calories eaten.
I actually gave very low carb eating a try, and in about six months I'd dropped about 20-odd pounds without any exercising and without any calorie/intake regulation. I simply ate low carb foods when I was hungry. Say what you will, but it worked and I'm fairly convinced Taubes and low-carb are onto something.
What's kind of interesting and telling are the substantial number of people who are militantly opposed to anti-obesity strategies that don't involve caloric restriction and regimented exercise. It's like a religion. If they invented a cheap and safe pill that let people cut their weight without doing anything I'm convinced the diet-and-exercise crowd would still oppose it. Why? Most of diet-and-exercise is just moralizing. I'm sure we'd see arguments like "the anti-fat pill is bad for the environment because people are creating too much trash and sewage with their overconsumption." The responses are akin to telling a Catholic you can get into heaven without believing or praying to God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...higher rates of cancer due to increased oxidative stress."
Source with actual measurements ?
Re:Wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
Reduce intake to somewhat below that required to maintain current body weight and then start exercising to burn more. No starvation mode, more calories are used to build muscle. Gradually step down intake as the stomach get accustomed to less food, step up exercise as the body get accustomed to being used for what it was evolved for. But it isn't a quick fix - which is what most people want.
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
If it really was that simple we wouldn't have the problems we have with obesity.
We could argue about where the problem lies, but it's pointless. Even if it is just people with no willpower and too lazy, how does knowing that help? We have tried shaming and berating, it doesn't work.
What does work is surgery, but that's drastic. This looks like a good option.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree that genetic engineering is a less drastic solution than surgery. Especially since you'd likely have to make the call for your kids, rather than yourself.
Still, at first glance it seems like it might be a fairly benevolent modification to actively spread in the species. It'll probably give a rough time to our descendants in places and times where civilization has collapsed, but those will hopefully be only fill a tiny percentage of our future.
Re:Wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if everything you think you know about me is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think some of them just assume that anyone who criticises the US must hate America.
Well, the other bit of bad reasoning is that if anyone suggests anything that doesn't fit their preferred economic model or sounds vaguely socialist then they must also hate America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are obviously under 30.
When you get to be 40, see of you still believe that.
In my case, I lost the ability to walk or perform almost any exercise for 20 years (ages 19-41). I gained a moderate amount of weight, but nearly constant dieting kept me below 290 lbs. Then I finally had a doctor that fixed what was wrong with me, and I started exercising. (My first exercise: slow the rate of fall as you slide down a wall, I kid you not)
Upon exercising (and being 40), I gained weight. I only eat 1 time a day,
Re: (Score:2)
"not everyone is like you" - I'll borrow that as a counterargument. What portion of our adult population do you think is unable to exercise? Not unwilling, not unmotivated,but physically, structurally, medically unable?
Re: (Score:1)
You are obviously under 30.
When you get to be 40, see of you still believe that.
In my case, I lost the ability to walk or perform almost any exercise for 20 years (ages 19-41). I gained a moderate amount of weight, but nearly constant dieting kept me below 290 lbs. Then I finally had a doctor that fixed what was wrong with me, and I started exercising. (My first exercise: slow the rate of fall as you slide down a wall, I kid you not)
Upon exercising (and being 40), I gained weight. I only eat 1 time a day, just to maintain. I work out heavily (extremely motivated!), and am constantly exercising.
My point: not everyone is like you, so stop acting like a butt.
His point is that you're a 1-in-a-1000 outlier. Stop being an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that Slashdot has mellowed on this issue over time. I wonder if it's because we are all ageing and starting to realize that it really isn't that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly didn't use that time to study statistics.
It didn't occur to you to not eat like a navvy if you're not, in fact, a navvy?
Re: (Score:2)
You are obviously under 30.
When you get to be 40, see of you still believe that.
I'm considerably older than that. I believe exercise is the largest factor in the obesity epidemic because of the obvious facts; most people are obese or got that way due to a horrible lifestyle. And it's basically pointless to try and argue against how lazy society has become. I've gained a lot of flexibility and strength through exercise and eating fairly healthy, so I've seen the benefits later in life.
...I only eat 1 time a day, just to maintain. I work out heavily (extremely motivated!), and am constantly exercising.
My point: not everyone is like you, so stop acting like a butt.
My point is 98% of society isn't like you either. Your motivation alone separates you from the mass
Re: (Score:2)
It totally is that simple. It's just that people start whining when you round them up and put them in camps.
We already do that, in Florida.
Not simple at all (Score:2)
Re:Wrong way (Score:4, Interesting)
It turns out that without machines to do all the heavy lifting for you, you needed to eat that much just to survive back then. And it wasn't just the men working the fields who were burning prodigious amounts of calories. This extended to the women too - no washing machine, no dishwasher, no vacuum cleaner, no blender, no prepackaged meals. You had to do all those cleaning tasks by hand, make all your meals from scratch. The women remarked that as soon as they finished cleaning up after one meal, it was time to start preparing the next meal.
Even estimates for the diets of slaves (who were not the best-fed people) put their daily caloric intake between 3000-8000 calories/day (towards the high end during harvest season). So the problem isn't that we're eating too much and we just need to eat less. We've already substantially reduced our food intake from the historical levels that our bodies are wired for. The problem is that our physical activity has decreased much more than our appetites have.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lost weight on 5000 calories a day when labouring one summer vacation. It made a lot of it move around, too - mostly upwards, though it didn't stay there when I stopped :-(
The ability to retain fat would have been a huge survival advantage back when food supply was uncertain. The chubbies would survive after the skinnies had starved. But I doubt that even in the good times food was plentiful enough for long enough that you'd get the blubbertubs you see today.
Re: (Score:2)
This (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recommended intake for an adult male is 2500/day, or 2000 for a female. Much below that and it becomes difficult to get enough nutrition and maintain energy levels.
1500 is extremely low. I presume you have spoken to a nutritionist or your doctor before adopting such an aggressive diet. Do you use supplements?
Re: Wrong way (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
Bullshit. "Starvation mode" doesn't exist, straight up*. What does happen is that you need fewer calories as you lose weight, because fat (like every other cell in your body) consumes energy: less fat means less energy consumed. The idea that your body can miraculously can metabolic efficiency just because you've lost some weight is garbage that makes absolutely no sense: our bodies have had literally millions of years of evolution to become basically as efficient as it's possible for a biological organism
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
What is "starvation mode"? It's clear you don't know the answer.
"Most people fail at losing weight because of lack of discipline."
Ah yes, the old "obesity is a character issue" argument. In other words, I've never been fat so you're fat because you're not as good as me.
Try educating yourself. Obesity is a condition where the body believes it needs to gain weight despite having adequate energy reserves. By definition, the body operates at some level in "starvation mode".
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's worth explaining about starvation mode. It's not a medical term, it's the popular name for what happens when you reduce calorie intake. The body reacts by conserving energy, reducing the amount of energy it burns at rest, i.e. the amount it would use if you did nothing all day. This is accompanied by feeling tired and hungry.
This study and article about the study are very enlightening:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
As you can see the test group went from an av
Re: (Score:2)
Cardio is a bad, inefficient example. Weight training would be better. Lean muscle mass burns calories throughout the day, no matter what you're doing. Cardio burns calories while you're doing it. It also fights against the building of muscle mass.
Re: (Score:1)
Growing up I was a fat kid. In my early to mid twenties I reached my peak weight of 245 pounds. Then I changed my lifestyle and now at age 35 I weigh 145 pounds. I did this by cutting out sugar from my diet and exercising 1 hour a day.
I don't judge people by their weight (I was once obese myself), if someon
Re: (Score:3)
You totally failed to understand what he wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in all likelihood, all people who are obese are ill, not "a small percentage" as you claim.
First, around a third of obese people have Adenovirus-36, which is known to cause obesity in mouse studies. That's not a small percentage.
Second, nearly all obese people have a gut biome that contributes to obesity. In twin studies, when gut bacteria from an obese twin were transferr
Re: Wrong way (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do you care if someone else exercises? If fat can be kept off the body without exercise, why is that a bad thing?
Re: Wrong way (Score:1)
Exercise has almost nothing to do with weight loss, run the numbers for yourself. It is good for health though, just not weight loss.
You are clueless man (Score:3)
Re:Wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to get the body to burn more calories is the wrong way to solve the obesity problem. People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories, not burn more.
It's certainly one solution, but it's a bit like saying the only right way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies is abstinence. I love eating food, like sex I know it's just evolution hard-wiring survival and reproduction into my pleasure centers but nothing is going to stop me wanting to dig into a juicy steak. It's the flavors, texture and smell that makes me want it, the calorie intake is just one tiny bit though I suppose you couldn't get the sugar rush without actually consuming the sugar but I wouldn't mind something like a "condom" for my stomach that sent the calories straight through. Or sent my metabolism into hyperactive like I was running for miles to work it off, burning it away.
Eating less saves money and time you would otherwise need for food and eating. Also, increasing metabolism most likely has bad side effects on longer term, such as higher rates of cancer due to increased oxidative stress.
I doubt that, athletes that during their career have eaten and spent way more calories than average don't seem to suffer any ill effects. Sure, it would probably be a really bad idea to change it permanently if you ever got lost and had to live off very few calories in an emergency. And it certainly could be hard to get off the mental addiction that you can just gorge on anything without getting fat if you lost access to the calorie blockers. From an environmental perspective it's a waste. But from a personal perspective I'd like to eat my cake and have my waistline too. There's no doubt that I'm overweight and my health would be substantially improved if I was thinner, but dieting sucks. It certainly works, but it's always going to suck.
It''s NOT people/eating. It's Leptin resistance! (Score:1)
It's closer to a drug addiction by a drug you aren't aware of taking!
Please stop spreading this meme, that "eating less" would solve anything, and especially that it's those people's fault, as is such a, no offense, typical meme in the US! It's especially insulting, given where that meme originated.
Such people have a gigantic leptin resistance. (Actually, we all have, compared to healthy standards.)
Leptin is the messenger that tells the body you had enough. If the body gets way too much of it via external m
Re: It''s NOT people/eating. It's Leptin resistanc (Score:1)
Sometimes I read these long posts in their entirety and easily find many things wrong with it from the very first sentence to the last. That is my skeptical life. Wish you could have been there for the rest of it you would see how difficult it is to fool someone who reads the whole thing every single time. Pardon my language but holy moly
Re: (Score:2)
Time spent eating is not wasted time but time well spent. ...
In some nations people eat to fast
People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories
For many fat people that is not the problem, but a messed up metabolizm is.
However you are right that increasing the burn rate most likely has negative side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible. Fasting, by definition, means not eating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether you have to chase the fast food or can just shoot it from the comfort of your chair.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trying to get the body to burn more calories is the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
And that's not what's being done here.
Advocating solutions known not to work is also "the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
Nice try disguising the same old "obesity is a character issue" claim.
Re: (Score:1)
"Trying to get the body to burn more calories is the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
And that's not what's being done here.
Advocating solutions known not to work is also "the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
Nice try disguising the same old "obesity is a character issue" claim.
For the majority of fat people, it is a character issue.
Count the number fat prisoners from holocaust camps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suggesting torture as an example of weight loss is a character issue.
Who suggested that? Pointing out that people forced into low-cal diets don't gain weight isn't "suggesting torture".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anybody claimed that people who are starved don't lose weight. So if you are not claiming that people who have trouble losing weight should literally torture themselves to lose weight what point are you trying to make?
I'm suggesting that people should ingest fewer calories than they expend if they want to stop being fat. It's a stretch to call that "torture"; having one less meal a day is not "torture".
Re: Wrong way (Score:2, Interesting)
You are not wrong, but the fix is not to say "so stop doing that" as clearly many cannot. Also, with gene's playing a part in whether fat accumulates or not... perhaps some people have a stronger propensity towards accumulation than others. If that is the case, it is also a medical condition. You COULD eat less and exercise 3 hours a day... just like someone on dialysis can be hooked up to a machine for hours each day. But we seek to heal these issues.
Re: (Score:3)
"People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories..."
Exactly what this is targeting, despite your inability to understand it. People are not fat because of the desire to consume more, they desire to consume more because something is wrong.
One of the oldest, tired-est cliches among the pretend intelligencia here is "correlation is not causation". Well, eating more certainly correlates with obesity but "correlation is not causation". I find it interesting how no one here ever seems to get that when i
Re: (Score:1)
Well eating less certainly correlates with emaciation.
But "correlation is not causation". Anorexics run a lot. Auschwitz was full of bulimics, right.
Re:Wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty dumb. Some people can eat whatever they want and stay skinny. Some people have to work really hard. As long as being thin is an advantage, I see no reason to work hard to get it.
If there were a gene that made you smarter, would you write something like "you should just read more books"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am in full agreement that this approach is the wrong way to solve the problem, but believe that science needs to figure out ways to allow people to ingest less calories, not the "people" in general.
If a medicinal regimen was so hard to stick to that less than 10% managed to do so, the FDA wouldn't even consider approving it. They routinely deny approval in those situations. The same should apply to doctor's advice. No doctor should be able to prescribe a course of therapy doomed to failure in most situati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why? From the philosophical aspect it is analogous to contraception vs not having sex at all. From the health aspect we should evaluate each particular treatment. OK, for the environment growing and eating more food than necessary certainly isn't ideal.
Could be useful if they learn more. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure some here will say "this sounds unnatural and all people need is discpline" and you know, a speech like that is correct.
Life is also too damn short and some of us genuinely do have a pretty poor metabolism, or in my case I've now gained and lost weight so many times, I have the excess fat cells in me, which is hard to get rid of (read up on it, fat cells get bigger and small for you, unless you REALLY push too far, THEN they multiply)
If you said to me "you can take this drug, with 0 current side effects, but you'll live 2 years shorter" I'd take it.
Heck, hypothetically if they made another one for free time "you can take this drug, sleep 3 hours a night and feel totally and utterly normal and well rested, but you lose 5 more years" I'd take that too.
Cut Heating Bills? (Score:1)
This also sounds like a great way to considerably reduce heating bills. I always thought it was absurd to heat a whole house just to warm the people inside it as you're likely heating an area that's hundreds of times the volume of the people in the house. It would be far better to simply heat the people, but that has traditionally been challenging and impractical as you would have to wear clothes containing heating elements and carry a power source.
If this converts energy to body heat then you could stay
A good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obesity is associated with many illnesses, ailments and diseases. But obesity is also a symptom. I would hazard a guess that people who do not move enough to burn the calories they consume will still be prone to most of these problems whether they store excess calories or not.
The associated issues with this are numerous. If we provide gene therapy that would discontinue storing excess calories, it would allow more people to overindulge. That would increase consumption and place an additional burden on the supply chain and the natural resources of the planet overall.
People would live longer while burdening society. Obesity is one of the few remaining tools nature has of balancing itself.
Consider stupid other things. If you consume more (and we will) and your body lacks the facilities to store it in quantity, it will be ejected more often. This means that we will use toilets more.
What will be the added cost of fresh water consumption and toilet paper usage? Using a bidet could alleviate portions of the paper related issues, but unless it were supplied by recycled water, the environmental impact of the additional water consumption would be outrageous and likely untenable.
I am quite sure this is a very very bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL what a stupid take. If put more intelligently put it could qualify as a troll.
Perhaps what we need is mandatory gene therapy for /. trolls that ensures non-curable cancer by age 40. This would reduce burden on society, reduce consumption, and ease pressure on fresh water and toilets. I'm quite sure this would be a very very good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
comfort and stress - Re:A good thing? (Score:2)
That would apply to the shorter term. Now look longer, when civilization falls, and we need conserve calories again and can't (we'd gamble on some natural selection recreating that gene effect in order to come out the other side still a species...)
The other thought I had was regarding a big root cause - habitual overeating for comf
Not so much (Score:4, Insightful)
Brain surgery. (Score:3)
Re:Brain surgery. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely you are aware that many people can afford neither the time nor the money to have "three meals a day from fresh vegetables they pick up in the farmer's market", right?
Re: Brain surgery. (Score:1)
Be honest, they don't have the desire either. I know, I was one of them. I wouldn't eat free vegetables. Try being honest instead of being offended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brain surgery. (Score:4, Interesting)
The obvious counterargument to the notion that obesity is a person's genetic destiny is that 50 years ago, people were much less fat. 75 years ago we were slimmer still.
Unless there has been incredibly rapid natural selection for fatter genes on a massive scale, the difference has to be environmental. That's the food we eat, how and when we eat it, and the activities which burn calories. And if you look at the differences in the way people live, it's a perfect storm. People move much less -- even when controlling for how sedentary their occupations are; and they live in an environment where there is continual access to food that has been engineered to be quick and convenient to consume almost mindlessly. Honestly if it were just sandwiches, I think we'd be OK, but so much food today is designed to be psychologically rewarding but not sating. The Cheet-O is the perfect food commodity: eat one and you'll want another, and you will never feel like you've had enough, much less too much.
Genetics plays a role, sure; but the majority of healthy people will put on weight in the kind of environment we've created for ourselves. Increasingly it's the genetic outliers who don't do that.
Our attitudes toward things like hunger haven't helped. We've been trained to view ordinary hunger in an otherwise well-nourished person as a crisis to be avoided at all costs. Many doctors advise their patients to avoid it all costs by continually feeding themselves small meals. That can work, but it's extremely challenging to balance energy input and output.
If you've ever tried fasting, that all seems kind of ridiculous. You don't need food every couple of hours, you can go days without food with no harmful effects at all. Learning to treat hunger as a normal, non-urgent situation is a big part in learning not to overeat in a food-saturated world. Once you've done it a few times, you realize a hunger pang isn't an emergency alarm. It's a routine reminder to think about getting some food, one that turns off in a few minutes and can be safely ignored for a few hours or even days in a world where food is nearly always at arms reach.
Re: (Score:2)
But you are using an outdated view of genetics. Epigenetics is changing all of our assumptions. Because of epigenetics, a person's genetic program can be adapted to their environment in their lifetime. We've shown that experiences can cause a semi-permanent change in an individual's genetic expression and that change can be passed on to their children. This is not a rare phenomenon but one that likely occurs across many systems in every individual.
It does seem to show up most obviously in extreme environmen
Re: (Score:2)
I credit the current situation to wealth. The same phenomenon is being seen in many other countries as they gain wealth. In general, our biological risk/reward system is out of line with the availability of calories.
We have also altered virtually every thing we eat to add to the calories. Even the lowly potato has a been bred to have lot more calories in the form of 3x the sugars that it used to have. But it is wealth that has allowed us to do that also. In many cases, we've selected breeds of foods that do
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and yes, I mostly agreed. I just balked at the requirement for an "incredibly rapid natural selection". We are an adaptive system and our biology's programming includes both ROM and FLASH that are both passed on. We "genetically" adapt to all sorts of things within our lifetime.
Yes, our environment has changed. But that change has been driven by our genetic-based biological risk reward systems when over-enabled by wealth. If we lose the wealth, it could revert. Otherwise, we cannot successfully change t
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever tried fasting, that all seems kind of ridiculous. You don't need food every couple of hours, you can go days without food with no harmful effects at all. Learning to treat hunger as a normal, non-urgent situation is a big part in learning not to overeat in a food-saturated world. Once you've done it a few times, you realize a hunger pang isn't an emergency alarm. It's a routine reminder to think about getting some food, one that turns off in a few minutes and can be safely ignored for a few hours or even days in a world where food is nearly always at arms reach.
Actually it's far more than that, us humans may not go into hibernation like bears but we are genetically programmed to deal with huge seasonal swings. Even though we've resorted to many different preservation techniques the primary method has been storing it as body fat, because food that's been in storage for months is very easily tainted. In humanity's history far more people have died from starvation than obesity. So there's an urge in all of us to fatten up to prepare, even though we don't need it righ
You are lumping everyone in one group (Score:2)
I'm Fat! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm 49 years old. I was incredibly skinny all my life (like skin and bones) until I was about 30. I had severe asthma as a kid and we were relatively poor and didn't always have enough to eat. Also, my metabolism was high. I never exercised that much due to asthma, but, I was always unhealthily skinny. I even had "low cholesterol" to the point they recommended I eat more bacon. When I joined the Army, I was 5'10" and 118lbs soaking wet. The drill sergeants made me eat double meals to put on weight in Basic
Re: (Score:2)
I am about the same age. I was feeling very sick when 30 doing to weight and shed all that weight with a very aggressive diet.
Case in point, drinking only water, avoiding bread, cheese and milk, and sweets, and maybe even coffee helps your body process better the food. Also port
Fat metabolism is ultimately controlled by genes! (Score:2)
Who woulda thunk it.
The true solution (Score:2)
Gene editing is not the fix - Keto and Fasting is (Score:1)
The whole eat less/move more idea (cut calories in, burn more with exercise) does NOT have lasting effects. Studies as far back as the early 1900's have shown this. Every major study around the world that has looked at this has shown this is the case.
It's complicated and this is a super abbreviated explanation but:
Insulin creates fat
High sugar (carbs, carbs, carbs) create insulin.
Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What could possibly go wrong?
As to long term effects of keto diet: you are right - we only have about the last 100,000 years of human evolution as a trial. We should wait another 100,000 just to be safe and instead stick with the over processed, refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweetener, carbohydrate and empty calorie diet that has only been around for the last 50 or 60 years and has made everybody ob
"New diet pill turns fat into heat!...." (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is being withheld this vital slimming treatment, you sick libs? TRAITORS! I'm calling the Russians, you'll be sorry!
Which is probably a good thing. Would you want to see Trump going around naked and sweaty everywhere? North Korea would probably launch the missiles it lied about destroying.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, some people doesn't need brains to succeed and some others want their dicks to fall off. ;P
Re: (Score:2)