Bone Hormone Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

grrlscientist writes "New research has shown that the skeletal system may be an important player in preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes in animals. This may also be true for humans, and thus represents an important development for the treatment of these health conditions. From the article: 'Not only do bones produce a protein hormone, osteocalcin (pictured), that regulates bone formation, but this hormone also protects against obesity and glucose intolerance by increasing proliferation of pancreatic beta cells and their subsequent secretion of insulin. Osteocalcin was also found to increase the body's sensitivity to insulin and as well as reducing its fat stores ... "The skeleton used to be thought of as just a structural support system. This opens the door to a new way of seeing the bones," said Dr. Gerard Karsenty, chairman of the department of genetics and development at Columbia University Medical Center in NYC, who headed the team that made the discovery.'"

Comments

Still have to eat well.

[CannonballHead]

It still seems that not eating massive amounts of sugar (as most Americans do) might help prevent diabetes, too.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[shawb]

I notice a distinct lack of high fructose corn syrup in that data. It simply measures cane and beet sugar. Also such extremely inexpensive calorie laden ingredients such as "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" are missing as well.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[iamacat]

This is true on the most primitive level. However, for a significant number of people "eating correctly" will mean a 1000 calorie-a-day diet of pure protein and in addition to not being obese they will be constantly hungry and lethargic, lose muscle mass and suffer from various diseases associated with malnutrition. They really need medication as well as medically designed diet/exercise program to take care of those genes and hormones.

Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[E 99]

The kids'll start obsessing over sports, and then fall into a downward spiral known as neo-neanderthalism, where their bodies begin to become suited for less intellectual pursuits.

As none are present to defend themselves, I'd like to point out that neanderthals had larger brains than ours.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[afidel]

Actually you are WRONG. People who are on only a below needed calorie diet will eventually plateau. The reason is that a bunch of your involuntary calorie usage such as slow muscle twitching and non-instructed nervous actions will cease as your body adjusts to what it considers to be the equivalent of a famine. That is why you must balance a complete, body type appropriate meal plan with the correct amount of cardio exercise. Even then is very difficult for most people to lose and keep off a significant percentage of body fat because evolution has setup all of our bodies systems to maintain body fat as we historically have not had enough calories in our diet.

Re:Still have to eat well.

[dfghjk]

People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.

Bone hormone?

[edittard]

You mean viagra? (Or as we scientists call it, \/1@gr@ )

Endocrine Function

[LightPhoenix7]

Firstly, this isn't Digg, can we please not link to blogs? The original paper from Cell is here: http://download.cell.com/pdfs/0092-8674/PIIS009286 7407007015.pdf.

Secondly, this is exciting news, but not exactly surprising. The differentiation of cells starts in the bone marrow, and there are biochemical signals that start that process. It's not surprising that some of these would be in bone marrow.

Finally, must these articles always make a point to imply that obesity is cause by some random genetic/biochemical "magic bullet," instead of eating poorly and not exercising? I understand that they need funding, and implying you may be able to "cure" obesity is a great way to get it. Even so, I think there's something rather disingenious about it.

Not so hard, though

[localroger]

Actually, having metabolic syndrome myself, I can say that if you catch it in time it responds well to a low carbohydrate diet. You don't need to restrict calorie intake at all, just carbohydrate intake; if you do that you'll find you lose your appetite quickly when you're thinking of eating too much, and your weight settles to a much more reasonable setpoint with no effort or hunger pangs at all.

Also, you cannot eat pure protein; if you are eating low carb, you must eat fat. My blood pressure and cholesterol have confirmed that this isn't unhealthy as long as you aren't poisoning yourself with too much sugar and corn syrup (which is in a lot of foods you'd normally consider healthy, unfortunately.)

Re:Ultra Mega Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? What the devil are you thinking? A blood glucose between 80-100 is NORMAL. A NORMAL person will bump up to MAYBE 120 after even a bad meal, but rapidly come back to the 80-100 level. If you get below 70, you're running into HYPOGLYCEMIA territory, enjoy your seizures.

800 is indeed a "nuke for your brain" but unless you're a Type I diabetic without ANY endogenous insulin production, or a horribly controlled type II, you're not gonna see that. Hell, I'm not sure I've even seen a fingerstick capable of registering above 550-600!

Respectfully, parent is full of hockey. I'm sure you're an excellent CS student, but you've not had biology for a long time, friend. Don't check your own Fingerstick blood glucose unless you have reason to (ie: a medical condition), but if you're suspicious, then GO TO YOUR DOCTOR. Get a Fasting Blood glucose drawn, not those crap fingersticks. And if you're not satisfied, push for a glucose tolerance test, where you drink RAW glucose, then follow your venous blood sugar levels to see how your body reacts. If it can't keep up with the load, then welcome to the wonderful world of Diabetes. If it DOES, count your lucky stars, go home, and throw out your ho-ho's, Oreo's and Jolt Colas, and try a lovely dose of Moderation In All Things for a change.

Jebus help me...

Hehe, code was "criteria."

Re:May Partially Explain Why Exercise Helps

[Graff]

I've repeatedly heard it said that you would have to run for an insane amount of time to burn off the extra calories from just one cookie, so it isn't in that fashion that exercise helps with weight problems. The amount of calories burned during exercise is only the tip of the iceberg.

Exercising burns up glucose and puts a demand on your body to change how it processes foods. As a result of these changes your body's metabolism increases not only the rate at which it burns calories during exercise but it will also be elevated for a good amount of time afterwards. This means that you burn calories for the actual exercise done but you will also burn more after you have finished exercising, taken your shower, and sat down at your desk to do some work. Here is an article on this phenomenon.

In addition, by exercising you are telling your body that changes need to be made. Part of exercise is the microscopic tearing of muscle fibers, stress on capillaries and other transport systems within your body, and the release of various hormones related to your exertion. Your body's overall response is to rebuild and bolster these systems. You grow more muscle tissue, your capillaries increase their ability to carry more blood, various organs and cellular structures configure themselves for the next bought of exercise. All of these actions take energy and they put food to a better use than simply turning into fat around your waist.

Finally, now you have more muscle mass, better circulation, and so on. This generally results in an overall higher metabolic rate because your body has prepared itself to provide you with more energy at all times. The higher metabolic rate burns more calories even when you aren't exercising and allows you to exert yourself even more the next time you do exercise.

So there's a lot more going on than the simple "1 Calorie will lift 155 pounds to 20 feet in the air". You body changes with exercise and that is where the real weight loss begins.

blood sugar levels

[Tumbleweed]

> A level between 40 and 80 is healthy, anything above 80 is unhealthy

40?! You're nuts. If you're below 50, you need to get some orange juice in your body ASAP. Between 80-110 is normal (closer to 80 is better, though). In fact, from the article you linked to, "A measurement of 40 is grounds for an immediate trip to the hospital." Really low glucose levels are more immediately dangerous (easily fatal) than high ones. Consistently high ones will destroy your body in ways you don't want to think about (blindness and limb amputation is common, among many other things).

If you go above, I think, 245 or so, your body goes into 'ketoacidosis' and starts eating itself and the chemical Acetone (nail polish remover) winds up in your bloodstream. I can tell you from personal experience that this feels about as good as it sounds.

Re:blood sugar levels

[slimjim8094]

Ketoacidosis is when your body, which creates acetones naturally, can't clean those acetones out of the blood. So, you get nail-polish breath, which, if medical personnel aren't careful, can smell like booze. That's bad because hyperglycemia can produce mental symptoms similar to drunkenness.

P.S. I'm a NJ EMT-B, and we frequently get calls where policemen want us to check out a drunk, with booze breath and all the mental signs like belligerence. They were really a diabetic at least 10% of the time.
Sorry for the OT

Let me guess, you're a 'healthy' 250 pounds?

[Dan B.]

Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.

The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.

"You obviously don't know a thing about the subject."
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.

Re:Let me guess, you've skinny and 18?

[drsmithy]

Every time I see a news story that is 'blah blah 40% of the population is obese' I often wonder where these people are.

All around you, they just don't _look_ like it.

That statistic you hear is based on BMI. BMI is, at best, an unreliable indicator for a) whether or not someone "looks obese" (obviously very overweight, rolls of fat, multiple chins, no muscle definition anywhere, etc, etc) and b) whether they're "unfit" (gets puffed running up stairs, does no exercise, etc).

For example, I have a BMI of about 31 (=medically obese). However, I'm 189cm and "built like a tank", so while I definitely have a pot belly, I doubt many people would look and consider me "obese" - especially since I have reasonably good muscle definition on my arms and legs. I cycle a ~25km round-trip to work (without raising much of a sweat) and play a 40 minute game of indoor soccer once a week (again, without feeling exhausted afterwards). So while overweight, I'm not really unfit and I can't think of anyone who has ever referred to me as "obese" or looked at me in that "I can't believe you're so fat" way. However, my weight has been stable at its current level for 5+ years now and short of seriously intrusive dieting (= food I didn't really enjoy eating and feeling hungry 24/7) I haven't been able to lose it (or, rather, I did but it came back).

The "best" my BMI has ever been was 24.something, back in the middle of high school (just under "overweight"). I was about 180cm and weighed around 80kg. At the time, I was cycling ~30km daily (to and from school), training 1-2hrs a day for soccer and/or volleyball, swimming a kilometre ~3 times a week and playing 3-5 games of very competitive soccer and/or volleyball every week. For the last two years of high school, with a similar level of exercise, my BMI rose to (just) over 25. So I would have fit into that x% of the population that was being reported as "overweight", despite being extremely fit and not *looking* at all overweight.

The short version is, a hell of a lot of people are medically overweight or obese, but don't look it because of their body type - they just look "pudgy". That's where most of that "x% of the population is obese" is hiding.