Slashdot Mirror
Specific Gut Bacteria May Account For Much Obesity
resistant writes "A limited study from China offers the tantalizing possibility that targeting specific gut bacteria in humans could significantly reduce the scope of an epidemic of obesity in Western countries: 'The endotoxin-producing Enterobacter decreased in relative abundance from 35% of the volunteer's gut bacteria to non-detectable, during which time the volunteer lost 51.4kg of 174.8kg initial weight and recovered from hyperglycemia and hypertension after 23 weeks on a diet of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicinal foods and prebiotics.' As usual, sensationalist reports have been exaggerating the import of this very early investigation, and one wonders about that 'diet of whole grains.' Still, there could be meat in the idea of addressing pathogenic bacteria for the control of excessive weight gain. After all, it wasn't too long ago that a brave scientist insisted in the face of widespread ridicule that peptic ulcers in humans usually are caused by bacterial infections, not by acidic foods."
It will be fascinating to see what happens when other teams try to replicate these results with larger, more statistically significant groups than just one individual. ^^;
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
My own studies suggest that the Crunchwrap Supreme is responsible for obesity.
Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?
Why can't there be multiple issues? We do have the people that overeat, but there's more that a few people that have had problems with obesity and no one quite understands what the real cause is. There can always be multiple causes and multiple solutions (or not one single solution).
Scientists will soon discover that this gut bacteria is hugely successful at metabolizing fructose...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why are people hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?
FTFY. Please, let's try and have at least one science article free of politics and anti-$country rhetoric.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
I've found that the "eating less" diet really had significant efficacy in weight reduction.
Why is everyone here in the US hooked on the "false dillema" falicy?
Why can't there be multiple issues? We do have the people that overeat, but there's more that a few people that have had problems with obesity and no one quite understands what the real cause is. There can always be multiple causes and multiple solutions (or not one single solution).
It's more than just that. Controlled studies where volunteers spent a couple weeks locked in a research facility eating only the precisely measured meals given to them by researchers showed variations in weight gain/loss, even after accounting for muscle mass, overall health, and amount of exercise the volunteers engaged in. Some participants lost weight, some stayed relatively the same, and some gained weight.
A persistently (and severely) restricted diet will eventually overcome all other factors and force you to lose weight, but it is obvious that some people absorb way more calories from the same meal than others. If the gut bacteria are breaking down certain complex carbohydrates, starches, etc that would otherwise go undigested, they could easily account for the difference.
In fact, in a famine or food-poor situation, such bacteria would be evolutionarily selected for, as they would give the carriers a leg-up, allowing them to stay healthy and non-malnurished while their neighbors starved.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
At the other end of the spectrum, some people with tapeworms can eat enormous amounts of food without gaining weight at all. Which just goes to show, you can't assume all humans to be equal.
Much like with the rich and the poor, it seems the thin like to pretend that it's all down to their virtue and resolve, and the fat like to pretend that it isn't.
I know that I'm thinner and more fit than I deserve based on my lifestyle, which makes it hard for me to judge others who may do more work for less results.
Gut bacteria and other factors can change things up to a small degree, but you'll never get around the basic physics of your metabolism. Expend less energy than you consume, and you will gain weight. Expend more than you consume, and you *will* lose weight. You cannot gain weight if you don't consume enough food to keep your body running anymore than you can continue driving a car on an empty tank.
That said, there are some drugs that prevent certain types of "nutrients" from being digested (e.g. Lipitor makes it more difficult for your body to digest fats) which is an effect that may be replicated by some natural things (e.g. gut bacteria).
But really, it's no shock that people are fatter today. We have a diet that is primarily based on very calorie dense, processed simple carbohydrates. Pretty much *everything* you buy has added simple carbs (SUGAR) which is just not how things used to be. This is a double edged sword because everything you eat has more calories, and is less filling (because simple carbs are 2-3x more calorie dense than proteins and fats.
Let's introduce something into your gut that throws off the horomones which control your hunger response. See how well you cope when you go around all day feeling unsatiated no matter what you eat.
Not saying bacteria is all of it, but it's damn well within the realm of possibility. Maybe science will find a fix for this "weak will power" that many people get chided over, and at least we may have one reasonable solution to the obesity problem without having to hear so much bitching and criticism over it.
Were you actually puffing out your chest and thumping it while writing that bit of holier than thou or did it just read that way?
Many things which travel through the gut don't cause a problem because the Cilia protect the digestive tract wall. When Cilia get damaged as with Crohn's Disease, then infection or inflamation can occur.
If the Enterobacter growth is enhanced by some items in the diet and suppressed by others that would not be surprising. If the Enterobacter or a product from that bacteria causes inflamation that causes the Pancreas to screw up the insulin production and regulation, that too would not be surprising.
It is only recently that investigation has begun to accelerate on what the effects of different bacteria in the gut are doing and why. Great article with potential for good results.
Is it too outlandish to consider that perhaps having a certain bacteria could cause you to metabolize foods differently, resulting in weight gain regardless of diet and exercise?
Really -- it's not that outlandish an idea. Of course a good diet and exercise are splendid -- but the fact is there are millions of people who do diet and exercise see very poor results compared to others.
Truth. There are dozens of potential pathways. My sister fell incredibly ill with a body-wide infection that near killed her in 2002. Like everyone else in my family she'd *always* been one of those people who could eat anything she liked and gain no weight. She's 5'10", was slim to the western celebrity ideal, and had done a little modeling. Her gut shut down and only after months of care could she come home - she left the hospital after four months with damaged kidneys and weighing more than when she went in, and over the next three years she continued to gain. Now she struggles to keep under 280lbs and she eats less than a quarter her previous diet. The rest of us eat freely and we're rake-thin - and by freely I mean we're all around the 5k calories a day mark while she's struggling to stay under 1500.
What happened? Logically I can only guess she began using more of the food she ate towards stored energy, or lost the ability to expend energy as much, or a mix of both. Maybe my brother and other sisters waste a lot of our energy intake, maybe we expend a lot by the nature of our metabolisms. Maybe my sister's gut bacteria died and whatever organism pushed changes in dietary absorbtion up had a chance to flourish at the expense of a 'healthier' flora. Maybe damaged organs change the ratio she stores vs expends.
What I'm getting at is "I thought it was over consumption of calories" like the gp suggested is a far too simplistic a suggestion - calories in vs calories out is obviously a valid equation at the root level, but calories put in the mouth do not equate to calories usable by the body and *that* does not equate to calories actually used by the body. I overconsume and I'm thin and metabolically healthy by all standards I've ever needed to be tested for. It's about as useful a suggestion for reasons of obesity as "I thought life was consumption of oxygen". Yeah, there's a link, but.... no.
Funny seeing the subject of gut bacteria in a /. forum.
Just last week I was reading an article on the Mercola.com site, link here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/18/mcbride-and-barringer-interview.aspx
Gut bacteria has much more to do with overall health in general that most people think.
Weight loss being linked to having all the right bacteria in the gut is also a bonus
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
This is bull shit. You cannot escape the laws of thermodynamics.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you get fat.
If you burn more calories than you eat, you get skinny.
It isn't that simple. I eat whatever I want and don't workout much and I haven't been able to gain weight ever in my life, and I have tried. I lived off of fast food lunches for several years when I was single but for some reason my body doesn't respond to the calories. I don't have high cholesterol or high BP and the doc says I am healthy - just skinny. I have met several people like me, and others that I know that (if they ate what I ate) would balloon up rather quickly.
That's very oversimplified to the point of being almost wrong. The problem is that your metabolism varies depending on how much energy is available. If you cut your calorie intake to try to lose weight, your cells slow down their metabolic rate to compensate, and you're still expending no more energy than you consume. When the system is calibrated correctly, people keep a fairly constant weight no matter how much or how little they eat. When the system is calibrated wrong, people can't lose weight no matter how little they eat. There are things you can do to improve your odds, such as starving yourself for one day every few days so that your body does not adjust to the reduced calorie consumption, but that only goes so far.
And although you are correct that consuming sugars and starches instead of fats and proteins makes this problem worse, high protein diets are hard on your kidneys, heart, etc. So that's not a fix, either. The right fix is to figure out why the whole system is out of balance and fix it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Where do "the laws of thermodynamics" state that efficiency doesn't matter?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I literally ate 10,000 calories a day and didn't gain an ounce. I drank a full 8 pack of 16 ounce pepsi bottles every day, ate a large bag of potato chips and a pound of cheese every day. This is on top of a large breakfast, lunch, afterschool dagwood sandwiches, huge supper with seconds at every meal. After dinner I would eat chips, more cheese, other snacks and popcorn loaded with butter. For breakfast I would eat a stack of 10 pancakes, a couple of boiled eggs, a 6 egg omlet, toast, sausage, bacon, a huge glass of milk, and with everything slathered with butter and bacon grease. Lunch was a box of chocolate donuts and a huge cocolate milk shake, dinner was steak, mashed potatoes, green beans. If I ate at a fast food restraunt it was 10 cheese burgers and a couple of large fries.
I was 5 foot 8 inches tall and I maintained less than 110 pound weight for most of high school.
And it wasn't because of my activity level either. I was a complete, couch potato when I was a teen ager. I just sat around reading, or playing video games on my computers.
Once I hit 30 years old I started gaining weight. No matter how little I ate I kept gaining weight. No matter how much I increased my activity level I kept gaining weight. Now I keep my food intake down to less than 1200 calories a day and try to walk everyday.
Glad to know that there might be a treatment to help me out soon.
You know, that doesn't work for everyone. It sounds great when it works for YOU, but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight. I exercise five days a week, two hours a day, and I'm not talking light exercise. I don't eat sweets, I don't drink, I control my carbs, I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins... I *love* veggies and eat them every day, both salads and side dishes, and I *still* have trouble controlling my weight. Yeah, I'm strong and have stamina and flexibility -- all important targets for my undertakings -- but the fat wants to hang around regardless. I have *never* been "cut." Kinda sleek looking like a seal back in my teenage days, pretty big through the chest and shoulders, but even then I carried extra weight (i'm talking fat) on my thighs and ass. And I was active as hell. Caving, swimming, martial arts, biking, dragging musical equipment from gig to gig, rope climbing, pushing lawn mowers... I hardly ever sat still.
Today I have students that are so cut, so defined, so obviously on the extreme low end of the body fat range it would make you cry... and if that didn't do it, watching them wolf down $15 worth of McDonald's poison surely would. I can't eat that crap at *all* or my weight takes right off. Not that I really want to, but still, the message is clear: What makes me fat doesn't make you fat, and so forth.
Everyone's experience is not the same. Metabolism, infection, allergies, immune system fuckarows and Darwin knows what else...
"Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone identifies one (or more) independent factors that drive fat retention. I've suspected it for years.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I forget the name of the recent female surgeon general who said the only diet that works is "Eat less, move more." No starvation diets, sensible portions eaten regularly, else your body goes into 'starvation mode' and saves/retains every calorie. Supposedly,it's an evolutionary trait from when a human might go weeks without food.
You're not fat because of ANYTHING except long term consumption of more calories than you burn
If you consume a million twinkies encased in a metal cylinder, you won't gain an ounce. You have to absorb the nutrients. The bacteria are most certainly a factor in how the nutrients get processed and eventually absorbed. With the right engineering, the metabolome could be designed such that you could eat forever without becoming obese. There's more than one way (or even two ways) to solve any problem.
It may be a colossal waste of human and natural resources to do that engineering, but that doesn't justify your point at all.
Try to be factually correct.
So here's a correlation confound. Your gut bacteria is a big function of the kind of diet you have. This is advertised heavliy by the yogurt people: live-culture yogurts to help get you "regular", yucko. So people who eat more yogurt will have more acidophilus and lactobacilli. Those who eat meat (and particularly poorly cooked meat) will tend to have bacteria associated with those meats. Beef-eaters may have more e. coli (Jack-in-the-Box infected burgers, anyone), chicken-eaters may have more salmonella than others, and pork could mean many bacteria and even trichinosis (worms) or brain-monsters.
.
So since your meat-eating habits may influence your bacteria, cutting down on meat will simultaneously improve your dietary intake and change your gut bacteria. This creates the confound. Is it the bacteria that created the bad health, or was the bacteria another symptom of the bad health that came along with the unhealthy diet?
This is false. My wife can eat 1200 calories on a given day and still gain weight. I can eat 3500 calories in a day and still lose weight. The issue is the level that your body is able to break down certain foods. Example: Eat a 2000 calorie meal. Just because the meal is 2000 calories doesn't mean that 2000 calories go into your body. Certain fats, proteins, etc. don't break down in each person the same way. One person might get 1800 calories from that meal, another person 1300. Also, insulin levels and the like prevent you from burning fat.
Try and follow this:
1. Humans shit.
2. Human shit has calories in variable amounts.
3. Humans excrete in other ways as well (breathing, sweating, pissing, hair removals, etc.)
This study is not an isolated case regarding the issue of bacterium-mediated weight gain.
There have been several studies which clearly indicate that there appears to be a case for "(at least some) people have excess weight due to 'which bacteria inhabit their gut' " or something approximating that.
Yes folks, I said DUE TO, ie caused by the bacteria not the other way around (in at least one case, administering a certain bacteria caused not just scientifically significant but visibly large weight gain on the exact same diet, at least in rats).
As yet there's no conclusive proof (ie several repeated tests independently verified) with hard science numbers (not to mention something of an explanation why/how this works) and, and no magic cure for fatness, but science is nowhere near laughing this off as 'mere crackpottery'.
There's VERY OBVIOUSLY something going on here with certain bacteria and (at least) some overweight people, and scientists (all over the world, not "just someone I've never heard of in China") are turning up results from a variety of research projects (all with slightly different angles) all pointing in the direction of "this is starting to smell just like That Stomach Ulcer Thing".
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
What outrageous claim?
How to not be a fat ass: Eat less, move more.
This is hardly a fringe position. I only add the suggestion to it that rather then start with crazy fad diets (that have zero "peer-reviewed studies"), that people start simply by not eating trash like pure sugar and pounds of cheese. If you need a "peer-reviewed study" to convince you that not eating complete shit is a good thing, you're already beyond hope.
And I add the advice to those who have fat friends and family, to stop giving them "gifts" of complete shit such as candy and pounds of cheese.
None of this is the slightest bit outrageous. But ya know what is outrageous? You and your ilk that demand "peer-reviewed studies" before you'll even consider the idea that chowing down on donuts and brie might not do wonderful things to your waist line.
My
...and more fruits and beans, and a limited amount of nuts, seeds, and whole grains. Eat a lot less of everything else. See Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live" for the details. Or for a slightly different approach, see the book "What Color is Your Diet" by David Heber, MD, PhD, founding director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition, and dietitian Susan Bowerman, MS, RD. Or the book "The Pleasure Trap" by Doug Lisle and ALan Goldhamer. A great graph here:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
This is not to disagree that people vary, including in bacteria and their gut. But the basics are that leafy green vegetable have the least calories per amount of volume in the stomach, followed by fruits and beans. Fill up on those, and there is just not room for high calorie foods.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You are correct, however, as a person who has lost 30kg and kept it off through diet and exercise, I know that I have to eat less and do more than many people I know. I would be very happy to be able to change my gut bacteria and be more relaxed than I have to be now. I train 12-14 (hard) hours a week and am constantly aware of my kilojoule intake. It would be nice to not have to fight every day to maintain a healthy weight. My brothers did not put on weight easily on the same intake and I was more active than they were as kids, but I am more prone to weight gain than they are. Targeted antibiotics followed by a re-seeding with less efficient bacteria resulting in less energy being released from food would be great. I get pissed off sometimes when I see the amount of crap others can eat and then sit on their arses all day and not gain weight. I like the other results of my lifestyle, I'm fit and strong and complete Tough Mudders, but it would be nice to be able to relax sometimes.
See my comment here about feeling full by eating a lot more leafy greens: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42372385
Dr. Joel Fuhrman recommends making salad dressings from ground up nuts or adding things like avocados to get healthy fats into there. I agree good fats help in feelign full too. Joel Fuhrman talsk about the body's "appestat" that controls when we stop eating and how the main determinats are whether the stomach is full (fiber) and whether their are enough nutrients (supplied mostly by veggies).
That said, I know what you mean about comfort food. It is a hard habit to break if at allt -- and it just goes to show that health is a social thing. Good luck.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
If you're going to go for a "low calorie" substitute, use a natural one like agave.
Agave syrup is mostly fructose. Ain't nothing "low calorie" about it. It's not a sugar substitute, it's sugar, period.
There's a traditional Mexican preparation whose name escapes me at the moment. They ferment the agave, then distill it: this process removes all of the harmful sugars, and leaves only the healthful components. You should check it out when you get a chance.
Uh, if you actually extracted all the mass-energy of a french fry with 100% efficiency you could wipe out a city with the fire coming out of your mouth...
Since your digestive system is somewhat less efficient than an active galactic nucleus, you'll have to settle for a few paltry calories, and the number will vary by individual.
I hate to burst your bubble but I lived in Beijing for four years and there were plenty of fatties all over the place.
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
Yes. They're deluding themselves about how much they're actually eating.
Nothing wrong with your math.
Your knowledge of human physiology, on the other hand....
Sure, for some people it's that simple. For others its like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking, or a smoker to just stop smoking, or a meth addict to just stop taking the stuff.
Yeah, some people, maybe most, can do that. Some people can even shoot heroin without getting addicted to it. Probably most people could lose weight if they were just willing to focus on it. (I'm down 55-60 lb from my peak, from technically obese to normal. Halfway into that a friend asked me how. I told her "just stay hungry".) Some can't, not without causing severe damage in other ways.
And a few years ago, doctors were saying you don't have ulcers because of bacteria in your gut, you have them from eating acidic/spicy food.
-- Alastair
Tend to blame the victims. Most modern processed foods are full of inflammatory poisons (HFCS, artificial sweeteners, hydrogenated oils)
Paleo and Atkins work for some, not for others. Blaming people for being fat is like blaming people for being poor and uneducated.
Additionally, fast foods today aren't as healthy as they were years before (HFCS, hydrogenated oils, soy, fillers, artificial colorings, and other carcinogenic preserves using benzenes,) no longer using animal fats, and quality foods aren't subsidized while healthcare is. Juice feasting and lots of water works for many , Paleo and Atkins works for some, but have a crouton and you blow up like a blimp from the "carb starving".
The societal equation is wrong. Food is medicine, when used properly.
People who are struggling with this should at least consider the documentaries : "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead" and "Forks over Knives" and watch the tons of videos on YouTube that show people transforming their lives and regaining control.
Its not that simple. Cravings are not just "your fault". Its a complex combination of biological processes and hormone signaling caused by doing things like eating too much sugar in your diet. I'm not saying people aren't at fault. I'm saying that they are influenced by sugar (specifically fructose) and its been scientifically proven. You can change though by just cutting the sugar/fructose and adding more probiotics to your diet.