Slashdot Mirror
Microbiome Changes Drive the Dieting Yo-Yo Effect, Study Finds (smh.com.au)
wheelbarrio writes: We've known for a long time that diet-induced weight loss is rarely permanent but until now what has been a frustration for dieters has also been largely a mystery to scientists. A paper published today in the prestigious journal Nature presents good evidence that your gut microbiome may be to blame. Studying mice fed cycles of high-fat and normal diets, the authors found that the particular bacterial population that thrives in the high-fat regime persists in the gut even once the mice have returned to normal weight and normal metabolic function after a dieting cycle. This leaves them more susceptible to weight gain than control mice who were never overweight, when both populations are exposed to a cycle of high-fat diet. The details are fascinating, including the suggestion that dietary flavonoid supplementation might mitigate the effect. My guess is that this may end up being one of the most cited papers of the year, if not the decade.
This might explain why some recipients of FMT for treatment of C. diff. and CU have seen weight gain without changing their diets.
I feel so sig.
You're missing the point. This is about explaining why the same amount of food (or energy) intake affects people differently. Research into metabolic syndrome has shown that there is no simple relation: eat less -> lose weight -> get healthy. Once you know what influences weight gain or loss, given a certain amount of food intake you can adjust for other parameters.
Absolute nonsense. From the Sunday Morning Herald summary (I don't have a Nature subscription):
They found that the gut microbiomes of the mice who lost weight were altered, and that these changes remained in place for many months and contributed to rapid and excessive weight gain if the mice were given high-fat diets again.
So the mice gained weight when they were fed a crap diet. And, quelle surprise, when human porkers give up their short-lived attempts to stick to a Mediterranean diet and shove their noses back in the McDonald's trough, they pile back on the pounds.
Neither article says that the mice had a calorie-controlled diet. It seem far more likely that the gut microbiome changes have an impact on appetite.
All this has very litle to do with willpower; that is the crux of the matter! I was in that situation with sugar some years ago. I got shakes, weakness and irregular hearth beat if I did not eat [plenty of] sugar. I knew it was bad, I knew I was too heavy, I knew it all - and it did not make any difference.
No one can fight their own biochemistry - you only have to pray it does not turn against you. It took me 2-3 years for the gut bugs to balance [more or less] and to [mostly] stop making me crave the carbs....true it was easier and easier with time but it was absolutely herrendous in the beggining. I repeat again with all sicerity - all this has very little to do with willpower.
Most of the this is simple crap is done by fat shamers who want to feel like they are a better person due to the lack of excess fat.
I have lost 50lbs and kept it off for over 3 years myself but it is hard, very hard to do. It was akin to getting my masters degree while working full time hard.
If you eat less you feel more hungry then when you get some food you will over eat.
When you start to exercise you get sore and hungry making you want to just sit and eat.
If you substitute your diet you are often not getting the nutrients you need causing you to feel out of sorts.
It isn't will power to not eat from the candy bowl, but to fight your most primal instinct for a long period. It takes a lot of hard work planning to do it. Any small factor could derail you at any time catching an illness, changing jobs, birth or death in the family.
Diet science has been pathetic because so much of us fall on the simple plan. With Diet food companies sell their plastic food as diet, where they are designed to fit this simple plan and cause us to fail.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Best comment in the thread.
Even the association between activity and body weight is not conclusive. Are people active because they are slim or slim because they are active? On a population level it is difficult to determine.
This Horizon program from the BBC is excellent viewing for those interested in such things.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cywtq
On a hunch I decided to see if there's a correlation between obesity and antibiotics (which are known to kill both the good and bad types of gut bacteria)
Here's a map showing antibiotic prescribing rates.
http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/co...
Here's a map showing obesity rates:
https://www.maxmasnick.com/med...
Correlation is not causation, but in my unprofessional opinion, these maps look eerily similar.
The only thing this says is that the mice whose gut bacteria had evolved to eat a high fat diet, when exposed to that diet again more efficiently processed the food into energy than mice not previously exposed to that diet. It isn't really about the diet being crap or healthy. What this study seems to say is the opposite of the conclusion many are taking away from it. If you are more efficient at metabolizing certain foods you need to eat less of them. Period.
Ironically, the takeaway that our fast food overlords will get from this is to try and incorporate "flavonoid supplication" into their products in order to stop killing their customer base through obesity. If you are more efficient at processing addictive cheap fast food, you'll be around longer as a paying customer.
Eating less fast food has far more to do with marketing than actually feeling full. No one stops in the middle of a Super-sized triple-decker McShitburger "happy" meal just because they feel full. Not when there's still 2 pounds of french fries left.
Yeah, it is not simple thermodynamics. The complexity of the interactions in the body is overwhelmingly mind-boggling.
Interestingly enough, more and more researchers are buying into the lower-carb side of the diet controversy. And it seems that if you lower the amount of carbohydrates in your diet, you probably have to increase your fat intake to get enough energy to prevent starvation responses. And a gut that is adapted to burning fat for energy is significantly different from a gut that burns sugars. And so on....
However, the report of a single study doesn't provide a prescription for health. Some time ago there was good discussion about creating a comprehensive science database to compare outcomes of different research. This database would report on both successful and unsuccessful experiments and research, which could possibly cut down on instances of "fads" by identifying what works, what doesn't work, and what hasn't been tested yet.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Yes, anyone can freely choose to feel tired and hungry all the time or to eat and be overweight but feel fine.
As someone who's recently lost some weight, no, that's not right. You shouldn't be going at it so hard that you feel tired all the time. If you do, you're either trying to lose weight too fast, or there's something not optimal about what you're eating.
I found that even before I lost weight, eating high GI foods led to a nice full feeling followd by a carb crash where I'd feel sleepy, which I usually solved by guzzling coffee. Switching to less easily digestible stuff helped a great deal, though I still guzzle coffee, just not quite as much.
SJW n. One who posts facts.