Slashdot Mirror


Mice Given an Experimental Gene Therapy Don't Get Fat (boingboing.net)

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."

5 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wrong way by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It totally is that simple. It's just that people start whining when you round them up and put them in camps. Waaagh waaagh metabolism waaagh waagh.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Re:Wrong way by Hognoxious · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    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.

    Or they could eat four times that and continue to be fat.

    Have you thought about the external & environmental aspects of this - carbon emissions, intensive farming and all that? Shame on you, hand in your SJW card.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Re:Wrong way by geekmux · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    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.

    The world "exercise" isn't mentioned one time in your entire comment. Not one time.

    Because of that glaring omission, I see this gene "tweaking" as just another bullshit attempt to try and solve for the obesity problem without solving for the fucking lazy problem, which is the actual reason fat people are fat 98% of the time. A healthy 2500 calories a day includes diet and exercise, and it kills me when that elephant in the room is blatantly ignored.

  4. Re:Wrong way by geekmux · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

    No, this looks like just another excuse to ignore the fucking lazy problem.

    And you think we're "shaming and berating" fat people? We now live in a society that demands we include obese women in the supermodel category because body inclusivity is far more important than anything a doctor may have to say about weight and health backed with decades of evidence. We not only tolerate obesity, but we now embrace and reward it.

    Lazy the elephant has been standing in the room shitting on everyone's shoes for years now, and everyone in the room pretends like it's natural and normal. You're right. There's no point in arguing where the problem lies, especially once the ignorance and stupidity reaches a certain level.

    Could this new solution ultimately help people? Yeah, maybe. But don't try and call it anything more than a band-aid solution. Millions of humans are prematurely dying because they lack the motivation to include exercise in the equation of maintaining a healthy body and long life. The "drastic" solution to create a cure, is the most obvious one. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

  5. Re:Wrong way by goose-incarnated · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    If it really was that simple we wouldn't have the problems we have with obesity.

    For 99 out of every fat person, the problem literally is that simple. The type of person who is fat and is unable to lose weight via eating fewer than 10m calories per day and exercise involving more than waddling to work and back is in the clear majority.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.