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."

Comments

Wrong way

[religionofpeas]

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

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Wrong way

[Megol]

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

[dfghjk]

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:Wrong way

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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:Wrong way

[AmiMoJo]

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:Wrong way

[jdschulteis]

If a useful treatment for obesity ever arises from this research, my money would be on a drug that suppresses the activity of this gene, rather than genetic engineering.

Re:Wrong way

[LostMyAccount]

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.

A good thing?

[LostMyBeaver]

Somehow, I am reminded of a scene from Catching Fire where Suzanne Collins introduces a modern misinterpretation of the word vomitorium. It was believed at some point that the Romans would overindulge in food and visit a room dedicated to vomiting to avoid the negative effects and be able to eat even more. (This is not what the word means, but I suppose it makes good TV).

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:Brain surgery.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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?

Not so much

[rsilvergun]

a huge part of what leads to obesity is gut bacteria. Genetics also plays a role. As has been pointed out elsewhere on the forum a lot of us fatties do so because we need to keep our energy levels up. In America you work 40-50/hr /week minimum like it or not. 6 hours into an 8 hour shift there's still work to do, and you need to be alert enough to do it. Then it's time to go home, cook for the kids, help with homework (because we've cut funding to schools for 40 years straight now so it's not like the teachers are gonna do it), clean the house up and try to get some sleep so you can do it all over again.