A New "Breakthrough" in the Fight Against Belly Fat, and a Rude Question

by Lou Schuler on Jul 2, 2007 11:44 AM EDT in News Comment 9 comments

At first glance, this news looks like the biggest breakthrough yet in the obesity epidemic:

Scientists reported yesterday that they have uncovered a biological switch by which stress can promote obesity, a discovery that could help explain the world's growing weight problem and lead to new ways to melt flab and manipulate fat for cosmetic purposes.

In a series of experiments on mice, researchers showed that the neurochemical pathway they identified promotes fat growth in chronically stressed animals that eat the equivalent of a junk-food diet.

The researchers didn't just identify the mechanism by which stress makes junk-food eaters fat; they found several ways to manipulate it in laboratory mice. They could make the mice leaner or fatter in specific areas, which is pretty much the Holy Grail of exercise and nutrition science.

But here's what I don't get:

The scientists noted that some people get fat when they're stressed, while some actually lose weight under extreme and prolonged stress. And, as noted in the L.A. Times' report, some people have a genetic mutation that prevents them from getting fat in times of high stress:

[T]here is a Northern European population that, due to a genetic abnormality, secretes excessive amounts of NPY when stressed. That population is unusually susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In contrast, a Swedish population with a genetic mutation that lessens the receptor's efficacy is resistant to obesity.

All this is interesting, but what really seems to matter is diet. The mice didn't get obese under stressful conditions unless they were eating junk food. Genetically identical mice that were stressed in identical ways only got fat if they were given high-fat, high-sugar meals.

So, according to news reports, the "breakthrough" is a magic bullet that will selectively reduce fat deposits. Then there's some kind of opposite pill that will put fat on in selected places. If it works out in human experiments, somebody will make billions of dollars off these pills.

I'm happy for them -- I wouldn't mind having some extra commas on my balance sheets -- but let's not forget that it'll be years before people will be able to use this chemical liposuction.

Meanwhile, anybody can stop eating junk food now.

Today.

The FDA doesn't have to give you permission to not enter the drive-through. The U.S. Patent Office doesn't have to put its seal on your decision not to supersize. It's here, it's free, it's open-source. It's dietary Linux. It doesn't discriminate by race, gender, religion, or income.

And it couldn't be simpler:

All you have to do is eat something besides junk food.

It's so easy I couldn't even write a book about it. Chapter 1 tells you not to eat junk food. There is no chapter 2.

Why isn't that discovery being treated as the breakthrough, and the possibility of magic pills as an interesting sidebar?

Monday blog meat

From the New York Times' Play magazine comes this look at sudden death in athletes. The first half of the story is about young athletes, while the second half goes over the ground I covered here. The bottom line remains the same: endurance exercise is good for you, except when it's not.
Ever wonder where fat goes when you lose it? Okay, probably not, since most of us are too busy trying to lose it in the first place to worry about the details of the Lipid Relocation Program. But should you happen to lose some fat, here's what happens to it.
I've always assumed that sunscreens are all pretty much the same. Bob Condor in the Seattle PI explains why they're not.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

dietary Linux

And that is why I read this blog faithfully every day. I will now begin an attempt to use the phrase "dietary Linux" in normal conversation five times this week.

by raw on Jul 2, 2007 1:34 PM EDT reply actions

I don't think it's that simple

It's easy to beat up on people for eating junk food, but there are plenty of people out there getting or staying fat without it. The body doesn't really discriminate between a high quality "Whole Foods" high carb/high fat diet and McD's. I don't think making it out as if overweight people are just too stupid to step away from the clown helps your cause.

"The scientists noted that some people get fat when they're stressed, while some actually lose weight under extreme and prolonged stress."

I think part of the problem here is that the stress in question is not adequately described. I know I personally have both gained and lost weight due to stress, but the types of stress were qualitatively different. Obviously I'm one person and it's completely anecdotal, but my experience has been that fear-for-my-life stress results in weight loss, ordinary dysfunctional workplace stress results in weight gain.

by kimuchi on Jul 2, 2007 3:33 PM EDT reply actions

McDonald's vs. "Whole Food"

I don't think it's an issue of how the body handles "clean" food vs. McDonald's. I think it might have more to do with the fact that it's pretty tough to duplicate a McDonald's diet with clean foods. For instance, a Big Mac, medium fries and medium coke have 1130 calories, 49 grams of fat, 150 grams of carbs and 29 grams of protein. A 9 oz. sirloin with a baked potato (plus one pat of butter) and a glass of red wine has 984 calories, with 34 grams of fat, only 65 grams or carbs, and a whopping 76 grams of protein. You would have to add another potato and a half to get to the number of carbs and fat in the junk food meal.

by raw on Jul 3, 2007 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Sure but...

You don't think 984 calories in a sitting is enough to make the average sedentary American fat? I also take issue with that very expensive meat-dominated meal being typical. I would expect something more like this: 1-3 servings of bread, 1-2 servings of pasta or rice, 1-3 servings of fat-based sauce, and a smaller meat serving.

by kimuchi on Jul 3, 2007 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions

oh, when you put it that way

I guess I misunderstood your original post about "high-quality, whole foods". I was thinking lean meat and vegetables. I was trying to create a relatively direct comparison between the two meals (fries = baked potato, hamburger = steak, Coke = red wine) while keeping the calories pretty close. I guess I wouldn't consider pasta, bread and sauce to be high-quality, whole foods any more than a Big Mac and fries. As far as whether or not that is a more typical American diet, I'm in no position to say. I'd agree with the bread part being typical, at least, and overall I think I see where you're coming from.

by raw on Jul 3, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

No, I meant "Whole Foods" the place

No, I pretty much meant people buying foods they believe to be healthy -- the rise in the organic food market shows there's plenty of interest in this -- but which are poor choices.

by kimuchi on Jul 3, 2007 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Fair points, but ...

... if you click on the link, it describes in detail how they put the rats under stress. One of the things was to put them in the presence of an alpha-male rat, which was meant to simulate having a bully for a boss. Another was to force them to stand for extended periods with their feet in cold water, meant to simulate, I assume, dislocation or military training (or maybe just a bad date).

Only the mice eating the junk food got fat because of stress.

That doesn't mean people don't gain weight because of genetics or because of overeating non-junk food.

I think this information is important right now, because you have people like the New York Times' Gina Kolata saying that dietary choices have nothing to do with obesity, that it's all genetic. This study makes the opposite argument.

I understand what you mean about the personal anecdote being more powerful than what an animal study may show. My father was extremely obese, and had hardly any fast food. For most of his life, there wasn't any such thing. Eating was what he did to stuff down whatever was inside him and trying to get out.

Fast food provokes a different physiological reaction than other types of food, and I think that's an important finding.

by Lou Schuler on Jul 3, 2007 9:58 AM EDT reply actions

Different stressors and routes to fat

I meant specifically that anyone puzzled by the dichotomy of some people gaining weight due to stress and others losing it should be considering the qualitative differences between the stresses in question (and I think this is one area where the animal model breaks down, because for an animal a bullying alpha male is an immediately life-threatening stress -- not necessarily so for us, at least if the bully is contained at the workplace).

I keep harping on this in part because my diet has been so, so bad any of the times I've lost weight on the "fear for my life diet". One particularly awful summer I distinctly remember that my three major food groups were cake, hospital cafeteria pecan pie, and bagels with cream cheese.

On the "it's all genetic" tip, I understand your outrage but I do think there's a bit of an apples to apples problem. From the abstracts and articles I've read, it sounds like there's good agreement that the sort of central obesity this study examined is primarily environmental...but this is only one type of obesity. We could completely eliminate environmentally-mediated central obesity from our population and there would still be fat people on the streets (although fewer of them, and I'm sure some would be smaller than they are today).

by kimuchi on Jul 3, 2007 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions