6 ms·

Obese Monkeys Lose Weight On Drug That Attacks Blood Supply of Fat Cells

37 points by alvivar 15y ago

dsafasdf 15y ago
Monkeys can have a good life now!
prodigal_erik 15y ago
The obvious question is what will happen to the excess blood sugar, when it's no longer being taken up by fat cells. Would this promote insulin resistance?
- tansey 15y ago
  They address this in the article, noting that treated monkeys used 50% less insulin.
cletus 15y ago
Obesity has been an annoyingly difficult problem to "solve". I say "solve" because in most cases the solution is simply to eat sensibly and not be sedentary (ignoring people with genuine physiological problems such as thyroid conditions). But there is unquestionably a desire for people to be able to eat essentially what they want and to stay slimmer older. At some point someone will figure out a pharmaceutical solution to that problem and make a fortune (probably eclipsing what Viagra did for Pfizer). Current drugs that block appetite and/or fat absorption tend to have nasty side effects and questionable utility. Killing fat cells is certainly a novel approach, especially considering that relationship between fat cells and weight changes (eg fat cells will increase in size to a certain point before growing new fat cells), one that may even be relevant for people who have lost a lot of weight.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  And solving lung cancer is simply a matter of getting people to not smoke. Having tried and failed for 15 years to just "eat sensibly", I can promise you there is a whole lot more than just wanting to be able to have your cake and eat it, too. And lest you think it's just a will-power thing, I spent years on narcotics for pain management and had few problems getting off those. The deck is stacked incredibly against obese people. To wave it off like that is to vastly underestimate the root causes.
  - mrtron 15y ago
    It is a lifelong marathon. If you are serious about solving the weight problem, let me suggest a viable long term solution. Gain muscle mass. Let's say you are 250 pounds and extremely weak. You may hit the gym and burn 200 calories. Gain a large amount of strength, and you suddenly burn 400 calories in the same session. I haven't encountered a physically fit individual who has struggled to lose weight. However many fit individuals have a hard time maintaining a comfortable weight due to eating habits/will power. Also a huge problem with the "eat sensibly" concept is the deck is stacked against you in the US. Portions are huge and calorie dense. I would bet you could not maintain your current weight living in Asia.
    - malbs 15y ago
      Typical diets are to blame too. I can not completely back this up, but it is well known in body building:- Person begins to diet, they actually do lose weight (rather than just the usual water weight), but up to 25% of the weight they lose is actually lean mass, that is muscle. Your body devours itself when it is lacking caloric input, via fat reserves, and muscle tissue. In order to minimise the muscle loss and maximise fat loss, you need to be doing an appropriate amount of strength training, as well as eating enough protein. The worst possible outcome is that you do a number of cycles of a diet, with zero strength training, and every time you gain weight after a diet, you've gained more fat, and are now the proud owner of a body with even less lean mass. Muscle burns energy even when idle, fat does not. So you are spot on, the easiest way to lose fat is to gain muscle mass. Most of us are physically piss weak and shouldn't be.
    - aantix 15y ago
      Quoted from Lyle McDonald, one of the most respected individuals on the topics of exercise, diet, and nutrition : Q: Does adding muscle burn more calories? A: "Some of this also comes from the still gross misconception that ‘muscle burns a ton of calories’ (a myth I took apart in Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review). That is, they hope to jack up metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. Which is a futile activity because the effect is minimal (on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss." http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner-part-2.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  cletus, there's tons of research to suggest that simply being overweight perpetuates being overweight because in the vast majority of individuals, being overweight in the first place triggers all kind of "physiological problems" -- such as insulin problems (Syndrome X), liver problems (non-alcoholic enlargement), hormonal problems, uterine problems (PCOS), etc., which all conspire to make you hungrier, fatter and actively prevent you from losing weight (BEYOND just making you hungrier). And that is without even considering "set point theory" as described by the research of Seth Roberts. Once you gain weight, you are basically screwed. We're not meant to live in such abundance.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Actually, the standard theories ("scientific consensus", if you go for that sort of thing) suggest that as you gain weight, the rate at which you burn calories increases. I.e., fat takes calories to maintain. This causes bodyweight to be a mean-reverting random walk and explains why most individuals maintain a stable weight which increases slowly through their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation It's not by any means perfect, but it's a good approximation for most individuals.
rjd 15y ago
Anyone else wonder where they got obese monkeys from? I guess they feed them up terrible diets or something... And because the article had no pictures of obese monkeys, and I was curious to know what an obese monkey looked like... heres a google search : http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&i...
- spullara 15y ago
  The article states they were spontaneously obese and did not make them obese. They were fed the same foods as other monkeys, they just exercised less.
jacques_chester 15y ago
On the other hand, we're talking about a drug that selectively turns off blood flow. That it affects fat cells was only visible because subcutaneous fat is rather obvious. But what other cells did it affect? It's not well known yet. For all we know it's stomping on some neurons, or diddling with kidneys, or weakening the left ventricle of monkey hearts. It's too soon to get excited.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  There is a lot of fat in the brain. I realize it was targeting adipose fat, but that is still disconcerting until proven otherwise.
  - gte910h 15y ago
    The blood brain barrier stops many things, I think they'll just test if this does. More troubling is fat in myelin on nerves in the body (It has fat as one of it's components, and loss of it is bad).
- dantheman0207 15y ago
  They mention in the article that it had a dose-dependent effect on renal function that was both predictable and reversible. You're definitely correct, in that I wouldn't trust any fat-loss mechanism that works through accelerating apoptosis without extensive human research. However, it's effect on various cells is understood, as it is determined by the type of protein evident on the cell surface. Fat cells are understood(under the vascular mapping prepared by the lab in question) to have this in far greater numbers than any other cell type.
omlette 15y ago
how did those monkeys get obese? :*(
Tichy 15y ago
Or I don't know, you could just infect yourself with some nasty disease. Sick people tend to lose weight, too. Just saying that weight loss in itself is not necessarily saying much.
webmonkeyuk 15y ago
Disappointing, I really wanted to see a picture of before/after monkey mug shots.
nestlequ1k 15y ago
I think it's fascinating to imagine a future where scientists finally discover the "anti-fat" drug. I believe it's bound to happen in our lifetimes. In a world where only the poor are fat, it would be very interesting to see how this affects the perception of attractiveness in middle class/upper class society. Would we adapt to value knowledge above physical appearance?
- mhb 15y ago
  Aren't we living in a world in which only the poor don't have cell phones?
  - suivix 15y ago
    Nearly every poor adult has a cell phone. I can't tell if your comment was sarcastic or not.
rch 15y ago
This work came from my lab -- most of the research was completed before I joined. AMA I guess... Edit: I'm walking out the door at the moment.

37 points by alvivar 15y ago

Monkeys can have a good life now!

The obvious question is what will happen to the excess blood sugar, when it's no longer being taken up by fat cells. Would this promote insulin resistance?

tansey 15y ago
They address this in the article, noting that treated monkeys used 50% less insulin.

cletus 15y ago

Obesity has been an annoyingly difficult problem to "solve". I say "solve" because in most cases the solution is simply to eat sensibly and not be sedentary (ignoring people with genuine physiological problems such as thyroid conditions). But there is unquestionably a desire for people to be able to eat essentially what they want and to stay slimmer older. At some point someone will figure out a pharmaceutical solution to that problem and make a fortune (probably eclipsing what Viagra did for Pfizer). Current drugs that block appetite and/or fat absorption tend to have nasty side effects and questionable utility. Killing fat cells is certainly a novel approach, especially considering that relationship between fat cells and weight changes (eg fat cells will increase in size to a certain point before growing new fat cells), one that may even be relevant for people who have lost a lot of weight.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
And solving lung cancer is simply a matter of getting people to not smoke. Having tried and failed for 15 years to just "eat sensibly", I can promise you there is a whole lot more than just wanting to be able to have your cake and eat it, too. And lest you think it's just a will-power thing, I spent years on narcotics for pain management and had few problems getting off those. The deck is stacked incredibly against obese people. To wave it off like that is to vastly underestimate the root causes.
- mrtron 15y ago
  It is a lifelong marathon. If you are serious about solving the weight problem, let me suggest a viable long term solution. Gain muscle mass. Let's say you are 250 pounds and extremely weak. You may hit the gym and burn 200 calories. Gain a large amount of strength, and you suddenly burn 400 calories in the same session. I haven't encountered a physically fit individual who has struggled to lose weight. However many fit individuals have a hard time maintaining a comfortable weight due to eating habits/will power. Also a huge problem with the "eat sensibly" concept is the deck is stacked against you in the US. Portions are huge and calorie dense. I would bet you could not maintain your current weight living in Asia.
  - malbs 15y ago
    Typical diets are to blame too. I can not completely back this up, but it is well known in body building:- Person begins to diet, they actually do lose weight (rather than just the usual water weight), but up to 25% of the weight they lose is actually lean mass, that is muscle. Your body devours itself when it is lacking caloric input, via fat reserves, and muscle tissue. In order to minimise the muscle loss and maximise fat loss, you need to be doing an appropriate amount of strength training, as well as eating enough protein. The worst possible outcome is that you do a number of cycles of a diet, with zero strength training, and every time you gain weight after a diet, you've gained more fat, and are now the proud owner of a body with even less lean mass. Muscle burns energy even when idle, fat does not. So you are spot on, the easiest way to lose fat is to gain muscle mass. Most of us are physically piss weak and shouldn't be.
  - aantix 15y ago
    Quoted from Lyle McDonald, one of the most respected individuals on the topics of exercise, diet, and nutrition : Q: Does adding muscle burn more calories? A: "Some of this also comes from the still gross misconception that ‘muscle burns a ton of calories’ (a myth I took apart in Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review). That is, they hope to jack up metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. Which is a futile activity because the effect is minimal (on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss." http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner-part-2.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese... http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ahoyhere 15y ago
cletus, there's tons of research to suggest that simply being overweight perpetuates being overweight because in the vast majority of individuals, being overweight in the first place triggers all kind of "physiological problems" -- such as insulin problems (Syndrome X), liver problems (non-alcoholic enlargement), hormonal problems, uterine problems (PCOS), etc., which all conspire to make you hungrier, fatter and actively prevent you from losing weight (BEYOND just making you hungrier). And that is without even considering "set point theory" as described by the research of Seth Roberts. Once you gain weight, you are basically screwed. We're not meant to live in such abundance.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Actually, the standard theories ("scientific consensus", if you go for that sort of thing) suggest that as you gain weight, the rate at which you burn calories increases. I.e., fat takes calories to maintain. This causes bodyweight to be a mean-reverting random walk and explains why most individuals maintain a stable weight which increases slowly through their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation It's not by any means perfect, but it's a good approximation for most individuals.

rjd 15y ago

Anyone else wonder where they got obese monkeys from? I guess they feed them up terrible diets or something... And because the article had no pictures of obese monkeys, and I was curious to know what an obese monkey looked like... heres a google search : http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&i...

spullara 15y ago
The article states they were spontaneously obese and did not make them obese. They were fed the same foods as other monkeys, they just exercised less.

jacques_chester 15y ago

On the other hand, we're talking about a drug that selectively turns off blood flow. That it affects fat cells was only visible because subcutaneous fat is rather obvious. But what other cells did it affect? It's not well known yet. For all we know it's stomping on some neurons, or diddling with kidneys, or weakening the left ventricle of monkey hearts. It's too soon to get excited.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
There is a lot of fat in the brain. I realize it was targeting adipose fat, but that is still disconcerting until proven otherwise.
- gte910h 15y ago
  The blood brain barrier stops many things, I think they'll just test if this does. More troubling is fat in myelin on nerves in the body (It has fat as one of it's components, and loss of it is bad).
dantheman0207 15y ago
They mention in the article that it had a dose-dependent effect on renal function that was both predictable and reversible. You're definitely correct, in that I wouldn't trust any fat-loss mechanism that works through accelerating apoptosis without extensive human research. However, it's effect on various cells is understood, as it is determined by the type of protein evident on the cell surface. Fat cells are understood(under the vascular mapping prepared by the lab in question) to have this in far greater numbers than any other cell type.

omlette 15y ago

how did those monkeys get obese? :*(

Tichy 15y ago

Or I don't know, you could just infect yourself with some nasty disease. Sick people tend to lose weight, too. Just saying that weight loss in itself is not necessarily saying much.

webmonkeyuk 15y ago

Disappointing, I really wanted to see a picture of before/after monkey mug shots.

nestlequ1k 15y ago

I think it's fascinating to imagine a future where scientists finally discover the "anti-fat" drug. I believe it's bound to happen in our lifetimes. In a world where only the poor are fat, it would be very interesting to see how this affects the perception of attractiveness in middle class/upper class society. Would we adapt to value knowledge above physical appearance?

mhb 15y ago
Aren't we living in a world in which only the poor don't have cell phones?
- suivix 15y ago
  Nearly every poor adult has a cell phone. I can't tell if your comment was sarcastic or not.

rch 15y ago

This work came from my lab -- most of the research was completed before I joined. AMA I guess... Edit: I'm walking out the door at the moment.