12 ms·
McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels
- AndrewKemendo 12y agoSeems like we are trying to engineer a solution that is fundamentally a behavioral issue rather than mechanical. I do realize though that assuming we can reign in consumption socially is a non-starter at the same time though I think enabling high levels of consumption is the opposite of what we should be doing. That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our consumption patterns can become less extreme.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoIsn't the change in metabolism as you age mechanical?
- danudey 12y agoThe article discusses the change in metabolism as being (at least partly) as a result of fatty, awful North American diets; it's possible that the change is normal over time as a cumulative result of diet but that the North American diet accelerates the process. That would also explain the childhood obesity epidemic; forcing our kids to run laps and play sports doesn't help if they have a fundamentally flawed diet that rapidly accelerates their serotonin production/accretion, especially if younger children are more prone to the process. The metabolic change would also explain the various studies/experiments I've seen where people who became obese and then lost significant weight retained the same appetite as they had when they were obese.
- Igglyboo 12y agoYou can argue that everything in the universe is mechanical, even electricity, if you look at a small enough scale.
- nostromo 12y agoIt's often not behavior changes that turn healthy 20 year olds into obese 50 year olds -- it's that behaviors stay the same while the body changes. If we can find a way to bring some of those perks of youth into older age, I think it's great.
- swalsh 12y agoThis is very true, I'm a creature of habit. When I go to restaurants I always order the same thing, at home I eat the same things. Each week I rotate the same few options. To me it's very satisfying (my wife hates it, she ventures out more often) Right around age 25 or so despite nothing changing in my life other than my age, I started to gain weight. Very slowly, but it was adding up. After doing some calorie counting I lost about 30lbs over 8 months, and returned to my original weight. Though since then I've been struggling to find the right number to increase to. The suggested number of 2000 seems to be too high.
- AndrewKemendo 12y agoYou're exactly right on that because I am transitioning from young guy to old guy and can see it happen. That doesn't mean my old eating habits were sustainable though forever. I think we need to be able to reduce our consumption if we aren't growing anymore.
- exelius 12y ago> That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our consumption patterns can become less extreme. I disagree; aging and death are natural processes that could wreak havoc economically if significantly altered. Right now, the young have the ability to progress in the economy because older people eventually leave the workforce through retirement or death. People need to be able to die naturally. If nobody died, and everyone had children, the population would simply grow with no prospect of stopping it. Though the more likely proposition would be that the wealthy who could afford the treatments would never die, and the rest of the population would. That's an even worse scenario in my opinion.
- JoshTriplett 12y agoFeel free to die then. Don't condemn everyone else. Are you going to complain because life expectancies have already gone up by decades? "We need more resources because we cured death" is precisely the kind of problem we ought to have.
- joyeuse6701 12y agoNo need to be facetious, death need not be a condemnation, and there is value in awareness of consequence.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago> there is value in awareness of consequence Awareness of consequence is one thing, and it's fine to anticipate the next set of problems and discuss how to address them. But "we shouldn't fix this problem because it'll raise new ones" is an awful statement, compared to "let's fix this problem; bring on the next ones and we'll fix those too". > death need not be a condemnation If you oppose other people living longer or forever, you're saying you want them dead, sooner or later. Couching it in vague or indirect language makes it no less of a condemnation.
- noobermin 12y agoTaking that hypothesis, do you suppose that the lengthening of the life expectancy of developed countries has had a negative impact on said countries? Or do you think about life prolongation is a good thing up to a point?
- tptacek 12y agoBehavior and biology are intimately linked.
- michaelochurch 12y agoFixing metabolic slowdown isn't going to end obesity or reduce the need for exercise, but it will level the playing field. It's still going to require effort, for many people, to maintain a healthy weight and exercise enough. But it's hard enough to do that as it is; if you can turn off a defect that causes the body to pile on unneeded pounds of fat (that interfere with health, mood, and the ability to exercise) with age, then you should.
- revelation 12y agoHow is metabolic slowdown a defect? I don't see middle-aged people dropping dead around me, so clearly all that has happened is that their bodies are now more efficient. Great news! And piling on fat making it harder to exercise? Sure, on the face of it that's true, but usually the one happens because theres a dire lack of the other.
- michaelochurch 12y agoIt's not basal metabolic rate that makes people fat. It's either unhealthy cracings or low energy (and yes, I know that this sense of "energy" is psychological to some degree) levels. It's not low BMR alone that's the problem and, of course, if you have a high BMR but cravings/appetite issues or lethargy, you're still likely to gain weight.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago> They're calling it a possible solution to obesity and a preventative measure for diabetes, one that turns up the body's metabolic rate without the negative side effects of increasing the heart rate or blood pressure. I think "possible solution" is too strong. According to the CDC, as of 2012 "more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese" so it logically follows that simply restoring the metabolic rate of adults to their teenage rates probably won't help a sizable portion of the population. Also, while it's promising that this doesn't increase heart rate or blood pressure, weight is just one factor in overall health. There are a lot of adults who are of a healthy weight but still aren't very healthy. For instance, a healthy weight doesn't mean that an individual has good cardiovascular health or functional strength. It's a shame that so much emphasis is placed on weight when it's really only a part of the equation and arguably not even the most important. It's kind of silly how we keep looking for a pill for appearance (weight) when it's not hard to notice that people who focus on cardiovascular conditioning and functional strength usually have the healthiest looking bodies. Weight and body composition follow from healthy lifestyle; health does not follow from weight. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
- danudey 12y ago> I think "possible solution" is too strong. According to the CDC, as of 2012 "more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese" so it logically follows that simply restoring the metabolic rate of adults to their teenage rates probably won't help a sizable portion of the population. I think the message here is slightly different; it's not talking about 'setting it back to what your metabolism was like as a teenager', but rather 'setting a healthy person's metabolism back to what a healthy teenager's would be'. It's entirely possible that the reason for the childhood obesity epidemic is an underdeveloped biology pumped full of these metabolism-destroying foods (accelerating the production of serotonin, etc.), resulting in a ruined metabolism far earlier than would be normal. In other words, the diet that would cause obesity after 20 years starting at age 15 might cause obesity after 10 years starting at 5.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
- aculver 12y agoSorry to be off-topic, but I was drawn to the story because of the McMaster reference and I bet some other Hamiltonians probably will be to. Would love to connect with any HN folks in Hamilton!
- quadrature 12y agoSame here, like a moth to a flame.
- nilved 12y agoDitto. Email me@devlinzed.com if you want to hang out or work on something. I work at factor[e] on Locke.
- srj55 12y agosmall world. I'm a few hundred feet away on Chatham St.
- RyanMcGreal 12y agoCount me in, too.
- sprawl_ 12y agoMcmaster computer engineering student here.
- AlexSolution 12y agoChecking in from Platform 302.
- Pxtl 12y agoHonk.
- jorjordandan 12y ago'nother hamiltonian here. Hoping to start working at platform 302 a couple days a week, soon. emailable at jordan@jordandavis.ca
- 12y ago
- noobermin 12y agoSo, I thought serotonin was basically the "happiness" hormone. Wouldn't inhibiting serotonin have side-effects like making them feel depressed or at least less happy? Can any biologists comment? EDIT: as a replier mentioned, it's discussed in the article.
- tempestn 12y agoThe article discusses this: Steinberg also noted that the serotonin found in the brain is not linked to what's happening in the digestive tract serotonin. He said it's strictly reflective of "periphery serotonin," and that the serotonin found in the brain, some five per cent of total serotonin in the body, does not interact. The two pools of the same hormone are separated by what's called a blood brain barrier, and do not mix. It leaves the question of the link between depression, serotonin levels and obesity up in the air, something Steinberg says he can't answer just yet. So my understanding is, "probably not, but they can't be entirely sure yet."
- fluidcruft 12y agoThat's pop-neuro-psych gibberish marketing talk--molecules aren't moods any more than motor oil is velocity. Also, synaptic serotonin is in a different compartment. But I was pondering about the link between SSRIs and weight gain.
- jonnathanson 12y ago"But I was pondering about the link between SSRIs and weight gain." Indeed, there may be some connection there. But frustratingly, we don't really know what the connection is, or if it has multiple factors--and if so, how those factors relate to one another. To date (to the best of my knowledge), reports of weight gain from people taking SSRIs have been anecdotal. There is a large enough sample size to draw a clear connection; the weight gain isn't imaginary. (It occurs in about 25% of SSRI users, and the risk for weight gain increases over the duration of SSRI usage.) But there haven't been controlled, clinical studies of of the effect. Do SSRIs affect metabolism in some way? Possibly. Do they affect appetite instead, or in addition to, metabolism? Possibly. Do they affect gut microflora? Possibly. Could be any of these things; could be all of these things; could be something we haven't even hypothesized yet. There is a relationship; we don't yet know the directionality of cause and effect, or the factors involved, or their individual significance in the causal web. These new results are fascinating, and they give further impetus for further study.
- eldude 12y agoBased on the findings of this article, the OTC EGCG should "restore metabolism to youth levels." Using a decarboxylase or AADC[0] inhibitor like EGCG[1] found in green tea extract limits peripheral serotonin metabolism, especially if you're supplementing with serotonin precursors like tryptophan or 5-HTP to avoid heart-valve issues.[2] See Examine.com's note in the 5-HTP article[3] and the associated citation.[4] 800mg of EGCG 2 hours prior to supplementation demonstrated decarboxylase inhibition. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_L-amino_acid_decarboxylase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_L-amino_acid_decarboxy... [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MYW2ZA/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MYW2ZA/ [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781732 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781732 [3] http://examine.com/supplements/5-HTP/#summary5-1 http://examine.com/supplements/5-HTP/#summary5-1 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11374875 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11374875
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- boo_radley 12y agoIT'S CALLED COCAINE AND IT'S AWESOME
- tempestn 12y agoI don't really understand the comments here, and especially on the article itself, deriding this research because "people should just get off their butts and exercise" or similar. I'm sure the researchers wouldn't dispute the benefits of exercise. But if there really is a safe, effective way to improve the metabolism and make it easier to keep off fat, why exactly is that a bad thing? (Naturally the research is far too early on to know that, but hypothetically speaking.) Of course you should continue to exercise and stay healthy in other ways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also look for other ways to make it easier for people to get to, or remain at, a healthy weight.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoThere are few topics that create as much controversial conversation. The well known ones are religion and politics, the third is 'diet/exercise.' Always a lot of energy.
- andywood 12y agoOr in summary: 1. Our ways > your ways. 2. Nuh uh. 3. (Optional) Wanna fight about it? Iterate! (HN version of #2: "Hyperlinks to statistically rigorous peer reviewed studies or GTFO")
- jjoonathan 12y agoEh, I'd put "I saw a documentary on netflix that said..." into the "Nuh uh" category more than the "stats or GTFO" category.
- CamperBob2 12y agoEspecially around here. Health-related posts bring out the same well-informed, scientifically literate opinions from the HN crowd that I'd expect when reading posts about C++ programming on webmd.com. I really wish users could downvote stories.
- the_cat_kittles 12y agoI think its a variation of "bikeshedding"- everyone eats and gets some form of exercise, so everyone feels entitled to an opinion.
- stevebmark 12y agoType 1 (!) diabetic goes off insulin, "indicating restored insulin production"(!): http://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/provisional_articles/2014-10/09_Z01_2014070118_CR_prov.pdf http://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/provisional_ar... Type 2 diabetics improve insulin resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594 Or, you know, just put diabetes into remission and stop medication: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/ Pro tip: You may not need drugs to treat diabetic cases. Diabetics, barring genetic mutations, may just be carbohydrate intolerant. Or just take some brand new drug that fucks with your body's chemical status and disregard how your body responds to food.
- crazypyro 12y agoThe type 1 diabetic in your first linked article was very recently diagnosed before the start of the experiment and a sample size of one on a brand new diagnosis doesn't seem highly significant to me. The article had some fishy elements to it that made me want to research the authors more... The researcher appears to have a rather huge monetary investment into the paleo-style diet/care, seeing as you can order clinical care for a large sum of money from his personal site (http://paleomedicina.com/ http://paleomedicina.com/ and http://paleomedicina.com/hu/rendelesek-es-klinikai-ellatas http://paleomedicina.com/hu/rendelesek-es-klinikai-ellatas). You'll see he has services that range up to 10,000 euros/month in Hungary, which I imagine is quite a princely sum.... Forgive me if I am making a mistake as I was using google translate, but I would definitely take that article with a grain of salt....
- stevebmark 12y agoAre you saying you don't believe he went off insulin, and that his data was fabricated? You can also just look into the decades of research done on carbohydrates and diabetes http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714003323 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714...
- logicallee 12y ago
- debacle 12y ago> and was previously thought to only exist in rodents, hibernating animals and children That's patently not true. It's been known that brown fat exists in small amounts in adults for quite a long time.
- driverdan 12y agoPublication: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3766.html http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3766.... This article and the researchers grossly overstate potential benefits of this research. While adults have "brown fat" there isn't a lot, certainly not enough to make up for the level of overconsumption by obese people. It isn't appropriate to jump to conclusions about how this would work in humans based on rat experiments since rats have a much larger amount of brown fat than humans. TL;DR: Interesting research with irresponsible and most likely incorrect assumptions about how it applies to humans.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- shard 12y agoSo refined carbs are bad due to high glycemic index, too much fat is bad due to seratonin release, is a generally optimal diet then just lean meat and vegetables? We are running out of things to eat...
- tonyarkles 12y agoLean meat and vegetables seems like a pretty good diet to me! When I'm actually following that, I do need to add some fat, otherwise I'm feeling hungry all the time. Add a bit of fat (olive oil or butter, generally for me) and things are golden. Eggs work too!
- srtjstjsj 12y agolean meat and vegetables (and nuts and fruits) have been the foundation of the human diet for thousands of years.
- BasLeijdekkers 12y agoIt seems it is the carbohydrates that cause the seratonin release[1], not the fat. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697046 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697046
- galkam 12y agoAm I wrong, or does this contradict all the recent research about fat actually not causing obesity. http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-eat-more-fat-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-eat-more-fat-2014-10
- rasz_pl 12y agoI was very surprised about fat blaming in this article too. Its common knowledge* that high amounts of hydrocarbons in the died decrease metabolism. When you eat food that is easy to burn your body switches to that and stops trying to burn stored fat. *not 'grandmas wisdom', but something you can test on yourself with Ketogenic diet in 1-2 months.
- emmelaich 12y agoI think it was Grandma's wisdom - or at least common knowledge. As I've commented before, from a Tolstoy novel: eschew[ed] farinaceous and sweet dishes.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4441869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4441869
- Otik 12y agoI think the word you were looking for was "carbohydrates", not "hydrocarbons". They're not the same thing.
- rasz_pl 12y agoyep, wrong language, in mine those two sound almost the same :/
- 31reasons 12y agoThis research could be funded by the low-fat industry!
- elementai 12y agoI have a strange feeling that paleo etc folks already know this for years.
- jv22222 12y agoBlocking Serotonin in Gut Reverses Osteoporosis in Mice http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Osteoporosis/18346 http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Osteoporosis/18346
- NicoJuicy 12y agoHigher metabolism without changing food habbits, wouldn't this be awesome for fastfood? People still getting fat, but they buy more from now on?