backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Apr 3 at 11:46 AM


The tiny compounds could eventually help diabetics...like Paula Deen  (Source: nutrivize.com)
The pair of tiny molecules caused a decrease in cholesterol and fat mass

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida have developed a pair of molecules that could lead to weight loss and one day treat disorders like obesity and diabetes.
 
Thomas Burris, study leader and a professor at Scripps Florida, along with a team of researchers, were able to synthesize a pair of tiny molecules that are capable of altering the biological clock in animals.
 
The small molecules alter the circadian rhythm and pattern of core clock gene expression in the brain’s hypothalamus. Circadian rhythms react to a 24-hour cycle of light and dark while the brain’s hypothalamus relates to the daily rhythms in mammals.
 
The synthetic compounds activate proteins called REV-ERBα and REV-ERBβ, which are partially responsible for the biological rhythms associated with metabolism in mammals.
 
The researchers administered the synthetic compounds to obese mice twice a day for 12 days. After the 12 days, researchers tested the mice and found that fat mass, hyperglycemia, and cholesterol levels improved significantly. The mice were given a diet of high fat and high sugar foods, yet still lost weight.
 
According to the study’s results, cholesterol was reduced by 47 percent and triglycerides in the blood decreased by 12 percent.
 
The compounds also played a part in controlling the mammals’ activity during night and day, which the researchers believe could be used to control insomnia and other sleep disorders. Researchers found that oxygen consumption increased by 5 percent in mice during the day and night, which means increased energy expenditure, but they found that these increases were not due to increased energy – there was a 15 percent decrease in movement during the same time that oxygen consumption increased.
 
“The idea behind this research is that our circadian rhythms are coupled with metabolic processes and that you can modulate them pharmacologically,” said Burris. “As it turns out, the effect of that modulation is surprisingly positive – everything has been beneficial so far.”
 
This study was published in Nature.

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: progress!
By Ramtech on 3/30/2012 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
There is already simpler and cheaper solution to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_banding


RE: progress!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 3/30/2012 4:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
I would not consider an invasive surgery to be simpler than taking a shot twice a day. People with Diabetes are already used to taking shots already.

All this really does is create the mindset that eating mass quantities of food, of which a single portion has your daily caloric intake, will continue to be acceptable.

A sedentary life style, even if you are at a healthy weight, is not good for anyone. And no form of medication will help to alleviate that.


RE: progress!
By thehatter on 3/30/2012 8:34:09 PM , Rating: 1
There is an even easier solution, get off your fat ass and walk for an hour, eat veg instead of deep fried everything, and eat less.

Before anyone flames me, I was in the category of needing to get off my fat ass, and once I did I reached my ideal weight (with involved loosing roughly 100 lbs) within a year, without any effort. So really the drug is only needed for the lazy.


RE: progress!
By FaaR on 3/30/2012 10:48:16 PM , Rating: 1
Your anecdotal evidence is unfortunately completely worthless as proof for how difficult it is to lose weight. Humans are not all identical genetically, some are pre-disponitioned to gain weight more easily (and conversely, not lose it as easily).

Also, it has been shown that eating food stimulates the brain's pleasure center, and it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to figure this mechanism could also be affected by genetic variation, meaning if you have a strong pleasure reaction from eating, coupled with a propensity for gaining weight, you might easily become very obese.

So TL:DR, unfounded blanket statements FTL.


RE: progress!
By someguy123 on 3/31/2012 12:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not all people are born the same, but the idea that there are many people simply "predispositioned" for weight gain is about as anecdotal as you can get. Those with actual genetic disorders leading to overwhelming urge to eat or very low metabolism are very rare, and often very dangerous (like thyroid diseases).

Do what you will, but please, stop blaming genetics.


RE: progress!
By biowizard on 3/31/2012 4:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we do not know in humans how genetics affects obesity. In obese mice strains the cause is often single gene changes. In obese humans this does not appear to be the case. However obesity in humans could be due to multi-gene interactions or perhaps to rare variants in obesity genes. There are strong evolutionary arguments to think that genetics are likely to be important in obesity. Since soon we will be able to cheaply sequence the DNA of millions of humans we should be able to answer this question.


RE: progress!
By mindless1 on 3/31/2012 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we do know. It's still a matter of consuming more calories than you burn. Genetics cannot at this time make the body run on sunlight, electricity, or other forms of energy. Food. IS. It.


RE: progress!
By ppardee on 4/2/2012 4:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
You're oversimplifying a very complex problem. It is true that the only way for the body to accumulate fat is by burning fewer calories than are consumed, but this isn't a simple matter of the eater being too indulgent or too inactive. If the only thing involved was what you eat and how much you move, do you really think ANYONE could stay at a stable weight for any given period of time? Do you believe you eat the same amount, to the Calorie, every month?

Even a 10 Calorie per day difference is a 1 pound per year weight gain. That doesn't sound like much, but it adds up over a lifetime, and 10 Calories per day is insignificant. If it were all a matter of input vs expenditure, our weight would fluctuate wildly.

In reality, there are a lot of factors that go in to weight gain/loss. Gut flora, genetics, hormones, what you eat, how much you eat, etc... All of these factors determine what your body does with the food that you put into it. Also, your metabolism is more effected by certain types of activities. You could spend 6 hours on a treadmill and get less benefit than you could 1 hour of interval training. And, I could spend 1 hour doing interval training and get less benefit than you could doing 1 hour of interval training.

You can't just look at a fat person and say "You eat too much and are lazy." It just isn't accurate (in all cases).


RE: progress!
By mindless1 on 4/3/2012 11:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
False. It is a very simple problem.

Yes most people do stay at a fairly stable weight, gaining a few pounds as they age due to lowered metabolism vs calorie consumption.

People don't actually stay at a completely stable weight, varying a few pounds every year unless they closely monitor their weight and adjust diet or activity level to compensate.

I can and do look at a fat person and think "they eat more calories than they burn". This is not a mystical situation, not even the tiniest bit complex.

EVERYONE who applies what I wrote will have control of their weight, though too often people either don't care about their weight (which is their right to choose), care less about it than eating what they want, or eat in excess due to emotional issues or environmental ones (in cold climates, an insulating fat layer is beneficial).

All the things you mention are irrelevant. No matter how much they might play a role the bottom line is no different for anyone. So long as a person is a biological entity that burns calories for energy, reducing the calorie to metabolic ratio will result in lower fat accumulation and in extension, burning fat.

Lazy? Your word not mine. I'm not the type of person who thinks someone else should do any particular thing. I'd like it if everyone were at their ideal healthy weight but I like more the freedom to live one's life as they choose.


RE: progress!
By FaaR on 3/30/2012 10:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
There are many complications and side-effects of that surgical procedure (including the fact you're anesthethized and cut open, which in of itself is a risk factor), and once performed it cannot be undone in case there are problems.

Taking a pill is trivial in comparison to this. Far, far cheaper too, might one add.


RE: progress!
By FredEx on 3/31/2012 6:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Banding can be reversed.


RE: progress!
By FredEx on 3/31/2012 6:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
It is far from simple. There are negative side effects and it does not work for everybody. Also, some are not good candidates for the procedure. I know due to my considering it myself and attending months of group meetings. What turned me off of it is them needing to put a screen in an artery to prevent the propagation of a possible blood clot. According to my cardiologist the screens can collect plaque. I've also met several people that have had the procedure and have all sorts of issues and some over eat it. It can make you toss your cookies, but some manage to still consume too many calories to lose weight. Sometimes that causes irreparable damage. If the head isn't right, it is not going to work.

One has to weigh the risks. Sometimes it becomes a matter of having to do it to save your life.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki