Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do fat cells really stay around "forever?"
pgray007
Posts: 47 Member
I can't remember where I read it, and google hasn't helped find the original source, but I recall reading that fat cells are essentially "bags" that are filled with the fat that your body produces. Gaining weight means those "bags" are filled up with fat, with new "bags" produced as needed, while loosing weight meant emptying the "bags," but NOT removing/destroying the bag itself.
What was a bit disconcerting was that the article said that once the fat cell/bag was created, it would never be disposed of by your body, making increases in weight slightly easier, so theoretically it was "easier" to regain 5lbs than to store a "new" 5lbs in the form of fat.
Any truth to this or was this an oversimplified/totally wrong analogy?
What was a bit disconcerting was that the article said that once the fat cell/bag was created, it would never be disposed of by your body, making increases in weight slightly easier, so theoretically it was "easier" to regain 5lbs than to store a "new" 5lbs in the form of fat.
Any truth to this or was this an oversimplified/totally wrong analogy?
0
Replies
-
That sounds about right, if fat cells get too big new ones are created but they don't go away. Hence liposuction.1
-
No, not quite right.
Adipocytes have a regular turnover rate (regular rate of death and replacement). It's been estimated at about 10% per year. I think what you're referring to is that the total population of adipocytes in general does not decrease. It stays the same or increases.0 -
No, not quite right.
Adipocytes have a regular turnover rate (regular rate of death and replacement). It's been estimated at about 10% per year. I think what you're referring to is that the total population of adipocytes in general does not decrease. It stays the same or increases.
It is proven to turn over. That they do turnover makes it hard to say for sure that they do stay consistently the same amount. The research that proved the turn over was actually rather interesting - they looked at the carbon content of people's fat cells who were born before 1945 to see if their fat cells still had the same carbon signature as the atmosphere before the first atomic bomb was ever released.0 -
No, not quite right.
Adipocytes have a regular turnover rate (regular rate of death and replacement). It's been estimated at about 10% per year. I think what you're referring to is that the total population of adipocytes in general does not decrease. It stays the same or increases.
Interesting. Is the turnover rate relatively the same for all people with consideration for varying levels of fat?It is proven to turn over. That they do turnover makes it hard to say for sure that they do stay consistently the same amount. The research that proved the turn over was actually rather interesting - they looked at the carbon content of people's fat cells who were born before 1945 to see if their fat cells still had the same carbon signature as the atmosphere before the first atomic bomb was ever released.
0 -
No, not quite right.
Adipocytes have a regular turnover rate (regular rate of death and replacement). It's been estimated at about 10% per year. I think what you're referring to is that the total population of adipocytes in general does not decrease. It stays the same or increases.
It is proven to turn over. That they do turnover makes it hard to say for sure that they do stay consistently the same amount. The research that proved the turn over was actually rather interesting - they looked at the carbon content of people's fat cells who were born before 1945 to see if their fat cells still had the same carbon signature as the atmosphere before the first atomic bomb was ever released.
I'll amend to say 'measurements of mean adipocyte population in adults have not been shown to decrease significantly'.
TBH, I'd be extremely surprised if there were not some minor variation in population in the downward direction at some point.0 -
This might be of interest (warning I'm just now reading it as I just found it):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235038/0 -
Interesting. The paper suggests that insulin sensitivity plays a role in turn over rates.0
-
If the cells stay around they are kept alive. That should mean they still burn some amount of calories even if they're empty.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »If the cells stay around they are kept alive. That should mean they still burn some amount of calories even if they're empty.
Yes. The more pressing problem that lead to the hypothesis that they have abnormal aptosis is that their fullness might be inverse to how strongly they produce hunger hormones like ghrelin.
It was originally hypothesized that people regain weight easily and tend towards set points because as the cells get too large, they finally divide, and now you have more cells that want to be full, and losing weight empties them, causing them to put out hunger signals.
Current research is showing it doesn't work exactly that way.0 -
this is sooo depressing0
-
-
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.0 -
-
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
Why are you looking for an excuse to be confrontational? They are saying it is unfortunate something is true. You seem to be hoping someone is going to come and deny it so you can condescendingly explain how the facts are the facts regardless of their feelings.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
Why are you looking for an excuse to be confrontational? They are saying it is unfortunate something is true. You seem to be hoping someone is going to come and deny it so you can condescendingly explain how the facts are the facts regardless of their feelings.
If I was looking for an excuse for confrontation, why are you giving me one? I'm going to guess Christine is already well aware of my view on facts, so no, my statement wasn't about that.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
Why are you looking for an excuse to be confrontational? They are saying it is unfortunate something is true. You seem to be hoping someone is going to come and deny it so you can condescendingly explain how the facts are the facts regardless of their feelings.
If I was looking for an excuse for confrontation, why are you giving me one? I'm going to guess Christine is already well aware of my view on facts, so no, my statement wasn't about that.
Yes, you are correct. I don't take anything you say personally.
I know exactly what I'm getting myself in to when I open my mouth in this forum
In all fairness though, to someone who doesn't know your style your post would have come across as confrontational and argumentative.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
Why are you looking for an excuse to be confrontational? They are saying it is unfortunate something is true. You seem to be hoping someone is going to come and deny it so you can condescendingly explain how the facts are the facts regardless of their feelings.
You must have missed the "hateful science" thread.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
Why are you looking for an excuse to be confrontational? They are saying it is unfortunate something is true. You seem to be hoping someone is going to come and deny it so you can condescendingly explain how the facts are the facts regardless of their feelings.
You must be new here. Welcome to MFP!!0 -
Oñate, Blanca et al. “Stem Cells Isolated from Adipose Tissue of Obese Patients Show Changes in Their Transcriptomic Profile That Indicate Loss in Stemcellness and Increased Commitment to an Adipocyte-like Phenotype.” BMC Genomics 14 (2013): 625. PMC. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
This is even more depressing. "Your stem cells commit to creating adipocytes if you become obese". Fantastic.
... this is what I get for poking around on the 'cited by' articles. Thanks for the diversion, @senecarr .0 -
So from a practical perspective, how does his affect someone who has lost weight, or don't we yet understand the impacts?0
-
So from a practical perspective, how does his affect someone who has lost weight, or don't we yet understand the impacts?
Generally that people who used to weigh more previously will have increased ghrelin production by fat cells for possibly years after any significant (10% is what I think I usually see bandied) weight loss. These means maintaining could involve more hunger unless diet is altered to include more satiating foods to compensate.
At a more generic level, it confirms what we know - losing weight is hard. As a maintenance researcher has said though "Is losing weight hard? Absolutely? Losing weight is hard. Being obese is hard. Pick your hard."0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions