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
pgray007 Posts: 47 Member
edited January 2022 in Debate Club
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?
«1

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    That sounds about right, if fat cells get too big new ones are created but they don't go away. Hence liposuction.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    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.
    senecarr wrote: »
    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.
    Interesting. Is the turnover rate relatively the same for all people with consideration for varying levels of fat?
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    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/
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Interesting. The paper suggests that insulin sensitivity plays a role in turn over rates.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    If the cells stay around they are kept alive. That should mean they still burn some amount of calories even if they're empty.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    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.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    this is sooo depressing
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    I'm sorry the science facts aren't a happy thing for you too.
  • aashwill
    aashwill Posts: 64 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    aashwill wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    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.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    aashwill wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    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. :smile:
    I know exactly what I'm getting myself in to when I open my mouth in this forum :tongue:

    In all fairness though, to someone who doesn't know your style your post would have come across as confrontational and argumentative.

  • ClosetBayesian
    ClosetBayesian Posts: 836 Member
    aashwill wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    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.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited March 2016
    aashwill wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    this is sooo depressing

    Lol yes, yes it is

    I'm sorry science isn't a happy thing for you.

    I can accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it :wink:

    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!!
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited March 2016
    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 .
This discussion has been closed.