Is palatability a hidden component in fat storage?

dr_soda

I stumbled across an odd study from 2012, testing whether and how the taste of sweetness influences weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683548

A summary of the study in plainer english is here:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-study-demonstrates-that-sugar-has.html

The results of the study are particularly interesting because, while palatability of food does certainly induce overeating when the subjects are left to their own devices, there's a second effect at work. Even in instances when controlling the amount of calories consumed, mice that were given food that was more palatable to them were more likely to store calories as fat than mice who found the food not particularly palatable.

The results of the study have caused me to reflect on my own experience with diet sodas, which seemed to hinder weight loss even in spite of meticulously tracking caloric intake vs burn over time. Swapping them out with fruit juice, and cutting back by an equal amount of solid food, gave me personally much better results years ago. Even though I have long been a believer in the general CICO rule of weight control, I do have to wonder now whether certain foods, flavorings, or sweeteners induce different hormonal or chemical responses in the body that influence precisely how those calories are utilized once they are consumed. Certainly you can't gain weight when eating at a deficit, but when eating at or above maintenance there may be some effect beyond the calories or the macronutrients that influence how any excess is processed.

EDIT: It would be ideal to know the macronutrient profiles of the lab chow vs the calorie waters they administered. That said, it's still interesting that the results of fat storage differed so strongly when the calorie amounts were controlled between the groups.

janejellyroll

But isn't fruit juice also palatable and sweet-tasting?

dr_soda

janejellyroll wrote: »

But isn't fruit juice also palatable and sweet-tasting?

While it is, it also contains micronutrients and actual food energy that the diet soda lacks. It's possible that this would factor into how the body reacts to calories either once they actually arrive or if they're in the gut already.

michelleepotter

I don't understand how fruit juice is less sweet and palatable than diet soda.

robininfl

I can't imagine how that would work...Diet soda is sweet so the body wants to hold on to the calories, but there aren't any, so what calories is it storing?

I haven't ever had any weight gain from quitting or starting diet soda. Some weight gain if I quit all caffeine, some weight gain/loss when I switch to/from coffee (because I drink it half milk, half espresso, lots of calories) but no weight gain from 1 coffee, 2 diet sodas and water each day vs just 1 coffee and water.

usmcmp

Here's one from 2014 (newer) that water is not superior to NNS beverages (calorie free soda) for weight loss during a comprehensive behavioral weight loss program.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24862170

lemurcat12

michelleepotter wrote: »

I don't understand how fruit juice is less sweet and palatable than diet soda.

Yeah, me neither.

Here's the full study if anyone wants to go through it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409339/

dr_soda

robininfl wrote: »

I can't imagine how that would work...Diet soda is sweet so the body wants to hold on to the calories, but there aren't any, so what calories is it storing?

I don't have scientifically researched answers to the question. Based on the study linked above, since a link may well exist, if I were to hypothesize, I would start by questioning what chemical or hormonal effects occur when the body is fooled into believing that calories are on their way by sweet flavoring yet the calories aren't actually there.

In one example, how might the body react if you drink the sweetened drink on an empty stomach, then an hour or two later when you eat? Will the miscue have effected the way the new calories are processed or distributed later?

In another example, what might occur when consuming a meal that is heavy in proteins and fats but relatively few carbs, then washing it down with artificial sweetener? The body has been prompted to accept a lot of carbs, but has none to work with. Could this cause a different reaction to the proteins and fats in some manner?

kimny72

But if not being able to taste the sugar made the body not store fat, what did it do with the calories from the sugar water? Did the sugar pass through the sad little mouse without being absorbed? Did they pee out sugar water? Did it increase their metabolism to the point that their bodies used more calories than the other mice?

I will disregard the blog, as it is very clear there is a big "sugar is the root of all evil" bias there, starting with the declaration that one small mice study from 2012 is "definitive".

I'm not study-fluent enough to understand the technical write up of the study, but I would need a better explanation for what exactly caused what happened to get past my initial sense that this is missing something important and doesn't mean what it think it means.

ETA: When I switched from regular to diet soda to conserve calories, I continued to lose/maintain weight based on the calorie numbers I expected, and did not experience any extra cravings or hunger. I saw no personal challenge to CICO from introducing artificial sweetener at all.

dr_soda

kimny72 wrote: »

But if not being able to taste the sugar made the body not store fat, what did it do with the calories from the sugar water? Did the sugar pass through the sad little mouse without being absorbed? Did they pee out sugar water? Did it increase their metabolism to the point that their bodies used more calories than the other mice?

I will disregard the blog, as it is very clear there is a big "sugar is the root of all evil" bias there, starting with the declaration that one small mice study from 2012 is "definitive".

I'm not study-fluent enough to understand the technical write up of the study, but I would need a better explanation for what exactly caused what happened to get past my initial sense that this is missing something important and doesn't mean what it think it means.

I understand your disregarding the blog. They are, if nothing else, clear in their bias. That said, after reading the actual study, the article seems to represent the facts of the study honestly if excitedly. I'd actually like to see some attempts to replicate the findings, since it's such a little-studied question, and one that may have some validity if further verified. "What happened to the extra calories" is an excellent question, and might have something to do with different people experiencing different resting metabolic rates.

Zipp237

There is a reason why some people love watermelon and some hate it. Something is going on, physiologically. Something with people who practically exist on fruits and veggies while others cannot get enough meat, too. We know people who are allergic to a food will frequently not like that food, too. The smell of a certain food kicks off a reaction in one person but not another.

There's more to be learned. There is so much that we don't know.

dr_soda

lemurcat12 wrote: »

michelleepotter wrote: »

I don't understand how fruit juice is less sweet and palatable than diet soda.

Here's the full study if anyone wants to go through it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3409339/

Thank you for posting the full study. The conclusion sums it up as such (emphasis mine):

4.5. Conclusion

The present findings indicate that T1r3 and Trpm5 play critical roles in carbohydrate-induced dietary obesity. Tas1r3 KO and Trpm5 KO mice, which are not inherently attracted to sucrose, showed little or no excess weight gain when their diet was supplemented with a sucrose solution. Even though the KO mice rapidly learned to prefer the sucrose solution based on its post-oral actions, this learned preference was not sufficient to promote obesity. In contrast, when Tas1r3 KO mice were offered diets supplemented with carbohydrate solutions to which they were inherently attracted (i.e., the Polycose and Suc+IL solutions), they became obese.

Unexpectedly, the diet-induced obesity appeared to be due in large part to increases in carbohydrate utilization not caloric intake. This is illustrated most clearly in Tas1r3 KO mice, which exhibited elevated caloric intake but no excess weight gain on the Sucrose diet compared to WT and Trpm5 KO mice. However, when offered the highly palatable Suc+IL solution, the Tas1r3 KO gained a significant amount of weight although their caloric intake was not elevated.

The fact that Tas1r3 KO mice exhibited high weight gain on the Polycose and Suc+IL diets indicates that T1r3 signaling is not necessary for efficient carbohydrate metabolism. Conceivably, palatability-driven cephalic responses to Polycose or IL in the mouth may promote carbohydrate processing via Tas1r3-independent chemosensory pathways. In addition, gut sensors of Polycose or IL may affect carbohydrate absorption via regulation of SGLT1. Development of tissue-specific knock-out mice would greatly enhance our ability to assess the relative contribution of taste signaling proteins in the mouth versus gut to carbohydrate-induced obesity.

mommarnurse

Isn't it true that the body is constantly temporarily storing fuel in the form of fat then destroying it for use as energy when needed? Therefore even these temporary instant supposed fat Storages won't cause actual weight gain if there is and end product of energy balance?