Mice become Obese WITHOUT Consuming Any More Calories
Replies
-
Well, I guess I can blame that for getting fat then...but I won't. The sad truth is that I got fat because of my own bad decisions..not my sleep schedule. *sigh* Accountability...the cold, hard truth....0
-
It doesn't matter what time someone eats.
Stop freaking people out and spreading bull crap around.
Eating at night, WON'T KILL YOU or make you gain weight.
Eating at lunch time or an hour later then usual for lunch, WON'T KILL YOU or make you gain weight.
I truly think people believe everything on the internet now and it makes me laugh and feel bad for all of those people.
Plus, We're not mice so..0 -
It doesn't matter what time someone eats.
Stop freaking people out and spreading bull crap around.
Eating at night, WON'T KILL YOU or make you gain weight.
Eating at lunch time or an hour later then usual for lunch, WON'T KILL YOU or make you gain weight.
I truly think people believe everything on the internet now and it makes me laugh and feel bad for all of those people.
Plus, We're not mice so..
Bonjour0 -
Cherry picking a few things because I don't want to read the whole study.....
Scientists have recently looked at a mammalian clock gene in fat cells that is known under two names: "Arntl" and "Bmal1." The researchers found that when mice carry a deletion of the clock gene Arntl/Bmal1 in their fat cells, that the mice do two things: they shift their normal eating pattern from nighttime to daytime…and they become obese. This deletion of the Arntl/Bmal1 gene results in a broken molecular clock that disrupts the brain-body timing involved in eating.
The Penn team found that only a handful of genes were altered when the clock was broken in fat cells and these governed how unsaturated fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were released into the blood stream. Interestingly, these are the same fatty acids that are typically associated with fish oils. Sure enough, levels of EPA and DHA were low in both plasma and in the hypothalamus at the time of inappropriate feeding.
However, when the Arntl/Bmal1 deleted mice were fed EPA and DHA, their normal metabolism was restored.
ETA. The last line, and that it appears they were mutant mice, by the researchers I am assuming, once the were given back what was missing because of having their fat cells broken they went back to normal.
Upon reading about broken fat cells though I think I am going to use that, I am not really obese my fat cells are just broken.0 -
I gained all my weight by eating tasty, crunchy mice that were fat from being night-worker mice.
I started cutting calories by not eating their yummy heads.
Therefore, not all calories are created equal. Calories that involve brains are bad.
Raspberry ketones anyone?0 -
Here is a study that shows the complexity of obesity. These mice became OBESE WITHOUT consuming any more calories than control mice. They only ate at unnatural times.
There are at least four other studies like this demonstrating that you can fatten mice WITHOUT feeding them any more calories.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2012/11/fitzgerald/
I'm curious so, I'll ask.
How did they study define Obese? Was it weight or body fat percentage? They are very diffrent things...0 -
Yes, because My great great great grandmother's sister in law once removed was a mouse, so that means I am related to mice. No wonder my kids can relate to Mikey and Minnie Mouse so much.
There are also various Scientific studies that indicate that humans are in fact, NOT mice :noway:0 -
Here is a study that shows the complexity of obesity. These mice became OBESE WITHOUT consuming any more calories than control mice. They only ate at unnatural times.
There are at least four other studies like this demonstrating that you can fatten mice WITHOUT feeding them any more calories.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2012/11/fitzgerald/
I'm curious so, I'll ask.
How did they study define Obese? Was it weight or body fat percentage? They are very diffrent things...
No clue. The article was just an article. I looked but couldn't find a link or any other details about the study. *shrugs*0 -
When OP posted over here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/749701-95-of-people-who-lose-weight-put-it-back-on-why that we can't change our inherited body weight by more than 8 lbs, I decided any other topics posted by them would be pretty useless.0
-
As long as you are continuing to exercise, you can likely ward off the "hormonal disadvantage" of less than optimum circumstances for fat burning. One of the first things that happens when sleep is disrupted is a rise in cortisol levels, which disrupts other hormonal flows (some of them build lean muscle, others spur the metabolism, and suppress appetite, etc.). Vigorous exercise helps to lower elevated cortisol levels. Maintaining control of the appetite is paramount in any program to burn fat and keep it off. Exercise, because of its effect on hormonal cascades, is the best way to deal with shift work. Avoiding the empty calories of sugar and starch will help as well. Unfortunately, many people become depressed when they do shift work. Some of it is physical (sleep/hormonal disruption) and some of it is emotional (not always an easy thing to accept that one is sleeping when the rest of the world is awake, and vice versa). Depressed people often reach out for "comfort food"---which usually isn't spinach, celery and rutabaga.
p.s. The bottom line is that SOME people gain weight when they do evening or night shift work. But since not all do, it is unlikely that there is some universal bio-chemistry operating there. And even if, for a myriad of reasons, gaining of body fat is made easier, it is, by no means, a foregone conclusion that one will gain.0 -
Here is a study that shows the complexity of obesity. These mice became OBESE WITHOUT consuming any more calories than control mice. They only ate at unnatural times.
There are at least four other studies like this demonstrating that you can fatten mice WITHOUT feeding them any more calories.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2012/11/fitzgerald/
I'm curious so, I'll ask.
How did they study define Obese? Was it weight or body fat percentage? They are very diffrent things...
No clue. The article was just an article. I looked but couldn't find a link or any other details about the study. *shrugs*
Gaining weight and and gaining body fat aren't the same.
Just sayin'...0 -
Here's what the OP posted from the other link that another poster put up and I'm pretty much with them on their comment...The reason for weight regain is BIOLOGY.
Obesity is an extremely complex chronic disease state for which there is no current cure. "Eat less and move more " is a silly nostrum which has no basis in science. It's an extrapolation. It is NOT a solution to obesity. The body responds to everything we do and has tricks we do not even understand yet designed to keep us at a certain weight. You will regain over the long term and not even "hear its voice." Dr. Liebel has discoevred this. Body weight is involuntarily regulated by neural circuitry. But , we all can be about 8 pounds less.
This extremely small group of people who maintain most likely have a different neural circuitry wiring than most of the population.
Obesity is as heritable as height. Obesity is more heritable than ANY other condition studied by science. I am in contact with the top obesity researchers in the world such as Dr. Douglas Coleman and Dr. Rudolph Liebel. Most people on here are laughably misinformed.
Our ability to affect our body weight is very limited , especially over the long term. "The Biggest Loser" is not based on any kind of science. It's fraud.
Seriously OP..."Eat less and move more " is a silly nostrum which has no basis in science."
Just....seriously?
mind = blown0 -
So after reading the actual peer review article, I found this in the conclusion and interesting statement:These observations suggest that attenuation of the feeding rhythm shifts energy toward storage instead of utilization, as indicated by a reduction in energy expenditure.
Especially given this statement in the results section:Taken together, our findings suggest that the reduction in energy expenditure in HFD-fed mice is not the direct result of disruption of the adipocyte clock but, rather, is a secondary event.0 -
Eating at lunch time or an hour later then usual for lunch, WON'T KILL YOU or make you gain weight.
Oh thank god. I usually eat lunch at 11:30 and today it was after 2. I was sooooo worried I'd get fat!0 -
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!0 -
I guess it\s a good thing no one on here is a mouse.
Mice and humans will not react the same when given the same circumstances.
Just because mice will gain weight eating at certain times doesn't mean humans will. Don't compare yourself to a mouse.
i am a mouse and i take great offense to your post.
hehe this made me smile0 -
I guess it\s a good thing no one on here is a mouse.
Mice and humans will not react the same when given the same circumstances.
Just because mice will gain weight eating at certain times doesn't mean humans will. Don't compare yourself to a mouse.
i am a mouse and i take great offense to your post.
How dare you! How do you know I'M not a mouse?
I'm very upset.
I'm part of the mouse comity and I can't believe that everyone keeps forgetting, WE EXSIST TOO! god.
not only humans have MFP accounts0 -
While interesting, you cant always go by mice/rat results. If every test that worked with mice worked with humans than vlc diets would improve your lifespan ( from the bbc doc about the 5:2 diet)0
-
Good thing we have studies on humans showing that nocturnal eating habits aren't detrimental:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745
^ that
^^this to the ^ that0 -
i had sex with a mouse while fat after the mouse smoked id like to see a study on that0
-
what a load of mouse ****0
-
0
-
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.0 -
There is no unnatural time for a mouse to eat.0
-
Where is the cheese?0
-
We have debates within the Physiology department in which I work about beliefs in weight management and almost always there will be someone that discredits research because of their personal belief about metabolism. The numbers speak for themselves. And 99% of current biomedical research suggests that yes, we are just like mice
Grateful for the people that took the time to read the abstract before spouting off about unrelated issues involving eating patterns.
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.0 -
We have debates within the Physiology department in which I work about beliefs in weight management and almost always there will be someone that discredits research because of their personal belief about metabolism. The numbers speak for themselves. And 99% of current biomedical research suggests that yes, we are just like mice Grateful for the people that took the time to read the abstract before spouting off about unrelated issues involving eating patterns.
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.
Exactly! There is a reason why they do so many studies on mice. The neurological make up of mice is similar to humans and so is their immune system. They are actually growing human ears on mice using stem cells. If it wasn't for mice and the studies done on them they wouldn't have so many different treatments available for my MS or most other diseases for that matter. People need to get their heads out of the gym and actually read something other than a work out magazine and learn something new for a change. Broaden your horizons and open your minds to the world around you. Life is more than protein shakes and weight lifting.0 -
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.
I was interested to see this. I'm not a scientist or expert it any way, but I do believe that weight is more complex than people allow. Science is fluid; what we believe is absolute truth today will be completely changed in ten years. And different people have different experiences gaining or losing weight. Thanks for posting this.0 -
I saw the same study, since I research nutrition, food politics, biology, anthropology, etc in my spare time. I didn't share it here because I've had quite enough of the calories in/calories out crowd attacking me every time I share my experience to try to help people who are struggling even when they following all the status quo dietary recommendations.
However, all nutritional research is challenging to present or defend. There is lots of confusion between correlation and causation and there are SO many factors, especially when it's human studies. Of course, because those are mice, the calories in/out crowd will say the research is invalid because it wasn't conducted on humans. The reason animals are used is because that's the only way to control all factors. However, no logical argument, or presentation of new informaiton, will ever open a person's mind who chooses to be personally threatened when their existing beliefs are challenged. The ability to think critically, and change one's mind, is a rare trait these days.
Thanks for having the guts to post.
Edit: perhaps it was a different study because the one that I was familiar with wasn't focused on time of day that the eating occurred.
As pointed out by others, there are almost always short-comings with nutritional research. And that includes the research that we (specifically corporations and governments) have built the SAD diet on!
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.
I have a question. Why are you calling studies on actual humans broscience?. Did you overlook the studies that were provided that were actually on humans?
Studies on mice/rats are a good starting point but they have different metabolisms to us, which is why studies on humans trump studies on rats.0 -
I agree and want to thank the OP for posting that. I heard of the study from my biology professor who has a PHD and also teaches at Penn. Unfortunately a lot of people here will refuse to see the implications of such a study on humans because all they know is sarcasm and bro science.
Hey don't take it out on broscience.
Just because it's stupid and mainly confabulated to sound good doesn't make it wrong.
And some of my best friends are sarcastic.
Yeah, really... I have friends.0
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