New study finds that fat consumption is the only cause of weight gain

(Karl) #1

I haven’t finished picking this apart, but a headline like this had to be shared so everyone ELSE could pick the article apart :slight_smile:

(bulkbiker) #2

Did you manage to find a link to the article itself rather than the news reports?
I’d dearly like to know what the “fat” was that they used… mice don’t eat much steak so far as I know…

(Jim) #3

I clicked through to the main site and there are a lot of articles there on diet, weight loss, etc. Apparently keto is a “fad” and lots of veggies will help you lose weight.

Those damn vegans and their propaganda!

(Lauren Lake) #4

Here’s the study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(18)30392-9

(less is more, more or less) #5

Leave it to Nina to cut to the quick:

(bulkbiker) #6

Unfortunately the full text is behind a paywall…

(bulkbiker) #7

I think that is a debunking of a different study…equally valid I’m sure…

(less is more, more or less) #8

You’re right, date is too old. I presumed they fed the little critters veggie oils.

(bulkbiker) #9

That’s what I’m guessing too and not being a mouse… but still would be nice to know…
Have to wait until someone stumps up the cash…

(LeeAnn Brooks) #10

I’m reading The Big Fat Surprise right now, and there were studies dating way back using a host of herbivores that showed similar results with cholesterol, mainly rabbits. (This was pre-Ancil Keys). However they were largely dismissed when they couldn’t be replicated in dogs or other omnivores. The discovery was that herbavores, unlike carnivors and omnivores, have no way of regulating cholesterol. Whereas our bodyies can dispose of excess cholesterol.

Of course all of this was in a lead up of believing cholesterol was bad for us in the first place.

Point is, as Dr. Jason Fung says in the Obesity Code, “we are not mice.”

#11

I’m still stunned at the rabbit and herbivore studies. Evolution is pretty much the basis of biology, so any decent scientist should understand that an herbivore will have a different reaction to saturated fat than an omnivore (or a carnivore). I think many of those same scientists would burst out laughing at the idea of feeding carrots and clover to a lion (I mean - duh, right?). But somehow those same folks seem to see humans outside of the usual laws of nature. Do they think that if basic evolutionary logic doesn’t apply to us? I don’t get it.

Also - I LOVED that book! I had so much fun reading it.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #12

I’m only 11% into it. But I love how easy it is to read for someone without a lot of science background.

(Karen) #13

Additionally if 80% of the mouse diet was fat, what WAS the other 20%?

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #14

We exposed C57BL/6 mice to 29 different diets varying from 8.3% to 80% fat, 10% to 80% carbohydrate, 5% to 30% protein, and 5% to 30% sucrose. Only increased dietary fat content was associated with elevated energy intake and adiposity.

This from the abstract.

As I mentioned in the other thread, it would be interesting to see the results if the same study were performed on rats.

(Todd Allen) #15

Full article here free for pirates.

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.06.010

#16

Thank you, Todd!

Everyone, check this out:

Highlights
-Energy intake was linked only to dietary fat levels and not protein or sucrose_
-Adiposity increased with increasing fat content to 60% but thereafter declined_
-Hypothalamic hunger pathways were unresponsive to dietary protein content_
-Dopamine, opioid, and serotonin pathways were all stimulated by fat intake_

Leaving aside Paul’s notes about mouse metabolism, #2 there ^ is pretty interesting. If (and this is a big if, because I haven’t read as far as the details on this) 60% dietary fat means more carbs, then what you have is a high fat diet with substantial carbs, which we all know is a disaster. When the fat ratio went above 60% adiposity DECLINED.

(E.O.) #17

I noticed that too about the “60%”…it seems today the headlines are so dishonest if you click thru to the studies themselves. Know I’m singing to the choir on this one but heck “ONLY” gives away an extreme bias. There are a lot of things which contribute to weight gain, proven, which are NOT fat, carbs, or protein.

(bulkbiker) #18

Thanks for that… one thing that stood out for me and especially relevant here

“Lastly, none of the diets we used were sufficiently low in carbohydrate to drive the individuals into keto- genesis, which is another factor suggested to affect weight regulation”

“One interpretation of why we did not find these effects in mice might be because mice have different food intake and macronutrient regulation systems from humans, and that such systems are not strongly conserved across species”

In other words you can’t draw any conclusions from our results in regards to humans? hey ho… but at least they said it…

(Alec) #19

They fed them canola oil??? Are you serious? Game over.

Moving on, nothing to see here…

(Terri) #20

I found the part that explains the type of fat, protein and carbs used. Quoting below. Looks like it wasn’t canola oil, but the Omega 6:3 ratio isn’t good.

"In total, mice were fed on 5 diet series, each series consisting of 6 different diets (total = 30 diets), full details of which are in Table S1.
In the first two series (Series 1: D14071601 – D14071606 and series 2: D14071607 – D14071612) we fixed the level of fat at 60% (series 1) or 20% (series 2) by energy, and varied the protein content from 5% to 30% by energy. The protein source was casein.
The balance was made up by carbohydrate (roughly equal mix of corn starch and maltodextrose). The source of fat was a mix of cocoa butter, coconut oil, menhaden oil, palm oil and sunflower oil. This mix was designed to match the balance of saturated, mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (ratio 47.5: 36.8: 15.8) and the n-6: n-3 ratio (14.7: 1) in the typical western diet. The proportions of the different fat constituents and hence fatty acid distributions did not change as the total fat content changed. Sucrose
and cellulose were both fixed 5% by energy and weight respectively, and all diets were supplemented with a standard vitamin and mineral mix. In the second two series of diets (series 3: D14071613 – D14071618 and series 4: D14071619 – D14071624) we fixed the level of protein at 10% (series 3) or 25% (series 4) by energy and then allowed the fat content to vary. When the protein was at 10% the six fat contents were 10, 30, 40 50 70 and 80%. When the protein was 25% the six fat contents were 8.3, 25, 33.3, 41.7, 58.3 and
66.6%. Fat, protein and carbohydrate composition were the same as those in the first 2 series. In these diets the sucrose, cellulose and vitamin and mineral contents were the same as the diets in series 1 and 2. In a fifth series of diets we fixed the fat at 41.7%, and the protein at 25% and then allowed the sucrose to vary between 5% and 30% in 5% steps (diet codes D14071622, D16053101 to D16053105). All these diets can be ordered direct from research diets (https://researchdiets.com/) using the diet codes provided.