Obese Monkeys Lose Weight On Drug That Attacks Blood Supply of Fat Cells
sciencedaily.com
sciencedaily.com
Just saying that weight loss in itself is not necessarily saying much.
Edit: I'm walking out the door at the moment.
But what other cells did it affect? It's not well known yet. For all we know it's stomping on some neurons, or diddling with kidneys, or weakening the left ventricle of monkey hearts. It's too soon to get excited.
More troubling is fat in myelin on nerves in the body (It has fat as one of it's components, and loss of it is bad).
However, it's effect on various cells is understood, as it is determined by the type of protein evident on the cell surface. Fat cells are understood(under the vascular mapping prepared by the lab in question) to have this in far greater numbers than any other cell type.
And because the article had no pictures of obese monkeys, and I was curious to know what an obese monkey looked like... heres a google search : http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&i...
But there is unquestionably a desire for people to be able to eat essentially what they want and to stay slimmer older. At some point someone will figure out a pharmaceutical solution to that problem and make a fortune (probably eclipsing what Viagra did for Pfizer). Current drugs that block appetite and/or fat absorption tend to have nasty side effects and questionable utility.
Killing fat cells is certainly a novel approach, especially considering that relationship between fat cells and weight changes (eg fat cells will increase in size to a certain point before growing new fat cells), one that may even be relevant for people who have lost a lot of weight.
And lest you think it's just a will-power thing, I spent years on narcotics for pain management and had few problems getting off those.
The deck is stacked incredibly against obese people. To wave it off like that is to vastly underestimate the root causes.
Gain muscle mass. Let's say you are 250 pounds and extremely weak. You may hit the gym and burn 200 calories. Gain a large amount of strength, and you suddenly burn 400 calories in the same session.
I haven't encountered a physically fit individual who has struggled to lose weight. However many fit individuals have a hard time maintaining a comfortable weight due to eating habits/will power.
Also a huge problem with the "eat sensibly" concept is the deck is stacked against you in the US. Portions are huge and calorie dense. I would bet you could not maintain your current weight living in Asia.
Person begins to diet, they actually do lose weight (rather than just the usual water weight), but up to 25% of the weight they lose is actually lean mass, that is muscle. Your body devours itself when it is lacking caloric input, via fat reserves, and muscle tissue. In order to minimise the muscle loss and maximise fat loss, you need to be doing an appropriate amount of strength training, as well as eating enough protein.
The worst possible outcome is that you do a number of cycles of a diet, with zero strength training, and every time you gain weight after a diet, you've gained more fat, and are now the proud owner of a body with even less lean mass.
Muscle burns energy even when idle, fat does not. So you are spot on, the easiest way to lose fat is to gain muscle mass. Most of us are physically piss weak and shouldn't be.
Q: Does adding muscle burn more calories?
A: "Some of this also comes from the still gross misconception that ‘muscle burns a ton of calories’ (a myth I took apart in Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review). That is, they hope to jack up metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. Which is a futile activity because the effect is minimal (on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...
Is that per hour or per day?
I do daily exercise, have done strength training for years, and am careful of what I eat and how much of it — even with this scheme it’s not easy to keep my weight at its present level, so while I’m definitely physically fit, it is a big struggle to avoid gaining weight.
If I compare my activities, food intake, etc. to those of my slim peers, it’s clear that the cards are just stacked differently.
Mixing those two is a bad sign, because strength training takes a while to recover from. You might be doing something wrong -- how much do you squat?
I am aware of restoration period for muscle tissue rebuilding — I have struggled with this for 10+ years (getting my BMI down from above 28 to around 22 in that period) and have of course read plenty related to weight loss (metabolism, calories, strength-training) hoping to find the silver bullet, but there is none (for me), it’s just a lot of hard work, hence why I felt mrtron’s comment deserved a reply.
Of course, I don't think there is anything wrong with using technology to have your cake, eat it too, and not get fat.
Willpower can stop you from originally gaining the weight, but once on, it's a different story, and one that society doesn't really solve yet in a repeatable fashion.
Fixed that for you.
If you are a bodybuilder aiming for muscle + visible 6-pack, or a fighter aiming for a specific weight class, you care about the second order corrections. If you are a fattie, the second order corrections means you might approach a healthy weight slightly faster or slower than the HB equation predicts.
Once you gain weight, you are basically screwed.
We're not meant to live in such abundance.
This causes bodyweight to be a mean-reverting random walk and explains why most individuals maintain a stable weight which increases slowly through their lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-Benedict_equation
It's not by any means perfect, but it's a good approximation for most individuals.