Fat Tissue Regulation ~ Part VII: Changes in Fat Cells with Weight Loss
I came across this one a while back and found it fascinating.
In this study, 8 overweight/obese individuals (4M/4F, 30-60 y.o.a., BMI ≥ 27, otherwise healthy) were treated with a very low calorie diet (500 cal/day shakes + unlimited veggies) for 5 weeks followed by a weight stabilizing diet for 3 weeks. Abdominal subcutaneous fat biopsies were taken before and after the 8 week intervention.
There's a lot more here than what I'll address in this post. I hope to return to this at some future date, but in keeping with this series, I want to focus on the fat storage portions of the study. I have quite a bit in the pike regarding fatty acid transport and storage in various cell types. While fatty acids can be transported into (and out of) cells by passive means, it became apparent to me a while ago that the relatively rapid clearance of fatty acids into fat cells after a meal likely involved some active transport mechanism. As it turns out, uptake of fatty acids by adipocytes is facilitated by a fatty acid binding protein, FABP4. Triglycerides are stored in adipocytes (and other cells) in what are called lipid droplets, LD. Although the name implies something like a glob of fat, the lipid droplet is "coming of age" of sorts being recognized as a metabolically active organelle within the cell in much the same way as fat tissue has long since come to be recognized as so much more than just some passive depot for caloric excesses. This study looked at a protein known as vimentin which is possibly associated with lipid droplet formation/organization. More on this in a bit.
The table below summarizes the metabolic markers which were assessed in Week 6 immediately following the 5 week VLCD.
So the subjects lost an average of 9.5 kg or just over 20 lbs body weight, 7.1 kg (almost 16 lbs) of which was fat. Now I'm sure we'll get the usual "well, the diet was so low in calories it was effectively low carb" spiel as to why this diet worked, but such shake diets often do contain more carbs than some low carbers eat in a month. In any case, let's focus on that dastardly hormone insulin. Imposing a significant energy deficit on the adipocytes resulted in a more than 25% decrease in fasting insulin levels (the p-value of > 0.05 would not be statistically significant) and a 7% decrease in fasting blood glucose (the p-value of about 0.01 is statistically significant). Check out those NEFA/FFA!! Circulating free fatty acids were almost dropped in half!! You see, when the 8 subjects were weight stable at approximately 20 lbs heavier weights, their blood was swimming with free fatty acids -- you know, those NEFA the low carb shills claim are being locked away in your fat cells by your carb-induced insulin baths.
Here's what else they found:
... the uptake of fatty acids seems improved because on average there is a 40% increase in the abundance of FABP4 after the intervention. ... this provides evidence that weight reduction, in particular loss of fat mass, stimulates the basal function of triglyceride storage by adipocytes.
Note the adipocyte proteins were assessed after the full 8 weeks (3 weeks energy balance) so that the effect of an energy deficit was eliminated (or at least mitigated). From a formerly obese point of view, this is somewhat depressing news as always. At first glance, it seems that losing weight only primes the fat cells to gain it back. But let's pan back a bit and look at this whole picture of the purpose of our fat cells: to store energy for when we need it and keep excessive levels from circulation. So this is actually good news! Just 5 weeks and adipose tissue is dramatically transformed from overfilled and dysfunctional to doing it's thang protecting your non-adipose tissue from metabolic damage!
But here we see yet another contradiction in the woefully misguided TWICHOO. Yes, folks, what happens when you lower insulin, as was done in this study? The fat cells seem to have established a more fat-accumulation friendly environment upregulating FABP4. But something else also happens, what is described as "a reduced intracellular scaffolding of GLUT4" Hmmmm. So fewer glucose transporters but more fatty acid transporters. Remind me again what we store in our fat cells? Perhaps some comedians should stick to their day jobs rather than formulating garbage theories about how our fat mass expands to accomodate glucose. Sigh. But to sum up:
- Before: Higher insulin, higher GLUT4 scaffolding (to support glucose transport), lower FABP4 (to facilitate fatty acid uptake), elevated circulating NEFA.
- After: Lower insulin, lower GLUT4 scaffolding, higher FABP4, lower circulating NEFA.
Fat cells don't go wild accumulating fatty acids, rather they're fed up and just can't take it anymore! OK, sarcasm aside, this is yet another study that shows some rather dramatic changes in metabolic health with relatively minor changes in weight. I believe the findings here are important with respect to hormones and circulating metabolites. Although not statistically significant (probably due more to the small sample size and variation in levels than anything), the observed drop in fasting insulin levels of 25% is physiologically significant, and yet this was accompanied by an only 7% reduction in fasting glucose. What, yet again, seems to have changed the most? Those NEFA.
I'm going to save my analysis of Keith Frayn's latest review paper for the new year, but the findings here dovetail nicely with Frayn's more recent thinkings on fatty acids. Specifically, that adipocyte IR on the release side (inefficient suppression of HSL ) may be less important in the etiology of metabolic syndrome and diabetes, but rather that the defect occurs at the uptake side of the equation. This leads to inappropriately elevated basal circulating free fatty acids as well as inappropriately elevated postprandial NEFA with the composition of said fatty acids being potentially troublesome. Both lead to too much fatty acid storage in inappropriate places. Metabolically healthy lean individuals would have highly responsive fat tissue, presumably with sufficient FABP levels to whisk fat out of the bloodstream when called upon. That the obese have less fat accumulating proteins than their leaner selves is also in contrast to TWICHOO. The leaner "after" folks here had a more fat-trapping milieu than their "before" situations. The lean generally trap fat very efficiently (though some with insufficient adipose tissue do not). Clearly, the individual components of what drives fat uptake/esterification and lipolysis/release, do not regulate the NET accumulation of fat. This study adds to the evidence in support of this statement.
Before I go ... speaking of Frayn ... If you're relatively new to the Asylum, you may hear his name bantied about here often, but I've not blogged all that much on his work of late. If you don't know what I was talking about just now, may I suggest the following older blog posts (in reverse chronological order): Fatty Acid Trafficking , Adipose tissue as a buffer for daily lipid flux ~ Keith Frayn 2002 , Non-esterified fatty acid metabolism and postprandial lipaemia , Insulin Resistance ~ Taubes v. Frayn.
I'm going to save my analysis of Keith Frayn's latest review paper for the new year, but the findings here dovetail nicely with Frayn's more recent thinkings on fatty acids. Specifically, that adipocyte IR on the release side (inefficient suppression of HSL ) may be less important in the etiology of metabolic syndrome and diabetes, but rather that the defect occurs at the uptake side of the equation. This leads to inappropriately elevated basal circulating free fatty acids as well as inappropriately elevated postprandial NEFA with the composition of said fatty acids being potentially troublesome. Both lead to too much fatty acid storage in inappropriate places. Metabolically healthy lean individuals would have highly responsive fat tissue, presumably with sufficient FABP levels to whisk fat out of the bloodstream when called upon. That the obese have less fat accumulating proteins than their leaner selves is also in contrast to TWICHOO. The leaner "after" folks here had a more fat-trapping milieu than their "before" situations. The lean generally trap fat very efficiently (though some with insufficient adipose tissue do not). Clearly, the individual components of what drives fat uptake/esterification and lipolysis/release, do not regulate the NET accumulation of fat. This study adds to the evidence in support of this statement.
Before I go ... speaking of Frayn ... If you're relatively new to the Asylum, you may hear his name bantied about here often, but I've not blogged all that much on his work of late. If you don't know what I was talking about just now, may I suggest the following older blog posts (in reverse chronological order): Fatty Acid Trafficking , Adipose tissue as a buffer for daily lipid flux ~ Keith Frayn 2002 , Non-esterified fatty acid metabolism and postprandial lipaemia , Insulin Resistance ~ Taubes v. Frayn.
Comments
http://www.meerburgpharmacy.com/prod-modifast-info.htm
http://www.meerburgpharmacy.com/prod-modifast-slimming.htm
A good amount of fat loss with not too much muscle loss. probably good macro percentages for such low calorie. I wonder if it was mostly composed of protein and ver low carb whether there would be more muscle loss?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDwjkv1FW5g&feature=related
which prompted a long post by Minger:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/
It seems the myth of Keys the Great Deceiver is partly crumbling... but then all becomes advocacy again in her post - as always on both sides.
Also here:
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/12/primitive-nutrition-critique-parts-4.html
Thanks for that info Sue. At some point I don't see how low carb low cal (thus limited protein to some extent) wouldn't cause more LBM losses. No way glycerol from fats can provide all the glucose needs so some protein's gotta go!
Yeah bentley I think you're reading right if I'm reading you right! It's an interesting paradox that the most metabolically healthy would be the most prone to obesity if Taubes' theories were correct. In theory there shouldn't be any metabolically healthy lean people, as they would all get fat and eventually unhealthy ... hmmmmm.
He is a vegan now:
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/p/primal-diet-guide.html
yeh, that's what I think.
If not, nevermind ;)
Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease
Masironi 1970
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427508/pdf/bullwho00212-0114.pdf
wrt per capita income and per capita
energy consumption
(I'd wish for all blog posts to have a summary box at the end, btw.)
wrt LBM and weight loss, bodybuilders are nothing if not dedicated - that includes devotedly experimenting with everything. I'd say their practice through the years when dieting before a contest was to eat lean chicken and maybe broccoli or other non-starchy vegetables. The ingested protein would also serve for gluconeogenesis - rather than burning muscle. Most important is to send the signal to "keep this muscle because I'm using it" via exercise.
Naturally, mesomorphs and steroid users retain more. That includes the steroid users who swear that they don't use steroids, but only use their magic routine or feeding patterns.
Last but not least, there must inevitably exist a magical guru on the internet with a magical approach and hence lots of followers... aka Martin Berkhan & his "leangains".
I wonder if he'd like this [it is pretty funny but not g rated]. I'd have an easier time taking her seriously if it weren't for the obvious boob job and trendy clothes :)
Still, that grain of truth is as true as any other.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/video/how-to-become-a-slave-to-the-system
There is a new wife! A new day! A new Don rockin' the new year vegan style baaaaaaybeeee.
Guess he's not getting any repeat invites though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDwjkv1FW5g
Somehow that comment didn't make it past the censor. But my other comment posted afterward did.
So I suddenly lose all interest in that crap.
Even my comments get longer, as before I hit 'send' I now typically analyze what someone might interpret differently from what I actually meant - then I add more to clarify.
Sometimes though I just hit send without editing and then somebody usually thinks I was criticizing them :)
The thing of interest from him was that he doesn't require much protein - but then he isn't building new muscle, he's just maintaining. He does, therefore, put a pin in the dogma that everyone who exercises needs exorbitant amounts of protein just for repair and maintenance.
I do like the accents they all have.
Speaking of genetics, see a "myostatin negative" whippet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin
There are also net photos around of bulls and even a human toddler.
How 'bout them NEFAs?
Keep up the good work.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BeYourPotential?feature=g-all-a#p/u/3/1mJURyy5-CI
Lots of absolute beginner weightlifters taking serious roids don't gain that much muscle, that fast, without also putting on lots of fat.
Completely CRAPaliciously, bullsh*ttingly BOLLOCKS. IMHO, of course.
He must think he's completely gulled his target market and they'll now accept anything: towards that video's end he claims 2 to 3 hours sleep per 24 hours over the previous 27 days.
He should have made these claims to the JREF before starting, he's straying so far into that territory I bet they might have been interested.
[0] liar, liar, organic underwear and pants on fire
Yeah I think this must be true. OTOH, there are those eating VHF VLC doing IF and all that -- in other words not a lot of calories and protein. I can't imagine the rapid losses aren't at least some muscle loss.
Speaking of muscles though, Sisson is big on how he does no ab work. Well, he's lean, he was a well conditioned athlete for decades, and he DOES do isometric contractions.
He hasn't gained any weight yet though. I'm seen people try these gain muscle on raw diet dealios, I'm never seen any of them be succesful and in my expierence most just abadon it.
No one gains muscle without eating enough protien, maybe strength but not actual weight/muscle. Strength is more a psychological deal, it has little to do with actual muscles.
-----
wrt to the 35# gain vegan, the natural inclination is of course to look for tricks. We don't exactly live in the Age of Honesty. I've seen UFC fighters show up on fight day at 10 pounds over the limit - legally so because some are very proficient at cutting weight of 10 pounds for weigh-in day. Just drinking water will quickly get most of that back. Then a person can gain an additional 10 pounds of water with creatine. So now the goal is reduced, to starve and lose merely 15 pounds, then regain, which is easier than initial gaining.
It's still interesting if that can(?) be done on vegan.
________
The idea that most LC'ers buy is that ketones in and of themselves (not any side effects of ketones or their metabolism) spare protein.
I think ketones are involved, but not the way they think - from memory, ketones induce some insulin release, and it's the insulin's anti-catabolic effect that's protein sparing for highly ketogenic diets (personal theory, likely wrong).
I believe myself most of the protein loss from very restricted calories is in the delta, not the steady-state maintenance - it's in the body handling the calorie and composition changes, not in the long term maintenance.
> Strength is more a psychological deal, it has little to do with actual muscles
_____
Kind of ... there are physical changes like the brain/spine/nerves/end plates all change the way they fire muscles (called "rate coding"), and the nerves conduct better, and recruit more fibers, and there's improved co-ordination among various muscle groups ... all yielding better strength with no muscle weight gain needed.
But gaining strength without gaining weight requires some specific types of training. I don't think it happens in general ... in general, the bigger you get the stronger you get, and the stronger you get, the bigger you get.
Many folks suggest doing that specific type of training for limited periods - it strengthens muscle faster than tendons, ligaments and joints.
____
This was one of the specific accusations levelled at Ferriss.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..