A new study in mice points to how cell biology, not
willpower, might be the root of yo-yo dieting.
AMANDA
MULL JUL 16, 2019
The
American conventional wisdom about weight loss is simple: A calorie deficit is
all that’s required to drop excess pounds, and moderating future calorie
consumption is all that’s required to maintain it. To the idea’s adherents, the
infinite complexity of human biology acts as one big nutritional piggy bank.
Anyone who gains too much weight or loses weight and gains it back has simply
failed to balance the caloric checkbook, which can be corrected by forswearing
fatty food or carbs.
Endocrinologists
have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than
calorie deficits and energy expenditures. And in 2016, the fickle complexity of
weight came to broad national attention. In a study of former contestants on a
season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser,
scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had
gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far
weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had
fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and
wishes. No one was sure why.
Along
with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New
York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her
team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in
mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of
bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold
the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even
harder to keep it off.
In 1992,
Schmidt was studying the complications of diabetes when she and her team made
what she calls a startling discovery: Humans and other mammals
have a protein on the surface of fat cells called the receptor for advanced
glycation end products, or RAGE, which appeared to play previously unobserved
roles in a host of the body’s metabolic and inflammatory responses. Eventually,
it became clear that the protein was also present in nondiabetic tissues, which
suggested RAGE had consequences far beyond just a few chronic diseases.
Schmidt’s
latest study found an enormous difference in weight gain between two test
groups: conventional mice and mice whose RAGE pathway had been deleted. The
latter group gained 70 percent less weight than conventional mice, had lower
glucose levels, and expended more energy while eating the same high-fat diet
and doing the same amount of physical activity. The conventional mice’s bodies
hit the metabolism brakes, making it impossible for them to burn as much energy
as their RAGE-deleted counterparts.
Schmidt
posits that RAGE might have evolved to protect mammals, including humans, when
another meal might not be predictably forthcoming and the body’s ability to
retain its resources would be a boon. “However, in time of plenty, when there
is no shortage of nutrients, the receptor is still present and is able to
continue to exert that unfortunate role of hoarding the energy and not allowing
it to be expended,” she explains. It makes sense that the body would conserve
resources when it detects a potential need, but it feels particularly cruel, at
least in modern times, that humans might experience the same metabolic slowdown
after a hearty meal.
Schmidt
also theorizes that RAGE’s influence on chronic inflammation, which she had
previously studied, would have been more useful to humans when our life span
was much shorter. The responses would have protected short-term health, which
would have been all that mattered. “These organisms didn’t live to high ages
after reproduction, so it wasn’t required to survive and stay alive longer,” Schmidt
says. The known side effects of RAGE, such as chronic inflammatory diseases,
might have been meaningless to the well-being of humans who only lived to their
40s.
Although
Schmidt cautions that the translation of her findings in mice into therapies for
humans will be a long, careful process, she’s optimistic about the potential.
In her new study, she found that the weight benefits of RAGE inactivity could
be conferred on new animals simply by transplanting a relatively small amount
of brown-fat tissue from mice that had had their RAGE pathway deleted into
conventional mice. This holds promise for future treatments for patients with
metabolic and chronic inflammatory disorders.
With the
qualification that the study’s findings are in mice and its exact translation
to humans is not yet known, Utpal Pajvani, a professor and an endocrinologist
at Columbia University, expressed similar optimism about the new RAGE findings.
“These data are quite interesting, and are consistent with the hypothesis that
the obesity epidemic is in part due to evolutionary pressures to prevent
starvation in stress,” he told me via email. “The current study adds to
[Schmidt’s] impressive body of work, and suggest that methods to reduce RAGE
signaling in fat may have benefit in people.”
Over the
course of millennia, mammals might have developed things like RAGE to contend
with their often-challenging surroundings. For humans, whose life spans have
lengthened significantly in the space of only a few generations, that might be
both a blessing and a curse. To meet the contemporary needs of people whose
circumstances have changed at rates far quicker than evolution’s ability to
keep up, findings like Schmidt’s are leading scientists toward ways to hasten
the process.
For those
advances to have the best chance of improving people’s lives, Schmidt cautions
against the tendency to gloss over human complexity in favor of too-simple
cultural beliefs, such as the idea that weight loss is just calorie deficits
and willpower. “Weight loss is very, very difficult,” she says. “Only by
studying the good things, the bad things, and how sometimes things that were
meant to be good can go awry can we figure out the big picture and how to
safely make people’s lives healthier and better.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
No comments:
Post a Comment