
McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels - RyanMcGreal
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/want-to-eat-like-a-teen-again-science-may-have-found-a-way-1.2862231
======
tempestn
I don't really understand the comments here, and especially on the article
itself, deriding this research because "people should just get off their butts
and exercise" or similar. I'm sure the researchers wouldn't dispute the
benefits of exercise. But if there really is a safe, effective way to improve
the metabolism and make it easier to keep off fat, why exactly is that a bad
thing? (Naturally the research is far too early on to know that, but
hypothetically speaking.) Of course you should continue to exercise and stay
healthy in other ways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also look for other
ways to make it easier for people to get to, or remain at, a healthy weight.

~~~
zackmorris
I was watching "Feeding Frenzy: The Food Industry, Marketing & the Creation of
a Health Crisis" on LinkTV last night and they talked about how obesity is
rising in 3-6 year olds. The point being that children in that age group are
no less active today than in the past, so something else is causing obesity,
type II diabetes and other problems.

The most likely culprit is processed food, where nutrients are not used in
their natural form, but instead converted into something else. So using corn
to make high fructose corn syrup, soy and cottonseed to make oil, or feeding
animal protein to herbivores are a few examples of where the food supply is
getting contaminated. For example, cottonseed oil is not only a relatively
unhealthy oil, but it also contains one of the highest concentration of
pesticides (because cotton was not traditionally a food crop).

Not to mention that plastics contain hormone-like chemicals like BPA, they use
preservatives in things like canned food that don’t need them, and add animal
byproducts like pork lard to foods like refried beans that don’t need them. So
our immune systems are getting bombarded by substances we either have no
evolutionary history with or simply don’t need to be eating in the quantities
that we are. So that inhibits aspects of our immune systems and metabolism
(triggering autoimmune disorders like allergies, asthma, arthritis and
metabolic syndrome).

I could literally go on forever about this, so the gist of it is “it’s the
food supply, stupid”. Yes, being more active helps a great deal, but without
proper nutrition we’re looking at a modern form of the wasting diseases
similar to the ones they used to get in the 1800s before they understood
vitamins and minerals, except it’s masked by obesity. I think if we didn’t
have the social stigmas around laziness and the political monkeying of the
farm and retail lobbies, we would have recognized obesity as an epidemic the
way we did with polio and done something about it decades ago. Nothing short
of going back to the foods we ate before about 1980 is going to work for the
vast majority of the population. And that’s going to start with campaigns to
inform people about what’s in their food and reform the way we design cities
so that food centers are near where people live.

TL;DR: They found medical evidence that the western diet disrupts metabolism
via pathways other than caloric intake. Now let’s do something about it.

~~~
onewaystreet
> The most likely culprit is processed food

Food doesn't jump into kids' mouths and eat itself. If there's a problem with
what kids are eating then it's their parents who are to blame.

~~~
rtpg
access to fresh food is more expensive now that the industry has gone more and
more into processed foods.

People have to eat, and if you can't afford to get high-quality food, you're
gonna buy low-quality food.

~~~
kaybe
Only in terms of time, at least here in Europe. If you get noodles, flour,
rice and in-season vegetables and fruit (and don't choose these for wants but
for price, there are some ridiculous deals sometimes), plus some more
expensive ingredients such as eggs and milk sparingly, it is very cheap.
There's no way processed food can beat that.

~~~
ryanobjc
See, you are assuming that noodles, flour, rice are healthy for you.

There is good evidence that in fact, it is not. Many of those things are
inflammatory. Also, following advice they get from doctors, they are using
more and more poly-unsaturated fats. Which as we are discovering are actually
substantially LESS healthy for you than saturated fat!

And in terms of time, you are ignoring the only thing people have a fixed
amount of. By ignoring that, you're ignoring a very important factor that
causes people in to bad eating choices. Not that they even know what good vs
bad are (as I hinted above, so-called 'healthy' food for you isn't!)

~~~
kaybe
Well, you can also get lentils, whole-grain bread/noodles/rice/flour,
chickpeas and other things as cheap staples (if one leaves the meat out as in
my example it's not even optional), but I guess that's not what you mean? What
would be your suggestion as staple?

There's a problem with nutrition research in that it changes recommendations
every once in a while. The only constant seems to be 'Eat food, mix it up -
naturally colourful things are good, don't eat too much of it', so I'm going
with that for now.

Concerning time.. it's maybe more of a knowledge and organisation thing, which
takes time to aquire. Unless you want really fancy food like sushi.

------
eldude
Based on the findings of this article, the OTC EGCG should "restore metabolism
to youth levels."

Using a decarboxylase or AADC[0] inhibitor like EGCG[1] found in green tea
extract limits peripheral serotonin metabolism, especially if you're
supplementing with serotonin precursors like tryptophan or 5-HTP to avoid
heart-valve issues.[2]

See Examine.com's note in the 5-HTP article[3] and the associated citation.[4]
800mg of EGCG 2 hours prior to supplementation demonstrated decarboxylase
inhibition.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_L-
amino_acid_decarboxy...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_L-
amino_acid_decarboxylase)

[1]
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MYW2ZA/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MYW2ZA/)

[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781732](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781732)

[3]
[http://examine.com/supplements/5-HTP/#summary5-1](http://examine.com/supplements/5-HTP/#summary5-1)

[4]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11374875](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11374875)

------
driverdan
Publication:
[http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3766....](http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3766.html)

This article and the researchers grossly overstate potential benefits of this
research. While adults have "brown fat" there isn't a lot, certainly not
enough to make up for the level of overconsumption by obese people.

It isn't appropriate to jump to conclusions about how this would work in
humans based on rat experiments since rats have a much larger amount of brown
fat than humans.

TL;DR: Interesting research with irresponsible and most likely incorrect
assumptions about how it applies to humans.

------
7Figures2Commas
> They're calling it a possible solution to obesity and a preventative measure
> for diabetes, one that turns up the body's metabolic rate without the
> negative side effects of increasing the heart rate or blood pressure.

I think "possible solution" is too strong. According to the CDC, as of 2012
"more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese" so
it logically follows that simply restoring the metabolic rate of adults to
their teenage rates probably won't help a sizable portion of the population.

Also, while it's promising that this doesn't increase heart rate or blood
pressure, weight is just one factor in overall health. There are a lot of
adults who are of a healthy weight but still aren't very healthy. For
instance, a healthy weight doesn't mean that an individual has good
cardiovascular health or functional strength. It's a shame that so much
emphasis is placed on weight when it's really only a part of the equation and
arguably not even the most important.

It's kind of silly how we keep looking for a pill for appearance (weight) when
it's not hard to notice that people who focus on cardiovascular conditioning
and functional strength usually have the healthiest looking bodies. Weight and
body composition follow from healthy lifestyle; health does not follow from
weight.

[1]
[http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm)

~~~
danudey
> I think "possible solution" is too strong. According to the CDC, as of 2012
> "more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese"
> so it logically follows that simply restoring the metabolic rate of adults
> to their teenage rates probably won't help a sizable portion of the
> population.

I think the message here is slightly different; it's not talking about
'setting it back to what your metabolism was like as a teenager', but rather
'setting a healthy person's metabolism back to what a healthy teenager's would
be'.

It's entirely possible that the reason for the childhood obesity epidemic is
an underdeveloped biology pumped full of these metabolism-destroying foods
(accelerating the production of serotonin, etc.), resulting in a ruined
metabolism far earlier than would be normal.

In other words, the diet that would cause obesity after 20 years starting at
age 15 might cause obesity after 10 years starting at 5.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Again, you're focusing too much on weight. "Healthy" does _not_ mean "not
overweight."

There are tons of people, including young people, who can't do 5 minutes of
moderately intense walking without becoming excessively winded. There are lots
of people who can't do more than a pushup or two, and many can't even do a
single pushup. And so on and so forth. A good percentage of these people are
not overweight.

Many of the problems that become particularly troublesome as people age are
related more to cardiovascular health and functional strength than they are to
weight alone. If we create a magic pill that prevents or delays the onset of
excessive weight gain from poor diet and lack of exercise, it's not going to
produce "healthy" people and it won't address many of the quality of life
issues that arise from unhealthy lifestyles.

In some ways, weight gain is a good thing. For young people who otherwise feel
okay, it is sometimes the only visible symptom of a destructive lifestyle. And
I say that as someone who lost nearly a third of my body weight by radically
changing my lifestyle in my 20s.

------
noobermin
So, I thought serotonin was basically the "happiness" hormone. Wouldn't
inhibiting serotonin have side-effects like making them feel depressed or at
least less happy? Can any biologists comment?

EDIT: as a replier mentioned, it's discussed in the article.

~~~
fluidcruft
That's pop-neuro-psych gibberish marketing talk--molecules aren't moods any
more than motor oil is velocity. Also, synaptic serotonin is in a different
compartment. But I was pondering about the link between SSRIs and weight gain.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
But brain chemistry is inextricably linked to human moods. That's why we
prescribe people psychoactive drugs. And why people take them recreationally.

------
debacle
> and was previously thought to only exist in rodents, hibernating animals and
> children

That's patently not true. It's been known that brown fat exists in small
amounts in adults for quite a long time.

------
NicoJuicy
Higher metabolism without changing food habbits, wouldn't this be awesome for
fastfood?

People still getting fat, but they buy more from now on?

------
jv22222
Blocking Serotonin in Gut Reverses Osteoporosis in Mice
[http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Osteoporosis/18346](http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Osteoporosis/18346)

------
shard
So refined carbs are bad due to high glycemic index, too much fat is bad due
to seratonin release, is a generally optimal diet then just lean meat and
vegetables? We are running out of things to eat...

~~~
BasLeijdekkers
It seems it is the carbohydrates that cause the seratonin release[1], not the
fat.

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697046](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697046)

------
galkam
Am I wrong, or does this contradict all the recent research about fat actually
not causing obesity. [http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-eat-more-
fat-2014-10](http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-eat-more-fat-2014-10)

~~~
rasz_pl
I was very surprised about fat blaming in this article too. Its common
knowledge* that high amounts of hydrocarbons in the died decrease metabolism.
When you eat food that is easy to burn your body switches to that and stops
trying to burn stored fat.

*not 'grandmas wisdom', but something you can test on yourself with Ketogenic diet in 1-2 months.

~~~
Otik
I think the word you were looking for was "carbohydrates", not "hydrocarbons".
They're not the same thing.

~~~
rasz_pl
yep, wrong language, in mine those two sound almost the same :/

------
elementai
I have a strange feeling that paleo etc folks already know this for years.

------
aculver
Sorry to be off-topic, but I was drawn to the story because of the McMaster
reference and I bet some other Hamiltonians probably will be to. Would love to
connect with any HN folks in Hamilton!

~~~
nilved
Ditto. Email me@devlinzed.com if you want to hang out or work on something. I
work at factor[e] on Locke.

~~~
srj55
small world. I'm a few hundred feet away on Chatham St.

------
boo_radley
IT'S CALLED COCAINE AND IT'S AWESOME

------
AndrewKemendo
Seems like we are trying to engineer a solution that is fundamentally a
behavioral issue rather than mechanical. I do realize though that assuming we
can reign in consumption socially is a non-starter at the same time though I
think enabling high levels of consumption is the opposite of what we should be
doing.

That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our
consumption patterns can become less extreme.

~~~
exelius
> That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our
> consumption patterns can become less extreme.

I disagree; aging and death are natural processes that could wreak havoc
economically if significantly altered. Right now, the young have the ability
to progress in the economy because older people eventually leave the workforce
through retirement or death.

People need to be able to die naturally. If nobody died, and everyone had
children, the population would simply grow with no prospect of stopping it.
Though the more likely proposition would be that the wealthy who could afford
the treatments would never die, and the rest of the population would. That's
an even worse scenario in my opinion.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Feel free to die then. Don't condemn everyone else.

Are you going to complain because life expectancies have already gone up by
decades?

"We need more resources because we cured death" is precisely the kind of
problem we ought to have.

~~~
joyeuse6701
No need to be facetious, death need not be a condemnation, and there is value
in awareness of consequence.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> there is value in awareness of consequence

Awareness of consequence is one thing, and it's fine to anticipate the next
set of problems and discuss how to address them. But "we shouldn't fix this
problem because it'll raise new ones" is an awful statement, compared to
"let's fix this problem; bring on the next ones and we'll fix those too".

> death need not be a condemnation

If you oppose other people living longer or forever, you're saying you want
them dead, sooner or later. Couching it in vague or indirect language makes it
no less of a condemnation.

------
stevebmark
Type 1 (!) diabetic goes off insulin, "indicating restored insulin
production"(!):
[http://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/provisional_ar...](http://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/archive/provisional_articles/2014-10/09_Z01_2014070118_CR_prov.pdf)

Type 2 diabetics improve insulin resistance:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594)

Or, you know, just put diabetes into remission and stop medication:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/)

Pro tip: You may not need drugs to treat diabetic cases. Diabetics, barring
genetic mutations, may just be carbohydrate intolerant.

Or just take some brand new drug that fucks with your body's chemical status
and disregard how your body responds to food.

~~~
crazypyro
The type 1 diabetic in your first linked article was very recently diagnosed
before the start of the experiment and a sample size of one on a brand new
diagnosis doesn't seem highly significant to me. The article had some fishy
elements to it that made me want to research the authors more...

The researcher appears to have a rather huge monetary investment into the
paleo-style diet/care, seeing as you can order clinical care for a large sum
of money from his personal site
([http://paleomedicina.com/](http://paleomedicina.com/) and
[http://paleomedicina.com/hu/rendelesek-es-klinikai-
ellatas](http://paleomedicina.com/hu/rendelesek-es-klinikai-ellatas)). You'll
see he has services that range up to 10,000 euros/month in Hungary, which I
imagine is quite a princely sum....

Forgive me if I am making a mistake as I was using google translate, but I
would definitely take that article with a grain of salt....

~~~
stevebmark
Are you saying you don't believe he went off insulin, and that his data was
fabricated?

You can also just look into the decades of research done on carbohydrates and
diabetes
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714003323)

~~~
crazypyro
I'm saying one should be aware of what I think are undisclosed ulterior
motives, especially the monetary one. Furthermore, its easy to draw a
conclusion from a sample size of one. I could just as easily find a sample
size of one for who this diet would not cure T1D and start "exposing the myth"
about paleo diets, but it would be shitty science...

Also I am skeptical of Paleo diets in general because historical scientific
research hasn't been very favorable to all the supposed benefits supports of
paleo like to throw out. For one, there is evidence[0] that it isn't even what
our ancestors ate, so the whole concept of the cause of rising diabetes being
the fact we "aren't eating paleo like our ancestors" is total crap, imo.

[0][http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10513.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10513.abstract)

~~~
DiabloD3
What you just did is called the Paleo Strawman, its where people who don't
understand the Paleo diet claim things such as "oh, its only about eating what
was available in the Paleo and Neolithic eras", which has never been true.

What Paleo is, is a large scale research project to figure out why such a diet
worked so well for humans, what parts worked, what parts didn't, and how we
can scientifically engineer a better diet by reducing known toxins and
chemicals that cause unwanted side effects in the body, and providing the
correct amount of nutrition the body needs.

Paleo is no more "blindly eating the past" any more than pizza is a health
food.

~~~
crazypyro
No, I said for example. There are other examples of counter claims to Paleo. I
wasn't saying that research was the end all, but you can't say its a Paleo
Strawman when there is a very large segment, even in "clinical research", that
believe one of the strengths is because "its what our ancestors ate". I was
simply providing a single point of counter claims, not making a full
statement, so saying I was using a strawman is taking my entire statement out
of context....

Not to mention, you say "such a diet worked so well", except we have no proof
that the classical "paleo" diet very closely resembles our ancestors or even
that (poorly) mimicking their diet would produce the same results in modern
day and the research I linked is an academic counter claim to that very
statement.

