
A Mysterious Virus That Could Cause Obesity - electic
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity/
======
djyaz1200
For the sake of discussion let's just say this virus makes people more prone
to Obesity (certainly there is a lot of correlation)... It would be
interesting to test if the damage and/or mechanism of this virus is a one time
event or ongoing issue. What would happen if the people and/or chickens were
given anti-viral meds... or took lots of vitamin C? Is the effect reversed? I
have no idea what would happen but I'd be very interested to see. HIV patients
given antiviral drugs sometimes experience lipodystrophy, which may somehow be
related but that's just a wild guess.

Also, if I'm a ruthless chicken farmer wouldn't I want all my chickens to have
this since it makes them heavier based on the same food intake?

Finally, what's going on with the people who have the antibody but haven't
gained weight? What's different about their immune function, diet and/or
lifestyle.

------
ginko
This could also be a possible explanation for this:
[http://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-
animals.html](http://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html)

>Allison first stumbled across evidence of overweight animals while looking at
data on marmosets from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. The
average weight of the monkeys had gone up over the decades, he noticed, and
there seemed to be no plausible explanation. Allison queried primate center
researcher Joseph Kemnitz as to what the cause might be: Were the marmosets
from a different supplier? Had they been bred to be larger? The answers were
"no" and "no."

>But the monkeys' diets had been changed over the years, a switch that was
well-documented by the lab. So Allison tried running the numbers again, this
time controlling for the diet change.

>"It only made the results stronger," he said. With the diet change, the
animals should have lost weight, if anything.

~~~
heptathorp
> With the diet change, the animals should have lost weight, if anything.

I think the far more likely explanation is that they don't have a complete
understanding of nutrition and their expectations about the diet change were
wrong.

"But we put the marmosets on a No-Fat diet! They should be losing weight!"

~~~
KirinDave
Fad diets a la Taubes's poorly researched book are not very popular in lab
settings, where calories in/out work tends to make quantification easier.

And given the low cost and overhead of fresher food, many research animals
I've been involved with in a past life are pretty well compared to th humans
overseeing them.

------
logicallee
Does anyone know whether as a matter of epidemiology, prevalence of this virus
matches any part of an obesity map like this:

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-
source/map-o...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/map-
of-global-obesity-trends/)

My guess is this virus would be equally prevalent in North America and Western
Europe and therefore as a matter of public health has no impact whatsoever on
obesity.

Instead, in my reading in North America it is very difficult to eat in a
healthy way and in my personal experience people are eager to find reasons
other than the food supply, tastes, and behaviors.

If, on the other hand, this virus was prevalent in North America but very rare
in Western Europe it would give some indication that perhaps it was worthy of
attention. I would like to know if anyone has applied this differential.

~~~
zbjornson
There's actually a lot of data on this because adenoviruses are popular
vaccine vectors of study right now, and the selected serotype must be one that
as few people as possible have titers against, so researchers test random
people for immunity.

For example, [0] (2010) reports that ~5% of people in the US were positive for
Ad36, 35% Thailand, 52% South Africa, 91%(!) Malawi, 88% Cameroon, 48%
Botswana, 43% Brazil. Malawi, Cameroon, Thailand and Botswana are solidly in
the lower % obesity parts of the map that you linked to, while the US has the
lowest antibody prevalence and highest obesity. They don't have Ad36 data for
Europe unfortunately, but ...

Ad36 is not the only adipogenic (fat-causing) serotype. Ad5, 9, 31, 36 and 37
are all correlated or linked to being adipogenic [1]. The above paper [0] has
numbers for Ad5 if you're interested: Europe was 39% negative, US 31%, the
African countries 10-13%, Brazil 18%.

[0]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925902](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925902)
[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26352001](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26352001)

~~~
fragsworth
Depending on how it spreads, the virus could appear to be more common in
populations where there has been historic starvation, because it seems like it
would help you survive in those situations.

~~~
VLM
And the flip side of the coin is it would cause extreme obesity if by some
economic miracle carb intake were totally unlimited and trended toward
infinity. So it would eventually (on a very long scale) be bred out of
economic areas of infinite carb availability. But eventually is far too long
and too much human suffering, so temporarily we're very very fat.

As a hypothesis you could create a mathematical model where the faster a
country industrializes or otherwise moves beyond bare subsistence and periodic
famine, the harder the spike of obesity.

That's not a bad match to existing obesity maps, especially when the obesity
map is corrected for country of origin not current geographic location.

------
heisenbit
A quick Google search brought up a paper from '97 on this topic:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9385623](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9385623)
. Considering all the progress in genetic diagnostics I wonder why this topic
has not gained more visibility. Is it due to correctness, statistical
relevance for the general population (or population outside India) or slowness
of knowledge dissemination in the medical community?

~~~
stephanheijl
Without regarding any other research on this topic, this particular paper has
some interesting notes that may be considered. The sample size (52) is
somewhat small, and the humans in this sample are already obese. (Even) the
N-AGPT group (no antibodies found) had a 30.7 BMI on average. This makes it
difficult to conclude that the virus was the cause of obesity based on this
paper alone, as the entire sample set was obese by definition (BMI >30). At
the very best one could infer that the level of obesity was affected by the
virus to some extent.

------
bluejekyll
‘In God we trust, all others bring data.’

I love that quote, I can't remember seeing it before.

~~~
beagle3
I've seen "in good we trust, all others pay cash" 30 years ago - the
paraphrasing might be new but the basic saying isn't.

~~~
nommm-nommm
In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash is the name of a novel that the movie A
Christmas Story was based on. I don't believe that the novel invented that
phrase though.

------
agentgt
_“There are three ways that we think Ad-36 makes people fatter: (1) It
increases the uptake of glucose from the blood and converts it to fat; (2) it
increases the creation of fat molecules through fatty acid synthase, an enzyme
that creates fat; and (3) it enables the creation of more fat cells to hold
all the fat by committing stem cells, which can turn into either bone or fat,
into fat. So the fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is
creating more of them.”_

I assume they mean three possible ways and that only one of them is probably
happening or do they think all three are happening (required)? I doubt all
three would be happening but I could be wrong.

Minor nitpick... Is the list ordered by some priority or is it arbitrary (and
if arbitrary bullet points or hyphens would be nice instead of emphasizing the
count).

~~~
darkerside
> So the fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is creating
> more of them.

That summary at the end indicates that the researchers believe all 3 are
happening.

~~~
agentgt
Must be my mental holiday hangover but I didn't see that summary. I assume you
mean the last sentence which I assumed was part of the third point: _So the
fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is creating more of
them_. I suppose it does require 2 and 3 but does it require 1?

~~~
darkerside
Yeah, I read it as minimally requiring 3), and either 1) or 2). So probably
meant to include all three.

------
DrScump
Curse you, interwebz, for triggering today's time suck by forcing me to surf
deeper and deeper into PubMed. There is a bunch of new papers on AD-36 in just
the last 8 weeks!

Anyway, here are some points of interest:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517116/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517116/)
"Adenovirus 36 and Obesity: An Overview" \-- non-paywalled _full text_!

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479564](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479564)
Adenovirus 36 _attenuates_ weight loss from exercise (!) but improves glycemic
control by increasing mitochondrial activity in the liver.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825952](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825952)
Adenovirus 36 antibody detection: Improving the standard serum neutralization
assay. (The first assay I heard of, in 2001, cost about $500 then.)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614097](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614097)
Proof-of-concept for a virus-induced obesity vaccine; vaccination against the
obesity agent adenovirus 36

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27903748](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27903748)
Hepatic Expression of Adenovirus 36 E4ORF1 Improves Glycemic Control and
Promotes Glucose Metabolism via AKT Activation

------
mtw
The truth is that obesity is complex and does not have a single risk factor.
Lack of exercise, over-eating, depression, anxiety, gut bacteria, food
chemicals (emulsifiers, asapartame etc.), refined grains and now this virus
all are risk factors. They also interact with each other, making understanding
complex (see
[http://outcomereference.com/outcomes/3](http://outcomereference.com/outcomes/3)
)

I am glad though they are researching this. If a vaccine could be found, it
might decrease risk for a significant portion of the population. It does not
negate the fact that dish portions in North America are much larger than they
should be or that there is still too much processed food in the average
american diet.

------
kilroy123
So is there a virus out there that will do the opposite? Or maybe some gene
modifications that could be made?

~~~
DanBC
Maybe, here's one (with a few human subject):
[http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html](http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html)

Here's another (in mice, not sure if they've tried people yet):
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428)

The best thing people can do to change their gut flora is to cut back on sugar
and increase dietary fibre.

~~~
KirinDave
Gut flora engineering is in fact a prominent line of research many groups are
studying. The idea of tailoring the gut flora to reduce sugar uptakes is a
very compelling one.

But it's also raising hard questions about why we think it's okay to sell so
much sugar in foods...

------
ilaksh
Assuming they are trying to come up with a treatment based on this theory but
that wasn't mentioned.

------
DeBraid
tldr; a virus, Ad-36, may or may not cause obesity in humans.

> Though Dhurandhar and Atkinson have conducted several strong studies showing
> the contribution of Ad-36 to fatness, skepticism remains. Atkinson says, “I
> remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different
> studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness.

~~~
sgift
It's amusing how you quote only the first half of the paragraph and show by
that what the second half of that very same paragraph states: People ignore
the results, cause they don't fit their world view. For those who do not want
to search for it, here's the full paragraph:

Though Dhurandhar and Atkinson have conducted several strong studies showing
the contribution of Ad-36 to fatness, skepticism remains. Atkinson says, “I
remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different studies
in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness. At the end of it, a
good friend said to me, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ He didn’t give a reason; he
just didn’t believe it. People are really stuck on eating and exercise as the
only contributors to fatness. But there is more to it.”

\---

Edit: The next paragraph seems to be also very relevant, so again reprinted
for those who do not want to click through:

Dhurandhar adds, “There’s a difference between science and faith. What you
believe belongs in faith and not in science. In science you have to go by
data. I have faced people who are skeptical, but when I ask them why, they
can’t pinpoint a specific reason. Science is not about belief, it is about
fact. There is a saying—‘In God we trust, all others bring data.’”

~~~
DeBraid
> a good friend said to me

Why is a gut feeling relevant?

The anecdote you were compelled to add is journalistic flare and is immaterial
to the conclusion drawn from actual studies, which I quoted originally.

> People ignore the results

The tldr was a reference to the studies and their results...

------
DoodleBuggy
There's an endless search for blame, but it's almost always about food intake.
Types of food, amounts of food, level of activity.

In modern society, people generally eat ridiculously calorie dense
overprocessed garbage food that ravages insulin sensitivity and then they
remain inactive for 23+ hours a day, barely shuffling from a car to a desk to
a car to a couch. Unsurprisingly, they gain weight.

~~~
commentzorro
Congratulations on completely not understanding the entire issue of weight
gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years. You win
all the prizes.

~~~
dang
We ban accounts for being uncivil like this (and below), so please don't do
this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, and post civilly and
substantively, or not at all.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

~~~
commentzorro
I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't
seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than
like I did. How should I, assuming the following:

\-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.

\-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat
simply because they cram too much food down their throats.

\-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus
validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think
anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)

\-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have
validated both the text and subtext even further.

My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to
let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be
the appropriate solution.

What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the
misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?

~~~
dang
Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither.
Here's how I look at it:

 _" Congratulations on completely not understanding"_ \--> snark and personal
swipe—definitely uncivil.

 _" the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening
for the last 15 years"_ \--> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as
saying anything substantive about it.

 _" You win all the prizes"_ \--> more snark and personal swipe

Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and
kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good
comment, it could have begun like this:

 _Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there 's a lot more to
this. For example,_ ... and then add something specific.

Consider how much more polite and specific KirinDave's reply was:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354).

~~~
commentzorro
* > ...and then add something specific*

No, No, Absolutely not!

Don't you understand?! Anything specific would legitimizing the comment and
subtext of the posters comment. This feeds into a false narrative that's been
going on for years.

Anything without snark would have made the commentator's message seem
legitimate! Only the snark shuts down false "scientific sounding" narrative
and the fat shaming subtext.

KirinDave's reply, while well intentioned, still feeds into this narrative and
allows the commenter to continue arguing that fat people just need to buckle
down and stop shoveling food in order to balance calories.

We'll disagree on this. I think a lack of civility and the addition of snark
is indeed called for in these types of comments. However, I understand your
comments and realize that the mods make the community. Time for me to step
away I guess.

------
whb07
Article just shows that that the virus helps makes glucose easier and leads to
more fat generation but the subject of article doesn't show clean eating and
rigorous exercise, try as you may the body cannot make energy deposits (fat)
out of thin air

~~~
agentgt
No the article doesn't show that. It just shows there is a correlation of
increased weight gain for both chickens and humans that come in contact with
Ad-36 virus.

The mechanism to how the virus works is unclear as stated by the article (3
possible ways were alleged) as well as how so many do what you just did:
assume that a virus has little role and that it is the patients fault:

 _Atkinson says, “I remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented
15 different studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to
fatness. At the end of it, a good friend said to me, ‘I just don’t believe
it.’ He didn’t give a reason; he just didn’t believe it. People are really
stuck on eating and exercise as the only contributors to fatness. But there is
more to it.”_

Did you actually read the article?

~~~
moron4hire
It's because we as a society treat obesity as immoral. You see this across any
disorder where there is a sizable proportion of the population who think it's
a "choice" rather than a disease that needs to be treated: depression,
alcoholism, ADHD. People refuse to believe evidence in contradiction to their
moral upbringing, rather than refine their morals.

~~~
waqf
Your cause and effect are backwards. People think that obesity, depression,
alcoholism, ADHD are moral failings _because_ they think that they're under
your conscious control and therefore not susceptible to biochemical
intervention.

(In particular, to break the cycle we'd have to start by teaching people
better biology — it's no good arguing with people's morals if you don't start
from the same basis of facts as them.)

~~~
moron4hire
I think you're just misreading what I wrote. "People think it's a choice
because they think it's immoral" is clearly an absurd parsing.

------
mangeletti
[removed my unsubstantiated complaints about the article]

~~~
charlieflowers
Downright deceptive summary.

The article shares a boatload of interesting, relevant evidence of a
correlation between certain viruses and fat.

Plus, the article actually expresses some doubt that the "hook" was the cause
(it was not a hook, it was a rooster's talon)

------
lngnmn
Virus, really? Would it cause an epidemic in so-called third world?

Or is it a social virus, which has something to do with habits, social norms,
junk food and lifestyle of over-consumption?

~~~
PepeGomez
It did? The US may be the only first world country in the top 20 obese
countries.

------
ht85
I know that posting the original title is usually recommended, but shouldn't
it be proper etiquette to remove sensationalism and click-baity messages on
HN?

"The" is very misleading, so is "Cause Obesity".

Wouldn't "A Mysterious Virus That Could Interfere With Hunger" be much more
accurate?

~~~
fragsworth
No. One virus made chickens subjected to the virus gain weight when compared
to the control group, even though they were fed the same amount. That virus
actually very directly causes obesity, and the claim is that there are similar
viruses in humans, which we've found correlational data for, but we can't
ethically test for it.

~~~
IanCal
But you clearly cannot eat at a deficit and gain weight. A virus cannot
directly make you gain mass.

~~~
overgard
Like others mentioned, your body can allocate energy in a variety of ways
depending on hormones. If you're at a caloric deficit, your body can do things
like: reduce heat production, reduce energy available for activities, reduce
metabolism, reduce production of proteins for hair/fingernails, etc. There's
no hard requirement it burns fat. That's what healthy bodies do of course, but
metabolic syndrome is where that entire system doesn't work.

~~~
ht85
This is not a topic I'm an expert on, I was originally just annoyed with the
way the article title was worded, but those claims seem pretty wild. Do you
have anything to back those up?

> reduce heat production

Then what? It only takes a few hundred kcals of lesser heat production to
reduce an adult body a few degrees, which would cause severe hypothermia.

> there's no hard requirement it burns fat

To what extent? Are you saying he would die of starvation before losing
significant weight?

