this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
324 points (98.2% liked)

science

15022 readers
140 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 62 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

The necessary clarification

[–] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 65 points 2 days ago (12 children)

So, the real elephant in the room is that for the average worker, they are more productive (ie, working much harder) and under much, much more financial stress... which effects epigenetics

and... people are having children later in life, leading to children with more genetic defects (the average person has about 7 genetic defects, some people have more, some fewer)

in the 1950s, a man could work at a factory with a high school diploma, own a house, support a family, and have a wife as a full-time assistant at home

now both parents have to work, if there even are children, there may or may not be a house, and many are just single. people are under huge amounts of stress, and all of it effects epigenetics including via weaker bonds within families

bodies interpret stress as either "uh oh, i'm going to get kicked out of my tribe and will have to forage and hunt on my own and may die" or "there may be a famine soon"

the fact that the vitamin levels of food has gone down is a real thing, bodies remember things like that, and can be aware of the decrease, and start to prepare for famines

TLDR captialism without proper government regulation of externalities is making people fat along with higher populations and decreased vitamin levels in food due to over-farming

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ragica@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago
[–] maxenmajs@lemmy.world 70 points 3 days ago (4 children)

That's pretty interesting. This could be the basis of a new weight-loss drug that works by limiting calorie absorption rather than regulating hunger cues.

I'm going to be mildly annoyed if the fat acceptance latches on to this as yet another study validating their belief that they can't lose weight.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 85 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Limiting oil absorption in the intestines sounds like a recipe for greasy diarrhea like Olestra caused.

It's lame how Olestra got such a bad rap. Like, it's an oil that your body doesn't absorb so it doesn't make you fat. It's totally fine in moderation but what do you think happens when you binge eat it??

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago

I was gonna say, we already tried this.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago

It is. Ask anyone with pancreatic insufficiency.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 17 points 3 days ago

Ooh, diarrhea chips!

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 9 points 3 days ago

Just ask anyone with gallbladder problems....

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I actually went and skimmed the study, this is a very good article I would say in terms of lack of sensationalizing. That is exactly the main takeaway; perhaps we can get food (fat specifically) to ‘pass through’ us without being absorbed by the body. A fascinating possibility, if perhaps wasteful.

I'm going to be mildly annoyed if the fat acceptance latches on to this as yet another study validating their belief that they can't lose weight.

On the very first page of the study:

The predominant increase in fat and calorie-dense food consumption worldwide has contributed substantially to the ongoing pandemic of obesity and metabolic disorders

Essentially what they’ve discovered is that they can interrupt a process that occurs normally in everyone, whenever there are fats in your intestine. The headline alone gives the impression of possibly being related to “set-point” theory, in which thinner people’s brains are just tuned differently. So yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see this start popping up in the spaces despite not supporting the stance at all

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

These drugs already exist. But they have a bunch of side effects.

Rebound effects from thinking you can eat more because of the drugs and fat stool are the most obvious ones.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (11 children)

their belief that they can’t lose weight.

For a lot of people it's a poverty and lack of healthcare thing...

Even just annual checkups are a huge help because weight is being tracked and someone gets early and continuous warnings their health is being impacted.

They have as much control as someone trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

If they can't escape poverty and gain access to healthcare... They're less likely to maintain a healthy weight.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm going to be mildly annoyed if the fat acceptance latches on to this as yet another study validating their belief that they can't lose weight.

Latches on to what exactly?

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I guess the idea that some people are fat for reasons outside of their control? When it comes to fat people, people don't like to hear "excuses," regardless if it's "I don't have enough time to work out" or "my body is unable to do xyz effeciently and causes weight gain." Fat is seen as a character flaw. And because for a lot of people, it is a simple "calorie in vs calorie out," the idea of it not working for someone is seen as a failure of character. So this "belief" is making it easier for... Fat people to be fat I guess.

Weird that this didn't trigger concerns of anorexics latching onto this study validating their belief that they can't eat/eat certain foods because their body absorbs more than others. But, like they say, you can never be too rich or too thin. 👍🏾

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know that while pregnant, the digestion slows down, to try to wring more nutrition from what you eat. I also know that I eat about the same as my ex and my husband and both managed to get fat. Also I drop weight when stressed and maintain a normal BMI when not so stressed, but others I know gain when stressed.

It all is very interesting to me, but so strange that it's broken for so many people, and most all in the direction of overweight.

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

I drop weight while stressed too, even when I’m mostly eating normally.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 days ago

But the most novel and surprising thing that researchers have observed is that when a certain group of neurons in that same nucleus is deactivated, specifically those that project to the jejunum, a part of the small intestine, the length of the microvilli in the intestinal wall is shortened, which reduces its surface area and thus the place in whose blood capillaries fat absorption occurs. The brain thus regulates this absorption by controlling the length and surface area of the intestinal spaces in which it takes place.

Huh, so your intestines can stretch to control absorption rate, cool!

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Might explain why I can barely gain weight, once had a camp week where me and a friend had the exact same food intake and exercise but he gained 2kg while I lost 3kg.

Sofar doctors have thought I just had a fast metabolism but seems like there could be more at play.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So you mean you are not enough stressed out ^^ jk

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Well my body does not produce enough cortisol on its own so that might track

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 13 points 3 days ago

This explains so much about my guts

load more comments
view more: next ›