Eat Fat to Lose Fat
By Kristen Philipkoski
02:00 AM May. 10, 2005 PT

Diets too low in fat may be responsible for stubborn bulges on bellies, thighs and butts, according to a new study.

Dieters trying slim down by following extremely low-fat diets may be causing the exact opposite results, according to new research from the Washington University in St. Louis. Eating at least small amounts of dietary fats, such as fish oils, might be a better way to kick-start fat-burning, say researchers.

Scientists found that in mice, old fat stuck around when the liver had no new fat to process. The results are further evidence that extreme diets often aren't the ticket to a lean body, and a balanced diet is likely important for more reasons than scientists currently understand.

"Extremes of diet are sometimes unwise, because a balanced diet may be critical for providing certain dietary signals that allow you to respond appropriately to stresses, and one of those stresses is eating too much," said Dr. Clay Semenkovich, a professor of medicine, cell biology and physiology at the University of Washington and co-author of the study.

The research may be one reason why the Atkins diet -- which is low in carbohydrates and high in fat -- seems to work. But Semenkovich said a balanced diet is probably more effective in the long run, because it's easier to maintain for long periods of time. And, like all extreme dieters, Atkins followers could be suppressing other dietary signals important for staying healthy.

The researchers genetically engineered the mice such that they lacked a fat-producing enzyme in the liver. On a zero-fat diet, the mice developed fatty liver disease. Their old fat stores moved to the liver, but their livers could not burn the fat. Therefore, the researchers say in the May issue of the journal Cell Metabolism, the liver needs new fat to regulate fat burning.

"On a normal diet they were OK," Semenkovich said. "We went to a very extreme low-fat diet, and these animals paradoxically accumulated an extremely large amount of fat in their livers."

The liver is nutrition's traffic cop, directing nutrients to be stored or used by the body. Incorrect processing of glucose or lipids by the liver can cause type 2 diabetes and atherosclerosis. People who are obese or insulin-resistant often develop fatty liver disease.

The scientists also tried a second approach to kick-start the fat-burning process in the genetically engineered mice. They gave the mice a drug -- a stronger version of human triglyceride-lowering medications that go by the trade names Lopid and Tricor.

The drug the researchers used, as well as those available on the market now, activate a protein called PPAR-alpha, which extracts energy from carbohydrates and fats. Researchers already knew that fat activates the protein, but the study proved that PPAR-alpha specifically needs new fats to do its job.

Semenkovich and his colleagues were surprised by their results.

"We thought we would alter the levels of fats that circulate in blood," he said. "Instead we found you need to generate new fat to make a signal to burn fat in the liver."

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67473,00.html

Ok, I would like to congratulate these «scientists» for «discovering» something that has been in the headlines for quite a long time.

Sorry, I recant.

This is an interesting article!

However, the part about the fatty liver is extremely interesting and ties in nicely with the recent post about fatty liver disease.

Especially about the fact that the mice developed fatty liver disease on a zero fat diet.

So how can we explain how dietary fats are the cause of fatty liver disease in the view of these results??

It never ceases to amaze me how the 'balanced' diet always is recommended no matter what the reasearch shows. I am not aware of any reasearch that shows that the 'balanced' diet is healthy.


Notice the biased use of words in this paragraph. "Atkins diet ... seems to work"; "like all extreme dieters, Atkins". Of course it also uses those words that mean the criticisms are meaningless such as "may", "probably", "could".

Yeah, interesting experiment! Don't forget, you're reading what some reporter has spun, not necessarily the conclusions drawn by the scientists.

The Atkins comment was just plain weird.