You’ve tried the Atkins diet, the South Beach diet, and the diet-of-the-week on cable TV. Nothing seems to work. What if you could lose that excess fat by simply inhaling and then exhaling your fat in the form of carbon dioxide?
In a study published in Cell Metabolism, chemical and biomolecular engineering professor James Liao, associate professor of human genetics and pediatrics Katrina Dipple, and their research team at UCLA showed that genetic alterations enable mice to convert fat into carbon dioxide and remain lean while eating the equivalent of a fast-food diet.
Oh sure, those TV ads don’t make it any easier. Most of us non-vegans see a juicy burger and fries during a commercial break and we’re ready to jump in the car and head to the nearest Burger King or McDonald’s. Even President Obama manages to sneak out — if you can call a trip to the local burger joint with full Secret Service entourage “sneaking” — for the occasional cheeseburger with jalapeño, lettuce, mustard and tomato.
For fast food junkies and the poor, eating burgers and fries every day can mean an ever-expanding waistline and associated health problems such as diabetes. Morgan Spurlock’s hard-hitting 2004 documentary, Super Size Me, describes the effects of a 30-day McDonald’s-only diet — a fit then-32-year-old Spurlock gained 24½ lbs and experienced sexual dysfunction and liver damage.
Rather than another diet-of-the-week or guilt-laden trip to your favorite fast-food joint for a burger and fries, the new UCLA study provides a completely new way to approach the problem. It represents the work of the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, in collaboration with the David Geffen School of Medicine.
“We came up with an unconventional idea which we borrowed from plants and bacteria,” said Jason Dean, a graduate student on professor Liao’s team and an author of the study. “We know plants and bacteria digest fats differently from humans, from mammals. Plant seeds usually store a lot of fat. When they germinate, they convert the fat to sugar to grow. The reason they can digest fat this way is because they have a set of enzymes that's uniquely present in plants and bacteria. These enzymes are called the ‘glyoxylate shunt’ and are missing in mammals.”
The glyoxylate shunt is composed of two enzymes. MIT Technology Review reports that the researchers introduced genes for these enzymes from E. coli bacteria into cultured human cells and found that they increased the metabolism of fats in the cells. Rather than converting the fat into sugar as bacteria do, the cells converted the fat completely into carbon dioxide.
Rather than another diet-of-the-week, the new UCLA study provides a completely new way to approach the problem.
Professor Liao’s team analyzed gene expression in the cells and found that the new biochemical pathway promoted cellular responses that led the cells to metabolize fats rather than sugar.
The research team then introduced the genes into the livers of mice. While normal mice gain weight when put on a high-fat diet, professor Liao says that the engineered mice “remained skinny despite the fact that they ate about the same and produced the same waste” and were as active as their normal counterparts. They also had lower fat levels in the liver and lower cholesterol levels.
As with the cultured human cells, the engineered mice did not convert the fat into sugar, which could have the dangerous side effect of promoting high blood sugar and diabetes. Instead, the researchers found a measured increase in carbon dioxide output — the excess fat was literally released into thin air.
The mice exhibited no visible side effects, although more detailed studies are necessary to verify that.
“One exciting aspect of this study is that it provides a proof-of-principle for how engineering a specific metabolic pathway in the liver can affect the whole body adiposity and response to a high-fat diet,” says Karen Reue, a UCLA professor of human genetics and a contributor to the study. “This could have relevance in understanding, and potentially treating, human obesity and associated diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.”
Here’s an important caveat: there’s no substitute for eating well-balanced meals and exercising every day if you want to try to stick around for the Singularity. Ray Kurzweil recommends taking vitamins and eating a diet that is low in carbohydrates, fat and dairy products and high in vegetables for encouraging longevity.
I wouldn’t expect to see an “Inhale-Exhale diet” soon on cable TV, or featured on the website of Dr. Andrew Weil, MD. However, genetic alteration using the glyoxylate shunt may one day offer a solution to the major medical problems, early death, and rising health care costs associated with obesity.
MIT Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22757/
ScienceDaily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602122619.htm
Super Size Me
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/
Ray and Terry’s Longevity Products
http://www.rayandterry.com/index.asp
Dr. Weil
http://www.drweil.com/
or Beyond Technological Smartness; or What Artificial Agents Get Up to When You Leave the Room
Read and comment on blog posts from h+ editor RU Sirius and others.
Air preassures wont make those great difference. I think, what matter most is the design they will use for the Dome....
but how could i get an orgasm with a silicone body?
But it's not colloquially known as heavy water. Wiki: "Deuterium, also called heavy hydrogen, is a stable isotope of hydrogen." Note that it also...
Captain Beefheart 'Trout Mask Replica' is playing in my heeeeed'
Comments
So it's possible to get rid of belly fat just by breathing? Is this just theoretical or has there actually been recorded evidence of this working consistently for human beings?
absolutely!!!
What would be the actual exercises necessary to loose the weight? I believe the article mentioned, "A diet that involves breathing". Pretty weird at first glance, but curiosity has intrigued me. So again, what is the exercise and how should people take your findings? Literal or hypothetical? Help someone who has been working out for most of his life, but has not found any strategies other than good diet and hard work!! Appreciate the assistance....
Measuring the content of oxygen and carbon-dioxide in your breath is an accurate way to determine your metabolism and know if you are primarily burning fat or oxygen for energy. When we eat too much sugar/carbs we product carbon-dioxide as a by-product of the energy production. We actually need to eat less carbs and burn fat more often as it's is a cleaner fuel on the body, and the environment. I don't know if the approach described here would ever work as plant metabolic systems are quite different as they take advantage of photosynthesis etc
Cheers
Max
Dude mice aren't herbivores, they're omnivores just like us. In fact they share alot of DNA with us, which is why they're used as test subjects for drugs intended for humans. Any search through google will tell you that.
There goes your credibility out the window.
Didacticus: If we weren't digging carbon up out of the ground and releasing *that* into the air, you would have a valid argument. But we do not have a carbon-neutral cycle as it is, so yes, releasing more CO2 into the air would be a very bad idea. I can't fathom why anybody would let their genes be tampered with in the name of weight loss in the first place--isn't stomach-stapling bad enough?
OK, let me be the wet blanket here. Mice are herbivores. We are using herbivores, which have a different reaction to dietary fat, to judge what is best for human beings, which are omnivores and are most likely non-obligate carnivores because our digestive tracts, enzyme production, etc. are closer to that of dogs than to that of sheep or rabbits or cattle (or mice). Does nobody see what's wrong with this? Of course not, because you listen to PETA rather than look at the science.
We have large brains. Brains are made up mostly of cholesterol and fat. We have two metabolic pathways we can use, the sugar-burning pathway and the gluconeogenesis pathway that burns protein and fat. Guess which one is more conducive to human health. Hint: It ain't sugar-burning. We don't turn fat directly into fat; it must first go through several other processes which require the simultaneous consumption of sugar and the concomitant increase of insulin levels. No insulin spike, no fat storage and the fat is used directly as fuel or is used as a building block for other biological processes in the body. For instance, you wouldn't have hormones if you didn't eat fat.
Ever wonder why magazines addressing "natural living" so often address conditions such as ADHD and infertility? Dietary fat nourishes the brain and also nourishes the reproductive system. Vegetarians are less likely to get enough fat in their diets, nor the right kind, and if you're a vegan you might as well forget it. And low-fat dieters... well... you get the idea.
(I wasn't eating loads and loads of fat when I got fat, by the way. I was a pasta addict, I drank lowfat milk, and when I cooked meat I drained the fat. I also ate margarine instead of butter. All things I should not have been doing.)
You guys need to read Gary Taubes, seriously. He documents how weight-loss "science" has developed over the past couple hundred years. I didn't know the whole basis of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis was based on feeding cholesterol to rabbits and on Ancel Keys's study where he cherry-picked seven nations and their diets to "prove" cholesterol and saturated fat caused heart disease. Upon this non-science you are now basing your dietary decisions and, well, don't ever ask why you're getting diabetes despite your best efforts (even if you don't get fat), nor why you're having fertility problems later, or mental health issues either.
Yeah, and have you ever heard of the Fat Head documentary? I've linked to it for my homepage link. Spurlock is an idiot, albeit a well-meaning one, given the wealth of information out there for the taking that could have educated him about his experience and what it meant.
I'm a hundred pounds overweight and there's no clear answer as to why. I'm no lazier now than I was when I was nineteen and 5'6" and about 130 pounds. (For those on other measurement systems than Imperial, that's normal weight range.) How much I eat depends on the day but generally I will only eat a large meal if I haven't had a real meal all day and am understandably ravenous as a result. I've talked to other overweight people and some of them have told me they barely eat at all. I'm not privy to their actual habits, but based on my own experience I have no reason to believe they are all lying.
Low-carbing works pretty well for me, which points to hyperinsulinism as my main issue (not to mention all the abdominal fat). The trouble is that I can't just eat a bunch of processed foods on low-carb. This is probably what most people mean by it "not working" for them--they have to work too hard to eat right on the program, that or they're trying to do a low-fat version of it, which doesn't work either. WHEN I'm low-carbing, it works. I can even eat at fast-food places if I ditch the bun, order a salad instead of fries, avoid the desserts and shakes, and drink diet soda or water. Spurlock did none of these things. That's why he was sick. I'm pretty sure I could eat nothing *but* meat and other animal-based foods and do just fine. There are traditional cultures, in fact, where the people do just that. The Maasai and the Inuit come to mind, when they eat traditionally and not like outsiders want them to eat.
Research like this troubles me not because it lets people avoid being fat--I would love to have known 15 years ago what I know now about diet and about how hormones affect me, so I could have avoided obesity too!--but because it's going to let people continue to eat like crap and not get all the micronutrients they need. It's bad enough we're continually misinformed about proper human diet by the government and by outfits like PETA. I just got done apparently curing myself of problems related to my reproductive system just by making sure I got enough preformed vitamin A daily. I had no idea that I might not be converting beta carotene properly--I didn't know that a significant number of us cannot, and of those who can, the people most likely to depend on beta carotene for their A also eat low-fat diets and you need dietary fat to make the bile salts for the conversion. There is so much we don't know and that the powers that be refuse to tell us for some reason I can't fathom, and so we focus on calories and weight to the detriment of everything else.
I may be fat the rest of my life, but I'm going to be a *healthy* fat. I think people accuse overweight of causing other health problems with the same logic that would blame a runny nose for causing a cold. But there are fat triathletes and there are slender consumptives and anorexics. You can't judge someone by their energy storage.
Adam, the CO2 released by your body naturally comes from the food you eat - this procedure would simply speed up the process.
Plants absorb CO2 from the air and use the carbon to make sugars. Humans eat the plants (or animals which eat the plants first), burn the sugars for energy and breath out CO2.
It's a carbon neutral cycle - no more or less carbon is entering the environment.
Apologies if you were being sarcastic.
Do we really need another way to increase CO2 in the atmosphere?
Post new comment