I heard a psychologist talk about overweight issues and children in particular. he mentioned in passing, that fat cells shrink and don't go away. So even if one loses weight, those fat cells are looking for calories, which fulls hunger and then makes keeping the weight off harder to do.
Does anyone else know anything about this and have sources I could research?
Thanks,
Fat cells
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
connorcream
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: San Antonio
Fat cells
connorcream
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
I would recommend immediately ceasing to do any research on the subject whatsoever.
Even assuming you could get an authoritative and unambiguous answer (which I doubt), what good would it do you?
Just focus on the behaviors of eating and moving moderately. No matter how many immortal fat cells you have, that's just a better way to live. And I strongly suspect you'll find yourself healthier and thinner in the bargain.
Reinhard
Even assuming you could get an authoritative and unambiguous answer (which I doubt), what good would it do you?
Just focus on the behaviors of eating and moving moderately. No matter how many immortal fat cells you have, that's just a better way to live. And I strongly suspect you'll find yourself healthier and thinner in the bargain.
Reinhard
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
-
connorcream
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: San Antonio
I was wondering if the increased number of fat cells (which divide at a certain size) would be a factor in maintanance habits as there are more of them to fuel. So I have a greater empathy for those losing weight.
Yet, my hunger has gone down will nosing, which anecdotally conflicts with what I heard. The first couple of weeks, not having a snack was hard but now it isn't a problem at all.
Hence my confusion. And I know others on the board are much more knowledgable about weight loss/physiological matters than myself.
Yet, my hunger has gone down will nosing, which anecdotally conflicts with what I heard. The first couple of weeks, not having a snack was hard but now it isn't a problem at all.
Hence my confusion. And I know others on the board are much more knowledgable about weight loss/physiological matters than myself.
connorcream
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
-
Blithe Morning
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:56 pm
- Location: South Dakota
Connor,
The one thing about research is that something that bears out for a significant per centage of the study group under controlled conditions is often reported as absolute. So even if this psyschologist is citing peer reviewed research, it doesn't mean it's true for all people all the time.
Where did you hear this? If it was some sort of media outlet, there should be more information about that person.
Once you found the person's name, you could research Pub Med for any articles this person has published (or Google Scholar).
However, I can't help but second what Reinhard suggested and not research this for yourself. If it's not true for you, it's not true for you. And that's ok.
The one thing about research is that something that bears out for a significant per centage of the study group under controlled conditions is often reported as absolute. So even if this psyschologist is citing peer reviewed research, it doesn't mean it's true for all people all the time.
Where did you hear this? If it was some sort of media outlet, there should be more information about that person.
Once you found the person's name, you could research Pub Med for any articles this person has published (or Google Scholar).
However, I can't help but second what Reinhard suggested and not research this for yourself. If it's not true for you, it's not true for you. And that's ok.
-
ThomsonsPier
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:18 pm
- Location: Reading, UK
Remember, science is all around you!
Sorry chaps, I'm one for mindful living over habit; No-S has given me the guidelines to act on, but that doesn't stop me wanting to know why. With that in mind, some research tells me that:
Fat cells are formed in the womb and at puberty; their numbers are not related to overall weight and new cells don't appear after puberty except in extreme cases. They do grow/shrink in size rather than increasing/decreasing in number and you can't get rid of them because they're an organ, just as important as any other. Removing them is like chopping a chunk off your liver.
In the same way that the role of the heart is to pump blood around the body, the role of fat cells is to convert available excess calories into stored fat. If they didn't do this, the fat would stay in the bloodstream and require the heart to work harder. They 'look for calories' only in the same way that the rest of the organs do; every type of cell in the body needs energy to run and each type of cell has its own preferred source of calories to most efficiently do its job.
Fat cells 'prefer' fat inasmuch as it provides the most energy efficient way to build stores; they can, however, turn calories in any form into stored fat at a cost of a few extra calories. This means that it's harder to store non-fat foods as excess bulk and is another reason why refined sugar is a problem; it's so high in calories that the fat cells have a superabundance of energy to do their job. The rest of the body burns carbohydrate preferentially and uses fat as a backup energy source, meaning that it's harder to burn off fat that's stored because the body uses other sources first.
To explain why it might be a problem for children, it's necessary to look at those extreme cases I briefly mentioned above. New fat cells can form later in life when the existing ones aren't up to the job, that is when more fat is being taken in than the cells can store. This happens in cases of extreme overeating and in the only case where fat cells are removed from the body, which is through liposuction. The fat can't be removed from the cells, so the cells themselves are removed. This throws the body out of balance and leaves it with nowhere to put excess calories and is also the reason why it's (apparently) harder to put weight back on after liposuction.
From your post, it seems that the psychologist was using weighted terminology to advance a theory. Since fat cells are produced up to the end of puberty, there's an argument that children are vulnerable to forming too many fat cells at that stage of development which they won't then be able to remove. The theory sounds worrying until you realise that there still has to be an abundance of excess calories for them to do anything. Cells don't take up much space; it's the fat they store that causes problems.
What this boils down to in practical terms is that, regardless of number of fat cells in the body, losing weight is down to eating a healthy diet so that the body runs properly and not eating too much fat and sugar so that the fat cells have a hard time of it.
Exercise is another issue; do that to be healthy, not thin.
An article, with science!
http://health.howstuffworks.com/fat-cell.htm
Fat cells are formed in the womb and at puberty; their numbers are not related to overall weight and new cells don't appear after puberty except in extreme cases. They do grow/shrink in size rather than increasing/decreasing in number and you can't get rid of them because they're an organ, just as important as any other. Removing them is like chopping a chunk off your liver.
In the same way that the role of the heart is to pump blood around the body, the role of fat cells is to convert available excess calories into stored fat. If they didn't do this, the fat would stay in the bloodstream and require the heart to work harder. They 'look for calories' only in the same way that the rest of the organs do; every type of cell in the body needs energy to run and each type of cell has its own preferred source of calories to most efficiently do its job.
Fat cells 'prefer' fat inasmuch as it provides the most energy efficient way to build stores; they can, however, turn calories in any form into stored fat at a cost of a few extra calories. This means that it's harder to store non-fat foods as excess bulk and is another reason why refined sugar is a problem; it's so high in calories that the fat cells have a superabundance of energy to do their job. The rest of the body burns carbohydrate preferentially and uses fat as a backup energy source, meaning that it's harder to burn off fat that's stored because the body uses other sources first.
To explain why it might be a problem for children, it's necessary to look at those extreme cases I briefly mentioned above. New fat cells can form later in life when the existing ones aren't up to the job, that is when more fat is being taken in than the cells can store. This happens in cases of extreme overeating and in the only case where fat cells are removed from the body, which is through liposuction. The fat can't be removed from the cells, so the cells themselves are removed. This throws the body out of balance and leaves it with nowhere to put excess calories and is also the reason why it's (apparently) harder to put weight back on after liposuction.
From your post, it seems that the psychologist was using weighted terminology to advance a theory. Since fat cells are produced up to the end of puberty, there's an argument that children are vulnerable to forming too many fat cells at that stage of development which they won't then be able to remove. The theory sounds worrying until you realise that there still has to be an abundance of excess calories for them to do anything. Cells don't take up much space; it's the fat they store that causes problems.
What this boils down to in practical terms is that, regardless of number of fat cells in the body, losing weight is down to eating a healthy diet so that the body runs properly and not eating too much fat and sugar so that the fat cells have a hard time of it.
Exercise is another issue; do that to be healthy, not thin.
An article, with science!
http://health.howstuffworks.com/fat-cell.htm
ThomsonsPier
It's a trick. Get an axe.
It's a trick. Get an axe.
Weight gain, loss and maintenance comes down to some pretty simple physiologic rules:connorcream wrote:I was wondering if the increased number of fat cells (which divide at a certain size) would be a factor in maintanance habits as there are more of them to fuel. So I have a greater empathy for those losing weight.
Yet, my hunger has gone down will nosing, which anecdotally conflicts with what I heard. The first couple of weeks, not having a snack was hard but now it isn't a problem at all.
Hence my confusion. And I know others on the board are much more knowledgable about weight loss/physiological matters than myself.
When calories in are greater than calories out, you will gain weight.
When calories out are greater than calories in, you will lose weight.
When there is a balance between calories in and calories out, you will maintain your weight.
And while certain medications and hormonal issues do affect weight gain and loss, it's usually not by very much. Habit and food choices still have more to do with it. Oprah, for instance, can't blame all of her weight gain on her thyroid.
Empty fat cells aren't looking to be fed, but if we are overfed, the fat will go to them. I often think that the proponents of such theories are looking for a "scientific" reason to excuse bad behavior -- theirs or someone else's.
As for research, Albert Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
-
connorcream
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: San Antonio
Oprah, for instance, can't blame all of her weight gain on her thyroid.
She is what triggered my post. I wondered if her previously large size predisposed her to gaining it back from a physical response. From thompson's post it doesn't seem like the extra fat cells were causing her to fell more hungry. I and my family are too science oriented to not research.
Also, I was thin as a child and gained weight slowly over the years. I wondered about my increase in fat cells and their cause for further weight gain through an increase in appetite.
However, all that being said and pondered, I am loving the freedom, control, and joy of nos. The 2 lbs I fretted about last week are gone, I easily turned down dessert yesterday at a Christmas party.
The only thing left to do is to decide how to spend my 2 NWS days. 1 for Christmas, 1 for New Year's Eve (2 for December), then one more for New Year's Day (1 for January). blues thanks for the 2 NSW limit per month guideline.
Thank you all for your informative and thoughtful posts. You are truly a resource in my life.
She is what triggered my post. I wondered if her previously large size predisposed her to gaining it back from a physical response. From thompson's post it doesn't seem like the extra fat cells were causing her to fell more hungry. I and my family are too science oriented to not research.
Also, I was thin as a child and gained weight slowly over the years. I wondered about my increase in fat cells and their cause for further weight gain through an increase in appetite.
However, all that being said and pondered, I am loving the freedom, control, and joy of nos. The 2 lbs I fretted about last week are gone, I easily turned down dessert yesterday at a Christmas party.
The only thing left to do is to decide how to spend my 2 NWS days. 1 for Christmas, 1 for New Year's Eve (2 for December), then one more for New Year's Day (1 for January). blues thanks for the 2 NSW limit per month guideline.
Thank you all for your informative and thoughtful posts. You are truly a resource in my life.
connorcream
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
5'8.5"
48 yrs
Started calorie counting
10/6/2009
start/current
192/mid 120's maintaining
Maintaining a year
I think the biggest reason we gain weight as we age is that over the years, we become less and less active while eating the same amount -- or more!! -- food. So in addition to practicing good habits, you need to etiher eat less or be more active.connorcream wrote: Also, I was thin as a child and gained weight slowly over the years. I wondered about my increase in fat cells and their cause for further weight gain through an increase in appetite.
Last edited by wosnes on Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
-
BrightAngel
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
- Location: Central California
- Contact:
Re: Remember, science is all around you!
ThomsonsPier
While I understand and agree with Reinhard's position that Behavior is what matters,
I very much enjoyed your post, and following the link you gave.
What an interesting website. Thanks for sharing.
While I understand and agree with Reinhard's position that Behavior is what matters,
I very much enjoyed your post, and following the link you gave.
What an interesting website. Thanks for sharing.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com
See: DietHobby. com
-
gingercake
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 5:19 am
- Location: western U.S.
ThomsonPier - I also am a lover of information, and of understanding how my body works.
Based on what I've read, along with my experience and the experience of many people I know (highly unscientific, I know), I do believe that the increase in fat cells that comes with being significantly overweight DOES make regaining lost weight a higher likelihood for some of us...our bodies have become highly efficient store-ers of excess fat. The cells are there, with storage space available, and the body is just trying to do what it thinks is right and efficient for the body. Whereas the body of a a naturally thinner person with less available storage space has to actually go through the cell division process to store extra fat, so it is a less efficient store-er of fat and therefore that body does not gain/store as easily.
But - connorcream - I've never heard anything about the number of fat cells having anything to do with appetite. I think appetite is more affected by the insulin processes.
By the way, in his great book In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan says that being overweight/overfed actually stimulates ALL kinds of cell division, including that of cancer cells.
Based on what I've read, along with my experience and the experience of many people I know (highly unscientific, I know), I do believe that the increase in fat cells that comes with being significantly overweight DOES make regaining lost weight a higher likelihood for some of us...our bodies have become highly efficient store-ers of excess fat. The cells are there, with storage space available, and the body is just trying to do what it thinks is right and efficient for the body. Whereas the body of a a naturally thinner person with less available storage space has to actually go through the cell division process to store extra fat, so it is a less efficient store-er of fat and therefore that body does not gain/store as easily.
But - connorcream - I've never heard anything about the number of fat cells having anything to do with appetite. I think appetite is more affected by the insulin processes.
By the way, in his great book In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan says that being overweight/overfed actually stimulates ALL kinds of cell division, including that of cancer cells.