Green Xenon Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Hi: Would it be practical to gene-modify a virus to infect the cells of the visceral adipose tissue as a cure for obesity? Thanks, Green Xenon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165154?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599527?ordinalpos=64&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum hmmmmm does it have to attack the fat cell directly? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261336?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473870?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed Edited July 25, 2009 by buttacup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165154?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599527?ordinalpos=64&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum hmmmmm does it have to attack the fat cell directly? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261336?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473870?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed So why aren't tests being done on human volunteers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Who says they aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Hi: Would it be practical to gene-modify a virus to infect the cells of the visceral adipose tissue as a cure for obesity? Thanks, Green Xenon No, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem But they are working on an already existent virus......... Is the act of manipulating and/or exploiting the activity of said virus not an act of Bio Engineering? Granted it has not been deliberately modified to any extent........... I wasn't thinking so explicitly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 Who says they aren't? I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem Who would it be problem for? Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who would it be problem for? Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health. It would be a problem for everyone who doesn't want it or need it and it isn't the fat that is so detrimental to your health it is the other physiological levels that cause the problems such as the build up of arthromas as well as general lack of exercise and other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 It would be a problem for everyone who doesn't want it or need it and it isn't the fat that is so detrimental to your health it is the other physiological levels that cause the problems such as the build up of arthromas as well as general lack of exercise and other factors. What is the downside of not having any visceral adipose tissue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 well for one you won't have any energy reserves at all. imagine a marathon runner when they hit the wall, usually they go on to metabolise the fat, without it they'd just die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who would it be problem for? Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health. If that were true then I'd like to know why evolution hadn't wiped it out long ago. Or are you saying that you are cleverer than a few billion years of evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 well for one you won't have any energy reserves at all. imagine a marathon runner when they hit the wall, usually they go on to metabolise the fat, without it they'd just die. For this they need subcutaneous fat, not visceral fat. The former provides energy. That latter significantly increases blood pressure and leads to clogged arteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Feel free to answer my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 If that were true then I'd like to know why evolution hadn't wiped it out long ago.Or are you saying that you are cleverer than a few billion years of evolution? Evolution assumed a "feast or famine" cycle. Evolution did not intend for a sedentary lifestyle and gorging on butter, cream, and sugar. When evolution does not assist us, we must find other means. Permanently and totally eliminating the visceral adipose tissue sounds like a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Four minor points: First, muscles use both fat and carbohydrates in almost all circumstances, even at rest. The ratio changes during increasingly intense exercise, and you actually rely more on carbs than fat at high intensities. Second, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat are BOTH burned during exercise. Third, visceral fat is actually the basal condition - subcutaneous fat is a uniquely mammalian adaptation to provide insulation. We've been dealing with visceral fat for close to half a billion years now. Finally, I've only seen bodies without any visceral fat at all a few times. Usually associated with either rapidly progressing cancers like pancreatic cancer or extreme old age (95+). The body needs fat, and it needs fat reserves, both sucutaneous and visceral. Mokele Edited July 26, 2009 by Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 Four minor points: First, muscles use both fat and carbohydrates in almost all circumstances, even at rest. The ratio changes during increasingly intense exercise, and you actually rely more on carbs than fat at high intensities. Second, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat are BOTH burned during exercise. True but carbs are the cleanest source of energy. Metabolism of fat produces toxic byproducts [such as ketones]. The kidneys have to eliminate this which strains them. Third, visceral fat is actually the basal condition - subcutaneous fat is a uniquely mammalian adaptation to provide insulation. We've been dealing with visceral fat for close to half a billion years now. So all animals have visceral fat? Finally, I've only seen bodies without any visceral fat at all a few times. Usually associated with either rapidly progressing cancers like pancreatic cancer or extreme old age (95+). The body needs fat, and it needs fat reserves, both sucutaneous and visceral. That's because the cancer uses so much energy that it causes massive breakdown of adipose -- both subcutaneous and visceral -- to meet the body's metabolic demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 True but carbs are the cleanest source of energy. Metabolism of fat produces toxic byproducts [such as ketones]. The kidneys have to eliminate this which strains them. No, not actually. Ketones are actually necessary for brain and heart function, and are mostly dealt with by a reaction in the liver which turned them into energy and CO2. Only acetone (a tiny portion of the ketones) even gets filtered out at the kidney, and there it does no more damage than anything else. So all animals have visceral fat? All vertebrates do. I'm not sure about invertebrates. That's because the cancer uses so much energy that it causes massive breakdown of adipose -- both subcutaneous and visceral -- to meet the body's metabolic demands. That was my point - total lack of visceral fat is indicative of serious disease and strain on the body, not of health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 That was my point - total lack of visceral fat is indicative of serious disease and strain on the body, not of health. in addition, if you lacked fat and contracted a serious disease or your body was strained then you would more likely to die and/or die faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 in addition, if you lacked fat and contracted a serious disease or your body was strained then you would more likely to die and/or die faster. Sorry for my persistence but won't the subcutaneous fat suffice even if there is no visceral fat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I still think a decent diet and a reasonable amount of exercise is a better bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 The underlying problem is the assumption that, if an excess of visceral fat is bad, then none is good. Given that it exists in even healthy people, and pretty much everyone who isn't dying horribly, as well as all vertebrates, I doubt it's a good idea to eliminate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) I still think a decent diet and a reasonable amount of exercise is a better bet. True. However, what will be the disadvantages if there is an optimum amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue but absolutely no visceral adipose tissue? Edited July 26, 2009 by Green Xenon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 If someone creates the virus you were talking about then, whether I like it or not, I become a guinnea pig in your experiment to find out. Try selling that to the ethics committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 If someone creates the virus you were talking about then, whether I like it or not, I become a guinnea pig in your experiment to find out. But then you can eat all the butter-rich, cream-filled desserts w/out suffering ill health consequences. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 But then you can eat all the butter-rich, cream-filled desserts w/out suffering ill health consequences. Right? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now