Metabolic Health

51 readers
3 users here now

A place to discuss metabolic health research, papers, talks, etc.

This topic can touch upon many people's personal triggers, so please be civil.

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you

The banner poster in high resolution can be found here

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

Despite intensive research, the causes of the obesity epidemic remain incompletely understood and conventional calorie-restricted diets continue to lack long-term efficacy. According to the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM) of obesity, recent increases in the consumption of processed, high–glycemic-load carbohydrates produce hormonal changes that promote calorie deposition in adipose tissue, exacerbate hunger, and lower energy expenditure. Basic and genetic research provides mechanistic evidence in support of the CIM. In animals, dietary composition has been clearly demonstrated to affect metabolism and body composition, independently of calorie intake, consistent with CIM predictions. Meta-analyses of behavioral trials report greater weight loss with reduced-glycemic load vs low-fat diets, though these studies characteristically suffer from poor long-term compliance. Feeding studies have lacked the rigor and duration to test the CIM, but the longest such studies tend to show metabolic advantages for low-glycemic load vs low-fat diets. Beyond the type and amount of carbohydrate consumed, the CIM provides a conceptual framework for understanding how many dietary and nondietary exposures might alter hormones, metabolism, and adipocyte biology in ways that could predispose to obesity. Pending definitive studies, the principles of a low-glycemic load diet offer a practical alternative to the conventional focus on dietary fat and calorie restriction.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2933

Full Paper here

.

2
 
 

Otto Warburg originally proposed that cancer arose from a two-step process. The first step involved a chronic insufficiency of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), while the second step involved a protracted compensatory energy synthesis through lactic acid fermentation. His extensive findings showed that oxygen consumption was lower while lactate production was higher in cancerous tissues than in non-cancerous tissues. Warburg considered both oxygen consumption and extracellular lactate as accurate markers for ATP production through OxPhos and glycolysis, respectively. Warburg’s hypothesis was challenged from findings showing that oxygen consumption remained high in some cancer cells despite the elevated production of lactate suggesting that OxPhos was largely unimpaired. New information indicates that neither oxygen consumption nor lactate production are accurate surrogates for quantification of ATP production in cancer cells. Warburg also did not know that a significant amount of ATP could come from glutamine-driven mitochondrial substrate level phosphorylation in the glutaminolysis pathway with succinate produced as end product, thus confounding the linkage of oxygen consumption to the origin of ATP production within mitochondria. Moreover, new information shows that cytoplasmic lipid droplets and elevated aerobic lactic acid fermentation are both biomarkers for OxPhos insufficiency. Warburg’s original hypothesis can now be linked to a more complete understanding of how OxPhos insufficiency underlies dysregulated cancer cell growth. These findings can also address several questionable assumptions regarding the origin of cancer thus allowing the field to advance with more effective therapeutic strategies for a less toxic metabolic management and prevention of cancer.

Full Paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-025-10059-w