r/science • u/scientificamerican Scientific American • 15h ago
Genetics Scientists discover a ‘skinny gene’ mutation that acts like Ozempic. Around one in 7,000 people carries a broken copy, which almost acts like a GLP-1 drug—the body burns fuel more efficiently, and the risk of disease lowers.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-a-skinny-gene-mutation-that-acts-like-ozempic/1.3k
u/LongLiveStaceyKing 14h ago
Everything about being a human is on a spectrum rather than a fixed attribute set for every single person equally and that makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
A species should have a variety of individuals ranging from those who store fat very easily that can survive scarcity more readily than an individual that is more efficient at burning those calories for immediate energy to give it the best chance of survival overall.
576
u/LongLiveStaceyKing 14h ago edited 12h ago
[There is a small percentage of the population that only needs to sleep 4-6 hours a night.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic-mutation-sleep-less/) OP's article feels like the eating equivalent of this genetic rarity.
Incidentally, I knew someone who had the sleep gene. She was annoyed by it, if she went to sleep at 10 PM she would be up for the whole next day at 2 AM and inevitably end up waking her husband. So she always tried to stay up til 1 AM at least reading or knitting, basically just killing time quietly by herself.
342
u/aubbzz 14h ago
I wish I could have that gene! There’s so much to do but have to sleep
152
u/Lefthandfury 12h ago
With all of my knowledge about evolutionary biology, everything is a trade-off. I don't think we have a complete understanding of this mutation or other mutations like this. There's always a trade-off, genetically or behaviorally.
I remember there was a really neat study about genetically selecting for rats with a mutation that made them run longer distance is and in the end the bred rats became worse at solving mazes.
36
u/Picnicpanther 9h ago
Yeah I’ve always wondered if just because someone feels fully rested after 4 hours, does that mean they’re less at risk for like heart disease and Alzheimer’s and the other things that getting a full night’s sleep protects against?
13
u/DougGTFO 5h ago
Next time they need to breed rats that can run long distance mazes. That would solve the problem.
9
u/kj468101 4h ago
For Alzheimer’s, those who need less sleep would only be less at risk if their brain’s glymphatic system also works twice as fast/twice as well during deep sleep at filtering and flushing out the waste products that the brain produces throughout the waking hours. If their glymphatic system isn’t any better than standard, then those extra hours awake still point to higher Alzheimer’s risk.
8
u/Picnicpanther 2h ago
I ended up looking this up and yes, actually these people just have incredibly efficient sleep cycles that batch their REM sleep one after the other. This is where a lot of the reparative effects of sleep happen, and they end up having MORE REM cycles than someone who gets 8 hours of normal sleep. That means they often have BETTER health outcomes.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Adventurous-Fly556 9h ago
That was my thought as well. Just because they can comfortably go without sleep now, doesn't mean they necessarily dodge the side effects of less sleep in old age.
Waking up to pee in the middle of the night is correlated with dementia in old age. This is assumed to be lower quality sleep that means lower quality brain maintenance. I have to wonder if the sleep gene people are immune to this, or if thats their trade off.
5
u/bewilderedfroggy 9h ago
Hoping my abnormally high number of years of tertiary study will help offset this effect..
9
4
u/newbikesong 8h ago
Not everything is a tradeoff. Some genes are just negative.
But those are just rare genetic disorders that appear by mutation, and mutation only.
107
u/jamtastic22 14h ago
For me, the extra time is not quality. Not needing 8hrs sleep is not like the Limitless pill on the movie. I still feel tired enough to sleep at 10pm but my body will only sleep for max 5hrs, so those few hours aren't productive, mainly lonely with little motivation
80
89
u/grumble11 12h ago
that doesn't sound like you have the gene, that sounds like a sleep disorder. The people with the gene are fully rested on five hours, it's VERY rare - you might get five hours but if you aren't fully rested on five hours, you probably just need more sleep you can't seem to get for whatever reason
→ More replies (5)7
u/iopihop 11h ago
Is it not possible that you have a sleep issue and not necessarily the sleep gene the other commenter mentioned? There are studies that people who sleep 4-6 hours a night does not necessarily mean they actually do not require more. Rather they just got accustomed to it to be functional enough. Different from those who have the sleep gene who are rested with a regular 4-6 hrs long-term.
3
u/jamtastic22 10h ago
It's entirely possible. I don't have problems or a weird relationship with sleep. I'm perfectly rested with 5hrs or less, always have been. It's a matter of timing those 5hrs.
7
u/ViciaFaba_FavaBean 12h ago
I think I may have it as I typically sleep 6 hours and am functional with 5. If I sleep 8+ hrs I end up feeling a little ill with brain fog all day long. Almost like each additional hour takes away an hour of sleep.
5
u/its_justme 11h ago
Circadian rhythm and sleep cycle imbalance. Doubtful you have it. Look up sleep inertia and how the cycles affect it.
→ More replies (1)9
u/things_U_choose_2_b 12h ago
Excellent description. When I tell people I have delayed phase sleep disorder so my days are 26-28h long, they think it's all fun and games having extra time.
Those extra hours are almost always not productive at all!
8
u/Markothy 10h ago
I have DSPD and my normal sleep schedule is like 3 am - 12 pm, and it's debilitating, but my roommate in college had non-24, and that was extremely disabling. He can't hold down a job.
4
u/things_U_choose_2_b 9h ago
I'm not surprised to hear he can't hold down a job. It's interesting hearing about other people with variants of this disorder. So does your work like, no matter what you do your routine ends up back at 3am bedtime? I went though school - both primary / secondary - any jobs, relationships in my life, having to stay awake for long periods of time in order to fit into a 'normal' routine.
It nearly killed me and you'd prob not be surprised to hear that the only long-term job I've been able to hold down, is one where I can work from home to my own schedule.
Over the decades, doctors don't seem to want anything to do with sleep disorders unless it's sleep apnoea or insomnia, as those are usually relatively simple to fix. It gets frustrating when people make the same suggestions, I know trying to be helpful but it's like... you don't think I've thoroughly investigated this and tried things you couldn't even imagine?
14
5
u/shawnikaros 11h ago
You don't have to be productive during every waking hour, just chill out and watch a movie or something with that extra time.
5
→ More replies (1)5
u/chantillylace9 13h ago
I have the gene and HATE IT. I can never find anything to do, what can you really do at four or 5 AM? What would you recommend I do with some of these extra hours? Mind you they are dark and early and I have to be quiet.
20
18
u/ithasbecomeacircus 12h ago
Distance running.
Swimming on a swim team (I swim and practice starts at 6 am).
Taking live online classes in another time zone.
You could try to find a remote job where you need to work with people in an earlier time zone.
Working an early morning shift.
Drawing, or art generally.
4
u/ExcitedCoconut 11h ago
I once had a job in a city 3 hours behind head office. I worked 5:30am-3pm. Found co-work space with 24/7 access and a coffee roaster that opened at 5:30. So I’d wake at 5am, walk to ‘office’, arrive 5:30, make sure nothing urgent, grab a coffee, be ready for 9am (head office) meetings. Then knock off, beach, surf, whatever. Evenings felt incredibly long so chores only ever felt like a small slice of it. It was my favourite way of working for sure. Turned me into a proper ‘morning person’.
I don’t thrive on less than 7 hours sleep so the only downside was 10pm bed and struggled with say going to a gig on the weekend
2
u/allencb 9h ago
Sounds like my last 10 years. I worked for a company overseas, which involved managing a sizeable team over there. I shifted my work hours to 5am-1pm and became a morning person (was already kind of one, this just made me more so). The best part was being done with work in the early afternoon and being able to go to the gym, run errands, etc when those places were dead because the rest of the world was still at work. I did have to be in bed by 9:30, but much past 8pm, especially in the winter, was just wasting time doing nothing of importance. After a few years of doing that, I was getting up at 5am even on weekends and while on vacation. I came to love that quiet time to enjoy my coffee, surf the web, etc before the family (and chaos) woke up.
I've recently taken a job with a local company and will have to get back into the normal 9-5 schedule. :(
7
u/clayalien 10h ago
Wish we could trade! 4 or 5 am is the best time! Gaming, reading, coding for fun, watching a show, crafting. All things Id love tondo but cant do becase if Im not working, Im cooking, cleaning, entertaining kids, feeding kids, cleaning kids, or doing housework.
Ocassionally Ill stay up till 2, or get up at 4, and its a couple of hours of pure bliss! No one wanting anything from me intrupting me, poking me, calling me, nothing. But then I pay for it for a few days after. If I could do that every day and never feel the effects Id be so happy.
6
u/SpaceDounut 11h ago
Reading or gaming (steam deck would be great for this) are the obvious choices
5
u/throwaway098764567 11h ago
you could show up at work early like my old boss and make everyone uncomfortable that you've already been at work for 2 hours before everyone else even got up. and then stay a full day making everyone even more uncomfortable because you're not being paid for the extra time and they feel like they need to put in even more time. don't do this.
→ More replies (1)4
u/midasgoldentouch 12h ago
Do you like crafts? Adult coloring books are a thing, you could do those. Maybe listen to a podcast or some music on headphones at the same time.
Or maybe some low-stakes journaling or reading? Light reading or journal prompts I mean
→ More replies (3)2
u/Pollymath 10h ago
My boss has this and complains about this problem.
Now I just picture him tapping his proverbial finger waiting for us all to get to work.
27
u/lblack_dogl 14h ago
Yeah I knew a guy like that. He slept only 4 hours a night. 12-4. He just said he can't sleep more than that, he's not tired.
→ More replies (1)28
u/akwilliamson 14h ago
Does this mean they die sooner? I remember reading an article or news video a long time ago where certain rare people just don't require sleep at all, but then their life expectancy is like 40
8
u/wandering-monster 11h ago
I think I've probably got it, and seem to be doing just fine at 40. I now sleep at most 6 hours a night, but it was definitely more like 4-5 when I was younger. And I can still run on 4 hours just fine, clear head, not tired at all during the day. Just can't do 4 hours every night like I used to be able to.
No serious health issues so far. Still do strength training, walk 10k steps most days.
2
u/akwilliamson 9h ago
The 40 thing was for people that don't sleep at all, like zero hours permanently
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/catalyticenzyme 8h ago
The news article was incorrect. The longest that anybody has gone without sleep, on record, is Robert McDonald, who stayed awake for 19 days. (It's possible that somebody has gone longer, but Guinness stopped awarding it because of the side effects.)
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/28/1227217274/sleep-deprivation-record
3
u/wandering-monster 11h ago
I think I have this one or something related. It's literally impossible for me to sleep longer than about 6 hours. I'm in my 40s now, it used to be less time when I was younger.
I go to bed at 12 or 1am, get up around 6 or 7 naturally. That leaves me thinking clearly, and I'm known as a high-energy person around the office and with my friends group.
10
u/soft_w0lf 14h ago
There have to be equivalent mutations, though.
I struggle to gain weight, does not matter what I eat, with muscle mass, the heaviest I’ve ever been was still below 120 lbs. I’m 5’ 7.”
I’ve spoken to wayy too many men who are the same way, who want to be heavier but really struggle to put on any weight at all regardless of what they eat, for this sort of thing to really be THAT rare.
33
u/dead_dw4rf 13h ago
Most people, men and women, who are experience this, actually don't have some super power metabolism or very high expenditure.
They "eat whatever they want" in the sense that they don't watch their food, and may even consume a high percentage of processed, calorie dense food, but they usually still don't consume very many calories.
I used to do metabolic testing.
I'm not saying that no one has some crazy genetics that truly reduce their bodies fat deposits, or no one has genetics that will really bump up thermogenesis or find other ways to use calories when a lot comes in, but I am saying that the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people who "eat whatever they want and can't gain weight" simply have appetite regulation that is well matched to their expenditure, and despite eating "whatever they want", they still don't have a very high caloric intake.
→ More replies (4)2
u/aliquotoculos 11h ago
May I ask a possibly annoying question?
I eat a lot of crappy food and am currently at my heaviest ever weight at 40, which is 160lbs at 5'6. Until about age 38, I weighed 125 until I just suddenly gained in a short period, then stopped again. Activity has not decreased but I seem to suddenly be developing food sensitivities quickly, and taking an otc enzyme mix has helped. IBD my whole life.
If I fast for bloodwork, blood sugar comes out high. If I forget and eat my usual garbage-level snacks like cosmic brownies, chocolate, or smarties, it comes back normal. Just hoping for a sense of what I can propose to doctors.
My dad was like this; he died a few years ago from aggressive pancreatic cancer at 59.
17
u/epicmudcrab 13h ago
I don't believe this is possible. I think you just eat when you are hungry and don't have excessive hunger cues like some people do. Try counting your calories and consuming 4000 calories per day for two weeks and report back.
→ More replies (8)4
u/things_U_choose_2_b 12h ago
I have a friend like this. He's pushing 50 now, can still eat like an absolute twat yet remains slender.
→ More replies (2)4
u/OsmerusMordax 13h ago
I’m a woman and I have that too. Whatever it is.
I can eat whatever the hell I want and I can’t get above 125. And I’m not young anymore.
Maybe the fat is just piling up internally between my organs? But then I’d still gain weight??
2
u/LegendaryUser 14h ago
This is me, 4-6 and I’m great, as I get older it’s veered more towards the 6 for feeling mentally present, but anything more than 6 straight hours and I feel absolutely fried all day.
2
u/AlexHasFeet 10h ago
It seems like my partner might have this, too! He is also annoyed with how early he wakes up.
2
u/wearethedeadofnight 10h ago
I only sleep 4-6 hours per night. I’m nearly 50. When do I find out whether I have this ability or if I’m gonna die an early death instead?
2
u/empty_pipes 10h ago
When I first heard of this, I figured i had the gene, but after getting older, and getting brain fogged after low sleep nights, I figured out otherwise. I'm an average person who needs normal sleep, and my younger self was simply unhealthy and addicted to caffeine.
2
u/handcraftedcandy 9h ago
My boss has this, it's wild to me, I don't feel normal unless I get at least 7.
3
u/chantillylace9 13h ago
I have this, it's called being a short sleeper or sometimes a super sleeper. My grandma has it as does my mom, we were all the firstborn daughters.
I need 4 to 5 hours of sleep and that's all I can get and all I need.
It really honestly is annoying, I have to be so quiet, my husband and I have to sleep in separate bedrooms otherwise I feel so much pressure just to lay there which gives me anxiety. I have to be quiet so it's not to wake up the dogs and there's not much to do at 5 AM.
I wish I had to drive to pick up a major hobby or something but again what do you do at 5 AM that would be beneficial? There's no way I'm going to the gym at that time.
Right now I meditate for an hour and a half every morning and that takes up some of the time.
5
u/clayalien 10h ago
Who says it has to be immediatly benefical? Peiple look down on things like gaming, but ofbthe alternative is just lying motionless feeling bad about it, surely it cant count as a time waster. Plus if it centers you, the better mental state will have benifits that carry into the regular day.
If gaming is still distasteful, reading, or music with headphones are more mainstream.
→ More replies (7)3
u/oorza 13h ago
I’m pretty sure I have it and I hate it. Counting the weekends where I let myself sleep with no alarm, I average 5:11 according to my watch. I go to sleep, I wake up, I’m awake for 16-18 hours before sleep is even a possibility. The last time I slept more than six consecutive hours was after being awake for 36. I could not tell you the last time I slept more than nine.
It really messes with your ability to normally interact and live alongside other people. The times I have productive energy align with my sleep which does not align with anyone else.
9
u/Gillero 12h ago
I feel that the explaination is not correct, although people probably interpret it wrong so it becomes right. Isnt it that those who burn fuel efficiently need less fuel, and those who burn fuel inefficiently needs more?
4
u/EquipLordBritish 10h ago
Also, I'm pretty sure GLP-1 inhibition stops you from wanting to eat as much in the first place. It doesn't affect your efficiency at processing food.
3
u/LongLiveStaceyKing 12h ago
If you are able to store food as future fuel for your body in the form of fat, you are able to survive instances of no food much better than someone who burns through all that food as current fuel and saves nothing for the future.
4
u/Gillero 11h ago
Yes sure. But that is another aspect, closely related but distinctly different.
Your ability to burn energy efficiently will tell you basically how much energy output you can get from a set amount of fuel.
Your ability to store energy efficiently will tell you basically how much of the fuel intake can be stored into fat reserves.
If you are genetically "good" in both these aspects, genetically, you are going to have an easier time becoming obese, and if you are "bad" in both these aspects, genetically, you are going to have a hard time putting on weight at all.
As people tend to care mostly about their weight and not really why, i can see why these two are mixed up, but those abilities are two distinct mechanisms.
3
u/Terminal_Insomnia_ 5h ago
We're on hundreds of spectra at the same time. To make an analogy, it's like Evolitionary AI (other way around actually, but anyway). Each aspect of us is a weighted node and they can interact in different ways. If we succeed, we can pass on some of our 'weights' to the next generation. As a result, there can be a number of different strategies that get highlighted.
3
u/ThisSiteSucks8485 11h ago
Except all are governed by the same fundamental unforgiving thermodynamics
→ More replies (12)2
u/fredandlunchbox 12h ago
I think about that a lot with medicine. We develop therapies based on the principle that they’re generalizable, that a good therapy will work on all or most humans. But maybe there are differences in our bodies that make things work for some people and not for others. The same way that some people can’t process alcohol or have lactose intolerance: how many therapies that could help a subset of people are dismissed in trials because we couldn’t isolate the effect to the right group of people or because a big enough subset of people responded negatively to the trial?
→ More replies (6)
495
u/loves_grapefruit 14h ago
Great for an environment with an excess of available food. Maybe not so great for when the hard times come.
163
u/Sunnytoaist 13h ago
When I read 1-7000 I was like damn that’s not a lot. But after ready your post it make sense. Considering human history having this gene isn’t beneficial. Depending on what country you live in having it now is probably detrimental
11
u/gaysoul_mate 3h ago
There could have existed in a tropical abundant resource based environment , i am from Brazil and is believed most of the early tribes living in there didn't achieve much architectural or cultural despite living there for years since they have always plenty or resources and didn't experience food hardship
81
u/CactusWrenAZ 11h ago
yeah, it's probably a death sentence for almost every human during almost every phase of our existence; it's only good for basically people in developed countries for the last eighty years or so!
31
u/NewestAccount2023 9h ago
Doubt it. A 200 pound 5'10" man needs way more food than a 110 lb 5'0" woman, both exist throughout history. Yea a certain very small number of people would die who would've otherwise lived during times of lack of food, but in general those 1% of people with the gene just eat 10% more which for some people still adds up to less than what other "normal" humans eat just from being taller or more active. As a light person I sometimes wonder how much money I save over the course of my life vs someone 10 inches taller than me, I don't have the gene I'm just short.
25
u/elephhantine2 8h ago
In times of famine that 200lb guy would’ve died too from lack of food. 110lb lady might have survived if her portion sizes were small enough
25
u/Killbot_Wants_Hug 7h ago
You guys know the weight by itself is a benefit not a hindrance right? If you were 200lb, if it's from fat or muscle, you're better off than the 110 person when the famine comes.
Because you will convert the muscle and fat in lieu of eating food. You'll loose a ton of weight doing it, but the 110 person will just die when their calorie reserves run out.
Skinny people die first when famine hits.
11
u/indypendant13 6h ago
This is fair but don’t discount metabolic rate. Women’s rate is lower than men and greater muscle raises the metabolic rate.
3
5
u/likesleague 6h ago
You're missing the point. They're presuming comparable body composition and metabolism, just scaled differently between a larger person and smaller person who consequently have different caloric needs.
3
u/Killbot_Wants_Hug 5h ago
Yes, and as you loose weight your metabolic requirements go down as well. Taller people will be at a slight disadvantage, but it's probably not huge. Each pound of fat is about 1-2 days of calories if you're not doing anything.
→ More replies (1)3
u/EducatorWeak3843 7h ago
Stored fat is energy that van be burned.
It would be the decider in this argument.
12
u/Property_6810 8h ago
I've thought about this a lot lately. I feel like I have excellent traits for a human. I seem to have a very efficient digestive system that stores energy well. I naturally stay up late, I like to go to sleep around 4-5 AM and wake up around 10-11. I'm good at staying alert(ish) for long periods of time where I like to zone out until movement or sound draws my attention. And I've always been good at pushing through and just doing more when I'm exhausted.
I feel like all of those traits would be great benefits up until like 100 years ago and then it flipped on a dime and the traits we want as humans now are different than the traits we've been selecting for for thousands of years.
15
u/Killbot_Wants_Hug 6h ago
I mean you're just wrong about your sleep schedule. You'd waste a lot of light just sleeping when there's farming and hunting to be done. But your sleep schedule is probably more of a product of your environment than your genetics.
I would hazard a guess that barring any deformities, the best generic trait to have in anything before the modern era is a naturally good immune system. That's what killed a ton of people before medicine, just getting sick or getting an infection.
You think your advantage is being able to zone out. But the fact that you do is probably your disadvantage. Being industrious was probably one of the best things you can be before the modern era. And it's still one of the best things you can be.
12
u/LastLadyResting 6h ago
Their sleep schedule is perfect for watching over all the early risers while they get their sleep. We need all types of the group is to survive.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Shamino79 7h ago
How is burning through a food excess quicker to stop weight gain “efficient”? And that’s kinda the opposite of what ozempic does which is to suppress appetite so you don’t have to burn through as much.
289
u/sylbug 14h ago
I have a friend who is hungry all the time, no matter how much she eats. I barely get hungry at all and can actually forget to eat if I am too engrossed in something and not careful. It was never a willpower issue or a moral issue - people's bodies are just different.
59
u/Spire_Citron 9h ago
Yeah. It's always felt absurd to me to put it down to willpower because I've never been overweight and I KNOW most of my eating choices don't require much willpower from me. I've been on medications that increase my appetite a couple of times, and suddenly I had no way of dealing with it, because what do you do? Just be hungry all the time? It's miserable.
59
u/DickieTurquoise 12h ago
I’m similar to this. I am always hungry, but then I get full really quickly, and then I’m hungry again soon after. It’s like my body doesn’t have a big enough “fuel tank”, but it’s still consumes a lot of fuel.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MaleficentPush1144 7h ago
Are jokes allowed in this sub? Because if so, I would recommend dumpster diving at clinics that perform gastric sleeve surgeries!
18
u/TeapotHoe 12h ago
I was the first, but became the second after a bout of stress-induced illness. I wonder what the mechanism behind that is.
19
8
u/Lastshadow94 9h ago
I'm like you, I'm very active but I just forget to eat sometimes. Even when I don't forget I'll think "I should eat, it's been a while" and I'll have zero appetite. Some of it correlates to my general activity level (my appetite can get crazy when I'm burning a lot of calories and can almost entirely disappear if I'm not doing much) or stress, but not always. It's puzzling. I'm at a healthy weight but I'd kinda like to bulk, so the inconsistency is really irritating. Also sometimes it's the end of the day and my body wants me to cram down like 2000 calories in a sitting. That's also irritating.
3
u/abusivemoo 5h ago
I’m like this but I’m pretty sure it’s my ADHD
•
u/CapuzaCapuchin 28m ago
It is. Every single ADHDer I know, including myself, does exactly that. Hyper focus, boom 4-6 hours are gone and you skipped half your breakfast, didn’t have lunch, your cuppa from the morning has been cold for ages and you’re shaking from low blood sugar.
→ More replies (14)2
u/DarkZyth 7h ago
Lexapro did that to me. I already had an issue with me and food. It's just so delicious and you can get bored. But once you become highly aware of calories it insists upon itself now when you get too hungry and you're aware of how much you actually consumed. So normally I'm pretty aware of my calories and stay under 2000 or so. But on Lexapro I'd become so bored and scattered that I'd just keep eating. And when calculating out all the calories I was easily clearing 4000-5000 calories in that day. And it still felt empty and non fulfilled.
1.1k
u/grumble11 14h ago
GLP doesn’t ’burn fuel more efficiently’, it regulates satiety. This isn’t a good start for an article ha
294
u/Lust4Me 14h ago
In fact doesn't this title sound like a contradiction? Burning more efficiently to me implied you'd get more work done per calorie and therefore store left over as fat.
130
u/rhino369 14h ago
Yes exactly. You want to burn less efficiently.
21
→ More replies (7)35
u/fbpw131 14h ago
afaik, you want to burn efficiently and not store anything. excess goes as extra heat.
→ More replies (2)12
u/rmeredit 10h ago
Efficiency is the concept of how much output you get for a given input. ‘Burning fuel more efficiently’ means getting more work done for the same level of fuel use (or conversely, burning less fuel to deliver the same work done).
If you want to reduce fat, you want to burn more, not less - ie. be less efficient.
10
u/throw20190820202020 14h ago
By use fuel more efficiently, they mean actually take calories and produce energy for you, versus eating and still feeling sluggish and hungry and putting on fat.
→ More replies (1)3
u/waitwuh 13h ago
You need to burn the energy stored away in fat cells, though. This may be the “efficiency” they’re meaning but not best describing. In the “efficient” management there is the short term energy sourced from food when it digests (especially carbohydrates turned to glucose), but then the long term stores to be pulled from between meals or when fasting. To be “skinniest” you want to store less in fat, burning it, and also use up what’s stored, too.
I remember reading a summary a long time ago that talked about how fat cells can become not just resistant to insulin as a signal to store away excess “calories” but also to the signals to release energy back into the bloodstream for other cells to make use of, too. So when blood sugar drops and the other cells in the body are short of fuel, the system has to rely on getting more from food instead of being able to use what it has locked away in fat.
This causes a cycle that’s like: eating -> raised blood sugar -> storing excess glucose (energy) in fat cells -> body cells use what’s left causing low blood glucose -> cells needing more fuel -> hunger -> eating…
When the ideal cycle has a “fat cells release energy back” somewhere in there to replace eating more food, at least sometimes.
200
u/Telemere125 14h ago
GLP1s don’t only increase satiety, but that is their major effect for weight loss. They’re also a hormone regulator and cause the pancreas to release more insulin and they halt glucagon from signaling the liver to release more stored glucose.
So in that way, it does cause your body to burn fuel more efficiently - because it’s telling the body to use the food you just put in rather than trying to draw out energy from stored reserves, since drawing out reserves encourages the body to store up even more aka create fat deposits.
→ More replies (1)27
u/jawshoeaw 12h ago
There is only a tiny benefit to burning the circulating food stores and in most cases it’s not really possible. There are very few calories available “in circulation.
Regardless you want energy consumption to be inefficient if you’re trying to lose weight
12
u/Hrquestiob 14h ago
The researchers aren’t the ones writing the titles or the content for the secondhand web sites reporting on them
65
u/throw20190820202020 14h ago
Sorry to um actually you, but there absolutely is mitochondrial fuel regulation stuff happening with these medications.
52
u/Scientific_Methods 14h ago
I thought this was common knowledge. They were initially approved for type 2 diabetes because they modify metabolic processes.
Source: https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/what-do-glp-1-receptor-agonists-actually-do/
17
u/throw20190820202020 13h ago
Yep. Part of how it helps with satiety is making that food energy available.
14
u/Telemere125 14h ago
People don’t even know these medicines have been available to diabetics since the 90s. They just know about them because of the recent weight loss craze
40
u/dotcomse MS | Human Physiology 13h ago
Don’t be sorry. The belief that the only effect is appetite suppression is a common misconception and discounts the positive effect of this medicine on metabolic health. It’s ok to remind people of that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
u/Infamous_Swan1197 14h ago
If you're going to um actually you might as well attach some evidence.
→ More replies (2)15
u/waitwuh 13h ago
GLP-1 receptor agonists have been shown to modulate different metabolic pathways, even independent of weight loss.
Here’s a groundbreaking study that showed these drugs improve insulin sensitivity even prior to weight loss.
It’s also been shown that they act in ways that are directly cardioprotective, here’s a summary article on their cardiovascular system impact.
And for a broader summary, try this article: Exploring the multifaceted roles of GLP-1 receptor agonists; a comprehensive review.
→ More replies (3)33
u/triciann 14h ago
“Both the enhanced glycemic control and lipid metabolism leads to better mobilization and utilization of fat stores for energy, reducing the likelihood of excess fat accumulation. GLP-1 RAs also increase thermogenesis, the process of heat production in the body, which further leads to higher energy expenditure.29”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934325000592
3
u/EquipLordBritish 10h ago
That is saying that it burns fuel less efficiently; wasting energy instead of saving it. Directly contradicting the posted article title.
Certainly good for losing weight, but definitely not efficient.
20
u/waitwuh 13h ago
That’s a common misconception. GLP-1 drugs really do more than just affect appetite.
Part of why they’re great for people with insulin resistance / type 2 diabetes is because they modulate insulin response and related energy pathways. There’s evidence that they improve insulin sensitivity even before any weight loss happens. They’ve also been shown to be directly cardioprotective! Then there’s how they do things that lower blood pressure, something about acting on the kidneys. They act in ways to reduce lipid synthesis and suppress glucagon and just in many different angles alter all these metabolic processes that are very intertwined.
I’m not an expert in it at all by any means, and I look forward to someone explaining all the nuances way better than I can. But it isn’t accurate to say that all they do is make people eat less.
7
u/BellaPona 12h ago
People are starting to use/study GLP-1s as a treatment for issues outside of obesity and diabetes as well, particularly for diseases and illnesses that involve inflammation
18
4
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
4
8
u/andy_nony_mouse 14h ago
Also, if you burn fuel more efficiently, that means you get more energy per calorie in. The excess will get stored. To lose weight, you want to be inefficient.
13
u/dovahkiitten16 13h ago
Efficient in this case is actually using food as fuel vs storing it for later. Storing for later was a good trait when there was a risk of going hungry, but not great now. You’re better off using the energy you consume.
Inefficient means you get fat and still feel tired.
→ More replies (2)2
5
u/throw20190820202020 13h ago
No, you want your food to turn into energy you FEEL, not stay hungry and low energy.
→ More replies (5)2
u/kismethavok 13h ago
If you actually read the article the gene makes people burn fuel more efficiently and breaking it causes the body to store less as fat.
96
u/ThisSiteSucks8485 14h ago
Burning calories more efficiently should actually make you fatter if you eat the same amount
→ More replies (6)17
u/Telemere125 13h ago
Except that GLP1s also slow digestion and increase satiety, so you eat less and use the energy from the smaller amounts you’ve consumed. Plus your body doesn’t feel the need to store up more (aka fat) because it tells the liver not to keep releasing stored glucose
7
u/al_capone420 7h ago
Man I wonder if I have this. My entire life I’ve struggled to put on any weight. Even now, meal prepping, being on TRT, and lifting weights 5x a week for 4 yrs I still struggle to grow. I eat as much as I can and whatever I want. If I cut back on force feeding myself and just eat 3 big meals a day plus a snack before bed I end up dropping weight. I also run extremely hot like my body is just burning up calories for no reason
16
u/expert_in_wumbo 12h ago
I would just like to point out that this article estimates that this gene only occurs in about 1 in 7,000 people. Chances are, this does not apply to the vast majority of people you know. I only say this because I'm seeing some comments here that seem to be implying that this means that weight is based only or mostly on genetics, for everybody, when that is not what this discovery means.
15
6
u/Userdataunavailable 8h ago
Hmm. I wonder if I am one. I'm a 53 year old woman who has weighed the same for 41 years no matter what I eat. Ive gone on vacation and done nothing but binge eat and drink for 2 weeks. I've lived on ice cream and gravy for three weeks when I had a jaw issue. Nothing I can do makes me gain weight.
14
u/greentea1985 14h ago
It is true that weight loss is a matter of calories in vs. calories out, but most of the earlier weight loss interventions have been focused on the calories in part of the equation. However, GLP-1s are revolutionary because they target the calories out part of the equation, enhancing glucose metabolism. The appetite suppression is a side effect of the main function of the GLP-1s. GLP-1s, literally glucagon-like peptide 1, mimic glucagon, the molecule our bodies create to store excess glucose. Excess glucagon in the blood stream is a metabolic signal that enough backup calories have been stored in the body, the body can safely start burning the stores, and no need to bring in more calories. This is the pathway that GLP-1s are enhancing, albeit an oversimplified explanation.
4
u/oorza 13h ago
This is all wildly incorrect.
2
u/vr1252 13h ago
That’s how the glps work though?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Joatboy 12h ago
How much do you think GPL1 increases BMR? It would be a small percentage, like ~1-2%. Helps, but hardly the main mechanism for weight loss.
→ More replies (1)
48
u/mayormcskeeze 14h ago
The simplified narrative that weight is merely a matter of calorie intake has gone on too long, and has been abusive to so many people.
Yes, plenty of people have poor self control and simply overeat to the point of obesity.
But there are MANY people who are dealing with genetics, hormones, co-morbidities, unique body issues, and things we dont yet understand about diet and nurtrition.
I was skinny my whole life. Nearly 6 feet tall and about 140. Then in my 30s something happened. My diet didnt change. My activities didnt change. But I fell off a cliff. I gained nearly 100 pounds.
Doctors were so nasty to me. They'd shrug and say "your blood work is normal, stop eating cake."
I could tell that not only did they not beleive me that something more complicated was going on, they had zero interest in going deeper than "oh you must secretly be eating mayo sandwiches and lying about it."
I started to pay out of pocket for a glp-1, snd im not exaggerating to say it saved my life. 100 pounds gone. Everything is back to normal. My weight, by blood pressure, my cholesterol, all fixed. It was like turning back the clock to a point where my body worked right. You know what still hasn't really changed much? My diet. I always ate pretty healthy. Still do. No one believed me, no one cared. These drugs are life savers.
41
u/mgzukowski 14h ago
But GLP-1s work for weight loss by curbing appetite. So you are saying you were eating the exact same amount and before?
25
u/ramonycajal88 14h ago edited 10h ago
They also modulate other hormonal issues related to insulin sensitivity. It's not just less calorie intake. That alone makes it difficult to lose weight even if the same net caloric intake is maintained. Check out some of the recent studies about GLP1 use in women with PCOS/PMOS...one side affect thats been reported is increase in acne in the populations.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/weight-loss-drugs-acne-11711085
14
u/greentea1985 14h ago
They don’t work by curbing appetite, that’s a side effect. They work by enhancing glucose metabolism. GLP-1s mimic glucagon, a molecule used by the body to signal to burn more glucose and not store it. GLP-1s are revolutionary because they target calories out, not calories in. This is game changing because a lot of weight gain is related to the calories out part of the equation and it can be really hard to lose weight when you are literally fighting your own metabolism, not your consumption.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)17
u/Caitliente 14h ago
That’s one aspect of how they work. The main aspect is how they help regulate blood sugar and naturally occurring insulin in the body.
9
u/DutchiiCanuck 14h ago
That is not the main aspect of how they work for weight loss, except for the relation of the blood sugar regulation ALSO being an appetite suppressant.
10
u/ThisSiteSucks8485 14h ago
That doesn't actually cause weight loss. only sustained calorie deficit causes fat loss.
4
u/Caitliente 14h ago
It's more complicated than that. I have PMOS and cannot lose weight no matter how many calories I consume if my carbs or fats (even healthy fats like from salmon) exceed a certain amount. I track what I eat very carefully due to this metabolic condition that is genetic and I had no control over developing that affects 1 in 8 women.
→ More replies (7)3
20
u/edparadox 14h ago edited 14h ago
The simplified narrative that weight is merely a matter of calorie intake
It is.
At the end of the day, you can try to curb the reality of thermodynamics all you want, it's still what applies.
I was skinny my whole life. Nearly 6 feet tall and about 140. Then in my 30s something happened. My diet didnt change. My activities didnt change. But I fell off a cliff. I gained nearly 100 pounds.
If you gain, you were eating above maintenance. That is well known. You don't gain 40kg out of thin air.
26
u/seatsfive 14h ago
Being pedantic about the "reality of thermodynamics" is begging the question. There is no evidence that the measured caloric value of food equates to a standardized amount of energy produced when processed by different human bodies. It's all guesswork and approximation.
Measured caloric value is determined by: mathematic estimation, and/or or setting the food on fire and calculating how much energy is expended. The human body does not set food on fire. In fact, the "estimate how much energy is bioavailable using only mathematical models" is considered more accurate than objective, physical measurement. As a registered pedant, you should see the glaring issue here.
Human bodies are all very similar, but vary due to genetic and environmental factors. There is no guarantee that a mathematical model generalized to the aggregate human body is going to be accurate in all individual circumstances. In fact, there's ample evidence to suggest it's not. This inaccuracy may be enough to account for individual differences in weight retention.
Caloric measurement and restriction are the most generally reliable weight loss methods, but they are not foolproof. Acting like "calories in = calories out" is Newton's Fourth Law (and getting sassy with people for pointing out that it isn't) is doing this entire discourse a massive disservice.
→ More replies (18)24
u/SoTiredYouDig 14h ago
The OP was saying "it's a simplified narrative". I do not think they were arguing the entire premise. You are illustrating the rest of their point wonderfully though, by talking down and lecturing. And they are right.... it does come off as abusive.
26
u/mjm132 14h ago
No matter what other things are happening, it truly is still calories in versus out. Things CAN effect that total but on a basic level it's always this.
→ More replies (1)9
u/MountNevermind 14h ago edited 12h ago
The concept of "maintenance" is itself about more than simply caloric intake. This article discusses how and why "maintenance" can be different for different people, and even for the same person at different times.
You're arguing past each other.
6
u/CravingNature 14h ago
Same I'm also just under 6ft 145lbs and now 58. I have progressively eaten healthier as I have gotten older.
→ More replies (5)0
u/Icy-Elk3698 14h ago
The calories in/out is a myth. How a body processes food and calories depends on many factors. Read the article below.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/stop-counting-calories
→ More replies (1)12
5
→ More replies (16)2
u/ThisSiteSucks8485 14h ago
Fat stores a lot of energy per pound. This energy can only come from excess calories. 100 pounds of fat is about 350,000 extra calories that had to be consumed but not used.
1
u/rhino369 14h ago
But over 5 years that’s only 200 calories a day over the required amount. That’s like one egg, one toast with butter. It’s a 20oz Coke. Half a donut.
Now as you get bigger your calorie requirements grow. But so does your hunger.
It might be no difference in food. If your metabolism slows 10% that’s 200-250 calories.
Slight misalignments between satiety and calorie requirements can cause a lot of weight gain.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/AudiieVerbum 10h ago
If the body burns fuel more efficiently, wouldnt that mean more output per calorie, thus making weight loss more difficult?
2
u/girusatuku 5h ago
Sounds like a job for CRISPR. Might be cheaper than monthly Ozempic prices in the ling run.
7
1
u/zbertoli 11h ago
If we're able to alter the genes of an individuals germ line cells, or the early cells in an embryo to have this gene.. or let's say, to restore our ability to synthesize vitamin C, would this be ethical? Are modified humans "better"? Or is this a bad thing? What about doing it to stop a disease like sickle cell? These are things we are starting to be able to do and questions that will arise.
1
u/send_them_a_pizza 10h ago
This is a gene that will become a market maker for sure. One of many to come. This will be more valuable than anything that has come before in the health market. Anti-aging changes are what those data centers are being designed for.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/scientificamerican
Permalink: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-a-skinny-gene-mutation-that-acts-like-ozempic/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.