I think it's fascinating to imagine a future where scientists finally discover the "anti-fat" drug. I believe it's bound to happen in our lifetimes. In a world where only the poor are fat, it would be very interesting to see how this affects the perception of attractiveness in middle class/upper class society. Would we adapt to value knowledge above physical appearance?
On the other hand, we're talking about a drug that selectively turns off blood flow. That it affects fat cells was only visible because subcutaneous fat is rather obvious.
But what other cells did it affect? It's not well known yet. For all we know it's stomping on some neurons, or diddling with kidneys, or weakening the left ventricle of monkey hearts. It's too soon to get excited.
They mention in the article that it had a dose-dependent effect on renal function that was both predictable and reversible. You're definitely correct, in that I wouldn't trust any fat-loss mechanism that works through accelerating apoptosis without extensive human research.
However, it's effect on various cells is understood, as it is determined by the type of protein evident on the cell surface. Fat cells are understood(under the vascular mapping prepared by the lab in question) to have this in far greater numbers than any other cell type.
The obvious question is what will happen to the excess blood sugar, when it's no longer being taken up by fat cells. Would this promote insulin resistance?
Obesity has been an annoyingly difficult problem to "solve". I say "solve" because in most cases the solution is simply to eat sensibly and not be sedentary (ignoring people with genuine physiological problems such as thyroid conditions).
But there is unquestionably a desire for people to be able to eat essentially what they want and to stay slimmer older. At some point someone will figure out a pharmaceutical solution to that problem and make a fortune (probably eclipsing what Viagra did for Pfizer). Current drugs that block appetite and/or fat absorption tend to have nasty side effects and questionable utility.
Killing fat cells is certainly a novel approach, especially considering that relationship between fat cells and weight changes (eg fat cells will increase in size to a certain point before growing new fat cells), one that may even be relevant for people who have lost a lot of weight.
And solving lung cancer is simply a matter of getting people to not smoke. Having tried and failed for 15 years to just "eat sensibly", I can promise you there is a whole lot more than just wanting to be able to have your cake and eat it, too.
And lest you think it's just a will-power thing, I spent years on narcotics for pain management and had few problems getting off those.
The deck is stacked incredibly against obese people. To wave it off like that is to vastly underestimate the root causes.
cletus, there's tons of research to suggest that simply being overweight perpetuates being overweight because in the vast majority of individuals, being overweight in the first place triggers all kind of "physiological problems" -- such as insulin problems (Syndrome X), liver problems (non-alcoholic enlargement), hormonal problems, uterine problems (PCOS), etc., which all conspire to make you hungrier, fatter and actively prevent you from losing weight (BEYOND just making you hungrier). And that is without even considering "set point theory" as described by the research of Seth Roberts.
[+] [-] Tichy|14 years ago|reply
Just saying that weight loss in itself is not necessarily saying much.
[+] [-] rch|14 years ago|reply
Edit: I'm walking out the door at the moment.
[+] [-] nestlequ1k|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|14 years ago|reply
But what other cells did it affect? It's not well known yet. For all we know it's stomping on some neurons, or diddling with kidneys, or weakening the left ventricle of monkey hearts. It's too soon to get excited.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantheman0207|14 years ago|reply
However, it's effect on various cells is understood, as it is determined by the type of protein evident on the cell surface. Fat cells are understood(under the vascular mapping prepared by the lab in question) to have this in far greater numbers than any other cell type.
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tansey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjd|14 years ago|reply
And because the article had no pictures of obese monkeys, and I was curious to know what an obese monkey looked like... heres a google search : http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=obese+monkey&um=1&i...
[+] [-] spullara|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webmonkeyuk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|14 years ago|reply
But there is unquestionably a desire for people to be able to eat essentially what they want and to stay slimmer older. At some point someone will figure out a pharmaceutical solution to that problem and make a fortune (probably eclipsing what Viagra did for Pfizer). Current drugs that block appetite and/or fat absorption tend to have nasty side effects and questionable utility.
Killing fat cells is certainly a novel approach, especially considering that relationship between fat cells and weight changes (eg fat cells will increase in size to a certain point before growing new fat cells), one that may even be relevant for people who have lost a lot of weight.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
And lest you think it's just a will-power thing, I spent years on narcotics for pain management and had few problems getting off those.
The deck is stacked incredibly against obese people. To wave it off like that is to vastly underestimate the root causes.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ahoyhere|14 years ago|reply
Once you gain weight, you are basically screwed.
We're not meant to live in such abundance.
[+] [-] omlette|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dsafasdf|14 years ago|reply