Preamble/caveat. You have to be careful with Astrup's work over the years. When you get in to the fine print some of his control groups are perhaps not quite as normal as you might like and some of the post weight loss subjects might not be quite as slim as you might like. His work spans many years and what the subject might have been eating when free living will have changed and the lead-in food served from the hospital kitchens may well have changed too. So caution. Having said that several of his papers have picked out various features of the pre/post obese. This is one such.
I wrote this post about a year ago but never hit publish. Here we go.
Insulin sensitivity in post-obese women
and in particular I'd like to reconstruct this part of figure 2. It illustrates nicely what happens when you track the FFA levels under an hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp:
Astrup discussed the right hand data points at 105 minutes, as below, with their statistically significant difference in free fatty acid levels, lower in the post-obese, whom I identify as identical to pre-obese, if they were to eat to satiety using the food choices which made them obese in the first place.
Astrup talks, correctly, about how we know nothing about what factors are influencing the FFA levels to produce this difference. This would need tracer studies which do not appear to have been done, certainly not by Astrup's group. So I am going to speculate, as I do, about how much explanatory power the Protons hypothesis has in this situation.
The first thing to do is to remove the lines for both groups from time -15m to time +45m. This is valid because Astrup's diagonal hash mark indicates that these lines were never intended to indicate what the FFA levels were while the clamp was being set up and started. I've also stuck in a line for time zero. So now we have:
I'm going to assume that FFA levels from time -15m to time zero didn't change by enough for me to bother about, giving this:
which is non controversial. What is more dubious is that I'm now going to guesstimate what the FFA levels did between time zero and time +45m. I'm going to suggest that the lines follow some sort of exponential decay. Like this for the control group in red:
Next I want to torture my scarce data points in to a slightly different curve, which accepts that FFA levels have probably plateaued out at ~300μmol/l, like this:
Now let's do the same for the post-obese group. The initial curve in blue looks like this:
and it takes only a minimalist eye of faith to extend it to this longer line:
We can now remove Astrup's hard data points and just look at a concept of what might actually be happening in the both groups, as viewed from the Protons perspective. Like this:
In the control group being exposed to insulin at just over 1000pmol/l with glucose clamped at 5.0mmol/l the FFAs bottom out at 300μmol/l. In the post-obese they are down to ~100μmol/l and are still dropping at the 105 minute time point.
Insulin at 1000pmol/l is around the peak level experienced transiently by normal humans at 30 minutes after a modern low fat, high carbohydrate meal.
I'm now going to assume that the fall in FFAs under the clamp is from insulin mediated suppression of FFA release from adipocytes. There will also be enhanced uptake but never mind that.
Following the red line of the control group we have, by 30 minutes, a state where adipocytes are exposed to 1000pmol/l of insulin, which will have translocated way more GLUT4s to the cell membrane than exposure to 5mmol/l of glucose would normally generate. So glucose pours in to cells, adipocytes included. There is no fall in glucose because, well, it's a clamp. By 30 minutes the control subjects' adipocytes are getting a large amount of glucose from the insulin/glucose infusion superimposed on lipid oxidation derived from a plasma concentration of ~300μmol/l of FFAs.
The adipocytes are generating 300μmol/l of FFA derived ROS. They are receiving enough glucose in addition that that their energy needs are met completely, there is a physiologically appropriate rise in delta psi and a completely appropriate rise in overall ROS which is the actual signal to limit insulin signalling, ie demonstrate cellular "fullness". Insulin's action is inhibited.
Inhibiting insulin's action inhibits insulin's inhibition of lipolysis.
FFAs stop dropping, the adipocytes stop taking up and storing lipid, the VMH feels full and the subject stays slim.
The blue line representing the post-obese shows the same initial fall but for these people the oxidation of a significant amount of linoleic acid means that, by 30 minutes, the adipocytes and VMH cells are ATP replete but are only generating sub-physiological levels of ROS, so there is no sense of cellular "fullness" in adipocyes (or the VMH cells) so no rejection of insulin signalling.
Insulin signals, lipolysis continues to be inhibited, plasma FFAs continue to fall. In real life, outside of the clamp situation, you now have to eat. Now.
You have to eat because the cells in the VMH fail to generate an adequate ROS "fullness" signal from their linoleic acid oxidation and also because adipocytes have "stolen" and retained FFAs which the VMH now never gets to see. Both happen, plus other effects, for other posts.
Hunger is no fun.
Peter









17 comments:
Twenty years and nutrition labels are still listing saturated fat and not PUFA.
Amen.
I'm in the US and just checked a few labels. Apparently minimally they have to have total fat, saturated and trans. But on a jar of Primal Kitchen avocado-oil mayo, it lists total, saturated, trans, polysaturated, and monounsaturated.
So at least you can subtract saturated from total to get poly + mono.
Obviously the Primal Kitchen folks know their target audience :)
There's a new ARDS PUFA preprint out, not sure what any of the data means yet. Curious if you can find anything neat in there. 3 ARDS posts is clearly not enough.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.09.698377v1.full
I wonder how long it will be (if ever) for the message regarding the downside of PUFA to be taken seriously 🤷🏼♀️
'I wonder how long it will be (if ever) for the message regarding the downside of PUFA to be taken seriously'
(SPEAKING from the US) it's definitely spreading. I'm seeing more and more people aware of it, even normies. RFK Junior talks about it, possibly even on 60 minutes where he appeared last night. The new upside-down food pyramid emphasizes animal fats. The Overton window on this is definitely scooting over.
Hi Lev, very interesting. At first perusal this paper is looking at people with established ARDS and splitting the lipid composition of their plasma at the time of established ARDS, though the first of the two cohort was rather broad in it's inclusion critieria. So we are looking at patients who have developed ARDS and trying to split life/death by lipid composition.
The initial study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8674324/ compared healthy people with those entering the ICU and who in the ICU went on to develop ARDS.
The new pre print is looking for differences in critical patients with established ARDS, to split out who might live/die in that already preselected population.
Interesting that low oxlipins might represent some sort of protective process later in the disease.
Ta
Peter
Hi Peter,
I see a certain problem with your explanation in that the same phenomenon also occurs when HFD cycling is based on coconut oil. So the mechanism is probably different. But that doesn't mean that LA has no effect, but it manifests itself even without LA. Low insulin resistance after weight loss greatly worsens tolerance to HFD. Weight cycling is not good at all.
"Weight cycling exacerbates glucose intolerance and hepatic triglyceride storage in mice with a history of chronic high fat diet exposure"
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-06039-0
And here I see the explanation. It's damage to the intestinal wall, its permeability.
"Obesogenic diet leads to luminal overproduction of the complex IV inhibitor H2S and mitochondrial dysfunction in mouse colonocytes"
https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202201971R
The new guidelines are self-contradictory per Dr Eades. They still hold saturated fat at 10% of calories.
Why is that otherwise intelligent commentators such as Peter Attia, who is able to analyse scientific papers in depth, still maintain that LDL subtypes are cause of heart disease?
Why is he not seeing that LDL repairs the damage and itself doesn't cause damage?
Yesterday I was reading a podcast of Eric Topol who says inflammation causes various diseases and inflammation is due to immune system. The initial injury is again forgotten.
Drs Attia and Topol are people whose opinions I have trouble giving any credence to. Sadly. Why they are so wrong is hard to fathom.
The ROS hypothesis posits that the obesity from coconut oil is from inadequate ROS generation by MCTs cf LCFA ie, it's the same basic mechanism but without all the nasty 4-NHE etc.. MCTs are usually kept well away from adipocytes by diversion to the portal vein at the gut level. That's basic and good enough for me. Too many typos this morning!
@Gyan "The new guidelines are self-contradictory per Dr Eades. They still hold saturated fat at 10% of calories." True; I think Eades referenced Nina Teicholz, who, obviously frustrated, wrote at fairly great lengths about this on her Substack (it's behind a paywall) https://unsettledscience.substack.com/p/butter-is-not-back-the-broken-promise.
RFK has been making great strides, relatively speaking, but can't do everything at once. Frankly, I'm surprised Trump has allowed him to do what he's done so far (disclosure: I voted for Trump, but mostly because of RFK). Forgive me for quoting an AI:
'The inconsistency between the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines’ visual embrace of animal fats and its textual retention of the 10% saturated fat limit is fundamentally political, not scientific. Internally, HHS officials and the MAHA team faced three powerful pressures: media optics, institutional conformity, and academic gatekeeping. First, they didn’t want the headline to be “Kennedy lifts the limit on saturated fat,” which could have drowned out other wins—such as stricter sugar limits and acknowledgment of ultra-processed food harms—by provoking another “war on cholesterol” debate. Second, international and interagency conformity mattered: breaking ranks with the WHO, USDA, and allied governments on saturated fat would have isolated the U.S. and risked bureaucratic revolt from career staff at HHS, NIH, and USDA. Third, despite Kennedy’s populist rhetoric, his team balked at directly confronting entrenched institutional authorities—Harvard’s nutrition cartel, the American Heart Association, and Tufts’ long-tenured policy scientists—whose reputational power still dominates media narratives and peer review. The outcome is a politically “balanced” compromise: a symbolic victory for real food advocates in imagery and rhetoric, and continuity for the nutrition establishment in regulatory text—a classic case of Washington optics overriding genuine scientific reform.'
Attia is a cardiologist. That pretty much explains it 😐
So epigenetic changes caused by repeated obesity/weight loss cycles (in mice once might be enough) predispose an organism to put on weight, in which case the ROS signaling from MCT is inadequate to prevent weight gain?
Ok, ROS are the main signal, but we should probably differentiate ROS in the liver and in adipocytes. Less ROS in adipocytes, yes, but without ROS in the liver there wouldn't be fat export to adipocytes. That's my hypothesis.
This low ROS state in adipocytes quickly changes and somehow harms adipocytes (very low cell senescence after fat loss is converted into high cell senescence after fat regain). That's why blood markers quickly worsens after fat regain. This could be also situation when ppl regain less fat sometimes, but metabolic situation could worse then before fat loss. Lean outside, fat inside.
Post a Comment