Well, yeah. Adipocytes multiply when you get fat. But when you lose weight, they don't apoptose, they just shrink in volume by giving up their lipid stores.
I kinda went down a rabbit hole a while back with certain treatments that can kill adipocytes, as there's actually some significant research backing both heat-generating and cold-generating treatments. They do kill fat cells, and they are flushed out of the body. But people who undergo such treatments do not lose fat. At best, these devices can reshape your fat, pulling it out of one area and distributing it more evenly in other areas.
The problem is that when you kill an adipocyte, it releases all of its triglycerides, which are then free to move around the blood stream. But when blood triglyceride levels are high and there isn't significant oxidation, other metabolic processes are triggered to start to store them. So you kill an adipocyte, release the triglycerides, which get reabsorbed into still living adipocytes, which now get engorged and then multiply again, replacing the fat cells that have been killed.
After learning quite a bit about these processes, I think these devices might actually be useful, not for losing fat, but by eliminating this sort of fat memory. In other words, they should be used after significant weight loss, because adipocytes are relatively empty and externally triggered apoptosis can kill the cells without releasing significant quantities of triglycerides which can be reabsorbed and trigger adipocyte mitosis. I think this would effectively reset that person to a state as if they had never been fat in the first place. Thoughts?
Interesting!
Why can't we just remove the triglycerids from the blood before they trigger adipogenesis? Basically we need a form of dialysis.
I have no real or deep knowledge, just some casual pop news reading.
Isn't ketosis the state, in which the body switches to fat as the primary fuel?
To answer your question, yes that is what ketosis is. Eliminate the non-fibrous carbs from your diet and after 48 hours or once the carbs are out of your blood stream your body will start to break down stored body fat. Through a process in the liver you get ketones. In the context of meal planning, meal timing, and other lifestyle choices it's extremely effective. For anyone with ADHD / ADD patterns do TRY IT for a month!
The study and the discussion here however are focused on reducing the quantity of those adipocyte cells in the body, which aren't reduced through ketosis. I think ketosis causes more of a volumetric reduction of each adipocyte cell but I'm really not sure.
Like a balloon filling with air, do adipocyte cells expand in volume while storing lipids?
It is. But it's hard to maintain. I was in ketosis for a month via diet (verified with urine strips twice a day) and it was a struggle to figure out what to eat. Camembert, bacon-wrapped chicken and eggs gets boring after a while. Our civilization runs on carbohydrates, for better or worse.
Do you not like meat?
I do, up to a point.
seems like it would be a good idea then to do a heavy strength based training session and fast before getting this done to maximize effectiveness. Those liberated triglycerides would be sucked up by muscle tissue to be used for repair.
Similar adaptions occur in muscle. The extent of new muscle fiber development (hyperplasia) is debated, so there are multiples factors influencing how muscle retains some memory of past strength ability.
Once you’ve reached a level of physical strength it’s easier to return to that level in the future. This has been a topic of debate in the sports world because past anabolic steroid use could therefore carry benefits into the future long after the athlete has stopped using the steroid. Non-professional athletes shouldn’t get too excited about using steroids, though, because the damage steroids do to the body’s own hormone systems also has lasting effects unless you plan on doing TRT for the rest of your life, which has its own downsides.
For average people this does show the importance of getting at least some exercise when you’re young. It’s much easier to get a little bit fit when you’re young which then makes it easier to stay fit in the future. Never too late too start.
I can't remember exactly what I was listening to, maybe some kind of NPR podcast.
But the doctor was mentioning that none of the influencers influencing young people to try T and Steroids (which is rampant right now) are ever mentioning that you are on a ticking clock to infertility as soon as you start this stuff. Some people can regain their fertility but it might take years, and some people are going to be permanently infertile even staying on HRT.
Plenty of those "alpha male" guys on social media are shooting blanks.
Testicular atrophy and HPT axis suppression is a thoroughly documented side effect of TRT and steroids. Even beginner bodybuilders know that taking steroids will crush their natural testosterone production. They can kind of bring it back by taking short courses and using certain medications after the cycle, but most discover that some permanent damage is being done with each cycle.
There are two problems with framing it as an infertility problem:
1 - It reduces fertility but many users retain some fertility. The bigger problem for most is that natural testosterone production won't come back to the same level if they ever discontinue, so they're on it for life. Managing testosterone injections every week or multiple times per week for the rest of your life is doable but a pain, especially if you have to travel or you're not the best at keeping up with prescriptions. There are also ups and downs and side effects that come from artificial testosterone dosing. Many people are surprised to discover that after the first year or two they don't feel "great" any more and it's just back to where they started, but with a lifetime dependency now. Others get serious side effects like Gynecomastia (breast growth in men, possibly requiring surgery) or secondary hormonal alterations that negatively impact mood, cognition, or libido.
2 - Many young men in their 20s or even teens see infertility as a positive rather than a negative. It's very common for people of this age to think they've made up their mind for life, but they have yet to even have a serious relationship or even know any peers with kids. People who work in fertility fields are starting to see a lot of men who went into TRT or steroids when they were young because they thought the consequences would never be a problem for them.
> Plenty of those "alpha male" guys on social media are shooting blanks.
Honestly, they don't care. I skim the testosterone subreddits occasionally and many people brag and joke about how small their testicles are.
It's crazy to me to see this shift happening. TRT clinics that advertise on the radio, TikTok, and everywhere else will entice people to come in for "free tests" but the trick is that it doesn't matter what your numbers come back as, they'll always find a way to prescribe you TRT because it's easy recurring revenue for them with lifelong dependence attached.
I am a data point of resuscitation of fertility. Confirmed to be shooting blanks after years of juice, and decided to see if I could reactivate by following the broscience (and all the pubmed papers) on the topic.
An aggressive protocol of HCG and HMG (analogues for FSH and LH in the pituitary) reactivated the testes to get back to spermatogenesis and T production after about 5 years of complete dormancy. It took about 4 months of daily needles and well-timed marital conception-attempts. The son I fathered as a result is anecdotally very strong and a voracious eater. My urologist said it sounded like I knew everything I needed to do and was satisfied to let me self-treat.
To clarify, did you try to conceive approximately four times (four months)? Because from what I hear that isn't exactly unheard of in people that aren't on the juice.
No, it was about a year of multiple attempts per ovulation before I decided to get serious and bring my whole HTPA under control.
> Even beginner bodybuilders know that taking steroids will crush their natural testosterone production.
Maybe beginner bodybuilders understand this. But I'd argue the average new steroid user is more likely the be un/mis-informed. The average person gets all their information from Instagram/Tiktok/Youtube/Reddit.
But my observation is a lot of people are jumping on gear for purely aesthetic reasons. They are ordering online from research chemical sites and they're almost always not working with a trainer/coach/doctor (vast majority of young people on gear are not doing it under any type of supervision, also means many skip basic necessities like regular bloodwork).
It's much more common for people to jump on gear, experience a negative effect, and then do research afterwards. Which is fine for substances that are relatively benign, but risky when you're messing with your hormones especially at a young age.
I go to a budget gym that is used by a lot of high schoolers and college kids in the evenings. The needle boxes in the bathrooms are full. It's insane.
>It's very common for people of this age to think they've made up their mind for life, but they have yet to even have a serious relationship or even know any peers with kids.
At least it is much less serious than people in the opposite situation, that think they want a child at 19 without understanding the implications.
> Honestly, they don't care. I skim the testosterone subreddits occasionally and many people brag and joke about how small their testicles are.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if most of that was coping behavior.
What is there to cope about? It's not a big deal, and arguably a benefit.
This is interesting because about 20 or so years ago when I was super into bodybuilding, you couldn't talk about a "cycle" on a bodybuilding forum without talking about a "post cycle protocol."
I know that's different than permanent TRT but I feel like you couldn't get very far researching that stuff without understanding that you natural test production (and sperm production) would get "shut down" as soon as you started adding exogenous androgens.
Yeah, it's well known that steroids shut you down. The problem with the broscience is that the PCT is talked about like it reverses everything like an antidote, but long-term bodybuilders often end up on TRT because eventually they can't get back to baseline.
That isn't true. Dedicated bodybuilders, starting more commonly ~5 years ago, decided that PCT wasn't worth it. Instead of typical 16-20 week cycles followed by 4-6 weeks of PCT, they adjust the dose between supraphysiological and (generally) top-of-normal, i.e.: blast and cruise.
It's not because they couldn't recover, it's because they don't want to or see the point.
The big, big problem is heart disease. Infertility might be bad for your family planning, but the high blood pressure will kill you.
- [deleted]
- [deleted]
> Once you’ve reached a level of physical strength it’s easier to return to that level in the future.
If you're reading this and you're < 30 and physically weak (not overweight, but lacking muscle mass) I cannot stress enough what a year or two hitting the gym could do for your permanent strength and muscle mass.
I was ridiculously skinny and physically weak going into my 20s and I just assumed that was the way I was built. But I got into fitness in my early 20s and packed on quite a bit of muscle and it's genuinely shocking to me how much base-level muscle mass and strength I've retained now 15 years on.
I always felt one of the most demotivating things about working out was that all the effort I was putting into the gym would eventually go to waste when I stopped, but that's not true. Had I known this I'd probably have started working out much earlier and for much longer than I did.
Same but I was in my 30s.
Two years and I was bigger than anyone I knew unless they also trained hard.
> For average people this does show the importance of getting at least some exercise when you’re young.
They’ve known this for centuries. Quoting the great Socrates:
“No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."
> This has been a topic of debate in the sports world because past anabolic steroid use could therefore carry benefits into the future long after the athlete has stopped using the steroid.
Similar advantage is conveyed to athletes who had elevated (~male) testosterone levels in the past, even if they subsequently take blockers / go on HRT to ~female hormone levels.
Though that also comes with male-pattern skeletal growth. So unless your body still has elevated/male-level T levels, you're carrying around a disproportionately heavy skeleton which negates the advantage. If the net effect were actually an advantage, you'd expect the womens' sports which are allowing trans women to be dominated by them, but they really just aren't.
Additionally, trans women on HRT typically have their T suppressed below standard cis women levels, and thus well below the levels of cis women athletes (the top levels in any sport by definition tending to be outliers in performance).
> Though that also comes with male-pattern skeletal growth. So unless your body still has elevated/male-level T levels, you're carrying around a disproportionately heavy skeleton which negates the advantage.
The male-pattern skeletal growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage. E.g., narrower hips and stronger bones is likely an advantage in running.
> If the net effect were actually an advantage, you'd expect the womens' sports which are allowing trans women to be dominated by them, but they really just aren't.
My understanding is the opposite. In fact, if it wasn't the case, there is basically no reason to have separate mens and womens fields.
This is anecdotal evidence but I'm a trans woman who transitioned at 30. I ran cross country and track and was the fastest kid at my school in a relatively competitive program. I got depressed after college and gained a bunch of weight and only ran sporadically. I started HRT, I keep my T levels in the lowest range that's healthy for cis women. I got the urge to start exercising again. I now run more than twice as much as before, lost 40 pounds, and do roller derby on top of that. I'm still not as fast as I was when I was mostly sedentary, drinking beers every night in my apartment. I don't know if I'm faster or slower than I would have been if I was a cis woman but I did take a pretty big hit.
> The male-pattern skeletal growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage. E.g., narrower hips and stronger bones is likely an advantage in running.
It might or might not help, but if it were a net benefit then you'd expect trans women runners to perform more strongly than they actually do.
> My understanding is the opposite. In fact, if it wasn't the case, there is basically no reason to have separate mens and womens fields.
This sentence seems to presuppose that trans women are men. There are some womens' divisions which allow trans women (typically with stipulations requiring some duration of HRT), and they are not dominant there. To me, the sensible conclusion seems to be that trans women perform roughly on par with cis women, not that cis women perform roughly on par with cis men.
My last sentence wasn't particularly coherent; sorry. I have sort of two ideas here that were merged poorly: (1) setting aside trans entirely, cismen enjoy significant sport advantages over ciswomen in most sports, and this (fairness) is basically why we have women's sports instead of combined fields. (2) I believe transwomen have outsized performance in women's sports (contra your claim of no outperformance).
> There are some womens' divisions which allow trans women (typically with stipulations requiring some duration of HRT), and they are not dominant there.
I think there are maybe two things I'd poke at here. (1) Sports where transwomen enjoy greater advantage are more likely to have already excluded transwomen from womens' fields. And (2) the number of transwomen is tiny to begin with and AFAIK they have lower rates of participation in sports than ciswomen.
I think you can basically make a case for including or excluding transwomen in women's sports depending on whether you think inclusion or fairness is most important.
> I think you can basically make a case for including or excluding transwomen in women's sports depending on whether you think inclusion or fairness is most important.
A pretty wide spread of sports have allowed trans women*, and they have not dominated. If trans women did have an outsized performance in women's sports, there'd be examples to point to. I don't think you can make an evidence-based case for fairness and inclusion being at odds, given there aren't any unfair examples of inclusion to point to.
Some of the most notable examples include weightlifting and swimming. In weightlifting, probably the sport I'd expect an unfair advantage to make itself most apparent, Laurel Hubbard got a DNF in the Olympics, and did merely pretty good in several other events. Or in swimming, another sport I'd expect body proportions to have a significant impact in, Lia Thomas, who was the center of a ton of controversy, also did merely fine.
I'm not sure there are sports where trans women would have a bigger advantage than weightlifting, if such an advantage existed. And the tiny number of trans women interested in sports means that erring on the side of inclusion (if it does turn out to be an error) would also have a tiny negative impact,
* - Pedantic side note, combining "transwomen" and "ciswomen" into single words implies that we're different base nouns. It's similar to how "chinamen" is not acceptable, but generally there's nothing wrong with "Chinese men". "Trans" and "cis" are just adjectives modifying "men" or "women".
> In weightlifting, probably the sport I'd expect an unfair advantage to make itself most apparent, Laurel Hubbard got a DNF in the Olympics, and did merely pretty good in several other events.
On the contrary, Laurel Hubbard is a good example of how apparent this male physical advantage is when male athletes are allowed to compete in the female category.
Here's a chart showing ranked lifts for both men's and women's weightlifting in the World Masters Games, where Hubbard won a gold medal in the women's category in 2017: https:/i.ibb.co/WWf7CMQD/hubbard.jpg (the source of this graph is a developmental biologist who, amongst other things, studies sex differences in sport).
This shows that the set of lifts by female and male weightlifters are entirely distinct. Hubbard falls within the middle range of the male rankings and is a huge outlier compared to the female rankings.
For the Olympics, if Hubbard had been female, qualification for the competition would have been unprecedented. Hubbard was competing in the wake of an earlier elbow injury, had taken a years-long career break, and was considerably older than any female weightlifter ever to qualify for Olympic weightlifting: female weightlifters peak at around age 26 and Hubbard was 43 years old at the time.
Being male in the female category was sufficient to mitigate all the effects of older age, chronic injury, undertraining, and - compared to other males - lack of world class talent.
It's also worth noting that Hubbard came last at the Olympics due to being disqualified for improper technique, not because of being unable to physically manage the lifts.
Out of curiosity, do you have a link to the source of that graph or the name of the researcher?
- [deleted]
I always hear this "TRT for life" thing but every bodybuilder I've known on gear has had no problem going on/off on a blast-and-cruise with post-cycle therapy.
Post-cycle therapy will take longer if you're taking exogenous testosterone for longer, but it's definitely not a 'for life'/'impossible' thing if you've been on TRT for a few years and decide to stop. It's just fearmongering.
- [deleted]
How do glp-1 drugs such as semaglutide, terzepatid and retatrutide impact apoptose?
"Tirzepatide promotes M1-type macrophage apoptosis and reduces inflammatory factor secretion by inhibiting ERK phosphorylation" [1]
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15675...
They tell your brain you have lots of food in your stomach, which triggers lots of behavioral and metabolic changes. This does not necessarily reverse every effect of obesity, maybe not gene expression changes described in this article. But enough to keep weight off with ongoing treatment.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" continues to be an undefeated aphorism.
Yea, this actually explains the transcriptional expression and weight gain very well. Strong than the methylation evidence imo. I didn’t see any causal analysis only correlated and the cells still being there makes sense.
Is this true? When I looked into this issue it seemed the medical consensus is that fat cells are mostly constant throughout life, and weight gain happens through adipocyte hypertrophy.
Look up adipogenesis.
>> But when you lose weight, they don't apoptose
Googled for "Adipocyte apoptosis" and oh boy... It does happen, but I don't trust the AI summary. This looks like a deep rabbit hole.
It seems fasting causes Adipocyte apoptosis. It makes sense, there is cell death.
I lost 100 lbs fasting over 1.5 years. I did gain some weight back after stopping, but not much. Strangely, where I saw fat return was not where most of it came off.
Yeah, but fasting is extremely unpleasant.
You get to know yourself well after about 5 days of zero food..... :))
Even much shorter fasts help you to understand how unimportant and fleeting a lot of feelings of hunger are. You get hunger pangs and feel like you need to eat, but in a hour it has passed and you go another 8+ hours just fine. When I eat some crappy food, I know it is going to make me feel very hungry in a few hours, but when it happens, I know it isn’t a real need and it helps stop the cycle of bad eating/overeating.
I'm not religious at all, but I still sometimes practice Ramadan for this reason. On top of the communal experiences of charity and shared meals that are more present during the month, the reminder that my body is greedy for food and does not really need so much is such a good annual reminder to have.
I did that, and it helped to kickstart further weightloss. I was surprised how fast my body got rid of stored water, and how quickly I lost fat in the upper body region, primarily around my face, neck and shoulder.
I am pretty sure the only way to reduce the number of cells is liposuction
Worse than that. Subcutaneous fat (which is the one you can trim off with liposuction) usually expands relying more in cell expansion and not in hyperplasia. Visceral fat on the other hand, is way more likely to involve hyperplasia and you cannot use liposuction against this type of fat. This is also the fat that is very hormonally active and increases the risks of diabetes, heart disease, cancers, strokes.
Is it unremovable because it's inside the core muscles and near internal organs?
See the second half of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bav_IBsuXEM
Visceral fat is literally enclosing the intestines, major blood vessels, organs, etc. of the abdomen.
Nevertheless, it is possible to surgically remove this sheet of fat that's covering your organs, it's called an omentectomy. But it's a big surgery, and done only in case of cancer, not for weight loss. That is, in humans: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29367725/
Right. A surgeon can't just stick a liposuction tube into the abdominal cavity and poke around. This would be major invasive surgery with a high risk of complications, far worse than leaving the adipose tissue in place.
I've been wondering about that. Like all cosmetic surgery liposuction is looked down upon.
But maybe it can also be a useful and healthy weight loss strategy?
Despite being looked down on, it's still very common. I know several people who have had liposuction. The results are only temporary. Everyone I know that has had this procedure has rebounded back to their original body weight within 2 years.
- [deleted]
[dead]