Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic study shows that low body fat may not lower risk for heart disease and diabetes
Hebrew SeniorLife Institute for Aging Research ^ | June 26, 2011 | Unknown

Posted on 06/26/2011 12:20:32 PM PDT by decimon

BOSTON—Having a lower percentage of body fat may not always lower your risk for heart disease and diabetes, according to a study by an international consortium of investigators, including two scientists from the Institute for Aging Research of Hebrew SeniorLife, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School (HMS).

The Institute researchers, Douglas P. Kiel, M.D., M.P.H., and David Karasik, Ph.D., who are working with the Framingham Heart Study, identified a gene that is linked with having less body fat, but also with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, examples of so-called "metabolic diseases."

"We've uncovered a truly fascinating genetic story and, when we found the effect of this gene, we were very intrigued by the unexpected finding," says Dr. Kiel, a senior scientist at the Institute for Aging Research and a professor of medicine at HMS. "People, particularly men, with a specific form of the gene are both more likely to have lower percent body fat, but also to develop heart disease and type 2 diabetes. In simple terms, it is not only overweight individuals who can be predisposed for these metabolic diseases."

Reported online in the journal Nature Genetics on June 26, 2011, the investigators examined the genomes of more than 75,000 people to look for the genes that determine body fat percentage. They found strong evidence for a gene, called IRS1, to be linked with having less body fat. On further study, they found that this gene also leads to having unhealthy levels of cholesterol and blood glucose.

To understand why a gene that lowers body fat can be harmful, the scientists in the international consortium found that the gene lowers only the "subcutaneous" fat under the skin, but not the more harmful "visceral" fat that surrounds organs. The study authors speculate that people with this gene variant are less able to store fat safely under the skin and may, therefore, store fat elsewhere in the body, where it may interfere with normal organ function. All observations were more pronounced in men than in women and, indeed, many apparently lean men still carry too much abdominal fat.

"Genetic variants may not only determine the amount of total fat in your body," says Dr. Kiel, "but also what kind of fat you have. Some collections of fat, such as the kind located just under the skin, may actually be less harmful than the type located in the abdominal cavity, which may increase the risk of developing metabolic disease."

The effect, the researchers add, may be more pronounced in men due to the different body fat distributions between the sexes. Men store less fat than women, so they are more sensitive to changes in its distribution.

###

Headed by the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom, the research consortium included scientists at 72 institutions in 10 countries, and used data from 26 different genetic studies.

Scientists at the Institute for Aging Research seek to transform the human experience of aging by conducting research that will ensure a life of health, dignity and productivity into advanced age. The Institute carries out rigorous studies that discover the mechanisms of age-related disease and disability; lead to the prevention, treatment and cure of disease; advance the standard of care for older people; and inform public decision-making.

Founded in 1903, Hebrew SeniorLife, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, is a nonprofit, nonsectarian organization devoted to innovative research, health care, education and housing that improves the lives of seniors. For more information, please visit www.hebrewseniorlife.org.


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: diabetes; generesearch; health; heartdisease; lowbodyfat; medicine

1 posted on 06/26/2011 12:20:37 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; DvdMom; grey_whiskers; Ladysmith; Roos_Girl; Silentgypsy; conservative cat; ...

Xin loi ping.


2 posted on 06/26/2011 12:23:48 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Remember Jim Fixx?


3 posted on 06/26/2011 12:30:20 PM PDT by Silentgypsy (You know if I don’t remember I’m gonna forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Silentgypsy
Remember Jim Fixx?

Yeah.

From Wikipedia: "...Cooper concluded that Fixx was genetically predisposed (his father died of a heart attack aged 43 and Fixx himself had a congenitally enlarged heart) and several lifestyle issues (Fixx was a heavy smoker prior to beginning running aged 36, he had a stressful occupation, he had undergone a second divorce, and his weight before he took up running had ballooned to 220lbs)."

What that doesn't mention is diet. But I guess that nothing can guarantee good health.

4 posted on 06/26/2011 12:37:56 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Body fat isn’t that bad for you. It turns out that eggs are actually good for you. Red wine is good for you. Some salt in you diet is necessary — so is some fat.

When will we see a study that says smoking is actually good for you?


5 posted on 06/26/2011 12:39:56 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
I R S ~ 1?

IRS gets everybody in the end. IRS has everyone coming and going. Now we find out IRS causes type II diabetes.

I think they need DEFUNDED. We'll all be healthier Fur Shur

6 posted on 06/26/2011 1:01:58 PM PDT by muawiyah (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
LOL. I don't know about smoking; but, a number of recent studies seem to be indicating that some stuff that has otherwise been said to be unhealthy, --- not so much. The brain needs some fat, your heart functions better with salt than if you do a low-salt diet. Gary Taubes' POV about everything we've been told being wrong is looking more and more plausible.

Now, I stopped listening to a lot of the doomsayer stuff a while ago. This constant yo-yo of "it's bad for you", "no, it's good for you", "no, it's bad for you", ad nauseum, just made me realize that no one knows anything about this stuff and the media has decided to just keep on trying to get us to be hysterical. Must be good for ratings.

But, don't worry. As soon as a story like this gets out, the nannies double-down on the hysteria and we will all be told, once again, that (fill-in the blank) is bad for you.

7 posted on 06/26/2011 1:49:49 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: decimon

I guess, then, that lifestyle changes really don’t matter.


8 posted on 06/27/2011 12:13:04 AM PDT by Silentgypsy (You know if I don’t remember I’m gonna forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson