You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iwp971b wrote

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.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


poquito_kale t1_iwpw56e wrote


They're sure dramatizing the stress part. It seems that there wasn't any impact on the intestinal villii architecture.

And anytime an organism or organ system undergoes a radical environmental change, that is a stress. Responding to a radical environmental change requires a dramatic revamping of the expression profile and often the translation support systems.

Is it really surprising that radically changing the type of proteins which are produced, especially when that change is towards proteins that will operate on substrates, of a completely different hydrophobicity, produces an increase in heat shock proteins and UPR?

There didn't seem to be any detrimental consequences at the end of the day. But touting that collision won't garner more funding for the next round of grants.

What's really interesting is this...

> Moreover, we measured the energy expenditure (EE), which measures total energy required for homeostasis.19 Within the first day, EE was increased

Someone tell Kevin Hall.


poquito_kale t1_iwspiun wrote

Welp, based on these data (or any available data) it's hard to make recommendations regarding what might be a problem on a societal level, and making those recommendations on an individual level is nearly impossible.

My take on this study however is that the authors intentionally made an extraordinarily exaggerated intervention and then measured short term effects.

That's the secret recipe for a huge effect in your study results.

What's not clear from this study is whether what the authors describe as stress of high fat (moderate carbohydrate, moderate protein) diet produces a permanent detrimental effect that will kill humans or make their lives more miserable faster and earlier than a low fat diet.

So, given that people have healthfully enjoyed many different macronutrient compositions throughout human history, I don't believe that their exaggerated-for-effect short term intervention in a non human species that canonically eats low fat is relevant to our lives.

Why didn't traditional indigenous Inuit suffer insurmountable barriers to reproductive success if this short term effect is relevant to humans?