That seems like a bad idea to turn off indefinitely, even if there aren't any side effects.
"Medical advancements proven to have only gratuitous benefits to life, man declines"
The unfortunate thing is that we simply can't eliminate NAMPT from the body without experiencing grave consequences. Even decreasing it a little might pose serious risks, according to Zachary Gerhart-Hines, another author of the study.
It's literally in the article.
Yes, but this also means you wouldn't be able to store enough energy if you could only eat little at any point in the future.
Turning it off via ongoing medication wouldn't be an issue though, since you can just stop taking that should it be necessary.
Well .. sadly this can't be applied to humans most of the time.
Mice got a vastly different body than humans .. heart-rate is just one of the factors.
Lap mice might have 90-95% the same DNA as us .. but those % make a big difference. Just like the 4% between us and Chimpanzee.
That's more about side effects, which is besides what I'm concerned about here.
Waving your hands and saying "ignoring the side effects..." is a complete non-argument, because you cannot extricate the side effects of deleting a metabolic enzyme from the beneficial ones.
That really depends. Sometimes a gene really does just that one thing so there aren't any 'side' effects to manipulating it at all. It's not very common though, afaik.
The unfortunate thing is that we simply can't eliminate NAMPT from the body without experiencing grave consequences. Even decreasing it a little might pose serious risks, according to Zachary Gerhart-Hines, another author of the study.
Sadly, the human body is, in the vast majority of cases, a little too complex to just hit a button and turn off a process without side-effects.
It really doesn't depend because the enzyme production cessation isn't either good or bad, it's a change in a very complex system.
Also can you legitimately not see the problems with being unable to form fat reserves lmao
Because the article says it's necessary in situations where food is sparse?
Please excuse the snark, but it's pretty much literally in there.
Probably meaning direct side effects from the treatment, rather than consequential side effects from body being unable to store energy and people having less of a reason to not over-consume food
thats when you start mashing buttons and see if it fixes anything!
I love the specific nature of these sorts of studies. I swear scientists get high and just announce "I want to make dogs good at science" or "I plan to make obese chickens good at yoga." I am not doubting how useful experiments like this are, or anything, as I love to learn about science, but it just tickles me.
It's an interesting concept, a biological evolution designed to help us survive has become a detriment to modern humans. But if we turn it off and civilization is ever to collapse in some manner, we may just be dooming the human race as people is no longer capable of surviving without a plentiful food source.
Sugar and carbs combined with a sedentary lifestyle are what make people obese, this seems like the exact wrong way to fix the problem.
Where is the permanence coming from? I couldn't find it in the article.
I'd probably defer whether this is a good idea or not to the future when/if more research is done.
This is kind of like saying that improper sex practices cause undesirable pregnancy.
On a rational level, sure. But humans aren't very rational. It would take quite a lot of governmental action to push people towards healthier lifestyles by altering society, and I doubt we have the political capital/resources to really get it done.
you can save money by making the obese pay for fixing obesity caused problems
Obesity is terrible, but a no-fat, or fat-free diet is wildly unhealthy for you as contradictory as that is to the "wisdom" we've been fed for ages. You need fat.
In America, we do.
In universal healthcare, that's quite a mess since there's quite a lot of ways people are living unoptimally. In just raw death counts, sedentary lifestyles are twice as bad as obesity, drinking any more than a tiny amount of alcohol a week is bad, and if something happens like someone's kid imbibes tide pods, that's quite a lot of care needed, etc..
Also it's doubtful that it will even work, people don't tend to react very well to punishments, and how do you even quantify the costs, since there's more than just medical bills. Also a decent amount of obese people wind up having eating as a coping mechanism and making them broke probably isn't a conducive environment to developing better coping mechanisms lmao.
Balance needs to be achieved.
I wonder if fat fetishists will be able to overload themselves with it to get well big
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.