Acetylated cellulose suppresses mass through commensals consuming carbohydrates | Hacker News Reader

Acetylated cellulose suppresses mass through commensals consuming carbohydrates

sciencedirect.com

23 pointsPaulHoule10 comments

It's interesting that this functionalized cellulose promotes body weight loss (in mice) through effects on intestinal microbiota. One of my pet theories is that other functionalized celluloses such as carboxymethylcellulose and hydroxypropylcellulose might be the culprits behind the obesity pandemic, because they are commonly used in ultra-processed foods, which have a close epidemiological association with obesity, and the withdrawal of which seems to reduce obesity in controlled experiments. Moreover, we know there's some kind of intestinal microbiome link in the causality chain, because fecal transplants can induce or reverse obesity in controlled experiments. And we know that in general such functionalized celluloses do alter the intestinal microbiome. However, nobody knows which intestinal commensals promote obesity, so we don't know whether these substances promote obesity or prevent it.

This experiment is a crucial step in that direction, but unfortunately the functionalized cellulose they tested is one that isn't commonly used in food.

Nobody should take my viewpoint on this too seriously, because I don't know much about the field, but while I'm stating it, I'll mention that other industrial polysacccharides like xanthan gum, guar gum, and modified food starch seem like equally strong candidates; that other food additives like titanium dioxide nanoparticles and polysorbate 80 are also candidates; and that the obesity pandemic is almost certainly multifactorial rather than caused by any single cause. Coca-Cola barely contains anything sketchy (just sugar, phosphoric acid, and caramel color) but can reliably induce significant weight gain and loss.

Are there any natural sources of this substance?

Any expected side effects, like cancer or something?

Do overhead projector transparencies count as natural? They seem to be endemic in certain office biomes, though I suspect they may actually be an invasive species throughout most of their range, and they're usually composed almost entirely of acetylated cellulose. Photographic film, too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_acetate

Thanks for the excellent link. Cellulose acetate is used in clothes as well. Apparently it helps in wrinkle recovery. (I am completely not a fiber expert.)

I would expect to this to be a similar effect to consuming certain types of fiber. It would increase fullness, and thus, satiety, improve gut microbes, and slow carbohydrate absorption so as to spread out blood glucose levels. Cellulose itself is a component of plant material and I would expect it to have very similar properties to fiber in the GI tract. [1] This is a type of treated or chemically altered form of cellulose that they're using in the study. Why acetylate cellulose in the first place? My cynical mind first assumes there's probably a economic goal in mind, such as that no one has patented it for that purpose yet.

In regards to fibers that act in a similar way, it's been a long time since I looked at all the different fiber products that are sold on the market, but one I remember looking at years ago that purported to have properties like this was glucomannan. A quick search with results from a reliable site will tell you if it would be worth your trouble [2], but it's also about if the product is palatable to you and you're willing to use it regularly.

In that case, any kind of soluble fiber from ground up seeds or even cheap psyllium husk supplements could help achieve a similar result. Just be sure to follow the instructions and take the products with PLENTY of water as they form a gel in your GI tract. These kinds of products can take weeks-months of consistent usage to be effective and adding additional fiber to your diet is always a healthy option.

The American Heart Association & other groups recommend trying to achieve 25g to even 45g of fiber daily [3] which is a crazy high amount most people have a difficult time achieving as it is, so even striving to incorporate more fiber rich foods in your diet can be helpful, outside of trying to add any kind of supplement on top.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose

[2] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/glucomannan

[3] https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/eat-more-fiber-r...

It is a certain type of fiber. Mostly, though, it's known as a synthetic textile and a material for photographic film.

It's not the case that every kind of fiber will achieve a similar result.

While I was double checking stuff, I came upon the FDA's "Questions and Answers on Dietary Fiber" [1] page where detail what they define as a fiber and what they allow to be called a fiber on food labels and cellulose is there. However, I suspect most food companies don't list it as such or use it is for the very reason you mentioned: it sounds like a paper product more than a component of food.

It's true not every fiber will act the same, but most all insoluble fibers would be expected to have very similar, if not superior effects for not just weight loss but overall (and at a much cheaper price, I suspect - if 'acetyl cellulose' is even something one can purchase on the open market).

But each fiber a person was thinking of consuming would need a bit of research, and even personal trial, to determine which is best for them. I add extra fiber to a breakfast smoothie I have daily in the form of 1 to ½ cups of ground up flax or hemp seeds and occasionally 1 tsp of oat fiber (about ~5g of fiber from ground oat kernels). I use it primarily just to stay regular, but the seeds have an additional benefit of essential fatty acids, and I'm sure it's all beneficial for my gut biome and so forth. A diabetic person who is measuring their glucose levels and have need to keep them stable would want to do more research in regards to that effect.

Regardless, I would argue, say, 5-10g per serving of insoluble fiber (possibly a lower amount per meal) should be expected to compete quite well with acetyl cellulose stuff mentioned in this study.

[1]

https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critica...

I'm going to assume you aren't deliberately being obtuse, but I don't think I have the patience to engage with your level of confusion right now, even assuming it's sincere.

> Any expected side effects, like cancer or something?

"Acetate facilitates carbohydrate fermentation", so bloating.

The title of this post...

> Acetylated cellulose suppresses mass through commensals consuming carbohydrates

... is far less intelligible than the original...

> Acetylated cellulose suppresses body mass gain through gut commensals consuming host-accessible carbohydrates

... which itself isn't a prize. At least the original title makes it (mostly) clear that we're talking about biology; the edited one starts with plant material and then veers into violating conservation of mass by communes. And why do both titles use the word "commensals" when "bacteria" would be accurate and much clearer?

Editors... we need editors...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com