• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

A legitimate use for Orlistat


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 08 September 2009 - 10:21 PM


I found this article by Dr Eades which covers a new use for the weight loss drug Orlistat to remove polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and other organochlorine pollutants from your body:

Dr Eades first discusses the "toxins" in question:

Organochlorine pesticides (DDT, lindane, etc), organochlorine and organobromine industrial pollutants, solvents, placticizers, and a host of other such substances are in the stored fat of all of us. Their use over the previous decades has so filled our environment with these chemicals that we can't escape them. The are in the air, they fall in the rain, they are in the groundwater. Consequently, they are in our food. Whenever we eat, we get a load of these persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that make their way into our fat cells and cells in other tissues. And they build up because we can't get rid of them.


How do these compounds accumulate in your fat:

First, the chemical structure of these compounds involves a chlorine-carbon bond that is very stable and lipophilic (fat loving). The stability is what keeps these chemicals around for decades without breaking down, and their lipophilic nature is what drives them into our fat. When we eat foods that are contaminated with POPs (some foods are contaminated more than others, but virtually all foods contain some quantity of POPs), these foods make their way into our digestive tracts. The gall bladder squirts bile salts, cholesterol and phospholipids into the churned up mass of food as it travels through the first part of the small intestine. The POPs quickly find their way into the fat in this mass, which is then absorbed through the cells called enterocytes that line the small intestine. Once in the enterocytes, the fat – including the POPs – is repackaged and released into the lymph. The lymph containing the POP-laden fat makes its way to the blood, then to the fat cells, which remove most of the POPs and store them away.

Once they reach the fat cells, it becomes difficult to get rid of the POPs for a couple of reasons. First, they like fat, so they want to stay where the fat is. Second, if they do get released from the fat cells during weight loss they get reabsorbed by the enterohepatic circulation.

POPs that leave the fat cells go back into the blood and travel to the liver where they are released into gall bladder as bile. It is thought that these POPs are also released through the enterocytes back into the small intestine. Animal studies have shown both mechanisms to be at work. When the POPs reach the small intestine either through the bile or through the enterocytes, the process described a couple of paragraphs above repeats. The POPs mix with the fat and are absorbed and start their journey back to the fat cells once again. The process of releasing a substance (in this case POPs) by the liver into the intestine and having it picked back up again and recycled is called enterohepatic circulation.

If you are reducing food intake to lose weight these POPs traveling back into the blood make their way once again to the fat cells, but are released quickly as the fat cells give up their fat to provide the energy deficit created by the decreased food intake. What ends up happening is this flux of POPs from the intestine to the fat cells and back leads to increased POP levels in the blood and the uptake of POPs by other tissues such as the brain. I don't know about you, but I would much prefer my POPs stay in my fat and away from my brain, kidneys, pancreas, etc. But what if I want to lose weight, what then? And is there a way to reduce the body's load of POPs permanently?

We've got a situation that's really a one way street. POPs can get in, but they can't get out. All they can do is recirculate. And since they're always coming in, we're always going to have more and more of them accumulate. Which I have always found troubling because it seems that at some point they will begin to cause serious problems.


According to a paper called, Enterohepatic circulation of organochlorine compounds: a site for nutritional intervention:



There is ample evidence that OCs [organochlorine compounds] are present in humans. Studies of breast milk composition have revealed the international presence of OCs. A memorable demonstration of the ubiquitous distribution of OCs in humans resulted from a meeting of 13 European Health ministers in June 2004. All of the ministers volunteered to have OCs measured in their blood, and most of the assayed OCs were found in all of the ministers.There are also reports that the level of OCs in blood increases with age. This longitudinal increase results only if the rate of intake is greater than the rate of excretion.


Since the presence of OCs in the human food chain will continue for decades, it is unlikely that cessation of production of OCs will contribute significantly to health in the foreseeable future. We therefore need to consider alternative approaches to potential health problems resulting from OCs. One approach is that of reducing the human body burden of OCs by nutritional means. We present here data that suggest that it is possible to reduce the rate of intake of dietary OCs and to increase the rate of excretion of OCs.


So basically:



We only accumulate if our intake is more than our excretion. But how do we excrete POPs? We excrete them in our stools. But unfortunately, only in minuscule amounts. These compounds are trapped in fat, and we absorb almost all the fat that gets into our GI tract. There is a tiny amount of fat that makes its way out in the stool, maybe 5 -7 grams per day, which is negligible in terms of shedding and meaningful amounts of POPs. So, if we could figure out a way to reduce the absorption of fat back into the body, then more POP-laden fat would come out in our stools and be gone forever. And if we could figure out a way to lose weight, which increases the dumping of POPs into the small intestine AND decrease the reabsorption of it all, we could really make a substantial dent in our total body POP load.


Since Orlistat blocks fat absorption in the small intestine, it can help you increase the fat in your stool and reduce your body load of POPs. This seems like it might be a valid anti-aging treatment. An individual might do a 7 day Orlistat treatment every couple months. A suggested regimen / dosing is suggested in the link below.


More information can be found in Dr Eade's post:
http://www.proteinpo...e-for-orlistat/

Here is a graph taken from that post illustrating the relationship fecal fat content and Orlistat.


Attached File  orlistat_jpeg.JPG   19.57KB   10 downloads








#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 September 2009 - 02:36 AM

I don't mean to sound pro-POP, but what are the negative consequences of holding POPs in our lipid compartment? I would expect that some are worse than others. I would also expect that some are more prevalent than others. Considering both prevalence and absolute danger of each substance, how much risk do we face if we do nothing?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 09 September 2009 - 05:24 PM

Considering both prevalence and absolute danger of each substance, how much risk do we face if we do nothing?

Exactly my thought. Without any data on toxicity from the above mentioned toxins (eg. from observational studies, in vitro, biological plausibility), it is not prudent to take any drug with known side-effects.
Generally people should never supplement based on mechanistic speculation (or worse, not even any rational speculation and just a hunch).

And secondly I feel that Eades might only try to cater to the alt.med crowd, people who are hot on detox and putting stuff into their butt and things that come out of their behind (being "anal" about diet gets a whole new meaning), while mixing in some science to make it not so obvious. Then again, organochlorides are not my speciality.

Cannell displays exactly that in his newsletter - can you spot the false dichotomy?
"[In response to a question about the flu shot, but thankfully not in the first paragraph...]Furthermore, the world is divided between those who think we must eliminate or prevent toxic substances, whether they be influenza, mercury, lead, or arsenic and those, like me, who think that our body, if Vitamin D replete, will and have handled such insults for millions of years."

Edited by kismet, 09 September 2009 - 05:39 PM.

  • like x 1

#4 Skötkonung

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 10 September 2009 - 12:51 AM

Cannell displays exactly that in his newsletter - can you spot the false dichotomy?
"[In response to a question about the flu shot, but thankfully not in the first paragraph...]Furthermore, the world is divided between those who think we must eliminate or prevent toxic substances, whether they be influenza, mercury, lead, or arsenic and those, like me, who think that our body, if Vitamin D replete, will and have handled such insults for millions of years."

This is a poor comparison. First of all, there is no false dilemma. While these heavy metals do exist in nature, they have never existed in such high concentrations. Before 200 years ago, industrial pollution was not very common. Today it is very common. Furthermore, just because people survived these pollutants long enough to reach maturity and have children does not mean this type of toxicity won't shorten lifespan.

As for POPs, they are completely un-natural substances and they are known carcinogens. I have a hard time believing that a life time of accumulation of these substances will be beneficial to longevity.

I feel that Eades might only try to cater to the alt.med crowd, people who are hot on detox and putting stuff into their butt and things that come out of their behind (being "anal" about diet gets a whole new meaning)

Drawing a comparison between Dr Eades and the Gerson Therapy is a little extreme. No one is prescribing coffee enimas. Quite the contrary, Dr Eades has repeatedly railed against Orlistat for its negative side effects. In the end of his artcle he states a few alternative therapies:

Serendipitously, in the same issue of the Journal of Nutrirional Biochemistry containing the orlistat detox article there is another about the use of green tea and its catechins to prevent the absorption of fat in the intestine.
...
A search on PubMed indicates that calcium is also pretty good at binding intestinal fat and preventing its uptake. There is some controversy over whether calcium supplements will prevent the absorption or if it is only calcium as a component of dairy products that works. See if you can guess which side the dairy industry came down on.
...

Regarding the question about trace contamination by POP substances, despite a “decent diet, a little exercise, and drinking plenty of water” you still get loaded up with POPs because they are in almost all food to one degree or another and in much of the water we drink. The question is: does it hurt you? No one really knows. Toxic doses certainly cause serious problems, but do the amounts we routinely have in our fat cells do us any damage? I suspect we would probably function better without them, which is why I put up the post.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#5 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 10 September 2009 - 01:13 AM

Cannell displays exactly that in his newsletter - can you spot the false dichotomy?
"[In response to a question about the flu shot, but thankfully not in the first paragraph...]Furthermore, the world is divided between those who think we must eliminate or prevent toxic substances, whether they be influenza, mercury, lead, or arsenic and those, like me, who think that our body, if Vitamin D replete, will and have handled such insults for millions of years."

This is a poor comparison. First of all, there is no false dilemma. While these heavy metals do exist in nature, they have never existed in such high concentrations. Before 200 years ago, industrial pollution was not very common. Today it is very common. Furthermore, just because people survived these pollutants long enough to reach maturity and have children does not mean this type of toxicity won't shorten lifespan.

I don't think you get what I mean with this comparison -- I am not saying that their statements are similar, but that both may similarly cater to the same target audience, or at least that Cannell has done it and that people are fallible (they do sell out, sometimes). You see mentioning mercury directly in a response to vaccines and in such a way is clearly alluding to the manufactroversy about vaccine safety. IAC there are no two camps, there is only one real camp, i.e. sane, educated and professionals, who always argued that toxic substances should be eliminated whenever they pose an evidence-based health risk. Giving equal weight to any other opinion, is creating a false dichotomy/dilemma.
I'm not saying Eades is doing the same (i.e. catering to people on the detox bandwagon; not the dillema thingy), but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

And I'm sure that POPs are carcinogens, but so are lots of things. Depending on dose the impact on health may by almost zero or, well, not. We still need to determine how much of a risk it poses, before we even start to consider popping such a drug. I've skimmed his article and I don't think he includes any evidence about health risks...

Sure it's a thought provoking article/idea, but if there's no evidence of harm from organochlorides in our food chain, there's no reason to take Orlistat yet. If he really failed to provide convincing evidence of harm for those substances, it's ridiculous that he concludes "maybe just try out this drug".

Edited by kismet, 10 September 2009 - 01:15 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users