How to Boost the Fat Burning Hormone FIAF

Although recent increases in the availability of junk food and decreases “in institutionally driven physical activity” have created an obesity-permissive environment, several other factors may contribute. We know, for example, that the use of antibiotics is linked to obesity, so our gut flora may play a role. I discuss this in my video Is Obesity Infectious?.

Recently, specific bacterial species were identified. Eight species seemed protective against weight gain, and they are all producers of a short-chain fatty acid called butyrate.

Early on, we thought there might be some intestinal bacteria that were able to extract additional calories from what we eat, but the relationship between our gut flora and obesity has proven to be more complex, as you can see at 0:49 in my video. Our gut flora may affect how we metabolize fat, for example, such as through the hormone FIAF—fasting-induced adipose factor.

While we’re fasting, our body has to stop storing fat and instead start to burn it off. FIAF is one of the hormones that signals our body to do this, which could be useful for someone who is obese, and may be one way our gut flora manages our weight. Some bacteria repress this hormone, thereby increasing fat storage. In contrast, when we feed fiber to our fiber-eating bacteria, those that secrete short-chain fatty acids like butyrate are able to upregulate this hormone in all human cell lines so far tested.

“Currently, when an individual fails to lose weight…the only other option is surgery,” but “[a]s the mechanisms of the microbiota’s [gut flora’s] role in weight regulation are elucidated, one can envision transplanting intestinal contents from a thin individual into an obese individual.” Such so-called fecal transplants may suffer from “repulsive esthetics,” though. It turns out there may be easier ways to share.

We’ve known that people who live together share a greater similarity in gut bacteria than people living apart. This could be because co-habitants inadvertently swap bacteria back and forth, or possibly because they eat similar diets, living in the same house. We didn’t know…until now. Not only do co-habiting family members share bacteria with one another—they also share with their dogs, who are probably eating a different diet than they are. You may be interested in the charts at 2:22 in my video.

In fact, it’s been “suggest[ed] that homes harbor a distinct microbial fingerprint that can be predicted by their occupants.” Just by swabbing the doorknobs, you can tell which family lives in which house, as shown at 2:35 in my video. And, when a family moves into a new home, “the microbial community in the new house rapidly converged” or shifted toward that of the old house, “suggesting rapid colonization by the family’s microbiota.” Experimental evidence suggests that individuals raised in a household of lean people may be protected against obesity—no fecal transplant necessary. (Indeed, people may be sharing gut bacteria from kitchen stools instead.)

Moreover, as we know, people living together share more bacteria than those living apart, but when a dog is added to the mix, the people’s bacteria get even closer, as you can see at 3:11 in my video. Dogs can act like a bridge to pass bacteria back and forth between people. Curiously, owning cats doesn’t seem to have the same effect. Maybe cats don’t tend to drink out of the toilet bowl as much as dogs do?

Exposure to pet bacteria may actually be beneficial. It’s “intriguing to consider that who we cohabit with, including companion animals, may alter our physiological properties by influencing the consortia of microbial symbionts [or bacteria] that we harbor in and on our various body habitats.” This may be why “[r]ecent studies link early exposure to pets to decreased prevalence of allergies, respiratory conditions, and other immune disorders” as kids grow older. In my video Are Cats or Dogs More Protective for Children’s Health?, I talk about studies in which dog exposure early in life may decrease respiratory infections, especially ear infections. Children with dogs “were significantly healthier,” but we didn’t know why. Indeed, we didn’t know the mechanism until, perhaps, now—with the first study tying together the protection from respiratory disease through pet exposure to differences in gut bacteria. None of the studied infants in homes with pets suffered from wheezy bronchitis within the first two years of life, whereas 15 percent of the pet-deprived infants had. And, when comparing stool samples, this correlated with differences in gut bacteria depending on the presence of pets in the home.

There was a famous study of 12,000 people that found that a “person’s chances of becoming obese increased by 57%…if he or she had a friend who became obese,” suggesting social ties have a big effect. However, given the evidence implicating the role of gut bacteria in obesity, this “raises up the possibility that cravings and associated obesity might not just be socially contagious”—that is, because, for instance, you all go out together and eat the same fattening food—“but rather truly infectious, like a cold.”


Viruses may also play a role in obesity. How? See Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity. An Obesity-Causing Chicken Virus may help explain the link found between poultry consumption and weight gain, and you may also be interested in Chicken Big: Poultry and Obesity.

The important question: Can Morbid Obesity Be Reversed Through Diet? Find out in my video, and also check out Coconut Oil and Abdominal Fat.

For more on the amazing inner world in our guts, see:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Why Drinking Diet Soda Makes You Crave Sugar

Recommendations on limiting sugar consumption vary around the world, with guidelines ranging from “[l]imit sweet desserts to one every other day” to “[k]eep sugar consumption to 4 or less occasions per day.” In the United States, the American Heart Association is leading the charge, “proposing dramatic reductions in the consumption of soft drinks and other sweetened products” and recommending fewer than about 5 percent of calories a day from added sugars, which may not even allow for a single can of soda.

Why is the American Heart Association so concerned about sugar? “Overconsumption of added sugars has long been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” meaning heart disease and strokes. We used to think added sugars were just a marker for an unhealthy diet. At fast-food restaurants, for example, people may be more likely to order a cheeseburger with their super-sized soda than a salad. However, the new thinking is that the added sugars in processed foods and drinks may be independent risk factors in and of themselves. Indeed, worse than just empty calories, they may be actively disease-promoting calories, which I discuss in my video Does Diet Soda Increase Stroke Risk as Much as Regular Soda?.

At 1:14 in my video, you can see a chart of how much added sugar the American public is consuming. The data show that only about 1 percent meet the American Heart Association recommendation to keep added sugar intake down to 5 or 6 percent of daily caloric intake. Most people are up around 15 percent, which is where cardiovascular disease risk starts to take off. There is a doubling of risk at about 25 percent of calories and a quadrupling of risk for those getting one-third of their daily caloric intake from added sugar.

Two hundred years ago, we ate an estimated 7 pounds of sugar annually. Today, we may consume dozens of pounds of sugar a year. We’re hardwired to like sweet foods because we evolved surrounded by fruit, not Froot Loops, but this adaptation is “terribly misused and abused” today, “hijacked” by the food industry for our pleasure and their profits. “Why are we consuming so much sugar despite knowing too much can harm us?” Yes, it may have an addictive quality and there’s the hardwiring, but the processed food industry isn’t helping. Seventy five percent of packaged foods and beverages in the United States contain added sweeteners, mostly coming from sugar-sweetened beverages like soda, which are thought responsible for more than a 100,000 deaths worldwide and millions of years of healthy life lost. Given this, can we just switch to diet sodas? By choosing diet drinks, can’t we get that sweet taste we crave without any of the downsides? Unfortunately, studies indicate that “[r]outine consumption of diet soft drinks is linked to increases in the same risks that many seek to avoid by using artificial sweeteners—namely type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome heart disease, and stroke.” At 3:15 in my video, you can see data showing the increased risks of cardiovascular disease associated with regular soft drinks and also diet soda. They aren’t that dissimilar.

“In other words, the belief that artificially sweetened diet beverages reduce long-term health risks is not supported by scientific evidence, and instead, scientific data indicate that diet soft drink consumption may contribute to the very health risks people have been seeking to avoid.” But, why? It makes sense that drinking all that sugar in a regular soft drink might increase stroke risk, due to the extra inflammation and triglycerides, but why does a can of diet soda appear to increase stroke risk the same amount? It’s possible that the caramel coloring in brown sodas like colas plays a role, but another possibility is that “artificial sweeteners may increase the desire for sugar-sweetened, energy-dense beverages/foods.”

The problem with artificial sweeteners “is that a disconnect ultimately develops between the amount of sweetness the brain tastes and how much glucose [blood sugar] ends up coming to the brain.” The brain feels cheated and “figures you have to eat more and more and more sweetness in order to get any calories out of it.” So, “[a]s a consequence, at the end of the day, your brain says, ‘OK, at some point I need some glucose [blood sugar] here.’ And then you eat an entire cake, because nobody can hold out in the end.”

If people are given Sprite, Sprite Zero (a zero-calorie soda), or unsweetened, carbonated, lemon-lime water, but aren’t told which drink they’re getting or what the study is about, when they’re later offered a choice of M&M’s, spring water, or sugar-free gum, who do you think picks the M&M’s? Those who drank the artificially sweetened soda were nearly three times more likely to take the candy than those who consumed either the sugar-sweetened or unsweetened drinks. So, it wasn’t a matter of sweet versus non-sweet or calories versus no-calories. There’s something about non-caloric sweeteners that somehow tricks the brain.

The researchers did another study in which everyone was given Oreos and were then asked how satisfied the cookies made them feel. Once again, those who drank the artificially sweetened Sprite Zero reported feeling less satisfied than those who drank the regular Sprite or the sparkling water. “These results are consistent with recent [brain imaging] studies demonstrating that regular consumption of [artificial sweeteners] can alter the neural pathways responsible for the hedonic [or pleasure] response to food.”

Indeed, “[t]he only way really to prevent this problem—to break the addiction—is to go completely cold turkey and go off all sweeteners—artificial as well as fructose [table sugar and high fructose corn syrup]. Eventually, the brain resets itself and you don’t crave it as much.”

We’ve always assumed the “[c]onsumption of both sugar and artificial sweeteners may be changing our palates or taste preferences over time, increasing our desire for sweet foods. Unfortunately, the data on this [were] lacking”…until now. Twenty people agreed to cut out all added sugars and artificial sweeteners for two weeks. Afterwards, 95 percent “found that sweet foods and drinks tasted sweeter or too sweet” and “said moving forward they would use less or even no sugar.” What’s more, most stopped craving sugar within the first week—after only six days. This suggests a two-week sugar challenge, or even a one-week challenge, may “help to reset taste preferences and make consuming less or no sugar easier.” Perhaps we should be recommending it to our patients. “Eating fewer processed foods and choosing more real, whole, and plant-based foods make it easy to consume less sugar.”


Speaking of stroke, did you see my Chocolate and Stroke Risk video?

For more on added sugars, see:

You may also be interested in my videos on artificial and low-calorie sweeteners:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

How to Increase Gut Bacterial Richness

We live in an “obesogenic environment,” with cheap junk food everywhere, thanks in part to subsidies going to the “‘food industrial complex,’ which manufactures obesogenic foods that foster addiction…The root causes…[may] make obesity difficult to escape,” but a lot of people do. If it were simply the external environment, why isn’t everyone obese?

“Some individuals seem to be more susceptible to the obesogenic environment…than others,” which suggests a genetic component, supported by studies of twins and adopted kids, but the genes that have been identified so far account for only 6 to 11 percent of the genetic variation in body mass index between individuals. Perhaps variation in our “other genome”—that is, all the different microbes that inhabit our body, known as the microbiome—may be playing a role. We have a hundred times more bacterial genes inside us than human genes.

As I discuss in my video Gut Microbiome: Strike It Rich with Whole Grains, a study found that people tend to fall into one of two groups: those who have lots of different types of bacteria in their gut (high “gut bacterial richness”) and those with relatively few types. Those with low bacterial richness had more overall body fat, insulin resistance, which is the cause of type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides, and higher levels of inflammatory markers, like C-reactive protein, compared to those with high bacterial richness. Not only did people with lower bacterial richness start out heavier, but the obese individuals with lower bacterial richness also gained more weight over time.

The question then becomes: Can a dietary intervention have any impact “A number of studies have associated increased microbial richness…with diets higher in fruits, vegetables, and fiber.”

Just giving fiber-type supplements doesn’t seem to boost richness, however, but the “compositional complexity” of a whole food, like whole grains, “could potentially support a wider scope of bacterial taxa,” types of bacteria, “thereby leading to an increase in diversity.” Human studies to investigate the effects of whole grains had been neglected, though…until now.

Subjects were given whole-grain barley, brown rice, or a mixture of both for a month, and all three caused an increase in bacterial community diversity. Therefore, it may take a broad range of substrates to increase bacterial diversity, and this can be achieved by eating whole plant foods.

Moreover, the alterations of gut bacteria in the study coincided with a drop in systemic inflammation in the body. We used to think that the way fiber in whole grains helped us was by gelling in our small intestine right off of our stomach, slowing the rate at which sugars were absorbed and blunting the spike in blood sugars one might get from refined carbs. We now know, however, that fiber is broken down in our colon by our friendly flora, which release all sorts of beneficial substances into our bloodstream that can have anti-inflammatory effects, as well. So, perhaps what’s happening in our large intestine helps explain the protective effects of whole grain foods against type 2 diabetes.

Interestingly, the combination of both barley and brown rice worked better than either grain alone, suggesting a synergistic effect. This may help explain “the discrepancy of the health effects of whole grains obtained in epidemiological [population-based] and interventional studies.”

Observational studies “strongly suggest” that those who consume three or more servings of whole grains a day tend to have a lower body mass index, less belly fat, and less tendency to gain weight, but recent clinical trials, where researchers randomized subjects to eat white bread rolls versus whole-wheat rolls, failed to provide evidence of a beneficial effect on body weight. Of course, whole grains are so superior nutritionally that they should continue to be encouraged. However, the “[i]nterventional trials might have failed to show [weight] benefits because they focused on a limited selection of whole grains, while in epidemiological trials [or the population studies], subjects are likely to consume a diverse set of whole grains which might have synergistic activities.”


Until recently, we knew very little about how powerfully our gut bacteria can affect our health. Catch up on the latest science with these related videos:

When it comes to rice, even white rice can be better than many choices, but brown rice is better and pigmented rice is probably the best. See my videos Kempner Rice Diet: Whipping Us Into Shape and Is It Worth Switching from White Rice to Brown? for more.

But what about the arsenic in rice? Learn more:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: