At similar weight loss, dietary composition determines the degree of glycemic improvement in diet-induced obese C57BL/6 mice

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Achieving weight loss is the cornerstone of the treatment of the metabolic consequences of obesity, in particular of glucose intolerance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether improvement in glucose control depends on dietary macronutrient composition of the diet at identical weight loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two weeks old diet-induced obese C57BL/6 mice lost weight through caloric restriction on normal chow (R-NC) or high fat diet (R-HF). Control mice were fed normal chow (LEAN) or high fat diet (OBESE) ad libitum. Body weight and composition were assessed after 8 weeks of dietary intervention. Glucose homeostasis was evaluated by intraperitoneal glucose tolerance tests (IPGTT). Epididymal white adipose (eWAT) and hepatic tissues were analyzed by immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR. RESULTS: By 30 weeks of age, the body weight of the mice on R-NC (31.6±1.7g, mean±SEM) and R-HF (32.3±0.9g) was similar to LEAN mice (31.9±1.4g), while OBESE mice weighed 51.7±2.4g. Glucose tolerance in R-NC was better than in LEAN mice (69% AUC IPGTT, P 0.0168) whereas R-HF mice remained significantly less glucose tolerant (125% AUC IPGTT, P 0.0279 vs LEAN), despite identical weight loss. The eWAT pads and adipocyte size were similar in LEAN and R-NC mice, while the eWAT pad size of R-HF was 180% of R-NC (P < 0.0001) and the average adipocyte size of R-HF mice was 134% of R-NC fed mice (P 0.0285). No LEAN or R-NC mice had hepatic steatosis, in contrast to 28.6% of R-HF mice. Compared to OBESE mice, inflammatory markers were lower in eWAT and liver tissue of R-NC, but not in R-HF mice. Measures of visceral adiposity correlated well with glucose tolerance parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In mice, caloric restriction on a normal chow diet improved glucose tolerance significantly more when identical weight loss was achieved on a high fat diet.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.