4.5 Article

Interaction between corticosterone and insulin in obesity: Regulation of lard intake and fat stores

期刊

ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 145, 期 5, 页码 2174-2185

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2003-1359

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-28172] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Passive elevations in glucocorticoids result in increased insulin and abdominal obesity with peripheral wasting, as observed in Cushing's syndrome, with little effect on chow intake. In the absence of insulin (streptozotocin-induced diabetes) diabetic rats markedly increase their chow intake in proportion to glucocorticoids. Given a choice of lard or chow, diabetic rats first eat lard, then reduce caloric intake to normal for 48 h before returning to hyperphagia on chow alone. We performed three experiments to determine the relationship of corticosterone and insulin to lard intake, chow intake, body weight, hormones, and fat depots. The results of these studies clarify the actions of both circulating glucocorticoids and insulin on caloric intake in adult male rats. Our experiments show that glucocorticoids provoke dose-related increases in total caloric intake that persist for days and weeks; the results also suggest that increasing insulin concentrations stimulated by glucocorticoids determine the amount of fat intake. Furthermore, we show that lard intake is associated with increasing insulin concentrations. Additionally, the results in adrenalectomized and adrenalectomized, streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats strongly suggest that it is a combination of corticosterone and insulin that increases abdominal fat depot weight. Independently of the hormonally manipulated rats, the results also show that intact rats voluntarily eat a considerable and stable proportion of their daily calories as lard when given a choice between lard and chow. These results suggest that some human obesities may result from elevated glucocorticoids and insulin increasing the proportional intake of high density calories.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据