Fat Cell Memory: Can Anything Actually Reduce Fat Cell Count?

[AlexSilver]

CandyCap said:

AlexSilver said:

CandyCap said:

AlexSilver said:

CandyCap said:

eidos said:

5 amino 1 methylquinolinium

For more information, see: https://pep-pedia.org/peptides/5-amino-1mq

In mice, it produces epigenetic alterations in fat cells and may be able to wipe out their “memory.” Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5826726/

My own 10-day run at 5 mg has just ended. The muscle fatigue that comes with diabetes is gone — this worked better for me than Mots-C or SS-31. I feel it inside 1 hour, and it carries me through the whole day. The lift is stronger than 4 espressos put together!

It arrives as an iodine salt with a bright orange color. Flushing the needle with it is a genuine disaster, and 2 of my shirts are already stained. This afternoon I plan to put together a pen.

Because this is a quaternary ammonium*, meaning it has antimicrobial action, I plan to reconstitute with sterile water for injection rather than BAC. (*Same class of compound as benzalkonium, the stuff in disinfectant wipes or in medical skin disinfectants.)

Right now I'm running a cycle of it.

There are 2 variants, I should point out: chloride and iodide. Both of them are orange. The orange color does not come from iodide.

My choice is the chloride variant, since taking the iodide variant at high doses may lead to thyroid issues. Before buying, you should absolutely research and ask questions, particularly if you already have thyroid problems.

I spent this morning looking into it, and the iodide ion is in fact what causes the color. The chloride form is sold as a white or off white powder.

Sadly, the chloride versions being sold aren't white or off white. They might be slightly lighter and less deep orange... but white is definitely not what you get.

That might be true. Still, I’ve come across posts on this forum where members said their 5A1MQ arrived white and questioned whether it was genuine. I had the same thought back then, but I neither knew nor cared at that point.

A white appearance means it is not 5A1MQ. According to AI (which I dislike relying on), the quinoline ring is responsible for the color — it takes in blue light and sends orange back out. Iodide plays no part in that.

An AI—ridiculously—just claimed that it can only be white if methylation is incomplete.

 

[BlueDog55]

Might not be on topic, but... for more than 15 years my weight has gone up and down, much like everyone else's. There's one pattern I've picked up on, and I call it my Fat clock... basically, the first time I dropped from about 405 to 360 and held there roughly a year, then later I got down to 335. What I saw was that whenever I slipped back into old habits, I'd shoot back up to 360 really quickly, but then the gain would sort of flatten out or slow for a while, and if I got back on track I could return to 335 more easily. After staying at or near 335 for at least a year, that turned into my new "clock" or set point. The same cycle repeated: I'd get to around 315, mess around, and bam, right back to 335 fast, over and over. I genuinely think there's something real about this set point, and it would sit in the same territory as fat cell memory. Right now my clock is around 305, but thanks to Reta I'm at 276, and I'm going to try to lock that in as my new setting while I push toward 250, hoping that becomes my set point. For context, I'm 6'5" and 63yrs old now; my 40's were my downfall years, and I sure wish I could redo them... But

 

[Don]

BlueDog55 said:

Might not be on topic, but... for more than 15 years my weight has gone up and down, much like everyone else's. There's one pattern I've picked up on, and I call it my Fat clock... basically, the first time I dropped from about 405 to 360 and held there roughly a year, then later I got down to 335. What I saw was that whenever I slipped back into old habits, I'd shoot back up to 360 really quickly, but then the gain would sort of flatten out or slow for a while, and if I got back on track I could return to 335 more easily. After staying at or near 335 for at least a year, that turned into my new "clock" or set point. The same cycle repeated: I'd get to around 315, mess around, and bam, right back to 335 fast, over and over. I genuinely think there's something real about this set point, and it would sit in the same territory as fat cell memory. Right now my clock is around 305, but thanks to Reta I'm at 276, and I'm going to try to lock that in as my new setting while I push toward 250, hoping that becomes my set point. For context, I'm 6'5" and 63yrs old now; my 40's were my downfall years, and I sure wish I could redo them... But

The reality is that it's genuine. My use of the phrase "fat cell memory" doesn't imply the idea was invented.

While the wording might not be a formal scientific term, research does back up the fundamental concept. During major weight loss, fat cells predominantly shrink instead of vanishing. Among adults, the total count of fat cells usually stays fairly constant, and a history of obesity can result in enduring biological and even epigenetic alterations that affect how weight is regained later on.

I'm not claiming that putting fat back on is unavoidable, but calling the whole idea a myth isn't correct either. Studies show that adipose tissue keeps particular traits following obesity, even once considerable weight has been shed.

From what I understand, no dependable method exists right now to meaningfully lower fat cell numbers apart from surgeries like liposuction. Losing weight mostly decreases fat cell size, not the count itself.

There's a fascinating paper on this topic, which you all can look up.

Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss" (Nature, 2024).

 

[BlueDog55]

dondada109 said:

BlueDog55 said:

Might not be on topic, but... for more than 15 years my weight has gone up and down, much like everyone else's. There's one pattern I've picked up on, and I call it my Fat clock... basically, the first time I dropped from about 405 to 360 and held there roughly a year, then later I got down to 335. What I saw was that whenever I slipped back into old habits, I'd shoot back up to 360 really quickly, but then the gain would sort of flatten out or slow for a while, and if I got back on track I could return to 335 more easily. After staying at or near 335 for at least a year, that turned into my new "clock" or set point. The same cycle repeated: I'd get to around 315, mess around, and bam, right back to 335 fast, over and over. I genuinely think there's something real about this set point, and it would sit in the same territory as fat cell memory. Right now my clock is around 305, but thanks to Reta I'm at 276, and I'm going to try to lock that in as my new setting while I push toward 250, hoping that becomes my set point. For context, I'm 6'5" and 63yrs old now; my 40's were my downfall years, and I sure wish I could redo them... But

The reality is that it's genuine. My use of the phrase "fat cell memory" doesn't imply the idea was invented.

While the wording might not be a formal scientific term, research does back up the fundamental concept. During major weight loss, fat cells predominantly shrink instead of vanishing. Among adults, the total count of fat cells usually stays fairly constant, and a history of obesity can result in enduring biological and even epigenetic alterations that affect how weight is regained later on.

I'm not claiming that putting fat back on is unavoidable, but calling the whole idea a myth isn't correct either. Studies show that adipose tissue keeps particular traits following obesity, even once considerable weight has been shed.

From what I understand, no dependable method exists right now to meaningfully lower fat cell numbers apart from surgeries like liposuction. Losing weight mostly decreases fat cell size, not the count itself.

There's a fascinating paper on this topic, which you all can look up.

Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss" (Nature, 2024).

My thinking is that spending roughly a year at a reduced weight could have caused a decline in my fat cell count, and perhaps that explains why my weight only climbs so far before stabilizing. Is that a reasonable idea?

 

[Don]

BlueDog55 said:

dondada109 said:

BlueDog55 said:

Might not be on topic, but... for more than 15 years my weight has gone up and down, much like everyone else's. There's one pattern I've picked up on, and I call it my Fat clock... basically, the first time I dropped from about 405 to 360 and held there roughly a year, then later I got down to 335. What I saw was that whenever I slipped back into old habits, I'd shoot back up to 360 really quickly, but then the gain would sort of flatten out or slow for a while, and if I got back on track I could return to 335 more easily. After staying at or near 335 for at least a year, that turned into my new "clock" or set point. The same cycle repeated: I'd get to around 315, mess around, and bam, right back to 335 fast, over and over. I genuinely think there's something real about this set point, and it would sit in the same territory as fat cell memory. Right now my clock is around 305, but thanks to Reta I'm at 276, and I'm going to try to lock that in as my new setting while I push toward 250, hoping that becomes my set point. For context, I'm 6'5" and 63yrs old now; my 40's were my downfall years, and I sure wish I could redo them... But

The reality is that it's genuine. My use of the phrase "fat cell memory" doesn't imply the idea was invented.

While the wording might not be a formal scientific term, research does back up the fundamental concept. During major weight loss, fat cells predominantly shrink instead of vanishing. Among adults, the total count of fat cells usually stays fairly constant, and a history of obesity can result in enduring biological and even epigenetic alterations that affect how weight is regained later on.

I'm not claiming that putting fat back on is unavoidable, but calling the whole idea a myth isn't correct either. Studies show that adipose tissue keeps particular traits following obesity, even once considerable weight has been shed.

From what I understand, no dependable method exists right now to meaningfully lower fat cell numbers apart from surgeries like liposuction. Losing weight mostly decreases fat cell size, not the count itself.

There's a fascinating paper on this topic, which you all can look up.

Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss" (Nature, 2024).

My thinking is that spending roughly a year at a reduced weight could have caused a decline in my fat cell count, and perhaps that explains why my weight only climbs so far before stabilizing. Is that a reasonable idea?

Honestly, I don't have an answer for this, and I'm not aware of any solid evidence that backs it up.

That said, what you describe does seem plausible to me. You dropped roughly 130 pounds and then held at those lower weights for a good stretch of time before dropping further, so it's plausible your body slowly grew accustomed to those new ranges as time went on.

Perhaps the real change isn't that you're shedding a substantial number of fat cells, but instead that your body has become less willing to fight for the higher weight it once held onto. Put another way, your "set point" or settling point might have drifted lower because you stayed at a lower weight for longer.

To be clear, this is only my guess, and I can't point to strong evidence for it, but it strikes me as a more probable explanation than a big drop in the number of fat cells.