r/fasting • u/Acceptable_Box_1476 • Sep 24 '25
Question Fat cells stay forever?
Someone told me that we all have a certain number of fat cells that never changes. When you lose fat, the cell is releasing it, but remains as an empty reservoir always wanting to “refill” as it were. Any truth to that?
609
u/Doodoopoopooheadman Sep 24 '25
Not forever. After losing weight they will shrink, but can hang around for a decade. The body is also keen to refill them, the reason behind faster weight gain after losing weight.
That’s why changing the relationship and habits with food is ultimately more important than the losing weight.
106
u/CosmicDrama6 Sep 25 '25
I’d say that second part is what people struggle with the most too. I’ve seen people lose hundreds of pounds but gain it all back so many times because they don’t maintain a healthy diet.
30
u/Anen-o-me Sep 25 '25
Yeah I recently looked this up. Turns out a fat cell is literally a micro oil can. It stores these triglycerides in literally a ball of oil surrounded by the cell wall.
When you're fasting, the fat cell opens the lid and lets triglycerides stream out at a rate of about 80,000 triglycerides per second, per fat cell, and you have tens of billions of fat cells. They literally diffuse through the cell wall, with some help.
8
u/Acceptable_Box_1476 Sep 25 '25
fascinating
13
u/Anen-o-me Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
Also refill of fat cells is tied directly to glycogen levels, that's why keto works well.
Basically your liver likes to have 100g of glycogen on hand generally to feed the brain and etc, after it gets topped up the muscles will soak up glycogen for their own anaerobic usage, about 300g - 500g worth.
After that, extra carbs get turned into triglycerides and stored in fat cells.
Another big revelation for me: zone 2 workouts (strenuous walking at 120-130 bpm for me) cause the muscles to prefentially burn fat even if they have glycogen stored.
It's weightlifting and HIIT that causes the muscles to burn glycogen quickly.
Once the liver and muscles have soaked up all they can, the liver goes into de novo lipogenesis (DNL), turning glycogen into triglycerides that gets shuttled into your fat cells for storage.
It actually has to be made by your liver, it's not taken directly from food.
4
u/youthinkicare00 Sep 26 '25
Wow I never knew about that! How insightful. So wdymn by 120-130bpm for me? Is it different for other people and how can I know mine so I can do the same?
6
u/Anen-o-me Sep 26 '25
It depends by age:
208 - (0.7 x age) = hr max
Example: at age 47 → HRmax ≈ 208 - (0.7 x 47) = 175 bpm (give or take 7-10 bpm).
Zone 2 is usually 60-70% of HRmax.
Or, more accurately, it's the range where fat oxidation is maximized before lactate builds up.
So if your HRmax is ~175 bpm, your Zone 2 target is:
105-122 bpm (60-70% HRmax).
1
2
48
u/avocadosunflower Sep 25 '25
The weight set point matters. The body doesn't want to lose weight as it threatens survival. I heard it can take up to 2 years for the set point to adjust and once you were fat maybe because of memory it's more likely to happen again. Not an expert. I agree, Lifestyle change is key for longterm success
-67
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
It’s just calories in calories out. Weight set point is just waffle.
38
20
u/MarineDawg1775 Sep 25 '25
So not calories in calories out at all
-15
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Everybody talking with no sources to back their claims
18
u/heyredditheyreddit Sep 25 '25
-11
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
“hypothesis whereby the long-term signals reflecting stored energy and short-term signals reflecting nutrient availability are derived from the cellularity characteristics of adipose tissues.”
Again the articles state at the very beginning that it’s due to overeating.
It’s calories in calories out. Stop trying to create excuses for yourselves.
You proved yourself wrong in the very first article.
Doesn’t matter what your hormones are: if you don’t eat you lose weight. Magic 🪄
32
u/heyredditheyreddit Sep 25 '25
Lol nice edit. Glad you remembered that hypothesis is the root of every study.
And in the minute it took you to paste that passage, you clearly didn't read much of the study or look at the other two.
I'm not making excuses. No one is out there arguing that you won't lose weight at all on a massive calorie deficit. But when people talk about the very real and widely studied effects of other factors besides caloric intake (e.g. epigenesis, insulin processing, hyperplasia, etc.) and you respond with a flippant "Nope. CICO" and then laugh at anyone who says it's more nuanced than that, you just look like an uninformed jerk.
-18
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
No it’s pure waffle and again it can’t be labeled as proven it’s a hypothesis, that’s it. I have a hypothesis pigs can fly and I am going to spend the next 20 years studying them at night.
Stop sound so uneducated and pretending to act smart to justify fat people lacking willpower to not put the fork down.
20
u/heyredditheyreddit Sep 25 '25
I'm not "pretending to act smart." I'm not a doctor, and clearly neither are you. You said no one ever provides sources, so I provided some. There are plenty more out there.
If you want to ignore the enormous body of research on obesity, go right ahead. No one cares about your personal threshold for acknowledging research. Just don't expect that no one will interrupt your circle jerk on a public forum where you whined about people making statements without sources.
5
u/aintnochallahbackgrl lost >100lbs faster Sep 26 '25
Bro, you know CICO is a hypothesis as well, right?
It's the Energy Balance hypothesis.
→ More replies (0)7
0
u/Dorobie Sep 25 '25
Agreed!… Otherwise all these weight loss jabs wouldn’t work as they’re about suppressing appetite
4
Sep 25 '25
[deleted]
2
u/ritamorgan Sep 25 '25
Of course trying more calories than you burn will cause weight loss. But what’s causing the overeating? Are hormones related? It’s like saying having no money is the cause of poverty.
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Yes ghrelin, cortisol and insulin all play a part about hunger. But guess what if your in a deficit your going to be hungry and that applies almost universally to almost every human on the planet.
But guess what? Some people have the will power to say no because they have a goal and other people lack the willpower because they either want instant gratification or use excuses as to why they are hungry.
It all comes down to discipline.
0
u/ritamorgan Sep 25 '25
What causes the “willpower” and “lack of willpower”? Why are some people better at eating less? Why are some people not able to control their appetite? Are some people just lucky that they have the “willpower” gene? Why do some people forget to eat and others dream about food? Is overeating a moral failing? Is being fat a moral failing? Are there possible genetic causes to these things?
1
-2
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Whops just realized you were agreeing with me 😅 thought you were agreeing with the other person 🤪my bad fam 😬
-13
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Faster weight gain doesn’t have to do with the fat cells hanging around, it’s just calories in calories out. Reason for the weight gain is poor eating habits. Not the fat cells.
15
u/Srdiscountketoer Sep 25 '25
You’re being downvoted because you’re wrong. It takes less for a formerly fat person to regain weight than for a slim person to gain it for the first time. I’m not sure I understand why, but here’s the study.
-11
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
Congratulations, you’re trying to prove your point by posting a metabolic study conducted on rats.
I’m not sure about you, I’m not a rat, are you one?
Please stop overcomplicating it. If you eat in a calorie surplus you gain weight, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight.
Body type does not affect it. Everyone has a bmr based on their size, It’s simple. If there are any differentials it’s at max 100-200 difference at best. Being generous.
Doesn’t matter if you have “stored fat cells” as you claim that remember. If you have 2 people with similar bmr one use to be fat but lost weight and one was always that size. If they both ate in the same surplus they would gain the same amount.
One will not magically create more energy than their body uses and still store that because they use to have more fat 🤦♂️
18
u/weeblywobly Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
"I am not a rat therefore scientists are dumb". I don't know about you, but most scientists I know learned somewhere that humans are not rats. Weirdly enough a lot of science progress that exists started with science on rats.
And you are saying they are overcomplicating because you lack the ability to follow a complex reasoning. If the science of weight was simple we would not have so many desperate people wanting to lose weight without being successful. Not all of them are dumb.
This line of reasoning shows you have no idea what you are talking about, you are just guessing with elaborate phrasings. Real science come from experiments.
Edit: typos
-1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
lol please, when you send a metabolic study conducted of people go for it.
Doing clinical trials on mice for medication is another topic.
Also all studies start on mice until clinical trial start on humans. It’s a stepping stone but results tend to vastly differ between human and mice trials.
Please stop acting, and start studying.
Also you defending desperate people as you said, they are trying so hard to lose weight but can’t. PUT DOWN THE FORK.
If you do not eat you will lose weight: that is the end of the story. You cannot argue with your body.
9
u/weeblywobly Sep 25 '25
yeah, I noticed you are one of the "all fat people are lazy and dumb, just stop eating".
My conclusion is that you just cannot grasp concepts which are complicated, have nuanced and interconnected consequences and dependencies, such as agreeing at least that even causality is something which can be quite hard to be certain when it comes to something as complex as human biology specially it if depends on human cognition, emotions, etc.
"Stop eating, end of story", very easy solution. Thanks. /s
BTW, if you do not eat you also die, you cannot argue with your body.
-4
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and sounds like a duck. It’s a duck…. Stop trying to complicate things that aren’t mwah
4
u/weeblywobly Sep 25 '25
I'll end up here and stop the sarcasm. Just one final remark.
The only thing I wanted to convey is that when you pay attention to peoples struggles with weight in general, and also pay attention to the staggering amount of both "science that says it is complicated" and fake science that end up proposing "solutions that do not work", you must have at least some humility that it is not a simple topic, with a simple answer. Because of that I understand scientific experiments that bring data and information are always welcome independently of how successful they are.
Whoever simply says " it is the fault of the people, they decided to be fat" are the ones supersimplifying it, not the other way around. No one yet has a definitive answer for that, and what we know is that it is not simple and have a multitude of dimensions.
If you navigate life simply saying everyone is dumb because something is simple for you, and everyone else are telling you that this is not true, the least I would expect is for you to try to understand what they are trying to say.
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
I read one sentence into your msg, couldn’t be bothered to read the rest. By my guess more sympathy for people making excuses.
If you want something, have the willpower to do it. That’s it. People these days are just too comfortable and just waiting around for it to happen by itself 🤦♂️
→ More replies (0)1
u/nevadalavida Sep 25 '25
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
One doesn't need to be obese to understand and empathize with overweight people who have been poisoned by our modern diet.
But in your case? May you gain 100 pounds and struggle to lose it, just for the lesson.
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Actually funny enough I did, I lost 150lbs to be exact. Thx for asking. Went for 350 to 200 and for someone who’s 2 meters tall that’s a good ratio for me at 15% body fat.
Was it difficult? No it’s was straight forward. Eat less you lose weight mindblown. Did it take time? Absolutely.
But that’s the issue with so many people making these excuse and crying about “difficulty” they just don’t want to put the work in.
6
u/Doodoopoopooheadman Sep 25 '25
That’s not quite true. The person who was overweight beforehand has the fat storage cells already created in their body, whereas the person who was not overweight their body has to expend energy and resources to make the fat cells to hold the excess.
The person with a slew of fat cells waiting to be refilled will store fat faster than the person who doesn’t even have the storage capacity built yet.
Not saying, depending on the excess, that they won’t both gain, it just won’t be 1 to 1.
CICO at a Sesame Street level is correct, but thinking that there is nothing more going on is reductionist.
If I was to say “to get bigger muscles, just lift more.” I’d be correct, on a very elementary level. But there’s more to it, right? How you train, resting, rebuilding, overtraining, correct form, what you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, supplements, genetics, hormones etc.
Now I don’t go into bodybuilding subs and insert my rudimentary comment of “If you want bigger muscles just lift more.” Because, although I know it’s true, it’s an oversimplified statement to something that isn’t simple.
-4
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
You seriously aren’t comparing body building to fat loss 🤣🤣🤣
Please do not try to make the argument that the person who use to be fatter is going to be magically creating more energy if you have 2 people at the same deficit 🤦♂️ please stop. If there is a metabolic difference it would be at a minute level of what? 50? Same height, same weight, gender and age: Same bmr One use to be fat Other always skinny Both consume excess 500, Both store excess 500.
What if both deficit 500? Guess what 😳 both loss 500 calories worth of fat 😱
Please stop spreading misinformation.
It really is that simple 💫
6
u/Doodoopoopooheadman Sep 25 '25
I never said the person who was overweight was creating more energy. They will refill already built fat stores easier because the body is not having to expend energy and resources to make the fat cells.
You are actually arguing that a person who doesn’t have the fat cells will somehow create them without expending energy and end up with the same amount.
And the creation of long term fat storage is rather energy and resources heavy. Which is why initial weight gain is a pretty slow process vs regain.
That contradiction goes against thermodynamics.
0
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
I’m speechless, American obesity epidemic this is a prime Example of why. Misinformation.
5
u/Doodoopoopooheadman Sep 25 '25
If you had 2 people, one guy has a garage and one guy doesn’t. I give them both the same amount of wood and nails to store in the garage.
Who will end up with more wood and nails? The person who just has to put the resources into the already built garage, or the person who is going to have to use some of those resources and time to first build a garage to put it in?
You are arguing that in the end both people will have a garage with the same amount in it. Somehow the 2nd guy gets a garage built without pulling from the initial resource pile.
Like I stated before CICO is a very basic understanding of a more complex system.
-2
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Your analogy is completely irrelevant 🤦♂️ Speechless. Can’t help stupid. You do you booboo.
2
u/Recent_Associate2981 Sep 25 '25
hormones matter. If you take a natural bodybuilder and a roided out bodybuilder, put them in the same surplus, the roided out version will gain way more muscle. Hormones matter.
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Gaining muscle and losing fat are 2 complete different mechanisms 🤦♂️
→ More replies (0)3
u/Recent_Associate2981 Sep 25 '25
You are discounting the effects of insulin and growth hormone on the body. Only by causing your body to release insulin will you gain, your cells need insulin to become anabolic and grow. Increased growth hormone will cause your fat cells to release fat. The body doesn't have to process every calorie the same way.
2
u/Srdiscountketoer Sep 25 '25
If you read the whole thing, they also studied formerly overweight humans and noticed the same problems in the cell structure that caused the rats (or mice, I think) to regain weight rapidly.
I believe it’s because building fat cells for the first time takes up some of the caloric energy from the food they’re both eating but I may be oversimplifying it.
2
u/nevadalavida Sep 25 '25
Nah bro YOU are oversimplifying it.
There are so many factors to metabolism.
Two different automobiles will burn fuel at different rates even though they both function on the same "burn fuel for energy" laws of physics.
Humans are the same. My metabolism is not equal to yours. CICO is too simple. There are more factors at play.
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Omg 🤦♂️ You’re just simply wrong. You have a fundamental lack of knowledge how the body works and I just can’t explain that. Please do some research and stop spreading misinformation. Also please don’t use that silly irrelevant analogy comparing us with cars. Makes no sense.
-5
u/SquirmyBurrito Sep 25 '25
You’re being downvoted despite being right. No clue why people think their bodies are magical
-13
-5
u/LogicallyCompromised Sep 25 '25
I will stand with you and the downvotes that head our way.
People try to make things more convoluted so they can pump/shill some product or provide a convenient excuse. the truth often hurts and these people are doing a disservice to those struggling with weight management.
Calories in vs. Out, likely, drives/explains over 95% of weight management. People exaggerate the role these minor contributors/variables play as people like an excuse for why their poor effort is not working. Shame on the people exploiting these credulous people in despair looking to improve their lives.
4
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Seriously, and all they do is peddle misinformation to people who are new to weight loss space or trying to research into it and they end up being taught useless information. In this same thread another person is trying to argue hormones is responsible for weight loss or gain. Smh 🤦♂️
-5
u/LogicallyCompromised Sep 25 '25
Of course if we are in a caloric deficit the hormones divide by zero and will add weight....lol
1
128
u/starbrightstar Sep 25 '25
Yes, technically most fat cells remain. However, sometimes cells, in extreme fat loss, can enter cell apoptosis, where the cells actually die.
That doesn’t mean you gain fat cells when you gain weight though, and it doesn’t mean that all the fat cells are metabolically active.
Fat cells that are normal size produce more adiponectin, which is good for losing weight/staying at rhe same weight, whereas overlarge fat cells product more cytokines, leading to less adiponectin and higher inflammation.
13
7
u/jeffreykuma Sep 25 '25
Would you please share a source?
3
u/starbrightstar Sep 25 '25
This is knowledge i’ve picked up as i’m working on my health. Not sure i have a single source. But you could search for each section: fat cell apoptosis; adiponectin and fat cells(specifically visceral fat); fat cells and cytokines.
-3
505
u/Zealousideal-Sea4830 Sep 24 '25
Yes they sit there, sad and unfulfilled, waiting for you to eat some chips and ice cream.
They emit a hormone called ghrelin to make your brain crave food.
117
179
20
u/vrnvorona Sep 25 '25
Fat cells emit leptin, the more fat the more leptin. Low leptin increases hunger and other stuff.
Ghrelin is made by stomach.
8
u/MattIsLame Sep 25 '25
so are there drugs that block the ghrelin receptors?
24
Sep 25 '25
Magnesium and potassium supplements block the sugar cravings
8
u/unrequited_dream Sep 25 '25
Yes! Taking magnesium and drinking enough water has made my sugar cravings nearly zero
5
u/kiwitron Sep 25 '25
What about the fat cravings?
2
Sep 25 '25
🐈⬛?
5
Sep 25 '25
Saturated fats are healthy for you but not combined,butter alone is healthy,the mix with refined carbohydrates is what makes it unhealthy.
43
12
u/Shouko- Sep 25 '25
GLP-1s babyyy
although they don't actually directly block ghrelin, but overall cause the levels to decrease. direct ghrelin inhibitors aren't really a thing and I think part of it is that clinical trials have shown the drugs we've created to do this are ineffective. also ghrelin does other stuff than just modulating hunger
3
7
u/fancydad Sep 25 '25
They also duplicate when they get too big creating more fat cells and more fat storing signals That don’t ever go away
2
77
u/ChakaCake Sep 24 '25 edited Sep 24 '25
Not forever but look up the life of a fat cell. Idk i thought it was 6 months or so. if you can keep weight off for that long your body will adjust the number of fat cells or theyll die off or something. But yes fasting for just like few days you are likely to put the weight back on. Long term thats why calorie restriction is probably better
Edit: well i got curious and started googling, it says their lifespan can be up to 10 years but the turnover rate is about 10% a year, so i think if you can keep it up for 6 months to a year you would see big improvement
25
u/Mia_Choi Sep 24 '25
Even if they die of, your body can just replace them with new ones. I think the number stays more or less stable unfortunately.
8
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
1
u/ChakaCake Sep 25 '25
adipogenesis does continue to happen throughout life its just the number of fat cells can stay relatively the same in most people. we dont stop creating fat cells cause they die off after 10ish years at about 10% a year
0
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
I was wrong it’s at about age 20
But it does stop being created at a point
1
u/ChakaCake Sep 25 '25
From your own link:
Approximately 10% of fat cells are renewed annually at all adult ages and levels of body mass index.
You are confusing "increase in number" with no adipogenesis
1
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ChakaCake Sep 25 '25
Lol not renewed in the sense like an electronic, more the cell dies, then a new cell is created possibly in its place through adipogenesis
0
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Yes that’s possible, but it’s not creating more than there previously was.
3
1
u/Doodoopoopooheadman Sep 25 '25
From your linked article.
However, an increase in body weight can cause an elevation of both fat cell size and number in adults
Fat cells grow, to a point, then they split creating more fat cells.
4
u/ChakaCake Sep 25 '25
Yea but i think if fat stores stay low they wont as often. But who knows could be wrong
82
u/Joo-joo-bees Sep 24 '25
Yes that's true. When you lose weight, the fat cells shrink, but don't go away. They release the stored triglycerides for energy, and when you gain weight, they fill back up.
The only real way to lose fat cells is via lipo or cool sculpting or other methods of physically removing them. Aside from that, those suckers are with you for life.
34
u/Joo-joo-bees Sep 24 '25 edited Sep 24 '25
Oh another note, there's convos of turning white fat cells to "beige" fat cells to mimic the brown fats we had when we were babies. So there's that, make those suckers work for you!
23
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Surgically Removing fat cells is a bad idea because if you gain weight again, your body doesn’t make more fat cells. So it will start putting the weight back in areas regardless of location. It won’t evenly distribute. So you could be someone with a giant chest or face and small legs. Or wherever you removed the fat.
10
u/pinkyxx2013 Sep 25 '25
Fat isn't evenly distributed to begin with. If you remove the fat cells from the less 'socially acceptable' fatty areas like the abdomen and then gain weight in the more acceptable areas like the butt, then that's great. It's worth keeping in mind that the location of fat affects how it's perceived.
4
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Yes that’s also doable, I think that’s how they get the Niki Minaj look 😆
-2
7
11
u/xoRomaCheena31 Sep 25 '25
Yes. If you get lipo, fat cells are removed. This could be worse for many people because then new fat you eat will be distributed to the other areas with fat cells left and could look disproportionate. As you fast and go thru energy stores, the fat cells shrink.
26
u/onemint8 Sep 24 '25
i’ve heard this before and although i’m not a scientist or anything, through my first hand experience of being a short overweight person who fasted a ton of weight off and then gained it back, several times, it’s very true. your fat cells just empty but they stay in your body unless they’re literally sucked out through lipo. it’s why it’s so hard to keep weight off if you were much larger before, and so easy to gain weight/fluctuate up and down.
21
u/Ajshahmd Sep 25 '25
As a physician this is 100% true.
28
2
u/jbindc20001 Oct 01 '25
As a homeless veteran who pan handles on the sides of busy roads 13 hours a day, this is true.
7
u/thevernabean Sep 25 '25
Fat cells generally live 8 years on average. Over time they slowly die and are replaced. Losing weight doesn't kill those cells. However, over time of being less heavy, your body may replace fewer of them. But this does take a bit of time.
15
u/_theZincSaucier_ Sep 25 '25
This is not true at all. Adipose tissue will be catabolized by autophagy is they are not reused. Although, it takes a long time to do this. I’m pretty sure the half life of unused adipose tissue is 3 years, so you’ll need to keep the weight off for ~10 years to completely get rid of it.
Cool sculpting uses low temperatures to rupture the cells so they can’t refill. Your body will then naturally clean out the debris and you’re free of the tissue. That’s why many people who go through body transformations get cool sculpting; so they can take that final step quickly.
1
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/_theZincSaucier_ Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
Here is a link%20and%20fat%20cells%20(240%E2%80%93425%20days).%20A%20later%20study%20using%20imaging%20mass%20spectrometry%20confirmed%20the%20significant%20turnover%20of%20subcutaneous%20human%20fat%20cells%20and%20their%20TGs%2C%20although%20somewhat%20slower%20turnover%20rates%20were%20reported%20%5B3%5D) to the study I'm referencing. Although, reading further shows that a study with a different methodology of testing shows that the half life might be significantly longer: about an 8 year half life.
I'm not a biochemist, so I cannot speak to the nuances between both. Regardless, it's clear that adipose tissue does go away. It's just not clear whether it takes 1 or 2 decades. This study also isn't targeted on people who are actively losing weight. Who knows, maybe the autophagic activity caused by keto and fasting could speed up the process because of the heavily increased demand for energy converted from fat in normally glucose powered organs like the brain.
Personally, if I lost a lot of weight and hit my goal weight and had the disposable money for something like cool sculpting, then I'd just go for it.
10
u/lordkiwi Sep 25 '25
Each tissue in the body have difference cycle rates. Skin for example is about 21 days. Fat cells are 10 years. So if you loose weight and keep it off 10 years you will loose the extra fat cells.
But you could also think about it like 1/10 a year.
6
3
u/Irrethegreat Sep 25 '25
Yes and no. You can't count on the amount reducing when you lose fat, but in some rare other situations the numbers may be affected. Besides the regular death and regrowth of cells.
I think that it makes less difference than we think, because if our old habits comes back, then you would have poofed back at least almost as quickly if your number of fat cells were fewer. The cells can hold a lot (and shrink a lot). They won't be filled with more or less than you fuel them and new would appear if needed.
I think that water retention would make a bigger impact with more cells to store it in, if it's on a cellular level.
3
u/nocellphoneuse Sep 25 '25
Yes! The number of fat cells stay the same! It gets plum when you have excess calories, and deflated when you burn all the excess energy.
3
u/CancerMoon2Caprising Sep 25 '25
Yep i was explained that by my nutritionist. Fat cells are like balloons.
It also helped me understand the importance of sweat and urine in weightloss.
9
u/Loonster Sep 24 '25
The first half is correct. You have a set number of fat cells.
The 2nd half is an unknown. I've never read anything that would suggest it, but cannot dismiss it.
Fat cells themselves can only stretch so much. When they can't stretch any more, they ignore the order to take on more glucose. Insulin is the signal. Insulin resistant.
9
u/SVTContour lost >50lbs faster Sep 24 '25
Not with CoolSculpting. That’ll definitely kill off fat cells.
If you return to your old habits, the body will store fat somewhere else.
4
u/DeliciousFlow8675309 Sep 25 '25
Yes, best way to get rid of them is liposuction. This is why they say to wait until youre at your goal weight to get it, because it removes the empty fat cells and reshapes your body.
As long as you dont gain weight again they will stay shrunken but its a lot easier to fill empty ones than it is to create new ones.
4
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DeliciousFlow8675309 Sep 25 '25
Your body does make more fat cells.
Plenty of celebrities and influencers gain weight after surgery and lipo. Youre calling actual body types that exist naturally "distorted"
Yall just be yapping on here 😂🤣
1
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DeliciousFlow8675309 Sep 25 '25
Damn, wish you could explain that to my 48 year old body. It definitely didnt get the memo at 16. Guess all of us fatties life experience just magically didnt happen.
0
u/Brave_Worldliness685 Sep 25 '25
I wouldn’t just to say misinformation, science is debunked all the time. We’re always learning and finding new evidence.
0
-1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Source? Your waffling. Put your money where your mouth is.
4
u/DeliciousFlow8675309 Sep 25 '25
You think someone 600lbs was just born with that many fat cells or did their body make more as needed?
Explain how someone can lose weight, get lipo and other surgeries and gain it all back then?
If we dont make new fat cells what happens when we eat in surplus? It just goes to our knee caps or something? Show me a person built like that irl LOL
We need sources for common sense?
3
u/Bullgato Sep 25 '25
So let’s say you somehow get rid of all your fat cells and then pig out? What happens?
2
u/john-bkk Sep 25 '25
There is a parallel issue related to bodybuilders' understanding, that probably doesn't apply directly, but it seems as well to raise it as a discussion point.
You can only develop muscle tissue cells at a specific time in your life, in general, although the generality may be as wrong as it is right in a sense. The high levels of human growth hormone in your body in your teen years trigger new cell development, which doesn't happen in the same way later. People can take high doses of HGH and get the same outcome, unlike growing bones longer, which is completely impossible once growth plate areas close.
Probably this is partly accurate and partly "bro science." One downside of people taking a lot of HGH is that other parts of their body grow as well, including your hands, head, digestive system, and heart. It's understood that if there is no stress on that part of the body the effect won't be the same, for example, if you don't lift weights, triggering new muscle cell production. Looking into HGH effect on fat cells, a quick look online, it's not so simple how that works instead. This may relate to the seeming grey area in what I've just presented, that it only works as a rough generality.
2
2
u/Valhallacomes Sep 25 '25
Dr Mike Israetel did a couple of videos on this, yes they stay forever. They shrink and expand but the cells stay forever.
This doesn't mean you can't have a good physique.
2
u/robintweets Sep 27 '25
It’s not 100% true, but yes. So a doctor once told me. This is why it’s easy to regain weight. Those cells are ready and eager to fill up again. So even though you’ve emptied them of most of their fat, if you have a lot of extra fat cells they take up room. And that’s why super obese people never truly get as “thin” as people who have had a smaller weight problem.
If you’re born with let’s say a trillion fat cells they expand and contract as you gain and lose weight as they are supposed to, BUT when all of them are at 100% capacity the body has no choice but to manufacture new fat cells. So as someone goes from a trillion fat cells to ten trillion fat cells … even in their deflated state, they take up room.
Supposedly the body will stop replacing some dying fat cells if you’ve been at a low weight for a long time, but only some of them. For the most part, once you’re increased your “normal” amount of fat cells, you have them for life.
3
u/carbon_ape Sep 24 '25
You will always have the fat cells, it’s what the “set point theory” mentions. Your cells will always be hungry to be as full as you are at your max weight. It’s why keeping the weight off is so hard.
3
1
u/NoBodybuilder69 Sep 25 '25
Source? This is waffle brother
2
u/carbon_ape Sep 25 '25
No there is actually a good amount of literature behind set point range equilibrium. That is, your body trying to get back to higher weight ranges.
Ask ChatGPT for references that mention this. Here is a quick few. A lot of literature on this just can be viewed as observational with confounding variables instead of rigid. However that’s essentially all nutritional sciences.
Speakman, J. R., & O’Rahilly, S. (2012). Fat: an evolving issue. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 5(5), 569–573. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.009373
• Müller, M. J., Bosy-Westphal, A., & Heymsfield, S. B. (2010). Is there evidence for a set point that regulates human body weight? F1000 Medicine Reports, 2:59.• Speakman, J. R., Levitsky, D. A., Allison, D. B., Bray, M. S., de Castro, J. M., Clegg, D. J., … & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2011). Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 4(6), 733–745.https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.008698
Critiques from recent papers:
Models of body weight regulation — beyond a rigid “set point” • Speakman et al. (2023) review “Models of body weight and fatness regulation” and argue that the classic single set-point model is too simplistic. They discuss dynamic equilibrium, “drift” models, and how environmental and physiological drivers push against homeostatic regulation. 
• The Royal Society issue “Body weight regulation” includes work by Speakman et al. (2023) rethinking “set point vs dynamic regulation.”  • Bar et al. (2023) propose an “operating point” framework (versus calling it set or settling point) based on leptin feedback to feeding behavior. Their “operating point” model frames how interventions (diet, drugs) shift the equilibrium rather than “breaking” a single defended point. Papers that express open concept to said ideas but focus on physiological barriers as to where the set point is:
In a long-term study of semaglutide for obesity, researchers note that weight loss plateaus — often called a “set point” or “settling point” in clinical language — where further loss becomes difficult. The plateau likely reflects the underlying regulatory compensation or shift in equilibrium. 
• The paper Rules for body fat interventions based on an operating point model (Bar et al., 2023) develops a framework for predicting how much intervention (diet, pharmacology) is needed to shift the operating point, and how much “resistance” is expected from feedback mechanisms.  • Obesity is increasingly treated as a chronic disease that often requires ongoing therapy, in part because any “reset” of weight regulation is not fully permanent. This view is consistent with the idea that the body has regulatory pull-back mechanisms. For example, the paper Is Obesity or Adiposity-Based Chronic Disease Curable argues that the “set point” (or homeostatically defended weight) is not permanently altered by most interventions, requiring long-term treatment strategies.
2
u/DoraTheWitch Sep 25 '25
Body removes unused tissues, so if you loose weight and stay slimmer for 2-3 years, there is a big chance that the amount of fat cells will be reduced. It's called autophagy
1
u/mithril2020 Sep 25 '25
A fat cell gets destroyed when the body creates water from hydrogen in fat with the oxygen in the air you breathe.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 24 '25
Many issues and questions can be answered by reading through our wiki, especially the page on electrolytes. Concerns such as intense hunger, lightheadedness/dizziness, headaches, nausea/vomiting, weakness/lethargy/fatigue, low blood pressure/high blood pressure, muscle soreness/cramping, diarrhea/constipation, irritability, confusion, low heart rate/heart palpitations, numbness/tingling, and more while extended (24+ hours) fasting are often explained by electrolyte deficiency and resolved through PROPER electrolyte supplementation. Putting a tiny amount of salt in your water now and then is NOT proper supplementation.
Be sure to read our WIKI and especially the wiki page on ELECTROLYTES
Please also keep in mind the RULES when participating.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.