Fake fat makes rats fat. Imagine that.

Good headline, huh? It's like a line from a really bitter Dr. Seuss book.

Anyway, today I've got an interesting, albeit not super conclusive study for y'all. Recently, researchers out of Purdue University discovered that when rats on a high fat diet (41% fat) were fed low-cal potato chips made with a zero-calorie synthetic fat substitute called olestra, they were more prone to gain fat than rats fed normal, fatty potato chips. Rats on a low fat diet (about 14% fat) didn't gain much weight from either kind of chips.

(Quick side note: while the high-fat diet was a modified chow made with peanut oil, the low-fat diet was an actually brand of remarkably nutritious rodent chow called LabDiets 5001. Click the link, check out those nutrition facts, and explain to me the justice in a country where university lab rats eat better than public education 3rd graders.)

Here's a good summary of the study from the American Psychological Association, including this possible explanation of what the hell is going on.

Why would a fat substitute confuse the body? Food with a sweet or fatty taste usually indicates a large number of calories, and the taste triggers various responses by the body, including salivation, hormonal secretions and metabolic reactions. Fat substitutes can interfere with that relationship when the body expects to receive a large burst of calories but is fooled by a fat substitute.

I'm not surprised at all. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Case in point, this study in the journal Obesity (a publication which, FYI, you don't want to leave on your coffee table if you're having a cake and ice cream party) showing that artificial sweeteners impede weight loss.

Modern science barely understands how nutrition with real foods works. When you throw synthetic food substitutes into the mix, everything goes Wild West very quickly. If any of you Chow Chow McSmugeaters out there think you truly understand how nutrition works, you're wrong. It's too complicated - unlike a car, for example, which is simple to understand. There aren't 20 different theories as to what causes a carburetor to flood with gas. Conversely, accepted wisdom on how the humans interact with food continues to flip flop like a politician in a blender. As my friend Steve Edwards says, "One rule of nutrition is that as soon as you become dogmatic, it's just a matter of time before your God is usurped."

Most artificial sweeteners and fats were invented within our lifetime. According to the laws of relativity and the space-time continuum, it's absolutely impossible to know exactly what they'll do to our insides longterm - unless, of course, the big food companies maintain either flux capacitor equipped Deloreans or Tarot card readers in their R&D departments, which I doubt.

Conversely, bad fats and refine sugar have been around for a while. Even with all that we don't know about nutrition, we have a rough idea how the body reacts to a PopTart or a handful of Pringles. Personally, I prefer the devil I know. And if you're eating right the rest of the time, as the study shows, then a little indulgence isn't going to matter. But that's a big ask in modern society, given we can't all start our days with a healthy bowl of LabDiets 5001.

Oh, to be a lab rat...