Excess ectopic fat storage is linked to type 2 diabetes. The importance of dietary fat composition for ectopic fat storage in humans is unknown. We investigated liver fat accumulation and body composition during overfeeding saturated fatty acids (SFAs) or polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). LIPOGAIN was a double-blind, parallel-group, randomized trial. Thirty-nine young and normal-weight individuals were overfed muffins high in SFAs (palm oil) or n-6 PUFAs (sunflower oil) for 7 weeks. Liver fat, visceral adipose tissue (VAT), abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), total adipose tissue, pancreatic fat, and lean tissue were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Transcriptomics were performed in SAT. Both groups gained similar weight. SFAs, however, markedly increased liver fat compared with PUFAs and caused a twofold larger increase in VAT than PUFAs. Conversely, PUFAs caused a nearly threefold larger increase in lean tissue than SFAs. Increase in liver fat directly correlated with changes in plasma SFAs and inversely with PUFAs. Genes involved in regulating energy dissipation, insulin resistance, body composition, and fat-cell differentiation in SAT were differentially regulated between diets, and associated with increased PUFAs in SAT. In conclusion, overeating SFAs promotes hepatic and visceral fat storage, whereas excess energy from PUFAs may instead promote lean tissue in healthy humans.

Fat accumulation in the liver, pancreas, and abdomen may have long-term, adverse metabolic consequences (13). Although obesity is a major health concern, abdominal obesity is of greater clinical relevance. Accumulation of liver fat, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is present in ∼25% of adults in Western countries and has been proposed as a causative factor in the development of cardiometabolic disorders and type 2 diabetes (48). In obesity, the prevalence of NAFLD is extremely high and may reach 75% (9). Thus, liver fat may be a key target in the prevention and treatment of metabolic diseases. Why certain individuals deposit liver fat to a larger extent than others during weight gain is unknown. High-fat diets have been shown to increase liver fat in both humans and rodents when compared with low-fat diets (1012). Cross-sectional data suggest that dietary fat composition could play a key role in liver fat accumulation with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) inversely (13) and saturated fatty acids (SFAs) directly associated with liver fat and liver fat markers (14,15). In addition, animals fed high-fat diets with PUFAs reduced body and liver fat accumulation compared with SFA diets (1621). In the recent HEPFAT trial, we showed that an isocaloric diet rich in PUFAs given for 10 weeks reduced liver fat content and tended to reduce insulin resistance compared with a diet rich in SFAs in individuals with abdominal obesity and type 2 diabetes (22).

Overweight and obesity are mainly results of long-term energy excess. To prevent early excessive adiposity and its metabolic consequences, it is necessary to investigate dietary factors that could initially influence body fat accumulation and ectopic fat storage. We hypothesized that liver fat accumulation during moderate weight gain could be counteracted if the excess energy originates mainly from PUFAs rather than from SFAs. The aim was to investigate the effects of excess intake of the major n-6 PUFAs in the diet, linoleic acid, or the major SFAs in the diet, palmitic acid, on liver fat accumulation, body composition, and adipose tissue gene expression in healthy, normal-weight individuals.

Participants

Healthy, normal-weight men and women were recruited by local advertising. Inclusion criteria were age 20–38 years, BMI 18–27 kg/m2, and absence of diabetes and liver disease. Exclusion criteria included abnormal clinical chemistry, alcohol or drug abuse, pregnancy, lactation, claustrophobia, intolerance to gluten, egg, or milk protein, use of drugs influencing energy metabolism, use of n-3 supplements, and regular heavy exercise (>3 h/week). Subjects were instructed to maintain their habitual diet and physical activity level throughout the study. Subjects were fasted for 12 h before measurements and discouraged from physical exercise or alcohol intake 48 h before measurements.

Study Design

The LIPOGAIN study was a 7-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with parallel group design in free-living subjects. The study was carried out from August through December 2011 at the Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Subjects were randomized by drawing lots, with a fixed block size of 4 and allocation ratio 1:1. Subjects were stratified by sex and were unaware of the block size. The allocation sequence was only known by one of the researchers (F.R.) but concealed from all other investigators and participants. Double-blinding was ensured by labeling, and the code was concealed from all investigators until the study was finalized.

Dietary Intervention

Forty-one participants were randomized to eat muffins containing either sunflower oil (high in the major dietary PUFA linoleic acid, 18:2 n-6) or palm oil (high in the major SFA palmitic acid, 16:0). Both oils were refined. Body weight was measured, and muffins were provided to participants weekly at the clinic. Muffins were baked in large batches under standardized conditions in a metabolic kitchen at Uppsala University. Muffins were added to the habitual diet, and the amount was individually adjusted to achieve a 3% weight gain. The amount of muffins consumed per day was individually adjusted weekly (i.e., altered by ±1 muffin/day depending on the rate of weight gain of the individual). Subjects were allowed to eat the muffins anytime during the day. Except for fat quality, the muffins were identical with regard to energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate, and cholesterol content, as well as taste and structure. The composition of the muffins provided 51% of energy from fat, 5% from protein, and 44% from carbohydrates. The sugar to starch ratio was 55:45. We chose palm oil as the source of SFA for several reasons; it is particularly high in palmitic acid and low in linoleic acid and is widely used in various foods globally. Sunflower oil was chosen as the source of PUFA because it is high in linoleic acid (the major PUFA in Western diet) but low in palmitic acid. Both oils were devoid of cholesterol and n-3 PUFAs, thus avoiding potential confounding of these nutrients.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome of this study was liver fat content (determined by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Secondary outcomes included other body fat depots (MRI and Bod Pod; COSMED, Fridolfing, Germany), total body fat (MRI and Bod Pod), and lean tissue (MRI and Bod Pod). All outcome measures were measured at two time points: at baseline and at the end of the intervention. MRI was the primary assessment method.

Assessments of Liver Fat, Pancreatic Fat, and Body Composition

Liver fat content, pancreas fat content, and body composition were assessed by MRI using a 1.5T Achieva clinical scanner (Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands) modified to allow arbitrary table speed. Collection and analyses of the MRI data were performed by two operators at one center under blinded conditions. The coefficients of variation between the two operators were 2.14 ± 2.14%, and the results from the two operators did not differ significantly (P > 0.4). The average from the two operators was used. Body composition was also measured using whole-body air displacement plethysmography (Bod Pod) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Pancreas fat content was assessed by duplicate measurements (SD 0.36%), and the average was used. The same images were used as from the liver fat measurements. The operator was trained by an experienced radiologist. Total-body water content was measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (Tanita BC-558; Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan).

Global Transcriptome Analysis of Adipose Tissue

Adipose tissue biopsies were taken subcutaneously, 3 to 4 cm below and lateral to the umbilicus by needle aspiration under local anesthesia (1% lidocaine). The samples were washed with saline, quickly frozen in dry ice covered with ethanol, and stored at −70°C until analysis. Hybridized biotinylated complementary RNA was prepared from total RNA and hybridized to a GeneChip Human Gene 1.1 ST Array (Affymetrix Inc., Santa Clara, CA) using standardized protocols. The microarray data have been submitted to the Gene Expression Omnibus in a Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment–compliant format (accession number GSE43642).

Assessment of Fat Oxidation

D-3-hydroxybutyrate was analyzed as a marker of hepatic β-oxidation using a kinetic enzymatic method utilizing Ranbut reagent (RB1008; Randox Laboratories, Crumlin, U.K.) on a Mindray BS-380 chemistry analyzer (Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics, Shenzhen, China). All samples were analyzed in a single batch.

Dietary Assessment, Physical Activity, and Compliance

Dietary intake was assessed by 4-day weighed food records (at baseline and week 7), and processed with Dietist XP version 3.1 dietary assessment software. During these 4-day periods, subjects wore accelerometers (Philips Respironics, Andover, MD) on their right ankle to assess physical activity. Food craving, hunger, and satiety were assessed in the morning (only at week 7) by the Food Craving Inventory and Visual Analog Scales, respectively. Fatty acid composition was measured in the intervention oils as well as in plasma cholesterol esters and adipose tissue triglycerides by gas chromatography as previously described (22,23). Hepatic stearoyl-CoA desaturase-1 (SCD-1) activity was estimated as the 16:1n-7/16:0 ratio in cholesterol esters (22).

Biochemical Measures

Fasting concentrations of plasma glucose and serum insulin were measured as previously described (22), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance was calculated (24). Plasma total adiponectin concentrations were measured by ELISA (10–1193–01; Mercodia, Uppsala, Sweden).

Statistical Analysis

Based on previous data (22), 22 subjects per group were needed to detect a 1.5% difference between groups in liver fat with α = 0.05 and β = 0.2. Differences in changes between groups were analyzed per protocol with the Student t test. Nonparametric variables were log-transformed or analyzed nonparametrically (e.g., liver fat) with a Mann-Whitney U test if normality was not attained by the Shapiro-Wilk test and Q-Q plots. CIs were, however, obtained using t test calculations for all variables. Data are given as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range [IQR]). Correlations between outcome variables and fatty acids are given as Pearson r or Spearman ρ. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS version 21 (SPSS Inc.) and JMP version 10.0.0 were used for analyzing data. Significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) was used to compare gene expression between groups.

Ethics

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects gave written informed consent prior to inclusion, and the study was approved by the regional ethics committee.

Of the 55 participants assessed for eligibility, 41 were randomized, but 2 dropped out before the study started, leaving 39 participants with baseline data. All 39 participants completed the study (Fig. 1). One individual from each group was excluded from the primary analyses due to considerable and unexplained weight loss during the intervention (>3 SD below the mean weight gain, more than can be attributed to day-to-day variation). Including those two outliers, however, did not affect the results, except for differences between groups for the Bod Pod analyses, which were no longer statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Presented data are thus based on 37 participants who were considered compliant with the intervention. The mean age (26.7 ± 4.6 vs. 27.1 ± 3.6 years) and sex distribution (5:13 vs. 6:13 women/men, respectively) were similar between the PUFA and SFA groups. Fatty acid composition of the intervention oils is shown in Table 1. Baseline characteristics regarding body composition are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1

Flow diagram for the LIPOGAIN trial.

Figure 1

Flow diagram for the LIPOGAIN trial.

Close modal
Table 1

Fatty acid composition of the intervention oils

Sunflower oilPalm oil
8:0 0.02 0.02 
10:0 0.02 0.04 
12:0 0.05 0.31 
14:0 0.08 1.1 
16:0 6.2 47.5 
16:1 0.08 0.16 
18:0 4.1 4.2 
18:1 23.8 37.2 
18:2 n-6 65.3 8.9 
18:3 n-3 0.08 0.23 
20:0 0.26 0.32 
20:3 n-6 — — 
20:4 n-6 — — 
20:5 n-3 — — 
22:6 n-3 — — 
Total SFAs 10.7 53.5 
Total MUFAs 23.9 37.4 
Total PUFAs 65.4 9.2 
Sunflower oilPalm oil
8:0 0.02 0.02 
10:0 0.02 0.04 
12:0 0.05 0.31 
14:0 0.08 1.1 
16:0 6.2 47.5 
16:1 0.08 0.16 
18:0 4.1 4.2 
18:1 23.8 37.2 
18:2 n-6 65.3 8.9 
18:3 n-3 0.08 0.23 
20:0 0.26 0.32 
20:3 n-6 — — 
20:4 n-6 — — 
20:5 n-3 — — 
22:6 n-3 — — 
Total SFAs 10.7 53.5 
Total MUFAs 23.9 37.4 
Total PUFAs 65.4 9.2 

Fatty acids are reported as a percentage of all fatty acids assessed by gas chromatography.

MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid.

Table 2

Liver fat and body composition before and after 7 weeks of PUFA or SFA overeating

PUFA (n = 18) baselineMean absolute changeSFA (n = 19) baselineMean absolute changeMean difference in change (95% CI)P value
Body weight, kg 67.4 ± 8.2 1.6 ± 0.85 63.3 ± 6.8 1.6 ± 0.96 −0.02 (−0.63 to 0.58) 0.94 
BMI, kg/m2 20.8 (19.5–23.1) 0.5 ± 0.3 19.9 (18.9–20.7) 0.5 ± 0.3 0.01 (−0.18 to 0.20) 0.98 
Waist girth, cm 79.4 ± 5.6 0.97 ± 2.2 76.1 ± 5.1 1.0 ± 2.3 −0.03 (−1.53 to 1.47) 0.97 
Liver fat, % (MRI) 0.75 (0.65–1.0) 0.04 ± 0.24 0.96 (0.79–1.1) 0.56 ± 1.0 −0.52 (−1.0 to −0.01) 0.033 
Lean tissue, L (MRI) 43.4 ± 8.4 0.86 ± 0.62 41.8 ± 6.9 0.31 ± 0.68 0.55 (0.11–0.98) 0.015 
VAT, L (MRI) 0.99 (0.50–1.6) 0.11 ± 0.21 0.81 (0.52–1.0) 0.22 ± 0.16 −0.12 (−0.24 to 0.01) 0.035 
VAT/SAT ratio (MRI)* 0.08 ± 0.04 0.00 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.03 0.01 ± 0.01 −0.01 (−0.02 to 0.00) 0.073 
Abdominal SAT, L (MRI) 2.2 (1.9–3.1) 0.25 ± 0.32 1.8 (1.5–2.8) 0.34 ± 0.23 −0.09 (−0.27 to 0.10) 0.32 
Total body fat, L (MRI) 14.4 (12.6–19.6) 0.97 ± 1.0 12.9 (10.4–18.2) 1.5 ± 0.70 −0.57 (−1.2 to 0.01) 0.013 
Lean tissue, % (Bod Pod) 81.9 ± 6.3 −0.81 ± 1.2 85.6 ± 7.4 −1.7 ± 1.1 0.93 (0.15–1.70) 0.021 
Total body fat, % (Bod Pod) 18.1 ± 6.3 0.81 ± 1.2 14.4 ± 7.4 1.7 ± 1.1 −0.93 (−1.70 to −0.15) 0.021 
PUFA (n = 18) baselineMean absolute changeSFA (n = 19) baselineMean absolute changeMean difference in change (95% CI)P value
Body weight, kg 67.4 ± 8.2 1.6 ± 0.85 63.3 ± 6.8 1.6 ± 0.96 −0.02 (−0.63 to 0.58) 0.94 
BMI, kg/m2 20.8 (19.5–23.1) 0.5 ± 0.3 19.9 (18.9–20.7) 0.5 ± 0.3 0.01 (−0.18 to 0.20) 0.98 
Waist girth, cm 79.4 ± 5.6 0.97 ± 2.2 76.1 ± 5.1 1.0 ± 2.3 −0.03 (−1.53 to 1.47) 0.97 
Liver fat, % (MRI) 0.75 (0.65–1.0) 0.04 ± 0.24 0.96 (0.79–1.1) 0.56 ± 1.0 −0.52 (−1.0 to −0.01) 0.033 
Lean tissue, L (MRI) 43.4 ± 8.4 0.86 ± 0.62 41.8 ± 6.9 0.31 ± 0.68 0.55 (0.11–0.98) 0.015 
VAT, L (MRI) 0.99 (0.50–1.6) 0.11 ± 0.21 0.81 (0.52–1.0) 0.22 ± 0.16 −0.12 (−0.24 to 0.01) 0.035 
VAT/SAT ratio (MRI)* 0.08 ± 0.04 0.00 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.03 0.01 ± 0.01 −0.01 (−0.02 to 0.00) 0.073 
Abdominal SAT, L (MRI) 2.2 (1.9–3.1) 0.25 ± 0.32 1.8 (1.5–2.8) 0.34 ± 0.23 −0.09 (−0.27 to 0.10) 0.32 
Total body fat, L (MRI) 14.4 (12.6–19.6) 0.97 ± 1.0 12.9 (10.4–18.2) 1.5 ± 0.70 −0.57 (−1.2 to 0.01) 0.013 
Lean tissue, % (Bod Pod) 81.9 ± 6.3 −0.81 ± 1.2 85.6 ± 7.4 −1.7 ± 1.1 0.93 (0.15–1.70) 0.021 
Total body fat, % (Bod Pod) 18.1 ± 6.3 0.81 ± 1.2 14.4 ± 7.4 1.7 ± 1.1 −0.93 (−1.70 to −0.15) 0.021 

Data are means ± SD or median (IQR) and 95% CI. For nonnormal variables, P values are obtained from nonparametric analyses. Mean difference in change is calculated as mean absolute change in PUFAs minus mean absolute change in SFAs.

*Calculated as VAT/(TAT − VAT).

Weight Gain, Body Composition, and Fat Oxidation

Both groups gained 1.6 kg in weight; however, the MRI assessment showed that the SFA group gained more liver fat, total fat, and visceral fat, but less lean tissue compared with subjects in the PUFA group (Table 2). Relative changes are shown in Fig. 2. The ratios of lean/fat tissue gained in the PUFA and SFA groups were ∼1:1 and 1:4, respectively. Pancreatic fat decreased by 31% (P = 0.008) in both groups combined, but without significant differences between groups (P = 0.75, data not shown). D-3-hydroxybutyrate decreased by 0.11 (0.15) mmol/L or −70% and 0.05 (0.09) mmol/L or −45% in the PUFA and SFA groups, respectively, without significant difference between groups (P = 0.14). When total-body water content was taken into account by using a three-compartment model for assessment of fat and lean tissue, the results remained and were even strengthened (data not shown).

Figure 2

Relative changes in liver fat and body composition by MRI during 7 weeks of overeating SFAs or PUFAs. AF: Relative changes are calculated for each individual as change during the intervention/baseline measurement. Boxes represent medians and IQRs, whiskers represent the most extreme value besides outliers, and circles represent outliers (>1.5 IQRs outside IQR). P values represent between-group t test or Mann-Whitney U test. A: Change in liver fat is in percentage. B, C, E, and F: Changes are in liters. D: VAT/SAT ratio is calculated as VAT/(TAT − VAT).

Figure 2

Relative changes in liver fat and body composition by MRI during 7 weeks of overeating SFAs or PUFAs. AF: Relative changes are calculated for each individual as change during the intervention/baseline measurement. Boxes represent medians and IQRs, whiskers represent the most extreme value besides outliers, and circles represent outliers (>1.5 IQRs outside IQR). P values represent between-group t test or Mann-Whitney U test. A: Change in liver fat is in percentage. B, C, E, and F: Changes are in liters. D: VAT/SAT ratio is calculated as VAT/(TAT − VAT).

Close modal

Dietary Intake and Physical Activity

Both groups consumed on average 3.1 ± 0.5 muffins/day, equaling an additional 750 kcal/day. Both groups increased their energy intake comparably, without any differences in macronutrient intake during the study (Table 3). Food craving, hunger, and satiety showed no differences between groups (data not shown). In both groups combined, energy expenditure due to physical activity was 1,039.7 ± 112.5 kcal at baseline, and the total energy expenditure at baseline was 2,683.9 ± 245.3 kcal, without differences between groups. Physical activity did not change or differ between groups (P = 0.33) during the intervention (data not shown).

Table 3

Dietary intake data before and after 7 weeks of overeating PUFA or SFA

PUFA (n = 18)
SFA (n = 19)
Mean difference in change (95% CI)P value
BaselineMean absolute changeBaselineMean absolute change
Dietary intake       
 Energy, kcal 2,504 ± 525 632 ± 499.5 2,535.1 ± 591 500 ± 550 132.2 (−218.3 to 482.6) 0.45 
 Carbohydrates, E% 44.7 ± 8.9 −1.4 ± 6.3 50.2 ± 8.8 −2.5 ± 5.2 1.1 (−2.8 to 4.9) 0.57 
 Protein, E% 14 (13–16) −2.2 ± 4 14 (14–17) −2.5 ± 2.8 0.3 (−2.1 to 2.6) 0.83 
 Fat, E% 35.3 ± 5.1 5 ± 5.8 31.7 ± 6.9 5.1 ± 5.6 −0.1 (−3.9 to 3.8) 0.98 
 SFA, E% 13.1 ± 2.6 −1.6 ± 2.8 11.5 ± 3.6 4.9 ± 2.8 −6.5 (−8.3 to −4.6) 0.0001 
 MUFA, E % 11.5 ± 2.5 0.9 ± 2.7 9.9 ± 2.8 3 ± 2.7 −2.1 (−3.9 to −0.3) 0.026 
 PUFA, E% 5 ± 1.5 7.9 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 1.4 0.3 ± 1.3 7.6 (6.4–8.8) 0.0001 
 Alcohol, E% 2 (0–8.5) −1.5 ± 5.5 1 (0–3) −0.2 ± 2.3 −1.3 (−4.2 to 1.6) 0.37 
PUFA (n = 18)
SFA (n = 19)
Mean difference in change (95% CI)P value
BaselineMean absolute changeBaselineMean absolute change
Dietary intake       
 Energy, kcal 2,504 ± 525 632 ± 499.5 2,535.1 ± 591 500 ± 550 132.2 (−218.3 to 482.6) 0.45 
 Carbohydrates, E% 44.7 ± 8.9 −1.4 ± 6.3 50.2 ± 8.8 −2.5 ± 5.2 1.1 (−2.8 to 4.9) 0.57 
 Protein, E% 14 (13–16) −2.2 ± 4 14 (14–17) −2.5 ± 2.8 0.3 (−2.1 to 2.6) 0.83 
 Fat, E% 35.3 ± 5.1 5 ± 5.8 31.7 ± 6.9 5.1 ± 5.6 −0.1 (−3.9 to 3.8) 0.98 
 SFA, E% 13.1 ± 2.6 −1.6 ± 2.8 11.5 ± 3.6 4.9 ± 2.8 −6.5 (−8.3 to −4.6) 0.0001 
 MUFA, E % 11.5 ± 2.5 0.9 ± 2.7 9.9 ± 2.8 3 ± 2.7 −2.1 (−3.9 to −0.3) 0.026 
 PUFA, E% 5 ± 1.5 7.9 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 1.4 0.3 ± 1.3 7.6 (6.4–8.8) 0.0001 
 Alcohol, E% 2 (0–8.5) −1.5 ± 5.5 1 (0–3) −0.2 ± 2.3 −1.3 (−4.2 to 1.6) 0.37 

Data are means ± SD or median (IQR) and 95% CI. For nonnormal variables, P values are obtained from nonparametric analyses. Mean difference in change is calculated as mean absolute change in PUFAs minus mean absolute change in SFAs. E%, energy percent; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid.

Plasma and Tissue Fatty Acid Composition

Changes in fatty acid composition in plasma as well as adipose tissue reflected dietary intakes, indicating high compliance (Table 4). In addition to the dietary biomarkers, the estimated SCD-1 activity in plasma cholesterol esters was decreased by PUFAs (Table 4). Changes in liver fat and visceral fat and total adipose tissue (TAT) were directly associated with changes in plasma palmitic acid, whereas liver fat and TAT were inversely associated with linoleic acid. The SCD-1 index was associated with change in liver fat. Changes in lean tissue were inversely associated with changes in palmitic acid and directly with linoleic acid (Fig. 3).

Table 4

Fatty acid composition in CE and SAT before and after 7 weeks of overeating PUFA or SFA

PUFA (n = 18)
SFA (n = 19)
Mean difference in change (95% CI)P value
BaselineMean changeBaselineMean change
CE       
 14:0 0.61 ± 0.18 −0.04 ± 0.16 0.62 ± 0.13 −0.07 ± 0.09 0.03 (−0.06 to 0.12) 0.5 
 15:0 0.28 ± 0.06 −0.03 ± 0.04 0.31 ± 0.07 −0.06 ± 0.05 0.03 (−0.004 to 0.06) 0.09 
 16:0 10.6 ± 0.55 −0.92 ± 0.58 10.6 ± 0.57 0.3 ± 0.59 −1.2 (−1.61 to −0.83) 0.0001 
 16:1 1.9 ± 0.45 −0.52 ± 0.36 2.0 ± 0.62 0.03 ± 0.46 −0.55 (−0.83 to −0.27) 0.0003 
 18:0 0.84 ± 0.17 −0.11 ± 0.12 0.74 ± 0.13 −0.06 ± 0.12 −0.05 (−0.13 to 0.03) 0.19 
 18:1 21.8 ± 1.96 −3.9 ± 1.12 21.6 ± 1.83 −0.02 ± 1.23 −3.9 (−4.7 to −3.13) 0.0001 
 18:2 n-6 52.5 (51.63–55.08) 6.4 ± 2.12 53.3 (51.32–55.66) 0.59 ± 2.29 5.8 (4.34–7.29) 0.0001 
 18:3 n-6 0.73 ± 0.28 0.06 ± 0.25 0.71 ± 0.26 0.07 ± 0.28 −0.009 (−0.19 to 0.17) 0.92 
 18:3 n-3 0.84 ± 0.19 −0.2 ± 0.14 0.97 ± 0.2 −0.12 ± 0.17 −0.07 (−0.17 to 0.03) 0.17 
 20:3 n-6 0.59 ± 0.11 0.03 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.17 0.02 ± 0.12 0.007 (−0.06 to 0.07) 0.84 
 20:4 n-6 6.3 ± 1.06 −0.02 ± 0.75 6.01 ± 1.38 −0.67 ± 0.6 0.64 (0.19–1.1) 0.007 
 20:5 n-3 1.3 ± 0.54 −0.56 ± 0.56 1.1 ± 0.44 0.03 ± 0.6 −0.6 (−0.98 to −0.21) 0.004 
 22:6 n-3 0.74 ± 0.21 −0.16 ± 0.13 0.74 ± 0.19 −0.05 ± 0.2 −0.11 (−0.22 to 0.008) 0.07 
 SCD-1 0.18 ± 0.04 −0.04 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.06 −0.002 ± 0.04 −0.03 (−0.06 to −0.009) 0.008 
SAT       
 14:0 4.0 ± 0.70 −0.3 ± 0.37 4.0 ± 0.78 −0.16 ± 0.23 −0.14 (−0.35 to 0.07) 0.18 
 15:0 0.35 ± 0.08 −0.02 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.07 −0.02 ± 0.02 −0.006 (−0.02 to 0.008) 0.42 
 16:0 21.7 ± 1.55 −1.1 ± 0.66 21.7 ± 1.66 1.2 ± 1.18 −2.3 (−2.9 to −1.6) 0.0001 
 16:1 4.3 ± 1.05 −0.02 ± 0.41 4.4 ± 0.58 0.46 ± 0.52 −0.49 (−0.81 to −0.17) 0.004 
 17:0 0.32 ± 0.08 −0.03 ± 0.05 0.31 ± 0.05 −0.03 ± 0.02 0 (0.03 to −0.03) 1.0 
 18:0 5.0 ± 0.96 −0.35 ± 0.49 4.9 ± 0.81 −0.44 ± 0.5 0.1 (−0.24 to 0.43) 0.56 
 18:1 50.2 ± 2.41 −0.63 ± 0.83 50.4 ± 2.14 −0.88 ± 1.0 0.26 (−0.34 to 0.88) 0.41 
 18:2 n-6 11.6 (11.15–13.14) 2.4 ± 1.05 11.2 (10.15–12.78) −0.11 ± 0.28 2.5 (1.97–3.04) 0.0001 
 18:3 n-6 0.1 (0.09–0.11) 0.009 ± 0.05 0.1 (0.09–0.16) 0.004 ± 0.03 0.006 (−0.02 to 0.03) 0.69 
 18:3 n-3 1.1 ± 0.18 0.02 ± 0.08 1.2 ± 0.21 0.008 ± 0.09 0.009 (−0.05 to 0.06) 0.75 
 20:3 n-6 0.13 ± 0.02 0.002 ± 0.009 0.13 ± 0.04 −0.005 ± 0.009 0.007 (0.001–0.01) 0.018 
 20:4 n-6 0.26 ± 0.06 0.01 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.07 0.009 ± 0.03 0.0006 (−0.02 to 0.02) 0.95 
 20:5 n-3 0.14 ± 0.04 −0.007 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.03 0.0006 ± 0.02 −0.007 (−0.02 to 0.006) 0.27 
 22:5 n-3 0.17 ± 0.04 −0.008 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.04 −0.01 ± 0.02 0.004 (−0.006 to 0.02) 0.41 
 22:6 n-3 0.15 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.07 −0.004 ± 0.03 −0.007 (−0.03 to 0.01) 0.41 
 SCD-1 0.2 ± 0.05 0.009 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.03 0.009 ± 0.03 0.0005 (−0.02 to 0.02) 0.96 
PUFA (n = 18)
SFA (n = 19)
Mean difference in change (95% CI)P value
BaselineMean changeBaselineMean change
CE       
 14:0 0.61 ± 0.18 −0.04 ± 0.16 0.62 ± 0.13 −0.07 ± 0.09 0.03 (−0.06 to 0.12) 0.5 
 15:0 0.28 ± 0.06 −0.03 ± 0.04 0.31 ± 0.07 −0.06 ± 0.05 0.03 (−0.004 to 0.06) 0.09 
 16:0 10.6 ± 0.55 −0.92 ± 0.58 10.6 ± 0.57 0.3 ± 0.59 −1.2 (−1.61 to −0.83) 0.0001 
 16:1 1.9 ± 0.45 −0.52 ± 0.36 2.0 ± 0.62 0.03 ± 0.46 −0.55 (−0.83 to −0.27) 0.0003 
 18:0 0.84 ± 0.17 −0.11 ± 0.12 0.74 ± 0.13 −0.06 ± 0.12 −0.05 (−0.13 to 0.03) 0.19 
 18:1 21.8 ± 1.96 −3.9 ± 1.12 21.6 ± 1.83 −0.02 ± 1.23 −3.9 (−4.7 to −3.13) 0.0001 
 18:2 n-6 52.5 (51.63–55.08) 6.4 ± 2.12 53.3 (51.32–55.66) 0.59 ± 2.29 5.8 (4.34–7.29) 0.0001 
 18:3 n-6 0.73 ± 0.28 0.06 ± 0.25 0.71 ± 0.26 0.07 ± 0.28 −0.009 (−0.19 to 0.17) 0.92 
 18:3 n-3 0.84 ± 0.19 −0.2 ± 0.14 0.97 ± 0.2 −0.12 ± 0.17 −0.07 (−0.17 to 0.03) 0.17 
 20:3 n-6 0.59 ± 0.11 0.03 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.17 0.02 ± 0.12 0.007 (−0.06 to 0.07) 0.84 
 20:4 n-6 6.3 ± 1.06 −0.02 ± 0.75 6.01 ± 1.38 −0.67 ± 0.6 0.64 (0.19–1.1) 0.007 
 20:5 n-3 1.3 ± 0.54 −0.56 ± 0.56 1.1 ± 0.44 0.03 ± 0.6 −0.6 (−0.98 to −0.21) 0.004 
 22:6 n-3 0.74 ± 0.21 −0.16 ± 0.13 0.74 ± 0.19 −0.05 ± 0.2 −0.11 (−0.22 to 0.008) 0.07 
 SCD-1 0.18 ± 0.04 −0.04 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.06 −0.002 ± 0.04 −0.03 (−0.06 to −0.009) 0.008 
SAT       
 14:0 4.0 ± 0.70 −0.3 ± 0.37 4.0 ± 0.78 −0.16 ± 0.23 −0.14 (−0.35 to 0.07) 0.18 
 15:0 0.35 ± 0.08 −0.02 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.07 −0.02 ± 0.02 −0.006 (−0.02 to 0.008) 0.42 
 16:0 21.7 ± 1.55 −1.1 ± 0.66 21.7 ± 1.66 1.2 ± 1.18 −2.3 (−2.9 to −1.6) 0.0001 
 16:1 4.3 ± 1.05 −0.02 ± 0.41 4.4 ± 0.58 0.46 ± 0.52 −0.49 (−0.81 to −0.17) 0.004 
 17:0 0.32 ± 0.08 −0.03 ± 0.05 0.31 ± 0.05 −0.03 ± 0.02 0 (0.03 to −0.03) 1.0 
 18:0 5.0 ± 0.96 −0.35 ± 0.49 4.9 ± 0.81 −0.44 ± 0.5 0.1 (−0.24 to 0.43) 0.56 
 18:1 50.2 ± 2.41 −0.63 ± 0.83 50.4 ± 2.14 −0.88 ± 1.0 0.26 (−0.34 to 0.88) 0.41 
 18:2 n-6 11.6 (11.15–13.14) 2.4 ± 1.05 11.2 (10.15–12.78) −0.11 ± 0.28 2.5 (1.97–3.04) 0.0001 
 18:3 n-6 0.1 (0.09–0.11) 0.009 ± 0.05 0.1 (0.09–0.16) 0.004 ± 0.03 0.006 (−0.02 to 0.03) 0.69 
 18:3 n-3 1.1 ± 0.18 0.02 ± 0.08 1.2 ± 0.21 0.008 ± 0.09 0.009 (−0.05 to 0.06) 0.75 
 20:3 n-6 0.13 ± 0.02 0.002 ± 0.009 0.13 ± 0.04 −0.005 ± 0.009 0.007 (0.001–0.01) 0.018 
 20:4 n-6 0.26 ± 0.06 0.01 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.07 0.009 ± 0.03 0.0006 (−0.02 to 0.02) 0.95 
 20:5 n-3 0.14 ± 0.04 −0.007 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.03 0.0006 ± 0.02 −0.007 (−0.02 to 0.006) 0.27 
 22:5 n-3 0.17 ± 0.04 −0.008 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.04 −0.01 ± 0.02 0.004 (−0.006 to 0.02) 0.41 
 22:6 n-3 0.15 ± 0.07 −0.01 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.07 −0.004 ± 0.03 −0.007 (−0.03 to 0.01) 0.41 
 SCD-1 0.2 ± 0.05 0.009 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.03 0.009 ± 0.03 0.0005 (−0.02 to 0.02) 0.96 

Data are means ± SD or median (IQR) and 95% CI. For nonnormal variables, P values are obtained from nonparametric analyses. Fatty acids are reported as a percentage of all fatty acids assessed by gas chromatography. CE, cholesterol ester.

Figure 3

Correlations between changes in outcome measures and changes in plasma cholesterol esters. White circles, PUFA group; black squares, SFA group. A, D, F, and H: 18:2 n-6 is linoleic acid (in percentage of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). B: SCD-1 index is calculated as palmitoleic/palmitic acid (in percentages of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). C: The dependent variable (change in VAT) was log transformed before analysis of Pearson r. C, E, G, and I: 16:0 is palmitic acid (in percentage of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). AI: ρ, Spearman correlation coefficient; r, Pearson correlation coefficient.

Figure 3

Correlations between changes in outcome measures and changes in plasma cholesterol esters. White circles, PUFA group; black squares, SFA group. A, D, F, and H: 18:2 n-6 is linoleic acid (in percentage of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). B: SCD-1 index is calculated as palmitoleic/palmitic acid (in percentages of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). C: The dependent variable (change in VAT) was log transformed before analysis of Pearson r. C, E, G, and I: 16:0 is palmitic acid (in percentage of all fatty acids by gas chromatography). AI: ρ, Spearman correlation coefficient; r, Pearson correlation coefficient.

Close modal

Transcriptomics

Comparison of adipose tissue gene expression between groups at baseline revealed no significant differences in gene expression (false discovery rate [FDR] 50%). Absolute differences in gene expression were calculated for each gene in each subject, comparing after with before intervention. These absolute differences in gene expression were compared between intervention groups with SAM. Twelve genes were significantly differently expressed with FDR 25% and 8 with FDR 0% (Table 5). These absolute differences in gene expression were next adjusted for weight gain and compared between PUFAs and SFAs. Altogether, 20 genes were differentially regulated between groups PUFA and SFA according to SAM (FDR 25%), including the 12 genes previously discovered (Table 5). Five genes that were most differently expressed between groups were selected for PCR confirmation; three genes were confirmed (carbonic anhydrase 3 [CA3]; connective tissue growth factor [CTGF]; and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family member A1 [ALDH1A1]), and one gene showed a trend of expression in the same direction (phosphodiesterase 8B [PDE8B]; one-sided P = 0.21). 6-Phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase 1 could not be confirmed.

Table 5

Comparison of absolute gene expression difference before and after 7 weeks of overeating PUFA and SFA

Gene nameSymbolPUFA changeSFA changeFootnote
Carbonic anhydrase III, muscle specific CA3 1.55 1.02 a,b,c 
α-Kinase 3 ALPK3 1.20 0.86 a,b,c 
Insulin-like growth factor 1 IGF1 1.22 0.99 a,b,c 
Phosphodiesterase 8B PDE8B 1.39 1.02 a,b,c 
Storkhead box 1 STOX1 1.22 0.89 a,b,c 
MOCO sulphurase COOH-terminal domain containing 1 MOSC1 1.17 1.00 a,b,c 
Heat-shock 70-kDa protein 12A HSPA12A 1.52 1.17 a,b,c 
Glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase domain containing 5 GDPD5 1.37 0.94 a,b,c 
Odz, odd Oz/ten-m homolog 4 ODZ4 1.80 1.16 a,c 
Pleckstrin homology domain containing, family H member 2 PLEKHH2 0.82 1.04 a,c 
Chloride intracellular channel 1 CLIC1 0.87 1.03 a,c 
Connective tissue growth factor CTGF 0.81 1.15 a,c 
Transmembrane protein 120B TMEM120B 1.46 1.12 c 
KIAA0427 KIAA0427 1.34 1.09 c 
Quinoid dihydropteridine reductase QDPR 1.25 1.05 c 
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 9 family, member A1 ALDH9A1 1.32 1.08 c 
Transmembrane protein 120A TMEM120A 1.10 0.94 c 
FAT tumor suppressor homolog 1 FAT1 1.27 1.08 c 
6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-biphosphatase 1 PFKFB1 1.21 1.00 c 
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family, member A1 ALDH1A1 0.80 1.09 c 
Gene nameSymbolPUFA changeSFA changeFootnote
Carbonic anhydrase III, muscle specific CA3 1.55 1.02 a,b,c 
α-Kinase 3 ALPK3 1.20 0.86 a,b,c 
Insulin-like growth factor 1 IGF1 1.22 0.99 a,b,c 
Phosphodiesterase 8B PDE8B 1.39 1.02 a,b,c 
Storkhead box 1 STOX1 1.22 0.89 a,b,c 
MOCO sulphurase COOH-terminal domain containing 1 MOSC1 1.17 1.00 a,b,c 
Heat-shock 70-kDa protein 12A HSPA12A 1.52 1.17 a,b,c 
Glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase domain containing 5 GDPD5 1.37 0.94 a,b,c 
Odz, odd Oz/ten-m homolog 4 ODZ4 1.80 1.16 a,c 
Pleckstrin homology domain containing, family H member 2 PLEKHH2 0.82 1.04 a,c 
Chloride intracellular channel 1 CLIC1 0.87 1.03 a,c 
Connective tissue growth factor CTGF 0.81 1.15 a,c 
Transmembrane protein 120B TMEM120B 1.46 1.12 c 
KIAA0427 KIAA0427 1.34 1.09 c 
Quinoid dihydropteridine reductase QDPR 1.25 1.05 c 
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 9 family, member A1 ALDH9A1 1.32 1.08 c 
Transmembrane protein 120A TMEM120A 1.10 0.94 c 
FAT tumor suppressor homolog 1 FAT1 1.27 1.08 c 
6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-biphosphatase 1 PFKFB1 1.21 1.00 c 
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family, member A1 ALDH1A1 0.80 1.09 c 

Absolute expression difference after vs. before intervention groups is significant with aFDR 25% or bFDR 0%. cAbsolute expression differences after vs. before intervention was adjusted for differences in weight gain between individuals, followed by comparison between intervention groups at significance FDR 25%. For genes significant in this group only, weight change–adjusted differences in expression levels after vs. before intervention are shown.

Changes in mRNA expression among several of the genes selected for PCR confirmation were associated with changes in target fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT). CA3 was inversely associated with SCD-1 index (r = −0.46; P = 0.004) and directly associated with linoleic acid (r = 0.45; P = 0.006). PDE8B was directly associated with linoleic acid (r = 0.51; P = 0.002) and inversely with palmitic acid (r = −0.35; P = 0.035). CTGF was inversely but not significantly associated with linoleic acid (ρ = −0.32; P = 0.06) and directly with palmitic acid (r = 0.34; P = 0.04). ALDH1A1 was inversely associated with linoleic acid (r = −0.39; P = 0.02) and directly with SCD-1 index (r = 0.37; P = 0.03).

Glucose, Insulin, and Adiponectin

Fasting plasma glucose was 4.6 (4.4–5.0) mmol/L and 4.5 (4.3–4.9) mmol/L in PUFA and SFA groups at baseline, respectively (P = 0.69), and was virtually unchanged during the intervention: 0.06 ± 0.3 mmol/L and −0.06 ± 0.4 mmol/L in PUFA and SFA groups, respectively (P = 0.53 for difference between groups). Fasting serum insulin was 5.8 ± 2.7 and 5.0 ± 2.0 mU/L in the PUFA and SFA groups at baseline, respectively (P = 0.33), and increased to a similar extent in both groups: 0.92 ± 2.2 and 0.94 ± 1.3 in PUFA and SFA groups, respectively (P = 0.97). Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance was 1.23 ± 0.63 and 1.04 ± 0.43 in PUFA and SFA groups at baseline, respectively (P = 0.28), and increased to a similar extent in both groups during the intervention: 0.22 ± 0.49 and 0.18 ± 0.30 in the PUFA and SFA groups, respectively (P = 0.79). Adiponectin was 8.5 (6.1–9.6) and 6.4 (5.4–9.4) in the PUFA and SFA groups at baseline, respectively (P = 0.24), and increased by 0.92 ± 1.46 and 0.42 ± 0.94, respectively (P = 0.34).

Despite comparable weight gain after 49 days, this double-blind trial showed that overeating energy from PUFAs prevented deposition of liver fat and visceral and total fat compared with SFAs. Excess energy from SFAs caused an increase of liver fat compared with PUFAs. Further, the inhibitory effect of PUFAs on ectopic fat was accompanied by an augmented increase in lean tissue and less total body fat deposition compared with SFAs. Thus, the type of fat in the diet seems to be a novel and important determinant of liver fat accumulation, fat distribution, and body composition during moderate weight gain. We also observed fatty acid–dependent differences in adipose tissue gene expression. The significant decrease in pancreatic fat in both groups during weight gain was an unexpected finding that needs confirmation due to the low amounts of pancreatic fat in this lean population.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that patients with higher SFA and lower PUFA intake have increased liver fat content (13,15,25), which is also in accordance with lower PUFA levels in fatty livers (14,26). A previous isocaloric trial in abdominally obese subjects indicated that the present associations may be causal, since replacing SFAs from butter with PUFAs from sunflower oil reduced liver fat (20,22). Thus, together these trials indicate that SFAs (high in 16:0) per se might promote hepatic steatosis, both during isocaloric and hypercaloric conditions. These results also support the current nutritional recommendations in general (i.e., to partly replace SFAs with PUFAs). PUFAs (i.e., linoleic acid) are found in plant-based foods such as nuts, seeds, and nontropical vegetable oils (27). Increased intake of these foods has in general been associated with cardiometabolic benefits including lowering blood lipids and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes (2729). There are, however, no clear reasons to believe that sunflower oil would be more effective in preventing liver fat accumulation than other PUFA-rich oils and fats.

The mechanisms behind the differential effects on liver fat deposition are unknown, but may involve differences in hepatic lipogenesis and/or fatty acid oxidation and storage (30). In NAFLD patients, increased de novo lipogenesis is a major contributor to liver fat accumulation and steatosis (31,32). In the current study, a fructose–SFA interaction on liver fat is possible since the muffins contained significant amounts of fructose (33). Early animal data showed that carbohydrate-induced lipogenesis was inhibited by adding linoleic acid, whereas palmitate had no effect (34), and SFAs have enhanced steatosis and increased hepatic lipogenesis compared with PUFAs (20,21). Hepatic activity of the lipogenic enzyme SCD-1 may be elevated in steatosis (26). Also, SCD-1–deficient mice were protected against hepatic lipogenesis, whereas SCD-1 inhibitors markedly reduced hepatic triglyceride accumulation (35). In humans, a strong association between the change in liver fat and the change in hepatic SCD-1 index was reported in weight-stable subjects (22), a finding currently confirmed during hypercaloric conditions.

PUFAs are more readily oxidized than SFAs (3638), thereby potentially lowering hepatic exposure to nonesterified fatty acids, a major substrate in triglyceride synthesis. Concentrations of D-3-hydroxybutyrate were, however, if anything, lower with PUFAs than SFAs, thus not supporting a differential effect on hepatic fat oxidation. Animal studies have also indicated that SFAs, compared with PUFAs, lower brown tissue adipose activity and thermogenesis (1619,3945).

The increase in lean tissue was nearly threefold higher during PUFA overeating compared with SFA. Although lean tissue was a secondary outcome, this finding is intriguing since obese persons with reduced lean tissue (sarcopenic obesity) are more insulin-resistant and at higher risk for physical disability (46,47). A previous supplementation trial in postmenopausal women reported that a daily dose of 8 g PUFA (safflower oil) increased lean tissue and reduced trunk fat (48). In accordance, rats isocalorically fed with PUFAs (high in linoleic acid) gained more lean tissue and less fat compared with an SFA-rich diet, in line with similar studies (16,17,49,50). The mechanism behind these observations remains to be determined. The differential increase in lean tissue was consistent when assessed by two different methods (MRI and Bod Pod). This difference was unlikely an artifact due to changes in total-body water content since the results were similar in the three-compartment model. Although supported by animal studies, this finding needs to be replicated in additional human studies.

In the current study, n-6 PUFAs were investigated, but it is possible that n-3 PUFAs have similar effects on body fat accumulation (5052). The amount of sunflower oil used in the current study (∼40 g per day) corresponds to about three times the customary intake of linoleic acid in the Swedish population. Given that palm oil was used as the SFA source, the wide use of this oil by the food industry may be of concern. In fact, palm oil is one of the most used oils worldwide, suggesting a potential global impact if it promotes adiposity. The health effects of palm oil, however, remain uncertain and should be further investigated. The effects on ectopic fat deposition observed in this study, however, do not seem to be palm oil–specific, but rather SFA- or palmitate-specific since we previously showed similar results during isocaloric conditions using butter as the source of SFAs (22).

Given the different influence on fat deposition, we expected diet-specific influences on adipose gene expression. Overall, differences in SAT gene expression between diets were modest, which may relate to similar weight gain and little differences in SAT. Although speculative, downregulation of ALDH1A1 by PUFAs might be relevant, as this gene inhibits energy dissipation and promotes fat storage (53). Interestingly, ALDH1A1-deficient mice are protected from diet-induced liver fat accumulation and insulin resistance (53). The observed associations between changes in SAT fatty acids and mRNA expression support a direct influence of the fatty acids consumed on adipose tissue gene expression. For example, ALDH1A1 was inversely associated with changes in linoleic acid, but directly associated with the SCD-1 index. As gene expression was measured only in SAT, the gene expression results cannot be directly extrapolated to other depots, such as visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and liver fat. Firm conclusions about the mechanisms of PUFA-induced changes in liver metabolism can therefore not be drawn from the current study. These findings thus need confirmation in VAT and liver, which may not be feasible in humans. However, a recent animal study (54) investigated the effect of overfeeding rats with different types of fat varying in linoleic acid content. Rats fed a diet higher in PUFAs (linoleic acid) showed lower liver fat accumulation together with lower hepatic gene expression of several fatty acid transporters (FATP-2, FATP-5, and CD36) and lipogenic enzymes (fatty acid synthase, acetyl-CoA carboxylase, and SCD-1) compared with rats fed a diet lower in linoleic acid. Hepatic gene expression of carbohydrate-responsive element–binding protein and sterol regulatory element–binding protein-1c were also lower in rats fed a diet higher in linoleic acid. Accordingly, we observed that the estimated SCD-1 activity in plasma cholesterol esters (reflecting hepatic metabolism) was markedly decreased in the PUFA group (Table 4), implying that the mechanisms may be at least partly similar (i.e., decreased hepatic lipogenesis).

Some strengths of this study should be mentioned. This study was double-blinded, which rarely is feasible in dietary interventions that include foods rather than supplements or capsules. Our body composition data are strengthened by consistent findings using two independent methods (MRI and Bod Pod). All subjects completed the trial. Both groups in the current study consumed vegetable oils without any cholesterol, thus excluding any confounding effect of dietary cholesterol (55) that is abundant in SFAs from animal sources. Assessment of fatty acid composition in plasma lipids and adipose tissue suggested high adherence to the interventions in both groups. Accelerometer monitoring suggested no bias due to differences in physical activity between groups. As we compared two common dietary fatty acids (the major PUFA, linoleic acid, and the major SFA, palmitic acid) in the Western diet, the results of this study could be relevant to many populations.

This study also has several potential limitations. Notably, our results may not apply to obese or insulin-resistant individuals who might show a different response to the diets, both with regard to ectopic fat accumulation and glucose metabolism. Also, the current healthy, young, and overall lean individuals had very low liver and visceral fat content at baseline. Thus, the lack of differences in fasting insulin concentrations were not surprising (i.e., the absolute increase of liver fat during SFA treatment was most likely too small to produce significant metabolic differences between the diets in this healthy study group). It should, however, be noted that the study was not designed or powered to examine differences in insulin sensitivity, and we did not measure hepatic or whole-body insulin sensitivity directly, which lowered the ability to detect any possible differences between groups. The data thus need confirmation in older individuals with NAFLD or type 2 diabetes and in other ethnic groups. The short duration of the study may not resemble long-term effects. However, results on liver fat are strongly supported by similar effects reported in weight-stable obese subjects, in which also modest effects on insulin levels and triglycerides were observed (22). The MRI methods used relied on fixed-spectrum models and thus did not allow full characterization of all lipid resonances of the liver spectra to detect changes in liver lipid saturation. However, results from plethysmography were consistent with MRI results regarding body fat deposition. Finally, it should be noted that sunflower oil contains more vitamin E than palm oil, and vitamin E supplementation has decreased steatosis (56). However, the present vitamin E levels were most likely too low to have an effect, and there was no correlation between change in liver fat and change in vitamin E intake (data not shown). Furthermore, the effects of PUFAs were not exclusive to liver fat.

In conclusion, overeating different types of fat seems to have different anabolic effects in the body. The fate of SFAs appears to be ectopic and general fat accumulation, whereas PUFAs instead promote lean tissue in healthy subjects. Given a detrimental role of liver fat and visceral fat in diabetes, the potential of early prevention of ectopic fat and hepatic steatosis by replacing some SFAs with PUFAs in the diet should be further investigated.

Clinical trial reg. no. NCT01427140, clinicaltrials.gov.

See accompanying article, p. 2222.

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Siv Tengblad (Uppsala University) for assessing fatty acids and assistance with baking muffins; Martin Johansson (AarhusKarlshamn Sweden) for kindly donating the study oils; Gunilla Arvidsson, Anders Lundberg, and Johan Berglund (Department of Radiology, Uppsala University) for MRI data collection and analysis; and Peter Koken (Philips Research Europe) for technical development regarding the MRI method.

Funding. This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (project K2012-55X-22081-01-3). The Swedish Society of Medicine also provided support. This work was performed within Excellence of Diabetes Research in Sweden.

The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Duality of Interest. P.A. and I.D. have received grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. F.R. and D.I. wrote the manuscript, collected data, reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion, and performed data analysis. J.K. collected data, reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion, and performed data analysis. J.C. and H.-E.J. collected data and reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion. A.L. and I.D. reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion and performed data analysis. L.J., H.A., and P.A. reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion. U.R. wrote the manuscript, reviewed and edited the manuscript and/or contributed to the discussion, and performed data analysis. U.R. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

1.
Després
JP
.
Body fat distribution and risk of cardiovascular disease: an update
.
Circulation
2012
;
126
:
1301
1313
[PubMed]
2.
Coutinho
T
,
Goel
K
,
Corrêa de Sá
D
, et al
.
Central obesity and survival in subjects with coronary artery disease: a systematic review of the literature and collaborative analysis with individual subject data
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2011
;
57
:
1877
1886
[PubMed]
3.
Tushuizen
ME
,
Bunck
MC
,
Pouwels
PJ
, et al
.
Pancreatic fat content and beta-cell function in men with and without type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2007
;
30
:
2916
2921
[PubMed]
4.
Kotronen
A
,
Yki-Järvinen
H
,
Sevastianova
K
, et al
.
Comparison of the relative contributions of intra-abdominal and liver fat to components of the metabolic syndrome
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2011
;
19
:
23
28
[PubMed]
5.
Fabbrini
E
,
Magkos
F
,
Mohammed
BS
, et al
.
Intrahepatic fat, not visceral fat, is linked with metabolic complications of obesity
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2009
;
106
:
15430
15435
[PubMed]
6.
Kotronen
A
,
Juurinen
L
,
Hakkarainen
A
, et al
.
Liver fat is increased in type 2 diabetic patients and underestimated by serum alanine aminotransferase compared with equally obese nondiabetic subjects
.
Diabetes Care
2008
;
31
:
165
169
[PubMed]
7.
Kim
LJ
,
Nalls
MA
,
Eiriksdottir
G
, et al
AGES-Reykjavik Study Investigators
.
Associations of visceral and liver fat with the metabolic syndrome across the spectrum of obesity: the AGES-Reykjavik study
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2011
;
19
:
1265
1271
[PubMed]
8.
Targher
G
,
Day
CP
,
Bonora
E
.
Risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
363
:
1341
1350
[PubMed]
9.
Bellentani
S
,
Saccoccio
G
,
Masutti
F
, et al
.
Prevalence of and risk factors for hepatic steatosis in Northern Italy
.
Ann Intern Med
2000
;
132
:
112
117
[PubMed]
10.
Westerbacka
J
,
Lammi
K
,
Häkkinen
AM
, et al
.
Dietary fat content modifies liver fat in overweight nondiabetic subjects
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2005
;
90
:
2804
2809
[PubMed]
11.
van Herpen
NA
,
Schrauwen-Hinderling
VB
,
Schaart
G
,
Mensink
RP
,
Schrauwen
P
.
Three weeks on a high-fat diet increases intrahepatic lipid accumulation and decreases metabolic flexibility in healthy overweight men
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2011
;
96
:
E691
E695
12.
de Meijer
VE
,
Le
HD
,
Meisel
JA
, et al
.
Dietary fat intake promotes the development of hepatic steatosis independently from excess caloric consumption in a murine model
.
Metabolism
2010
;
59
:
1092
1105
[PubMed]
13.
Petersson
H
,
Arnlöv
J
,
Zethelius
B
,
Risérus
U
.
Serum fatty acid composition and insulin resistance are independently associated with liver fat markers in elderly men
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2010
;
87
:
379
384
[PubMed]
14.
Allard
JP
,
Aghdassi
E
,
Mohammed
S
, et al
.
Nutritional assessment and hepatic fatty acid composition in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a cross-sectional study
.
J Hepatol
2008
;
48
:
300
307
[PubMed]
15.
Tiikkainen
M
,
Bergholm
R
,
Vehkavaara
S
, et al
.
Effects of identical weight loss on body composition and features of insulin resistance in obese women with high and low liver fat content
.
Diabetes
2003
;
52
:
701
707
[PubMed]
16.
Dulloo
AG
,
Mensi
N
,
Seydoux
J
,
Girardier
L
.
Differential effects of high-fat diets varying in fatty acid composition on the efficiency of lean and fat tissue deposition during weight recovery after low food intake
.
Metabolism
1995
;
44
:
273
279
[PubMed]
17.
Crescenzo
R
,
Bianco
F
,
Falcone
I
, et al
.
Hepatic mitochondrial energetics during catch-up fat with high-fat diets rich in lard or safflower oil
.
Obesity (Silver Spring)
2012
;
20
:
1763
1772
[PubMed]
18.
Mercer
SW
,
Trayhurn
P
.
Effect of high fat diets on energy balance and thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue of lean and genetically obese ob/ob mice
.
J Nutr
1987
;
117
:
2147
2153
[PubMed]
19.
Matsuo
T
,
Takeuchi
H
,
Suzuki
H
,
Suzuki
M
.
Body fat accumulation is greater in rats fed a beef tallow diet than in rats fed a safflower or soybean oil diet
.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr
2002
;
11
:
302
308
[PubMed]
20.
de Wit
N
,
Derrien
M
,
Bosch-Vermeulen
H
, et al
.
Saturated fat stimulates obesity and hepatic steatosis and affects gut microbiota composition by an enhanced overflow of dietary fat to the distal intestine
.
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol
2012
;
303
:
G589
G599
[PubMed]
21.
Shillabeer
G
,
Hornford
J
,
Forden
JM
,
Wong
NC
,
Lau
DC
.
Hepatic and adipose tissue lipogenic enzyme mRNA levels are suppressed by high fat diets in the rat
.
J Lipid Res
1990
;
31
:
623
631
[PubMed]
22.
Bjermo
H
,
Iggman
D
,
Kullberg
J
, et al
.
Effects of n-6 PUFAs compared with SFAs on liver fat, lipoproteins, and inflammation in abdominal obesity: a randomized controlled trial
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012
;
95
:
1003
1012
[PubMed]
23.
Boberg
M
,
Croon
LB
,
Gustafsson
IB
,
Vessby
B
.
Platelet fatty acid composition in relation to fatty acid composition in plasma and to serum lipoprotein lipids in healthy subjects with special reference to the linoleic acid pathway
.
Clin Sci (Lond)
1985
;
68
:
581
587
[PubMed]
24.
Matthews
DR
,
Hosker
JP
,
Rudenski
AS
,
Naylor
BA
,
Treacher
DF
,
Turner
RC
.
Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man
.
Diabetologia
1985
;
28
:
412
419
[PubMed]
25.
Petit
JM
,
Guiu
B
,
Duvillard
L
, et al
.
Increased erythrocytes n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids is significantly associated with a lower prevalence of steatosis in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Clin Nutr
2012
;
31
:
520
525
[PubMed]
26.
Kotronen
A
,
Seppänen-Laakso
T
,
Westerbacka
J
, et al
.
Hepatic stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD)-1 activity and diacylglycerol but not ceramide concentrations are increased in the nonalcoholic human fatty liver
.
Diabetes
2009
;
58
:
203
208
[PubMed]
27.
Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, Hubbard VS, de Jesus JM, Lee IM, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC Guideline on Lifestyle Management to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 14 November 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
28.
Risérus
U
,
Willett
WC
,
Hu
FB
.
Dietary fats and prevention of type 2 diabetes
.
Prog Lipid Res
2009
;
48
:
44
51
[PubMed]
29.
Mozaffarian
D
,
Appel
LJ
,
Van Horn
L
.
Components of a cardioprotective diet: new insights
.
Circulation
2011
;
123
:
2870
2891
[PubMed]
30.
Jump
DB
,
Tripathy
S
,
Depner
CM
.
Fatty acid-regulated transcription factors in the liver
.
Annu Rev Nutr
2013
;
33
:
249
269
31.
Sevastianova
K
,
Santos
A
,
Kotronen
A
, et al
.
Effect of short-term carbohydrate overfeeding and long-term weight loss on liver fat in overweight humans
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012
;
96
:
727
734
[PubMed]
32.
Diraison
F
,
Moulin
P
,
Beylot
M
.
Contribution of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and reesterification of plasma non esterified fatty acids to plasma triglyceride synthesis during non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
.
Diabetes Metab
2003
;
29
:
478
485
[PubMed]
33.
Sobrecases
H
,
KA
,
Bortolotti
M
, et al
.
Effects of short-term overfeeding with fructose, fat and fructose plus fat on plasma and hepatic lipids in healthy men
.
Diabetes Metab
2010
;
36
:
244
246
[PubMed]
34.
Allmann
DW
,
Gibson
DM
.
Fatty acid synthesis during early linoleic acid deficiency in the mouse
.
J Lipid Res
1965
;
6
:
51
62
[PubMed]
35.
Kurikawa
N
,
Takagi
T
,
Wakimoto
S
, et al
.
A novel inhibitor of stearoyl-CoA desaturase-1 attenuates hepatic lipid accumulation, liver injury and inflammation in model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
.
Biol Pharm Bull
2013
;
36
:
259
267
[PubMed]
36.
Piers
LS
,
Walker
KZ
,
Stoney
RM
,
Soares
MJ
,
O’Dea
K
.
The influence of the type of dietary fat on postprandial fat oxidation rates: monounsaturated (olive oil) vs saturated fat (cream)
.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
2002
;
26
:
814
821
[PubMed]
37.
Jans
A
,
Konings
E
,
Goossens
GH
, et al
.
PUFAs acutely affect triacylglycerol-derived skeletal muscle fatty acid uptake and increase postprandial insulin sensitivity
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012
;
95
:
825
836
[PubMed]
38.
DeLany
JP
,
Windhauser
MM
,
Champagne
CM
,
Bray
GA
.
Differential oxidation of individual dietary fatty acids in humans
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2000
;
72
:
905
911
[PubMed]
39.
Matsuo
T
,
Komuro
M
,
Suzuki
M
.
Beef tallow diet decreases uncoupling protein content in the brown adipose tissue of rats
.
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo)
1996
;
42
:
595
601
[PubMed]
40.
Sadurskis
A
,
Dicker
A
,
Cannon
B
,
Nedergaard
J.
Polyunsaturated fatty acids recruit brown adipose tissue: increased UCP content and NST capacity
.
Am J Physiol
1995
;
269
(
Suppl. 2
):
E351
E360
41.
Nedergaard
J
,
Becker
W
,
Cannon
B
.
Effects of dietary essential fatty acids on active thermogenin content in rat brown adipose tissue
.
J Nutr
1983
;
113
:
1717
1724
[PubMed]
42.
Becker
W
.
Distribution of 14C after oral administration of [1-14C]linoleic acid in rats fed different levels of essential fatty acids
.
J Nutr
1984
;
114
:
1690
1696
[PubMed]
43.
Shimomura
Y
,
Tamura
T
,
Suzuki
M
.
Less body fat accumulation in rats fed a safflower oil diet than in rats fed a beef tallow diet
.
J Nutr
1990
;
120
:
1291
1296
[PubMed]
44.
Takeuchi
H
,
Matsuo
T
,
Tokuyama
K
,
Suzuki
M
.
Serum triiodothyronine concentration and Na+,K(+)-ATPase activity in liver and skeletal muscle are influenced by dietary fat type in rats
.
J Nutr
1995
;
125
:
2364
2369
[PubMed]
45.
Takeuchi
H
,
Matsuo
T
,
Tokuyama
K
,
Shimomura
Y
,
Suzuki
M
.
Diet-induced thermogenesis is lower in rats fed a lard diet than in those fed a high oleic acid safflower oil diet, a safflower oil diet or a linseed oil diet
.
J Nutr
1995
;
125
:
920
925
[PubMed]
46.
Baumgartner
RN
,
Wayne
SJ
,
Waters
DL
,
Janssen
I
,
Gallagher
D
,
Morley
JE
.
Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly
.
Obes Res
2004
;
12
:
1995
2004
[PubMed]
47.
Lim
S
,
Kim
JH
,
Yoon
JW
, et al
.
Sarcopenic obesity: prevalence and association with metabolic syndrome in the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA)
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
1652
1654
[PubMed]
48.
Norris
LE
,
Collene
AL
,
Asp
ML
, et al
.
Comparison of dietary conjugated linoleic acid with safflower oil on body composition in obese postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2009
;
90
:
468
476
[PubMed]
49.
Su
W
,
Jones
PJ
.
Dietary fatty acid composition influences energy accretion in rats
.
J Nutr
1993
;
123
:
2109
2114
[PubMed]
50.
Yepuri
G
,
Marcelino
H
,
Shahkhalili
Y
, et al
.
Dietary modulation of body composition and insulin sensitivity during catch-up growth in rats: effects of oils rich in n-6 or n-3 PUFA
.
Br J Nutr
2011
:
1
14
[PubMed]
51.
Hill
JO
,
Peters
JC
,
Lin
D
,
Yakubu
F
,
Greene
H
,
Swift
L
.
Lipid accumulation and body fat distribution is influenced by type of dietary fat fed to rats
.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
1993
;
17
:
223
236
[PubMed]
52.
Parker
HM
,
Johnson
NA
,
Burdon
CA
,
Cohn
JS
,
O’Connor
HT
,
George
J
.
Omega-3 supplementation and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Hepatol
2012
;
56
:
944
951
[PubMed]
53.
Ziouzenkova
O
,
Orasanu
G
,
Sharlach
M
, et al
.
Retinaldehyde represses adipogenesis and diet-induced obesity
.
Nat Med
2007
;
13
:
695
702
[PubMed]
54.
Ronis
MJ
,
Baumgardner
JN
,
Marecki
JC
, et al
.
Dietary fat source alters hepatic gene expression profile and determines the type of liver pathology in rats overfed via total enteral nutrition
.
Physiol Genomics
2012
;
44
:
1073
1089
[PubMed]
55.
Savard
C
,
Tartaglione
EV
,
Kuver
R
, et al
.
Synergistic interaction of dietary cholesterol and dietary fat in inducing experimental steatohepatitis
.
Hepatology
2013
;
57
:
81
92
[PubMed]
56.
Sanyal
AJ
,
Chalasani
N
,
Kowdley
KV
, et al
NASH CRN
.
Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
362
:
1675
1685
[PubMed]