User login
Gen Z is hooked on vaping
Exploring the obstacles to nicotine cessation among teens
Pulmonologist Evan Stepp, MD, FCCP, has a teenage daughter who doesn’t smoke or vape – as far as he knows, Stepp will admit – but the statistics on youth smoking are alarming enough to have him worried.
On one hand, fewer Americans are smoking today than ever before. Since 1992, the percentage of people who told Gallup that they’d had a cigarette in the past week has dropped from 28% to 11%. Meanwhile, the rate of new lung cancer cases declined from 65 per every 100,000 people in 1992 to 34 per 100,000 in 2020, according to the National Cancer Institute.
According to a November 2022 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 6 high school students and 1 in 20 middle schoolers are using a nicotine product at least once every day.
“It’s a completely different picture for nicotine cessation in youth,” Dr. Stepp, who is an associate professor at National Jewish Health in Denver, said. “Because of the fact that the nicotine addiction is occurring in a developing brain, which raises many other nicotine-related harms.”
Why teens vape
Today’s teens are smoking less actual tobacco, and, instead, overwhelmingly prefer e-cigarettes or vaping. In fact, 85% of high school–aged smokers and 72% of middle school smokers reach for a vape over regular cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, according to the CDC.
It’s not hard to understand why: e-cigarettes use a heating element to turn a nicotine-infused liquid into an aerosol, with no open flame, ash, or lingering smoke. The vapes themselves are easy to conceal, and if someone needed to hide an e-cigarette from particularly perceptive parents or teachers, they can find vapes built into hoodies, fake smartwatches, and USB drives.
Plus, the liquids often come in flavors like fruit, bubble gum, mint, and vanilla, because unflavored nicotine isn’t exactly appealing. “Huge concentrations of nicotine salts are just miserable to breathe in,” Dr. Stepp said. “Flavors are necessary to make these products palatable, and those flavors end up being a huge draw for youth users to get exposed to nicotine addiction.”
Challenges surrounding smoking cessation in youth
The powerful effect of nicotine in youth means the need for effective cessation strategies is both more urgent and more difficult. But while physicians can prescribe to adults the antidepressants varenicline and bupropion, along with nicotine replacement therapy, to help ease withdrawal symptoms, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved those medications for anyone under the age of 18.
Research on cessation medications in young people is limited: A recent meta-analysis found only four studies on people between the ages of 12 and 21. In teens, antidepressants seem to help quitting for the first few weeks but are unproven as a long-term solution.
“That really has been a challenge for the 1 in 6 high school students who are current users of tobacco products,” said pediatrician, Susan Walley, MD, a co-author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent position papers on children and smoking.
“One of the things that is important to keep at the forefront of the conversation is that nicotine addiction is a chronic medical disease, and it’s a form of substance abuse,” Dr. Walley said. “We know that we need more research in adolescent tobacco cessation, and it really is about the funding, about research dollars.”
Without medications, smoking cessation in teens relies largely on counseling strategies. A 2017 review published by Cochrane Library found that group counseling was the most effective quitting method, with teens participating in group sessions 35% more likely to stop using nicotine products up to a year later, compared with teens who did not receive any counseling.
Counseling can help educate teens (and parents) on some of the realities of e-cigarettes, bridging the gap between well-established anti-smoking campaigns and the anti-vape campaigns that have yet to catch up.
“We have done a great job promoting cigarette use as dangerous,” Dr. Walley said. “[But] many teens who would never pick up a cigarette –because they know the health risks – are vaping.”
How to get a teen to quit
Cessation and prevention strategies are closely linked, and interventions can start in middle school-aged children up through high school and young adults. Simply asking a 12-year-old, “Do you know anyone who smokes?” can help start a conversation that leads to an attempt to quit.
Teens may be compelled to smoke through digital advertising and influencer endorsements on social media platforms, but Gen Z is turned off by the idea that it’s being manipulated by the tobacco industry. Juul, for example, is partially owned by Altria, which makes Marlboros, and Vuse is wholly owned by R.J. Reynolds, which makes Camel cigarettes.
“If you can get somebody to understand that Big Tobacco is trying to manipulate you as a young person to want to illegally obtain and use their products, which are incredibly addictive, thus ensuring you will remain a loyal customer, that could be the thing that pushes them over the hump,” Dr. Stepp said. “You push it away like you would push away a parent trying to tell you how to park a car in the driveway.”
And just because a smoker relapses, it doesn’t mean the cessation was a complete failure. The younger someone is when they stop smoking, the less likely they are to suffer from the long-term health consequences of smoking, according to a 2021 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “With the right counseling,” Dr. Walley said, “each relapse is an opportunity for losing the habit permanently.”
This article was adapted from the Summer 2023 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article – and to engage with the other content from this issue – visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.
Exploring the obstacles to nicotine cessation among teens
Exploring the obstacles to nicotine cessation among teens
Pulmonologist Evan Stepp, MD, FCCP, has a teenage daughter who doesn’t smoke or vape – as far as he knows, Stepp will admit – but the statistics on youth smoking are alarming enough to have him worried.
On one hand, fewer Americans are smoking today than ever before. Since 1992, the percentage of people who told Gallup that they’d had a cigarette in the past week has dropped from 28% to 11%. Meanwhile, the rate of new lung cancer cases declined from 65 per every 100,000 people in 1992 to 34 per 100,000 in 2020, according to the National Cancer Institute.
According to a November 2022 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 6 high school students and 1 in 20 middle schoolers are using a nicotine product at least once every day.
“It’s a completely different picture for nicotine cessation in youth,” Dr. Stepp, who is an associate professor at National Jewish Health in Denver, said. “Because of the fact that the nicotine addiction is occurring in a developing brain, which raises many other nicotine-related harms.”
Why teens vape
Today’s teens are smoking less actual tobacco, and, instead, overwhelmingly prefer e-cigarettes or vaping. In fact, 85% of high school–aged smokers and 72% of middle school smokers reach for a vape over regular cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, according to the CDC.
It’s not hard to understand why: e-cigarettes use a heating element to turn a nicotine-infused liquid into an aerosol, with no open flame, ash, or lingering smoke. The vapes themselves are easy to conceal, and if someone needed to hide an e-cigarette from particularly perceptive parents or teachers, they can find vapes built into hoodies, fake smartwatches, and USB drives.
Plus, the liquids often come in flavors like fruit, bubble gum, mint, and vanilla, because unflavored nicotine isn’t exactly appealing. “Huge concentrations of nicotine salts are just miserable to breathe in,” Dr. Stepp said. “Flavors are necessary to make these products palatable, and those flavors end up being a huge draw for youth users to get exposed to nicotine addiction.”
Challenges surrounding smoking cessation in youth
The powerful effect of nicotine in youth means the need for effective cessation strategies is both more urgent and more difficult. But while physicians can prescribe to adults the antidepressants varenicline and bupropion, along with nicotine replacement therapy, to help ease withdrawal symptoms, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved those medications for anyone under the age of 18.
Research on cessation medications in young people is limited: A recent meta-analysis found only four studies on people between the ages of 12 and 21. In teens, antidepressants seem to help quitting for the first few weeks but are unproven as a long-term solution.
“That really has been a challenge for the 1 in 6 high school students who are current users of tobacco products,” said pediatrician, Susan Walley, MD, a co-author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent position papers on children and smoking.
“One of the things that is important to keep at the forefront of the conversation is that nicotine addiction is a chronic medical disease, and it’s a form of substance abuse,” Dr. Walley said. “We know that we need more research in adolescent tobacco cessation, and it really is about the funding, about research dollars.”
Without medications, smoking cessation in teens relies largely on counseling strategies. A 2017 review published by Cochrane Library found that group counseling was the most effective quitting method, with teens participating in group sessions 35% more likely to stop using nicotine products up to a year later, compared with teens who did not receive any counseling.
Counseling can help educate teens (and parents) on some of the realities of e-cigarettes, bridging the gap between well-established anti-smoking campaigns and the anti-vape campaigns that have yet to catch up.
“We have done a great job promoting cigarette use as dangerous,” Dr. Walley said. “[But] many teens who would never pick up a cigarette –because they know the health risks – are vaping.”
How to get a teen to quit
Cessation and prevention strategies are closely linked, and interventions can start in middle school-aged children up through high school and young adults. Simply asking a 12-year-old, “Do you know anyone who smokes?” can help start a conversation that leads to an attempt to quit.
Teens may be compelled to smoke through digital advertising and influencer endorsements on social media platforms, but Gen Z is turned off by the idea that it’s being manipulated by the tobacco industry. Juul, for example, is partially owned by Altria, which makes Marlboros, and Vuse is wholly owned by R.J. Reynolds, which makes Camel cigarettes.
“If you can get somebody to understand that Big Tobacco is trying to manipulate you as a young person to want to illegally obtain and use their products, which are incredibly addictive, thus ensuring you will remain a loyal customer, that could be the thing that pushes them over the hump,” Dr. Stepp said. “You push it away like you would push away a parent trying to tell you how to park a car in the driveway.”
And just because a smoker relapses, it doesn’t mean the cessation was a complete failure. The younger someone is when they stop smoking, the less likely they are to suffer from the long-term health consequences of smoking, according to a 2021 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “With the right counseling,” Dr. Walley said, “each relapse is an opportunity for losing the habit permanently.”
This article was adapted from the Summer 2023 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article – and to engage with the other content from this issue – visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.
Pulmonologist Evan Stepp, MD, FCCP, has a teenage daughter who doesn’t smoke or vape – as far as he knows, Stepp will admit – but the statistics on youth smoking are alarming enough to have him worried.
On one hand, fewer Americans are smoking today than ever before. Since 1992, the percentage of people who told Gallup that they’d had a cigarette in the past week has dropped from 28% to 11%. Meanwhile, the rate of new lung cancer cases declined from 65 per every 100,000 people in 1992 to 34 per 100,000 in 2020, according to the National Cancer Institute.
According to a November 2022 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 6 high school students and 1 in 20 middle schoolers are using a nicotine product at least once every day.
“It’s a completely different picture for nicotine cessation in youth,” Dr. Stepp, who is an associate professor at National Jewish Health in Denver, said. “Because of the fact that the nicotine addiction is occurring in a developing brain, which raises many other nicotine-related harms.”
Why teens vape
Today’s teens are smoking less actual tobacco, and, instead, overwhelmingly prefer e-cigarettes or vaping. In fact, 85% of high school–aged smokers and 72% of middle school smokers reach for a vape over regular cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, according to the CDC.
It’s not hard to understand why: e-cigarettes use a heating element to turn a nicotine-infused liquid into an aerosol, with no open flame, ash, or lingering smoke. The vapes themselves are easy to conceal, and if someone needed to hide an e-cigarette from particularly perceptive parents or teachers, they can find vapes built into hoodies, fake smartwatches, and USB drives.
Plus, the liquids often come in flavors like fruit, bubble gum, mint, and vanilla, because unflavored nicotine isn’t exactly appealing. “Huge concentrations of nicotine salts are just miserable to breathe in,” Dr. Stepp said. “Flavors are necessary to make these products palatable, and those flavors end up being a huge draw for youth users to get exposed to nicotine addiction.”
Challenges surrounding smoking cessation in youth
The powerful effect of nicotine in youth means the need for effective cessation strategies is both more urgent and more difficult. But while physicians can prescribe to adults the antidepressants varenicline and bupropion, along with nicotine replacement therapy, to help ease withdrawal symptoms, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved those medications for anyone under the age of 18.
Research on cessation medications in young people is limited: A recent meta-analysis found only four studies on people between the ages of 12 and 21. In teens, antidepressants seem to help quitting for the first few weeks but are unproven as a long-term solution.
“That really has been a challenge for the 1 in 6 high school students who are current users of tobacco products,” said pediatrician, Susan Walley, MD, a co-author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent position papers on children and smoking.
“One of the things that is important to keep at the forefront of the conversation is that nicotine addiction is a chronic medical disease, and it’s a form of substance abuse,” Dr. Walley said. “We know that we need more research in adolescent tobacco cessation, and it really is about the funding, about research dollars.”
Without medications, smoking cessation in teens relies largely on counseling strategies. A 2017 review published by Cochrane Library found that group counseling was the most effective quitting method, with teens participating in group sessions 35% more likely to stop using nicotine products up to a year later, compared with teens who did not receive any counseling.
Counseling can help educate teens (and parents) on some of the realities of e-cigarettes, bridging the gap between well-established anti-smoking campaigns and the anti-vape campaigns that have yet to catch up.
“We have done a great job promoting cigarette use as dangerous,” Dr. Walley said. “[But] many teens who would never pick up a cigarette –because they know the health risks – are vaping.”
How to get a teen to quit
Cessation and prevention strategies are closely linked, and interventions can start in middle school-aged children up through high school and young adults. Simply asking a 12-year-old, “Do you know anyone who smokes?” can help start a conversation that leads to an attempt to quit.
Teens may be compelled to smoke through digital advertising and influencer endorsements on social media platforms, but Gen Z is turned off by the idea that it’s being manipulated by the tobacco industry. Juul, for example, is partially owned by Altria, which makes Marlboros, and Vuse is wholly owned by R.J. Reynolds, which makes Camel cigarettes.
“If you can get somebody to understand that Big Tobacco is trying to manipulate you as a young person to want to illegally obtain and use their products, which are incredibly addictive, thus ensuring you will remain a loyal customer, that could be the thing that pushes them over the hump,” Dr. Stepp said. “You push it away like you would push away a parent trying to tell you how to park a car in the driveway.”
And just because a smoker relapses, it doesn’t mean the cessation was a complete failure. The younger someone is when they stop smoking, the less likely they are to suffer from the long-term health consequences of smoking, according to a 2021 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “With the right counseling,” Dr. Walley said, “each relapse is an opportunity for losing the habit permanently.”
This article was adapted from the Summer 2023 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article – and to engage with the other content from this issue – visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.
Science reveals link between gut health and exercise motivation
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.
To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.
Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.
The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise.
If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut.
This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.
But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain.
The gut-brain connection
After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run.
“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”
To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut.
Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon.
This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout.
The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.
“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”
He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
What’s next?
Moving forward, the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation.
“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation.
“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.
Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated.
“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.
To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.
Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.
The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise.
If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut.
This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.
But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain.
The gut-brain connection
After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run.
“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”
To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut.
Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon.
This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout.
The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.
“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”
He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
What’s next?
Moving forward, the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation.
“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation.
“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.
Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated.
“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.
To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.
Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.
The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise.
If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut.
This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.
But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain.
The gut-brain connection
After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run.
“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”
To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut.
Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon.
This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout.
The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.
“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”
He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
What’s next?
Moving forward, the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation.
“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation.
“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.
Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated.
“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE
Don’t lift weights – lower them instead
as you would do with a typical rep.
That means, for example, that you could use two hands to lift a dumbbell, then one hand to slowly lower it, while sacrificing little in the way of results. Focusing on the lowering – or the “eccentric” contraction – can lead to a more efficient gym session, Japanese researchers say.
In the study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers divided people into three groups of 14 for a 5-week, twice-weekly comparison.
One group performed dumbbell curls from full extension to about one-quarter of the way up, for 2 seconds up and 2 seconds down, in three sets of 10 reps. Another 14 people performed only the lift portion of the movement (a researcher helped them reset the weight after each rep), and another 14 did only the lowering part of the move.
The group that both lifted and lowered the weights increased the maximum force they could produce on a lift by 18% and increased the thickness of the biceps muscle by 11%.
The people who only lowered the weights nearly matched that, increasing their maximum force by 14% and muscle size by 10%. The lifting-only group increased their max force by 11%, while muscle size increase was insignificant.
Your muscle fibers work two ways. When you lift a dumbbell from a straight arm up to your shoulder, your biceps muscle is using a “concentric” contraction. As you lower that dumbbell back down, the biceps muscle is working to put the brakes on the descent – that’s called an “eccentric” contraction.
The lifting-plus-lowering group saw the biggest gains because they were pretty much doing twice the number of reps. The lowering-only group made similar improvements in strength and muscle with only half the work.
Study author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, a professor at Nishikyushu University, Japan, believes that eccentric muscle contractions produce greater neurological adaptations in the spine and brain than concentric contractions. In other words, your nerves learn to send more of the “pull harder” signal to your muscles.
At the same time, the spring action of a large protein called “titin” in the muscle fibers produces greater force during eccentric contractions while using less energy, and more titin could account for the increase in muscle size, which is called hypertrophy.
“Titin in the muscle fibers could be the best explanation for muscle hypertrophy,” Dr. Nakamura says. “However, we believe that other factors, such as neurological adaptations, also play a large role in increasing muscle strength.”
The short range of motion used in the dumbbell curls was an important factor. A study, published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, found that a partial range-of-motion triceps exercise produced greater muscle growth than full range-of-motion movements.
Although the people in this newest study only performed dumbbell curls, “we think the effect is similar in other muscles,” Dr. Nakamura says.
Your muscles are much stronger when lowering than they are lifting, so Dr. Nakamura suggests choosing a heavy weight to perform single-arm dumbbell curls. Use both arms to raise the dumbbell into the 50-degree position, then lower it over a 2-second count. For two-handed bent- or straight-bar curls, you can ask a spotter to help you lift the weights into position between slow lowering moves.
You can also try the same trick with leg curl or leg extension exercise machines, using two legs to lift the weight and allowing one leg to lower it.
In the near future, your gym might contain more equipment that was designed specifically around lowering movements.
“Other machines that can emphasize eccentric contraction are gradually being developed,” Dr. Nakamura says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
as you would do with a typical rep.
That means, for example, that you could use two hands to lift a dumbbell, then one hand to slowly lower it, while sacrificing little in the way of results. Focusing on the lowering – or the “eccentric” contraction – can lead to a more efficient gym session, Japanese researchers say.
In the study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers divided people into three groups of 14 for a 5-week, twice-weekly comparison.
One group performed dumbbell curls from full extension to about one-quarter of the way up, for 2 seconds up and 2 seconds down, in three sets of 10 reps. Another 14 people performed only the lift portion of the movement (a researcher helped them reset the weight after each rep), and another 14 did only the lowering part of the move.
The group that both lifted and lowered the weights increased the maximum force they could produce on a lift by 18% and increased the thickness of the biceps muscle by 11%.
The people who only lowered the weights nearly matched that, increasing their maximum force by 14% and muscle size by 10%. The lifting-only group increased their max force by 11%, while muscle size increase was insignificant.
Your muscle fibers work two ways. When you lift a dumbbell from a straight arm up to your shoulder, your biceps muscle is using a “concentric” contraction. As you lower that dumbbell back down, the biceps muscle is working to put the brakes on the descent – that’s called an “eccentric” contraction.
The lifting-plus-lowering group saw the biggest gains because they were pretty much doing twice the number of reps. The lowering-only group made similar improvements in strength and muscle with only half the work.
Study author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, a professor at Nishikyushu University, Japan, believes that eccentric muscle contractions produce greater neurological adaptations in the spine and brain than concentric contractions. In other words, your nerves learn to send more of the “pull harder” signal to your muscles.
At the same time, the spring action of a large protein called “titin” in the muscle fibers produces greater force during eccentric contractions while using less energy, and more titin could account for the increase in muscle size, which is called hypertrophy.
“Titin in the muscle fibers could be the best explanation for muscle hypertrophy,” Dr. Nakamura says. “However, we believe that other factors, such as neurological adaptations, also play a large role in increasing muscle strength.”
The short range of motion used in the dumbbell curls was an important factor. A study, published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, found that a partial range-of-motion triceps exercise produced greater muscle growth than full range-of-motion movements.
Although the people in this newest study only performed dumbbell curls, “we think the effect is similar in other muscles,” Dr. Nakamura says.
Your muscles are much stronger when lowering than they are lifting, so Dr. Nakamura suggests choosing a heavy weight to perform single-arm dumbbell curls. Use both arms to raise the dumbbell into the 50-degree position, then lower it over a 2-second count. For two-handed bent- or straight-bar curls, you can ask a spotter to help you lift the weights into position between slow lowering moves.
You can also try the same trick with leg curl or leg extension exercise machines, using two legs to lift the weight and allowing one leg to lower it.
In the near future, your gym might contain more equipment that was designed specifically around lowering movements.
“Other machines that can emphasize eccentric contraction are gradually being developed,” Dr. Nakamura says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
as you would do with a typical rep.
That means, for example, that you could use two hands to lift a dumbbell, then one hand to slowly lower it, while sacrificing little in the way of results. Focusing on the lowering – or the “eccentric” contraction – can lead to a more efficient gym session, Japanese researchers say.
In the study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers divided people into three groups of 14 for a 5-week, twice-weekly comparison.
One group performed dumbbell curls from full extension to about one-quarter of the way up, for 2 seconds up and 2 seconds down, in three sets of 10 reps. Another 14 people performed only the lift portion of the movement (a researcher helped them reset the weight after each rep), and another 14 did only the lowering part of the move.
The group that both lifted and lowered the weights increased the maximum force they could produce on a lift by 18% and increased the thickness of the biceps muscle by 11%.
The people who only lowered the weights nearly matched that, increasing their maximum force by 14% and muscle size by 10%. The lifting-only group increased their max force by 11%, while muscle size increase was insignificant.
Your muscle fibers work two ways. When you lift a dumbbell from a straight arm up to your shoulder, your biceps muscle is using a “concentric” contraction. As you lower that dumbbell back down, the biceps muscle is working to put the brakes on the descent – that’s called an “eccentric” contraction.
The lifting-plus-lowering group saw the biggest gains because they were pretty much doing twice the number of reps. The lowering-only group made similar improvements in strength and muscle with only half the work.
Study author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, a professor at Nishikyushu University, Japan, believes that eccentric muscle contractions produce greater neurological adaptations in the spine and brain than concentric contractions. In other words, your nerves learn to send more of the “pull harder” signal to your muscles.
At the same time, the spring action of a large protein called “titin” in the muscle fibers produces greater force during eccentric contractions while using less energy, and more titin could account for the increase in muscle size, which is called hypertrophy.
“Titin in the muscle fibers could be the best explanation for muscle hypertrophy,” Dr. Nakamura says. “However, we believe that other factors, such as neurological adaptations, also play a large role in increasing muscle strength.”
The short range of motion used in the dumbbell curls was an important factor. A study, published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, found that a partial range-of-motion triceps exercise produced greater muscle growth than full range-of-motion movements.
Although the people in this newest study only performed dumbbell curls, “we think the effect is similar in other muscles,” Dr. Nakamura says.
Your muscles are much stronger when lowering than they are lifting, so Dr. Nakamura suggests choosing a heavy weight to perform single-arm dumbbell curls. Use both arms to raise the dumbbell into the 50-degree position, then lower it over a 2-second count. For two-handed bent- or straight-bar curls, you can ask a spotter to help you lift the weights into position between slow lowering moves.
You can also try the same trick with leg curl or leg extension exercise machines, using two legs to lift the weight and allowing one leg to lower it.
In the near future, your gym might contain more equipment that was designed specifically around lowering movements.
“Other machines that can emphasize eccentric contraction are gradually being developed,” Dr. Nakamura says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Just 8 minutes of exercise a day is all you need
according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.
Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.
Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.
While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.
A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.
Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.
“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.
The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.
But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.
So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.
“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.
“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).
No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.
Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.
Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.
While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.
A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.
Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.
“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.
The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.
But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.
So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.
“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.
“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).
No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.
Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.
Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.
While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.
A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.
Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.
“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.
The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.
But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.
So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.
“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.
“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.
He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).
No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
A special part of the brain lights up when we see food
“We eat first with our eyes.”
The Roman foodie Apicius is thought to have uttered those words in the 1st century A.D. Now, some 2,000 years later, scientists may be proving him right.
Dubbed the “ventral food component,” this part resides in the brain’s visual cortex, in a region known to play a role in identifying faces, scenes, and words.
The study, published in the journal Current Biology, involved using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to build a computer model of this part of the brain. Similar models are emerging across fields of research to simulate and study complex systems of the body. A computer model of the digestive system was recently used to determine the best body position for taking a pill.
“The research is still cutting-edge,” says study author Meenakshi Khosla, PhD. “There’s a lot more to be done to understand whether this region is the same or different in different individuals, and how it is modulated by experience or familiarity with different kinds of foods.”
Pinpointing those differences could provide insights into how people choose what they eat, or even help us learn what drives eating disorders, Dr. Khosla says.
Part of what makes this study unique was the researchers’ approach, dubbed “hypothesis neutral.” Instead of setting out to prove or disprove a firm hypothesis, they simply started exploring the data to see what they could find. The goal: To go beyond “the idiosyncratic hypotheses scientists have already thought to test,” the paper says. So, they began sifting through a public database called the Natural Scenes Dataset, an inventory of brain scans from eight volunteers viewing 56,720 images.
As expected, the software analyzing the dataset spotted brain regions already known to be triggered by images of faces, bodies, words, and scenes. But to the researchers’ surprise, the analysis also revealed a previously unknown part of the brain that seemed to be responding to images of food.
“Our first reaction was, ‘That’s cute and all, but it can’t possibly be true,’ ” Dr. Khosla says.
To confirm their discovery, the researchers used the data to train a computer model of this part of the brain, a process that takes less than an hour. Then they fed the model more than 1.2 million new images.
Sure enough, the model lit up in response to food. Color didn’t matter – even black-and-white food images triggered it, though not as strongly as color ones. And the model could tell the difference between food and objects that looked like food: a banana versus a crescent moon, or a blueberry muffin versus a puppy with a muffin-like face.
From the human data, the researchers found that some people responded slightly more to processed foods like pizza than unprocessed foods like apples. They hope to explore how other things, such as liking or disliking a food, may affect a person’s response to that food.
This technology could open up other areas of research as well. Dr. Khosla hopes to use it to explore how the brain responds to social cues like body language and facial expressions.
For now, Dr. Khosla has already begun to verify the computer model in real people by scanning the brains of a new set of volunteers. “We collected pilot data in a few subjects recently and were able to localize this component,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We eat first with our eyes.”
The Roman foodie Apicius is thought to have uttered those words in the 1st century A.D. Now, some 2,000 years later, scientists may be proving him right.
Dubbed the “ventral food component,” this part resides in the brain’s visual cortex, in a region known to play a role in identifying faces, scenes, and words.
The study, published in the journal Current Biology, involved using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to build a computer model of this part of the brain. Similar models are emerging across fields of research to simulate and study complex systems of the body. A computer model of the digestive system was recently used to determine the best body position for taking a pill.
“The research is still cutting-edge,” says study author Meenakshi Khosla, PhD. “There’s a lot more to be done to understand whether this region is the same or different in different individuals, and how it is modulated by experience or familiarity with different kinds of foods.”
Pinpointing those differences could provide insights into how people choose what they eat, or even help us learn what drives eating disorders, Dr. Khosla says.
Part of what makes this study unique was the researchers’ approach, dubbed “hypothesis neutral.” Instead of setting out to prove or disprove a firm hypothesis, they simply started exploring the data to see what they could find. The goal: To go beyond “the idiosyncratic hypotheses scientists have already thought to test,” the paper says. So, they began sifting through a public database called the Natural Scenes Dataset, an inventory of brain scans from eight volunteers viewing 56,720 images.
As expected, the software analyzing the dataset spotted brain regions already known to be triggered by images of faces, bodies, words, and scenes. But to the researchers’ surprise, the analysis also revealed a previously unknown part of the brain that seemed to be responding to images of food.
“Our first reaction was, ‘That’s cute and all, but it can’t possibly be true,’ ” Dr. Khosla says.
To confirm their discovery, the researchers used the data to train a computer model of this part of the brain, a process that takes less than an hour. Then they fed the model more than 1.2 million new images.
Sure enough, the model lit up in response to food. Color didn’t matter – even black-and-white food images triggered it, though not as strongly as color ones. And the model could tell the difference between food and objects that looked like food: a banana versus a crescent moon, or a blueberry muffin versus a puppy with a muffin-like face.
From the human data, the researchers found that some people responded slightly more to processed foods like pizza than unprocessed foods like apples. They hope to explore how other things, such as liking or disliking a food, may affect a person’s response to that food.
This technology could open up other areas of research as well. Dr. Khosla hopes to use it to explore how the brain responds to social cues like body language and facial expressions.
For now, Dr. Khosla has already begun to verify the computer model in real people by scanning the brains of a new set of volunteers. “We collected pilot data in a few subjects recently and were able to localize this component,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We eat first with our eyes.”
The Roman foodie Apicius is thought to have uttered those words in the 1st century A.D. Now, some 2,000 years later, scientists may be proving him right.
Dubbed the “ventral food component,” this part resides in the brain’s visual cortex, in a region known to play a role in identifying faces, scenes, and words.
The study, published in the journal Current Biology, involved using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to build a computer model of this part of the brain. Similar models are emerging across fields of research to simulate and study complex systems of the body. A computer model of the digestive system was recently used to determine the best body position for taking a pill.
“The research is still cutting-edge,” says study author Meenakshi Khosla, PhD. “There’s a lot more to be done to understand whether this region is the same or different in different individuals, and how it is modulated by experience or familiarity with different kinds of foods.”
Pinpointing those differences could provide insights into how people choose what they eat, or even help us learn what drives eating disorders, Dr. Khosla says.
Part of what makes this study unique was the researchers’ approach, dubbed “hypothesis neutral.” Instead of setting out to prove or disprove a firm hypothesis, they simply started exploring the data to see what they could find. The goal: To go beyond “the idiosyncratic hypotheses scientists have already thought to test,” the paper says. So, they began sifting through a public database called the Natural Scenes Dataset, an inventory of brain scans from eight volunteers viewing 56,720 images.
As expected, the software analyzing the dataset spotted brain regions already known to be triggered by images of faces, bodies, words, and scenes. But to the researchers’ surprise, the analysis also revealed a previously unknown part of the brain that seemed to be responding to images of food.
“Our first reaction was, ‘That’s cute and all, but it can’t possibly be true,’ ” Dr. Khosla says.
To confirm their discovery, the researchers used the data to train a computer model of this part of the brain, a process that takes less than an hour. Then they fed the model more than 1.2 million new images.
Sure enough, the model lit up in response to food. Color didn’t matter – even black-and-white food images triggered it, though not as strongly as color ones. And the model could tell the difference between food and objects that looked like food: a banana versus a crescent moon, or a blueberry muffin versus a puppy with a muffin-like face.
From the human data, the researchers found that some people responded slightly more to processed foods like pizza than unprocessed foods like apples. They hope to explore how other things, such as liking or disliking a food, may affect a person’s response to that food.
This technology could open up other areas of research as well. Dr. Khosla hopes to use it to explore how the brain responds to social cues like body language and facial expressions.
For now, Dr. Khosla has already begun to verify the computer model in real people by scanning the brains of a new set of volunteers. “We collected pilot data in a few subjects recently and were able to localize this component,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CURRENT BIOLOGY