fitness · research · Science

Mini research roundup: new studies show exercise is good for you

News flash: some recent studies out this month strongly suggest that physical activity is beneficially for health.

Yes, I'm as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.
Yes, I’m as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.

Now that you’ve had some time to get used to this new-new fact, here are a couple of studies with not-surprising results about fitness and health.

Strength training before endurance training confers more benefits (IN MEN).

A study of 45 young men found small changes in bone health, body composition and overall physical fitness by switching up the order of strength training and endurance training (lifting weights first, then running).

As Miss Manners likes to say, how nice for them.

Small changes in physical activity make a big difference in overall mortality-risk (when you’re looking at the population-level).

Again, the messages here are clear: small increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and 30-60-minutes decreases in sedentary time daily reduce mortality risk from 3% (cutting sedentary time) to up to 10% (increasing physical activity by 10 minutes a day in certain subpopulations– it’s a little complicated here). But this is the bird’s eye view, meaning this holds for big populations and not at the individual level. You can peruse the actual study here (in your copious free time, but maybe stand up while doing it…)

One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don't care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Handon Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)
One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don’t care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Hanson Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)

Stay tuned for more breaking news at Fit is a Feminist Issue!

fitness · research · Science · sleep

Are they coming for the naps now? No. Not over my sleeping body.

In my view, medical research gets a lot right. We have good evidence that, for instance:

  • ultra-processed foods contribute to health markers that are linked to a variety of serious illnesses (like cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and type 2 diabetes)
  • physical activity is one of the best things we can do for our health, longevity and well-being, across the lifespan
  • developing and maintaining social connections of all sorts helps us maintain wellness and address issues in our own mental and physical health
  • sleep is a magical elixir that rejuvenates us and prepares us for the daily lives we want to lead (okay, the study didn’t use the words “magical elixir”, but they should have)

Here’s what Unsplash thinks healthy living looks like:

Unsplash endorses huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than the usual experts, but hey...
Unsplash endorses eating huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than experts, but hey…

We also know that some health claims are absolute nonsense, like:

  • sleeping with a bar of lavender soap in your bed will NOT help treat or cure restless leg syndrome ( Dr Mehmet Oz said this)
  • (fill in the blank) vitamin supplement NOT will cure (Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson, COVID, etc.) medical condition (Oz promoted a bunch of these, too)
  • Using coffee as anything other than a delightful morning beverage is a BAD IDEA (the Cleveland clinic explains why, if you must know)
  • Virtually all advertised weight-loss products are BOGUS (trust me on this)
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.

Let us now return to that magical elixir, sleep. Sleep feels good, does good, is good for us. Check, check, check. But what about its sweet cousin, the nap? Surely that delicious sleep snack must be a positive contributor to our lives, right?

I have to say that a somewhat recent scientific study came out, saying that daytime napping is associated with adverse health outcomes. In particular, it said:

Longer naps, greater intra-individual variability in daytime nap, and higher percentages of naps around noon and in the early afternoon are associated with greater mortality risks.

What?! Nonononononononononono!

Well, Prevention magazine thinks these scientists may be on to something. In this article, it asks the following scary questions:

Whoa. But don’t worry, Imma answer all these, one by one.

First, do some nap patterns increase our risk of death? No, not really.

The study looked mainly at the timing and variability of naps taken by older adults in the UK. It found oh-so-small increased risk for those who took naps at different times of day, for those who took longer naps, and for those who varied the length of their naps (which averaged 24 minutes daily).

BUT (and it’s a big but)…These results varied by gender (men seem more affected than women), by what time people arose in the morning, what time of day they tended to take their naps, how much they slept in general, and how much physical activity they got during the day. See this study for more details. And they failed to show any clinical association, just a small statistical one.

So napping isn’t really associated with death. Okay, one down.

Second: why would napping be associated with death? It’s not, not really.

Some sleep patterns reveal underlying problems rather than cause them; sleep apnea and chronic insomnia, for instance, tend to be symptoms of a variety of health conditions that carry their own mortality risk factors. But we already knew this. One of the study authors conceded this:

“The napping and mortality relationship is complex and may be influenced by adverse or protective lifestyle factors (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, substance use), nighttime sleep patterns, and underlying sleep disorders, medical comorbidities, age, as well as sex and gender-related factors.”

HAH! Told you. Second one done away with.

I told you so. Such sweet words.
I told you so. Such sweet words.

We are now in the napping-is-not-deadly-blog-post homestretch. Prevention asked, timidly, how can the napping-death connection be broken? Easy. See below.

Just get some exercise. Any kind will do. Walking, jogging, shuffleboard, bike riding (outdoors or in), swimming, dancing, playing with friends and family, yoga, strength training, etc. Why does this help keep napping from killing us? Because the adverse napping pattern (not napping itself) is often a symptom of known risk factors (like drinking or unprescribed drug use) and known medical conditions.

So, once more with feeling: it’s not the napping, folks. I mean, if you want to optimize your napping patterns, feel free– there are lots of articles (like this, this, and this) offering tips, which may or may not be true.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Now you must excuse me– it’s time for my nap…

This dog is napping. Thanks Mittra Ronjoy from Unsplash.

Shhhh… Thanks Mittra Ronjoy for Unsplash.

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem

We are probably all used to getting five-alarm headlines about the perils of some food or other, just to read later on “uh, never mind. It’s all good.” Nutritional research is infamous for big pendulum swings on its pronouncements about the goodness or badness of foods (just search “fit is a feminist issue eggs” for more info).

I’ve written on worries about ultra-processed food a couple of times for the blog:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

Two reasons why the picture on ultra-processed foods and health hasn’t been so clear:

  • The classification system for level of processing in food is a work in progress, and some foods (like grocery store bread) count as ultra-processed even though they have high nutrition value.
  • Our industrial food system delivers mostly processed and ultra-processed food to most people, leaving them with little access to less processed food; so it’s not reasonable to say “don’t eat these foods” without a new plan in mind.

This very useful (and freely accessible) article in the Conversation by the authors of three new papers on ultra-processed foods lays out a clearer and more dire story.

Here’s the short version:

The food industry’s production of processed foods is changing diets worldwide.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

It’s not that the global eating public has become lax or lazy– these products are designed not only to be high in sugar, salt, and fat. Their tastes and textures promote overeating.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

Almost a hundred long-term studies show significant health risks associated with a diet high in ultra-processed foods.

92 [studies] reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Addressing this global health problem requires big policy solutions, not individual willpower.

Steps recommended by the authors of three papers on this subject in the Lancet medical journal are:

  • changing the composition of food products
  • fixing food environments
  • curbing corporate power
  • addressing subsidies and supply chains

Yes, these are nutrition policy wonk solutions, with complex details and long-term goals. But we all know that really big changes rarely happen without a lot of people working together, exerting political, scientific and economic influence.

So, what can we do? Keep reading, keep (or start) cooking when we can, keep voting, and keep remembering that change is slow, but change can and does happen. I believe this, and encourage you to believe it, too.

fitness · research · Science

How a little bit of culture goes a long way towards wellness, according to science

My sister and I went to the Museum of Fine Arts a couple of weeks ago when she was visiting. We had a great time meandering through the galleries, with no particular goal other than enjoyment. We met that goal easily and effortlessly. Yay!

Now it turns out that science confirms what we experienced… 🙂 A new study out from Kings College, London, found evidence that viewing art in a gallery (it has to be in a gallery, it seems) lowers stress levels. Here’s some more info:

50 volunteers aged 18-40, viewed either original artworks at The Courtauld Gallery in London or reproductions of the same paintings in a matched, non-gallery environment. Participants were monitored for heart rate variability and skin temperature using research-grade digital watches to track levels of interest and arousal.

Cortisol levels — the key stress hormone — fell by an average of 22% in the gallery group, compared to just eight per cent for the reproduction group. Those viewing original art also had more dynamic heart activity – indicating that art engages the body through both emotional arousal and stress regulation.

That’s good news for me, as I love any excuse to go to a museum or gallery. Dr. Tony Woods, one of the researchers, added this:

“Our unique and original study provides compelling evidence that viewing art in a gallery is ‘good for you’ and helps to further our understanding of its fundamental benefits. In essence, art doesn’t just move us emotionally — it calms the body too.”

You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m on it.

But maybe museums aren’t your thing. That’s fine– science has other good news for you. In a study published in October, researchers in Australia found that:

People [over 70] who listened to music most days slashed their risk of developing dementia by 39 percent compared with those who did not regularly listen to music, the study found.

Here are a few of their key points:

  • Always listening to music was associated with a 39% reduced dementia risk and better global cognition and memory scores.
  • Playing an instrument was associated with a 35% reduced dementia risk, but no significant association with CIND risk or changes in cognitive test scores over time.
  • Regularly engaging in both music listening and playing was associated with a 33% decreased risk of dementia and 22% decreased risk of cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND).

This was an observational study, so the results are associations, not causal links. But it was large– more than 10,000 participants– so the results are encouraging.

Listening to music was NOT, however, associated with subjective cognitive wellbeing. But hey, that’s what the museums are for.

So, science is giving us official permission get our culture on. Yay!

fitness · inclusiveness · research · Science

Not-very-wordy Wednesday: on avalanches and applause

One thing I do in my not-so-copious free time is scan medical journal tables of contents each week. This way I get at least a glimpse at what is going on in medical research at the moment, sometimes provoking a deeper dive into a study or sub-discipline of medicine.

Last week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), the top article caught my eye for its very particular area of inquiry: Respiratory Gas Shifts to Delay Asphyxiation in Critical Avalanche Burial– A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yeah, that's niche.
Yeah, that’s niche.

The researchers were testing a gadget that facilitates increased air flow to a person trapped under snow in an avalanche. TLDR: it worked very well. So that’s good.

The study subjects (24 in total) were about equally divided between men and women.

In that week’s editorial, titled “A Breath of Fresh Air”, the editors of JAMA offered historical context for this new research result. They also said that the researchers should be applauded for narrowing the gender gap in this type of research.

Applauded.

Applauded?

Yes, they said “applauded”.

As in:

A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!
A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!

I’m afraid I don’t agree here.

I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up
I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up

Increasing representation by gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. in medical research has been and continues to be a big project, with lots of players contributing to small shifts in research participant selection. And I’m glad to see that this study included women as research participants; after all, women as well as men engage in back-country skiing, so it’s important to test out potentially lifesaving devices on all relevant populations.

Do the researchers deserve our thanks? Yes, for working hard as scientists. But for including women in their study? No. They’re just doing their job. They may be doing it well, but it’s their job to do so.

The movement to make human scientific and medical research truly representative isn’t finished yet. I’m glad to see widely-read medical journals paying attention. But I think they can hold their applause.

fitness · research · Science · weight stigma

Bring back the President’s Physical Fitness Test? Uh, just no. Why not? Read on.

CW: some mention of body weight in children and use of the word “obesity”. Sorry, I’ll keep it to a minimum.

If you’re a news-attentive person, you know it’s become hopeless to keep track of all the evidence and good-sense-absent decisions by the Trump administration.

Full and happy discplosure: most of my info is from the superb podcast Maintenance phase episode on this topic. You can listen here and read the transcript here. And I recommend listening to other episodes of this podcast, hosted by the superb Aubrey Gordon and her superb co-host MIchael Hobbes.

If you need a reminder about what exactly was the President’s Physical Fitness Test:

It sort of started with the Kraus Weber Test, developed in the 1940s, which tested children once on a few physical tasks (this I got from Wikipedia):

  1. A simple sit-up with knees bent and feet planted
  2. A sit-up with legs extended and not bent
  3. Raising feet while lying on the back
  4. Raising head, chest and shoulders off the ground while lying on the stomach
  5. Raising legs off the ground while lying on the stomach
  6. With knees straight, bending forward to touch the floor

Then, American Bonnie Prudden used the test on American children (insert lots more detail I’m not including), and found that 58% of kids didn’t pass the test. Meanwhile, only 8% of European children given the test (under other circumstances at different times, etc.) failed the test.

Insert big panic here.

Then-President Dwight Eisenhower was horrified at these results. So, instead of turning to education or medical or public health experts to investigate to see if there was actually a problem (along with increasing funding for physical education in schools and communities), he founded a presidential commision:

The President’s Council on Youth Fitness, which morphed over time into the President’s Council on Fitness, and is now the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition.

Important and famous people have served on these commissions. However, no one did any research at all on:

  • whether the original or modified versions of the test actually measured anything meaningful or useful in children (Spoiler: NO)
  • why American children didn’t do better on the test (Spoiler: they hadn’t practiced calisthenics in school like the Europeans did; with 6–8 weeks of practice kids did fine on the test)
  • what a one-time physical fitness test should show– current physical fitness? potential short-term fitness? potential fitness in adulthood? overall health? predictions about future health? (Spoiler: it showed none of these, as determined by later research)
  • If all schools in the US gave ths test every year to school children, what they would do with the data, like develop funded programs for improving fitness from the baselines, or even track kids’ fitness over time (Spoiler: no one did any of this, ever)

The commissions did make very nice recommendations, like:

Set aside more time and facilities and staff and training for kids to do a wider variety of sports that are accessible to everyone—e.g. fishing, bowling, archery, etc. Also, make time for free play with other kids, without the parents/teachers supervising and guiding (from Maintenance phase transcript)

Doesn’t that sound sweet? (Spoiler: the commission’s recommendations were ignored in favor of modified versions of the original test, which– as I think I mentioned earlier– measured nothing at all, other than someone’s ability to do those required tasks at that time.)

So, this test was given all over the US to all the school kids with no health goals at all. Yep.

Until 2012, when the Obama administration pivoted away from the test and toward an emphasis on overall health and activity, rather than measured (for no reason) performance. Yeah, that sounds better, doesn’t it?

Hmmm. Then why does the Trump administration want to bring it back?

In short, (you can read the long version here) because Trump and RFK think that there’s a crisis of obesity, chronic disease, and poor nutrition in the US, especially among children.

Bringing back this test will Make American Active Again, according to the press release (Spoiler: it totally won’t).

Okay. But, just for the sake of argument, why not bring it back?

Glad you asked. In addition to the above information which leads us to believe that this test doesn’t measure anything or contribute in any healh-goal-directed way to children’s health or fitness, there’s this:

Everyone hates this test. Teachers hate it. Kids hate it. Parents hate it. Why? It makes almost everyone feel bad about themselves or children they care about for no good reason.

There’s some evidence that tests like these make kids hate physical activity. That’s the opposite of what we wanted, right?

Oh, and there’s overwhelming evidence from tons of research that physical activity does not have strong effects on body weight. Physical activity is predictive of all sorts of great health outcomes like longevity, improved mental and cognitive health, and loads of other things we blog about regularly. So, bringing back the test will arguably have no positive effects on distribution of body weight among school children.

Here’s a great quote from Aubrey and Michael:

There was no evidence to do it in the first place. The evidence that it works is non-existent. And the evidence that getting rid of it is good is out there.

Need I say more? Oh, I want to. There’s so much wrong with these tests. But I’ll leave it for another time.

In the meantime, dear readers: do you recall taking these tests in gym class? What did you think? Was there one kid who climbed the rope all the way to the top, and can you remember their name?

fitness · Research Roundup · Science

Research Roundup: calculating new math of exercise and longevity

Hi readers– I’ll be doing an occasional (roughly once a month) post on some of the latest research on physical activity, nutrition, longevity, fitness, and other health-related topics that appear on my radar screen. (Full disclosure: most of these studies came to my attention courtesy of Sam, who manages to sift through mounds of exercise and health information coming her way every day; thanks Sam!)

Today’s theme is exercise and longevity math: how does that add up again?

First up: news outlets announce new study showing that weight training can “take eight years off your body”(sez the Telegraph here), or (according to Women’s Health here) “can shed eight years off your biological clock”, or “give you the body of a person almost eight years younger”.

Okay, I have questions:

If the weight training is “taking eight years off my body”, is that in a good way or a bad way? Are we extending my life or making it eight years shorter? Ditto for the biological clock thing. These writers clearly didn’t learn much about ambiguity in language.

This reminds me of the oldie-but-goodie SNL skit where retiring nuclear power plant engineer (played by the late great Ed Asner) offers this parting advice: “You can’t put too much water in the reactor”. The remaining employees argue amongst themselves about whether he meant “don’t put too much water in the reactor” or “however much water you put in the reactor, it’s fine”. Language matters, folks.

And if I’m getting the body of someone eight years younger, do they then get mine? Do we get any say in this? I’m not feeling happy about this.

Linguistic concerns aside, what’s going on here? Women’s Health summarizes below:

The study examined the impact of weight training on ageing in a random sample of 4,814 men and women, aged 20 to 69, in the US. Researchers analysed the length of ‘telomeres’—the protective DNA caps at the ends of chromosomes… which prevent genetic material from unraveling or becoming damaged.

The study’s authors wanted to determine whether weight training could impact the length of these telomeres. They did this by taking blood samples from the participants and measuring the length of telomeres in their blood cells. Participants were also asked to report how often they engaged in ‘exercises to strengthen their muscles’.

‘In this national sample, 90 minutes per week of strength training was associated with 3.9 years less biological ageing, on average,’ the study reads.

But, if I go twice as often each week, I can extend my life by eight years, right? Well, no. This study is not causal– it’s just showing an association between weight training and telomere length. There are loads of behavioral or genetic or environmental factors which can help account for this correlation.

Is strength training good for us? I think the jury is in on this one: yes. Is it going to help us live longer? Dunno. Maybe? How much longer, and in what condition? No one knows.

What if you don’t happen to enjoy strength training? Maybe you prefer walking. Can you get some longevity bang for your walking buck? It would seem so, if our news media headlines are to be believed. “Daily walks could add more than 10 years to your life”, (according to Real Simple). Fortune Magazine ups the ante to 11 years. My favorite is this one from The Independent: “Just one hour of walk in middle age can add years to life”. That’s a pretty low bar, but okay– excellent! Good for us all.

Sorry, but it’s now party-pooper time. The actual study, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, took a look at different subsections of the population by level of physical activity (PA). They found that if all adults were as active as the highest quartile (25%), relative to PA, they could potentially live 5-ish years longer.

We’ve kind of known this for a while now, namely that the number one predictor of longevity around the globe is physical activity. Of course, this new study is very useful for nudging governments and health systems to fund more access to physical activity for all individuals throughout the life trajectory. We need more evidence and pressure on authorities to do just that.

But Fortune magazine and Real Simple– maybe y’all should stick to reporting on the latest in tech stocks and table decorating trends, respectively.

fitness · Science

Science Sunday: sense and (possible) nonsense

In health headlines this week, two studies caught my attention.

The first (actually published in 2016, but the Washington Post just got around to writing about it) shows that sparkling water is just as hydrating as regular water. As a big seltzer fan, all I have to say is yay!

This woman is celebrating as much as I did when I heard the news. She's wearing a teal-colored velvet jacket and there is confetti in the air.
This woman is celebrating as much as I did when I heard the news. Thanks, Clay Banks for Unsplash.

To be more specific, the researchers found that, upon testing participants by giving them various beverages,

Cumulative urine output at 4 h after ingestion of cola, diet cola, hot tea, iced tea, coffee, lager, orange juice, sparkling water, and a sports drink were not different from the response to water ingestion. 

Well, okay then.

This news isn’t going to prompt me to put seltzer or coca cola in my bike bottles, but hey, knowledge is a good thing, right?

The other study provoked a bit of skepticism on my part.

A tabby cat frowning and narrowing its eyes. I feel exactly the same way: not buying it. By Jennifer Uppendahl for Unsplash.
I feel exactly the same way: not buying it. By Jennifer Uppendahl for Unsplash.

Okay, here goes: The Post reported here that some Australian researchers suggest that travel can help you live longer. And exactly how is that achieved? One word: entropy.

The letters "what" in a pile of ? letters.
Seriously? What could that mean? Pic by Vadim B for Unsplash.

The Post wrote that “the experts wanted to find out how positive travel experiences help maintain the human body’s “low entropy,” or gradual decline.”

Wait a sec– I think I recall from physics that “entropy” refers to the state of order or disorder within a closed system, and that the second law of thermodynamics states that such systems are always headed in the direction of disorder (unless acted upon by other forces). Yes, I reminded myself using Wikipedia. But hey, I studied this a long time ago… 🙂

But human bodies in nature are not closed systems. So entropy and laws of thermodynamics don’t describe their processes of change over time.

However, that doesn’t bother these researchers or the Washington Post. Here’s what the Post said:

“Environments, especially beautiful landscapes like forests or beaches, can help us reduce stress and boost our mental well-being and promote physical activity,” Hu said. “Exposure to other tourists, locals or even animals can improve our mood and enhance cognitive function.”

From the study abstract:

From an entropy point of view, positive travel experiences could help maintain a low-entropy state (i.e., bodily health) by influencing four key systems. Conversely, negative travel experiences could increase entropy and lead to health issues.

Yeah, no. Yeah, travel can have positive or negative effects on bodies traveling. But no, bodily health isn’t properly described as an entropy state other than in the most metaphorical way. And yeah, science benefits from using powerful metaphors to promote novel hypotheses and study designs. But no, this isn’t one of them.

By all means, travel if you will. Enjoy novel experiences and hopefully avoid averse ones. That’s my plan. But don’t bet on living longer through the entropy-protective effects of a two-week trip to Europe. When it comes to human experience, my view is that a little disorder can’t really hurt you.

Have a nice day.

fitness · gadgets · Science · walking

Steps or time: Science says either. I thought so.

Hey readers– this news just in from science: for women in their 60s (which includes me), when measuring physical exertion, it’s just as useful to use step counts as time spent in moderate-to-vigorous activity. What does this mean? Among other things, that you can use a fancy fitness watch, OR you can use one of these to keep track of your workout.

An old fashioned brass pocket watch with goldish green
I really like the gold-ish greeny numbers, although a wrist strap would be helpful.

How did science figure this out? Here are some of the deets from the study:

  • researchers examined the associations of moderate-to-vigorous activity time vs. step counts with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease
  • 14,399 women (ages 62+) from ongoing Women’s Health Study participated (thank you women!)
  • participants measured their physical activity with an accelerometer for 7 consecutive days
  • median time was 62 minutes/week or 5183 steps a day

And what did they find? You’ll like this: in both groups (steps and time), their relative risk of death from cardiovascular disease or other causes was lower compared to the rest of the participants in the Women’s Health Study. Which means that for those of us who like to count health-related things, we can count steps or we can count time. The study sums it up thusly:

Step count–based goals should be considered for future guidelines along with time-based goals, allowing for the accommodation of personal preferences.

Excellent. On numerous fronts. Please note, also, something that might not be obvious on first reading: in the study, the average step counts and time spent each week in physical activity were pretty modest: 5183 steps a day or 62 minutes a week. I’m not making any recommendations here (nor am I in a position to do so). Rather, I’m noting that modest amounts of movement were shown in this study to yield very nicely positive results. Yay for that!

But this leaves us with a problem: how to decide between counting steps and counting time for our workouts? I say, embrace either. Or both. Or we can follow the advice of Dick Van Dyke from Mary Poppins, and step in time.

However, for insurance purposes, I would not recommend doing your workout on a rooftop at night. Please use discretion.

Readers, do you use time or steps for some of your workouts? Which makes more sense or works better for you? I’d love to hear from you.

fitness · Science

Will ear tickling help with weight loss? Hmmm…

CW: discussion of weight loss, which you already guessed from the title of the post.

Many mechanical weight-loss devices seem fall under the scientific category of “hey, has anybody thought of trying this?” Well, here’s the latest iteration, from this piece in The Daily Mail:

Clips that ‘tickle’ a nerve in the ear could be the secret to losing weight. Research suggests zapping the vagus nerve here with a mild electric current sends a signal to the brain that the stomach is full, curbing appetite.

Now a trial involving 150 people [with BMI > 30] is under way in Russia, to see if it can help them lose weight without drugs or surgery.

Hmmm. I’m sort of listening, but skepticism is my overall response. Is there more to this idea?

I looked around the scientific internet, and yes, there have been studies testing the effects of stimulating the vagus nerve on weight control. IN MICE. And, the study involved surgical insertion of a device to their stomach surface (inside their mouse body cavities– I’ll spare you the illustration, but the study is here). The researchers’ work suggested proof of concept that vagus nerve stimulation might have some value in weight loss and maintenance:

This work correlates nerve stimulation with targeted organ functionality through a smart, self-responsive system, and demonstrated highly effective weight control. This work also provides a concept in therapeutic technology using artificial nerve signal generated from coordinated body activities. [IN MICE STOMACHS]

There’s also research under way on humans, stimulating the vagus nerve in the ear, to see if it reduces some of the effects on aging. From this article in the Economist:

“The ear is like a gateway through which we can tinker with the body’s metabolic balance, without the need for medication or invasive procedures. We believe these results are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Beatrice Bretherton, from the University of Leeds.

Great. But also know that there’s no free lunch in experimental science:

However, this kind of stimulation needs surgery to implant electrodes in the neck region, with associated expense and a small risk of side effects.

Uh, no thank you.

Back to the ear device study: Here’s the deal:

Worn on both ears and connected to a battery-powered generator on the waistband, the clips on trial are attached to the auricular concha — the shell-like cavity in the middle of the ear that leads towards the ear canal, where a small branch of the vagus nerve can be found just beneath the skin.

The current trial being run by scientists at Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, involves obese men and women. Half are getting ten minutes of ear stimulation before main meals every day for six months. The rest of the groups are getting a sham treatment — where they also wear the clips but no current is passed through them to stimulate the nerve.

Volunteers are being monitored to see how much weight they lose during the six-month experiment. 

Okay. So that’s a thing someone could try. But even the neuroscientist (not involved with the study) that the news article interviewed said that, while it’s worth trying because it’s not invasive and appears to be safe, “it’s not clear exactly yet how it works”.

Yeah. While I firmly believe that science, and also very speculative science, can and does bear fruit in ways we can’t predict, I’m not betting any money on a device that someone in a lab late at night thought up while eating cold pizza.

This is the type of in-depth scientific analysis that you can rely on from us at Fit is a Feminist Issue. Have a good day… 🙂