Saturday, 6 November 2021

Let go of outdated mental health perceptions and invest in workplace well-being

 In this opinion piece, Tania Diggory — mental health trainer, business neurolinguistic programming practitioner, and founder and director of Calmer, a mental health and well-being training organization — explains what we still get wrong about mental health and how to improve well-being in the workplace.

Today is World Mental Health DayTrusted Source, and this year, it certainly comes at a unique time in our history — particularly considering the mental health stories and studies that have arisen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The World Federation of Mental Health has set this year’s theme as “Mental Health in an Unequal World” — a truly poignant and timely discussion to be had.

The stark reality is that we don’t have to look very far to notice inequalities and the mental health impacts that result from them. From the gender pay gap and racial discrimination to income inequalities within countries and tackling climate change, to name a few, the United Nations (UN) cites that 71% of the world’s population live in countries where inequality has grown. There’s no doubt that many of the world’s inequality issues will, and do, have an impact on the mental health of those affected.

It is also commendable to see the UN’s Committee for Development policy, Leaving No One Behind, as the rallying call of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Although it may feel overwhelming to fathom how we as individuals can contribute to reducing unequal issues that are close to our hearts, the empowering reality is that when we each do our part, we truly can make a meaningful long-term difference.

While every issue that represents inequality deserves recognition, I’d like to explore a topic of inequality in relation to mental health that I believe doesn’t get enough air time: addressing the outdated perceptions of mental health, the negativity bias associated with it, and, as a result, unequal access to workplace well-being.

The words we say have meaning. The impact of our words can create a perception in another person’s mind that has the potential to form a belief and stay with them for a long time — even their entire lives. For centuries, people have largely perceived mental health as mental illness, and it’s still mostly discussed when someone is experiencing a decline in their well-being.

When we consider words that are often associated with mental health, while we’ve come a long way in raising awareness in recent years, there remain outdated perceptions of primarily viewing mental health from an illness perspective. Through my years of experience as a mental health educator, author, and owner of a mental health training organization, I’ve identified a key reason as to why this could be.

When you hear the term “mental health,” what comes to mind for you? There is no “right” or “wrong” — there are many valid answers. If you notice a natural lean toward thinking about mental health issues, struggles, and challenges, you’re not alone.

Particularly with new data highlighting the mental health crisis over the past 18 months — plus media stories surrounding this topic over many years significantly influencing our views, opinions, and understanding — it seems that many of us have been somewhat conditioned to focus on the aspects of poor mental health, which is what breeds the stigma associated with it. I’d like to offer a different perspective.

When I start my workplace training courses on mental health and resilience, I often open with a question to discuss, such as, “What does mental health mean to you?”

Initially, terms such as stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, inability to cope, absence of happiness, and feeling out of control spark the conversation.

When I ask, “What about good mental health?” I’m often met with a look of surprise and awkwardness, as though I’ve suddenly broken out into song — something not quite in keeping with the context of the training session the attendees were expecting.

I find this a fascinating observation. Only in the last few years have I started to receive a mixture of responses to this question, including phrases such as balance, family, contentment, nourishment, making time for self-care, practicing gratitude, recognizing emotional strength, and developing resilience, to name a few.

This opens our minds to a more inclusive, accurate, and balanced approach to discussing this topic, inviting us to remember that we all have mental health. It also highlights that it is complex and (at times) fragile and that it can adapt and change depending on our life circumstances from day to day.

When we focus on using a balanced overview of language in relation to the different states of mental health, it can improve our wider understanding of this complex topic and gently release the outdated views of the stigma, which, for many years, have prevented open discussion on this subject in workplaces.

It can be a key starting point for instigating meaningful conversations around well-being in the workplace, and it can encourage business leaders and organizations to prioritize mental health.

The Promoting Mental HealthTrusted Source report by the World Health Organization (WHO) states that “mental health and mental illness are determined by multiple and interacting social, psychological, and biological factors, just as health and illness in general.”

It also reminds us that “mental health implies fitness rather than freedom from illness.” When we understand that our mental health fluctuates, just as our physical health, this presents an opportunity to look at managing our mental health — maintaining, sustaining, and nurturing our mental state.

Even when you feel mentally well and fit, feelings and experiences change from day to day. Therefore, when we take the view of managing our mental health rather than waiting until there is a problem to address it, it reminds us that the human state is complex and that we can make conscious choices to support our own mental health, as well as that of others, on a daily basis.

Business leaders have a number of responsibilities and investments that they need to be conscious of each year. However, when it comes to investing in their employees’ health and well-being, studies have proven that this has a direct impact on the quality of their work, productivity, and focus.

It also enhances trust and connection as a team. It’s clear that healthy employees enable the machine of a business to function at its best.

Evidence has shown that chronic stress is a leading cause of physical illness, and the WHO has even recognized burnout as an occupational phenomenonTrusted Source.

It’s time we really looked at the return on investment of workplace well-being initiatives in a way that’s accessible to different budgets and needs. The evidence is clear for a strong business case to support employee mental health and well-being.

Although there has been notable progress in organizations opening up the conversation around mental health and investing in well-being initiatives, the data still show a disparity when it comes to wider mental health support in workplaces.

A recent study by Deloitte highlights that poor mental health costs employers in the United Kingdom up to £45 billion annually, and a Lancet reportTrusted Source from 2018 estimates that issues with mental health will cost the global economy $16 trillion by 2030Trusted Source.

It’s also estimated that each year, around 300,000 people in the U.K. lose their jobs due to long-term mental health problems. All of this represents a serious issue of unequal access to well-being support in the workplace.

To counterbalance this, in the U.K., for every £1 spent by employers on mental health interventions, they get £5 back in reduced absence, presenteeism, and staff turnover. Although there has been a noticeable shift in public awareness of mental health in recent years, there is a great deal more that needs to be done.

Another consideration is our ever-on working culture. A study by the Myers‐Briggs Company states that individuals who are “always on” tend to be more engaged at work. However, they are also more likely to experience stress or mental exhaustion.

The results of the study are varied:

  • About 28% of respondents find it difficult to switch off mentally from work due to increased connectivity, work emails, and smartphones.
  • Approximately 26% cite stress of work interfering with their personal life.
  • Around 20% report mental exhaustion.

Aside from considering the financial investment in mental health at work, we also need to look at how we can give ourselves permission as individuals to invest our time and energy in self-care modalities.

The Global Wellness Institute recently conducted the first research report to define, analyze, and size the global mental wellness economy, which is now a $121 billion market. It identifies and measures four submarkets, consisting of:

  • senses, spaces, and sleep
  • brain-boosting nutraceuticals and botanicals
  • self-improvement
  • meditation and mindfulness

While there is a greater need for support with mental health at work, there is growing evidence to suggest that individuals around the world are recognizing the importance and benefit of self-care more than ever.

Taking time for yourself is a selfless act that enables you to feel at your best — not only for yourself but for others around you. Taking breaks of varied lengths, whether micro-breaks or longer periods of time, helps boost productivity and happiness, which, in turn, creates a positive ripple effect for your colleagues and loved ones.

Many of us spend so much of our lives at work, and this undoubtedly has a significant influence on our state of well-being and happiness. When considering the investment in preventive initiatives, the resources behind a multinational corporation will be vastly different from those behind a self-employed worker or a micro-business.

For this reason, there need to be mental health provisions that can support any individual and any organization of any size. Although awareness of mental health has increased, research highlights that this topic, which affects every one of us, is still not being discussed or supported enough in organizations.

Deloitte’s Mental Health and Employers report notes that “interventions with the highest returns tend to focus on [preventive] large‐scale initiatives and on using technology or diagnostics to tailor support for those most in need.”

Although there’s no doubt that ongoing investment creates a powerful cultural shift and fosters a deeper level of rapport and connection within teams, for a tailored approach, a micro-business with a smaller budget can seek lower cost workshops that teach practical strategies alongside self-study tech resources, articles, and podcasts.

Through my experience of providing workplace mental health training and consultancy, I’ve realized how important it is that companies have access to many different forms of mental health training and support to cater to different budgets and time commitments.

I’ve had the pleasure of working with a variety of passionate, dedicated, and heart-centered business leaders who choose to prioritize the development of their people and culture, and, as a result, have seen the biggest return on investment. However, there are a myriad of ways in which businesses can tap into mental health practices, whatever their budget.

Long-term strategy development and the implementation of and adherence to a mental health policy can help ensure ongoing, consistent support of staff well-being. This can include training a group of volunteers in the workplace to become well-being champions, which gives them the opportunity to contribute to their workplace culture and be part of a meaningful shift in how colleagues support one another.

Whether it’s through mental health-related events, articles, or resources for colleagues to access, there are many ways to engage staff.

I’ve witnessed great success with organizational mental health initiatives when managers are trained on how to support their staff and ensure a variety of support pathways that employees can access to support their well-being.

It’s important for staff to have options. For example, managers need to feel well-equipped to hold sensitive conversations with their team members, there should be encouragement for staff members to connect with trusted colleagues, and organizations should provide signposting to a wide range of professional resources, both internally and externally.

It’s worth bearing in mind that some staff may not feel comfortable opening up about their issues if mental health isn’t discussed at work. Therefore, it’s important to take a holistic view of how mental health is both managed and nurtured in the workplace.

Ongoing preventive measures that support the health and well-being of staff can ultimately contribute to a happy workforce as well as the sustainability of the business.

It’s important to recognize that professionals who work in leadership positions have a legal duty of care to support their staff. In the U.K., the Equality Act 2010 legally protects professionals from discrimination at work and in wider society, ensuring fair and equal treatment. Other countries have similar laws in place.

It is my hope and vision that businesses of all shapes and sizes can find ways to embed a positive approach toward supporting mental health in the workplace through various means. Anyone can start by encouraging consistent, meaningful conversations.

Source: Medical News Today

Friday, 5 November 2021

A water pill may stave off Alzheimer’s by targeting genes responsible for the condition

 

  • Research suggests that Alzheimer’s disease results from a combination of genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors.
  • Using mice models and human cell lines, scientists recently investigated potential therapeutic treatments for individuals with a genetic risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
  • Their results indicate that bumetanide, which is a commonly available oral diuretic drug, has a significant therapeutic response in treating the neurodegenerative condition.
  • The scientists conclude that bumetanide may one day become a potential treatment and prevention option for Alzheimer’s disease.

There is currently no known cureTrusted Source for Alzheimer’s disease.

Studies suggestTrusted Source that this is because the neurodegenerative condition results from complex interactions between several genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Consequently, this has led to challenges in developing a single drug to treat every case of Alzheimer’s disease.

One studyTrusted Source suggests that the precision medicine approach may be a useful way to scale the drug discovery hurdle.

In precision medicine, disease treatment and prevention account for individual variations in genes, environment, and lifestyle and accommodate personalization based on the factors that may affect response to treatment.

Recently, scientists in the United States employed the precision medicine approach in targeting specific genes that increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. The aim was to investigate potential therapeutic options for the treatment of the neurodegenerative condition.

The results from their study appear in the journal Nature AgingTrusted Source.

Corresponding study author Dr. Marina Sirota, Ph.D. — an associate professor at the Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute (BCHSI) of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) — explained to Medical News Today the rationale behind their study.

Dr. Sirota said, “[W]e agnostically queried [Alzheimer’s] disease gene expression (whether certain genes are turned on or turned off) against a database of FDA-approved drugs to see which compounds might reverse the disease effects back to the normal state.”

“Here specifically, we take a precision medicine approach by focusing on individuals who have the APOE4/4 genotype as a starting point,” she explained.

“Bumetanide was one of our top hits using this computational approach, which led us to investigate this drug further,” Dr. Sirota concluded.

In this study, the researchers hypothesized that drugs that reverse the expression of differentially expressed genes in disease states toward normal levels may be beneficial against the condition.

First, the scientists chose the APOE genotype. This is the gene with the greatest risk factor for developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease.

Next, they analyzed brain tissue samples from people with Alzheimer’s disease to identify the APOE gene expression signatures — that is, the extent to which genes are turned on or off because of the APOE genotype carriers.

Using a drug repurposing software, the team compared these signatures against a database of more than 1,300 FDA-approved drugs.

Here, bumetanide emerged as a suitable candidate for reversing APOE4-related expressions back to normal levels in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers then employed human cell lines, mice models, and electronic health records (EHRs) for real-world validation of these data. They genetically modified the brains of the rodents to produce APOE4-like symptoms, and they then treated the animals with bumetanide.

Over time, the scientists subjected the genetically modified animals to learning and behavioral tests for cognitive functions, and they noted the corresponding results.

In addition to the cognitive tests, the researchers harvested brain slices from the animals to explore the mechanism of action of bumetanide.

To extend the study to human tissues, the team genetically derived APOE4 neurons from the skin cells of an individual with the APOE4 genotype. The genetically “reprogrammed” cells are known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCTrusted Source), and the ability of cells to do this is called pluripotencyTrusted Source.

The scientists treated the iPSC-derived human neurons with bumetanide, and they also noted these corresponding results.

Also, the researchers measured all test results against a control group.

The researchers discovered that in the brains of the genetically modified animals, bumetanide significantly reversed the APOE4 signature genes.

They also observed that in the brains of these animals, bumetanide improved memory formation and restored the ability of neurons to respond to stimuli by reorganizing their function and connections. These processes are known as neuronal excitability and plasticity, respectively.

During the behavioral tests, the researchers noted that study mice with learning deficits showed great improvements.

Furthermore, in the iPSC-derived human neurons, the scientists noticed a reversal in APOE4 signature genes similar to those of the bumetanide-treated, genetically modified animals.

Further studies revealed that human and rodent brain cells share three similar signature pathways for expressing the APOE4 gene. This suggests an explanation for how bumetanide elicits its effects.

Using EHRs from the UCSF and the Mount Sinai Health System, the scientists further tested the real-world efficacy of bumetanide.

They confirmed that those with exposure to bumetanide treatment had a significantly lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease than people without exposure to bumetanide treatment.

All these findings led the scientists to conclude that bumetanide may be effective in preventing Alzheimer’s disease.

To understand the implication of these results, MNT reached out to experts.

Dr. Jean Yuan, Ph.D.Trusted Source, program director for the Translational Bioinformatics Program at the National Institute on Aging, had a hopeful take on the study results.

The study has several limitations. Firstly, because of the limited database for the APOE4 genotype, the sample size the researchers used was restricted to only one dataset containing 213 samples.

Secondly, the efficacy of bumetanide was validated only among the top predicted drugs in animal models and human EHR databases.

Lastly, the two EHR databases the scientists used in this study did not contain APOE genotype information, which means that further studies are now necessary.

Nevertheless, the study results spell exciting possibilities for the potential future treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: Medical News Today

Thursday, 4 November 2021

What are ‘escape variants,’ and how are vaccine producers preparing for them?

 

  • COVID-19 vaccine companies are developing new inoculations in preparation for variants that may arise.
  • Vaccine manufacturers hope to streamline processes for faster production and approval.
  • Experts say that the current vaccines offer significant protection against the Delta variant.

Leading COVID-19 vaccine companies are working relentlessly to prepare for the possible emergence of more virulent SARS-CoV-2 variants.

A recent NatureTrusted Source news articleTrusted Source reports that AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer are updating their vaccines and running human trials to stay ahead of potential escape variants.

Escape variants are variants with the ability to evade the immunity that people acquire through vaccines and previous infections. Scientists have not identified any escape variants yet.

The manufacturers are also coordinating with regulators and streamlining internal workflows for faster deployment of vaccines if necessary.

In an August 2021 podcast that the Infectious Diseases Society of America hosted, Walter Orenstein, M.D., discussed how vaccines work. He is a professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta.

Dr. Orenstein explained:

“The immune system functions like an army or police force. Its job is to prevent the invader, for example, a virus, from invading in the first place by creating a wall. For humans, this is antibodies, which are proteins which bind the invader […]. In addition, it has mechanisms which destroy the invader after initially invading some cells in the body but before disease can occur. This is known as cell mediated immunity.”

Dr. Orenstein said that vaccines help the immune system practice fighting pathogens. Immunizations, such as mRNA vaccinesTrusted Source, “help train the immune system to be prepared to repel an invader like a virus.”

The Nature article says that mRNA vaccine producers Moderna and Pfizer might be able to produce a prototype shot against an escape variant within days. AstraZeneca’s viral vector vaccines may take slightly longer.

Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca are taking slightly different approaches to their preparation.

Moderna

Moderna is recruiting 300–500 participantsTrusted Source to test new RNA vaccines against the Beta and Delta variants, plus a combination of Beta and the original SARS-CoV-2 variant. They will also evaluate a Beta-Delta multivalent vaccineTrusted Source that includes old and new forms of the spike protein.

According to Jacqueline Miller, Moderna’s senior vice president and head of infectious disease research, the company will turn in test cases to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and set up a process by which this submission can happen more quickly.

Moderna is focusing on the Beta variant because its mutations make it less sensitive to neutralization by the antibodies that the body creates following vaccination.

Pfizer

Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer’s vice president and chief scientific officer of viral vaccines and mRNA vaccinesTrusted Source, says that his company wants “to practice all aspects of executing a strain change.”

Pfizer and its partner BioNTech are testing a Beta-specific mRNA vaccine with up to 930 subjects. The companies began a clinical trial with the Delta and Alpha variants in August.

Pfizer does not see a need for a new vaccine and currently has no plans to distribute its Beta or Delta vaccines.

AstraZeneca

AstraZeneca launched a large study of a Beta-specific viral vector vaccine in June 2021. The study involves more than 2,800 individuals, many of whom have already been immunized.

The company’s executive vice-president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, Mene Pangalos, says, “We’re definitely practicing with this one, but we are also developing it, and if it’s successful, we will have it ready to use.”

The Nature article mentions several challenges of assessing the true effectiveness of variant vaccines.

Firstly, it can be difficult to find unvaccinated volunteers in some regions. Finding unvaccinated individuals willing to submit to an experimental trial may be even harder.

Recruiting placebo groups could present an ethical dilemma, as well.

Margaret Liu, M.D., chairman of the board of the International Society for Vaccines, told Medical News Today that “One of the challenges for understanding the exact impact of a variant is that the mutations can affect proteins other than spike, so there can be effects on viability and replication, etc., not just effects on how well spike binds to the ACE2 receptor or how well antibodies neutralize.”

Immunogenicity studies, which assess the immune responses that variant vaccines generate, may present a viable alternative. AstraZeneca and Moderna are pursuing this option.

The first COVID-19 vaccines are based on the SARS-CoV-2 variant identified in Wuhan, China. Virologists believe that these are sufficient for combating new variants for now.

Medical News Today asked Dr. Liu whether she expects the emerging Delta subvariant AY.4.2 to respond favorably to current vaccines.

Dr. Liu responded:

“[T]he current vaccines will likely continue to generate responses that will be useful against the AY.4.2 variant — including both antibodies and T cells. And protection from severe disease and death is still the top priority, so that is a different level of ‘favorable responses’ than protection from mild disease.”

“It still isn’t clear if or how much difference there will be compared with regular Delta in terms of infectiousness or ability to evade immune responses. The change in infectivity of Delta compared with Alpha and Alpha compared with the original [variant] was very clearly significant.”

Dr. Liu emphasized that regardless of whether the AY.4.2 subvariant exacerbates the pandemic, people should still get the vaccine and follow safety protocols. She also expressed her belief that some individuals might benefit from boosters.

It is not clear how public health authorities will determine that there is an escape variant and, therefore, that a novel vaccine is required.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO)Trusted Source has a controlled process for modifying an influenza vaccine in response to emerging variants, there is no such setup for COVID-19.

Vaccine manufacturers hope that changing a COVID-19 vaccine will become a more seamless procedure, as with flu shots. Manufacturers can also produce RNA vaccines more quickly than traditional shots.

Dr. Liu stressed that the more prevalent a virus is, the greater the possibility of variants forming and spreading. She continued:

“The more variants there are, the probability increases that one that is more deadly and/or escapes prior immune responses — whether from vaccines or from prior infection — will occur.”

Dr. Liu referred to a July 2021 monkeypox outbreakTrusted Source as a striking example of how viruses can spread:

“The person had originally flown to the [United States] from Africa. But even the people on the Atlanta-to-Dallas flight were potentially exposed. Fortunately, because everyone had to wear masks, that provided some protection. The point is that due to global travel, you really don’t know that the person you are with wasn’t exposed to a variant, even if you think of them as in your local social group. People need to live and work, but common sense can be used.”

Source: Medical News Today

Wednesday, 3 November 2021

Western diet linked to cognitive decline and neurodegeneration in mouse study

 

  • Researchers examine the role of a Western diet in cognitive decline and neurodegenerative issues in mice.
  • Previous research has shown a connection between poor diet and obesity and Alzheimer’s disease.
  • The new research in rodents may point to a mechanism behind this, which scientists could use to develop potential therapies for treating neurodegenerative disorders.

Over the past few years, studies on a typical Western diet have linked it to adverse reactions in the body, including prostate cancer, sepsis, and chronic gut infections.

A new study suggests that a Western diet may have a negative effect on the brain, leading to cognitive decline and neurodegenerative issues. The researchers believe their findings may offer potential therapies for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease.

The study appears in the journal iScienceTrusted Source.

Neurodegenerative disorders include a variety of conditions resulting from loss of structure and function of the central or peripheral nervous system. The two most common neurodegenerative disorders are Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association (AA), more than 6 million adults in the United States have the condition, and the Parkinson’s Foundation states that about 1 million people in the U.S. have Parkinson’s disease.

Previous research shows that the impact of obesity and a poor diet can increase a person’s risk of developing a neurodegenerative condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Another study earlier this year found that preventing obesity earlier in life through a healthier diet could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease.

A typical Western diet, which health experts also refer to as the Standard American Diet, usually includes greater amounts of food with higher calorie and fat percentages and lower nutritional value.

In a previous studyTrusted Source, researchers from the Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine (Edwards) in Huntington, WV, pinpointed a peptide called NaKtide as a way to block signals from the cellular sodium-potassium pump called Na,K-ATPase. By blocking the signal, the study authors lowered obesity growth in mice fed a high fat diet.

The present research suggests that a Western diet creates cognitive decline and neurodegeneration through increased Na,K-ATPase signaling in adipocytes, or fat cells.

When the researchers hindered the Na,K-ATPase signal through the use of NaKtide in those fat cells, they found it halted the adverse effects the Western diet had on the brain, especially the hippocampus, which plays a vital role in learning and long-term memory.

In the study, the researchers used a gene-altered mouse model. They fed the mice either a normal diet or a Western type diet for 12 weeks. They also gave the mice the antibiotic doxycycline to activate NaKtide in the fat cells.

At the conclusion of the study, the researchers observed that the mice eating the Western diet increased their body weight significantly compared with the mice on a normal diet. Additionally, the first group of mice showed noteworthy insulin resistance, low energy, and lowered oxygen levels.

Moreover, a Western diet increases the type of cytokine molecules that promote inflammation. The body requires both anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines to regulate the response of the other. Having too many inflammatory cytokines can causeTrusted Source certain conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases.

The study authors also found that the mice eating the Western diet showed signs of behavioral changes and changes in gene expression and signaling in line with those typical of people with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

For the authors of the study, the next step is carrying out further research to try to replicate the present findings in humans. The research also shows the possibility of a therapy targeting turning off Na,K-ATPase signaling in fat cells.

According to senior study author Dr. Joseph Shapiro, M.D., vice president and dean at Edwards, while it is too early to talk about new medications that might target the adipocyte redox state, “Dietary modulation to avoid exacerbation of oxidative stress in adipocytes might be worth examining in clinical neurodegeneration.”

Medical News Today also spoke with Dr. Percy Griffin, Ph.D., director of Scientific Engagement for the AA, on what implications this research may have on suggested dietary changes for someone with Alzheimer’s disease or with heightened risk factors. He said:

“This research offers a novel avenue to attenuate the effects of the Western diet by blocking Na,K-ATPase signaling in fat cells. Although this work is interesting, the connection to neurodegeneration is preliminary. An important next step for this research would be to provide more evidence of neuronal protection and explore a mechanism for this effect.”

“Previous work has explored the effect of a high fat diet on inflammation in the brain and an increased risk [of] Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. On the other hand, there’s a lot of work showing that eating a diet high in vegetables, fruits, and healthy fats — that is, the Mediterranean diet — may decrease one’s risk [of] cognitive decline. The [AA] is currently conducting a clinical trial called U.S. POINTER that aims to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions — including eating a healthy diet, getting regular exercise, and staying cognitively engaged — can reduce risk of cognitive decline.”

What potential implications this research might have on a typical Western diet? “Rodents differ from humans in many, many ways, and it is quite possible that components of what we call a Western diet, such as high fat, may be less problematic in people than in rodents,” Dr. Shapiro told MNT.

“However, we do think that simple sugars, especially fructose, may be problematic for people as well as rodents, based on extensive study by other researchers.”

Source: Medical News Today

Tuesday, 2 November 2021

Scientists find 13 candidate genes associated with fitness outcomes

 

  • Researchers from Cambridge University published a meta-analysis in PLOS ONETrusted Source identifying 13 candidate genes associated with fitness outcomes in previously untrained people.
  • Genetic influences accounted for 72% of the difference in the results of those in the strength training group.
  • Genetic factors had less effect on the outcomes in the aerobic (44%) and anaerobic power groups (10%).
  • Further research is necessary to determine the exact roles of fitness genes and how best to tailor exercise training according to genetic makeup.

Physical activity is essentialTrusted Source for maintaining health, reducing chronic diseases, and preventing premature death. The 2018 physical activity guidelines for AmericansTrusted Source recommend a combination of moderate intensity and vigorous intensity aerobic exercise alongside muscle-strengthening activities involving the major muscle groups.

The adviceTrusted Source is for adults to do 150–300 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity, 75–150 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent mix. They can spread this activity throughout the week and should also engage in strength training on at least 2 days of the week to reap additional health benefits.

The three components necessary to determine health-related fitness are cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength, and anaerobic power. Cardiovascular or cardiorespiratory fitnessTrusted Source measures how efficiently the respiratory and circulatory systems supply oxygen to the skeletal muscle for energy production during physical activity.

The maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max) test is one way to determine cardiorespiratory fitness. The VO2 max test measures the body’s maximum oxygen consumption capacity during a vigorous intensity activity, such as running on a treadmill.

A higher VO2 max indicates an improved ability to supply and utilize oxygen and maintain aerobic activities at an increased intensity for extended periods. Low cardiorespiratory fitness is a predictor of cardiovascular disease and death from all causes in adults.

Muscular strength is the body’s capability to exert a sufficient force against external resistance to perform tasks and maintain mobility.

An anaerobic activity is one that involves the breakdown of glucose for energy without using oxygen. Anaerobic power measures the body’s ability to move with the greatest intensity in a short period.

Increasing cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, and anaerobic power may improve a person’s overall fitness level, but responsiveness to exercise training varies considerably among individuals.

In a session at the 22nd Annual Congress of the European College of Sports Science, Dr. Bernd Wolfarth, professor in the Department of Sports Medicine at Humboldt University, Berlin, explains, “Environment is a major factor [for trainability], and nowadays, we know that about 25–40% of the variability of phenotype results from genes, and the other 60–75% is coming [from] environmental effects.”

Specific genes called candidate genesTrusted Source may predict successful responses to targeted types of exercise training. These genes may influence energy pathways, metabolism, storage, and cell growth in the body.

These findings led researchers from the Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Anglia Ruskin University, UK, to conduct a meta-analysis to identify the specific version, or allelesTrusted Source, of candidate genes related to the exercise response in untrained participants. The team analyzed strength, anaerobic power, and cardiopulmonary fitness.

Individuals inherit one allele of each gene from each parent. The individual is homozygous for the gene if both alleles are the same and heterozygous if the two alleles are different.

The study also assessed whether the identified genes and alleles contributed to differences in exercise training response among the participants. The researchers analyzed the results from 24 different studies with a total of 3,012 participants. Of the cohort, 1,512 participants were male, and 1,239 were female. The sex of the remaining 261 participants was not stated.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years. There were 89 groups: 43 aerobic, 29 strength, and 17 power. The researchers identified 13 candidate genes and alleles, of which nine, six, and four were associated with cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, and anaerobic power, respectively.

On average, the participants in the cardiorespiratory fitness studies received aerobic training for 36 minutes on 3 days of the week for a total of 12 weeks. The specified intensity was 77% of maximum heart rateTrusted Source or 74% of VO2 max. The researchers attributed 44% of the difference in aerobic training response to genetic influences.

Strength training, on average, involved 174 repetitions per session at an intensity of 75% of one-repetition maximum. Sessions took place 3 days per week for a total of 10 weeks. Genes accounted for 72% of the observed differences in the strength training group.

The participants in the anaerobic power group performed, on average, 4–12 cycle bouts of a specified intensity — 90–110% VO2 max or a load of 0.075 per kg body weight — 3 days a week for 5 weeks. Genes had less influence in the power group, with only 10% of the variability in response being due to genetic influences.

Dr. Bert Mandelbaum, who is a sports medicine specialist and orthopedic surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Kerlan-Jobe Institute in Los Angeles and was not involved in the study, told Medical News Today, “Genomics and the aspects of […] phenotypic and genotypic expression […] with respect to fitness and exercise are now being associated with a variety of genomic patterns.”

“As we learn more about [the] phenotypic expression of a variety of haplotypes in genes, there [will] be a spectrum of how we interpret these […] going forward — this is one of those studies that really demonstrate that.”

The strengths of this meta-analysis included the classification of study groups as either aerobic, strength, or power and the assessment of gene subgroups. As the sample size for some genes was small in this review, further studies are necessary to determine the exact role of these genes in influencing cardiopulmonary fitness, strength, and anaerobic power.

The results of future research may, theoretically, support the individualization and optimization of exercise programs based on a person’s genetic makeup.

Source: Medical News Today

Monday, 1 November 2021

Two personality traits may be linked to Alzheimer’s pathology

 

  • A buildup of amyloid plaques and tau tangles in the brain is associated with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
  • A new study finds that being neurotic or conscientious may increase or decrease, respectively, the odds of developing these buildups.
  • It remains unclear, however, whether this association is a result of the lifestyles that may characterize these personality traits.

Previous researchTrusted Source has found that some personality traits are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. However, scientists have been unable to find a causal link.

The development of amyloid plaques and insoluble tangles of tau proteins in the brain is likewise associated with the disease and related dementias. Now, a new study explores a possible link between personality traits and these health issues.

The study finds that neuroticism increases the likelihood of developing amyloid plaques and tau tangles, and that being conscientious reduces the likelihood of developing them.

Neuroticism and conscientiousness are two of the so-called Big Five personality traits often cited by researchers and mental health experts. These traits emerge early in life and, as the study says, “have a broad impact on important life outcomes.” They are:

  • Conscientiousness: This describes someone who is responsible, careful, and goal- and detail-oriented.
  • Agreeableness: This describes a person who is respectful, compassionate, trusting and tries to avoid problems.
  • Neuroticism: This describes someone who gravitates toward unsettling emotions, such as anxiety and depression.
  • Openness: This describes a person who is open to new experiences and curious about the world.
  • Extraversion or Extroversion: This describes someone who seeks excitement and is active and highly sociable.

The authors of the study performed two investigations involving over 3,000 participants.

The first analyzed data from people participating in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), an ongoing study of community-dwelling adults. The participants completed a 240-item questionnaire based on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory test to identify their Big Five traits.

Within a year of the questionnaire, the absence or presence of amyloid plaques and tau proteins in their brains was assessed via PET scans.

The second was a meta-analysis of 12 studies that investigated associations between the pathology of Alzheimer’s disease and personality traits.

The BLSA-based study and meta-analysis both arrived at the same conclusion: People with high neuroticism or low conscientiousness scores were more likely to have developed amyloid plaques and tau tangles. People with high conscientiousness or low neuroticism scores were less likely to have them.

Dr. Claire Sexton, director of scientific programs and outreach at Alzheimer’s Association, who was not involved in the study, told Medical News Today, “It’s especially intriguing to see complementary findings between the BLSA cohort and the meta-analyses.“

She explained, “Research has looked at other personality traits, such as openness and extraversion, in relationship with dementia, but neuroticism and conscientiousness has the strongest link, according to recent meta analyses.”

When asked if the association occurs at some specific level of neuroticism or conscientiousness, Prof. Terracciano said, “These associations seem to be linear without a threshold […] and there is no specific level that triggers resistance or susceptibility.”

The researchers also discovered that the association between these personality traits and pathology was strongest in people who were cognitively normal at the time of the assessment in the BLSA study or studies included in the meta-analysis.

This suggests that personality type may be a risk factor before the emergence of amyloid and tau.

The opposite appears not to be true. The researchers note, “These patterns suggest that the associations are not emerging phenomena owing to personality change with disease progression, as would be expected with reverse causality.”

“Because this study is observational, we can’t say for sure what the mechanisms are, and much more research is needed,” Dr. Sexton noted.

She did, however, list some possibilities:

“One potential pathway is inflammation, which is associated with personality and the development of Alzheimer’s biomarkers. Lifestyle is another potential pathway. For example, highly conscientious individuals have been shown to have healthier lifestyles — in terms of physical activity, smoking, sleep, depression, cognitive stimulation, etc. — than those with lower conscientiousness. There is a solid body of research connecting lifestyle, dementia risk, and biomarkers.”

Prof. Terracciano suggested yet another idea to MNT:

“There are aspects of neuroticism and conscientiousness that might directly impact the risk of dementia. Traits like neuroticism shape our emotional life, the way we cope with stress and deal with our feelings. Conscientiousness is defined by our level of grit, persistence, and planful attitudes.”

Source: Medical News Today