Slashdot Mirror
Exercise and Caffeine May Activate Metabolic Genes
ananyo writes "A trip to the gym could mean not just losing pounds — but also chemical modifications from DNA in the form of methyl groups. The presence (or absence) of methyl groups at certain positions on DNA can affect gene expression. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm looked at the methylation status of genes in small biopsies taken from the thigh muscles of healthy young adults before and after a stint on an exercise bike. They found that, for some genes involved in energy metabolism, the workout demethylated the promoter regions (stretches of DNA that facilitate the transcription of particular genes). Genes unrelated to metabolism remained methylated. Furthermore, similar demethylation could be seen when cultured muscle cells were given a massive (probably lethal) dose of caffeine."
From TFA: ...“one would need to consume a caffeine equivalent of about 50 cups per day, almost close to a lethal dose”, she says. “Exercising is far easier if you ask me.”
Clearly, she doesn't know about the secret Mountain Dew IV that hackers use whilst lurking in their parents' basements...
& your genes runnier?
FTFA:
Zierath cautions that this result does not imply that drinking coffee could be a replacement for exercise. Caffeine acts mainly through the central nervous system, and to see direct effects on muscle such as those in the rodent-cell experiments, “one would need to consume a caffeine equivalent of about 50 cups per day, almost close to a lethal dose”, she says. “Exercising is far easier if you ask me.”
It's hard to code while I exercise, and it's only almost close a lethal dose. If it doesn't kill me, will 50 cups of coffee make me stronger? ;)
Can we get an English translation of the summary?
a pill form of exercise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In the post title. Thanks for your attention.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
you sig:
You can recover from a bad product, you can't recover from a missed market window.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
IANAB (biochemist) but based on the article, methylation of a gene generally reduces its activity. In this case, exercising, forcing contractions in cultured cells, or near lethal does of caffeine in cell cultures resulted in less methylation on some genes involved in energy metabolism, presumably increasing how much they are expressed. The article does note that these genes may still be expressed when methylated.
Or if that's still unreadable, exercise changes how much some genes are active in muscle cells.
That would be a stretch. More like he wasn't completely wrong, in that epigenetics and methylation can be passed along to offspring. But even then, this article has nothing to do with that, considering changes in the methylation of genes in leg muscles would have no effect on the genes in zygotes.
We've known for decades that there are many mechanisms for regulating what cells produce. This regulation happens at all stages of protein synthesis, from unwinding the DNA from the chromatin to excreting it outside the cell. Methylation of the promoters is merely an example of this regulation. It is not changing your genetic code and making you a mutant. It is a simple "on/off" switch, no different from having a protein recognize a particular sequence on the promoter and sticking to it. And, of course, no one should be surprized at the blindingly obvious finding that exercise regulates expression of genes related to metabolism.
All this research is "exciting" only because it identifies the regulation pathway and thereby opens the possibility of direct intervention in it. Soon there might be drugs that let you sloth around on the couch watching TV all day long, while making the body think it has been working out eight hours a day. And maybe these (very expensive) drugs may even succeed at intervening in all the places regular exercise does, from growing your muscles, to reducing fat deposits, to increasing blood supply throughout the body. Then all those slobs that are dying in droves today would suddenly become healthy (and broke) hardbodies, who will delight in stuffing lockers with the laid off nerds who created those drugs (and were no longer needed thereafter). Yes, nerds like you, dear Slashdot reader. And oh, how you'll cry! And oh, how I'll say I told you so.
How can this be possible? Many of the kind folks on Slashdot have informed me that I am stupid for thinking that there are different metabolism. Even more so for thinking that what you ingest would have any effect on this mythical 'metabolism'. They kindly refer me to the laws of thermodynamics and how it states that weight is strictly a matter of the number of calories burned through exercise vs. the number of calories consumed.
Further off-topic:
Sure you can. Apple wasn't even close to being the first with their mp3 players or their smart-phones. Similar analogies exist in other markets.
What the heck does it mean? Even the linked Wikipedia article is a mass of technobabble understandable only to subject matter experts. How about something to tell us what these changes to gene expression (whatever that is) mean in human readable terms.
No. Sorry, but this is not the information you're looking for. You can go about your business. How can we mad scientists create our army of supermen (and women) if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can understand the user manual?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
There is no proof that exercise improves longevity. If it were the case, then I would expect to see body builders living the longest, which is not the case. Longevity appears to be about moderation and happiness.
Agreed. Darwin used the phrase, "use, disuse, etc." frequently in OTOOS, although he never explained the "etc."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
...and then run a mile. You'll live forever.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
That would be a stretch. More like he wasn't completely wrong, in that epigenetics and methylation can be passed along to offspring.
Seems to me like "he wasn't completely wrong" is modern biologists bending over backwards for the guy. Epigenetics seems to resemble Lamarckianism only at the most high-level single-sentence overview of "traits acquired in life can be passed on".
Considering how Lamarckianism was supposed to be the primary driver of inherited traits, I'd say it's more like "his flirtations with reality were due to chance alone".
The enemies of Democracy are
Filler
and I'd bet that someone's found a transcription factor somewhere that binds to methylated DNA and ...
I believe there are inhibitor regions which will, when not methylated, attract some special-purpose snotball (yeah, I'm gonna call that a technical term) which interferes with transcription. And then when methylated, these inhibitor regions fail to interfere.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Guess I underplayed it too much. Personally, I'd say Lamarckianism is complete trash but, as you said, he happened to throw a dart and hit something that bore a vague resemblance to reality.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21544-exercise-instantly-boosts-fatbusting-genes.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=health
Not exactly plain, nose-picker English, but I sorta get it: exercise is good for you.
I can't make heads or tails whether having my DNA promoter regions methylated or demethylated is good for me or not.
Exercise switches on expression of certain muscle-related genes in muscles. Film at eleven.
Surprise, surprise! What did they expect?
IMHO they're just discovering the details of some signaling pathways in muscles, probably related to rebuilding damage and strengthening muscles as a result of exercise.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Drink lots of coffee before hopping on the treadmill and you'll wake up with super strength and the ability to climb walls. Make it a double espresso and you can also shoot sticky goo from your wrists.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
http://tinyurl.com/ykoyz35
Have gnu, will travel.
Most of us would rather be well-toned than waif-like. Therefore it's not just about burning calories but building muscle. And unless you want to starve yourself, it's much easier to build muscle.
Pearson and Shaw claim that plummeting growth hormone levels is why people over 30 find exercise less beneficial in toning their bodies.
They also claim that supplements promoting growth hormone release increase/restore this ability.
This latter claim has been demonstrated in many animals including pigs:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m7q0118602n8l37x/
Caffeine also seems to slow lipid (fat) formation:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/1/40.short
Both have strong effects for me. I take 200mg of niacin 1-2 hours before exercising and drink coffee with meals.
Hi - digging a bit deeper into this story -
1. Demethylation - removing methyl groups from DNA - generally activates genes.
2. In this case, the scientists are not 100% sure what demethylation of these genes means - it could mean they're being activated but they're not sure yet. More research required...
3. The observation that there are these sorts of epigenetic changes though in response to exercise is in itself really interesting. You do some exercise and within minutes you get changes to your DNA? That's pretty awesome.
4. The metabolic genes cited are not directly involved with metabolism - they're on various pathways involved in metabolism. So it's quite possible that what they're seeing is an uptick in genes linked to energy production.
As for the New Scientist article
"Now there is no excuse to avoid the gym: just one hour of exercise instantly changes your genes to boost the breakdown of fat."
There's no evidence of that at all. It may not have anything to do with 'fat' - they're genes involved in metabolism - I think that's all we know.
Weight is still determined by calories in and calories out.
Not true. Weight is determined by the insulin response triggered by an increase in blood sugar.
And all this time I thought that weight was determined mainly by mass and gravitational pull.