Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Say the Future Looks Bleak For Our Bones
HughPickens.com writes Nicholas St. Fluer reports at The Atlantic that according to researchers, our convenient, sedentary way of life is making our bones weak foretelling a future with increasing fractures, breaks, and osteoporosis. For thousands of years, hunter-gatherers trekked on strenuous ventures for food with dense skeletons supporting their movements and a new study pinpoints the origin of weaker bones at the beginning of the Holocene epoch roughly 12,000 years ago, when humans began adopting agriculture. "Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter—more fragile, if you like—bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed," says Habiba Chirchir. A second study attributes joint bone weakness to different levels of physical activity in ancient human societies, also related to hunting versus farming.
The team scanned circular cross-sections of seven bones in the upper and lower limb joints in chimpanzees, Bornean orangutans and baboons. They also scanned the same bones in modern and early modern humans as well as Neanderthals, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus africanus and other Australopithecines. They then measured the amount of white bone in the scans against the total area to find the trabecular bone density. Crunching the numbers confirmed their visual suspicions. Modern humans had 50 to 75 percent less dense trabecular bone than chimpanzees, and some hominins had bones that were twice as dense compared to those in modern humans. Both studies have implications for modern human health and the importance of physical activity to bone strength. "The lightly-built skeleton of modern humans has a direct and important impact on bone strength and stiffness," says Tim Ryan. That's because lightness can translate to weakness—more broken bones and a higher incidence of osteoporosis and age-related bone loss. The researchers warn that with the deskbound lives that many people lead today, our bones may have become even more brittle than ever before. "We are not challenging our bones with enough loading," says Colin Shaw, "predisposing us to have weaker bones so that, as we age, situations arise where bones are breaking when, previously, they would not have."
The team scanned circular cross-sections of seven bones in the upper and lower limb joints in chimpanzees, Bornean orangutans and baboons. They also scanned the same bones in modern and early modern humans as well as Neanderthals, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus africanus and other Australopithecines. They then measured the amount of white bone in the scans against the total area to find the trabecular bone density. Crunching the numbers confirmed their visual suspicions. Modern humans had 50 to 75 percent less dense trabecular bone than chimpanzees, and some hominins had bones that were twice as dense compared to those in modern humans. Both studies have implications for modern human health and the importance of physical activity to bone strength. "The lightly-built skeleton of modern humans has a direct and important impact on bone strength and stiffness," says Tim Ryan. That's because lightness can translate to weakness—more broken bones and a higher incidence of osteoporosis and age-related bone loss. The researchers warn that with the deskbound lives that many people lead today, our bones may have become even more brittle than ever before. "We are not challenging our bones with enough loading," says Colin Shaw, "predisposing us to have weaker bones so that, as we age, situations arise where bones are breaking when, previously, they would not have."
Yeah, because being a farmer is such a cushy gig.
... what we get in weaker bones, we get in more refined minds (aka sitting and reading, researching, etc). Now some may laugh at this idea in the modern era, but you have to remember you only have so much time and energy as an organism. It'd be interesting to know whether bones needing lower maintenance/energy has some pro's instead of just cons.
Or am I safe if not?
Use multi-joint barbell exercises like squats and deadlifts. They build bone density and stave off the effects of osteoporosis.
Have gnu, will travel.
...Clearly weight-bearing exercise will help us maintain bone density. Does the article recommend an optimal amount?
I suppose I could read the article to find out, but this is slashdot after all....
3D printed replacement skeletons to the rescue! Installation is a bitch, but you only have to do it once.
Maybe the added weigh of obesity, will cause more force on our bones and compensate for the lack of it by moving less.
I refuse to believe this nonsense. Since this type of doom and fear mongering has been going on now for many years now. It never comes true and it never is going to come true. If doom is going to happen, it is going to happen and nothing can be done about it and I am not sure if scientist are going to be the first one to know about or figure out what to do about it once the time comes, if it ever comes to start with. Since the human race has the chance of surviving as a species for the next 500 million years (with minor evolutionary changes in the process).
The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX. The new humans live to 70 - 100 so there is pleanty of time for the new humans to break or splinter the old bones. The older humans didn't live long enough or stress the older bones nearly as much.
If we infuse our bones with adamantium, we get stronger bones *and* neato claws.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Average lifespans being a mean average, are hugely influenced by outliers and skewed demographics such as infants. For example, infant mortality was crazy high in the distant past; now hardly any are allowed to die. Average many humans who are near 0 years old and the average life span is greatly reduced.
Fewer humans lived as long as they do now, but it was not the freak circumstance people think. Proportional to the population, it was not likely much worse than today (worldwide.) Our evolved reproduction systems wind down and wear out in the 40s-60s which is not likely a random occurrence; many must have prospered at those ages to pass on the genetics. Most documented cultures had multiple wives because another common form of death was birth related complications; I heard women averaged out ahead of men inf lifespan AFTER there was better care for childbirth.
Just think of how many get Hysterectomy operations today (over half a million per year in the USA.)
Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter—more fragile, if you like—bodies.
Sweet! Maybe we will also start evolving wings and finally be able to fly without manufactured air foils! I for one intend to sit on the couch more and make this happen faster!
....Oh, oops, I thought it said BONERS.
What were they thinking, trading slightly more fragile bones for longer life spans, less dangerous lifestyles, philosophy, sanitation, modern medicine, equal rights, going to the moon, labor saving devices, the internet, quantum physics, cell phones, the internal combustion engine, and digital watches?
We are not challenging our bones with enough loading,
I do. That's why I still use a Compaq Portable for my "laptop". It weighs about 28 lbs. (Joking aside, I actually had one of these - or something really, really similar - at the first company I worked for in the late 1980s.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It is amazing how researchers are able to ignore results from other fields. We know that bone density is not a good predictor for fractures. On the other hand, we know that dairy product consumption is correlated with higher density and fractures.
There is no consensus on how to explain that, but one interesting theory is that dairy products promote bone metabolism (hence the higher density) up to renewal exhaustion (hence the fractures).
Bone weakening is a problem to space travelers. NASA and big pharma will probably come up with some pills we'll have to take, end of that problem.
Our muscles and nerves have changed in favor of fine control, and away from strength. This is a good thing. The strongest body-builder is not close to our ancestors, or to chimps, in strength. We make tools instead. Our hands are adapted for fine manipulations. And perhaps the porous nature of the bone ends is due to adaptation to long-distance running. And we throw with more accuracy than any other primate. These are the three things humans do better than any other animal.
Seriously.
Going to be awesome when all the 'learned' folk wake up and smell the fucked up food chain. HUGE difference in health and density between my kid and the processed food bullshit fed kid next to them. And the next 100 kids and probably the next 100 kids after that, depending on where you live.
What a waste of research time/resources
... what we get in weaker bones, we get in more refined minds ...
There are a lot of evolutionary trade offs, but weaker bones and refined minds are the two things that do not trade off against each others
A refined mind (for example, such as the one in Homo Sapiens Sapiens) consumes 20% - 25% of the total energy intake of the individual
To obtain a more refined mind one does not need to make one's bone "weaker" --- on the other hand, supercharging the intake process, for example, eating meat instead of digesting straws --- can supply the additional "energy consumption" that a refined mind needs
If there is one trade off for weaker bones is that we humans are becoming better swimmers
As our bones become weaker, our bones become lighter, and lighter folks can float/swim more easily in the water
It is thus no surprise that the vast majority of those who have won Olympic swimming gold medal are mostly from the Caucasoid tribe --- for the Caucasoids have (relatively speaking) the lightest bones among all the humans
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Idiots being paid money to make up a 'problem', and then find 'evidence' to back up their laughable hypothesis.
Clearly this study was written by someone who doesn't actually do agriculture in traditional ways as it has been done for the past tens of thousands of years. Farming, be it planting or herding, is not a cushy job. It's hard, vigorous work. I farm. I have dense bones as shown by X-rays I've had. I've also broken a lot of bones. Farming is hard, vigorous work and sometimes we break bones, just like we did doing hunting and gathering too. And what may be really surprising to those sitting in the ivory towers is we don't need to go see a doctor for a mere broken bone. It heals. Old skeletons show this, not just human or even primate but even T-Rex.
Yes, everything may be an optimization problem but the question is, what are you optimizing?
If you're trying to optimize fitness, technical interests, time spent optimizing, job relevance, moral living, and social interactions, you'll arrive at a possibly very different optimization point than if you if you only pick some of the above or even different optimization points.
This is even the case if you have a variation of one of the factors. For instance, your life choices might be quite different if your concept of morality is based on utilitarianism versus virtue ethics versus divine command versus prescriptive ethics and you may have to make deep sacrifices in one or more of the other optimization factors if they do not correspond to the societal norm.
The conclusion that bone density seemed to change about the time that the last ice age ended and humans became more adept at agriculture doesn't necessarily mean that there is a correlation and one caused the other. There could be many reasons or no reason at all. Not all changes are the result of environmental pressures, some are just random and if the change doesn't result in significant weakening of the ability to survive and reproduce then it might become widespread while not being an adaptive trait.
Bring back the Mammoth! We need to eat Mammoth meat for strong bones!
That was my thought too. I have trouble imagining that ancestral farming methods were any less strenuous and "bone-buliding" than even persistence hunting.
I've been reading a lot these days about correlations between the rise of agriculture (and the resulting high consumption of grains and carbohydrates) and worsened dental and overall health as well as shorter stature in humans.
I know that even with my own n=1 change in diet (from a "standard western diet" to a low-carb/high-fat) over the last year, my health, according to current "standard" markers" like BMI, A1C, fasting glucose, HDL/Triglyceride ratios, etc. has improved dramatically. The funny thing is, after this change in my diet, I'm just more energetic - I've never in my life had such a desire to just get out and be more active.
It's strange to me, but in the US, the focus in health is so strongly oriented towards keeping the heart healthy. But if you think about it, the heart is a fairly simple organ, being a pump. We can easily transplant it and even make artificial ones. I've come to the conclusion that the focus in health should be on the liver - and that what keeps the liver healthy will keep the rest of me healthy. And liver health is most easily managed by what you put in your mouth.
I actually went from being a sedentary seat polisher (IT Bloke) to being an IT Bloke who runs 5 times a week, 30+ miles a week with marathons planned and I can really see this in both my ability to run, going from a non running 37 year old having done no notable exercise, losing 36kg in a year and starting running soon after, doing multiple 10k and half marathons in the last year with marathons planned in the next year.
We all used to walk around, this is so prevalent in what I have seen in the US where no one walks and everyone drives in the major IT populations, I would say walking at least 10000 steps a day or a minimum of 5 miles would make a major difference not only to bone density but to health as well.
Superbugs, environmental destruction, weakening skeletons, and other assorted genetic 'artificial selection' weakening agents.
For the sake of our short term comforts have we doomed the human species to a genetic inferiority and environmental destruction that could appear to conform to the idea that the candle which burns twice as bright only burns half as long?
In the long term perspective, will the trades have been worth it?
Or it doesn't matter because the universe is far too large to make finding another home practical while this one will have its' oceans boiled away in a billion years?
We stopped hitting each other with clubs long ago. We rarely crack each other's skull open to eat brains these days. Today's fights are mostly abstracted. You win over a rival or enemy by other means than direct physical fights. We still routinely kill each other, but we use modern weapons against which mere bodily strength offers little protection.
Probably why the aliens that visit us have small frail bodies and large heads.