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."

27 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Lazy farmer by twitnutttt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, because being a farmer is such a cushy gig.

    1. Re: Lazy farmer by MemeRot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "pinpoints the origin of weaker bones at the beginning of the Holocene epoch roughly 12,000 years ago, when humans began adopting agriculture". This doesn't have anything to do with tractor farming.

    2. Re: Lazy farmer by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But it does raise a serious issue - they're studying changes that don't necessarily reflect the selective pressures of present-day life.

      Think about it: what are the leading causes of death for people in the prime breeding age (15-34)? Car accidents - by a good margin. So isn't this significant selective pressure to beef up the neck against whiplash, the skull against forehead impact, survival during significant blood loss, etc?

      #2 is suicide. I don't know how this rate has changed over time or whether the methods modern humans choose for attempts are more effective than would have been chosen in the past. For example, while men commonly turn to firearms, which are a very effective way to commit suicide, women more often turn to prescription medication overdoses as a method, which overwhelmingly fails.

      #3 is poisoning. While humans have always been around poisons, the sheer number that we keep in our houses, most of types that we didn't evolve to, suggests that this may be a stronger selective factor now than it was during our agrarian days, perhaps comparable to that when we were hunter-gatherers or worse.

      #4 is homicide. We've definitely gotten a lot better at that, a person is far more likely to die from an intentional gunshot wound than a beating or stabbing. Selective pressures: surviving blood loss, mainly. Stronger, thicker bones may help in against low velocity penetrations.

      #5 is other injuries. Again, we're not as likely to suffer from, say "crushed by a mastodon" as an injury, but we've developed plenty of new ways to get killed or maimed in our modern lives.

      Then it gets more complicated on the basis that the issue isn't just about survival of the individual, but their social group as a whole, so even nonbreeding members can have a major impact...

      --
      I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
    3. Re: Lazy farmer by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Actually here are the real numbers. GP is pretty close, though.

      It lumps all accidents together, I couldn't find a breakdown of them. But I am willing to be that car accidents are the vast majority of them.

      1. Accidents (over 37% of all deaths in this range)
      2. Suicide
      3. Homicide
      4. Cancer
      5. Heart Disease
      (HIV is #6 for the 25-34 group)

      Cancer and Heart Disease are #1 and #2 overall. Those will tend to get almost everyone in the end. If you manage not to die young.

      Now, comparing with the 2002 data, a large drop in accident deaths in the 15-24 group, while 25-34 group went up. The total for both groups is lower, though. I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is due to cars getting safer, and not teenagers getting smarter. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:Lazy farmer by memnock · · Score: 2

      The article does not say that the farmer or farming itself causes weaker bones. The article implicates the societal impact of farming, i.e. food being more available and thus no need for the vigorous activity associated with hunting and capturing food, led to more people being more sedentary than before and thus loosing bone density in subsequent generations.

  2. Evolutionary tradeoffs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

  3. Somewhere, ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... something went terribly wrong.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. 3D printers to the rescue by marciot · · Score: 2

    3D printed replacement skeletons to the rescue! Installation is a bitch, but you only have to do it once.

    1. Re:3D printers to the rescue by hitmark · · Score: 2

      Exoskeleton, no need to install anything.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:3D printers to the rescue by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The problem is the lack of printed bone marrow

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:just do strength training by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you have stereotypes that may not stand up to reality. Plenty of slashdotters and IT geeks exercise. Even more important than the weight training is cardiovascular health: power walk, jog, run, or swim, etc.

  6. Obesity by Frans+Faase · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe the added weigh of obesity, will cause more force on our bones and compensate for the lack of it by moving less.

  7. Age prior to dyine by jraff2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Age prior to dyine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Humans regularly lived to their 50s and 60s as far back as the paleolithic. Average life expectancy numbers are misleading because the high rate of infant mortality and death during childhood. A hunter-gatherer who can survive long enough to be a teenager is quite likely to live to old age, but it's getting that far that's the tricky part.

    2. Re:Age prior to dyine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is not how averages work. Yes, the average age was 20-30 years but that includes lots of children, newborns, and possibly war deaths (depending on which statistics you are looking at). Generally speaking if you lived to puberty then you had a reasonable chance to hit 60+ just like modern humans.

      Also consider the introduction and increasing consumption of alcohol. It has significant calcium reducing properties.

    3. Re:Age prior to dyine by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX.

      Bull. The Bible itself tells us the full span of a man's years is "threescore and ten". That's from the Book of Psalms, and was probably written around 700 BC.

    4. Re:Age prior to dyine by John+Bokma · · Score: 2

      If we look again at the estimated maximum life expectancy for prehistoric humans, which is 35 years, we can see that this does not mean that the average person living at this time died at the age of 35. Rather, it means that for every child that died in infancy, another person might have lived to be 70. The life expectancy statistic is, therefore, a deeply flawed way to think about the quality of life of our ancient ancestors.

      source: http://www.ancient-origins.net...

    5. Re:Age prior to dyine by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX.

      Bull. The Bible itself tells us the full span of a man's years is "threescore and ten". That's from the Book of Psalms, and was probably written around 700 BC.

      Not that I agree with the GP's 20-30 numbers, but I think he refers to humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago, not in relatively recent biblical times. You deleted his point that humans who lived more recently (which I parse to mean starting around biblical times) lived up to 70-100 years. I think those larger numbers are likely true of earlier humans too, but the premature mortality of those times cuts the average down.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  8. NOT a problem with VIAGRA by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....Oh, oops, I thought it said BONERS.

  9. Our Forefathers were Idiots by ichabod801 · · Score: 2

    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?

  10. Density vs fractures by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:Density vs fractures by phantomfive · · Score: 3

      we know that dairy product consumption is correlated with higher density and fractures. There is no consensus on how to explain that,

      If you're talking about this study, there is no consensus that milk causes fractures other than "looks interesting, more study needed." Even the authors say that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Density vs fractures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What fields claim that bone density doesn't predict risk of fractures? There's a reason we do bone densitometry studies for people at risk of osteoporosis. Obviously they won't tell an individual whether or not they're going to have a bone break in the next 6 months, but for a population they're great for picking out who needs to pay more attention to their step and gait, and who could benefit from a bit of a bisphosphonate to sturdy up dem bones.

      Read any reputable meta-analysis since the 80's and you'll find evidence supporting this. I found a few studies correlating fractures with decreased trabecular bone as well, especially with spinal compression fx's. About the only controversy you'll find on this point is on which groups should have densitometry performed.

      Anyway, looking at the study results, if our trabecular bone really is weak and pasty compared to our ancestors', then yea, we're probably likely to suffer more breaks. Lots of possible confounders, as others have pointed out.

      Some references, though I'm not at work so I can't access the premium shit.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634613
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02554913
      http://www.cof.org.cn/pdf/2009/1/International%20Society%20for%20Clinical%20Densitometry%202007%20Adult.PDF (potentially biased guideline article)

  11. Re: just do strength training by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Classic nerds vs. geeks. Nerds are happy to be sacks of goo because exercise is not interesting to them. For geeks, everything is an optimization problem - the meatsuit gets no pass.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Re:Flight by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    If humans could fly, we'd consider it exercise and never do it.
    -- origin unknown

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  13. Re:NASA to the rescue by redwraith94 · · Score: 2

    As I understand it the lessened gravity is what causes bone density loss. The mechanism I saw argued once is supposedly that the apatite crystals in bone are somewhat piezoelectric, and that mechanical stress is 'detected' by the cells via the slight amounts of electricity that are generated in the bone during stress. This triggers the cells to increase bone density, and strength. It would explain why electrical stimulation of bone works, and apparently ultrasonic stimulation also works.

    So it really doesn't come down to exercise, rather we can just sit in an ultrasonic recliner (maybe a bath?), and take some calcium pills.

    --
    I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  14. Study Written by a non-farmer by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    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.