Slashdot Mirror


Poor Sleep Alters Metabolism and Boosts Body's Ability To Store Fat, Study Finds (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The latest study provides new evidence that sleep deprivation has a direct influence on basic metabolism and the body's balance between fat and muscle mass. In the study, published in the journal Science Advances, 15 healthy volunteers each attended a testing session on two occasions, once after a normal night's sleep and once after staying up all night. During the visit, they gave samples of fat and muscle tissue and blood. After sleep deprivation, people's fat tissue showed changes in gene activity that are linked to cells increasing their tendency to absorb lipids and also to proliferate.

By contrast, in muscle the scientists saw reduced levels of structural proteins, which are the building blocks the body requires to maintain and build muscle mass. Previous epidemiological studies have also found shift workers and those who sleep less have lower muscle mass. This may be in part down to lifestyle factors, but the latest work shows that there are also fundamental biological mechanisms at play. The study also found an increase in inflammation in the body after sleep deprivation, which is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

6 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Not surprising, but good data to have. by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sleep deprivation is a source of chronic stress at a basic level. It's not all that surprising that it causes neurological effects, but ALSO systemic stress-related effects.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  2. Re:Something I've been wondering by tsa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Already in the 19th century a distinction was made between people who would not work and people who could not work; the deserving and the undeserving poor. Read Mayhew's brilliant London Labour and the London Poor.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  3. Re: External locus of control by philmarcracken · · Score: 1, Informative

    A calorie deficit is not starving. Its called being a responsible adult and not a child that wants treats 24/7.

  4. Re: External locus of control by philmarcracken · · Score: 1, Informative

    No, you've never struggled with weight loss

    Yeah about that.

    Body processes aren't static: if you drop 300 calories from your diet your body will adjust (mainly noticed by having no energy and wanting to sleep a lot), and you won't actually lose weight. Is it *possible* to lose weight? Of course, but it's not easy , and the limiting factor is knowledge not "will power."

    Might want to look up homeostasis before you make the claim the bodies processes aren't static. I don't ignore the evidence, I've lived it. Weightloss is not easy, but its simple. I didn't suffer a lack of energy nor did I wish to sleep a lot. Sorry, people that are overweight or obese are doing exactly what I was doing; eating more than they need per day and having the excess stored as fat.

  5. Re:Something I've been wondering by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And science does say exactly that, you dense motherfucker. By all means, show me the peer-reviewed study with the non-surgical technique that allows more than fractions of a percent of a cohort to lose more than 5 per cent of their body weight and keep it off for more than three years. Just 5 per cent.

    I have trouble with that, because, the obesity rate in the US is a relatively RECENT trend....

    You didn't have this many fat people waddling around the US just prior to the 70's.

    I don't think the humans in the US or the world have evolved such changes to the human metabolism, gut bacteria profile or anything else the give us the excuse that "its all genetics and we're pre-disposed to being fat, so why try to fight it?"

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Re: sleep affects hormones by Ionized · · Score: 4, Informative

    you're pretty smug for someone that is so terribly fucking wrong

    '100 calories' is not the exact immutable block you think it is. calories as it pertains to human diet are an inexact & best-guess science. 100 calories for you may not be 100 calories for someone else.

    differences in gut bacteria can have drastically different effects in nutrient & energy absorption. differences in metabolism can affect the amount of calories burnt by two individuals performing the same actions.

    two different people could eat the exact same food, perform the exact same physical activities, and one could gain weight while the other lost weight.