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.

11 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Something I've been wondering by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    more and more we're finding that people's failings aren't their own. That a variety of physical ailments have broad, cascading effects on every aspect of human life. We figured out that underfed women give birth to babies with reduced mental capacity. That poverty and stress impact rational behavior and decision making. That people sleep less as they age due to hormonal changes and now that lack of sleep leads to weight gain (gut bacteria play a big role too).

    As long as I've been alive one of the central narratives in my life has been that people who fail at life did so because they lack good moral character. It's been pretty well pounded into my skull. Sometimes overtly ( "Welfare Queens" and folks convinced panhandlers are making a kililng ) and sometimes less so ("You can be do anything if you put your mind to it!" and "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!").

    Science is challenging that. There really are "born losers". Folks for whom nothing ever seems to go right because it doesn't. Moreover life really does kick you when you're down.

    What I'm wondering is if we're going to change anything in response. I don't expect the public at large to. But, well, /. is a science focused forum. And the science is pretty clear here. So are we going to start seeing a change of mind? And are we going to see folks acting on that?

    I'm not so sure. Yeah, this is a science oriented forum, but it's also a forum with an aging population. And as people get older they get more conservative. Less emphatic. Funny that; I read somewhere science has found that the part of your brain associated with empathy atrophies in old age...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Something I've been wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is *also* true that certain character flaws will lead to one being a failure. People who refuse to take responsibility and self-motivate are never going to achieve as much.

      So, a fat person may be fat because of their combination of metabolism and gut bacteria and so on. Such that when they eat a normal and reasonable amount of food, and even get some exercise, they stay fat. That happens. But it *also* happens that some people just over-indulge in unhealthy food and they don't exercise at all.

      And further, in the former case, the person is not doomed. If the person is truly motivated, they can bust their ass, eat super-healthy, and even do things like get a fecal transplant to favor the correct gut bacteria, and make significant improvement. The temptation is to point at the science and throw up one's hands in defeat, using it as an enabler of continued bad behavior.

      This doesn't mean that wisdom and morality will fix one's problems. Depending on details, it is simply not enough. But neither is the opposite extreme true. Personal problems are still very heavily influenced by one's character, and the need for personal responsibility is still present.

      What really hurts me is that huge numbers of people, most people, in fact, are born into poverty. The hand they are dealt is bad from the get-go. Even if they somehow manage to be brilliant saints, the sheer lack of economic opportunity keeps them trapped forever. It is unfair, and it is the most common case. I support poverty-fighting charities but there is only so much that can be done. Poverty *sucks,* and I consider it to be the greatest evil that flourishes within our species (though it is not unique to us, of course).

      Maybe, someday, we will find a better way. It hurts me that the current state is still the best we can do.

    2. Re:Something I've been wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Strawman fallacy. I was not saying that someone can cure depression by thinking happy thoughts. Nor did my post imply such a thing.

      YOUR post, however, suggests utter defeatism. The upshot of what you seem to be saying is "Science says I am fat because of forces utterly beyond my control, and therefore there is no reason for me to even try to get my weight under control."

      My original post, summarized: "for some people, yes. For others, if you try, you absolutely can get your weight under control. It absolutely depends. So, if you don't like being fat, go ahead and try."

      (And poverty sucks)

    3. Re:Something I've been wondering by grasshoppa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Science is challenging that. There really are "born losers".

      That's not my take. My take is that everyone has their own "challenges". My personal demons are stress eating ( drinking ), and as a result I'm a bit of a porker. I don't blame my genetics for that. I don't blame my employer for that, nor do I blame my family for it. *I* choose to eat and drink when I really shouldn't. I choose to stay up later than I should ( for some fucking peace and quiet. Just 30 minutes of it ). That's me. Were my physique a bigger priority for me, then I'd treat it as such.

      I am repulsed by the idea that we are not capable of self control, of discipline.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:Something I've been wondering by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why we have so much sympathy for unemployed steel workers...oh wait we don't. We engage in ugly, classist bigotry in a regular basis and get modded up to +5 for it. So much for tolerance for the outgroup!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Something I've been wondering by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the person is not doomed. If the person is truly motivated, they can bust their ass, eat super-healthy, and even do things like get a fecal transplant to favor the correct gut bacteria, and make significant improvement.

      Is that realistic though? If they have to work full time, which not only takes up a lot of time and energy but requires them to not be super tired for months or years on end, is this super healthy diet and exercise regime a realistic option? That is assuming it even worked, which it doesn't...

      Fecal transplant is very promising but not widely available and typically not available on socialised healthcare or insurance plans.

      A friend of mine is getting a gastric sleeve fitted today, funnily enough, which is an effective treatment but which took her years of failed counselling and diets and weight loss groups and gyms to get to. I think they only really gave in now because she wants children and if they wait any longer they will be paying out for IVF as well. This is not a good situation for anyone, especially when we have treatments now.

      It's really just this attitude that it's all the fat person's fault and if they were just not such a gluttonous slob with no willpower they could be thin that is holding back efforts to address the problem.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Something I've been wondering by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why we have so much sympathy for unemployed steel workers...

      We do. What we don't have is sympathy for people who are willfully ignorant. If you're sitting at a computer with access to the interwebs and you choose to use it to complain about how furriners terk your jerb instead of educating yourself about where them jerbs actually went, and someone explains the situation to you and you still don't change your ways, then there's no time to coddle you. It's time to move on to someone whose mind is not yet welded shut.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re: External locus of control by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, you've never struggled with weight loss, and you lack even basic research on the topic (and you have a cognitive bias because anytime you find evidence to the contrary you give an excuse to ignore that evidence, without even investigation). 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."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Re:External locus of control by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Calories eaten and absorbed minus calories burnt from exercise and resting metabolism will be stored as fat, sure. You might note that some parts of that sentence describe things not under voluntary control. I've italicized them for you in case your obvious mental deficit makes them hard for you to find.

    You know there are literally drugs that will make people just drop weight off, right? Problem is they have a bunch of terrible side-effects. These things were sold, and then problems with them found, and lawsuits were had over all of that. If you can put a chemical into a fat person and that will make them thin (so long as you don't care about the other health issues it causes) there are obviously factors at play besides just gluttony and sloth.

    Research like this is looking to what else, aside from those kinds of drugs, might affect those factors.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  4. Re:External locus of control by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Got any sources for those bold claims?

    Why yes, I do.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

    The NYT has a more readable summary with the key graphs: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

    How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health.

    If you really believe that people are fat because they use food as "entertainment" then it rather undermines your advice to them. Also, if vanity worked then obesity would be cured by the magazines in the doctor's waiting room. The constant bombardment of images of thin bodies and the promotion of that standard of beauty would have fixed the problem long ago.

    Shaming and depression are discredited as weight loss methods. In fact they tend to have the opposite effect. Fortunately medical science knows that and is making progress towards real solutions.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Devil is in the details. by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Calories eaten and absorbed minus calories burnt from exercise and resting metabolism will be stored as fat, sure.

    Calories eaten is under everyones voluntary control. I'm not sure what your point is here.

    His point is that the sentence is running for a bit longer than that.

    Yes, "calories eaten", i.e.: things that you put into your mouth and chew on is more or less under voluntary control (though might be influenced by impulsive behaviours, etc.)
    But then you don't necessarily control how much of what's in there will get absorbed by the body. (though you can slightly influence the body's ability to uptake stuff, by changing the mix of what you eat. e.g.: Food's content of fiber has an influence of how fast it goes through your gut).

    You can voluntarily decide to burn some calories by doing exercice, but you don't have a direct control of how much the body will decide to burn for the rest.
    Some might have indirect influence (doing lots of exercice on a regular basis, body will use more energy to make and maintain muscle mass, even while you rest), (your body burn calories to maintain temperature and you can influence that), but there are tons of other processes, where the body could decide to burn energy instead of storing it long term, on which you don't have lots of direct control.

    That what the " {food eaten} - {calories burned} = {remaining fat} " crowd doesn't get.s
    When you look into the details, there are gazillion of various energy consuming processes going inside a body, most of which will have some impact on body mass distribution type, but which you can't directly control necessarily.

    Your basic mistake boils down to thinking of the body as a "bathtub" model : water (=food) goes in through the faucet (=eating), water (=burned calories) goes out through the drain (=exercice), the balance determine how much water there's in the tub (=fat storage).
    It's a bit too oversimplified.

    Something more realistic would be to imagine it as a conveyor belt. The belt rolls from your mouth (and the food on your plate) to the ass hole (and your toilet).
    Along the way there are dozens of worker on station, sometime picking things up (absorbing), sometime putting things down (excreting) and most of the time passing stuff among each other.
    Fat is just one guy making a pile of reservers, when instructed so (= include influence of tons of hormonal messages), and who can occasionally handle out packs or reserve whenever/if asked so by other guys working on the same chain.
    Physical effort is just one of the client that might request reserves from the fat guy.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]