the researchers dug through the medical records of nearly 24,000 Union Army veterans following the US Civil War to work out just how hot we ran around a century ago.The likely explanation:
These numbers were then compared to around 15,000 records from an early 1970s national health survey and 150,000 records from a Stanford clinical data platform representing the early 2000s. In total, the team had details on more than half a million individual temperature measurements.
Sure enough, there was a clear, significant difference over time. Temperatures among those living at the end of the 19th century were slightly warmer. Men born in the 2000s, for example, were 0.59 degrees Celsius cooler than those born in the early 1800s, representing a steady decline of 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.
The drop was similar for women, with a drop of 0.32 degrees Celsius since the 1890s.
Improvements in health and nutrition could be a fruitful place to search for an explanation. Our increasing body masses would push metabolisms into warmer categories, but inflammation is linked closely with variations in body temperature, and a decline in chronic infections just might explain why we're a little less feverish.* Beware of blood infections:
* I wonder if this will turn out be dubious research - some studies are pointing the finger at soybean oil as being rather bad for mice, and possibly humans.One in five deaths around the world is caused by sepsis, also known as blood poisoning, shows the most comprehensive analysis of the condition.The report estimates 11 million people a year are dying from sepsis - more than are killed by cancer.
Specifically, the scientists found pronounced effects of the oil on the hypothalamus, where a number of critical processes take place.The article also says that soybean oil is (by far) the most widely consumed edible oil in America:
"The hypothalamus regulates body weight via your metabolism, maintains body temperature, is critical for reproduction and physical growth as well as your response to stress," said Margarita Curras-Collazo, a UCR associate professor of neuroscience and lead author on the study.
The team determined a number of genes in mice fed soybean oil were not functioning correctly. One such gene produces the "love" hormone, oxytocin. In soybean oil-fed mice, levels of oxytocin in the hypothalamus went down.
The research team discovered roughly 100 other genes also affected by the soybean oil diet. They believe this discovery could have ramifications not just for energy metabolism, but also for proper brain function and diseases such as autism or Parkinson's disease. However, it is important to note there is no proof the oil causes these diseases.
Anyway, it's surprising how little olive oil still gets consumed, as a proportion of all oils.
3 comments:
These are horrible horrible oils. Anyone who has got canola oil in the house should tip it out right now. We used to use it on cotton thread in the factory. The bacteria leaves the canola oil alone because its not food. Its just rubbish.
Canola oil is the worst.
Palm oil might be quite good. Not sure. Olive oil is superb if its real olive oil. Coconut oil very good stuff too. But the rest of them ought not be allowed in our food supply. They are not food.
Good fat is what you need for inter-generational intelligence. You look at the Athenians in classical greece. Fish, animal fats and an endless supply of olive oil. These things matter in my view. At least when it comes to pre-pregnant, pregnant and nursing mothers. You want to set up a kid for life via the good oil going to the mother.
There is a doctor called Gundry who wants his followers to see the rest of the food they eat as just a vehicle for olive oil. Thats going too far of course. But if we are 70 trillion cells. And the best way to make a better version of oneself is to have better cell membranes. Cell membranes are made of fat. So the idea is to re-rig oneself with a new set of cells made from superior fat. If Gundry truly believes that the olive oil is the best fat for his clients, then he would have a point.
Gundry is a bit of an animal food minimalist. So that may be biasing his view. But I think he's pretty well-informed in general.
Post a Comment