Sleeping less that 6 hours severely damages your brain

By Phoebe Weston For Mailonline 8 August 2017

Regularly getting less than six hours sleep a night could cause the same long-term damage as alcohol abuse, according to a worrying new study. 

For the body, sleep deprivation results in increased risk of obesity, depression, heart attacks and strokes - causing experts to dub it the 'modern ill'.

However, the most worrying consequences are rooted in the brain and new research suggests the effects are far more destructive than previously thought.

Research suggests that being awake for 18 hours results in the same cognitive impairment people get from being drunk.  

This is so severe that driving while sleep deprived could be as dangerous as driving when drunk, researchers found.

Researchers from Quebec-based digital health company Medisys found people who regularly got less than six hours of sleep a night could suffer terrible cumulative health effects they may be oblivious to.

Although the odd night sleeping just six hours or less will not have a significant effect, frequently not sleeping enough is very dangerous, researchers found. 

Sleep affects hunger hormones

'Sleep plays an important role in regulating the hormones that influence hunger (ghrelin, cortisol, and leptin) that's why sleep deprivation increases appetite and leads to overeating and weight gain', neuroscientist Dr Adrian Owen at Western University, who also works with Medisys, told Digital Journal.

Researchers found your brain becomes less stable for the longer you remain wake - which reduces your attention, ability to focus and use your brain on specific tasks. 

Recent reports have suggested 1 in 3 Canadians are chronically sleep-deprived.

The brain 'eats' itself 

The news comes on the heels of research that showed having too little sleep causes the brain to eat itself if it hasn't had enough sleep.

In May researchers studied lab mice, and found that 'clean-up' cells were more active in their brains when they were sleep-deprived.

The cells, known as astrocytes, act like mini Hoovers in the brain, sweeping up cells as the brain's connections become weak and break apart.

'We show for the first time that portions of synapses are literally eaten by astrocytes because of sleep loss,' lead author Michele Bellesi told New Scientist.

According to the research team at Italy's Marche Polytechnic University, the seemingly alarming process is actually a positive thing.

Researchers found your brain becomes less stable for the longer you remain wake - which reduces your attention, ability to focus and use your brain on specific tasks (stock image)

'They [our synpases] are like old pieces of furniture,' Bellesi said. 'And so [they] probably need more attention and cleaning.'

But he added that sleep-deprived brains showed ominous signs of activity that leads to Alzheimer's.

In sleep-deprived mice, brain cells called microglials were more active.

'We already know that sustained microglial activation has been observed in Alzheimer's and other forms of neurodegeneration,' Michele said.         Dailymail

Just one hour of physical activity a day may undo the increased risk of early death

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, July 27, 2016 (HealthDay News) -- Just one hour of physical activity a day -- something as simple as a brisk walk or a bicycle ride -- may undo the increased risk of early death that comes with sitting eight hours or more on a daily basis, a new study suggests.

"These results provide further evidence on the benefits of physical activity, particularly in societies where increasing numbers of people have to sit for long hours for work or commuting," said lead researcher Ulf Ekelund. He is a professor in physical activity and health at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences in Oslo, Norway.

"Unfortunately, only 25 percent of our sample exercised an hour a day or more," he said.

The study also found that watching TV for three hours or more a day was linked with an increased risk of early death, regardless of physical activity -- except among those who were the most physically active.

However, even among those who exercised the most, the risk of premature death was significantly increased if they watched five hours of TV a day or more, the researchers added.

It's not TV, per se, that is associated with an increased risk of dying early; rather, TV is a marker for sitting and not being active, Ekelund said.

In their review of 16 previously published studies that included more than one million people, the researchers divided the participants into four groups: those who got about 5 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise a day; 25 to 35 minutes a day; 50 to 65 minutes day; and 60 to 75 minutes a day.

The increased risk of early death ranged from 12 percent to 59 percent, depending on how much exercise the participants got, the findings showed.

"Indeed, those belonging to the most active group, and who are active about 60 to 75 minutes per day, seem to have no increased risk of mortality, even if they sit for more than eight hours a day," Ekelund said.

"Sit less, move more, and the more you move the better," he suggested.

The report, which did not prove that inactivity caused early death, was published online July 27 in The Lancet.

According to Dr. David Katz, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, "This important analysis fortifies the increasingly clear verdict from a large and growing body of evidence addressing physical activity and health: all movement is good movement."

Evidence is clear that moderately vigorous exercise has an array of health benefits, Katz said.

"If you don't exercise but can stand often, do. If you can't stand often but can exercise, do," he added. "Better still, do both. It's clear: all movement is good movement."

Not only does physical inactivity increase the risk of early death, it's expensive, according to another study published in the same journal issue.

In that study, researchers estimated the cost of being physically inactive based on the increased risk for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and breast and colon cancer. In 2013 dollars, the study authors estimated that inactivity costs the United States about $28 billion annually.

"The current economic cost of physical inactivity is borne mainly by high-income countries. However, as low- and middle-income countries develop, and if the current trajectory of inactivity continues, so too will the economic burden in low- and middle-income countries who are currently poorly equipped to deal with chronic diseases linked to physical inactivity," study author Dr. Melody Ding, of the University of Sydney in Australia, said in a statement.       US News

Cheese triggers the same part of the brain as hard drugs, say scientists

• Liz Connor, Monday 21 December 2015 

If you regularly find yourself hovering around the cheese board at the Christmas dinner table, helping yourself to seconds or thirds, there may be a scientific explanation as to why you’re unable to tear yourself away. 

Researchers from the University of Michigan have revealed that cheese contains a chemical found in addictive drugs.

Using the Yale Food Addiction Scale, designed to measure a person’s cravings, the study found that cheese is particularly moreish because it contains casein. 

The chemical, which is found in all dairy products, can trigger the brain’s opioid receptors, producing a feeling of euphoria linked to those of hard drug addiction. 

500 students were asked to complete a questionnaire to identify food cravings, as part of the study, with pizza topping the list as the most addictive food of all.

In addition, they found that the top-ranking foods on the addiction scale were those containing cheese. 

Scientists studying dairy products found that in milk, casein has a minuscule dosage. But producing a pound of cheese requires about 10 pounds of milk — with addictive casein coagulating the solid milk fats and separating them from the liquids.

As a result the super-strength chemical becomes concentrated when in solid dairy form, so you’ll get a higher hit of addictive casein by tucking into a cheese sandwich than you will in your morning bowl of cereal. 

Study author Erica Schulte said: "If properties of some foods are associated with addictive eating for some people, this may impact nutrition guidelines, as well as public policy initiatives such as marketing these foods to children."

Nicole Avena, a co-author on the study, said: "This is a first step towards identifying specific foods, and properties of foods, which can trigger this addictive response. 

"This could help change the way we approach obesity treatment. It may not be a simple matter of 'cutting back' on certain foods, but rather, adopting methods used to curtail smoking, drinking and drug use."

The news comes after it was revealed that the average person is estimated to eat around 35 pounds of cheese a year - suggesting that it really as addictive as research claims. 

No wonder the smelliest of Stiltons can have us reaching for the crackers by the handful.     Standard

Materialism doesn’t lead to happiness, but altruism does.

By Steve Taylor Ph.D

So many of us strive so hard for material success that you might think there was a clear relationship between wealth and happiness. The media and our governments encourage us to believe this, since they need us to keep earning and spending to boost economic growth. From school onwards, we’re taught that long term well-being stems from achievement and economic prosperity – from ‘getting on’ or ‘making it’, accumulating more and more wealth, achievement and success.

Consequently, it comes as a shock for many people to learn that there is no straightforward relationship between wealth and well-being. Once our basic material needs are satisfied (i.e. once we’re assured of regular food and adequate shelter and a basic degree of financial security), wealth only has a negligible effect on well-being.

For example, studies have shown that, in general, lottery winners do not become significantly happier than they were before, and that even extremely rich people – such as billionaires – are not significantly happier than others.

Studies have shown that American and British people are less contented now than they were 50 years ago, although their material wealth is much higher. On an international level, there does appear to some correlation between wealth and well-being, partly because there are many countries in the world where people’s basic material needs are not satisfied. But this correlation is not a straightforward one, since wealthier countries tend to be more politically stable, more peaceful and democratic, with less oppression and more freedom – all of which are themselves important factors in well-being.

So why do we put so much effort into acquiring wealth and material goods? You could compare it to a man who keeps knocking at a door, even though he’s been told that the person he’s looking for isn’t at home. ‘But he must be in there!” he shouts, and barges in to explore the house. He storms out again, but returns to the house a couple of minutes later, to knock again. Seeking well-being through material success is just as irrational as this.

Well-Being Through Giving

If anything, it appears that there is a relationship between non-materialism and well-being. While possessing wealth and material goods doesn’t lead to happiness, giving them away actually does. Generosity is strongly associated with well-being. For example, studies of people who practise volunteering have shown that they have better psychological and mental health and increased longevity. The benefits of volunteering have been found to be greater than taking up exercise, or attending religious services – in fact, even greater than giving up smoking.

 

Another study found that, when people were given a sum of money, they gained more well-being if they spent it on other people, or gave it away, rather than spending it on themselves. This sense of well-being is more than just feeling good about ourselves – it comes from a powerful sense of connection to others, an empathic and compassionate transcendence of separateness, and of our own self-centredness.

In fact, paradoxically, another study has shown that this is one way in which money actually can bring happiness: if you give away the money you earn. This research – by Dunn, Gilbert and Wilson – also showed that money is more likely to bring happiness is you spend it on experiences, rather than material goods. (1) Another study (by Joseph Chancellor and Sonja Lyubomirsky) has suggested that consciously living a lifestyle of ‘strategic under-consumption’ (or thrift) can also lead to well-being. (2)

So if you really want enhance your well-being – and as long as your basic material needs are satisfied – don’t try to accumulate money in your bank account, and don’t treat yourself to material goods you don’t really need. Be more generous and altruistic – increase the amount of money you give to people in need, give more of your time to volunteering, or spend more time helping other people, or behaving more kindly to everyone around you. Ignore the ‘happiness means consumption’ messages we’re bombarded with by the media.

A lifestyle of generosity and under-consumption may not suit the needs of economists and politicians — but it will certainly make us happier.

We would do well to heed the words of the American Indian, Ohiyesa, speaking of his Sioux people:

‘It was our belief that the love of possessions is a weakness to be overcome. Its appeal is to the material part, and if allowed its way, it will in time disturb one’s spiritual balance. Therefore, children must early learn the beauty of generosity. They are taught to give what they prize most, that they may taste the happiness of giving.’

References:

• (1) http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%20(2011).pdf
• (2) http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/files/2012/09/CLinpress.pdf

Wake Up World