Fat cells that last a lifetime
No wonder it’s so hard to lose weight: By the time we reach 20 years of age, a new study found, our bodies have essentially settled on the number of fat cells we’ll maintain for the rest of our lives. Swedish researchers took samples of fat cells from volunteers over the course of several years; they discovered that no matter how much the subjects’ weights changed, their number of fat cells did not. Starting at about age 20, fat cells grow or shrink with weight fluctuations, but the overall quantity of cells remains the same. Researchers found that even when obese people underwent gastric banding surgery, losing massive amounts of weight, fat cells weren’t actually lost—the existing fat cells just shrank. “Those fat cells aren’t going anywhere, and they’re crying out for more,” study author Dr. Kirsty Spalding tells BBCnews.com. “The real question,” Spalding said, “is what regulates this process, and where can we intervene?” The good news is that for kids and teens, at least, a healthy diet and regular exercise will help limit how many fat cells will accumulate—and hang around for a lifetime.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Why liberals are bummed
Conservatives are generally happier than liberals because of their greater ability to rationalize political and social inequalities, a new study concludes. In an earlier survey by the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of conservative Republicans described themselves as “very happy,” compared with 28 percent of liberal Democrats. Researchers at New York University, attempting to explain the disparity, developed a survey to measure subjects’ ability to justify or explain away inequality. Subjects were asked, for instance, if they agreed with such statements as, “It’s not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.” Conservatives were far more likely to agree with such statements, and also to hold the view that the U.S. is a meritocracy that rewards hard work. “Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives,” researcher Jaime Napier tells LiveScience.com, “apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive, or at least neutral, light.”
Don’t forget the IUD
The IUD is the most underrated form of birth control, new research suggests. Only about 2 percent of American women who use contraception opt for the IUD, or intrauterine device, a small, T-shaped piece of plastic or metal that is inserted into a woman’s uterus by her gynecologist. But recent studies have shown that IUDs help ward off certain cancers, and they are more reliable than condoms and diaphragms at preventing pregnancy. IUDs do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases, so they are not recommended for women who may have multiple partners. But for monogamous women, IUDs have the advantage of being both highly effective and easily reversible. Despite its benefits, “the IUD is underutilized as a contraceptive in the United States,” Dr. David Grimes tells Scientific American, pointing to a recent study showing that IUD use is associated with a 40 percent reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer. “Research is showing that it has health benefits far beyond preventing pregnancy.”
Live and let die
It’s a grim and disturbing question: In the event of a deadly pandemic that overwhelmed our health-care system, who would get to live and who would be left to die? A new report by a task force including medical experts and officials from the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Homeland Security offers some guidance. “If a mass critical-care event were to occur tomorrow,” the report states, certain people “may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions.” Among those who could be denied care in such a scenario: people older than 85, those with severe mental impairment, and those with severe chronic illnesses such as advanced heart disease or diabetes. Though experts agree that parameters such as these would be a sad necessity in a pandemic or other disaster, others argue that they merely offer hospitals an excuse for discriminating against the poor and infirm. This report is “a political minefield and a legal minefield,” public-health lawyer Lawrence Gostin tells the Associated Press, starting with the fact that the guidelines apparently violate federal laws against age and disability discrimination. “There are some real ethical concerns here.”
