Overcoming America's Obesity Problem One Step at a Time

            When I moved to America at ten years old, there were a lot of things I missed about my home country, but surprisingly to me, food was on the top of my list. It was hard for me to get used to the tomatoes or the strawberries here that didn’t have the same taste as I remembered. In all honesty, everything tasted bland. In my defense, I was spoiled when it came to food growing up in Poland. During the summers, everything my family and I ate was homemade, fresh from our gardens. During the winters, we bought more things from the stores, but we also had a lot of preserves and canned items saved from the summers. People ate more seasonally then, and more importantly, they ate less. It’s sad but true when I say I had never seen so many obese people until I came to America. In fact, before I moved here, I had never actually seen an obese person, just people who were slightly overweight. I quickly found out, however, that the type of food Americans eat is not the only cause for their obesity problem. The sheer amount of food they’re able to consume is another.

            An opinion piece in the New York Times titled, “The Toll of America’s Obesity” by David Ludwig and Kenneth Rogoff talks about the serious health and economic implications obesity is having on our society. First of all, with obesity continuing to grow, and affecting nearly four out of ten adults, serious weight-related problems, like “hypertension, fatty liver, orthopedic problems, sleep apnea and Type 2 diabetes,” as well as many mental health illnesses, are becoming more prominent not only in adults but in children and young adults as well. Other illnesses like “heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer’s,” as well as decline in life expectancy, have been shown to be related to obesity.

            While obesity creates multitudes of health problems in individuals, it also has a negative impact on the economy. The article cited talks about how in 2017 alone diabetes cost the United States $327 billion, while the overall effect of obesity is thought to affect four to eight percent of our country’s gross domestic product. For individuals this translates to higher medical costs and healthy diets that are costlier. For the United States economy, it means fiscal pressures to the national budget deficit and increased medical spending, leaving the country with a smaller budget for other important spending.

            The article argues that regardless of people’s personal, biological make-up, it is the government's job to promote a healthy lifestyle through government implemented policies and laws. At the moment, however, we are doing quite the opposite. Because of United States’ policies, which allow for the excessive amounts of processed foods, difficult to afford healthy food options, “food desserts” ,as well unhealthy food advertisements, the American people are failing to live a healthy lifestyle. The article argues five simple steps that could in return not only fight the obesity epidemic but also improve the economic standpoint for the country. The five steps include: establishing a “federal commission to coordinate obesity policy,” funding more obesity related research, imposing a tax on processed foods, prioritizing “the quality of the nutrition in the National School Lunch Program and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” and lastly, prohibiting advertisements of unhealthy food options targeting young adults.

            The research article, A Leptin Analog Locally Produced in the Brain Acts via a Conserved Neural Circuit to Modulate Obesity- Linked Behaviors in Drosophila, by Dr. Jennifer Beshel, focuses on the obesity problem, trying to find ways to fix it. Beshel’s research looks at a change in feeding behavior in flies, in a system very closely resembling that of mammals, after the deletion of the fly leptin analog unpaired 1(upd1). Through heat sensitive mutations, Beshel and her colleagues knockdown upd1 in flies, responsible in direct inhibition of a neuropeptide F. This neuropeptide F, in turn, was responsible for food intake and regulation of food odor in the brain. The research found that, compared to the control group, flies lacking the upd1 consumed more food, were heavier because of higher levels of fat storage, and showed more weight gain during the consumption of high-fat and high-sugar diets. For food odor responses, fed flies lacking the upd1 showed to have odor responses at the same comparable levels to starved flies with the upd1. When upd1 functions were restored to normal, the weight as well as food intake problems the flies were previously displaying, without the functioning upd1, were restored to normal. The research demonstrated the impact the upd1 has, “on feeding behaviors, such as responsiveness to food cues and food intake, that ultimately lead to weight gain (...)." 

            Because it is possible that Beshel’s research findings mirror what would happen as a result of impeding leptin expression in mammals, her research might be a key insight in fighting the obesity epidemic in the United States. As the New York Times article mentioned, one of the steps the government needs to take to improve the lives of millions of Americans, is by funding more research like Beshel’s. While the obesity epidemic is out of control, there are also many facets to the problem. Only through the collective efforts of many individuals from different fields - science, politics, agriculture, education- we can tackle the problem of obesity and improve American health, both physically and fiscally, for the better.





References


Beshel, Jennifer, et al. “A Leptin Analog Locally Produced in the Brain Acts via a Conserved Neural Circuit to Modulate Obesity-Linked Behaviors in Drosophila.” Cell Metabolism, vol. 25, no. 1, 2017, pp. 208–217., doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2016.12.013.


Ludwig, David S., and Kenneth S. Rogoff. “The Toll of America's Obesity.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/cost-diabetes-obesity-budget.html.

Under Age Alcohol Consumption Long Term Effects

Excessive alcohol consumption can have multiple adverse effects on the human brain including detrimental effects to the body. The stakes are even higher when consuming alcohol at a young age because adolescents are still undergoing both physical and psychological changes, such as prefrontal brain development. However, the prevalence of alcohol use among adolescents in the United States continues to increase year after year. Unfortunately, this places alcohol in the top three preventable causes of death in the United States, as stated by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: “An estimated 88,000⁸ people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually.” Alcohol consumption is a nationwide public health issue that highlights the impulsivity, poor decision-making, and risky behavior, such as binge drinking, that many adolescents choose to take part in. 

While it is known that alcohol impacts both our physical and psychological growth, researchers continue to explore the connections between alcohol consumption and the human brain and behavior. Dr. Jaime Roitman presented her interest in adolescent alcohol consumption and possible effects to the prefrontal cortex and human behavior. Excessive alcohol consumption deteriorates an individual’s cognitive and emotional processes due to damage of the frontal lobe of the brain which is responsible for judgment making and impulse control. Roitman and her colleagues studied the potential risks of alcohol on prefrontal cortex by providing “jello shots” to adolescent animals and examining their preferences. It concluded, “regardless of potential variability in innate alcohol preferences, voluntary consumption of alcohol during adolescence biases choice patterns longitudinally through alterations in cortical function” (McMurray, Amodeo, & Roitman, 2016). With that being said, even moderate alcohol consumption increases the animal’s risk preference in both adolescence and adulthood which affected the prefrontal cortex in adulthood. 

The article, “Alcohol can rewire the teenage brain,” emphasizes the relationship between teenagers and alcohol consumption which can be related to Roitman’s findings. Early on drinking forms habits that make it easier when adolescents are of age. In the article, Dr. Siqueira states, “the younger they start, the more likely they are to continue to drink and to drink large amounts…’ Teens who binge drink are more likely to become alcoholics” (Haelle, 2016). It is no surprise that social factors, such as peer pressure, play a part in a young adult’s life, however, it is important our education system highlights the life-long risks that are being presented in Roitman’s research and many others in order to stop this vicious cycle from further expanding. Alcohol is a GABA agonist which inhibits many our neurological functions such as decision making, and it temporarily boosts neurotransmitters in our brain that induce euphoric effects.

Works Cited

“Alcohol Facts and Statistics.” National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Aug. 2018, 

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-a

nd-statistics.

Haelle, Tara. “Alcohol can rewire the teenage brain.” Science News for Students, 5 Oct. 2015, 

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/alcohol-can-rewire-teenage-brain.

Deep Brain Stimulation: An Ambiguous Breakthrough

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 2% of the population. It is characterized by thoughts that are both equally as obsessive as they are intrusive, which generate anxiety. Such thoughts are then followed by compulsions with the function of neutralizing the distress, which is caused by the intrusive thoughts. OCD is among the most disabling psychiatric disorders, and there’s a significantly high mortality rate associated with the disorder. There is also research that indicates 10–27% of the patients may attempt suicide sometime during their lifetime. (Naesström et al., 2017)

Matilda Naesström and a team of researchers examine both the basis of knowledge and concerns regarding deep brain stimulation with respects to treating OCD in, “Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Knowledge and Concerns among Psychiatrists, Psychotherapists and Patients.” Naesström conducted an online survey, which was intended to target specific professional groups, i.e. patients, psychiatrists, and cognitive behavioral therapists. The survey asked questions that meant to determine the magnitude of prior knowledge in the treatment method of deep brain stimulation, as well as determining reasons for concern, if any with respects to the treatment. They found that the primary source of information for professionals was from scientific sources, i.e. contemporary research, professional colleagues, etc. Oppositely, patients indicated that their primary source of information was the media, which itself is cause for concern given that the media sensationalizes popular psychology. That aside, the survey found that common areas of concern within both groups include: surgical complications, side effects--specifically personality changes, and anesthetic complications.

The paper, “Neuron matters: electric activation of neuronal tissue is dependent on the interaction between the neuron and the electric field,” notes that neurons are able to be activated by using electromagnetic induction methods. The objective of the research was to explain the transmembrane electric field and its induced transmembrane potential with respects to external electric stimulation. Dr. Hui Ye explains that in deep brain stimulation, “alternating currents applied via transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) over the occipital cortex of the brain can entrain neural oscillations of the underlying brain,” (Ye & Steiger, 2015). It also details that within lab research, direct current (DC) electric stimulation indicates suppression of in vitro seizure activity (Ye & Steiger, 2015). Given such results, it is suspected that deep brain stimulation can be used to treat other neurological and psychiatric illnesses; however, there’s still great cause for concern in this method in a variety of areas.

Dr. Ye’s research does prove to be a significant breakthrough in treating neurological and psychiatric. However, it becomes imperative for all medical professionals to understand the perils of generalization in treatment. Although suppression of seizure activity could be seen, it still become unclear if deep brain stimulation can be used “across the board” to treat other disorders, of which are different in how they impair neurological functions. Naesström’s research indicates the skepticism behind this treatment method specifically with respect to OCD, as well as demonstrating there is still much to observe about it in both perspectives of patients and psychiatric/neurological professionals. Additionally, her research shows how much more professionals need to advocate for education of specialized treatments, such as deep brain stimulation, in order to properly clarify what is meant to happen and what could happen as a result to patients that choose to consider it.

To conclude, challenges exist for deep brain stimulation in OCD, which was indicated by participants of Naesström’s research. The challenges being: sources of information, potential negative side effects, and whether or not patients are eligible. Within those given criteria, the current evidence foundation still is limited, and a vast research agenda is still required for research going forward.

References

Ye, H, and A Steiger. “Neuron Matters: Electric Activation of Neuronal Tissue Is

Dependent on the Interaction between the Neuron and the Electric Field.” Current

Neurology and Neuroscience Reports., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 12 Aug.

2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26265444.

Naesström, Matilda, et al. “Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder:

Knowledge and Concerns among Psychiatrists, Psychotherapists and Patients.” National

Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine, 6 Dec. 2017,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5735431/.

Advances in Prosthetics Technology

How do we plan movements? While we rarely think about the neural processes behind movement, doing things such as opening a door, picking up a pen, and walking require the ability for our brains to not only carry out the movement of muscles, but to carry them out in the correct order. For example, when throwing a ball, we intuitively know to move our arm back, pitch it forward, and then release. Imagine if we got the order wrong, and instead released the ball before pitching our arm forward? Carrying out the correct order of actions is crucial to daily living, which is a concept that was highlighted by the talk given by Dr. Lawrence Behmer, who has done extensive research into the cognitive and neural processes behind action planning and execution. In his talk, he spoke of a study he did that involved testing two models for sequence production in movement, the simple serial chaining model and the inhibitory control model. He tested this using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG). In said study he recruited typists to type 5 letter words and non-words and tracked their right index finger across 5 letter positions. His results resembled the inhibitory control model, which states that activation in serial ordering tasks is on a gradient where activation lessens as you continue on.

During his talk, he highlighted several uses for technology that takes advantage of the neural signals involved in movement. For example, he discussed how technology is now being made for controlling toys using EEG signals, such as cars and helicopters. He also mentioned prosthetic devices, something that caught my attention as I am very interested in robotics and technology that can be neurally integrated.

According to the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, nearly 30 million people around the world are in need of prosthetic devices to replace lost limbs. Whether someone has lost an arm due to cancer, or their legs from a car accident, the impact on one’s life after the loss of a limb is severe, causing them to lose the ability to do some of the things they were able to do beforehand. A prosthetic, which is an artificially made body part, can often bring back some of the movements previously lost. For example, prosthetic legs can make it possible to walk again, and a prosthetic arm can make it possible to grab objects. Yet most prosthetics that are currently available are not perfect substitutes for the limbs they are meant to replace. For example, during his talk, Dr. Behmer showed a video of a woman with a prosthetic arm grabbing a water bottle and bringing it towards her to drink it. Said prosthetic would be unable to pick up the water bottle, however, if it were to be moved, as it was specifically programmed for picking up the bottle from a specific distance and orientation. The prosthetic was severely limited in its range of motion and controllability, especially in comparison to a real arm. 

However, much research is currently being done to design prosthetic devices as close as possible to real limbs in usability. One such effort is being made by the Applied Physics Laboratory at John Hopkins University, where they have developed a device known as the MPL (modular prosthetic limb) in response to a challenge issued by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to create an effective and "naturally controlled" prosthetic arm. This device in its current version uses 17 motors and hundreds of sensors to manage 26 degrees of freedom, and is able to move almost as effectively as a human arm. This device is said to be one of the most advanced prosthetics in the world. In terms of capturing signals from the brain, the lab is focusing on creating effective neural interfaces, such as one that can be implanted near the primary motor cortex. 

 One man in Florida who lost his arm due to cancer has been living with one of these devices since December of 2017 as a part of APL's Revolutionizing Prosthetics program. He is the first person to live with one of these devices, and is able to use the device to achieve movements such as holding the hands of family members, and is even attempting to learn how to play the piano. As of now, while the device cannot get wet, and can be expensive to fix and maintain, (As it's worth 120 million dollars!) the information being gathered from him using the device on a daily basis will be crucial in further developing advanced prosthetics.

Works Cited:

https://futurism.com/mind-controlled-robotic-arm-johnny-matheny

https://www.sralab.org/facts-about-limb-loss

https://www.jhuapl.edu/Prosthetics/scientists/mpl.asp

https://www.jhuapl.edu/Prosthetics/scientists/neural.asp