The (original articles) title is a bit misleading. They only verified the importance of a specific protein and then found compounds that for mice helped the boost protein production in mice, they still need a lot more research to find something that would help human skin look youthful.
That makes it sound like it's still only theory that it would benefit mice. But they actually tried it:
> They isolated two chemical compounds — Y27632 and apocynin — and tested both on skin cells, with positive results. “Application of these drugs to full-thickness skin wounds significantly promoted wound repair,” the study said.
There is SERIOUS money to be made in the beauty market. I do not succumb, but the majority of my girlfriends purchase a large variety of face products at the cost of hundreds per year. Many of the products are unscientific (and fortunately don't do any harm) but abound with rejuvenation property claims. A product that might actually work? Wow.
sure, but it's not just skin products. The Paleo/Keto/Bulletproof movement is gung-ho on the supposed miracle that is bone broth. From claims that collagen in the diet equals collagen in the body to unique/magical properties of whatever they think it contains are rampant. Drinks, protein powders, supplements - it's everywhere. Just like eating a lot of protein doesn't make you ripped, I would think more people would understand that even though the saying is "you are what you eat", it's not LITERAL.
> "That doesn't mean that eating muscles makes you muscular though obvs (any more than eating mussels makes you mussel-ar)"
Yea that's what I meant by literal, as in you aren't a pig if you eat pigs, you aren't muscular if you eat muscle. You are made up of the building blocks of the thing you ate, but that does not make you the thing itself.
Maybe literal wasn't the right word? Anyways, doesn't really matter.
Hydroxyproline is conditionally essential, particularly in older and injured populations, and collagen is a rich source of it. Research has demonstrated that collagen supplementation reduces arthritis symptoms and increases collagen synthesis. That being said, unless you're getting 15+g of collagen (the amount used in one study I recall) in your bone broth it probably isn't doing much.
Protein up to a point improves protein synthesis, and it also has the nice side effect that it is inefficiently stored as fat, both from a thermodynamic and hormonal standpoint. So a random high protein diet is more likely to get someone "ripped" than a random low protein diet.
Hydroxyproline is found in collagen but your body can synthesize Hydroxyproline so it's not like collagen is the only way to get what you need which is how people/products make it sound. Any known benefits from taking in glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline in the form of collagen are very specific to a small portion of the population (such as OCD sufferers) and, as you mentioned, only in very large doses. There are certainly ways to improve your skin/connective tissue without buying into what is mostly a marketing gimmick.
Eating a lot of protein is definitely necessary but not sufficient to get ripped. You absolutely are what you eat - literally (though it's true not everything is digested and absorbed).
But, it's go bee sting oil! Of course it's good for you.
The number of these commercials that claim something is good for you because it has some random, natural oil in it, is staggering. There's plenty of natural acids that will melt you into a pile of goo. i wouldn't want to put those on my face.
I'm a woman. May I ask you try a thought-experiment? Imagine that 50% of the comments here are made by women - that's pretty much how I prefer to interact with the internet.
I'm pretty confident that poster is aware of that possibility and intentionally making a joke. Imagine that 50% if not more of the comments made on the internet are not to be taken seriously.
I’m sorry, I support a thought experiment but 50% is not a realistic heuristic at all. I’d be surprised if even 10% of comments here were from women. Don’t shoot the messenger that’s just been my experience when it comes to tech forums.
That was my point, my apologies for not clarifying: even though I know this site is heavily male-dominated I read each comment from a lens of gender-ambiguity. I do this to preserve my sanity. We also don't know how many here are gay, bi-, gender-fluid, non-cis.. It makes me happy to imagine there is a greater number out there who are not making themselves known because honestly, it's exasperating knowing that I am embedded in a system where a minority has the power to create the technology that powers our diverse world.
"Progressives" rail against stereotypes, but they're useful and we naturally form them for a reason - they help us survive. The problem is with people applying stereotypes formed in one environment to another environment where they're not applicable. Just keep that in mind when you're trying to be "woke."
As for your exasperation at the lack of women in tech, most men I know would like it if this wasn't the case. I've personally given the nod to women candidates during hiring a couple of times when they were competitively qualified. Unfortunately there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here - a lot of women are turned off by the masculine culture of tech, and changing a culture to accommodate a very small minority is a hard sell (a fair number of guys in tech wouldn't know how to act at any rate). I suspect women need to establish a bigger beachhead before they're going to be able to make any significant inroads in tech culture, and unfortunately that involves sucking it up in the meantime. Complaining from the sidelines isn't going to accomplish much.
>"Progressives" rail against stereotypes, but they're useful and we naturally form them for a reason - they help us survive. The problem is with people applying stereotypes formed in one environment to another environment where they're not applicable. Just keep that in mind when you're trying to be "woke."
Even if stereotypes acted as a survival mechanism in the past by providing a quick and dirty filter to judge threats through naive correlation and pattern matching, I don't believe they remain useful in the modern world. Modern stereotypes tend to be politically and culturally derived, rather than being the result of natural selection pressure, and so don't actually affect human survival so much as effect the survival of regressive human ideologies.
>Taking a walk alone down a dark alley in a city at night where a rough looking person in a hoody is approaching you from the opposite direction with their hands in their pockets and happens to be a member of the race that is responsible for 90% of the homicides in that city may be enough to change your mind about stereotypes in the modern world...
Well. That's one of the more overtly bigoted comments I've seen here in a while.
It wouldn't change my mind. The assumption one would assume you would expect to be drawn from "the race that is responsible for 90% of the homicides in that city" to "all else being equal, members of that race are likely to be homicidal," is not at all reasonable, or even mathematically justifiable. Anyone approaching you in a dark alley at night could be a threat, and still, on average, most likely isn't, regardless of race.
If this is the best you can do to justify stereotyping as reasonable then I stand by my comment.
Given that scenario, "taking a walk alone down a dark alley in a city at night where a rough looking person in a hoody is approaching you from the opposite direction with their hands in their pockets" the race of the person should not, realistically, play a significant factor in determining the level of threat they present, as compared to the other factors. The bigoted assumption drawn from the made up statistic that the person is a member of "the race that is responsible for 90% of the homicides in that city" is that members of that race, categorically, are significantly more violent than members of other races. Otherwise, it and the statistic wouldn't be worth mentioning.
However, if this were a reasonable assumption to make about members of a race, then the other factors should not be relevant. "Taking a walk down Main Street on a Sunday afternoon when a finely dressed gentleman who happens to be a member of the race that is responsible for 90% of the homicides in that city" would be a far more dangerous scenario to find oneself in than a "rough looking person in a hoody approaching you from the opposite direction with their hands in their pockets who happens to be your own race, in a darkly lit alley."
Within the contrived scenario presented, the stereotype is irrelevant. Outside that scenario, it's absurd.
And.. no one is talking about seeing everyone as an equal threat, or no one as a threat, that's a weird non-sequitur you're projecting onto my comment. Likewise, not being paranoid about certain races will not inevitably get you killed and prevent you from breeding.
What I am claiming is that the stereotype you're trying to justify here as a valid survival mechanism is not.
I don't see the point in ignoring race, or any other physical traits. It's almost as if when it comes to survival some people would rather be dead than being seen as a bigot or racist.
When the details of the situation you are in start to fit the common parameters of stories you hear that's when you need to be on high alert.
For instance, I doubt most people will think twice if they pass a woman in an alley, no matter how she's dressed. Females mugging and killing people just isn't a thing you hear about all that often. So you take your chances.
Likewise a man of any race wearing a suit is probably not going to be perceived as any kind of threat either.
Could these people be threats? Of course, but statistically it is unlikely.
Likewise, if you are somewhere where a member of a race has never killed anybody, you probably would feel at ease around those people. Or maybe it's an area where crime is low in general all around, then perhaps you walk in peace and freely ignore everyone as a threat.
It has nothing to do with being a bigot or a racist, it's all about being aware of past patterns that have led to people's deaths and avoiding them.
Your body is trained to look for sugar. If you just eat what your body tells you to eat, you get diabetes really quickly. I think something has likewise disrupted the parts of your brain responsible for threat analysis.
Part of the problem is that black culture in America has glorified being a "gangsta." As a result you have a lot of nice, decent individuals who comport themselves in a way that communicates negative things to people who aren't immersed in that culture enough to know better.
Nor should they need to know better. Being a gangster should be a universally reprehensible thing, like being a drug dealer, or gang banger, or mafioso. Gangsters are killers and thieves.
I think there's an oversimplification here, that seeing someone's race is going to determine your reaction. You see lots of things in that same second. You see their clothes, their posture, gait, and other body language. In fact, those other things may be easier to determine than skin tone is, particularly at night. Clothes and body language may correlate with race or ethnicity, but there's no direct causal relationship.
You mention race because it's a lot easier to categorize based on race than based on a hundred different clothing and body language parameters, but it's those complex non-racial, non-ethnic things that really make your decision for you about whether someone is likely to be a threat.
Many more blacks or hispanics, on the street in an inner city or bad neighborhood, may exhibit nerve-inducing fashion sense or body language, but you're still not nervous about their race, you're nervous about those other things, and the location (alley? possibly late at night?), and forming a post-hoc explanation based on race because it's cognitively simpler.
While this is true to a degree, a lot of that response is conditional on race. If I see an Asian man dressed like a thug in the US or western Europe, that comes off to me like aesthetics/posturing and probably not a threat. A black man presenting the same way is significantly more likely to trip my threat meter. That might not be the most "woke" response but from a statistical standpoint I'll stand behind it 100%.
To the people responding with downvotes instead of counter-arguments: If you can't make an intellectual counter argument to something you disagree with you're responding with emotion and you need to reassess your position.
“We are working on other epithelial organs as well to find out (whether) similar competition may underlie long-term tissue maintenance as well as organ aging,” she said."
Wonder if this will be benificial to live-expectancy in the long run.
"Apocynin was first described by Oswald Schmiedeberg, a German pharmacologist, in 1883 and was first isolated by Horace Finnemore,[1] in 1908, from the root of Canadian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum).[2] At the time, this plant was already used for its known effectiveness against edema and heart problems."
"Apocynum cannabinum (dogbane, amy root, hemp dogbane, prairie dogbane, Indian hemp, rheumatism root, or wild cotton)[2] is a perennial herbaceous plant that grows throughout much of North America - in the southern half of Canada and throughout the United States.[1][3] It is a poisonous plant: Apocynum means "poisonous to dogs". All parts of the plant are poisonous and can cause cardiac arrest if ingested."
...
"Apocynum cannabinum was much employed by various Native American tribes who used it to treat a wide variety of complaints including rheumatism, coughs, pox, whooping cough, asthma, internal parasites, diarrhoea and also to increase milk flow in lactating mothers.[6] The root has been used as a tonic, cardiotonic, diaphoretic, diuretic, emetic (induces vomitting) and expectorant.[9][6] It is harvested in the autumn and dried for later use. The fresh root is the most active part medicinally."
And it seems to be one of the medicinal plants that the north American locals have known about long before Europeans rocked up.
"Y27632 is a cell-permeable small molecule Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) inhibitor1. Y27632 has been found to prevent apoptosis as well as enhance the survival and cloning efficiency of dissociated human embryonic stem (ES) cells without affecting their self-renewal properties or pluripotency2. This molecule has also been shown to enhance survival during the transplantation of ES cell-derived neural precursors3. Y27632 in combination with Pifithrin-u significantly improves cell recovery after cryopreservation"
Does anybody here know what the similarities are likely to be between those two compounds and if Apocynum has already being used dermatalogically? Given the history it seems very unlikey that it wouldnt have already been made into a topical skin cream by someone before now. I'm also guessing that the people who make Y27632 are going to be cranking up production right about now and giggling a lot.
"We selected candidate chemicals that potentially increased the stem cell property [Apocynin] or reduced production of reactive oxygen species [Y-27632]"
Thanks. I find it interesting that they are reporting success hitting two apparently seperate trigger mechanisms of the same process in the same study. I wonder how this will hold up in further studies as this seems kinda lucky.
Was chatting about this with someone on Health News. I doubt it's lucky - the two compounds have been examined together in several previous studies; https://www.nature.com/articles/hr2005119
I always hear this comment and yet no one can provide one example where a technology or innovation was similar in the past. From air travel, electric cars and medicine, the rich get it first before prices drop for mass marketability.
It is fairly easy, as a thought experiment, to project such a trend of accelerating accrual of benefits of technology to the plutocracy to a future point where your statement is no longer true.
It already is a multi billion dollar business. And cyberpunkish dystopia stuff like "poor get old & decrepit while rich extends youth" already exists in several ways(health, food, in US "legal roiding"... Same shit as it's always been.
Tesla was, is and for some time will be only for the rich. More adoption, competition and improved processes of manufacturing will drive the price down for the masses.
