Just Seeing A (Fake) Sick Person Can Activate Your Immune System
Scientists have now learned that certain types of visual imagery can also turn on our immune systems, even without being physically exposed to an infectious agent.
A team of scientists based in Switzerland performed an experiment with 248 healthy adults, in which the subjects were exposed to avatar images of people walking towards them. Some looked healthy with neutral facial expressions, others looked healthy but with fearful expressions, and some looked like they had a contagious illness (indicated by coughing and skin rashes). The subjects wore gaming headsets that created an immersive 3-D virtual reality environment, in which the simulated avatars walked towards them.
When the subjects were approached by avatars who looked sick and appeared ready to invade their personal space, the researcher found that subjects activated their innate lymphoid cells, which is part of the 'first responder' arm of the immune system. This was measured by blood sampling of the subjects. In contrast, this cellular response did not occur when the subjects were approached by fearful-looking but non-infected avatars, or by avatars with neutral expressions.
In other words, although the test subjects were not exposed to any actual infectious agents, the possibility of a simulated contact with an infected person was enough to trigger a real-world immune response. The fact that this response was elicted only by the 'infected' avatars but not the 'fearful' avatars, suggests that this is a specific response to potential infection, as opposed to a generalized response to a generic threat.
The researchers also showed that innate lymphoid cell response caused by simulated exposure to the infected avatars was the same as the response to real-world exposure to flu vaccine (which works by triggering an immune response).
The researchers also used functional MRI (fMRI) analysis of brain activation during the simulated exposures, to determine how the brain processed this simulated threat. They found that the simulated exposure increased blood flow in specific portions of the brain known as the 'salience network' which is 'an ensemble of interconnected brain regions whose major role is detecting and filtering salient stimuli, including threats.'
The exact mechanism by which the brain then activated the immune system is not fully understood, but likely related to stimulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal cortex (HPA) axis.
From an evolutionary perspective, these results make sense. Being able to anticipate an imminent threat of infection (and act accordingly) would be a pro-survival trait. And if avoidance of an imminent infection isn't always possible, being able to proactively stimulate the immune system before actual contact with a pathogen could offer a survival advantage vs. activating the immune system only after physical contact.
The authors also noted that this is an example of the 'smoke detector principle' in biological defenses, which is tuned to be mildly oversensitive to threats. In many contexts, an overly sensitive smoke detector that generated a few occasional false-positives (even if there was no actual fire) might save more lives than an insufficiently sensitive smoke detector that generated too many false negatives (failing to respond to actual fires.) The same applies to biological defenses.
This work is very preliminary. But this innovative research sheds light on hitherto unrecognized connections between the brain and the immune system, which could be helpful in developing new treatments against various pathogens. Could appropriate visual imagery help activate the immune system against infections in a way that supplements standard antibiotic therapy? Or stimulate the appropriate immune response to fight cancer cells? I look forward to further investigations along these lines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. Healthier ultraprocessed foods The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The lure of ultraprocessed food The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kate Middleton Reportedly Sparks Renewed Health Fears 6 Months After Cancer Remission
Kate Middleton's public appearance is once again drawing concern as her noticeably slimmer frame leaves royal watchers uneasy. The future Queen has kept a low profile this summer, surfacing only briefly and looking visibly thinner, even as palace sources insist she is focused on recovery. Kate Middleton initially revealed her cancer diagnosis last year after speculation and conspiracy theories arose from her sudden disappearance from royal duties. Kate Middleton Reportedly Lacks Appetite For Food Those close to the Princess say she is visibly frail, with some estimating her weight has dropped to around 90 pounds. The shift in her appearance has reportedly alarmed even those within royal circles, with sources expressing concern that her body may be struggling to keep up after months of treatment. "Word is she's having a difficult time and has no appetite, and is losing weight as a result. She's gaunt and has little to no muscle tone," one insider said. The concern is not just coming from onlookers. Medical professionals have also weighed in. Speaking to RadarOnline, Dr. Gabe Mirkin suggested that her extreme weight loss could be a sign of ongoing complications. In his words: "This severe weight loss can be caused by the chemotherapy itself, not eating enough because she doesn't feel very well, or treatment failure for her cancer." Inside The Princess Of Wales' Cancer Battle Kate's cancer fight may have been far more severe than the public realized. While she is doing her best to rejoin royal life, sources say she came dangerously close to not making it through. The Blast revealed that behind the scenes, Kate's health crisis was so severe that those close to her now describe her survival as nothing short of "fortunate." Royal commentator Rebecca English reinforced that view, noting that Kate's return to public life is remarkable considering how ill she was just months ago. Another palace source said the experience has been a stark reminder of how long and difficult cancer recovery truly is. "On some levels, I actually think this is a good reminder that she was really seriously ill last year and underwent a significant period of chemo. As anyone who has been through that experience will tell you, you can feel very unwell for a long time afterwards. It can take years to recover," they noted. The Mother-Of-Three Skipped Royal Ascot To Prioritise Her Health, Sources Say While she has made a few appearances in recent months, her absence from the Royal Ascot in June raised questions about the progress of her recovery. Though the high-profile event is a staple on the royal calendar, Kate did not attend. Insiders believe that skipping the event was a conscious choice to prioritize her well-being. Royal experts also pointed out that the intense summer heat in the U.K. may have also influenced her decision. Royal commentator Ingrid Seward shared that Kate is no longer pushing through at any cost. "Her priorities have changed, and she's listening to her body instead of being a people pleaser. She's absolutely got to be strict with herself and say, 'No, I can't do this,'" Seward said. Kate Made A Radiant Return At Wimbledon Amid Her Recovery Still, despite the physical and emotional strain, Kate has tried to show up where she can. She made a rare but powerful public appearance at Wimbledon last month, amid her continuing recovery. The Blast highlighted her arrival at Centre Court, where she was joined by her daughter Princess Charlotte and sister Pippa. The crowd greeted her with a standing ovation as she entered the royal box. As patron of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, Kate returned to familiar ground, this time to present the trophy at the women's final between Amanda Anisimova and Iga Swiatek. Wearing a cream skirt and white belted blazer, she kept her look polished. Her minimal makeup and softly styled hair added to her quiet confidence. Kate Middleton Curates Personal Art Display At V&A Museum Although she missed the Ascot in June, the 43-year-old put her art history background to use as a guest curator that same month. PEOPLE shared that Kate selected a group of objects for a display at the V&A East Storehouse. Titled "Makers and Creators," the collection reflects her personal taste and ties to the arts, built in collaboration with the museum's curatorial team. Her picks range from ballet costumes to vintage keepsakes. A standout item is a costume designed by Oliver Messel for "The Sleeping Beauty," once worn in a Royal Ballet performance back in 1960. The display also includes a hand-quilted Welsh bedcover from the 1800s and a forest-themed watercolor by Peter Rabbit creator Beatrix Potter, along with a childhood photo album belonging to Potter's father. Will Kate Middleton or the Royal family address the health concerns? Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
Food & health UKFacebookTweetLink Follow People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
