Latest news with #SciAm
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Health
- Scientific American
Exercise Isn't Just for Your Muscles—It's Great for Your Gut, Too
We've all heard the saying 'you are what you eat'—especially when it comes to gut health. But what if your workout matters just as much as your diet? By , Lydia Denworth, Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura This episode was made possible by the support of Yakult and produced independently by Scientific American's board of editors. Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Over the last couple of decades, few science topics have made a bigger mainstream splash than the microbiome. Our growing understanding of the microbes that live on us, in us and around us has scientists analyzing—and trying to tweak—colonies from our armpits to our genitals. But when most of us hear the word 'microbiome' our minds go first to the diverse ecosystems found within our guts. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The communities of bacteria, archaea, viruses and fungi that live in our digestive tracts have a huge impact on us. Research shows that our gut microbiomes influence how well we digest our food and absorb nutrients, and an imbalance in the microorganisms of the gut is associated with conditions such as type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic liver disease. Some research even suggests that our gut microbiomes are tied to cognitive function and mental well-being: scientists are exploring how autism spectrum disorder, depression, anxiety, PTSD and more could be connected to the tiny creatures that live inside us. But this relationship isn't one-sided: we also have a lot of power over our gut microbiomes—and that extends beyond our food choices. Our guest today is Lydia Denworth, a contributing editor for Scientific American. She writes SciAm 's Science of Health column. In the magazine's June 2025 issue she reported on the surprising link between gut microbes and exercise. She's here today to tell us more. Thanks so much for coming on to chat with us today. Lydia Denworth: It's good to be here. Feltman: So you recently wrote in your column about the microbiome, which, of course, our listeners have heard a lot about, but I think people tend to think about their microbiome and think about yogurts and probiotics. But you wrote about the connection to exercise. How did you first come across that connection? Denworth: I was at a science journalist conference, and I heard Marc Cook talk—he's one of the people I interviewed for that column—and he's a researcher at North Carolina [Agricultural and Technical] State University, and he studies exercise in the microbiome, and it was exactly what you just said that got him interested. I mean, everybody thinks about diet, probiotics, things like that. And back about 15 years ago he was at the University of Illinois [Urbana-Champaign] getting his Ph.D., and the idea that there might be a link between exercise and microbes in your gut was really just not a thing that anybody was thinking about. But he did know that people with inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis, benefited from exercise. So he thought, 'Well, let me investigate, maybe, what that's about.' So he stuck mice on wheels—you know, mice like to run on wheels—and he found that the mice that voluntarily exercised were protected against a mouse version of colitis and the ones that did not run were not. And so it kinda started there, with this idea that, 'Oh, there's more to look at.' Feltman: So now, you know, more than a decade later, what do we know about the connection between exercise and the gut microbiome? Denworth: We know a couple of things. So one thing is: in people who are regular exercisers or who are elite athletes the diversity and abundance of microbes in your gut is greater, but more important than that is this question of, 'What do the microbes actually do?' And that's where the researchers have really kind of gone down the rabbit hole and said, 'Well, why would it be that exercise is improving your fitness?' And what they found is that exercise boosts the production of microbes that produce something called short-chain fatty acids. And that's a simple molecule, but it's something that helps with your gut health. It helps reduce inflammation. It is part of your healthy metabolism. So the metabolism makes energy, right, and when you exercise and then you boost these short-chain fatty acids, especially one called butyrate, it improves all these processes that your body needs to do to stay healthy. Feltman: Can you tell us a little bit more about what the functional differences in the microbiomes of people who are getting this boost from exercise versus not? You know, what does that diversity of microbes do for us? Denworth: There's a lot we don't know yet about exactly what it is that the microbes are doing versus the other benefits of exercise, so there are open questions there. But having this healthy, active microbiome that they see in athletes and from exercise seems to increase your capacity for exercise. It probably works in both directions—it's bidirectional. So the research on the other side of it is really only in mice so far. But they do find that if, for instance, you give mice antibiotics that kill off the bacteria in their guts, they are less likely to exercise and they reach exhaustion faster. They also find that a healthy microbiome seems to contribute to muscle development—and then vice versa, right: you don't develop as many muscles as effectively if you don't have a healthy microbiome. And so all of that is in the beginning stages of research, but it—it's intriguing, right? Feltman: Yeah, and do the researchers behind this have any specific recommendations for what kind of exercise or how much is gonna, you know, help your microbiome out? Denworth: So far the research doesn't really change what the standard recommendations are, which is that we engage in about 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week or 75 minutes of intense exercise a week. The research does suggest that it's aerobic exercise more than strength training that is having this effect—although it's such early days and there have been so few studies of other kinds of exercise other than aerobic that I think we don't know for sure that it's not happening with other forms of exercise, but aerobic exercise is where it's at. The recommendations are the same; it's just more reason to get out there and gut out your workout [laughs]. Feltman: [Laughs] Absolutely. And remind us what's the general advice for supporting a good, diverse, healthy gut microbiome? Denworth: Well, diet is the number one thing that affects your microbiome—more powerfully than exercise, I should say that—and fiber in particular is really important for having a good, healthy gut. But then exercise—probably combining a healthy diet that includes a lot of fiber and doing some good aerobic exercise is going to be the best combination that's gonna give you the healthiest gut. Feltman: Great, so just more motivation to do the things that we already know are good for us [laughs]. Denworth: [Laughs] That's exactly it. Feltman: Well, thank you so much for joining us today. This has been great. Denworth: Thanks for having me. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. For more on this topic, check out Lydia's column online or in print. If you're not already reading Scientific American 's print magazine, you can probably find it on a newsstand near you—or go to to subscribe. If you like this show, you'll absolutely love the rest of the Scientific American family. As for Science Quickly, we'll be back on Friday to talk about an insidious new trend in men's health. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Scientific American
28-04-2025
- Science
- Scientific American
Solar Shadow Play, Seances for Science, and More from Our 1925 Coverage
Rachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. I was out of the office taking a little break last week, so I didn't have the chance to write and record our usual news roundup. Instead, I thought it would be fun to dive back into the Scientific American archives for the first time in a while. Let's see what SciAm was up to 100 years ago. The April 1925 issue of Scientific American had more in common with our coverage in 2024 than you might expect: 99 years apart everyone was going gaga over eclipses. While the January 1925 total solar eclipse didn't quite hit the same swath of the U.S. as the one we got to enjoy last year, it did treat folks in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts to totality. According to SciAm 's April 1925 article on the subject, the weather was pristine for eclipse viewing. The article also details some apparently very eerie visual effects that showed up during the eclipse. Apparently, some folks in the path of totality saw patterns of dark, squirming bands on the ground during the last moments of sunlight. 'Indeed,' the article states, 'there was hardly anything more weird in the whole unearthly sequence than the appearance in the growing obscurity of these thousands of writhing serpents of shadow.' The 1925 writer helpfully explains what scientists still think is behind these illusory snakes. Apparently they were the shadows cast by streaks of air with different densities. As anyone who's ever gotten to experience an eclipse knows, the shadows cast by the sun sharpen as the light source narrows in scope. So while we don't usually see the squiggles of warmer and cooler drafts of air refracting different amounts of light, an impending total eclipse can make the effect noticeable. There was reportedly some pristine snow on the ground during the 1925 eclipse, which likely created a perfect background for seeing some solar shadow play. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. One interesting difference between last year's eclipse and the one in 1925? The moon was late—or, more accurately, all the humans were early—by about five seconds. The April 1925 edition of SciAm explains that while the general public probably found it delightful that the totality predictions were so close to exact, astronomers were 'disappointed' by the discrepancy. What I find really neat is how scientists became aware of the five-second delay at all. According to SciAm, observing stations along the path of totality were poised to send a signal over telegraph wire at the moment the moon completely covered the sun. Those signals were automatically recorded by 'accurate time-measuring machines' at Bell Labs and Yale University so scientists could later analyze the event's timing. The same article predicts that an eclipse in 2025 'could be predicted not only within an error of five seconds but within an error as small as can be observed.' Predicting the exact arrival of totality requires knowledge of where the sun and moon will be in the sky at any given moment. We've now got an excellent read on where the moon is all the time, thanks to mirrors left there during the Apollo missions. And as we explained in our January episode on heliophysics, there are always plenty of scientists focused on the sun. Moving on from eclipses, I can't talk about vintage Scientific American without reminding you that the Scientific American Psychic Investigation was a very real, very serious endeavor in 1925. Technically the magazine's official search for proof of genuine ghosts was held from 1923 to 1924, but the rules specified that the aptly-named Psychic Committee would review any applications still pending when the deadline closed. In April 1925 Scientific American spent an entire page explaining why it's rejecting the claims of a woman known as 'Margery,' who was apparently the wife of a well-known surgeon in Boston. According to reporting by PBS, Margery was the most serious contender in SciAm 's hunt for a genuine spiritual medium, with famous illusionist and skeptic Henry Houdini included in the committee that investigated her. Apparently Houdini got so fed up with the length of how long it was taking Scientific American to reject Margery's claims. That he published a pamphlet dismissing her claims at his own expense. Now, you might assume that Scientific American 's readers were upset to see the magazine take mediums so seriously. But according to an article about the Margery investigation published in SciAm 's August 1924 issue, the 'most persistent' criticism the magazine faced for its psychic challenge was that it was too 'hasty' in dismissing individual mediums. Rigorous as always, Scientific American waited to make its official declaration on Margery until members of its committee had attended almost 100 of her seances. We'll wrap up our tour of the April 1925 issue with a quick scan of the 'Inventions New and Interesting' section. If you've never looked at our archives before, this is the place to start for a quick hit of delightfully weird historical ephemera. It features new patents the editors of the magazine found particularly innovative, and the result feels like an 'as seen on TV' collection of late-night infomercial gadgets. For instance, in April 1925 the magazine featured an electrical salon device that offered all sorts of attachments, from razors to dental-hygiene devices. I guess you could call it the original Dyson Airwrap. The magazine also showcases an elaborate device meant to remove the core of a grapefruit, which I have to admit is baffling to me for several reasons. Another featured product is a small folding table for dogs, which the magazine suggested could 'create good manners' by 'rais[ing] their standard of living.' I see what you did there guys. Though it was noted that if most people had as much trouble getting their dog to eat off the table as the SciAm photographer did, 'we should not call it a great success.' In a blurb titled 'Foiling the Highjacker' the magazine highlights 'an extremely clever device to frustrate the motor-car holdup men.' Was it some kind of door lock or alarm system? Nope: it was a gun holster that reportedly kept revolvers safely—and accessibly!—pointed at either the floor or dashboard of the car. That's not to say all of SciAm 's favorite new inventions look silly in hindsight. The April 1925 issue also shares the game-changing news from the University of California that prunes can now be dehydrated artificially more efficiently than they can be dried out in the sun. And some of the magazine's highlighted products are so practical that it makes me shudder for folks who had to live before their invention: serrated kitchen shears, rubber scrapers for cleaning kitchen sinks, and foot-powered mop wringers to save cleaners from bending over. Perhaps the most thrilling entry is one called 'Washing the Car in An Automobile Laundry,' which describes a bold new facility where cars are carried on a conveyor belt and washed in a stunning 14 minutes. That's all for this week's vintage news roundup. The usual 21st-century news will be back next Monday. If you're hungry for updates on current happenings, you can go check out We'll be back on Wednesday to explore how AI is changing the way some people grieve. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Trump Trying to Cancel NASA's Successor to the James Webb Space Telescope, Even Though It's Already Built
According to an early budget proposal that leaked earlier this year, the Trump administration is planning to cut NASA's science budget nearly in half, in what critics are calling an "extinction-level event" for research at the space agency. As Scientific American reports, pending Congressional approval, the budget would have a mind-numbingly painful and unnecessary result: the effective cancellation of NASA's follow-up to its groundbreaking James Webb Space Telescope, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. For years, scientists have been hard at work on the observatory, nearing final integration and testing, before moving it to Cape Canaveral, Florida for launch into space. But the latest budget proposal, if approved by Congress, could be a death knell for the already-constructed space telescope. "This is nuts," Simons Foundation president and former co-chair of Roman's science team David Spergel told SciAm. "You've built it, and you're not going to do the final step to finish it?" "That is such a waste of taxpayers' money," he added. The telescope has historically had bipartisan support in Congress, suggesting efforts to cancel it could face significant opposition in Washington, DC. In fact, as the publication points out, Trump has now tried to cancel the Roman telescope on four separate occasions — but Congress successfully fought back each time. "We are extremely alarmed by reports of a preliminary White House budget that proposes cutting NASA Science funding by almost half and terminating dozens of programs already well underway, like the Mars Sample Return mission and the Roman Space Telescope," said representative Judy Chu (D-CA) and Don Bacon (R-NE), co-chairs pf the bipartisan US Congressional Planetary Science Caucus, in a statement. "If enacted, these proposed cuts would demolish our space economy and workforce, threaten our national security and defense capabilities, and ultimately surrender the United States' leadership in space, science, and technological innovation to our adversaries," they wrote. If launched, the Roman space telescope could provide scientists with an unparalleled, extremely detailed look at large-scale cosmological structures in infrared light. Named after Nancy Grace Roman, the late American astronomer who made important contributions to star classification and served as NASA's first female executive, the observatory could shed light on some of the biggest scientific mysteries astronomers are pondering today. "Roman has the sensitivity we need to understand what's going on with the 70 percent of the universe that we don't understand, which is dark energy," Spergel told SciAm. Beyond the Roman telescope, Trump's proposed budget cuts would also kill off other major planetary science and space exploration projects, including a mission to Venus, and NASA's already hard-pressed Mars Sample Return mission. However, funding for existing telescopes, including NASA's JWST and Hubble, is accounted for in the budget proposal. Experts have been appalled at the suggestion of dealing a near-fatal blow to the space agency's Science Directorate. "It sets back a program that is clearly the leading program in the world — in a historic fashion," one former government official told SciAm. "You take that program and shoot it through the head." Cancelling the Roman space telescope, in particular, could be devastating news for the scientific community, if not the world. "Why do we even plan on doing great things if, on a whim, we can just decide 'nah'?" a senior space scientist told SciAm. "These things take a generation to build and enable multiple generations of scientists. They should not be blithely thrown away." More on the Roman: Trump Planning Brutal Cuts to NASA: "Extinction-Level Event for NASA Science"
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Officials reveal astonishing comeback of species linked to ancient legends: 'If they thrive, we thrive'
Extinct in the wild since 2002, a species of crow native to Hawaiʻi is getting another chance to thrive in a remote forest in Maui. The ʻalalā holds an important place in Hawaiian culture as ʻaumakua ("ancestor gods") that protects and guides family members. They are intelligent and sociable birds known for having dozens of unique calls. A combination of diseases, habitat loss, and invasive predators wiped out the wild population by the turn of the 21st century. They were only spared from complete extinction by a captive breeding program. It's those birds that have provided the basis for the reintroduction program. As Jennifer Pribble, senior researcher at the Maui Bird Conservation Center told NPR, "We've built the breeding program up from about eight founders. So all the ʻalalā that exist in the world have eight great, great, great, great, great-grandparents basically." This is not the first time the ʻalalā has been reintroduced in Hawaiʻi. An earlier scheme in 2016 failed because of predators in the area. However, the new scheme places the birds in a safer, more remote location in Maui. The ʻalalā once played an important role in Hawaiʻi's ecosystem. As omnivores, they helped disperse seeds, which greatly benefited native plants in the area. It's hoped that bringing them back will help bolster Hawaiʻi's forests once more. Before their release, the birds were blessed by hula master Kapono'ai Molitau, according to recaps by SciAm and NPR. Describing the birds as "hulu kūpuna" ("honored elders"), he spoke of the importance of their revival, saying, "If they thrive, we thrive." Biodiversity is key to maintaining a vibrant ecosystem, and local, community-led efforts are crucial to this effort. Habitat management, international cooperation, and local legislation can all help contribute to a species' long-term survival. Reintroducing a species is always a tricky business. The same threats that caused the species to decline are still present, if not worse. Additionally, birds born into captivity aren't guaranteed to do well in the wild. But, with the lessons learned from the earlier failure and cooperation between several different agencies, it's hoped the ʻAlalā Project can succeed where others have failed. How concerned are you about the plastic waste in our oceans? Extremely I'm pretty concerned A little Not much Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. As Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office deputy field supervisor Michelle Bogardus said of the project, "Recovering threatened and endangered species is bigger than any one community or agency. Together we can ensure a healthy future for not only the birds, but the forest ecosystem as a whole." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
