Depression = Diabetes?

In a recent article, it has been stated that those who take anti-depressant pills usually also have type 2 diabetes. According to the article a link between the two seems to be there, but there is not strong proof the actually show that one causes the other.

The authors did raise the issue that it may be, those who take these pills naturally put on weight, thus increasing their changes of diabetes. In addition to this, they also mentioned the possibility that the "drugs themselves could interfere with blood sugar control."

Either way, it is interesting to think that there may be a link between the two. I wonder if the same goes for birth control pills. I've been told many females gain weight when taking these pills. Interesting I'd say!

What do you all think about it? Is it possible that anti-depressants can cause type 2 diabetes?

Link to article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24217982

Stopping the Spread of a Tumor

In recent news,  it has been published that there is a molecular pathway that aids in the "ability of malignant glimoa cells in a brain tumor to spread" and damage healthy brain tissues. The malignant gliomas cells are something hard to fight. This is due to their resistance to both chemotherapy and radiation therapy coupled with its' ability to invade surrounding areas of the brain, thus, ultimately leading to death.

One method that is currently in use to shrink tumors, is to cut off provided oxygen (from low-oxygen environments) via blood supply; this is done by taking anti-angiogenesis drugs. Angiogenesis is a process of forming new blood vessels. Stopping angeiogenesis will, in a sense, starve the tumor and not allow it to spread.

The researches at University of Alabama at Birmingham have identified two proteins that link the increased motility of these cells with areas of low-oxygen or hypoxia. One of these proteins are responsible for signaling when hypoxia is activated (Src). The other protein is regulated by Src, neural Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, or N-WASP for short. When the researches used protein inhibitors to shut off Src and N-WASP, hypoxia "lost its ability to augment cell movement". This means, spreading came to a stop. 

In the end, the idea of creating anti-motility drugs are in close reach.

I think the vary idea would be awesome!  To be able to stop the spread of tumor, thus possibly saving ones' life if caught early. My only question is, with this research being specific to the malignant gliomas cells, how can this be applied to other tumorous cells?

Just tell me what do y'all think about it, I'm excited to hear y'alls feedback!

Link to article:
Proteins Identified That May Help Brain Tumors Spread

No Use in Dieting Anymore...

In a fairly recent article, it states that dieting may not help to keep the weight off. The reason why you ask? Well, apparently there are nerves in the stomach that tells us when we're full, and a hormone, leptin, to encourage one to stop food intake; when continuous high-fat food consumption takes place, these nerves and hormones are desensitized. This means, those who are considered obese, even after losing weight, are 95% likely that they will gain the weight back within two years. Since this article only discusses obese people, it leaves out people are simply overweight. What does this mean for those persons? Good question.

One question I have is what if it is not desensitized nerves and hormones making people gain their weight back? Yes, this aids in people not being able to tell if they are full or not, but what about the saying "my eyes were bigger than my stomach"? People, who are trying to diet, should not depend on their body to say "I'm full," but notice their proportions and come to the conclusion that, what they are eating is enough to satisfy their hunger, not aim to get full.

But maybe that's just me. What do you all think about it?

Link to Article:

Obese Stomachs Tell Us Diets Are Doomed to Fail

Change Your Diet, Change Your Taste

In the article I found from Science Daily, "Diet Experience Can Alter Taste Preferences" they propose the idea that if fed a long-term diet of a certain food or substance, you'll eventually learn to like something you probably did not before (aversive). The authors of this article based this study on the phenomenon that happens with humans.

They used the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as the animal model and focused on camphor, a safe food additive that is considered aversive. Over time the fruit fly showed signs of accepting foods containing camphor; this was identified by degradation of the Transient Receptor Potential-Like protein. Plus and minus some other signs, the authors then reversed the entire experiment by putting the flies on a camphor-free diet. The levels of TRPL still decreased, proving that even when provided with food that was once aversive, the flies continued to chose it as a preference.

In my opinion, forcing defenseless flies to eat something they wouldn't normally eat is a response to their survival mechanism. Wouldn't humans do the same?! If my sole food source was eating something I liked, topped with something I didn't, I too would find the good in it for the sake of survival.

I am not sure if the way the authors went about the method of proving how our diets can change our taste preference was truly accurate, but it is intriguing. What do you all think?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130909093159.htm