As long as it is slightly heated, it can help fat burn?
Local hyperthermia can cause browning of adipose tissue in mice and humans, meaning it may help treat obesity, a study suggests. However, some scientists have reservations about this.
Local heating can activate beige fat in mice and humans, which may be a treatment for obesity, according to a study published in the journal Cell on March 4.
?
"overall, the findings of this study are fascinating and easy to convert: heat-producing fat cells are activated with only slight heating. But in the human body, the specific situation is obviously more complicated. " Siegfried Ussar, an obesity researcher at the Helmholtz Center (Helmholtz Munich) in Munich, Germany, who was not involved in the study, told The Scientist magazine, "I would like to know how this discovery will translate into the human body, because there is still controversy in the academic community about the characteristics of these different types of cells." And the effect of this method on human blood flow may be different from that in mice. "
?
Different adipose tissue has three colors, which are white, brown and beige. White fat stores lipids, and these tissues grow in obese people; brown fat produces heat and converts stored energy into calories; beige fat is in the middle, which is inside white fat and is easily distinguished from white fat only after a process called browning. After browning, beige fat burns energy and generates heat. "We want to figure out how to activate beige fat to prevent or treat obesity." Ma Xinran, an endocrinologist at East China normal University and co-author of the new study, told Scientist.
?
Previously, other research teams have tried to induce fat browning through a variety of stimuli, including cryotherapy and activating the β-adrenergic pathway. In the new study, the researchers used a different stimulus: local heating of areas where beige fat may be stored. The researchers injected nanoparticles into white fat around the groin of mice and exposed them to near-infrared light, and the nanoparticles heated the surrounding tissue to about 41 °C. The researchers used this method to heat mouse tissue for 10 minutes. After 12 hours, they observed an increase in heat production in the area using thermal imaging, indicating that at least part of the beige fat in the area had browned.
?
The researchers then heated the fat accumulation around the subjects' neck and shoulders to 41 degrees Celsius and tested the effect of local thermotherapy on the human body. These are the places where the body may contain beige fat. The thermal imaging results also showed that the internal heat production in this area increased, and the heat lasted for 2 hours after the external heat source was removed. As a result, the author concludes that local hyperthermia can induce heat production by activating beige fat.
?
In this study, the researchers also observed metabolic changes after local hyperthermia. They found that under the same high-fat diet, compared with mice without local hyperthermia, mice treated with local hyperthermia showed weight loss, increased insulin sensitivity, reduced fat accumulation and lower incidence of fatty liver.
?
The authors of the study had previously studied the role of heat shock factor 1 (HSF1) in regulating energy consumption, so this time they also studied whether HSF1 played a role in the downstream pathway of hyperthermia in mice. They found that after mice were genetically modified to lack HSF1 in their fat cells, they gained more weight and fat after eating a high-fat diet, and their body temperature did not rise after hyperthermia, indicating a decrease in fat browning ability. In human, a single nucleotide polymorphism in the HSF1 gene was found by genome-wide and exome association analysis, which was associated with body mass index (BMI) and decreased serum triglycerides.
?
Usar believes that the study shows a link between HSF1 and beige fat browning because the degree of fat browning is generally reduced in mice lacking HSF1. He added: "it is difficult to say whether mild thermal stimulation can only cause adipose tissue transformation through this mechanism, and it is not 100% sure that the process involves the HSF1 pathway."
?
Ma Xinran believes that these findings can be applied to humans to help fight obesity. "if you do something to keep your neck warm, it can also burn some energy. This involves lifestyle changes, and keeping this area warm is good for your health. "
?
Timson is cautious about extending these results to people. "it is also important to measure the energy consumption of the whole body after treatment and to see if the energy consumption of the whole body increases accordingly with the increase in local heat production, because this is critical to determine whether this method really has the potential for treatment."
?
Usar has similar reservations: "the main findings of this study are very interesting. However, as to whether these results are really beneficial, the conclusion is not so clear. " In addition, he wondered why such an intervention had never been reported to have such an effect on human metabolism if local hyperthermia was so effective. "millions of people use hot packs every day because of neck muscle pain, but as far as I know, no one has reported any metabolic benefits."
Original text link:
Links to papers:
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from gaisndm Hawkshaw and writers in Earth and other communities.
13 days, make skin cells 30 years younger and restore their ability to produce collagen | Global scientific news
? Regenerative medicine? 13 days, make the skin 30 years younger. In 2007, Shinya Yamanaka first used cell reprogramming technology to transform normal cells with specific functions into pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), and won the Nobel Prize for this, but normal cells lose their specific function in the process. Recently, a study published in eLife builds on this work by stopping partial reprogramming during stem cell redifferentiation, preserving the specific function of skin cells and "rejuvenating" skin cells.
By gaisndm Hawkshaw3 years ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.