Paying attention might result in more weight gain.
Weight Gain
A sequence of fatty, sugary bites—comfort food—can occasionally be the only thing that keeps our mental stability intact on a stymied day.
Another study using mice confirms that, in general, eating under stress causes more weight gain than eating mindlessly, especially when it comes to greasy dinners. According to research published today (April 25) in the journal Cell Digestion, persistent pressure causes the brain to activate a critical mechanism that urges mice to continue eating.
The study looked into the actions and weight gain of a group of sours. The experts continuously focused on a certain group of Souris, separating them from the other mouses and replacing their litière with a thin layer of water. The various Souris were placed in common, non-stressful environments used on a daily basis. A portion of the mouses was cared for by specialists, who provided them with a diet high in grains. [11 amazing things that might make us feel heavier]
After four weeks, experts saw that there was no physical difference in weight between the selected Souris who had eaten healthy food and the Souris who weren't stressed. In every instance, stressed-out people who ate fatty foods gained more weight than others who didn't feel stressed out and ate similarly unhealthy foods. The experts found that this differential was partly caused by the fact that the concentrated Souris ate far more than their partners who were cooler.
The agents then looked into the mice's thoughts to try to understand why these differences were made.
According to one theory, the nerve center, a tiny area in the middle of the brain (in both mice and humans), regulates need and desire while the neighboring amygdala regulates strong emotions like anxiety and tension.
In reaction to pressure, the amygdala and the nerve center both release a substance called neuropeptide Y (NPY). This article is known to activate food intake in the nerve center.
The cycle that causes the mouses to produce NPY has been turned off by experts when it occurred to them that this particle may be the cause of the extra weight gain associated with pressure. The experts found that stress-induced mouses and non-stressed mouses subjected to a diet high in grains gained roughly the same amount of weight when they encouraged the amygdala to produce this particle in mouses. This suggests that the NPY is, in fact, the cause of the weight gain associated with under-pressured eating.
The declaration states that insulin levels briefly increase after a meal to assist the body in absorbing glucose from the blood and to tell the brain to stop eating. According to the study, mice under constant pressure had somewhat higher insulin levels. However, insulin levels were much higher in the targeted mice consuming a high-fat diet than they were in the untargeted animals eating a normal diet.
The amygdala's increased insulin concentration made the synapses less sensitive to the hormone. According to the announcement, this therefore encouraged NPY growth and sophisticated feeding while reducing the body's capacity to burn energy.
According to lead author Herbert Herzog, who directs the eating disorders lab at the Garvan Establishment of Clinical Exploration, "lack of food and starvation are distressing situations, so eating larger amounts under these circumstances may be an advantage in terms of endurance." It is unclear why the mind has such a component.
The condition is "probably comparable in humans," according to Herzog, even though this study was done on mice, who employ a similar NPY framework to control these cycles. Currently, analysts are interested in exploring this route more and searching for any tools or substances that may be employed to modulate obesity.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from writers in Longevity and other communities.
Roses Are Red, Violets Are Blue: Why Valentine’s Day Flowers Need a Redo
For decades, Valentine’s Day has been defined by a familiar ritual: bouquets of red roses wrapped in cellophane, paired with a card and perhaps a box of chocolates. While the tradition remains deeply ingrained in romantic culture, florists, environmental advocates, and consumers alike are beginning to question whether the holiday’s floral customs are outdated, unsustainable, and lacking in imagination. Each year, millions of roses are flown across continents to meet demand for February 14. Most of these flowers are grown in countries such as Kenya, Ecuador, and Colombia, then transported to Europe and North America in refrigerated cargo planes. By the time they reach shops, their carbon footprint is significant. According to industry estimates, Valentine’s Day accounts for one of the largest spikes in annual flower imports, with environmental costs rarely considered by buyers. Climate experts argue that the romance of roses comes with a hidden price. Energy-intensive greenhouses, chemical fertilizers, and long-distance shipping contribute to emissions and water use in already vulnerable regions. “We’ve turned flowers into a global commodity that travels thousands of miles for a single day of use,” said one sustainability researcher. “It’s emotionally meaningful but environmentally inefficient.” The Human Cost of Cheap Blooms Beyond environmental concerns, labor conditions in flower-growing regions have drawn scrutiny. Workers often face long hours, low pay, and exposure to pesticides during peak seasons such as Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day. Advocacy groups have called for greater transparency in flower supply chains and stronger certification systems that ensure fair wages and safer working environments. While some farms have adopted ethical standards and eco-labels, these remain the exception rather than the rule. Consumers, critics say, are rarely aware of where their flowers come from or under what conditions they were produced. A Shift in Taste and Meaning At the same time, cultural attitudes toward Valentine’s Day are evolving. Younger generations are increasingly skeptical of rigid romantic scripts and mass-produced symbols of affection. Many see traditional red roses as predictable, expensive, and disconnected from personal expression. Florists report growing interest in alternative arrangements: seasonal wildflowers, dried bouquets, potted plants, and even edible gifts such as herb baskets or fruit trees. These options are often more sustainable and last far longer than cut roses that wilt within days. “People want something that reflects their partner’s personality, not just a cliché,” said a florist in London who has replaced imported roses with locally grown winter blooms. “A bouquet of winter branches and greenery can be just as beautiful and far more meaningful.” Some couples are abandoning flowers altogether in favor of shared experiences, charitable donations, or handmade gifts. The shift suggests that romance is being redefined from spectacle to intention. The Role of Social Media Social media has played a paradoxical role in both reinforcing and challenging floral traditions. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have long celebrated extravagant bouquets as symbols of devotion. Viral images of luxury arrangements have driven competition and consumer pressure, encouraging larger and more expensive purchases. Yet those same platforms have also fueled a counter-movement. Sustainability influencers and florists promote “slow flowers,” a philosophy that emphasizes seasonal, local, and chemical-free blooms. Tutorials on creating minimalist or reusable floral gifts have gained traction, especially among environmentally conscious audiences. Industry at a Crossroads The global flower industry now faces a crossroads between tradition and transformation. Some large retailers have begun offering eco-certified bouquets and highlighting the origins of their flowers. Others are experimenting with carbon-offset programs and recyclable packaging. Still, critics argue that these changes remain cosmetic unless demand itself shifts. Valentine’s Day, they say, exposes the tension between emotional symbolism and modern awareness of environmental and ethical responsibility. Economists also note that price inflation has affected the holiday ritual. Rising transportation costs and climate-related crop disruptions have made roses more expensive. In some markets, prices double or triple during the Valentine’s period, pushing consumers to seek alternatives. Redefining Romance Supporters of reform insist that updating Valentine’s flowers does not mean abandoning romance. Instead, it means aligning love with values such as care, sustainability, and authenticity. A locally grown bouquet, a living plant, or even a handwritten note may better reflect long-term commitment than a mass-imported rose. Cultural historians point out that Valentine’s traditions have always evolved. The red rose itself only became dominant in the 20th century, shaped by marketing and global trade. There is nothing fixed about today’s customs. “Romance is not about what you buy,” said one social commentator. “It’s about what you communicate. And communication can take many forms.” A New Valentine’s Symbol? As awareness grows, Valentine’s Day flowers may undergo a quiet transformation. Instead of uniform red roses, future celebrations could feature diverse, personal, and eco-friendly expressions of affection. Whether through locally sourced blooms, reusable gifts, or creative alternatives, the message remains the same: love can still be celebrated — just with fewer clichés and a lighter footprint. In an age defined by climate anxiety and changing social values, even something as simple as a bouquet is being reimagined. Roses may still be red and violets still blue, but the meaning of Valentine’s flowers is slowly being rewritten.
By Fiaz Ahmed about 15 hours ago in Longevity
Why Do Crocodiles Not Eat Capybaras?
Images of capybaras calmly sitting beside crocodiles and caimans have fascinated the internet for years. These giant rodents are often seen lounging near some of the world’s most dangerous predators without appearing afraid. This unusual coexistence raises a simple but intriguing question: Why do crocodiles not eat capybaras? The answer lies not in friendship, but in biology, behavior, and survival strategy. While crocodiles are capable of killing and eating capybaras, they often choose not to—unless conditions are right. A Predator That Conserves Energy Crocodiles are ambush predators designed to conserve energy. Unlike mammals that hunt frequently, crocodiles can survive weeks or even months between meals. Because hunting carries risks, they prefer prey that offers a high reward with minimal effort. An adult capybara can weigh more than 50 kilograms (110 pounds) and is surprisingly fast and powerful in water. Attacking such an animal requires a sudden strike, a strong grip, and a struggle that could injure the crocodile. For a predator that values efficiency, a large, alert capybara is not always an attractive target. Crocodiles tend to focus instead on: Fish Birds Smaller mammals Young or injured animals Unless a capybara appears weak, distracted, or isolated, it may not be worth the energy or risk. Capybaras Do Not Behave Like Prey One of the main reasons crocodiles ignore capybaras is their behavior. Capybaras are exceptionally calm animals. They move slowly, avoid splashing, and remain watchful. Crocodiles rely heavily on movement to trigger their hunting instinct. Sudden motions, struggling, or panic signal an opportunity to strike. A capybara that sits quietly near the water does not activate this response. Its relaxed posture communicates that it is aware and ready to flee. This reduces the likelihood of attack. Capybaras have evolved alongside crocodilians for thousands of years in South America. Over time, they have learned how close is too close and when danger is real. This awareness helps them coexist safely most of the time. Safety in Numbers Capybaras live in groups that can range from 10 to more than 50 individuals. Group living provides protection. With many eyes watching the surroundings, crocodiles find it difficult to approach unnoticed. When danger appears, one capybara will sound an alarm, and the entire group will flee into the water or dense vegetation. This collective vigilance discourages predators from attempting an attack unless the odds are clearly in their favor. A lone capybara is far more vulnerable than one sitting among others. Many of the peaceful photographs seen online show group settings where crocodiles are less likely to strike. Crocodiles Choose Timing Carefully Crocodiles are most aggressive when hungry and active. However, many encounters with capybaras occur when crocodiles are basking in the sun. During basking, crocodiles are regulating their body temperature and digesting food. They are less inclined to hunt at these times. Capybaras appear to recognize this pattern. They often share riverbanks with resting crocodiles, taking advantage of moments when the predators are least motivated to attack. This is not a sign of trust but of instinctive risk assessment. Capybaras Are Excellent Swimmers Both animals are semi-aquatic, but capybaras are extremely agile in water. They can dive, swim quickly, and hide among aquatic plants. If a crocodile makes a sudden move, the capybara often escapes by submerging or sprinting toward shore. Because crocodiles depend on surprise, losing that advantage greatly reduces their success rate. Not a Friendship, but Tolerance Despite popular myths, crocodiles and capybaras are not friends. Crocodiles do eat capybaras—especially young ones. There are documented cases of crocodiles attacking and killing capybaras when: the capybara is injured it is unaware of danger it strays too close food is scarce The peaceful scenes seen online represent moments when both animals calculate that conflict is unnecessary. It is coexistence, not companionship. Environmental Balance In natural ecosystems, predators and prey often develop relationships based on mutual awareness rather than constant conflict. This balance reduces wasted energy and unnecessary injury for both sides. Capybaras benefit by staying calm and alert. Crocodiles benefit by waiting for easier opportunities. Over generations, this has produced a pattern where attacks are selective rather than constant. Why Humans Find It Fascinating Humans expect predators to attack prey whenever possible. Seeing a crocodile ignore a capybara challenges that assumption. It reminds us that animal behavior is governed by logic, not emotion. Survival depends on calculation, not aggression alone. These encounters also reveal how evolution shapes interactions between species that share the same habitat. Conclusion Crocodiles do not eat capybaras most of the time because it is often not worth the risk or energy. Capybaras remain calm, stay in groups, and understand when predators are least likely to strike. Crocodiles, in turn, prefer easier prey and conserve their strength. This relationship is not peace—it is practical survival. Nature does not run on friendship, but on balance. When both animals judge that conflict brings more danger than benefit, they coexist quietly along the riverbanks. And that is why the world keeps seeing one of nature’s most unlikely standoffs: the calm capybara beside the patient crocodile.
By Fiaz Ahmed 6 days ago in Longevity
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.