Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
Unlocking Brain Youth: Sugar's Surprising Role in Aging
(upbeat music) - Welcome to "Listen To," this is Ted. The news was published on Thursday, October 3rd. Joining us today are Eric and Kate. Let's dive into our fascinating topic. Our topic today is a groundbreaking study from Stanford Medicine suggesting glucose plays a surprising role in the aging brain's ability to produce new neurons. Let's dive into the details. Eric, what's your take on this research? - Well, Ted, I've got to say, this study is mind-blowing stuff. The researchers have zeroed in on this gene called SLC2A4, which is responsible for producing a protein that transports glucose. Now, here's the kicker. When they put the brakes on this gene in older mice, boom. They saw a huge uptick in the production of new neurons. It's like they found a fountain of youth for brain cells. - Hold your horses, Eric. While this research might sound like the next big thing, we need to pump the brakes here. Let's not forget this was all done in mice, not humans. - I get where you're coming from, Kate. But you can't just brush off the potential here. We're talking about a two-fold increase in new neuron production in these old mice's olfactory bulbs. That's not just a minor blip. - Sure, it sounds impressive on paper, but what about the bigger picture? We're messing with glucose uptake in the brain. That's not something to take lightly. Have they considered the potential side effect? - You both raise interesting points. Now, let's take a step back and clarify some terms for our audience. Eric, could you break down what neurogenesis is and why it's such a big deal? - Absolutely, Ted. Neurogenesis is basically the brain's way of making new neurons. It's like a construction crew for your noggin. Now, here's the rub. As we get older, our brains become less adept at this process. It's like the construction crew starts taking longer lunch breaks. This slowdown can lead to memory loss and reduced cognitive function. That's why this research is so exciting. It's like finding a way to give that construction crew a serious energy boost. - Now, hold on a second, Eric. You're painting with a pretty broad brush there. Neurogenesis is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to brain health. You can't ignore the importance of a balanced diet, regular exercise-- - I'm not dismissing those factors, Kate, but you've got to admit this study is targeting neurogenesis in a way we haven't seen before. It could be a real game changer for conditions like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Imagine-- - Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. We need human trials before we start making grandiose claims. It's irresponsible to get people's hopes up based on a mouse study. We've seen plenty of-- - You both make compelling arguments. Now, let's dive into the nitty gritty of this study. Can one of you explain the innovative technique they used? It sounds pretty cutting edge. You bet, Ted. The researchers use this incredible technology called CRISPR. It's like a genetic Swiss army knife. They used it to conduct a massive genetic screen identifying genes that, when inhibited, could wake up those sleepy neural stem cells in aged mice. It's like they found the snooze button for brain aging and figured out how to turn it off. - While Eric's explanation is correct, we need to pump the brakes on the hype train. CRISPR is indeed a powerful tool, but it's also relatively new in the grand scheme of things. We're still in the early stages of understanding its long-term effects. It's like we've been handed a shiny new gadget, but we're still reading the instruction manual. We need to proceed with caution and not get carried away by the initial excitement. - Let's put this research into historical context. Can you think of any similar breakthroughs in neuroscience that caused excitement, but faced challenges in human application? - Absolutely, Ted. The discovery of deep brain stimulation or DBS in the 1980s is a perfect example. When it first hit the scene, it was hailed as a potential miracle cure for Parkinson's disease. Scientists were over the moon about its potential. It was like finding a secret off switch for tremors and other motor symptoms. - That's quite a stretch, Eric. DBS in this glucose study are apples and oranges. You can't just lump them together because they both evolved. - Hold up, Kate. I'm not saying the techniques are the same. The parallel I'm drawing is in the initial excitement and the challenges that followed. DBS showed incredible results in reducing tremors and monkeys. Just like this glucose study is showing promise in mice, it's about the journey from animal studies. - But DBS turned out to have significant side effects and limited efficacy in humans. It wasn't the miracle cure everyone thought it would be. That's exactly why we need to-- - I'm not denying that, Kate. But you can't ignore that DBS did lead to FDA approval for treating Parkinson's in 2002 and has helped thousands of patients since then. It's a prime example of how animal studies can translate to human treatments, even if there are bumps alone. - Fair point, but let's not gloss over the fact that it took decades of research and refinement to get there. We shouldn't expect quick results from this glucose study. Science moves at its own pace. - That's a fascinating comparison. - Now, how does this glucose research stack up against other recent advances in neuroscience? - It's really breaking new ground, Ted. Most research in this field has been focused on treating the symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases, you know, putting out fires as they pop up. But this study, it's like they're trying to fireproof the whole dang forest. By potentially rejuvenating neural stem cells, they're targeting the root cause of the problem. It's a whole new ball game. - Po there, Eric, you're making some pretty bold claims. We don't know for sure if glucose uptake is the root cause of neural stem cell dormancy. It could be one factor among many. - I didn't say it was the only factor, Kate, but you've got to admit it's a significant discovery. It's opening up new avenues for research that we haven't explored before. It's like finding a new trail in a forest we thought-- - I'll give you that, it's worth investigating. But we need to temper our expectations. We've been down this road before with other promising studies that didn't pan out. Let's keep our feet-- - Looking to the future, how do you see this research potentially impacting brain health treatments? Eric, what's your perspective? - I've got to say, Ted, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about this. We could be looking at a whole new generation of treatments here. Imagine a drug that could kickstart neurogenesis and potentially slow down or even reverse cognitive decline. It's like finding a way to turn back the clock on your brain. This could be a game changer for millions of people dealing with age-related cognitive issues or neurodegenerative diseases. - Now hold your horses, Eric. You're painting a pretty rosy picture there. Developing such a drug would be a massive undertaking. We're talking years, if not decades, of research. And even then, there's no guarantee it would work in humans. We can't just assume that-- - Of course it would take time, Kate. Nobody's saying we'll have a miracle pill tomorrow, but you can't deny the potential here. This could revolutionize how we approach treating conditions like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. It's like we found a new key that could unlock doors-- - Or it could open Pandora's box, Eric. Altering glucose uptake in the brain isn't something to be taken lightly. We could be looking at dangerous side effects that we can't even predict yet. It's not just about boosting neuron growth. We're talking about-- - Both of you raise interesting scenarios. Now, what about more immediate practical applications? Any thoughts on that? - Absolutely, Ted. The researchers actually suggested that even simple behavioral changes, like following a low carbohydrate diet, might help adjust glucose uptake by old neural stem cells. That's something people could potentially try right away. Without waiting for new drugs or treatments, it's like we might have a tool in our kitchen cabinets to help keep our brains young. Now, that's just irresponsible, Eric. We can't go around telling people to change their diets based on a single mouse study. What if it leads to nutritional deficiencies or other health problems? - Whoa, slow down, Kate. I'm not advising anything here. I'm just saying it's a possibility worth exploring. Let's face it. Many people are already following low carb diets for other health reasons. This could be an added bonus. It's not like-- - But we're not talking about general health here, Eric. We're talking specifically about brain health. We need human clinical trials before we start making any dietary recommendations. You can't just extrapolate from mice to human-- - I'm not disagreeing that we need more research, Kate. But come on, being mindful of sugar intake has other known health benefits. It's not like we're suggesting anything radical here. It's just about making informed choice. - The harm is in giving false hope or causing people to ignore other important aspects of brain health while focusing solely on glucose. We need a holistic approach, not a silver bullet. - People might start neglecting exercise or mental-- - Well folks, it looks like we've opened up quite the can of worms here. This glucose study certainly has potential. But as we've heard, there are still many questions to be answered. It's clear that more research is needed before we can draw any definitive conclusions. Thanks to Eric and Kate for their insightful perspectives and thank you all for tuning in. Until next time, keep those neurons firing.