Watching Peers Eat Can Trigger Overeating, Says Mouse Study
Even in the absence of hunger, mice increased their sucrose diet intake after observing their peers eat. This effect was abolished by the inhibition of dopamine receptors.
METHODOLOGY:
Previous studies in humans have shown a significant association between external eating behaviors and watching eating shows, but this has not been confirmed in a mouse model.
This study examined whether satiated mice, despite not being hungry, increased their food intake when watching a peer engage in binge-like eating behavior.
A total of 14 male mice were divided into two groups: One group was either fed or fasted overnight before testing, and the other group was always fed before testing.
Mice were paired according to genetic and parental information and placed in separate but adjacent chambers for interaction without physical contact. Food intake was recorded hourly for 4 hours across different days, using chow, high-fat, and sucrose diets.
In a follow-up experiment, the group of mice that was always fed before testing received intraperitoneal injections of saline, a D1 dopamine receptor inhibitor, or a D2 dopamine receptor inhibitor prior to testing.
TAKEAWAY:
Satiated mice increased their sucrose diet intake during the first hour while watching peers that had fasted eat, with significant increases noted in both the initial and repeated tests (P = .0043 and P = .0154, respectively).
No significant increase in chow or high-fat diet intake was observed when satiated mice watched peers that had fasted consume the diets.
The increase in sucrose intake persisted after saline injection (P = .0057) but was abolished after the administration of the D1 or D2 dopamine receptor inhibitors.
IN PRACTICE:
'Establishing this animal model provides a foundation for future studies on the neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive-driven food intake and may contribute to the development of targeted therapeutic strategies for obesity,' the authors of the study wrote.
'This animal model opens the door to developing new treatments that target the brain's reward system to help prevent or reduce overeating,' Yong Xu, PhD, MD, professor and associate director for Basic Sciences at the Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a news release. 'It also supports public health efforts that aim to limit the influence of visual food cues in media and social settings, which could help people better manage their weight and eating habits.'
SOURCE:
The study was led by Xu Xu, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston. It was presented on June 14, 2025, at the ENDO 2025: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
LIMITATIONS:
No limitations were discussed in the abstract.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures or conflict of interest statements were provided.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
8 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Gluten Could Be Wrongly Blamed for Americans' Stomach Troubles
For many of us, gluten is a dietary villain, capable of causing all sorts of gastrointestinal troubles. Research out this week looks to complicate that narrative, however, finding that people are sometimes wrongly blaming gluten for triggering their symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Scientists at McMaster University in Canada conducted the study, a small, randomized trial of IBS patients. People became sicker just as often after eating food containing gluten or wheat as they did after eating food without the ingredient, they found. Gluten is likely safer to eat for those with IBS than commonly thought, the researchers say. 'These findings suggest that expectations played a major role in symptom generation and that only some of these patients could benefit from gluten or wheat restriction,' they wrote in their paper, published Monday in The Lancet Gastroenetrology and Hepatology. IBS is a complex, chronic, and relatively common condition, estimated to affect between 5 and 10% of the population worldwide (including up to 45 million people in the U.S.). Its symptoms include stomach pain, bloating, and diarrhea or constipation. Unlike the closely named inflammatory bowel disorder, IBS isn't marked by physical changes or visible damage along the digestive tract, but it can still be a debilitating burden for many, with around 20% of sufferers experiencing severe bouts. The exact causes of IBS remain unclear, though scientists have speculated it can arise from a miscommunication between the nerves found in the gut and the brain. People with IBS tend to report having specific triggers that can cause a flare-up of illness, gluten included, and often manage their condition by avoiding these triggers. The researchers behind the new study aimed to better understand gluten's potential role in IBS, so they recruited over two dozen people with IBS for their randomized, double-blinded trial, all of whom had reported improving after switching to a gluten-free diet. At first, the volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three groups. All the groups were first told to eat cereal bars for a week. One group ate bars made with flour containing gluten, the second ate bars made with wheat flour, and the third ate bars made with gluten- and wheat-free flour. Afterward, the volunteers took a break for two weeks. Then they switched to eating the bars they hadn't eaten yet for another round of testing, a process repeated twice. By the study's end, all the volunteers had eaten all three kinds of bars, though on different schedules and without knowing which bars they had eaten on a given week. A total of 28 people completed the trial. A significant percentage of people reported having worsening IBS symptoms after eating gluten or wheat bars, the study showed, but about just as often as they did after eating non-gluten/wheat bars (roughly a third experienced worsening IBS during each of the three conditions). 93% of participants also reported having adverse events after each scenario of bar-eating. Interestingly enough, tests of the participants' stool found that only a third strictly followed their diets as instructed, with likely many fearing they would get sick. The findings are based on a very small sample size, so it's not yet certain that they apply to the general population of people with IBS tied to gluten. There are also, of course, digestive conditions clearly caused by an intolerance to gluten, particularly celiac disease. And the researchers aren't saying gluten can't sometimes be a genuine trigger for people's IBS. But they argue that in many cases, people's negative perception of gluten is causing a nocebo effect, the dark cousin of the placebo effect. In other words, someone's belief that gluten is bad for them can potentially spark or worsen the IBS symptoms seen after eating it, rather than gluten itself. The researchers say better communication and follow-up care from doctors are needed for IBS patients, given the findings. 'What we need to improve in our clinical management of these patients is to work with them further, not just tell them that gluten is not the trigger and move on. Many of them may benefit from psychological support and guidance to help destigmatize gluten and wheat and reintroduce them safely in their diet,' said senior author Premysl Bercik, a professor at McMaster's Department of Medicine, in a statement from the university. That may be easier said than done, though. The researchers note that most patients, upon learning the team's findings, staunchly refused to entertain the idea of gluten not being a trigger for their IBS symptoms. So it looks like gluten may need a promotional campaign to win back its reputation.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kids who own smartphones before age 13 have worse mental health outcomes: Study
Children, especially girls, who own smartphones before they are 13 years old may have worse mental health outcomes when they're older, a new study suggests. The study, published Sunday in the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, analyzed self-reported questionnaire results from more than 100,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. The questionnaire asked respondents about mental health symptoms, such as having aggression, feelings of detachment, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. Those who were given smartphones at an earlier age were associated with worse mental health outcomes for every year of smartphone ownership before the age of 13. Early smartphone ownership was associated with feelings of lower self-image and lower self-worth in both girls and boys. Girls reported lower emotional resilience and lower confidence, while boys reported feeling less calm, less stable and less empathetic. "The younger the child gets a smartphone, the more exposure to all this impacts them psychologically and shapes the way they think and view the world," Tara Thiagarajan, one of the study's authors, told ABC News in an emailed statement. About 48% of young women who had smartphones by 5 or 6 years old reported having severe suicidal thoughts, compared to 28% of females who had smartphones by 13 or older. In young men, 31% of those who had smartphones by 5 or 6 years old reported having severe suicidal thoughts and 20% of males who had smartphones by 13 or older reported having severe suicidal thoughts. Cellphone bans in schools take center stage amid mental health crisis Study authors attributed the differences between young women's and young men's mental health symptoms to social media usage. Other factors that seemed to impact mental health outcomes were cyberbullying, poor sleep and poor family relationships. The study's authors recommended restricting smartphone and social media access for kids under 13, promoting digital literacy education and corporate accountability. "Ideally, children should not have a smartphone until age 14, and when they do get a smartphone, parents should take the time to discuss with their children how to interact on the Internet and explain the consequences of doing various things," Thiagarajan added. ABC News' Dr. Tara Narula also said on "Good Morning America" Monday that limiting kids' access to social media appears to be a key step in protecting children and their mental health outcomes. "The longer we can push off allowing our kids to be on social media, we are learning, the better," Narula said. "I think lots of families are getting creative … landlines …. flip phones for kids [are] maybe an option so that they can have access to communicating without all the other things that come with smartphones." Social psychologist says kids shouldn't have smartphones before high school The study's findings come amid an effort led by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of "Anxious Generation," to limit kids' smartphone use due to the impact on their mental health. Haidt has proposed setting nationwide "norms" or guidelines, including not giving children a smartphone before high school, no social media before age 16 and establishing schools as phone-free zones. Pediatrician Dr. Natasha Burgert also recommended that parents demonstrate to children how to use smartphones responsibly. "Children watch everything you do -- and that doesn't stop until they leave your house," Burgert told ABC News via email. "Connect authentically and meaningfully for a few minutes every day, and show your children that the humans we live with are more important and worthy of our attention than our phones." The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends families follow the 5 C's of media use, including teaching kids and teens how to be safe online, since content and advertisements may be targeting an older audience. Child - Consider your child and their personality. What media are they drawn to and how do they react to it? Content - Consider the content of the media your child consumes. Encourage them to consider good media sources. Calm - Help your child learn how to manage their emotions, including without the help of media. Crowding out - Consider what your family would like to spend more quality time doing, besides consuming media. Communication - Discuss media with children early and often and encourage learning digital literacy. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
From ‘MMS' to ‘aerobic oxygen', why drinking bleach has become a dangerous wellness trend
If something online promises to cure everything, it's probably too good to be true. One of the most dangerous examples? Chlorine dioxide is often marketed under names like 'Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)' or 'aerobic oxygen', buzzwords that hint at health and vitality. But in reality, these products can make you violently ill within hours – and in some cases, they can be fatal. Despite what the name suggests, MMS is not just bleach. Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite – a different but equally toxic chemical. When ingested, sodium chlorite can cause methemoglobinemia, a condition where red blood cells lose their ability to carry oxygen. It can also trigger haemolysis (the rupture of red blood cells), followed by kidney failure and death. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. When sodium chlorite mixes with acid (such as stomach acid), it converts into chlorine dioxide, a bleaching agent. This compound has strong antimicrobial properties: it can kill bacteria, fungi and even viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For that reason, it's commonly used in sanitising dental equipment and hospital tools like endoscopes. Its effectiveness at killing over 400 bacterial species makes it useful in cleaning – but not in humans. While the mouth and oesophagus are lined with multiple cell layers, offering some protection, the stomach and intestines are far more vulnerable. These organs have a single-cell lining to absorb nutrients efficiently – but this also means they're highly sensitive to damage. That's why ingesting chlorine dioxide often leads to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. In extreme cases, the chemical can burn through the gut lining, leading to bowel perforation – a medical emergency with a high risk of death. Using MMS as an enema is equally dangerous. Chlorine dioxide can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species – unstable molecules that damage cells and contribute to chronic gut conditions. This cellular stress may explain both the immediate symptoms and the long-term injuries seen in reported cases. It doesn't make a good mouthwash, either Some sellers claim MMS can be used safely in the mouth because it's found in dental cleaners. But clinical trials show it's no more effective than other mouthwashes, and its oxidising power doesn't distinguish between harmful microbes and healthy cells. Yes, it may temporarily reduce bad breath, but it also disrupts protein synthesis, damages cell membranes, and harms the gut microbiome – the collection of helpful bacteria we rely on for digestion and immune health. Chlorine dioxide doesn't just attack the gut. It also affects the cardiovascular system. Documented risks include low blood pressure, fainting, and cardiac damage – including stroke and shock. In some cases, it causes a dangerous blood disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This condition causes abnormal clotting, followed by severe bleeding and potential organ failure, stroke and death. Chlorine dioxide is also a respiratory irritant. Inhalation can inflame the nose, throat and lungs, and in severe cases, cause respiratory distress – particularly with repeated exposure in workplaces. Studies of factory workers show that even low doses can lead to nasal inflammation, coughing and breathing difficulties. And some patients who drank chlorine dioxide to 'treat' COVID-19 ended up with severe chemical lung injuries. Risks to the brain, hormones and skin Animal studies suggest chlorine dioxide can harm the nervous system, causing developmental delays, reduced movement, and slower brain growth. It also appears to affect the thyroid, potentially causing hormonal disruptions and delayed puberty. It doesn't stop there. Some people who consume chlorine dioxide also develop cerebral salt wasting syndrome, a condition where the kidneys lose too much sodium, leading to excessive urination, dehydration and dangerously low blood volume. Skin contact isn't safe either. Chlorine dioxide can irritate the skin, and lab studies show it can kill skin cells at high concentrations. People who've used it to treat fungal infections have ended up with chemical dermatitis instead. Chlorine dioxide can be useful for disinfecting hospital tools, dental equipment and water supplies. But that doesn't mean it belongs in your body. Many of its supposed 'benefits' come from lab studies or animal research – not from safe, approved human trials. There's no evidence that drinking it cures any disease. There's overwhelming evidence that it can harm or kill you. So, if you're tempted by a product that promises miracles with science-y language and zero regulation, take a step back. The risks are very real – and very dangerous. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Adam Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
