TIME Research

23andMe Finds Genes for Motion Sickness

108150023
Getty Images

The personal genomics company 23andMe has identified 35 genetic factors tied to motion sickness, according to a new study published in the journal Human Molecular Genetics.

In what the company says is the first ever genome-wide study looking at motion sickness, 23andMe was able to determine several genes that may be tied to the nausea associated with movement in a car or on a boat. Motion sickness affects around one in three people, and prior research has suggested that it could be hereditary.

The researchers, who are employed by 23andMe (or have been in the past) and own stock options in the company, used genetic data from more than 80,000 23andMe customers. They found that many of these genetic factors were involved in balance, eye and ear development and the nervous system. Overall, the effect appeared to be stronger in women.

Read more: Genetic Testing Company 23andMe Finds New Revenue With Big Pharma

The study also found links between risk for motion sickness and a greater likelihood of having migraines, morning sickness and vertigo.

It’s still unclear what the actual drivers are, and even if a person has the gene variants linked to motion sickness, it doesn’t mean they will definitely have the condition. Genome-wide association studies like the one performed by 23andMe can only find correlations, but they’re still useful strategies for finding at-risk genes.

TIME Cancer

Lung Cancer Now Kills More Women Than Breast Cancer in Developed Countries

The lingering effects of the tobacco epidemic are partly driving the shift

For years, breast cancer has been the leading cause of cancer death among women in developed countries, but according to a new report on the incidence of cancer worldwide from the American Cancer Society, lung cancer now surpasses it.

A combination of early breast cancer detection efforts and the lingering effects of the tobacco epidemic drove the shift, says lead report author Lindsey Torre, an American Cancer Society researcher. The study, which was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and used data from 2012, reported that lung cancer killed 209,000 women in developed countries in 2012, while 197,000 women died of breast cancer.

“We know now that in a lot of developed countries among women, smoking is on the decline,” says Torre, noting that new lung cancer infections today are the result of habits formed decades ago. “The good news is that we can probably expect to see these lung cancer mortality rates peak and start to decline as times go by.”

Read more: The Cancer Breakthrough With Big Implications

The report emphasized the growing incidence of cancer in the developing world. Lung cancer was the leading killer of men in developing countries and breast cancer the leading cause of death for women.

In part, these growing numbers can be attributed to an aging population, a trend that is affecting the world at large. And as the developing world continues to westernize, people in developing countries are increasingly likely to smoke, be overweight and rarely engage in psychical activity, Torre says.

“We’re seeing the burden of cancer shift to developing countries, so they’re taking on an increasing portion of the global cancer burden,” she says.

Cancer killed 8.2 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States in 2012.

TIME

You Asked: Why Does My Eye Twitch?

Illustration by Peter Oumanski for TIME

Your eye spasms, decoded

Little lid spasms are common, but they can sometimes be a sign of trouble.

A slight tremor of the eyelid—the type that shows up without warning but scrams just as suddenly—is usually no cause for concern, explains Dr. Wayne Cornblath, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Michigan’s Kellogg Eye Center. “I think everybody has these once in a while,” Cornblath says. “You rub it, and it eventually stops.”

He’s talking about the kind of whispery muscle spasm that happens in one eyelid (or just a portion of the lid, to be precise). It can be a nuisance, but it usually goes away on its own within a few days, if not a few minutes.

To get rid of eye twitches, you might want to cut back on the caffeine. Too much of it seems to be a trigger, says Cornblath. While the exact mechanisms are a bit of a mystery, research from York University in Canada has shown that caffeine prompts the release of excitatory neurotransmitters like serotonin and noradrenaline. “Caffeine is a stimulant, and it increases reactivity within the muscles and nerves,” Cornblath explains. That may go some way toward explaining how caffeine causes occasional bouts of eyelid quivering, he says.

Getting too little sleep also seems to have an effect, though the reasons why are less clear. “Research has shown a correlation, and we know that getting more sleep can help, but we don’t know why,” Cornblath says. The same can be said for muscle spasms in general, which are quite common but confound explanation. “You hear about low potassium or dehydration, but there doesn’t seem to be much hard evidence,” Cornblath says.

Stress may also play a role, says Dr. Rebecca Taylor, a clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology. When you’re frazzled, you produce more epinephrine—a fight-of-flight molecule that primes your body for action. This heightened state of muscle arousal may manifest itself in small contractions or spasms, like the one in your eyelid, Taylor says.

In rare cases, when people address these sleep and stress issues and the twitch persists, Cornblath says a single treatment of Botox resolves the problem. Botox temporarily “shuts off” the connection between muscles and nerves, he explains.

Eyelid spasms are usually benign. But that’s not necessarily the case if the twitch spreads, Cornblath and Taylor both say. “If you’re experiencing spasms lower in your face or neck, that’s another story,” Cornblath says.

It’s not as common, but having a spasm in one side of your face—hemifacial spasm—is definitely something to talk to a doctor about, Taylor says. So is another condition, called a bletharospasm, where the whole eyelid closes or blinks involuntarily. There are a handful of potential explanations for both of them, and an eye doctor can help you figure out what’s going on, she recommends.

Back to that irksome little lid twitch: if it lasts for months, get it checked out. But in most cases, it’ll be gone in the blink of an eye.

Read next: Why Am I Cold All The Time?

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Research

There’s a Growing Health Gap Between Rich and Poor Teens

International efforts to improve health for the under-5-year-olds are not being matched for older children, a new study reveals

Disparities in health between rich and poor adolescents grew globally during the first decade of this century, according to a survey conducted in 34 countries in Europe and North America.

The study, published in the Lancet, reports that “socioeconomic differences across multiple areas of adolescent mental and physical health increased between 2002 and 2010.”

According to the research, adolescents from the most impoverished socioeconomic groups are more likely to suffer from poor health thanks to diminished physical activity and larger body mass indices.

“A strong international focus on reducing child poverty and mortality in children under five years has not been matched by a similar response in older age groups, resulting in widening socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent health,” says Frank Elgar, a psychiatry professor at McGill University in Montreal.

Researchers behind the study relied on data compiled from 500,000 young people from across Europe and North America who participated in a World Health Organization survey.

[Science Daily]

TIME psychology

10 Things That Will Prevent You From Getting Sick, Backed By Research

man-blowing-nose
Getty Images

Eric Barker writes Barking Up the Wrong Tree.

Look at pictures of sick people.

Via The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature:

Being exposed to photographs of individuals spreading their germs (e.g., via sneezing or coughing) is sufficient to elicit a boost in one’s immunological defense system.

It’s legit. Here’s the study he’s referring to:

An experiment (N = 28) tested the hypothesis that the mere visual perception of disease-connoting cues promotes a more aggressive immune response. Participants were exposed either to photographs depicting symptoms of infectious disease or to photographs depicting guns. After incubation with a model bacterial stimulus, participants’ white blood cells produced higher levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) in the infectious-disease condition, compared with the control (guns) condition. These results provide the first empirical evidence that visual perception of other people’s symptoms may cause the immune system to respond more aggressively to infection. Adaptive origins and functional implications are discussed.

Source: “Mere visual perception of other people’s disease symptoms facilitates a more aggressive immune response.” from Psychol Sci. 2010 May; 21(5):649-52. Epub 2010 Apr 2.

You looked at the picture above, right? Your immune system is already stronger. (You’re welcome.)

There are a number of other simple research-based tips for staying healthy and dodging illness:

This piece originally appeared on Barking Up the Wrong Tree.

Join over 150,000 readers and get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

What 10 things should you do every day to improve your life?

How To Make Your Life Better By Sending Five Simple Emails

4 Lifehacks From Ancient Philosophers That Will Make You Happier

Read next: Here’s How Much Experts Think You Should Sleep Every Night

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Research

Here’s How Much Experts Think You Should Sleep Every Night

The National Sleep Foundation releases new recommendations

A national panel of sleep experts released new recommendations Monday that call for more hours of sleep for most young people.

The National Sleep Foundation, a nonprofit aimed at promoting healthy sleep and safety, says the amount of sleep a person needs is highly variable and that some people need more than others. Still, the new hour ranges for each age group recommend more hours for infants, kids and teens:

  • Newborns (0-3 months ): Sleep range narrowed to 14-17 hours each day (previously it was 12-18)
  • Infants (4-11 months): Sleep range widened two hours to 12-15 hours (previously it was 14-15)
  • Toddlers (1-2 years): Sleep range widened by one hour to 11-14 hours (previously it was 12-14)
  • Preschoolers (3-5): Sleep range widened by one hour to 10-13 hours (previously it was 11-13)
  • School age children (6-13): Sleep range widened by one hour to 9-11 hours (previously it was 10-11)
  • Teenagers (14-17): Sleep range widened by one hour to 8-10 hours (previously it was 8.5-9.5)
  • Younger adults (18-25): Sleep range is 7-9 hours (new age category)
  • Adults (26-64): Sleep range did not change and remains 7-9 hours
  • Older adults (65+): Sleep range is 7-8 hours (new age category)

MORE The Power of Sleep

To come up with the new recommendations, the foundation put together a panel of 18 scientists and researchers from prominent medical associations in the United States and asked them to review over 300 studies on how much sleep is ideal. The panel then voted on how much sleep is appropriate at different ages.

Getting too little sleep and getting too much sleep are both unhealthy behaviors that can lead to a variety of consequences from grogginess to weight gain.

brightcove error: missing required parameter exp or exp3

Read next: Let Your Kids Sleep More For Better Grades

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Environment

Climate Change Is Making the Land in Iceland Rise

Blue Lagoon Iceland
Getty Images Blue Lagoon, Iceland

Study is the first to demonstrate the link between climate change and rising land

Land in Iceland is rising at a pace of as much as 1.4 inches per year in certain areas as a result of climate change, according to a new study. The melting of the country’s glaciers reduces pressure on the land below and allows the surface to rise, researchers say.

“Our research makes the connection between recent accelerated uplift and the accelerated melting of the Icelandic ice caps,” study co-author Kathleen Compton, a University of Arizona researcher, said in a statement.

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, relied on data from 62 global positioning system receivers placed throughout Iceland that allowed researchers to track the land’s movement.

MORE: The Senate Discovers Climate Change!

While scientists have noticed the rise in land levels in certain areas across the globe, this study is the first to demonstrate the link between climate change and rising land, the researchers say.

“Iceland is the first place we can say accelerated uplift means accelerated ice mass loss,” said study co-author Richard Bennett, a professor at the University of Arizona.

TIME psychology

The Simple Secret to Happiness Most People Get Wrong, Backed by Research

excited-people
Getty Images

Eric Barker writes Barking Up the Wrong Tree.

Focus on increasing the amount of good stuff in your life vs. reducing the amount of bad stuff. Studies show that it really is the little things in life that make us happy.

Researchers often tout the happiness-increasing powers of both religion and exercise. One of the lesser known reasons why they’re so effective is because both provide regular, frequent boosts.

You may be focused on a big goal, something that you’re sure will make you super-happy for a long time… but you’re probably misguided. When it comes to happiness, frequency beats intensity.

Why? One reason is that it’s harder to take for granted a lot of little things vs one, big rare event. Another reason is that “in everyday life, bad events have stronger and more lasting consequences than comparable good events” — so we need more good to make up for unexpected misfortunes.

This “more good beats less bad” theory works across many domains:

With friends:

The best way to maximize happiness when having meals with friends is for one person to take a turn each time paying for everyone’s dinner. It’s a big hit but it results in many more “free” meals for everyone, boosting happiness.

At work:

The best work teams had a five to one ratio of positive vs negative interactions together.

In relationships:

Divorce may have less to do with an increase in conflict and more to do with a decrease in positive feelings. Wanna stay together? Do exciting stuff to keep things fun.

But what if creating more good things in your life is difficult due to constraints of time or money?

Just savoring the good moments you do have (even little ones) is the single most proven method for increasing happiness. It’s effectively treated people withmild/moderate depression. Reliving fun moments with your partner can improve a relationship. Savoring the good things in life is one of the secrets of the happiest people.

This piece originally appeared on Barking Up the Wrong Tree.

Join over 150,000 readers and get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

What 10 things should you do every day to improve your life?

How To Make Your Life Better By Sending Five Simple Emails

4 Lifehacks From Ancient Philosophers That Will Make You Happier

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Research

Why You’re Less Likely to Die in a Car Than Ever Before

Traffic
George Rose—Getty Images Heavy automobile traffic on the Harbor Freeway is viewed at sunset on Jan. 27, 2012 in Los Angeles.

'Motor vehicles are safer than they ever have been in the past'

The chances of dying in a car crash in a new vehicle have declined dramatically in recent years to their lowest point ever, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Improvements to vehicle safety technology since the mid-1980s saved 7,700 lives in the United States in 2012 alone, the study found.

“There’s all the bad news about recalls, which make it sound like vehicles are getting less safe,” says IIHS president Adrian Lund. “What these results show is that motor vehicles are safer than they ever have been in the past. This is a huge reduction of people dying as occupants of motor vehicles in crashes.”

The study, which looked at data on deaths in 2011 model year vehicles, found that no one died in nine vehicle models. The death rate per million registered vehicle years, a number that represents how many people died per the number of years a car is registered to be on the road, declined to 28 for 2011 model cars. That rate was 87 for cars made a decade earlier, Lund says.

The report attributed much of that improvement to changes in technology. Electronic stability control, for instance, has been incorporated into many vehicles and prevented deaths when vehicles roll over. The effect of the technology has been particularly noticeable in SUVs. Once among the most dangerous cars on the road, many SUVs are now among the safest vehicles. Six of the nine vehicles without a death were SUVs.

Lund says he anticipates that car safety will improve along with the introduction of new technology in the near future, but he also acknowledges that movements by governments and regulators to cut down on traffic deaths have the potential to reduce traffic deaths dramatically. In particular, Vision Zero—a movement adopted by various cities and countries aimed at eliminating such deaths—has the potential to save lives, he says.

“If we’re really going to get to zero, then we’re really going to need action on a lot of fronts,” he says. “We don’t have to wait just for vehicle technology to achieve Vision Zero.”

Nonetheless, Lund notes that car manufacturers are “closing in on their target” of making their cars free of death and serious injury.

The nine models that were fatality-free were Audi A4 (four-wheel drive), Honda Odyssey, Kia Sorento (two-wheel drive), the Lexus RX 350 (four-wheel drive), Mercedes-Benz GL-Class (four-wheel drive), Subaru Legacy (four-wheel drive), Toyota Highlander hybrid (four-wheel drive), Toyota Sequoia (four-wheel drive) and Volvo XC90 (four-wheel drive).

Three cars had more more than 100 deaths per million registered vehicle years: Kia Rio, Nissan Versa sedan and Hyundai Accent.

TIME Research

Most Americans and Scientists Tend to Disagree, Survey Finds

science chemistry beakers
Getty Images

And that's not a good thing, scientists say

Regular Americans and their scientist counterparts think much differently about science-related issues, according to a new pair of surveys.

The Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, asked 5,750 American citizens and scientists their opinions on a series of scientific topics. They found striking gaps between the two groups, particularly on issues related to biomedical science.

Food is a major source of friction for the both camps. A full 57% of Americans think that consuming genetically modified foods is unsafe, but 88% of scientists say GMO foods are safe to eat. Pesticide use is another contentious issue: 68% of scientists think it’s safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, while only 28% of lay Americans agree.

When it comes to using animals in research, 89% of scientists give the practice the green light, but only 47% of Americans are ok with it—and 50% of Americans are against the use of animals in research. Non-scientist Americans were also far less likely to believe in evolution than scientists.

On eight of the 13 topics, researchers saw at least a 20-percentage point gap in opinion between Americans and scientists. That’s a troubling statistic, scientists say. According to the survey, 84% of them believe the public’s lack of knowledge about the field is a major problem.

Scientists and non-scientists agree on at least one topic, however: neither group thinks that science, technology, engineering and math education in American elementary and high schools is performing well enough when compared to programs across the globe.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser