Preparing For The Collapse Of Society

SHTF Gear: The Essential Gear to Survive SHTF

Hunter's Sugar Brother Is Just a Nice Guy‚ Okay?

Uh Oh: Israel's Unity Government Starting to Unravel?

Denver Hospital at Point of Collapse Due to Illegal Immigrants

If we’re talking fat‚ the visceral type is the real baddie. Though it makes up just 10 percent of body fat‚ it’s implicated in a number of health concerns‚ including diabetes and heart disease. Here’s everything you need to know about the adipose antagonist hiding deep inside.What is visceral fat?Fat comes in a few different “flavors”: white‚ brown‚ beige‚ and even pink. White fat cells are the most abundant and are important for energy storage – they tend to accumulate in the belly‚ thighs‚ and hips; brown are found mostly in infants‚ but also to a lesser extent in adults‚ to keep them warm; while beige and pink are types of white fat that can be converted when exposed to low temperatures or during pregnancy and lactation‚ respectively.Fat can also be defined by its location‚ which is where visceral fat comes into the picture. Sometimes referred to as “belly fat”‚ visceral fat‚ a type of white fat‚ lies deep within the abdominal cavity where it surrounds digestive organs such as the pancreas‚ intestines‚ and liver. It can also wrap itself around the heart. Some levels of visceral fat are necessary to protect our organs.Visceral fat is found deep within your abdominal walls‚ surrounding your organs.Image credit: Pikovit/Shutterstock.comIt is distinct from subcutaneous fat‚ which sits directly under the skin’s surface and that you can pinch between your fingers. Extreme amounts of subcutaneous fat can be a threat to our health‚ though not as much as visceral fat.Why is it dangerous?First of all‚ fat itself is not (necessarily) a villain. Having the right amount is vital to keep us warm‚ give us energy and essential fatty acids‚ help us to produce hormones‚ and absorb essential vitamins and minerals. It’s only when we have too much of it that fat can become a problem.And visceral fat‚ in particular‚ poses a threat to our health. It has been linked with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease‚ diabetes‚ and certain cancers‚ among other things.One of the main problems is that fat is biologically active: it secretes hormones and other molecules that can affect other tissues in the body‚ even those far away. Visceral fat‚ compared to subcutaneous fat‚ produces more such molecules‚ with potentially detrimental side effects for our health. For example‚ it releases more cytokines – proteins that are important in cell signaling – which are implicated in inflammation and associated with a number of chronic conditions.Visceral fat is also thought to make proteins that constrict our blood vessels‚ which can cause blood pressure to rise.Other medical conditions that have previously been linked to visceral fat include: dementia‚ asthma‚ breast cancer‚ and colorectal cancer.Both genetic and environmental factors can influence a person’s levels of visceral fat: someone can be predisposed to store more of it‚ but their diet‚ lifestyle‚ and other factors such as stress levels also play an important part.Symptoms of visceral fat‚ most notably a growing belly‚ are frustratingly similar to those of subcutaneous fat‚ so it is advised to seek a doctor's advice if you have concerns.How to get rid of itVisceral fat can be difficult to target. People tend to lose weight pretty uniformly throughout the body so efforts to lose weight‚ while helpful‚ may not be enough. Instead‚ making a long-term commitment to eat a balanced diet and follow exercise guidelines is recommended to help reduce visceral fat. It’s also worth considering other lifestyle changes‚ such as improving your sleep hygiene and attempting to reduce stress levels or alcohol intake – all of which are associated with visceral fat.But‚ as always‚ you should talk any concerns over with your doctor and consult them before instigating any major changes.The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.

Planetary scientists studying lunar rocks might have discovered some boulders behaving oddly. While studying some cracked boulders‚ they noticed that some were different from others. They believe some boulders are attracting only certain types of lunar dust‚ potentially due to magnetic properties.Dust on Earth is certainly not pleasant‚ but it is certainly better than the dust you get on the Moon. The layer of loose soil on top of the lunar surface is not powdery at all – without elements to smooth them‚ dust particles are jagged. Also‚ they are electrically charged. The combination was a problem for the astronauts that landed on the Moon. The dust interacts with boulders too. The team investigated boulders of about a meter (3 feet) across in images taken by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Using artificial intelligence‚ they looked through about one million images for fractured rocks‚ finding 130‚000. Half of them were then checked by the scientists. One boulder stood out in the Reiner Gamma Region."We recognized a boulder with distinctive dark areas on just one image. This rock was very different from all the others‚ as it scatters less light back towards the sun than other rocks. We suspect that this is due to the particular dust structure‚ such as the density and grain size of the dust‚" lead author Ottaviano Rüsch‚ from the University of Münster‚ said in a statement."Normally‚ lunar dust is very porous and reflects a lot of light back in the direction of illumination. However‚ when the dust is compacted‚ the overall brightness usually increases. This is not the case with the observed dust-covered rocks‚" added co-author Marcel Hess from TU Dortmund University.The crucial finding is that a very small number of boulders on the Moon have a layer of dust that reflects light weirdly‚ but what makes these rocks special is unclear. Due to the electrostatic properties of the dust‚ magnetism is being touted as a possible explanation: The dust might be lifted by interactions with the solar wind and end up on the boulders.The team plans to study these rocks further‚ proposing potential ways for how the selective dusting happens. Understanding the presence of these rocks and the way they interact with the lunar regolith (the moon soil) helps scientists work out what are the processes that form and change the lunar crust.The results of the study have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Planets.

Ten millennia ago‚ a bunch of teenagers in what is now Sweden chewed up and spat out pieces of birch resin‚ in much the same way that modern kids might stick their used gum to the underside of a school desk. Little did these ancient adolescents know‚ however‚ that their discarded chewings would one day be analyzed by scientists‚ revealing that they had eaten deer‚ trout‚ and nuts‚ processed wolf and fox furs with their teeth‚ and suffered from gum disease.The three pieces of chewed birch pitch – which was used as an adhesive during the Stone Age – were originally discovered in the 1990s at a site called Huseby Klev. Based on the age of the sediment in which the samples were found‚ researchers estimate that they are between 9‚540 and 9‚890 years old.To confirm that the wrinkly specimens had indeed been chewed by humans‚ the study authors compared the microbial DNA sequences present in the resin with both modern and ancient salivary microbiomes. In doing so‚ they detected high levels of bacteria associated with periodontitis (gum disease)‚ such as Treponema denticola‚ Streptococcus anginosus‚ and Slackia exigua.Other bacterial species including Streptococcus sobrinus and Parascardovia denticolens – both of which are indicators of tooth decay – were also found to be abundant in the ancient chewing gum. Commenting on these findings in a statement‚ study author Dr Emrah Krdök explained that “there is a richness of DNA sequences in the chewed mastic from Huseby-Klev‚ and in it we find both the bacteria that we know are related to periodontitis‚ and DNA from plants and animals that they had chewed before”.Indeed‚ in addition to highlighting the poor oral health of Mesolithic Scandinavians‚ the genetic information extracted from the gum revealed the various different plant and animal species that had passed between the chewers’ lips shortly before they gnawed on the resin. These included food sources like hazelnuts‚ apples‚ brown trout‚ red deer‚ and limpets.Bird species such as mallard‚ tufted duck‚ and European robin were also detected‚ indicating that Stone Age Scandinavians may have used their teeth to process the bones of these creatures into tools‚ in addition to eating them. The researchers also identified the DNA of several canids‚ including red fox‚ arctic fox‚ and wolf. According to the authors‚ these animals were probably hunted for their furs‚ and people may have used their teeth at some point in the preparation of these pelts.Among the other plants detected in the gum was mistletoe‚ which the researchers say might have been used medicinally or to produce poison for arrowheads.Summing up the team’s findings‚ study author Professor Anders Götherström said that the DNA in the ancient gum “provides a snapshot of the life of a small group of hunter-gatherers on the Scandinavian west coast.” “We know that these teenagers were eating deer‚ trout‚ and hazelnuts 9‚700 years ago on the west coast of Scandinavia‚ while at least one of them had severe problems with his teeth‚” he said.The study is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

It has long been presumed that primate societies were predominantly run by males. With the exception of lemur society‚ which was thought to be an outlier‚ most primates‚ including gorillas‚ chimps‚ and monkeys were believed to be largely male-dominated. Now‚ a literature review of 79 primate species is challenging that long-held assumption‚ suggesting that things are a lot more equal than they seem. Researchers at The University of Texas have suggested that although male power dynamics are more common‚ female-biased power structures‚ or even social equality between males and females of a primate social group‚ can be found in every major living primate clade and likely even existed throughout their evolution. "In the past‚ primatologists have often focused on the role of males and male power in primate societies‚" said Rebecca Lewis‚ a professor of anthropology and co-author of the paper‚ in a statement. "What has sometimes been overlooked is the important role of female power in primate societies." The team divided the 79 primate species into groups based on whether they were female-dominant‚ male-dominant‚ or co-dominant‚ and which factors were common across these groups.  For instance‚ the team found that female dominance was more likely to be the case in social groups when the size difference between males and females was smaller. The study also took into account the challenges with categorizing species in this way and the authors write in the paper that the female and co-dominant groups “exhibit very different intersexual social relationships than species labeled as male dominant.”Overall‚ the team found that 58 percent of the species that they looked at did exhibit male-biased power in their social groups. However‚ in Old World monkeys and apes‚ the team found multiple examples of species that do not have a male power style social dynamic. New World monkeys had the most variable power structures‚ with 40 percent of those species either co- or female-dominant.While lemur society has been known to be female-led‚ other smaller primate species such as gibbons and marmosets were also likely to show female or co-dominant power structures. The team found that male-biased power was associated not only with males being larger than females‚ but also when there were more females within a group.“Our work suggests that more economic forms of power might really come to the forefront in primate species in which males and females are similar in size and in which females are therefore less readily coerced by males‚" continued Lewis. Looking not just at modern primates‚ but back into the fossil record‚ the researchers also think that the assumption that most primate groups were male-dominated through evolutionary time is not accurate. They suggest that the last common ancestor of primates did not necessarily live in a male-dominated society‚ but the last common ancestor of monkeys‚ apes‚ and humans most likely did. "Primates have been thought to be mainly male dominant‚ which would suggest that male dominance was present in primates from early in their evolutionary history‚" said Chris Kirk‚ a professor of anthropology at UT and a co-author. "However‚ we show that this assumption of ancestral male-biased power in primates isn’t necessarily supported by the data."The study is published in Animals.

A collection of previously unknown documents relating to a weird but important part of American history have gone to auction for the first time. The documents belonged to a physician who autopsied the body of US president William McKinley after his assassination in 1901. Following the autopsy‚ the doctor in question then performed a strange experiment involving rabbits and a pet dog‚ all in an attempt to figure out what killed the unfortunate president.The archives of Dr Herman Matzinger‚ an influential expert on blood analysis at the time‚ have only recently emerged after they were rediscovered by his family. They have now been put up for auction at the Raab Collection for $80‚000.The documents include Matzinger’s laboratory notebook containing his scientific observations‚ a draft copy of his autopsy report‚ a copy of the final report‚ the government’s acknowledgement of the president’s death certificate‚ tickets to McKinley’s funeral‚ and other documents.Through these sources‚ we gain important insights into what happened at the time of McKinley’s death as well as the doctor’s attempts to investigate the exact causes. So what happened?       IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.Bullets‚ bodies‚ and pets On September 6‚ 1901‚ President William McKinley‚ the 25th American president‚ was attending the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo‚ New York‚ when he was approached by an anarchist called Leon Czolgosz who went to shake his hand. In the process‚ Czolgosz shot McKinley in the chest at close range.Soon after‚ McKinley was tended to by doctors who were able to stabilize him following an apparently successful operation. However‚ his health soon deteriorated‚ and he died on September 14. He was the third American president to be assassinated.From the moment he died‚ rumours started to circulate about the exact cause of death. Although it was officially recorded as pancreatic necrosis‚ or necrotizing pancreatitis‚ there were those who suspected more.Within the medical community‚ criticism fell on Dr Matthew Mann‚ the gynaecological surgeon who initially operated on McKinley.Mann had been attending the Pan-American Exposition and was the first physician to respond. Mann had a hard time in his procedure‚ as he struggled to find the bullet in the layers of fat on McKinley’s body. In the end‚ he left the bullet in place and simply sewed up two stomach wounds that he found. It is possible this caused an infection that led to the president’s death.In addition to a potential botched operation‚ there were those who believed Czolgosz had shot McKinley with a poisoned bullet‚ or one laced with bacteria. This conspiracy is still alive today.In order to investigate these claims‚ Dr Matzinger was asked to perform a “bacteriological examination” of the president’s body‚ in addition to the autopsy. Through his work‚ he concluded that the infection had likely been caused by the bullets and not Mann’s operation‚ and that there was no evidence of poisoning.      The documents now on sale provide fascinating insights into how Matzinger reached these conclusions. In one test‚ the good doctor grew “whitish” bacteria cultures that he took from McKinley’s wound and then injected them into rabbits and a dog. We still have quite a few questions about this procedure – why he did it‚ who owned the animals and so on – but we do know that he carefully monitored the dog over the next few days. He noted the animal’s body temperature‚ which had become elevated‚ but ultimately the dog was “acting well”.The documents also offer insights into the type of pressures that were on the doctor at the time. According to his letters‚ Matzinger was being pressed by Dr P.M. Rixey‚ who wanted the results ASAP. Still‚ Matzinger took his time and eventually submitted his report 18 days after McKinley’s death.These documents really are a veritable treasure trove. They offer information that we rarely get to see in recorded history and tell us much about the context surrounding the president’s death‚ as well as how autopsies of high-ranking officials were performed.