0
0
January 15, 2024
Lifestyle choices, genetics, and various other factors play pivotal roles in the development of metabolic syndrome—a cluster of conditions that elevate the risk of major health issues. The latest research reveals that stress, due to its propensity to heighten inflammation in the body, is also correlated with metabolic syndrome. This groundbreaking discovery suggests that adopting inexpensive and simple stress-management approaches could be a viable strategy to enhance biological health outcomes.
The study, published in Brain, Behaviour, and Immunity–Health, focuses on midlife individuals—a critical period influencing accelerated aging and a time when stress can significantly impact health outcomes. Senior author Jasmeet Hayes, associate professor of psychology at The Ohio State University, emphasizes the importance of recognizing stress as a significant contributor to negative health outcomes as individuals age. While some factors influencing metabolic syndrome are beyond modification, stress management emerges as a cost-effective and easily implementable approach within daily lives, requiring no medical professionals’ intervention.
Metabolic syndrome is diagnosed when an individual exhibits at least three of five factors increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other health concerns. These factors include excess belly fat, high blood pressure, low HDL (good) cholesterol, and elevated levels of fasting blood glucose and triglycerides. The study delves into the rare exploration of the interconnectedness of stress, inflammation, and metabolic syndrome.
First author Savana Jurgens, a psychology graduate student in Hayes’ lab, crafted a statistical model using data from 648 participants (average age 52) in the Midlife in the United States national survey. The model aimed to unravel how inflammation might contribute to the relationship between stress and metabolic syndrome. Perceived stress reports, inflammation biomarkers, and physical exam results indicating metabolic syndrome risk factors formed the basis for the analysis.
Jurgens highlights the rarity of research examining all three variables simultaneously, stressing the typical associations between stress, inflammation, and metabolic syndrome. Inflammation composite scores, incorporating biomarkers such as IL-6, C-reactive protein, E-selectin, ICAM-1, and fibrinogen, were utilized. The statistical modeling revealed a significant relationship between stress and metabolic syndrome, with inflammation explaining over half of this connection—precisely 61.5 percent.
While acknowledging the small effect of perceived stress on metabolic syndrome, Jurgens underscores the substantial role played by inflammation. Stress, being just one among many factors influencing health markers, underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address metabolic syndrome risk factors. With approximately 1 in 3 American adults estimated to have metabolic syndrome, Hayes emphasizes the significance of understanding how to reduce or prevent its occurrence. The findings contribute to mounting evidence demonstrating the substantial impact of stress, particularly its connection to inflammation, on overall biological health.
Hayes concludes by emphasizing that stress, often viewed solely as a mental health concern, has tangible physical effects, including inflammation and metabolic syndrome. This research serves as a poignant reminder of the multi-faceted consequences of chronic stress on overall health and well-being.
