As any bodybuilder can attest, muscles grow when we make them do more work. Now, new research explains how muscle cells translate weight-lifting overload into bulk.

The secret lies with a chemical factor produced by muscle cells during work (such as during weight lifting) that signals muscle stem cells to multiply and take on the load. The substance, serum response factor (Srf), apparently triggers muscle stem cells - dormant cells capable of differentiating into muscle cells - to proliferate and become muscle fibers. More muscle fibers means bigger overall muscles and more strength.

The findings may lead to new ways to combat muscle atrophy associated with age and illness, according to study researcher Athanassia Sotiropoulos, of the medical research institute Inserm in France.

Two ingredients in marijuana have opposite effects on certain regions of the brain, according to a new study.

One chemical, called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), increases the brain processes that can lead to symptoms of psychosis, while another compound, called cannabidiol, may negate such symptoms, according to the study.

Moreover, the findings are the first to use images of the brain to demonstrate that the reason symptoms of psychosis arise in marijuana users may be because THC interferes with the brain's ability to distinguish between stimuli that are important, and those that aren't, according to the study.

The results are detailed today (Jan. 2) in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

Not only does it rot your teeth and add inches to your waistline, but now researchers have discovered that junk food actually hurts your brain.

By consuming trans fats, found often in fried or processed food, the chemicals send mixed and damaging signals to the brain and lessens its ability to control appetite.

Essentially, by eating junk food, your brain becomes less and less able to tell what you have eaten and continues to make you feel as if you are hungry so that you proceed to eat more.

It's clear that trans fats are bad -- both for your heart and now, we see, for your brain,' said Dr Gene Bowman of Oregon Health & Science University.

Given the somewhat complicated nature of trans fats, it is harder for shoppers to spot goods that contain loads of the molecule. Trans fat is the common name for unsaturated fats which are harder for the body to digest given its double carbon-carbon bond.

Brain injury comes as the latest addition to a long list of health problems that stem from the consumption of unsaturated fat. Coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes.

The battle against trans fats is not a new one.

In a disturbing new study published last month (Dec. 2011) in the Journal of Toxicology in Vitro, researchers found that Monsanto's popular "weed killer" known as Roundup, which has already been linked to over 25 adverse health effects, is also capable of interfering with and/or harming the male reproductive system.

Researchers tested Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, on mature rat testicular cells at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 ppm, which they described as "the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels." They found that within 1 to 48 hours of Roundup exposure testicular (Leydig) cells were damaged or killed.

What is more disturbing is that even at a lower, presumably "non toxic" concentration of 1 ppm of Roundup, or glyphosate by itself, testosterone concentrations were observed to decrease by 35%.

Keep in mind that 1 ppm of Roundup is an infinitesimal concentration. Distilled water, as a reference point, contains between 5-10 ppm of dissolved solids. How can such a small concentration of Roundup/glyphosate cause such a profound disruption of biological activity in testicular cells? The phenomenon is known as endocrine disruption.

Is it possible to thrive without antipsychotics, high-powered painkillers, and statin drugs?

More importantly, are natural alternatives really as 'dangerous' as mainstream health officials claim?

Sure, there have been some great advancements in the field of medical science, but profit mongering and a blatant disregard for public health has driven big pharma giants to throw science to the wind and unleash a variety of harmful yet profitable pharmaceuticals.

It is thanks to this motive that pharmaceuticals have now led to more deaths than traffic fatalities in the United States.

Killing at least 37,485 people nationwide in 2009, the mainstream medical structure continues to not only ignore natural alternatives but actually goes as far as to label them 'dangerous' and completely deny their effectiveness. Vitamin D, which can be obtained by simply stepping outside, has been found to slash your risk of cancer, obesity, and the flu. Of course, unless you are supplementing thousands of times over the safe limit of vitamin D, there are virtually zero side effects to accompany these benefits.

Over the course of the past few years we have uncovered a remarkable body of research on the medicinal properties of mushrooms. In fact, when it comes to natural cancer research, no other category has been the subject of more human clinical research than AHCC and Lentinan, both unique preparations of shiitake mushroom.

AHCC stands for active hexose correlated compound, and is classified as a functional food made from hybridized mycelia of shiitake (and sometimes other mushrooms) in rice bran. It contains both alpha- and beta-glucan polysaccharides, well-known modulators of host immunity. Lentinan, also from shiitake (Lentinula edodes), is exclusively beta-glucan. What is so unique about these compounds is that they are "host-mediated" anti-cancer agents, helping the cancer-afflicted body combat cancer by boosting immune function. This is a radically different approach versus conventional chemotherapy, which poisons rapidly dividing cells, indiscriminately, killing both cancer and immune cells (among other healthy cell types).

How can edible mushrooms like shiitake protect us against cancer, perhaps the most widely feared disease that presently afflicts our species? Could the reason be that we co-evolved with fungi, and that the essential polysaccharides they contain were present in our diet for so long that the genetic/epigenetic infrastructure of our bodies now depends on them? Beta-glucan, after all, is found widely distributed in whole grains, nutritional yeast, as well as fungi. The friendly bacteria, in and outside of our gut, produce the beta-glucan fraction through the biotransformative processes of digestive fermentation and, in the case of food, culturing. Could it be that, failing to consume (or produce) adequate quantities, our body fails in its cancer immunosurveillance -- not unlike the well-established role that vitamin D deficiency has in maintaining proper immune function, and therefore reducing cancer risk.

But perhaps there is an even deeper reason to why fungi keep us alive and well, even when faced with the most terrible of health challenges: we share a common, unique evolutionary origin, and our fates may still be intimately interwoven.

It appears that for the vast majority of vegetarians, abstaining from meat is only a phase rather than a permanent life choice.

According to Psychology Today, roughly 75% of vegetarians eventually return to eating meat with 9 years being the average length of time of abstinence.

The most common reason former vegetarians cited as the reason they returned to meat was declining health. One vegetarian turned omnivore put it very succinctly:

"I'll take a dead cow over anemia any time."

Other former vegetarians cited persistent physical weakness despite eating a whole foods, PETA recommended diet while others returned to meat at the recommendation of their doctor.

Another big reason that vegetarians returned to meat was due to irresistable cravings. This occurred even among long term vegetarians. Respondents talked about their protein cravings or how the smell of cooking bacon drove them crazy.

One survey participant wrote:

"I just felt hungry all the time and that hunger would not be satisfied unless I ate meat."

Another put it more humorously:

Starving college student + First night back home with the folks + Fifty or so blazin' buffalo wings waiting in the kitchen = Surrender.

New research has found that elderly people with higher levels of several vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids in their blood had better performance on mental acuity tests and less of the brain shrinkage typical of Alzheimer's disease - while "junk food" diets produced just the opposite result.

The study was among the first of its type to specifically measure a wide range of blood nutrient levels instead of basing findings on less precise data such as food questionnaires, and found positive effects of high levels of vitamins B, C, D, E and the healthy oils most commonly found in fish.

The research was done by scientists from the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Ore., and the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. It was published today in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

"This approach clearly shows the biological and neurological activity that's associated with actual nutrient levels, both good and bad," said Maret Traber, a principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute and co-author on the study.

Genetically Modified foods are prominently featured in today's food supply. In fact, GMOs are so prominent that if a product is not labeled as GMO free, then it can be assumed that there is at least some amount of genetic alteration within the food.

GMOs dominate conventional food supplies and popular products, perpetuating their adverse effects on the people who eat them.

Before the whistle was blown on the dangers of GM foods, like any other invariably unpopular thing pushed by corporations, claims were that GMOs could actually be beneficial to the food supply, and provide positive value. But how legitimate are any of these claims?

"GM Crops Require Less Herbicide/Pesticide Usage"

Pesticide toxicity is an obvious concern when dealing with crops. Gene tailoring the crops into producing a pesticide theoretically means that you should have to use less.

The International Year of Chemistry failed to tackle the worrying proliferation of potentially damaging chemicals.

You would be forgiven for not noticing, but today marks the end of an official year of "worldwide celebration", designed to "generate enthusiasm" and "reach across the globe". For despite its hopeful hype, the UN's International Year of Chemistry appears to have had far less public impact in Britain even than its 2008 predecessor - the International Year of the Potato.

The spotlight on spuds did at least attract some national press attention: this year's science one got scarcely a mention - though it did make 350 words in the Baluchistan Times on Thursday.

It's not as if nothing was happening. The Swiss issued a commemorative postage stamp; there was an international conference on the remote Lord Howe Island in the Pacific; 10-year-old Poorvie Choudhary set a new world record for reciting the 118 elements in the periodic table in 27.6 seconds in Rajasthan; and two weeks ago there was a "Chemistry Caroling Event" in San Francisco ("I am dreaming of a white precipate", "Deck the labs with rubber tubing", and so on). But all to little avail.

It is a shame, for there is much to celebrate. Chemicals have brought us enormous benefits, swelling our harvests, beating back previously unconquerable diseases, and producing a host of consumer goods that underpin modern life.

And the year has also been a missed opportunity for tackling, as had been hoped at its outset, the downside of this chemical revolution - what Yale Professor John Wargo describes as "an unexpected side effect" of our prosperity, "a change in the chemistry of the human body". For many of the substances that have built our economies are now embedded in our tissues and coursing through our veins: some, it seems, are up to no good.