According to Experts Club, consuming a small amount of concentrated tomato paste daily for three months may have a positive effect on certain measures of memory and attention in healthy middle-aged people, according to the results of a clinical study by Spanish researchers.
According to the New York Post, participants in the experiment consumed about 35 grams of concentrated tomato paste daily—roughly two tablespoons. The study was published in the scientific journal Antioxidants.
The randomized crossover study involved 47 healthy adults aged 40–55, 42 of whom completed the experiment. Participants went through two three-month periods: during one, they consumed concentrated tomato paste daily at a rate of 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight; during the other, they followed a diet low in lycopene. There was a one-month break between periods.
According to the results of neuropsychological tests, the participants’ selective attention scores improved after the period of tomato paste consumption. Concentration scores increased by an average of 7.2 points, and information processing speed scores increased by 8.3 points. Improvements in associative memory were also observed, particularly the ability to match faces with names.
The researchers also noted a trend toward increased levels of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)—a protein involved in supporting neurons, neuroplasticity, and memory processes. However, this increase was on the borderline of statistical significance.
Functional MRI scans of some participants revealed changes in the connections between neural networks associated with attention and cognitive functions. The study authors suggest that tomato consumption may contribute to the functional reorganization of brain networks.
Scientists cite lycopene—a carotenoid antioxidant found in abundance in tomatoes and tomato products—as one possible factor behind this effect. Lycopene is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and possesses antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. At the same time, the researchers emphasize that tomatoes contain many other biologically active substances, so it is currently impossible to determine whether the observed effect is linked exclusively to lycopene.
The authors also caution against overinterpreting the results. The study was small, lasted only a few months, and was conducted among healthy middle-aged adults. It does not prove that tomato paste prevents dementia or can be used to treat cognitive impairment.
Original study: PubMed – Tomato Intake Improves Cognitive Performance and Modulates Functional Brain Networks in Healthy Adults.
According to Experts.news, brisk walking and jogging may be among the most effective forms of physical activity for maintaining bone mineral density in people over 40, according to the results of a large meta-analysis published on September 9, 2026, in the scientific journal BMJ.
According to ScienceAlert, researchers analyzed 124 randomized clinical trials involving 18,429 participants aged 40 and older. The scientists compared various types of physical activity, including walking, running, strength training, aerobic exercise, yoga, and combined programs.
The primary outcome measure was bone mineral density in the lumbar spine, the femoral neck, and the hip joint. A decline in this measure with age is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures.
Brisk walking and jogging showed the best results for bone density. For the lumbar spine, they resulted in an average improvement of approximately 0.013 g/cm² compared to the control group. A combination of aerobic and strength training demonstrated a similar result.
For the femoral neck, brisk walking or jogging was associated with an improvement of approximately 0.009 g/cm². A positive effect was also observed for so-called mind-body practices, which include, in particular, yoga and similar types of exercise.
The researchers also attempted to determine the optimal amount of physical activity. The analysis showed that a noticeable effect on bone tissue begins to appear at approximately 600 MET-minutes per week. This roughly corresponds to about two to three hours of brisk walking or jogging per week, although the exact duration depends on the intensity of the exercise.
The authors note that structured physical exercise can moderately but clinically significantly slow the age-related decline in bone mineral density in the lumbar spine, the femoral neck, and the hip joint.
At the same time, the effect of exercise varied depending on the participants’ age and other characteristics. In middle-aged individuals with normal body weight, changes in bone density were more pronounced, whereas in older participants and those who were overweight, the results were weaker. The authors emphasize that these subgroup findings have limited validity and should not be used as ready-made individual recommendations without further research.
Separately, the researchers analyzed the risk of fractures. This analysis included 26 studies involving 11,132 participants. Some combined aerobic programs and mind-body exercises showed a potential reduction in fracture risk, but the evidence base here was less conclusive.
Experts also caution that an increase in bone mineral density does not always directly translate to a corresponding reduction in fracture risk. For example, brisk walking showed some of the best results for bone density, but no statistically significant reduction in the number of fractures was observed in this group.
The study authors rate the overall certainty of some of the results as low or moderate and emphasize that further research is needed to formulate precise recommendations regarding the type and “dose” of physical activity.
Original study: BMJ – Effect of exercise on bone health in middle-aged and older adults.
According to Experts.news, the number of words people speak in everyday life has decreased significantly over the past decade and a half, which could potentially affect social connections, psychological well-being, and communication at work, according to a study by psychologists at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and the University of Arizona.
According to the study, published in the scientific journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, between 2005 and 2019, the average number of words spoken per person decreased by approximately 338 words per day with each subsequent year of observation. As a result, the estimated decline over the entire period was about 28%.
The study is based on data from 2,197 people aged 10 to 94 who participated in 22 research projects conducted primarily in the United States, as well as in Mexico, Australia, and Europe. The assessment relied on periodic audio recordings of the participants’ natural daily lives, rather than their own recollections of how much they spoke.
In an earlier 2007 study using a similar methodology, the average person spoke about 15,959 words per day. In a later combined sample, this figure had dropped to about 12,792 words.
The researchers observed the most pronounced decline among young people. For participants under the age of 25, the number of words spoken decreased by approximately 451 words per day for each year, while for those over 25, it decreased by approximately 314 words. Thus, the rate of decline among young people was approximately 44% higher.
The authors did not identify a specific cause for this trend. The study period coincided with the rapid spread of smartphones, social media, messaging apps, email, and other forms of written digital communication; however, the researchers emphasize that the available data do not allow them to prove that technology itself was the cause of the decline in conversation.
The researchers also point out that texting does not necessarily fully replace the psychological and social functions of face-to-face conversation. Voice communication involves intonation, pauses, emotional cues, and immediate feedback, which are more difficult to convey through text.
The authors link this issue to a broader trend toward increasing social isolation. Previous studies show a consistent link between loneliness and a decline in various indicators of physical and mental health, although a reduction in the number of spoken words has not yet been proven to be the direct cause of such outcomes.
On September 10, Fast Company highlighted the potential implications of this trend for business. Talia Varly, a physician and corporate health specialist, notes that a decline in face-to-face conversations in the workplace potentially means fewer informal interactions among employees, fewer opportunities to discuss problems and voice dissent, and weaker bonds within teams.
In her view, small daily interactions are particularly important—a brief conversation with a colleague, discussing an idea outside a formal meeting, or a few minutes of casual conversation. Such interactions may seem insignificant on their own, but they are precisely what gradually build trust and social bonds within a team.
The rise of remote work and artificial intelligence may further alter the structure of communication. Digital tools allow for faster information exchange and the automation of some correspondence, but at the same time, they can reduce the number of situations in which people need to speak directly with one another.
At the same time, the researchers caution against the overly simplistic conclusion that people need only mechanically increase the number of words they speak. The quality of the conversation, the nature of the relationship, and the social context can be just as important as the duration of the interaction.
However, the study’s authors note that an additional 300 words per day may amount to only a few minutes of conversation—for example, a brief exchange with a neighbor or colleague, or a more detailed response to the common question, “How was your day?”
Thus, the observed decline in conversational activity may be one indicator of broader changes in how people maintain social connections in the age of digital communications. However, further research is needed to assess the long-term impact of this trend on health, loneliness, and productivity.
GLP-1 agonists, which are widely used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes, may be associated with a slight increased risk of hereditary hair loss in men, according to the Experts Club information and analysis center, citing the results of a new study by researchers at NYU Langone Health, published online on September 3, 2026, in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. (NYU Langone Health).
The researchers studied androgenetic alopecia, the most common type of male baldness, in which hair loss predominantly affects the frontal and upper parts of the scalp. The analysis showed that in men with a genetic predisposition, increased activity of the GLP-1 receptor signaling pathway was associated with an approximately 7% additional risk of this type of hair loss. (NYU Langone Health)
The same class includes drugs based on semaglutide and tirzepatide, known, in particular, under the brand names Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound. However, the authors emphasize that the study did not involve observing patients who were actually taking these medications. The scientists used Mendelian randomization, a method in which genetic variants serve as a kind of natural proxy for an effect on a particular biological mechanism.
The study identified 22 genetic variants that increase the expression of the GLP1R gene and, accordingly, the activity of the GLP-1 receptor. These data were compared with genetic information on male baldness. Large databases were used for the analysis, including eQTLGen, with data from 31,684 people, and Complex Traits Genetics, with data from 205,327 people.
The association persisted after accounting for a number of other factors that can influence hair loss, including blood pressure, insulin resistance and testosterone levels. The authors consider the findings evidence of a possible causal role of the GLP1R pathway itself, but warn that they cannot automatically be equated with the effect of a specific medication.
“Our study shows for the first time a genetic link between GLP-1 activity and an increased risk of male baldness in androgenetic alopecia,” noted the study’s senior author, Lynn Petukhova of NYU Grossman School of Medicine. According to her, genetic assessment could potentially help identify patients most predisposed to this side effect in the future.
The mechanism of the possible effect remains unclear. The researchers suggest both a direct effect on hair follicles and an indirect effect through metabolic changes. In addition, hair loss in some patients has previously been linked to rapid weight loss, inadequate nutrient intake and temporary telogen effluvium.
The new study is consistent with the findings of a number of previous studies. A meta-analysis of nine interventional studies involving 4,114 users of GLP-1 drugs, published in May 2026, found a statistically significant increase in the risk of hair loss compared with placebo. The overall incidence of hair loss among patients receiving these drugs was approximately 3.9%. At the same time, the authors of the meta-analysis noted the need for further research because of the relatively small number of available clinical studies.
Another systematic review from 2026 also concluded that reports of hair loss during GLP-1 therapy require closer investigation, since possible causes may include both the effects of the drugs and rapid weight loss, dietary changes and deficiencies in certain micronutrients.
The authors of the new study emphasize that the identified effect is modest and that its clinical significance has not yet been definitively established. The findings are not grounds for independently discontinuing prescribed GLP-1 therapy. Patients experiencing noticeable hair loss should discuss the situation with their treating physician.
According to Experts.news, regular interaction with artificial intelligence and social robots may gradually influence how people communicate, perceive themselves, and shape their behavior, according to a study by researchers from the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden published on August 19, 2026, in the journal AI & Society.
The authors of the study, from the University of Birmingham, Aarhus University, and Linnaeus University, coined the term “robotoid humanness.” By this term, the researchers mean a possible process in which, through repeated interaction with AI, a person begins to adapt their behavior to the machine’s logic—becoming more predictable, standardized, and amenable to algorithmic processing.
This effect could be particularly noticeable in the service sector, where AI is already used in retail, the hospitality industry, tourism, and healthcare. Modern digital assistants and robots mimic human speech and emotional cues and personalize their responses to build trust and facilitate interaction with customers.
Researchers suggest that this process may be two-way. Machines are becoming increasingly human-like, but humans may also unconsciously adopt communication patterns from their interactions with machines.
“The consumer acts, the robot responds, and through repeated interaction, the person eventually adopts this communication model,” explains Selchen Ozturkjan of Linnaeus University, one of the study’s authors. According to her, people’s natural tendency to mimic the behavior of their conversation partner can lead users to begin replicating the communicative traits of AI.
The authors describe a three-stage mechanism. First, a person begins to perceive their interaction with the AI as a social one. Then, the algorithm creates a simplified digital model of the user and feeds it back to the user in the form of personalized responses. Subsequently, the user may gradually adapt their self-presentation and behavior to the patterns that the system more easily recognizes and encourages.
The researchers identify one of the risks as the formation of a kind of feedback loop, in which the algorithm constantly reinforces the user’s characteristics that it already knows. Unlike communication with people, where a conversation partner might unexpectedly disagree, misunderstand, or offer a completely different perspective, algorithmic systems are typically designed for consistency, convenience, and personalization. This has the potential to reinforce existing views and reduce the diversity of self-expression.
At the same time, the authors emphasize an important limitation of their work: this is a theoretical study, not an experiment involving human participants. Scientists have not yet proven that prolonged interaction with ChatGPT, robots, or other artificial intelligence systems actually makes people more “robot-like.” The proposed concept must be tested in further empirical studies.
The research paper “Robotoid humanness: when selfhood becomes machine-legible” was published on August 19, 2026, in the journal AI & Society. The ScienceAlert article highlighting the study was published on August 31.
According to Experts.news, the human body likely does not age at a constant rate: several large-scale studies in recent years have identified periods of particularly intense restructuring of proteins, metabolites, the immune system, and other molecular markers during middle and old age. However, the widely held view of two specific “aging spikes” at approximately ages 44 and 60 now needs to be revised.
A study by Stanford University researchers, published in the journal *Nature Aging* on August 14, 2024, analyzed 108 individuals aged 25 to 75. The researchers collected blood, microbiome samples, and other biomaterials every few months and examined ten types of molecular data—ranging from transcriptomics and proteomics to metabolomics, lipidomics, and cytokines. Initial analysis revealed two distinct periods of change, occurring around ages 44 and 60.
Around age 44, processes related to lipid and alcohol metabolism, the cardiovascular system, skin, and muscles changed particularly noticeably. Around age 60, the authors observed changes in immune regulation, carbohydrate metabolism, kidney function, and a number of metabolic processes.
However, on July 15, 2026, *Nature Aging* added a special editorial note to the publication. Following further review by the authors and independent researchers, the reliability of the portion of the analysis used to identify peaks in molecular changes during specific age periods was called into question. The authors, together with the editorial board, are continuing to assess the scope of the issue and possible corrections.
This means that the claim that “humans age rapidly specifically at ages 44 and 60” cannot currently be considered a reliably established scientific fact.
At the same time, the more general conclusion that biological aging may occur unevenly is supported by a number of independent studies.
As early as 2019, scientists who studied 2,925 blood plasma proteins in 4,263 individuals aged 18 to 95 identified nonlinear changes in the proteome and three periods of intensified remodeling—at approximately 34, 60, and 78 years of age. The study was published in *Nature Medicine*.
The authors of the later Stanford study attributed the discrepancy between the first peak and their findings to, among other things, different protein measurement methods and a different age range of participants. However, both studies pointed to pronounced changes around the age of 60.
Another important finding emerged in 2025.
A study published in the journal *Cell* created a large-scale proteomic atlas of aging in various human tissues. The scientists found that changes in the protein composition of most of the organs studied accelerated noticeably around the age of 50, particularly between the ages of 45 and 55. Blood vessels proved to be among the tissues most sensitive to age.
Thus, this work also supports the idea of a period of accelerated biological remodeling in middle age, although it does not specifically confirm the age of 44.
The authors developed separate “proteomic clocks” for different tissues, since organs within a single person can age at different rates. This is consistent with the current understanding of biological age as a heterogeneous process, during which the condition of the heart, blood vessels, liver, kidneys, or other systems does not necessarily correspond to a person’s chronological age.
Additional data became available as early as 2026. In March, researchers published an analysis of plasma proteins from 50,506 UK Biobank participants in the journal *Cell Metabolism*. They examined 2,911 proteins and identified 1,339 proteins associated with signs of frailty.
When analyzing age-related changes, the scientists observed a two-phase pattern: the most pronounced periods of proteomic remodeling associated with frailty occurred around ages 50 and 63.
This is particularly interesting when compared to previous studies: while the exact figures vary, several independent datasets again point to an average age of about 45–55 years and the period after age 60 as stages of significant molecular remodeling in the body.
A separate large-scale study in *Nature Medicine* analyzed data from 45,441 UK Biobank participants and 2,897 plasma proteins, after which the researchers constructed proteomic “aging clocks.”
It turned out that the difference between proteomic and chronological age is associated with the subsequent risk of disease and death. A higher calculated biological age was associated, in particular, with an increased risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic kidney disease, ischemic heart disease, and type 2 diabetes—even after accounting for a range of other risk factors.
The study confirms a broader concept: what matters is not so much a specific birthday—after which a person supposedly begins to age faster—as the individual rate of change in various bodily systems.
The initial study from Stanford University had several significant limitations, which the authors themselves pointed out even before the editorial note was published.
Only 108 people participated in the study, and there were just eight participants in the 25-to-40-year-old group. The median follow-up period was only 1.7 years, although the longest period reached 6.8 years.
Therefore, a significant portion of the age-related differences was actually determined by comparing people of different ages, rather than by observing how the same participants reached ages 40, 50, or 60. The authors explicitly pointed out this aspect of the study and the limitations of extrapolating the results to the entire population.
Following an editorial note in *Nature Aging*, this limitation becomes particularly significant.
The body of research does not yet allow us to identify a universal age at which every person’s body experiences a specific “ageing leap.”
Various studies have identified the most pronounced changes at approximately 34, 44, 50, 60, 63, and 78 years of age, with the results depending on the molecules and tissues studied, the analytical methods used, and the composition of the study participants.
However, a pattern that recurs in several independent studies points to two fairly broad periods of heightened biological restructuring: midlife—approximately ages 45–55—and the onset of old age after age 60.
Therefore, the most accurate conclusion from current research is not that a person necessarily “ages in a sudden leap” at a specific year of life, but rather that the rate of molecular and functional aging of various bodily systems changes over time and varies significantly among individuals.
Studies of the biological clock provide further confirmation of the clinical significance of this approach: molecular age can differ markedly from chronological age and, in several large cohorts, is associated with future risks of chronic diseases and mortality.
