Listen to this article. Choose between:

When you climb stairs, carry groceries into the house, or get up from a low chair, your skeleton helps make the movement possible. In those moments, there is little reason to think beyond its supporting role. Bones give muscles something to pull against. They carry the forces involved in movement and protect organs that could otherwise be injured. You might think about your bones more deliberately after a fracture, during a bone-density test, or when considering how to maintain strength as you get older. These are useful ways to understand the skeleton. They focus, however, on what bone supports and what it can withstand. They tell us less about what living bone does when a force is applied to it, or how its response might affect the rest of the body.

That is the question behind a recent study that caught my attention. Researchers applied carefully controlled pressure to the shinbones of animals recovering from brain injury. They then observed improvements in some measures of recovery. The animals were anesthetized during the procedure, so they were not exercising. They were not walking farther, becoming fitter through training, or choosing to move more. The researchers wanted to know whether stimulating bone itself could affect an injured brain. Their experiments pointed to cells in bone that respond to force, along with substances carried through the blood. The work gave them evidence of a connection between what happened at the leg and what happened in the brain.

I find that incredibly interesting and exciting. There is the immediate surprise of seeing a familiar part of the body take on a less familiar role. There is also the possibility that understanding this connection could eventually help researchers develop ways to support recovery. We do not yet know whether that will happen. These findings came from animal experiments, and there is a great deal to establish before anyone could describe a useful treatment for people. Even so, a discovery can be worth our attention before its practical value is known. This one offers a way to investigate how force applied to one tissue might influence recovery in another.

We have explored a related idea in earlier 10,700 articles about body fat. Fat stores energy, but it also releases signals that help regulate what happens elsewhere in the body. Knowing where a tissue sits, or recognizing its most obvious job, does not tell us everything it does. Bone provides another example. Its supporting role remains essential, but that role depends on living cells with activities an X-ray cannot reveal. To understand why the new findings matter, we first need to look beyond the skeleton's shape and consider the cells within it.

An X-ray gives us a clear view of something we cannot usually see. We can recognize the outline of a shinbone, the curve of a rib, or the position of a joint. Yet the image reveals little about the activity taking place inside that framework. Bone is living tissue. Its cells help maintain it and respond to the forces placed upon it. The same ability to respond that allows bone to adapt to physical demands also makes it interesting as a possible source of signals to other parts of the body. A force applied to bone is therefore more than something the structure must withstand. It is also something its cells can detect. What follows depends on how those cells respond and on the conditions in the body at the time.

There is a useful connection here with Not Your Dad's Fat and our article about body fat and joint pain. Those articles explored how tissue that stores energy can also release substances that affect other tissues. In the joint-pain discussion, this helped explain why we need to consider more than the weight passing through a joint. The biological conditions around the joint matter too. The connection with bone is this broader idea: a tissue's familiar physical job does not describe all of its importance. Fat and bone contain different cells and release different signals. Understanding one does not explain the other, but both encourage us to ask what a tissue does beyond its immediate location.

This is what a systems perspective can mean in practice. Instead of treating each body part as a separate object, we look at relationships that can be tested. Could a change in one tissue affect another? What would carry that effect between them? Researchers were already investigating questions like these about bone and the brain before the new study appeared. Earlier mouse experiments examined osteocalcin, a protein made by bone-forming cells, and its role in memory-related signaling. That work provides useful background. It does not establish how the new experiment worked, because the researchers were investigating a different route.

Cai and colleagues began with mechanical loading, meaning the application of force to bone. They asked whether this could set off responses that helped recovery after brain injury. Applying the force while the animals were anesthetized was important. If they had simply compared exercising animals with inactive ones, any difference could have reflected several changes happening together. Here, they could ask a narrower question: could this particular loading procedure help without the animals moving voluntarily? The details of that comparison help us understand both why the results are interesting and why we should be careful about applying them to everyday exercise.

The researchers used a device to repeatedly apply controlled compression to both shinbones, also called the tibiae. In the main mouse experiments, this began a day after traumatic brain injury and continued each day for five days. Mice in the comparison group received the same anesthesia and were positioned in the device, but their bones were not loaded. This helped separate the effect of applying force from the effects of the other procedures. The researchers could then compare recovery in injured animals that received loading with recovery in injured animals that did not. The treatment took place at the legs, but the important measurements concerned the brain and the animals' behavior.

In mice with moderate brain injury, the researchers tested movement, learning, and memory. One task involved finding a platform in a water maze. This allowed them to examine how the animals learned and remembered where to go. The loaded mice did better on some tests, and some differences were still present eight weeks after injury. The results did not show that every ability had returned to normal. They showed improvements in selected measures, rather than the same improvement across everything the researchers tested. That distinction matters when we describe a result as better recovery.

The team also examined brain tissue. Their findings were consistent with more nerve cells being preserved and less inflammatory activity. This gave them another way to investigate what was happening alongside the changes in behavior. A task tells us something about what an animal can do. A tissue measurement tells us something about the condition of its brain. When different kinds of measurement point in a similar direction, the overall result becomes more convincing. Still, a favorable change in tissue does not by itself prove that normal brain function has returned. We need to keep the measurement and the conclusion separate.

The researchers also tested the approach in pigs. Some behavior tests, images of the brain, and tissue measurements again favored loading, although not every measure improved. The groups were small. At one week, the two injured groups being compared contained six pigs each; at four weeks, they contained three each. These results suggest that the response was not limited to mice. They do not tell us how reliably it would appear in a much larger group, and testing a second species within the same study is not the same as another research team independently repeating the work.

For someone recovering from brain injury, the most important questions would be about everyday abilities. Can the person move independently, remember information, or take part in family and community life? Animal tests help researchers investigate recovery, but they cannot establish those benefits in people. The main experiments also involved young male animals, rather than older adults with different health histories. The study gives researchers a reason to keep investigating. To understand that reason more fully, we need to consider how a force at the shinbone could contribute to changes in the brain.

Part of the explanation begins with osteocytes, cells embedded in bone that respond to physical forces. One of the proteins involved is called PIEZO1. It forms a tiny channel in the cell's outer membrane that is sensitive to force. Movement of charged particles, called ions, through the channel can start changes inside the cell. You do not need to follow every molecular step to understand the main idea. Bone cells have a way to detect a physical stimulus and turn it into biological activity. A pressure sensor offers a useful comparison, although a cell responds through its own chemistry rather than through an electronic circuit.

Earlier research had already linked PIEZO1 to the way bone responds to loading. Cai and colleagues wanted to know whether it also helped explain the improvements they had observed after brain injury. They used mice in which Piezo1 had been removed specifically from osteocytes. Would loading still help if these bone cells could no longer use this force-sensing protein? In those mice, loading no longer produced the improvements seen in the comparison animals on key tests of movement and memory. The researchers were still applying force, but changing how the bone cells could respond interrupted important benefits.

This was stronger evidence for an active role of bone than simply observing that loading and recovery happened together. The researchers had changed a specific part of the proposed explanation and found that important results changed too. It did not prove that bone was the only tissue involved, or that every step connecting the leg and brain was understood. It did give the bone cells a clearer place in the explanation. The next question was how their response could have effects beyond the loaded bones.

To investigate that, the team transferred serum from loaded mice with brain injury to other injured mice that had not received loading. Serum is the liquid portion of blood left after clotting. The mice receiving it improved on some behavior tests and showed signs of better brain-tissue preservation. Something in the transferred serum could therefore reproduce part of the benefit without the recipients' shinbones being compressed. This supported the idea that substances carried in the blood helped connect the loading procedure with changes in the brain. Serum contains many substances, however. Transferring the mixture could not, on its own, identify which ones mattered or where each came from.

Further experiments pointed to several factors, including HSP70, a protein released by osteocytes. The researchers also measured changes in other substances in the blood. We should not turn those findings into a story about one brain-healing hormone released by bone. Some signals were linked directly to osteocytes; other findings concerned changes in the wider circulation. Together, the experiments support a contribution from force-sensing bone cells and substances carried in the blood. That is the systems connection that interests me: the force was applied at the leg, but its effects extended beyond it. Whether people could benefit from a similar approach, or whether the same response occurs without an injury, requires further investigation.

It is natural to think about the forces passing through our bones when we walk, play tennis, or lift weights. If bone can respond in ways that affect other tissues, those familiar activities become interesting in another way. But everyday movement is not the same as the loading procedure used in this study. The researchers applied controlled compression after brain injury to test a particular connection. Exercise changes several things in the body at once. This paper cannot tell us how much bone contributes to those changes, which activities might produce the signals studied here, or whether those signals help thinking and memory in a healthy person.

Human research gives us a separate reason to study movement and the brain. Reviews of exercise studies report average improvements on tests of thinking and memory, including studies involving older adults. The size of the improvements varies, and weaknesses in study quality make the estimates less certain. These results are more complicated than a simple promise that exercise improves everyone's brain in the same way. More importantly here, a better test score does not reveal which changes in the body produced it. It also does not establish that exercise prevents dementia. The animal loading study raises a possible connection to investigate; it does not supply the missing explanation for the human exercise findings.

Age adds another question. The main injury experiments used young male animals, so we do not know whether older bone and an older brain would respond in the same way. Being injured also appeared to matter. Some substances in the blood increased after loading in injured mice but did not increase in healthy mice. That suggests the response may depend partly on what is already happening in the body. A finding made during recovery cannot simply be carried over to healthy aging, even when the same tissue or protein is involved.

Earlier human research on osteocalcin provides another reason to be careful. In one observational study, older women with higher osteocalcin levels tended to do better on some tests of thinking and memory. Researchers did not find the same pattern in older men. The study measured a relationship; it could not show that osteocalcin caused the difference. It also concerned a different bone-related signal from the mechanism emphasized by Cai and colleagues. For men considering health after 50, the useful insight is that these relationships deserve closer study. We still need to learn who responds, under what conditions, and whether a response leads to a benefit that matters in daily life.

A paper like this can leave us wondering what happens next. If loading bone helps an injured brain in animals, how could that become something offered in a hospital or rehabilitation clinic? Researchers often call this process translation: taking what we learn about biology and finding out whether it can improve human health. This study already explores a possible application because it investigates both how a response works and whether an intervention can help recovery. The challenge now is to find out how reliable the response is, whether it is relevant to people, and whether it could be used safely for a worthwhile purpose.

One question would be whether independent researchers obtain similar results. Another would be whether benefits appear in older animals, in females, or after different injuries. Researchers might also ask how changing the loading procedure affects the results and whether repeated use causes unwanted effects. These are examples of questions that follow from the study's limits, rather than a development plan announced by its authors. They matter because a result obtained under carefully controlled conditions may depend on details that are harder to reproduce in patients. Finding out which details matter could change the direction of the work.

For example, researchers might continue developing mechanical loading, focus on particular substances carried in the blood, or return to the biology if the original result proves difficult to repeat. These possibilities would involve different practical problems. A device that applies force to bone needs a workable way to deliver that force. An approach aimed at a particular molecule raises other questions about how to influence it. There is no single sequence of studies that every possible treatment must follow. Progress may involve moving back and forth between an apparent application and the basic science needed to understand it.

Research involving people would need to establish whether the relevant tissues respond in a useful way and whether a proposed approach is feasible and acceptably safe. Early studies might examine whether people can tolerate it, how it can be delivered, and whether it produces the intended change in the body. A promising result at this stage would still leave a major question unanswered. A change in a blood test might show that an intervention affected a biological process. It would not show that a person could remember more, move more independently, or enjoy a better quality of life.

To establish that kind of value, researchers would need controlled studies comparing the proposed approach with appropriate alternatives, including the care patients would otherwise receive. They would need to measure benefits that matter to patients, possible harms, how long any improvement lasts, and differences between the people receiving treatment. Even a successful study would leave questions about ordinary care, where patients and treatment conditions are more varied. Results that differ from expectations may send researchers back to examine the mechanism again. This is why translation involves more than repeating an animal experiment on a larger scale. For skeletal loading after brain injury, there is no reliable timetable for knowing whether it could become a useful treatment.

What excites me is the possibility of finding another way to support recovery when ordinary movement is difficult. Imagine the question facing a rehabilitation team caring for someone whose brain injury limits voluntary movement. If a controlled loading procedure could eventually be shown to help neurological recovery in people, it might become an addition to care during that period. That is a possible application, not a benefit already demonstrated in patients. Its value would depend on whether it helped someone regain an ability or take part more fully in life. The animal findings make that question worth asking without telling us what the answer will be.

There is room for excitement while recognizing that the eventual answer could be disappointing, or the benefit much smaller than the animal results suggest. The interest lies in having something specific to investigate. Researchers can study how bone cells respond to force, which substances change in the blood, and how those changes relate to what happens in an injured brain. The work goes beyond the broad observation that movement and brain health are related. It identifies parts of a possible connection and provides experiments that can help test them. That gives future research a clearer starting point.

Several directions remain possible. Scientists might keep studying controlled loading, examine particular signals, or investigate whether the connection matters in other circumstances. They will need to distinguish changes that help produce recovery from changes that simply happen alongside it. That distinction could influence whether the work points toward a useful treatment and what form such a treatment might take. We cannot assume that the most interesting molecule will become the most useful target, or that a successful approach would need to reproduce every change seen in the original experiment. Those are questions the research needs to resolve.

For me, the discovery is interesting even before any application is established. It offers a way to study the skeleton as part of an interacting body. Force at a bone, a response in its cells, and changes in the blood can be examined as connected events with effects elsewhere. That does not make a future treatment certain. It does make our understanding of the body more complete. When familiar anatomy gives us a new set of testable questions about health, there is good reason to pay attention.

The next time you get up from a chair or head out for a walk, you will not be able to feel whether a signal from bone is affecting another tissue. Nothing in this study gives us that ability. An ordinary movement cannot tell us whether the pathway described in these experiments is active. Yet we can understand the skeleton supporting that movement differently. Its strength and shape still matter, but they belong to living tissue whose responses may reach beyond its physical boundaries. The shinbone we recognize on an X-ray contains cells whose activity the image cannot show.

That is part of the pleasure of following science. Evidence can change how we understand something familiar without immediately telling us to do anything differently. We have long known that the skeleton supports movement, protects organs, and adapts to physical demands. This research encourages us to consider how its responses may also affect processes elsewhere in the body. It does not mean every step delivers a measurable brain benefit. It means there are relationships involving bone that deserve to be studied alongside its structural role. Seeing those relationships more clearly is itself a reason to value the work.

Whether this discovery eventually changes rehabilitation remains to be seen. The path from an animal experiment to useful human care involves questions that cannot be answered by enthusiasm alone. But uncertainty about the destination does not remove the interest of the discovery. We can appreciate what the experiments reveal, understand what remains unproven, and follow what researchers learn next. In the meantime, the work offers a richer view of something we have carried with us all our lives: a skeleton that helps us move, made of living tissue that may also help shape what happens elsewhere in the body.

It emerges from how multiple systems interact and adapt over time, often in ways that aren’t obvious when viewed in isolation.

If you want a clearer way to think about that, I’ve outlined the systems perspective in a short guide you can download here:

The Midlife Health Reset — 10 core systems that shape strength, energy, and long-term health after 50.

Sources

Ahima, R. S. (2006). Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. Obesity, 14(Suppl. 5), 242S–249S.

Blomstrand, P., Tesan, D., Mueller Nylander, E., & Ramstrand, N. (2023). Mind body exercise improves cognitive function more than aerobic- and resistance exercise in healthy adults aged 55 years and older: An umbrella review. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 20(1), Article 15.

Bradburn, S., McPhee, J. S., Bagley, L., Sipilä, S., Stenroth, L., Narici, M. V., Pääsuke, M., Gapeyeva, H., Osborne, G., Sassano, L., Meskers, C. G. M., Maier, A. B., Hogrel, J.-Y., Barnouin, Y., Butler-Browne, G., & Murgatroyd, C. (2016). Association between osteocalcin and cognitive performance in healthy older adults. Age and Ageing, 45(6), 844–849.

Cai, Z., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, S., Leng, J., Chu, Y., Liu, J., Fang, Y., Chen, B., Liang, W., Wang, H., Zhang, L., Zou, W., Yang, F., Song, Q., Lu, D., & Bai, X. (2026). Tibial bone compression promotes recovery after brain injury through osteocyte PIEZO1. Nature Neuroscience. Advance online publication.

Khrimian, L., Obri, A., Ramos-Brossier, M., Rousseaud, A., Moriceau, S., Nicot, A.-S., Mera, P., Kosmidis, S., Karnavas, T., Saudou, F., Gao, X.-B., Oury, F., Kandel, E. R., & Karsenty, G. (2017). Gpr158 mediates osteocalcin’s regulation of cognition. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 214(10), 2859–2873.

Li, X., Han, L., Nookaew, I., Mannen, E., Silva, M. J., Almeida, M., & Xiong, J. (2019). Stimulation of Piezo1 by mechanical signals promotes bone anabolism. eLife, 8, e49631.

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. (2025, August 29). Translational science spectrum.

Singh, B., Bennett, H., Miatke, A., Dumuid, D., Curtis, R., Ferguson, T., Brinsley, J., Szeto, K., Petersen, J. M., Gough, C., Eglitis, E., Simpson, C. E., Ekegren, C. L., Smith, A. E., Erickson, K. I., & Maher, C. (2025). Effectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: A systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 59(12), 866–876.