Skip to content

Another new study about lifestyle and the risk of cancer. Many earlier studies have established some lifestyle factors that increase cancer risk: smoking, alcohol use, obesity, and physical inactivity. In this study the researchers found that about 20% to 40% of cancer cases and about half of cancer deaths can be potentially prevented through lifestyle modification.

For some cancers the the effect is even larger - for example, approximately 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths could be avoided if Americans adopted the lifestyle of the low-risk group, mainly by quitting smoking. For other cancers, from 10% to 70% of deaths could be prevented. Bottom line: making some lifestyle changes could change a person's cancer risk.

From Science Daily: Can a healthy lifestyle prevent cancer?

A large proportion of cancer cases and deaths among U.S. individuals who are white might be prevented if people quit smoking, avoided heavy drinking, maintained a BMI between 18.5 and 27.5, and got moderate weekly exercise for at least 150 minutes or vigorous exercise for at least 75 minutes, according to a new study published online by JAMA Oncology. Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States.

Mingyang Song, M.D., Sc.D., of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Edward Giovannucci, M.D., Sc.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed data from two study groups of white individuals to examine the associations between a "healthy lifestyle pattern" and cancer incidence and death.

A "healthy lifestyle pattern" was defined as never or past smoking; no or moderate drinking of alcohol (one or less drink a day for women, two or less drinks a day for men); BMI of at least 18.5 but lower than 27.5; and weekly aerobic physical activity of at least 150 minutes moderate intensity or 75 minutes vigorous intensity. Individuals who met all four criteria were considered low risk and everyone else was high risk. The study included 89,571 women and 46,399 men; 16,531 women and 11,731 had a healthy lifestyle pattern (low-risk group) and the remaining 73,040 women and 34,608 men were high risk.

The authors suggest about 20 percent to 40 percent of cancer cases and about half of cancer deaths could potentially be prevented through modifications to adopt the healthy lifestyle pattern of the low-risk group.The authors note that including only white individuals in their PAR estimates may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups but the factors they considered have been established as risk factors in diverse ethnic groups too.

A recent study pooled the data from over a million Europeans and Americans and found that higher levels of leisure-time physical activity was associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer in 13 of the 26 cancers looked at.

For that group of 13 cancers, the cancer risk reduction ranged from 10% to 42%. And most of these associations (leisure-time physical activity and lower risk of cancer) were evident regardless of body size or smoking history. Bottom line: getting active may lower your cancer risk.

From Science Daily: Physical activity associated with lower risk for many cancers

Higher levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks for 13 types of cancers, according to a new study published online by JAMA Internal Medicine. Physical inactivity is common, with an estimated 51 percent of people in the United States and 31 percent of people worldwide not meeting recommended physical activity levels. Any decrease in cancer risk associated with physical activity could be relevant to public health and cancer prevention efforts.

Steven C. Moore, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., and coauthors pooled data from 12 U.S. and European cohorts (groups of study participants) with self-reported physical activity (1987-2004). They analyzed associations of physical activity with the incidence of 26 kinds of cancer.The study included 1.4 million participants and 186,932 cancers were identified during a median of 11 years of follow-up.

The authors report that higher levels of physical activity compared to lower levels were associated with lower risks of 13 of 26 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (42 percent lower risk); liver (27 percent lower risk); lung (26 percent lower risk); kidney (23 percent lower risk); gastric cardia (22 percent lower risk); endometrial (21 percent lower risk); myeloid leukemia (20 percent lower risk); myeloma (17 percent lower risk); colon (16 percent lower risk); head and neck (15 percent lower risk), rectal (13 percent lower risk); bladder (13 percent lower risk); and breast (10 percent lower risk). Most of the associations remained regardless of body size or smoking history, according to the article. Overall, a higher level of physical activity was associated with a 7 percent lower risk of total cancer.

Physical activity was associated with a 5 percent higher risk of prostate cancer and a 27 percent higher risk of malignant melanoma, an association that was significant in regions of the U.S. with higher levels of solar UV radiation but not in regions with lower levels, the results showed.

The authors note the main limitation of their study is that they cannot fully exclude the possibility that diet, smoking and other factors may affect the results. Also, the study used self-reported physical activity, which can mean errors in recall."These findings support promoting physical activity as a key component of population-wide cancer prevention and control efforts," the authors conclude.

That a male's preconception behaviors and exposure to all sorts of environmental contaminants (alcohol, drugs, medicines, chemicals at work, pesticides, etc) has effects on sperm and is linked to birth defects has been known for decades. What is new is the focus on epigenetics, or as some researchers call it: inherited paternal epigenetics. Three different paternal influences that affect the fetus and child (thus paternal experiences influence what the child inherits) are discussed in a review article: paternal age, environmental factors, and alcohol consumption.The researchers also found that environmental effects during the lifetime of a father can affect not only his immediate offspring, but also future generations.

What is epigenetics? Researchers in the study summarized it as: "Epigenetics are heritable alterations in gene expression that do not involve changes in the germline DNA sequence. It works primarily through three mechanisms: DNA methylation, histone modification, and microRNA (miRNA) expression."

Huh? This means that in epigenetics, the DNA doesn't change, but external or environmental factors switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes. In other words, it's how the environment can alter gene expression without changing the genetic code. Epigenetic change is a regular and natural occurrence, but can also be influenced by several factors: age, the environment/lifestyle (such as diet, alcohol consumption, and chemical exposure), and disease state.  For example, what you eat and how much you drink (alcohol), where you live, what chemicals you're exposed to, how you exercise, even aging – all of these can eventually cause chemical modifications around the genes that will turn those genes on or off over time. Additionally, in certain diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer’s, various genes will be switched into the opposite state, away from the normal/healthy state. From Science Daily:

Fathers' age, lifestyle associated with birth defects

A growing body of research is revealing associations between birth defects and a father's age, alcohol use and environmental factors, say researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center. They say these defects result from epigenetic alterations that can potentially affect multiple generations. The study, published in the American Journal of Stem Cells, suggest both parents contribute to the health status of their offspring -- a common sense conclusion which science is only now beginning to demonstrate, says the study's senior investigator, Joanna Kitlinska, PhD, an associate professor in biochemistry, and molecular and cellular biology.

"We know the nutritional, hormonal and psychological environment provided by the mother permanently alters organ structure, cellular response and gene expression in her offspring," she says. "But our study shows the same thing to be true with fathers -- his lifestyle, and how old he is, can be reflected in molecules that control gene function," she says. "In this way, a father can affect not only his immediate offspring, but future generations as well."

For example, a newborn can be diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), even though the mother has never consumed alcohol, Kitlinska says. "Up to 75 percent of children with FASD have biological fathers who are alcoholics, suggesting that preconceptual paternal alcohol consumption negatively impacts their offspring."

The report is a review of evidence, human and animal, published to date on the link between fathers and heritable epigenetic programming. Among the studies reviewed are ones that find: - Advanced age of a father is correlated with elevated rates of schizophrenia, autism, and birth defects in his children; - A limited diet during a father's pre-adolescence has been linked to reduced risk of cardiovascular death in his children and grandchildren; - Paternal obesity is linked to enlarged fat cells, changes in metabolic regulation, diabetes, obesity and development of brain cancer; - Psychosocial stress on the father is linked to defective behavioral traits in his offspring; and - Paternal alcohol use leads to decreased newborn birth weight, marked reduction in overall brain size and impaired cognitive function.

As we know, chronic inflammation is linked to cancer and other diseases. It is long-term persistent low-grade inflammation, and it has a "wear and tear" effect on the body. What causes chronic inflammation? Being overweight or obese, sedentary lifestyle, Western (low fiber, high processed foods and meat) diet, chronic illnesses, viruses or bacteria (e.g., gum disease), smoking, air pollution, stress, excessive alcohol intake. It often does not have symptoms, but doctors can test for C-reactive protein levels (CRP), which increase when the body is inflamed. So you absolutely want to lower chronic inflammation if you can.

High dietary intake of fruits and vegetables, which are rich in polyphenols, has been linked through many studies with reduced risk for diseases that are associated with chronic inflammation, such as cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Polyphenols are a class of chemicals or micronutrients found in many foods, especially fruits and vegetables.

New research looked at 31 polyphenols (alone and in some mixtures) to see which lowered inflammation the most. They found that some mixtures of polyphenols actually had more than an additive effect - that it's more than a sum of the individual polyphenols. They found that the polyphenols resveratrol, isorhamnetin, and curcumin were the most anti-inflammatory. Isorhamnetin is a flavonol that occurs in apples, onions and green tea; curcumin is from the Indian spice turmeric; and resveratrol is present in the skin of red, purple and black grapes, and in especially high concentrations in Itadori tea (from Japanese knotweed). Another important anti-inflammatory polyphenol is vanillic acid, which is found in vanilla, wine, whole wheat, and berries.

Just remember that it is better to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables rather than taking supplements. Foods are more than just one or 2 isolated ingredients, but consist of many micronutrients, microbes, etc , and when eating a varied diet, a person typically has mixtures of many polyphenols in their system at once. The research finds that these polyphenol mixtures interact with one another. Studies  typically find real foods to be superior to supplements in beneficial health effects. From Science Daily:

What foods can help fight the risk of chronic inflammation?

A new study by the University of Liverpool's Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease has identified food stuffs that can help prevent chronic inflammation that contributes to many leading causes of death. Inflammation occurs naturally in the body but when it goes wrong or goes on too long, it can trigger disease processes. Uncontrolled inflammation plays a role in many major diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

Diets rich in fruits and vegetables, which contain polyphenols, protect against age-related inflammation and chronic diseasesPolyphenols are abundant micronutrients in our diet, and evidence for their role in the prevention of degenerative diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases is already emerging. The health effects of polyphenols depend on the amount consumed and on their bioavailability.

T-cells, or T-lymphocytes, are a type of white blood cell that circulate around our bodies, scanning for cellular abnormalities and infections. They contribute to cell signalling molecules (cytokines) that aid cell-to-cell communication in immune responses and stimulate the movement of cells towards sites of inflammation, infection and trauma. Cytokines are modulated by fruit and vegetable intake.

The study, conducted by Sian Richardson and Dr Chris Ford from the University's Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, examined the different potencies of the polyphenols. Sian Richardson, said: "The results of our study suggest that (poly)phenols derived from onions, turmeric, red grapes, green tea and açai berries may help reduce the release of pro-inflammatory mediators in people at risk of chronic inflammation. "Older people are more susceptible to chronic inflammation and as such they may benefit from supplementing their diets with isorhamnetin, resveratrol, curcumin and vanillic acid or with food sources that yield these bioactive molecules."

Great article about cancer and sugar. Yes, there is more and more research recently finding a connection with sugar, raised insulin levels, and cancer (as in sugar feeds cancer). Do go read it. Some excerpts from the May 15 Sunday magazine of the NY Times:

AN OLD IDEA, REVIVED: STARVE CANCER TO DEATH

Today Boveri is celebrated for discovering the origins of cancer, but another German scientist, Otto Warburg, was studying sea-urchin eggs around the same time as Boveri. His research, too, was hailed as a major breakthrough in our understanding of cancer. But in the following decades, Warburg’s discovery would largely disappear from the cancer narrative, his contributions considered so negligible that they were left out of textbooks altogether.

By the time Warburg turned his attention from sea-urchin cells to the cells of a rat tumor, in 1923, he knew that sea-urchin eggs increased their oxygen consumption significantly as they grew, so he expected to see a similar need for extra oxygen in the rat tumor. Instead, the cancer cells fueled their growth by swallowing up enormous amounts of glucose (blood sugar) and breaking it down without oxygen. The result made no sense. Oxygen-fueled reactions are a much more efficient way of turning food into energy, and there was plenty of oxygen available for the cancer cells to use. But when Warburg tested additional tumors, including ones from humans, he saw the same effect every time. The cancer cells were ravenous for glucose.

Warburg’s discovery, later named the Warburg effect, is estimated to occur in up to 80 percent of cancers. It is so fundamental to most cancers that a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, which has emerged as an important tool in the staging and diagnosis of cancer, works simply by revealing the places in the body where cells are consuming extra glucose. In many cases, the more glucose a tumor consumes, the worse a patient’s prognosis.  ...continue reading "Sugar and Cancer"

4

Dandruff is a very common scalp disorder that has occurred for centuries. A new study found that the most abundant bacteria on the scalp are Propionibacterium and Staphylococcus, and that they have a reciprocal relationship with each other - when one is high, the other is low. When compared with a normal scalp, dandruff regions had decreased Propionibacterium and increased Staphylococcus. The researchers suggested that these findings suggest a new way to treat dandruff - to increase the Propionibacterium and decrease the Staphylococcus on the scalp. Stay tuned for possible future treatments using these findings. From Science Daily:

Bacteria the yin and yang of dandruff, says study

Dandruff is not caused by a fungus, as many believe, but by an imbalance between two competing bacteria that naturally colonise the human scalp, according to a study released Thursday. Think of Propionibacterium and Staphylococcus as the yin and yang of healthy hair: when they hold each other in check, so too is dandruff held at bay. But when one dominates the other, the tell-tale white flecks that settle on shoulders like snowdust begin to proliferate, a team of Chinese and Japanese researchers reported.

Dandruff is the most common scalp disorder on the planet, a tonsorial bane for about half the world's population. But experts have differed sharply over the years on its causes and possible cures....A team anchored by Zhang Menghui of Shanghai Jiao Tong University isolated a large number of variables in the ecosystem of the human scalp to see how they interact. In 59 Chinese volunteers aged from 18 to 60 years old, they measured levels of water, several dozen bacteria, sebum—an oily secretion that proliferates in adolescence and early adulthood....Participants washed their hair 48 hours in advance of the tests, and dandruff samples were taken from eight different sections of the scalp.

"Overall, fungi did not exhibit an important role in the severity of dandruff," they concluded.
"The relationship between the bacteria and the dandruff was significantly stronger."
But the scientists also noticed that prevalence of the pesky white particles was higher when the ratio of two dominant bacteria—which normally cancel each other out—was altered. "This study suggests that adjusting the balance of the bacteria on the scalp... might be a potential solution to lessen dandruff," they concluded.

More evidence linking endocrine disrupting chemicals such as butyl paraben, triclocarbon, propyl paraben. with negative health effects (here linked to effects on the pregnancy and baby). It is especially important to try to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors during pregnancy. So read labels on all personal care products and avoid all parabens, phthalates, triclocarban, bisphenol-A (BPA), and triclosan - because what you use on your body will get into your body, From Medical Xpress:

Use of personal care products during pregnancy linked to adverse effects in newborns

A study led by SUNY Downstate Medical Center's School of Public Health presents evidence linking personal care products used during pregnancy to adverse reproductive effects in newborns."The study found a link between women with higher levels of butyl paraben, which is commonly used as a preservative in cosmetics, and the following birth outcomes: shorter gestational age at birth, decreased birth weight, and increased odds of preterm birth," says Laura Geer, PhD, MHS, associate professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at SUNY Downstate.

The antimicrobial compound, triclocarban, mainly added to soaps, was associated with shorter gestational age at birth. Another common chemical added to lotions and creams, propyl paraben, was associated with decreased body length at birth. The long-term consequences of this are not clear, and, Geer adds, "Findings must be reproduced in larger studies."

Dr. Geer says, "Our latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing that endocrine-disrupting compounds can lead to developmental and reproductive problems in animals and in humans. Effects observed in previous studies mainly came from animal models only." This study presents evidence of potentially adverse impacts in humans. 

Regulations requiring removal of triclosan from various consumer care products have been in place since 2015 in the European Union, but broader regulatory action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not ensued.

More on this same story from Environmental Health News:  Soap, makeup additives linked to preterm births, smaller babies

Pregnant women in Brooklyn with high levels of certain compounds used in makeup and soaps were more likely to have preterm births and babies that weighed less, according to a new study. The study, published online last week in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, provides the first evidence that germ-killing and preservative chemicals used in cosmetics and soaps might impact newborns’ health. It also bolsters suspicions that chemicals in soaps and lotions disrupt people’s endocrine systems, which are crucial for reproduction and babies’ development.

From 2007 to 2009, Geer and colleagues tested 185 mothers’ third trimester urine, as well as the umbilical cord blood of 34 of them, for a suite of different parabens, used mostly in cosmetics, and triclosan and triclocarban, which are used as antimicrobials in soaps. The mothers were from the University Hospital of Brooklyn’s Prenatal Clinic.

The chemicals, especially the parabens, are common: According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database, butylparaben is used in 2,245 personal care products, propylparaben is used in 7,212, and triclocarban is used in 21.

The results don’t prove that the chemicals are behind the birth problems. While scientists know the chemicals have some biological activity, the amount of exposure that could cause problems remains unclear.  Animals exposed to the chemicals have had some reproductive impacts. In rats, triclocarban impacted male sex organ development in a 2008 studyParaben exposure decreased male rat sperm counts and efficiency in a 2002 study. One of the most studied endocrine disrupting chemicals, bisphenol-A or BPA, has been linked to multiple birth defects....Except for some color additives, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate cosmetic ingredients.

Many probiotic manufacturers say that their product has all sorts of wonderful health benefits in people eating that particular probiotic, but is the evidence there? Finally, now there is a review of the best existing studies looking at whether probiotics have any effect on the gut bacteria of healthy, normal individuals. In other words, are the probiotics even staying there (to have some beneficial effect) or do they just "pass through" without leaving anything behind?

The main finding: only one study out of 7 found any lasting effect on gut microbes (in healthy individuals) from the probiotics which had been ingested daily over varying times, but typically for one month. Note: RCTs are randomly controlled trials, which are the best way to test whether something has an effect - because people are randomly assigned to a group. In these studies no one knew who was getting a placebo (e.g., received capsule without the probiotic) or the probiotic (e.g., in the capsule) - this eliminates self-selection and bias. But perhaps the bacteria strains tested were the wrong ones? Or the time period wasn't long enough or the bacteria weren't given in sufficient amounts? Also, studies didn't test multi-strain probiotics (which people commonly take), but only 1 or 2 species of bacteria.

However, other research has shown benefits from probiotics in individuals with "dysbiosis" (microbial communities out of whack) or certain illnesses. It'll be interesting to see what further research finds. These are still early days in this research. From MedicalXpress:

Do probiotics have an effect on healthy adults? It's too early to tell

There is little evidence to support any consistent effect of probiotics on the gut microbiota of healthy individuals, according to a systematic review published in the open access journal Genome Medicine. The World Health Organization defines probiotics as live microorganisms which confer a health benefit to the host if administered in adequate amounts and probiotics products are often marketed toward the general population. However, evidence for their effects on bacteria living in the guts of healthy adults remains elusive.

The study by researchers at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen is a systematic review of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of probiotic products on the fecal microbiota of healthy adults.

Nadja Buus Kristensen, PhD student and junior author, said: "According to our systematic review, no convincing evidence exists for consistent effects of examined probiotics on fecal microbiota composition in healthy adults, despite probiotic products being consumed to a large extent by the general population."...The authors found that of the seven original RCTs included in the study, only one observed significantly greater changes in the bacterial species composition of the fecal microbiota in individuals who consumed probiotics compared to those who did not.

Also, an international consensus on what defines a normal or healthy fecal microbial community is lacking....Study participants across the seven original RCTs included in this review were healthy adults between 19 and 88 years of age. Numbers of individuals ranged from 21 to 81 and the proportion of women was between 50 and 100%. Probiotic products were administered as biscuits, milk-based drinks, sachets, or capsules for periods of 21 to 42 days.

Oluf Pedersen, professor at the University of Copenhagen and senior author of the paper said: "While there is some evidence from previous reviews that probiotic interventions may benefit those with disease-associated imbalances of the gut microbiota, there is little evidence of an effect in healthy individuals

1

This is so sad. Preschoolers should not be labeled as ADHD and drugged, but instead behavioral methods to deal with the child's behaviors should be used. They absolutely work. But...it takes effort and commitment on the part of the parents.

Just filling a prescription is soooo much easier. But all medicines have side-effects (and the side-effects are serious). These are young developing children (with developing brains) that are put on strong medicines for years. Currently we do not have a good understanding of long-term effects of these ADHD drugs when given at such a young age and continued for years.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is disturbed by the finding that 3 out of 4 very young children with an ADHD diagnosis are given medications and says behavior therapy is the recommended first-line treatment. Specifically: "Behavior therapy is an effective treatment that improves ADHD symptoms without the side effects of medicine."

And by the way, basically all children 2 and 3 years old (and older) exhibit behaviors that some can label as ADHD. No matter how one looks at it, the diagnosis is used too much in young children, behavioral methods to deal with problem behaviors are underused, and medicines are overused.

From Medical Xpress: CDC: Preschoolers with ADHD often given drugs before therapy

Too many preschoolers with ADHD still are being put on drugs right away, before behavior therapy is tried, health officials say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday that three in four young kids diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are put on medicines. New CDC data shows that's continued, even after research found behavior therapy is as effective and doesn't give children stomach aches, sleep problems or other drug side effects. 

Why? Health insurance coverage for behavior therapy may vary from state to state and company to company. And in some areas, therapists are in short supply, some experts said. On Tuesday, CDC officials doubled down on its previous recommendations, calling on doctors and families to try behavior therapy first.

ADHD makes it hard for kids to pay attention and control impulsive behavior. More than 6 million U.S. children have been diagnosed with it. "By the time a parent comes to meet with me, they are tired and worried," Dr. Georgina Peacock, a CDC developmental pediatrician who works with ADHD families. "They are concerned their child might jump down a flight of stairs, that the child could get lost in a grocery store, or that the child could be kicked out of preschool."

There's no blood test for ADHD. Diagnosis is a matter of expert opinion. Studies have shown medications like ritalin help older children with ADHD. That success has fed a trend to treat younger kids the same way, but there's been less study of how effective and safe the drugs are for preschoolers. In behavior therapy, a therapist trains parents—commonly over eight or more sessions—how to guide a child's behavior through praise, communication, routine and consistent discipline. However, it can take longer and demand more of parents.

In its new analysis, the CDC looked at insurance claims data for children ages 2 to 5. ....The CDC found 75 percent of the children were on medicine. That was true both of Medicaid-covered children in low-income families, and kids covered by private insurance. In contrast, only around half of children had received psychological services that might include behavior therapy training, the CDC found.

The researchers go overboard in their claims of what this study shows (after all, only 15 men were in the study, their blood pressure was only slightly elevated, and they were studied only for a short time). But.....what this study does show is that tart cherry juice seems to have some health benefits, such as lowering blood pressure for a while. Even though the researchers received funding from the Cherry Marketing Institute, it doesn't change the fact that cherries are considered healthy foods to eat. Montmorency tart cherries (MCs) are high in numerous phytochemicals (which have health benefits), including flavonoids (isorhamnetin, kaempferol, quercetin, catechin, epicatechin, procyanidins, and anthocyanins).

So check the ingredient list before you buy the tart cherry juice to make sure it is pure juice, and then enjoy a glass knowing that'll it'll benefit (if only temporarily) your blood pressure. From Medical Xpress:

High blood pressure lowers significantly after drinking tart Montmorency cherry juice

Drinking tart Montmorency cherry juice significantly reduces high blood pressure at a level comparable to that achieved by medication, according to new research from Northumbria University, Newcastle.The findings ....found that men with early signs of hypertension - more commonly known as high blood pressure - saw a 7% reduction in blood pressure after drinking Montmorency cherry concentrate when compared to drinking a fruit-flavoured cordial

This reduction is comparable to the level achieved by anti-hypertensive medication. High blood pressure affects over five million people in England and, if left untreated, increases risk of heart attack, heart failure, kidney disease, stroke or dementia. Normal blood pressure is around 120/80 mmHg.

Researchers from Northumbria University's Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation worked with fifteen participants who were displaying early hypertension with blood pressure readings of at least 130/90 mmHg....were given either 60ml of a Montmorency cherry concentrate or the same amount of a commercially available fruit-flavoured cordial. Blood pressure and blood samples were taken before the cherry concentrate was consumed and blood pressure was measured on an hourly basis thereafter. Blood samples and a series of other cardiovascular screening tests were taken again on a regular basis over the following eight hours.

The researchers found that the participants who were given the cherry concentrate saw a peak reduction in their blood pressure of 7 mmHg in the three hours after consuming the drink. 

Past studies have shown that a reduction of between 5-6 mmHg over a sustained period has been associated with a 38% reduced risk of stroke and 23% reduced risk of coronary heart disease. Interestingly, those participants with blood pressure levels at the higher end of the scale saw the most benefit. The greatest improvement in systolic blood pressure occurred when the phenolic acids, protocatechuic and vanillic, within the cherry concentrate reached their peak levels in the plasma. The researchers believe that these particular compounds are, at least in part, responsible for the reduction.  (Original study)