Skip to content

Another study finding that eating an egg each day is totally fine for our health. Of course it is! For years nutritionists were obsessed with the cholesterol in eggs, thinking it must translate into being bad for heart health. Remember the advice to only eat egg whites?

An international team of researchers looked at 3 large studies (50 countries on 6 continents) and found that there were no associations between eating about one egg a day and cholesterol levels, death, or strokes and heart attacks. And that this moderate egg intake "does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease or mortality even if people have a history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes".

Eggs are a good source of essential nutrients and protein, are inexpensive, easy to cook,  and are also an excellent source of choline - which is needed for brain health (for neurological functioning).

From Medical Xpress: An egg a day not tied to risk of heart disease: new study   ...continue reading "Eating An Egg A Day Is Totally Fine"

Another great option for losing weight and better health may be to only eat within a 10 hour window, and then not eat for 14 hours (thus a nightly 14 hour fast). Many may find this easier than traditional dieting (counting calories and restricting eating). Just eat breakfast later, supper earlier, and no snacks in the evening. (But water is OK.)

Researchers from the Univ. Of California and Salk Institute conducted the 10-hour restricted eating study on persons with metabolic syndrome, most of whom were also on high blood pressure (anti-hypertensive) medicine and statins. After 12 weeks the people had lost weight, lost body fat, lowered blood pressure, reduced cholesterol, and decreased the size of their waist.

Since metabolic syndrome raises the risk for diabetes and heart (cardiovascular) disease, then 10-hour restricted eating can be an important tool to improve health. The researchers point out that in animal studies, time-restricted feeding can prevent and reverse aspects of metabolic diseases, and in healthy humans, it reduces the risks of metabolic diseases. Studies also found benefits with 9-hour restricted eating and 12 hour fasts.

From Science Daily: Clinical study finds eating within 10-hour window may help stave off diabetes, heart disease  ...continue reading "Improve Health and Lose Weight By Restricting Eating To A 10 Hour Window"

A new study has nicely illustrated how extreme air pollution gets quickly into a person and has negative health effects, but improvement occurs when the exposure to the air pollution ends.

It has long been known that long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with increased heart disease and death from heart disease (cardiovascular morbidity and mortality). But now University of California researchers showed that even relatively short term exposure to high levels of air pollution has negative health effects, such as an increase in inflammation and systemic oxidation (which are linked to heart disease).

The researchers looked at 26 healthy young adults from Los Angeles who visited Beijing for a 10 week period during the summers of 2014 and 2015. They looked at both health effects (such as levels of inflammation) and also what pollutants are found in their bodies. And yes, they found both markers for inflammation and heart disease, as well as high levels of pollutants after being in Beijing for 10 weeks.

Beijing is much more polluted than Los Angeles. For example, levels of small particles in the air (PM2.5) was on average 371% higher in Beijing than Los Angeles, and concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and ozone were also at higher levels in Beijing than Los Angeles. [Note: PAHs are a group of combustion-originated air pollutants.]

Interestingly, Los Angeles air used to be much more polluted, but environmental policies and regulations resulted in the air becoming cleaner. In other words, steps can be taken to lower levels of air pollution, with would result in health benefits for everyone.

Excerpts from Medical Xpress: Study finds even a short-term visit to a severely polluted city is bad for your health  ...continue reading "Even Short-term Exposure to High Levels of Air Pollution Is Bad For Your Health"

Americans are eating so much ultra-processed food that it's now more than 50% of their daily calories. And why shouldn't they eat these foods? They're easy to get (fast foods, prepackaged foods, take out foods), they taste good, and they're great for people pressed for time. That's why they're called "convenience foods" and include fast foods, prepackaged foods, many frozen meals, take out foods, soda, packaged snacks, and many cakes, candies, and cookies.

But... there's a dark side to highly processed food. It is linked to all sorts of harmful health effects (cancer, Alzheimer's disease, etc), to chronic inflammation, and now to worse heart health. Even our beneficial gut microbes don't like highly processed foods. Instead, they like real whole foods, especially plant based foods high in fiber, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes.

There are all sorts of ingredients in ultra-processed foods that are laboratory concoctions, from artificial and natural flavors, colors, additives, preservatives, etc. Read the ingredient lists!

The results of a new study by researchers at the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that  for every 5% increase in calories from ultra-processed foods a person ate, there was a corresponding decrease in overall cardiovascular (heart) health.

From Science Daily: Too much ultra-processed food linked to lower heart health  ...continue reading "Highly Processed Foods and Heart Health"

Are statins overprescribed? Currently many people without heart disease and at low risk of heart disease are taking them as a preventive, what is known as "primary prevention". Over the years, changes in medical guidelines have resulted in more and more lower risk older healthy people being prescribed statins. But there has been controversy over this: Are the statins really preventing heart disease and deaths in these low risk people? Also, do the benefits outweigh the harms (because all medications have side-effects, some more serious than others)? Finally, are the extra financial costs worth it?

recent study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggests that statins may be overprescribed in many such lower risk cases.  But please, keep in mind that for people with heart disease, statins are uncontroversial, where there are clear benefits. The controversy is regarding statins for low risk people without heart disease.

For example, the study researchers point out that studies find that statin use can be associated with an increased risk of diabetes, various muscle problems, and hemorrhagic stroke, as well as some  milder side-effects. Yet, looking at just one country (Ireland), with the latest medical guidelines it would take about 400 lowest risk healthy people taking statins to prevent one major cardiovascular event. And the statins would be taken for years. Is it worth it? Also, the studies being published are those favorable to the pharmaceutical industry, while under reporting harms.

From Medical Xpress: For most healthy people, benefits of statins 'may be marginal at best'   ...continue reading "Are Statins Overprescribed?"

A new large study found that eating a flavonoid rich diet is associated with a lower risk of death. Flavonoids are compounds found in abundance in plant derived foods and beverages, such as fruits, vegetables, dark chocolate, tea, legumes, and red wine. The study followed about 56,000 people in Denmark for 23 years and found that eating higher levels of flavonoid rich foods was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause (all-cause mortality), heart disease (cardiovascular disease), and cancer.

The researchers found that there was an inverse relationship (the more one eats, the lower the risk of death), and that this relationship was strongest among cigarette smokers and people who consume high amounts of alcohol (more than 20 grams per day). Bottom line: Make sure your diet includes lots of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and dark chocolate (yes!).

By the way, while other studies do find a lower incidence of heart disease and cancer in people eating a diet rich in flavonoids, in this study they were not looking at who got the diseases, but looked at deaths. Therefore the following title is misleading. It should instead say "... protects against cancer and heart disease deaths..." From Science Daily: Flavonoid-rich diet protects against cancer and heart disease, study finds  ...continue reading "Eating Foods Rich In Flavonoids Has Health Benefits"

Are we looking at vitamin D and sunlight the wrong way? Back in 2016 I posted about the results of a long-running Swedish study that made me rethink everything I knew about sunlight and health. (The prevailing view of dermatologists at the time and now is: to always use sunscreen if going outdoors in order to lower the risk of skin cancer. In other words, that sunlight is always harmful.)

The Swedish study followed women for 20 years and found that: Women who had more sunlight exposure experienced a lower mortality rate than women who avoided sun exposure. However, they were at an increased risk of skin cancer. But those with more sun exposure lived longer due to a decrease in heart (cardiovascular) disease and other noncancer reasons. And the most surprising finding: Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a similar life expectancy as smokers with the highest sun exposure. In other words: avoidance of sun exposure = cigarette smoking when looking at life expectancy. And the results of sun exposure was dose-dependent, with the more, the better for longer life expectancy.

The researchers suggested that  a person's vitamin D levels might be just a marker of sun exposure, which other studies and articles now also suggest. So while we measure vitamin D levels in studies, maybe we should instead be looking at sunlight exposure.

Since then I read more studies that found other benefits of sunlight exposure, such as sunlight having low levels of "blue light" which energizes T cells. T cells are a type of white blood cell, are part of the immune system, and help protect the body from infection and cellular abnormalities (cancer). An earlier study found that exposing skin to sunlight may help to reduce blood pressure and thus cut the risk of heart attack and stroke.

This year I read the following two nicely written articles about this whole issue, both a little different - so worth reading both to get a good idea about the research and the debate.

1) From Outside: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?

2) From Elemental Medium: What If Avoiding the Sun Is Bad for You?

And once again, a link to the 20 year Swedish study, from the Journal of Internal Medicine: Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death: a competing risk analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort

The Paleo diet has been around for years and yet it continues to be controversial. The debate is whether following the Paleo diet long-term has health benefits or not? Supporters of the Paleo (Paleolothic) diet say it promotes gut health and is good for gut microbes, but recent research findings are a strike against this claim. The Paleo diet is based on the hypothesis that humans have not adapted to eating products of agricultural farming such as grains, dairy products, or legumes (beans), as well as all processed foods, so they should be avoided. Instead it stresses eating meat, fish, eggs, nuts, (some) fruits, and vegetables.

So what were the new research findings?  Australian researchers found that people who had been on a Paleo diet for more than a year ate lower amounts of resistant starch, and so had a different bacteria profile in the gut - with lower levels of some beneficial species. They also had high levels of a biomarker in the blood (trimethylamine-n-oxide or TMAO) that is linked to heart disease.

The problem seems to be the lower intake of resistant starch - which is a carbohydrate that resists digestion in the small intestine and ferments in the large intestine. As the fibers ferment they act as a prebiotic and feed the beneficial bacteria in the gut. More than one type of resistant starch can be present in a single food. And what foods contain resistant starches? Precisely some foods avoided in the Paleo diet: grains, rice, beans, peas, lentils, plantains, and green bananas. A number of studies find health benefits (e.g. gut health) from eating foods with resistant starches.

From Medical Xpress: Heart disease biomarker linked to paleo diet

People who follow the paleo diet have twice the amount of a key blood biomarker linked closely to heart disease, the world's first major study examining the impact of the diet on gut bacteria has found.  ...continue reading "Problems With Paleo Diet?"

Once again research is finding effects on health from nanoparticles and air pollution - this time the heart. Tiny air pollution particles less than 100 nm (nanometers) in size are typically called "ultrafine  particles", but actually they are so small that they are nanoparticles. They are NOT regulated in the United States, even though many researchers feel that they are the most dangerous particles found in air pollution. This is because their small size means they are easily inhaled and then get into human lungs and organs, and even cells. Where do they come from? They get into the air from industry (e.g. metal processing, power generation plants), from the exhaust of vehicles (from vehicle combustion), and from friction when using vehicle brakes.

The researchers write that the air in polluted urban areas and next to roads have a lot of these iron-rich nanoparticles from vehicle combustion and friction. And also that these particles are "strongly magnetic". Earlier research in the urban Mexico City area found that these nanoparticles were found in the brains of all people, starting at young ages (they had died suddenly in accidents, which is why the brains could be analyzed). Keep in mind that Mexico City has high levels of air pollution, but so do many other urban areas throughout the world.

This latest study from a team of international researchers analyzed both the hearts of young people who died suddenly, as well as animals - and they compared the results from those exposed to high levels of urban air pollution (Mexico City metro area) and those from areas with low amounts of air pollution (the "controls"). The results were not good: all hearts from the Mexico City area (high air pollution) had lots of the same iron-rich magnetic nanoparticles ("in abundance") that are found in the air. Billions of nanoparticles in each heart, even in the youngest 3 year old child!

These nanoparticles are inhaled, then enter the person's circulatory system (carried by blood cells), and then into cardiac cells. As the researchers stated: the magnetic nanoparticles were "highly abundant in left ventricular samples from young subjects exposed to high concentrations of particulate air pollution above current US EPA standards. The organelles and structures containing abundant nanoparticles displayed substantial abnormality". Hearts from low pollution areas appeared normal.

This could explain why people living in polluted urban areas, including in the United States, have a greater risk for heart disease (cardiovascular disease), including heart attacks and strokes, as well as premature death. This research also highlights why we need to regulate these tiny particles in the air. As the researchers said: "This is a serious public health concern".

Excerpts from The Guardian: Billions of air pollution particles found in hearts of city dwellers   ...continue reading "Pollution Nanoparticles Found In Human Hearts"

1

Do you routinely work more than 10 hours a day at your job? Uh-oh. A large study conducted in France found that individuals working long hours had a 29% greater risk of stroke, and those working long hours for 10 years or more had a 45% greater risk of stroke. What exactly are long working hours? The study defined long working hours (LWH) as working more than 10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year.

The researchers looked at people who had full-time jobs, and did not separate out types of strokes - both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were lumped together in this study. Another interesting finding was that the risk for stroke was greater among people under the age of 50 who reported long working hours for more than 10 years. And this association had a "lower effect for owners, chief executive officers, professionals, and farmers" - all occupations where people had greater control over decisions during their days.

Studies from other countries found a similar association. For example, in Japan, 60% of death from over-work (called karoshi) cases who received worker compensation died of stroke.

From Science Daily: Long work hours associated with increased risk of stroke  ...continue reading "Long Work Hours Associated With Increased Stroke Risk"