Skip to content

Is frequent sauna bathing beneficial? That's what one study suggests. When the study started all 1621 men (aged 42 to 60) had normal blood pressure and none had been diagnosed with hypertension, and the follow-up was about 22 years later. The study took place in Finland, where sauna bathing is an important part of the culture - for all men, from all walks of life. The study found that frequent sauna bathing lowered the risk of developing hypertension - 46% when comparing men who sauna bathed once a week vs those who sauna bathed 4 to 7 times a week.

How could sauna bathing have these effects? There are several possibilities, but one is that sauna bathing produces "acute vasodilation" of the blood vessels, which leads to a significant drop in blood pressure. The temperature in the sauna is usually from 80 °C to 100 °C (176 to 212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the average sauna session (in this study) lasted an average of 14.4 minutes. From Science Daily:

Frequent sauna bathing keeps blood pressure in check

Frequent sauna bathing reduces the risk of elevated blood pressure, according to an extensive follow-up population-based study carried out at the University of Eastern Finland. The risk of developing elevated blood pressure was nearly 50% lower among men who had a sauna 4-7 times a week compared to men who had a sauna only once a weekThe same researchers have previously shown that frequent sauna bathing reduces the risk of sudden cardiac death, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Elevated blood pressure is documented to be one of the most important risk factors of cardiovascular diseases.

The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study (KIHD) involved 1,621 middle-aged men living in the eastern part of Finland. Study participants without elevated blood pressure of over 140/90 mmHg or with diagnosed hypertension at the study baseline were included in this long-term follow-up study. Based on their sauna bathing habits, men were divided into three sauna frequency groups: those taking a sauna once a week, 2-3 times a week, or 4-7 times a week. During an average follow-up of 22 years, 15.5% of the men developed clinically defined hypertension. The risk of hypertension was 24% decreased among men with a sauna frequency of 2-3 times a week, and 46% lowered among men who had a sauna 4-7 times a week.

Sauna bathing may decrease systemic blood pressure through different biological mechanisms. During sauna bathing, the body temperature may rise up to 2 °C degrees, causing vessels vasodilation. Regular sauna bathing improves endothelial function, i.e. the function of the inside layer of blood vessels, which has beneficial effects on systemic blood pressure. Sweating, in turn, removes fluid from the body, which is a contributing factor to decreased blood pressure levels. Additionally, sauna bathing may also lower systemic blood pressure due to overall relaxation of the body and mind.

[NOTE: Above photo is of interior of a modern Finnish sauna. Credit: Wikipedia]

OK everyone - even if you sit all day at a desk job, the research is clear: try to get up and stretch or move a little every 30 minutes. Researchers followed middle-aged and older adults over a 5 1/2 year period and found that total sitting time (sedentary behavior) and prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary behavior were associated with in increased risk for death from any cause (all-cause mortality). But..adults who kept most of their sitting bouts to less than 30 minutes had the lowest risk of death. The researchers felt that getting up and moving every half hour seems to protect against the health risks (cardiometabolic effects) from just sitting and sitting and sitting. Are you moving yet?

From Science Daily: Long sitting periods may be just as harmful as daily total

A new study finds that it isn't just the amount of time spent sitting, but also the way in which sitting time is accumulated during the day, that can affect risk of early deathThe study, published online today in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that adults who sit for one to two hours at a time without moving have a higher mortality rate than adults who accrue the same amount of sedentary time in shorter bouts.

The researchers used hip-mounted activity monitors to objectively measure inactivity during waking time over a period of seven days in 7,985 black and white adults over age 45. (The participants were taking part in the REGARDS study, a national investigation of racial and regional disparities in stroke.)

On average, sedentary behavior accounted for 77 percent of the participants' waking hours, equivalent to more than 12 hours per day. Over a median follow-up period of four years, 340 of the participants died. Mortality risk was calculated for those with various amounts of total sedentary time and various sedentary patterns. Those with the greatest amount of sedentary time -- more than 13 hours per day -- and who frequently had sedentary bouts of at least 60 to 90 consecutive minutes had a nearly two-fold increase in death risk compared with those who had the least total sedentary time and the shortest sedentary bouts.

The researchers also found that participants who kept most of their sitting bouts to less than 30 minutes had the lowest risk of death. "So if you have a job or lifestyle where you have to sit for prolonged periods of time, we suggest taking a movement break every half hour. This one behavior change could reduce your risk of death, although we don't yet know precisely how much activity is optimal," Dr. Diaz said. [Original study.]

   Is "fat but fit" a myth or true? The results of this study suggest that it is a myth. That there is a higher risk of coronary heart disease, and even if everything looks OK initially, it is associated with an eventual metabolic changes (and problems). Just wait a while - as can be seen in the results of this study that followed people from 8 European countries over many years (about 12.2 years). The study found that being normal weight and fit is best, and that "metabolically healthy" obese people were more likely to go on to develop metabolic abnormalities (and become metabolically unhealthy obese people) over the years. Metabolically unhealthy signs included high blood pressure, low HDL-cholesterol, and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).

Bottom line: aim for normal weight for a lower risk of heart disease (and of course, be physically active and eat a healthy diet - fewer processed foods, and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes). From Science Daily:

'Fat but fit' are at increased risk of heart disease

Carrying extra weight could raise your risk of heart attack by more than a quarter, even if you are otherwise healthy.Researchers have found that being overweight or obese increases a person's risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by up to 28 per cent compared to those with a healthy body weight, even if they have healthy blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests being 'fat but fit' is a myth, and that people should aim to maintain a body weight within a healthy range.

Storing too much fat in the body is associated with a number of metabolic changes, including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar and altered cholesterol levels, which can lead to disease and poor health. However, previous studies have revealed a subset of overweight people who appear to lack the adverse health effects of excess weight, leading to them being classified as 'metabolically healthy obese' in the medical literature, and 'fat but fit' in the media.

Now, a group led by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Cambridge has shown that despite an apparent clean bill of health, this overweight group is still at increased risk compared to those with a healthy weight. In the largest study of its kind to date, scientists used data from more than half a million people in 10 European countries -- taken from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) -- to show that excess weight is linked with an increased risk of heart disease, even when people have a healthy metabolic profile.

In the study, published in the European Heart Journal, researchers looked at the link between excess weight and risk of CHD, a condition where not enough blood gets through to the heart due to clogged arteries, leading to heart attacks. After a follow-up period of more than 12 years, a total of 7,637 people in the EPIC cohort experienced CHD events, such as death from heart attack. Researchers then selected a representative group of more than 10,000 individuals as controls, for analysis. Body weight was classified according to definitions from the World Health Organization. Those with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 were classed as obese, while those with a BMI of 25-30 were classed as overweight, and 18.5-25 as normal weight. More than half of the control group (63 per cent) were female, with an average age of 53.6 and an average BMI of 26.1.

Participants were categorised as 'unhealthy' if they had three or more of a number of metabolic markers, including high blood pressure, blood glucose, or triglyceride levels, low levels of HDL cholesterol, or a waist size of more than 37" (94 cm) for men and 31" (80 cm) for women. .... the researchers found that compared to the healthy normal weight group, those classed as unhealthy had more than double the risk of CHD, whether they were normal weight, overweight or obeseHowever, analysis also revealed that within the apparently healthy group there was a significant difference in outcomes for people depending on their weight. The research found that compared to those at normal weight, people who were classified as healthy but were overweight had an increased CHD risk of 1.26 (26 per cent), while those who were healthy but obese had an increased risk of 1.28 (28 per cent). [Original study.]

Mediterranean Diet is Healthy Eating – A Good Option for Seniors So, how many of you have had doctors discuss nutrition with you? How about your cardiologist? "No"...many of you answer. Well, that shouldn't be surprising according to a new survey of 930 cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals. Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. And currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training. Most also reported that they spend less than 3 minutes discussing nutrition per appointment. What does that really mean? Is it just a few words like: lose weight, eat better, and eat less salt? That's not enough to be real nutrition advice.

Why is nutrition important? Among the top 17 risk factors, poor diet quality has been identified by the US Burden of Disease Collaborators as the leading cause of premature deaths and disability in the United States. Heart health is influenced by the diet. Many studies have shown that people following such healthy diets as the Mediterranean diet (with an emphasis on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, legumes, and olive oil) have a significantly lower incidence of heart disease and major cardiovascular events (especially strokes). One recent study (an analysis of other studies) linked eating 8 to 10 portions of fruits and vegetables daily with a lower risk of early death, cancer, heart disease, and stroke. From Medscape:

Cardiologists Are Hungry for Knowledge on Nutrition

Hello. My name is Dr Stephen Devries and I'm a cardiologist and executive director of the nonprofit Gaples Institute for Integrative Cardiology. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to share with you some interesting findings related to a new study I was involved in regarding nutrition education in cardiology. I'm sure you are aware that patients increasingly want to take more charge of their own health. In order to do so, they are asking their doctors more questions about nutrition. But how prepared are physicians to address those questions? Specifically, we asked: How prepared are cardiologists to deal with nutrition questions in their own practice?

In order to get at that question, my colleagues and I, members of the Nutrition Working Group of the American College of Cardiology, surveyed[1] over 900 practicing cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals and asked them a wide range of questions relating to their experience with nutrition education, their attitudes about nutrition and practice, and a little bit about their own personal nutrition habits.

What did we find? Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. When we inquired a bit about their attitudes regarding nutrition and practice, 95% of cardiologists reported that they believed it was their personal responsibility to deliver at least basic nutrition education to their patients. We were a bit surprised. We had wondered whether cardiologists felt that it was someone else's job to do; but no, they felt that it was their own personal responsibility to at least deliver basic diet counseling to their patients.

We then asked cardiologists about their own personal health habits and inquired about their personal intake of vegetables and fruit. We found that only 20% of practicing cardiologists reported eating a total of five or more servings of vegetables and fruit per day. That is an important finding, not only because it speaks to opportunities to improve cardiologists' own health, but also because there are data[2] showing that physicians who adopt healthy lifestyle practices are more likely to counsel patients to do so as well.

Where do we go from here? It's paradoxical that nutrition and lifestyle are identified in many of our clinical care guidelines as the foundations of good cardiovascular care, yet how can our cardiologists implement those guidelines without receiving adequate nutrition training? Obviously, we need to address that problem by providing meaningful nutrition education in all phases of medical training, beginning in medical school through internal medicine residency, and extending into cardiovascular training itself. Currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training—and that needs to change. We also should include more nutrition content on board exams so that there will be additional motivation to teach nutrition to help pass the exam.

 Another study was just published with worrisome findings about phthalates. Phthalates are a group of chemicals used widely in common consumer products such as food packaging, toys, medical devices, medications, and personal care products. They are endocrine disruptors (can interfere with normal hormonal function) and are linked to a number of health problems (here, here, and here).

The study looked at urban Australian men and found that the higher the level of phthalates, the higher the rate of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and hypertension. The researchers also found that higher levels of chronic low-grade inflammatory biomarkers (meaning higher levels of low-grade inflammation) was associated with higher levels of phthalates. All these findings confirm what other studies, done in other countries, have found.

Phthalates, which are measured in the urine,  were detected in 99.96% of the 1504 men. Eating a western dietary pattern (fast food, highly processed, low fiber) was also associated with higher phthalate levels.  However, they did not find an association of phthalate levels with asthma and depression. From Science Daily:

Everyday chemicals linked to chronic disease in men

Chemicals found in everyday plastics materials are linked to cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure in men, according to Australian researchers. Researchers from the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) investigated the independent association between chronic diseases among men and concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals known as phthalates.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals widely used in common consumer products, such as food packaging and wrappings, toys, medications, and even medical devices. Researchers found that of the 1500 Australian men tested, phthalates were detected in urine samples of 99.6% of those aged 35 and over. "We found that the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure increased among those men with higher total phthalate levels," says senior author Associate Professor Zumin Shi, from the University of Adelaide's Adelaide Medical School and the Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, and a member of SAHMRI's Nutrition & Metabolism theme.

"While we still don't understand the exact reasons why phthalates are independently linked to disease, we do know the chemicals impact on the human endocrine system, which controls hormone release that regulate the body's growth, metabolism, and sexual development and function. "In addition to chronic diseases, higher phthalate levels were associated with increased levels of a range of inflammatory biomarkers in the body," he says.

Age and western diets are directly associated with higher concentrations of phthalates. Previous studies have shown that men who ate less fresh fruit and vegetables and more processed and packaged foods, and drank carbonated soft drinks, have higher levels of phthalates in their urine.... Associate Professor Shi says that although the studies were conducted in men, the findings are also likely to be relevant to women. "While further research is required, reducing environmental phthalates exposure where possible, along with the adoption of healthier lifestyles, may help to reduce the risk of chronic disease," he says. [Original study.]

 Once again several studies found health benefits associated with drinking coffee daily - this time "reduced risk of death" in 2 studies, and in one study a reduced risk of gallbladder cancer.

Just keep in mind that the studies found associations, but did not establish that drinking coffee caused X (reduced risk of death) - so perhaps coffee drinkers differ in some still unknown way from non-coffee drinkers. But...so many studies are piling up showing an association with health benefits that it looks likely that it is actually the coffee causing the benefits. Both decaffeinated and regular coffee seem beneficial, and it doesn't matter how it is prepared (e.g., espresso, drip, cappuccino). (Earlier posts about coffee - here, here, here)

In the one study higher consumption of coffee was associated with a lower risk of death from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease in African Americans, Japanese Americans, Latinos, and whites. People who consumed a cup of coffee a day (decaffeinated or regular) were 12 percent less likely to die compared to those who didn't drink coffee, and those who drank two to three cups a day had an 18 percent reduced chance of death.

The conclusion of the other study of over half million adults in 10 European countries was similar: coffee drinking was associated with lower risk for death from "all causes", especially from circulatory diseases and diseases related to the digestive tract. This association held up among all the countries. The highest levels of consumption  group (3 cups or more of coffee per day)  had the lowest risk of death - as compared to those drinking none or less than 1 cup of coffee per day. However, the one negative result from drinking more than 3 cups of coffee daily was an increase in risk for ovarian cancer mortality in women (but only when compared to coffee non-drinkers).

From STAT News: Drink coffee? It won’t hurt you, and may reduce your risk of an early death

Good news, coffee drinkers: A couple of massive new studies that looked at hundreds of thousands of people for about 16 years finds that a few cups of coffee a day won’t hurt you and could lower your risk of dying prematurely. The studies reinforce previous findings that drinking an 8-ounce cup of joe (or three) won’t hurt you, but the authors of the new works and other experts say caveats abound.

Murphy told STAT his is the largest study on coffee and mortality to date. In the study, researchers with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and Imperial College London tracked 521,000 adults from 10 European countries who self-reported their coffee consumption over an average of 16 years.... In investigating more than 40,000 deaths from this group, the team found that participants who fell into the highest 25 percent of coffee consumers had a lower risk of death due to any cause compared to non-coffee drinkers. They saw a reduced risk of early death by diseases related to the digestive and circulatory systems. The researchers also discovered a link between higher coffee consumption and lower risk of early death by lung cancer in men. And they also looked at suicide — completed suicides were lower for coffee drinkers, but only in men. [Original study.]

In a second study of 180,000 people tracked for an average of 16 years, University of Southern California investigators found drinking one to six cups of coffee per week led to a decreased risk of early death. The study was focused on non-white populations, andtheir findings proved consistent for coffee drinkers across racial and ethnic groups. One of the USC study’s senior authors, V. Wendy Setiawan... said coffee consumption may be linked a lower risk of early death for people with heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, and kidney disease.Drink one cup per day, and the risk of dying early from those diseases decreases by 12 percent, she said. [Original study.]

This 2016 study is from Medscape: Coffee Consumption and Risk of Gallbladder Cancer in a Prospective Study

Evidence indicates that coffee consumption may reduce the risk of gallstone diseasewhich is strongly associated with increased risk of gallbladder cancer. The association between coffee consumption and gallbladder cancer incidence was examined in a prospective cohort study of 72,680 Swedish adults (aged 45 − 83 years) who were free of cancer and reported their coffee consumption at baseline.....  In conclusion, coffee consumption was observed to be associated with a reduced risk of gallbladder cancer. A potential protective association between coffee consumption and risk of gallbladder cancer may be mediated via reduced gallstone formation or through other mechanisms such as reduction of oxidative damage and inflammation and regulation of DNA repair, phase II enzymatic activity, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and metastasis.

Image result for dark chocolate Chocolate lovers can rejoice - because another study, which was actually a review of other studies - found that frequent consumption of chocolate, cocoa, and cocoa flavanols (an ingredient of cocoa) is linked with beneficial health effects. These included cardiovascular benefits, and dose-dependent improvements in cognition, attention, and memory. In other words - the more frequently one eats chocolate and cocoa (especially dark chocolate), the more beneficial health effects. So eat and enjoy! From Medical Xpress:

Cocoa and chocolate are not just treats—they are good for your cognition

A balanced diet is chocolate in both hands - a phrase commonly used to justify one's chocolate snacking behavior. A phrase now shown to actually harbor some truth, as the cocoa bean is a rich source of flavanols: a class of natural compounds that has neuroprotective effects. In their recent review published in Frontiers in Nutrition, Italian researchers examined the available literature for the effects of acute and chronic administration of cocoa flavanols on different cognitive domains. In other words: what happens to your brain up to a few hours after you eat cocoa flavanols, and what happens when you sustain such a cocoa flavanol enriched diet for a prolonged period of time?

Although randomized controlled trials investigating the acute effect of cocoa flavanols are sparse, most of them point towards a beneficial effect on cognitive performance. Participants showed, among others, enhancements in working memory performance and improved visual information processing after having had cocoa flavanols. And for women, eating cocoa after a night of total sleep deprivation actually counteracted the cognitive impairment (i.e. less accuracy in performing tasks) that such a night brings about. Promising results for people that suffer from chronic sleep deprivation or work shifts.

The effects of relatively long-term ingestion of cocoa flavanols (ranging from 5 days up to 3 months) has generally been investigated in elderly individuals. It turns out that for them cognitive performance was improved by a daily intake of cocoa flavanols. Factors such as attention, processing speed, working memory, and verbal fluency were greatly affected. These effects were, however, most pronounced in older adults with a starting memory decline or other mild cognitive impairments.

And this was exactly the most unexpected and promising result according to authors Valentina Socci and Michele Ferrara from the University of L'Aquila in Italy. "This result suggests the potential of cocoa flavanols to protect cognition in vulnerable populations over time by improving cognitive performance. If you look at the underlying mechanism, the cocoa flavanols have beneficial effects for cardiovascular health and can increase cerebral blood volume in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. This structure is particularly affected by aging and therefore the potential source of age-related memory decline in humans."

So should cocoa become a dietary supplement to improve our cognition? "Regular intake of cocoa and chocolate could indeed provide beneficial effects on cognitive functioning over time. There are, however, potential side effects of eating cocoa and chocolate. Those are generally linked to the caloric value of chocolate, some inherent chemical compounds of the cocoa plant such as caffeine and theobromine, and a variety of additives we add to chocolate such as sugar or milk." Nonetheless, the scientists are the first to put their results into practice: "Dark chocolate is a rich source of flavanols. So we always eat some dark chocolate. Every day." [Original study.]

 Should the results of this study determine what kind of coffee one drinks? Does it really make a difference? Eh...Not for me (because all coffee seems to be beneficial), but it might for you.

Studies show that daily drinking of coffee appears to have health benefits. Studies have linked coffee consumption with lower rates of cancer (here and here), cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Coffee contains beneficial chemicals (such as caffeine and chlorogenic acid) that are antioxidant and anti-inflammatory, and could help fight chronic inflammatory diseases. It turns out that how much coffee beans are roasted changes how much chlorogenic acid they contain, but the amount of caffeine basically stays the same among the different roasting levels.

Researchers in Korea compared the caffeine and chlorogenic acid components of Arabica coffee beans at different roasting levels: Light, Medium, City, and French roast. They then tested various protective antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of the different coffee extracts in various "cell models" (meaning in the lab, not on real people). They found that chlorogenic acid levels were higher in light roasted coffee extract than the other roasted groups, and also light roasted coffee extract had the highest antioxidant activity. The results found that increasing degrees of roasting reduced antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities.

From the Journal of Medicinal Food: Cellular Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Coffee Extracts with Different Roasting Levels

During roasting, major changes occur in the composition and physiological effects of coffee beans. In this study, in vitro antioxidant effects and anti-inflammatory effects of Coffea arabica green coffee extracts were investigated at different roasting levels corresponding to Light, Medium, City, and French roast. Total caffeine did not show huge difference according to roasting level, but total chlorogenic acid contents were higher in light roasted coffee extract than other roasted groups. In addition, light roasted coffee extract had the highest antioxidant activity.... The expression of mRNA for tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 was decreased in cells treated with the coffee extracts and the expression decreased with increasing roasting levels. These data suggest that coffee has physiological antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities and these effects are negatively correlated with roasting levels in the cell models.

Coffee is one of the most popular beverages worldwide. Increasing consumption of coffee is related to the pleasing taste and aroma, as well as its physiological effects. Coffee is proposed to exert beneficial effects against cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes. Coffee contains phenolic compounds such as caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, vanillic acid, and other phytochemicals. The quality of coffee is significantly related to the roasting process.... During roasting, there are numerous changes in coffee bean compound profiles and the aroma is increased. Major changes in coffee bean composition occur during roasting as a result of the Maillard reaction..... Roasting markedly affects chlorogenic acid, leading to hydrolysis of chlorogenic acid. New compounds are formed during the roasting process; one of these is melanoidin. Its formation might alter the overall antioxidant capacity of coffee beans after roasting.

Coffee is a rich source of antioxidants that may contribute to prevention of oxidative stress-related diseases. The antioxidant properties of coffee may reflect the presence of both phenolic and nonphenolic bioactive compounds, such as caffeine and chlorogenic acids. Previous studies have shown that coffee has protective effects against oxidation and DNA damage in human cell models and has been shown to possess an in vitro antioxidant activity that lessens lipid peroxidation and neoplastic activity. 

Caffeine is the major component in coffee extract and has antioxidant property. Chlorogenic acid is another well-known efficient antioxidant in coffee extract; it was highest in Light roast coffee extract and highest with low roasting temperature and lowest in Dark roasted extract. Carbohydrates, protein, and chlorogenic acid are all decreased in coffee during the roasting process.... Caffeine contents showed no differences among roasting levels, but chlorogenic acid content decreased as roasting degree increased..... The effect of coffee roasting on the antioxidant properties of coffee extracts was investigated in several earlier studies; antioxidant capacity decreased in Dark roast coffee. The antioxidant property of coffee extracts prepared with different roasting levels was also determined in this study. The best antioxidant activity was evident in Light roast coffee extract and the lowest in French roast coffee.

  The use of nanomaterials has been really increasing  in recent years without us really understanding if  nanoparticles have negative health effects, and if they travel to the brain or other organs in the human body. Nanoparticles are used in many  consumer products, including foods (e.g., nano-sized titanium dioxide) and medicines, but they are also found in air pollution  (e.g., tires breaking down, vehicle exhaust). Well..... evidence is starting to appear that YES - nanoparticles can travel  throughout the body, and they can accumulate in the body, including lungs and brain, and they can have negative health effects. For example, inhaled nanoparticles from air pollution are able to deposit deep in the lungs where they cause oxidative stress and inflammation.

Now new research in both humans and mice has shown that inhaled nanoparticles can travel from the lungs into the bloodstream. In this study both healthy males and heart disease patients inhaled gold nanoparticles of varying sizes. The gold was detected in the blood and urine within 15 minutes to 24 hours after exposure, and was still present 3 months after exposure. The levels were greater following inhalation of smaller 5 nanometer (nm) particles compared to the larger 30 nm particles (meaning the body had trouble clearing the smaller nanoparticles). The nanoparticles acculmulated more in inflamed vascular sites, including carotid plaques in patients at risk of a stroke. Showing this is important in explaining how tiny nanosized particles in air pollution are linked to cardiovascular disease and death - for example, why and how they can trigger heart attacks and other "cardiovascular events". Science Daily:

Nanoparticles can travel from lungs to blood, possibly explaining risks to heart

Tiny particles in air pollution have been associated with cardiovascular disease, which can lead to premature death. But how particles inhaled into the lungs can affect blood vessels and the heart has remained a mystery. Now, scientists have found evidence in human and animal studies that inhaled nanoparticles can travel from the lungs into the bloodstream, potentially explaining the link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Their results appear in the journal ACS Nano.

The World Health Organization estimates that in 2012, about 72 percent of premature deaths related to outdoor air pollution were due to ischemic heart disease and strokes. Pulmonary disease, respiratory infections and lung cancer were linked to the other 28 percent. Many scientists have suspected that fine particles travel from the lungs into the bloodstream, but evidence supporting this assumption in humans has been challenging to collect. So Mark Miller and colleagues at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands used a selection of specialized techniques to track the fate of inhaled gold nanoparticles.

In the new study, 14 healthy volunteers, 12 surgical patients and several mouse models inhaled gold nanoparticles, which have been safely used in medical imaging and drug delivery. Soon after exposure, the nanoparticles were detected in blood and urine. Importantly, the nanoparticles appeared to preferentially accumulate at inflamed vascular sites, including carotid plaques in patients at risk of a stroke. The findings suggest that nanoparticles can travel from the lungs into the bloodstream and reach susceptible areas of the cardiovascular system where they could possibly increase the likelihood of a heart attack or stroke, the researchers say. [Original study.]

  A recent study looking at high dose supplementation of vitamin D found that it did not prevent cardiovascular disease. This study came about because of earlier studies observing that there is a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease in persons with low vitamin D levels (as measured in their blood). But such results from observational studies need rigorous testing in studies where people are randomly assigned to groups, and that are "double-blind" (no one knows who is getting the vitamin D until the end of the study) to eliminate bias. And this is what was done in this study, with the result that monthly high doses of vitamin D3 for 3 years did not prevent cardiovascular disease (including stroke, heart attacks, hypertension, etc) - as seen in that there were no group differences between the vitamin D and placebo groups. Finding no effects are "null findings".

But note that the subjects in the study got monthly high doses, and not daily or weekly vitamin D. It is unknown whether daily dosing would have made a difference in the results. However, the vitamin D levels in the blood soon reached levels (about 51.725 ng/mL) that many view as a desirable "protective" level. So we'll see what other studies find. But these results are definitely disappointing for those wanting an easy "magic bullet" for preventing cardiovascular disease. Bottom line: focus on lifestyle (diet, exercise, not smoking, etc) for heart health. From Science Daily:

Monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not prevent cardiovascular disease

Results of a large randomized trial indicate that monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation does not prevent cardiovascular disease, according to a study published by JAMA Cardiology. Studies have reported increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among individuals with low vitamin D status. To date, randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation have not found an effect, possibly because of using too low a dose of vitamin D. Robert Scragg, M.B.B.S., Ph.D., of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues randomly assigned adults (age 50 to 84 years) to receive oral vitamin D3 (n = 2,558; an initial dose of 200,000 IU, followed a month later by monthly doses of 100,000 IU) or placebo (n = 2,552) for a median of 3.3 years.

Of the 5,108 participants included in the primary analysis, the average age was 66 years; 25 percent were vitamin D deficient. Cardiovascular disease occurred in 303 participants (11.8 percent) in the vitamin D group and 293 participants (11.5 percent) in the placebo group. Similar results were seen for participants with vitamin D deficiency at study entry and for other outcomes such as heart attack, angina, heart failure, hypertension, and stroke.

The authors write that the results of this study do not support the use of monthly high-dose vitamin D for the prevention of CVD. "The effects of daily or weekly dosing on CVD risk require further study." [Original study.]