New study reveals very bad news for bread lovers

The Chinese authors of this study deserve credit for a very careful and thorough study. In the end, however the results are no different from less well-contolled previous studies: Weak effects. All the relationships were marginal, meaning that it would be a rare person who suffered ill effects from (say) eating bread. A bread enthusiast living to be 100 could be expected

There are few things in this world as comforting as a fresh piece of bread straight from the oven.

Spread with some lashings of butter, a dollop of jam or a scrape of vegemite, most of us have grown up with this delicious snack and many enjoy it as part of our daily diet.

While most of us can admit that consuming nothing but bread may leave us with more vitamin deficiencies that a scurvy-riddled pirate, we may not realise the impact our carboholic tendencies are having on our health.

According to a brand new study featured in Nutrients medical journal, the humble loaf of white bread has sadly been found to increase the risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as bowel cancer, regardless of genetic factors.

Alcohol was also found to be a contributing factor in a person’s chance of developing this cancer, in addition to the other negative impacts of the drug.

Researchers from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China analysed 139 dietary factors and their impact on the risk of developing bowel cancer.

The 118,210 participants from the UK Biobank cohort completed online questionnaires about their food intake.

Following up with their clients after an average of 12.8 years, researchers identified that both white bread and alcohol increased the risks of bowel cancer, while six other vitamins and minerals – fibre, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, and carbohydrate – decreased the risk of developing CRC.

The study found that the overall risk was influenced by both a mix of some genetic characteristics, as well as diet and lifestyle habits.

“After a mean follow-up of 12.8 years, we identified 1466 incidents of CRC among 118,210 UK participants,” the study read.

“Of these, 842 were colon cancer and 359 were rectal cancer. The mean age of the 1466 CRC patients was 55.87 years and almost 44.6% of the study population was male.

“Compared to the general population, CRC cases were more likely to be male and white, older, and less educated, and to have a higher TDI (tolerable daily intake), more family history of bowel cancer, a high BMI, less physical activity, more smoking, and a higher prevalence of diabetes at baseline.”

Misagh Karimi, M.D., a medical oncologist and colorectal cancer specialist, was not involved in the study but offered his reaction to its results.

“The findings of this study reaffirm the well-established connection between lifestyle and dietary choices and the prevention of colorectal cancer,” he told Fox News.

“These findings emphasise the critical importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle and dietary habits, which include limiting alcohol consumption and choosing a diet rich in high-fibre foods to mitigate the risk of cancer.”

While the doctor praised the study for involving a large amount of people, he pointed out that it was focused on a European population and further studies might be needed.

“This study also stands out because of its size and design,” Dr Karimi said.

“It involved a large sample population of 500,000 middle-aged people, a long follow-up period and a comprehensive assessment of dietary factors.

“As the researchers state, analysis was limited to a European population. To ensure the applicability of these findings to diverse populations, further studies are needed to validate these results on a wider population.”

Bowel cancer was the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2018, according to Cancer Australia.

In 2020, bowel cancer was the second most common cause of cancer death in Australia, with 5354 (2847 males and 2507 females).

Some common symptoms include a change in bowel habits, blood in stools, abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, weight loss, lumps in the rectum, unexplained fatigue and blood in the urine.

Earlier this year, another study published in the PNAS journal from a research team in Hangzhou, China, found that hot chips and other deliciously fried carbohydrate-laden foods may have a negative impact on mental health.

The study found that these types of meals may be linked to higher rates of anxiety and depression, with the impact found to be more pronounced in “young men, and younger consumers in general”.

The research demonstrate that the frequent consumption of fried foods – especially fried potatoes – was linked with a 12 per cent higher risk of anxiety and a 7 per cent higher risk of depression, compared to people who did not eat fried foods.

However, nutrition experts explained that the results are preliminary, and it is not necessarily clear whether the fried foods were driving mental health issues, or people experiencing symptoms of depression or anxiety turned to fried foods for comfort.

Fried potatoes specifically were found to have a 2 per cent increase in risk of depression over “fried white meat”, such as fried chicken.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet/new-study-reveals-very-bad-news-for-bread-lovers/news-story/fe3676a56a2b016b27f075d11eec4651

****************************************************

"Healthy" eating won't save you

The study below is very desperate to come to politically correct conclusions. They looked at extreme quintiles only, which means that they ignored the majority of their data. And even after that they found only minute Hazard Ratios.

The real conclusion of the study is that "healthy" eating confers no health benefits. It is doubtlful if anyone knows what healty eating is. There have been many records of people thriving on quite extreme diets -- Traditional Eskimos, for instance

Healthy Eating Patterns and Risk of Total and Cause-Specific Mortality

Zhilei Shan, MD et al.

Question Is there an association between Dietary Guidelines for Americans–recommended dietary patterns with total and cause-specific mortality?

Findings In this cohort study of 75 230 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2020) and 44 085 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2020), greater adherence to several healthy eating patterns was associated with a lower risk of death. These associations were consistent in different racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals.

Meaning These findings support the recommendations of Dietary Guidelines for Americans that multiple healthy eating patterns can be adapted to individual food traditions and preferences.

Abstract
Importance The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend multiple healthy eating patterns. However, few studies have examined the associations of adherence to different dietary patterns with long-term risk of total and cause-specific mortality.

Objective To examine the associations of dietary scores for 4 healthy eating patterns with risk of total and cause-specific mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study included initially healthy women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1984-2020) and men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; 1986-2020).

Exposures Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015), Alternate Mediterranean Diet (AMED) score, Healthful Plant-based Diet Index (HPDI), and Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were total and cause-specific mortality overall and stratified by race and ethnicity and other potential risk factors.

Results The final study sample included 75 230 women from the NHS (mean [SD] baseline age, 50.2 [7.2] years) and 44 085 men from the HPFS (mean [SD] baseline age, 53.3 [9.6] years). During a total of 3 559 056 person-years of follow-up, 31 263 women and 22 900 men died. When comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, the pooled multivariable-adjusted HRs of total mortality were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HEI-2015, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for AMED score, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89) for HPDI, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77-0.82) for AHEI (P < .001 for trend for all). All dietary scores were significantly inversely associated with death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease. The AMED score and AHEI were inversely associated with mortality from neurodegenerative disease. The inverse associations between these scores and risk of mortality were consistent in different racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals.

Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of 2 large prospective cohorts with up to 36 years of follow-up, greater adherence to various healthy eating patterns was consistently associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. These findings support the recommendations of Dietary Guidelines for Americans that multiple healthy eating patterns can be adapted to individual food traditions and preferences.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2800411

**************************************************

Two major studies reveal devastating effect of PFAS and food additives on male and female sexual health: From sperm damage to smaller testicles, early menopause and ovary cysts

Oh dear! Another meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies fed into it and there are a number of problems with that. A big problem is selection bias -- using only those studies with conclusions that suit you. I have seen a meta-analysis that omitted around 100 "inconvenient" articles. It was in an area that I know particularly well

That mostly arises when a popular hypothesis is under examination. The analysts are very lenient at using studies that confirm the popular idea but very sniffy about including studies that contradict the same theory.

And the hypothesis here is just such a fashionable one. It just seems so obvious. How can a pervasive industrial chemical that we all consume one way or another NOT be bad? People have been trying for decades to prove that PFAS and BPA are bad for you. But the data is unco-operative. No effect or a barely significant effect is the normal finding. Pesky!

And, knowing the literature, I am sure that the confirmatory studies that they fed into this analysis were ones with marginal magnitude. Such studies rarely survive exact duplication and really should at best be regarded as disconfirming the hypothesis. In summary, PFAS and BPA can NOT be shown as bad for you. Sorry about that


In recent years concerns about the contaminants in our foods and everyday products have made headlines due to their links to cancers.

But a growing body of research suggests the microscopic molecules also have a devastating effect on fertility and may be contributing to America's 'baby bust'.

In two new reviews of scientific literature, researchers from across the globe looked at the impact of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on male and female reproductive health.

They found these substances can cause infertility, genital malformations, lower sperm count and quality, early menopause and an increased risk of breast and testicular cancers.

EDCs include PFAS but also pesticides, phenols, a group of chemicals found in toys and dental products; phthalates, a group of chemicals in food packaging; parabens, a group of chemicals used as food preservatives; and triclosan, an antimicrobial agent used in soaps and hand sanitizers.

Some primary sources of PFAS and other contaminants include plastic food containers, makeup, cleaning sprays, medications, contaminated food and pollution of water and air.

Researchers from Vietnam, India, New Zealand and the United States reviewed more than 300 sources of information, including previous experimental studies and data from national and international health monitoring databases, as well as animal studies.

In the review of the impact on women, the team looked at studies that had analyzed levels of and exposure to contaminants and tested and evaluated placenta, urine, blood, hormone levels and tissues.

Researchers found exposure to Bisphenol A, or BPA, can lead to a decline in the development and quality of eggs and an increased risk of implantation failure, when fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterine lining correctly, frequently resulting in pregnancy loss.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a leading contributor to infertility, and a risk factor for endometrial cancer and diabetes, has also been linked to BPA exposure.

BPA is a type of plastic used to make plastic dinnerware, car parts, toys, beverage containers and CDs.

Exposure to phthalates, compounds in soaps, shampoos, lubricating oils and plastic packaging, was associated with a reduced probability of pregnancy and lower-quality eggs.

Additional impacts in women seen in the previous studies, include early menopause, an increased risk of breast cancer, endometriosis, which can lead to infertility, and metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

These harmful substances can also result in longer menstrual cycles and early onset of puberty, which has been linked to depression, substance abuse, sexual assault and adult breast cancer.

The EDC group of PFAS has been linked to a reduction in a mother's lactation period, the timeframe that a woman produces breast milk, and researchers found a type of pesticide led to shortened menstrual cycles, which can affect reproduction.

During pregnancy, exposure to EDCs has been linked to maternal obesity, high blood pressure and preeclampsia, a life-threatening blood pressure condition.

Studies have also shown mixed results on EDC exposure and preterm birth.

Based on their results, researchers strongly advocate for eating organic food and avoiding plastics and canned foods and beverages.

Data also supports avoiding fast food, following a vegetarian diet, changing personal care products and reducing dust.

Using stainless steel or glass bottles and containers, as well as cardboard wrapping instead of plastic packaging and avoiding plastic utensils and non-stick cookware will also help reduce exposure to contaminants.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12635823/pfas-water-reproductive-health-infertility-menopause.html

***********************************************

The PFAS panic continues

See below. As usual, only the weakest effects were oberved, consistent with no stable real effects. The study had its amusing side. Rather a lot of substances correlated with the alleged effect, including a form of acetic acid. Acetic acid is the key ingredient of vinegar. So might vinegar delay puberty onset in girls? Could be on these figures!

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Associations with Pubertal Onset and Serum Reproductive Hormones in a Longitudinal Study of Young Girls in Greater Cincinnati and the San Francisco Bay Area

Susan M. Pinney et al.

Abstract

Background:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), endocrine disrupting chemicals with worldwide exposure, cause changes in mammary gland development in rodents. A few human studies report delay in pubertal events with increasing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure, but to our knowledge none have examined reproductive hormone levels at thelarche.

Methods:
In a cohort of Greater Cincinnati (GC) and San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) girls recruited at 6–8 years of age, clinical examinations were conducted annually or semiannually with sequential Tanner staging. PFAS concentrations were measured in the first serum sample of 704 girls. In 304 GC girls, estradiol (E2), testosterone (T), and dihydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) were measured in serum at four time points around puberty. Relationships between PFAS and age at thelarche, pubarche, and menarche were analyzed using survival and structural equation models. The association between PFAS and reproductive hormones was assessed using linear regression models.

Results:

Median PFOA serum concentrations in GC were higher than in the U.S. population. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models [adjusted for race, body mass index (BMI)], increasing serum log-transformed PFOA was associated with a delay in pubarche [hazard ratio equals 0.83hazard ratio (HR)=0.83
; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.99] and menarche (hazard ratio equals 0.04HR=0.04; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.25).

Structural equation models indicated a triangular relationship between PFOA, BMI percentile, and the age at the pubertal milestone. Increased PFOA had a statistically significant direct effect of delay on all three milestones, as did BMI. Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA), and 2-(N
-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido) acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH) also were associated with later thelarche, and Me-PFOSA-AcOH also with later pubarche. PFOA was inversely associated with DHEAS (E1), and T concentrations at 6 months prior to puberty.

Conclusions:
PFAS may delay pubertal onset through the intervening effects on BMI and reproductive hormones. The decreases in DHEAS and E1 associated with PFOA represent biological biomarkers of effect consistent with the delay in onset of puberty.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP11811

*******************************************************

'Gender-bending' chemical found in food and plastic bottles now linked ADHD and autism

The logic here is obscure. Are they saying that BPA causes autism? If so they are going beyond the evidence. It could equally be that autism causes difficulty with BPA. And wherever the cause may lie, no evidence of harm from it is offered

A toxin found in food, drinks and other everyday items lingers longer in the bodies of kids with autism and ADHD, a study suggests.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical compound that has been dubbed a 'gender-bending' chemical because of its ties to hormonal and sexual problems.

Now, researchers from Rowan University and Rutgers University in New Jersey have found that kids with autism and ADHD cannot expel BPA from their bodies as quickly as neurotypical kids. BPA has been linked to both conditions previously, though this is the first to find that kids with ADHD and autism have a harder time eliminating the chemical.

The researchers also believe increased BPA exposure may increase the risk of developing these conditions but admit it is not clear how that works.

But the new link is bound to reignite calls to clamp down on the amount of BPA allowed in products in America, which has some of the most lax rules in the Western world.

Earlier this year, European officials drastically reduced the maximum amount of BPA by 20,000 times after finding that millions of people are likely consuming too much of the dangerous chemical. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows much higher levels.

The US also has some of the highest autism and ADHD rates in the world, with rates of autism in particular increasing by 52 percent since 2017.

The study, published last month in the journal PLOS One, measured detoxification efficiency- how quickly the body eliminates chemicals like BPA- in 66 children with autism, 46 with ADHD, and 37 neurotypical children. The participants were three to 16 years old.

In order to determine how much BPA they purged, researchers collected urine samples from each child between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., which were then frozen. The team also measured the children's dietary and vitamin intake.

They found that children with autism are 10 percent less able to eliminate BPA from their bodies, while kids with ADHD are 17 percent less able to purge the chemical.

Dr T Peter Stein, professor at the Roman-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine and lead study author, said this compromised ability to clear BPA and other pollutants from the body is 'the first hard biochemical evidence of what the linkage is between BPA and the development of autism or ADHD.'

'We were surprised to find that ADHD shows the same defect in BPA detoxification.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12614847/Gender-bending-chemical-BPA-linked-ADHD-autism.html

**********************************************

Soft drinks make you depressed?

Fer Chrissake! Why is rubbish like this still being published? No hint of demographic controls. Poor people have worse health and drink more junk drinks. That is all that was going on in this "study". No causal link was shown

In a study recently published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers found that the risk of depression was directly and proportionally correlated with the amount and frequency of consuming sugar- sweetened carbonated beverages (SSCBs). This association was independent of age, sex, and the presence or absence of preexisting diabetes in the study participants.

SSCBs are drinks with high concentrations of added sugar. High intake of SSCBs is a key factor in the global obesity epidemic and has been linked to an increased risk for cardiometabolic disease.

The negative impacts of SSCBs have been attributed to the large quantities of high-fructose corn syrup and added sugar, which increase serum triglyceride levels and dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance (IR). Epidemiological studies have potentially linked metabolic disorders, IR, and depression.

Other research has confirmed that individuals with a predisposition for obesity and diabetes have a higher prevalence of depression than those with normal glucose metabolism.

Small-scale cross-sectional studies have investigated the association between SSCBs and depression. However, these studies have focused on the combined effects of SSCBs, glycemic status, and IR, with mixed results.

For the present study, a team of researchers led by Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Korea used a longitudinal study approach to investigate the association between SSCB consumption and the risk of developing depressive symptoms. Their analyses were designed to eliminate the confounding impacts of glycemic status and IR, thereby elucidating the independent effects of SSBCs.

The researchers analyzed the risk of depression according to the consumption of SSCB in 87,115 working-aged Koreans who responded to Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale.

Clinical and biochemical data was collected from hospital records supplemented with a health-related behavior questionnaire. The questionnaire recorded physical activity levels, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption), and educational status.

Fasting blood glucose was recorded at each follow-up session to evaluate subjects’ glycemic status, which was classified into normal glycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes mellitus (DM). This classification was based on the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) model.

A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to evaluate and classify subjects’ SSCB consumption, both in terms of quantity (expressed in serving sizes where one serving = 200 mL) and frequency (per week).

The participants were categorized into 5 groups by SSCB consumption based on one serving dose. The categories were: never/almost never, < 1 serving/week, 1 ≤ serving/week < 3, 3 ≤ serving/week < 5, and 5 ≤ serving/week.

The CES-D questionnaire was used to evaluate depressive symptoms per week. The questionnaire comprised 20 questions about negative/depressive feelings, with answers ranging from 0 (seldom/never) to 3 (5-7 days a week). If the total score from the CES-D questionaries was 16 or higher, the individual was classified as having depressive symptoms.

Results revealed that 28.9% (25,246) of individuals had SSCB intakes higher than one serving per week. Of these, individuals consuming more than five servings per week depicted more elevated fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, BMI, alcohol consumption, smoking, total calorie intake, education, and hypertension prevalence than other groups.

Over almost six years of follow-up, 14.9% of participants developed depressive symptoms, predominantly from high SSCB intake groups. Statistical analyses adjusted from covariates revealed a repeating trend of proportionally increasing risk of DM with increasing SSCB consumption.

These results were mirrored across sex, BMI, and glycemic status, implying that SSCBs play an independent role in triggering depression, and are not just cofactors in the development of depression along with IR and obesity as suggested by prior studies.

The authors noted that, considering the young age of the study participants (39.5 ± 6.8 years), it is postulated that the adverse effect of SSCB consumption on mental health can begin at an early age. Thus, the results may be evidence to recommend abstaining from SSCB at a young age, they conclude.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/study-links-consumption-of-sugar-sweetened-carbonated-beverages-to-risk-of-depression-ed4b009c

***********************************************

'Gender-bending' chemical found in food and plastic bottles now linked ADHD and autism

The logic here is obscure. Are they saying that BPA causes autism? If so they are going beyond the evidence. It could equally be that autism causes difficulty with BPA. And wherever the cause may lie, no evidence of harm from it is offered

A toxin found in food, drinks and other everyday items lingers longer in the bodies of kids with autism and ADHD, a study suggests.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical compound that has been dubbed a 'gender-bending' chemical because of its ties to hormonal and sexual problems.

Now, researchers from Rowan University and Rutgers University in New Jersey have found that kids with autism and ADHD cannot expel BPA from their bodies as quickly as neurotypical kids. BPA has been linked to both conditions previously, though this is the first to find that kids with ADHD and autism have a harder time eliminating the chemical.

The researchers also believe increased BPA exposure may increase the risk of developing these conditions but admit it is not clear how that works.

But the new link is bound to reignite calls to clamp down on the amount of BPA allowed in products in America, which has some of the most lax rules in the Western world.

Earlier this year, European officials drastically reduced the maximum amount of BPA by 20,000 times after finding that millions of people are likely consuming too much of the dangerous chemical. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows much higher levels.

The US also has some of the highest autism and ADHD rates in the world, with rates of autism in particular increasing by 52 percent since 2017.

The study, published last month in the journal PLOS One, measured detoxification efficiency- how quickly the body eliminates chemicals like BPA- in 66 children with autism, 46 with ADHD, and 37 neurotypical children. The participants were three to 16 years old.

In order to determine how much BPA they purged, researchers collected urine samples from each child between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., which were then frozen. The team also measured the children's dietary and vitamin intake.

They found that children with autism are 10 percent less able to eliminate BPA from their bodies, while kids with ADHD are 17 percent less able to purge the chemical.

Dr T Peter Stein, professor at the Roman-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine and lead study author, said this compromised ability to clear BPA and other pollutants from the body is 'the first hard biochemical evidence of what the linkage is between BPA and the development of autism or ADHD.'

'We were surprised to find that ADHD shows the same defect in BPA detoxification.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12614847/Gender-bending-chemical-BPA-linked-ADHD-autism.html

**********************************************

Will exercise help you live longer?

The article below claims to have found that it will but the hazard ratios they report are so low that if there is an effect it is so tiny as not to be worth the bother. I have reached 80 without ever doing any significant exercise so the findings are no surprise to me. Apologies to the gym bunnies

Prospective Associations of Different Combinations of Aerobic and Muscle-Strengthening Activity With All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality

Rubén López-Bueno et al

Question What is the optimal combination of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and muscle-strengthening activity (MSA) to reduce the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality?

Findings In this cohort study of 500 705 participants, balanced amounts of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined were associated with a lower risk of mortality. These risk reductions may be greater with aerobic physical activity at higher vigorous and moderate intensities than current recommendations for all-cause and cancer mortality, respectively.

Meaning Balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk.

Abstract
Importance Studies examining the associations of different combinations of intensity-specific aerobic and muscle strengthening activity (MSA) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality are scarce; the few available estimates are disparate.

Objective To examine the prospective associations of different combinations of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and MSA with all-cause, cardiovascular (CVD), and cancer mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide prospective cohort study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500 705 eligible US adults were included in the study and followed up during a median of 10.0 years (5.6 million person-years) from 1997 to 2018. Data were analyzed from September 1 to September 30, 2022.

Exposures Self-reported cumulative bouts (75 weekly minutes) of MPA and VPA with recommended MSA guidelines (yes or no) to obtain 48 mutually exclusive exposure categories.

Main Outcomes and Measures All-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality. Participants were linked to the National Death Index through December 31, 2019.

Results Overall, 500 705 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.4 [17.3] years; 210 803 [58%] female; 277 504 [77%] White) were included in the study. Compared with the reference group (doing no MPA or VPA and less than recommended MSA), the category associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was more than 0 to 75 minutes of MPA combined with more than 150 minutes of VPA and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.59). The optimal combinations for CVD and cancer mortality risk reduction were more than 150 to 225 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.57), and more than 300 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), respectively. Adjusted mortality rates represented an approximately 50% lower mortality rate for all-cause and cancer mortality and an approximately 3-fold lower mortality rate for CVD mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study demonstrated that balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk. Higher-than-recommended levels of MPA and VPA may further lower the risk of cancer and all-cause mortality, respectively.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807854

***************************************************

Diet Coke fans warned as more evidence shows it could increase the risk of ‘silent killer’

This "new study" is garbage. No attempt at allowing for demographic confounds was made. It's probably just another proof that poor people have worse health. I append the original journal article below

The new study, published in the Diabetes Journal, found people who consumed artificial sweeteners were more at risk to type 2 diabetes compared with those who didn't.

“The findings strengthen evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives,” the researchers wrote.

“[It also] provides important insights in the context of ongoing worldwide re-evaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities.”

The French scientists analysed the diets and health of 105,588 people for nine years.

By the end of the study, 972 participants had developed type 2 diabetes.

The experts found those who consumed between 16 and 18mg of artificial sweeteners per day had a 69 per cent higher chance of developing the condition than those who ate less.

While those who ate and drank aspartame-containing products specifically had a 63 per cent higher chance of developing the disease.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet-coke-fans-warned-as-more-evidence-shows-it-could-increase-the-risk-of-silent-killer/news-story/cb4abd65327fbe78111dc81bed243bbb

Artificial Sweeteners and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the Prospective NutriNet-Santé Cohort

Charlotte Debras et al.

OBJECTIVE
To study the relationships between artificial sweeteners, accounting for all dietary sources(total and by type of artificial sweetener) and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in a large-scale prospective cohort.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The analyses included 105,588 participants from the web-based NutriNet-Santé study (France, 2009–2022; mean age 42.5 ± 14.6 years, 79.2% women). Repeated 24-h dietary records, including brands and commercial names of industrial products, merged with qualitative and quantitative food additive composition data, enabled artificial sweetener intakes to be accurately assessed from all dietary sources. Associations between artificial sweeteners (total, aspartame, acesulfame potassium [K], and sucralose) and T2D were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for potential confounders, including weight variation during follow-up.

RESULTS
During a median follow-up of 9.1 years (946,650 person-years, 972 incident T2D), compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the sex-specific medians of 16.4 mg/day in men and 18.5 mg/day in women) had higher risks of developing T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.45–1.97; P-trend <0.001). Positive associations were also observed for individual artificial sweeteners: aspartame (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.38–1.93], P-trend <0.001), acesulfame-K (HR 1.70 [1.42–2.04], P-trend <0.001), and sucralose (HR 1.34 [1.07–1.69], P-trend = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS
Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases. These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives. This study provides important insights in the context of on-going reevaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities worldwide.

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0206/153434/Artificial-Sweeteners-and-Risk-of-Type-2-Diabetes

***************************************************

A Chinese herbal preparation prevents death from Sepsis

Where I grew up in tropical Australia, if you were sick, you went to the doctor but if you were really sick you went to the Chinese herbalist. I have myself benefited from that in my youth. I had persistent test-confirmed glandular fever (mononucleosis) but a Chinese herbal preparation sent it into rapid remission. So I am probably less surprised by the findings below than most. I note that the study was a methodologically strong one, not another useless observational one

Question Is Xuebijing injection (XBJ) effective in reducing mortality in patients with sepsis?

Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 1817 patients with sepsis, the 28-day mortality rate was 18.8% in the XBJ group vs 26.1% in the placebo group, a significant difference.

Meaning Among patients with sepsis, treatment with XBJ, compared with the placebo group, resulted in lower 28-day mortality.

Abstract
Importance Previous research has suggested that Xuebijing injection (XBJ), an herbal-based intravenous preparation, may reduce mortality among patients with sepsis.

Objective To determine the effect of XBJ vs placebo on 28-day mortality among patients with sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Efficacy of Xuebijing Injection in Patients With Sepsis (EXIT-SEP) trial was a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in intensive care units at 45 sites and included 1817 randomized patients with sepsis (sepsis 3.0) present for less than 48 hours. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 to 13 were enrolled. The study was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019. The final date of follow-up was July 26, 2019. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2022.

Interventions The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous infusion of XBJ (100 mL, n = 911) or volume-matched saline placebo (n = 906) every 12 hours for 5 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

Results Among the 1817 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [13.5] years; 1199 [66.0%] men), 1760 (96.9%) completed the trial. In these patients, the 28-day mortality rate was significantly different between the placebo group and the XBJ group (230 of 882 patients [26.1%] vs 165 of 878 patients [18.8%], respectively; P < .001). The absolute risk difference was 7.3 (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) percentage points. The incidence of adverse events was 222 of 878 patients (25.3%) in the placebo group and 200 of 872 patients (22.9%) in the XBJ group.

Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial among patients with sepsis, the administration of XBJ reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2804120

*******************************************

Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO

This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly

I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.

Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.

But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"

Here's what you need to know.

The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.

The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.

Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.

Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.

The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.

Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.

The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)

For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.

Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)

Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.

https://www.livescience.com/health/food-diet/aspartame-to-be-declared-possible-carcinogen-by-who-dont-panic

****************************************************

Mediterranean diet rich in nuts, oils and leafy veg slashes risk of an early death in women by a QUARTER, study suggests

This study is greatly over-hyped. For a start it is about WOMEN ONLY. Applicability of the findings to men is unknown.

Secondly, only extreme groups were studied. I cannot see whether they used quartiles or quintiles, but, either way, they threw out at least half of their data BEFORE analysing it. What the relationships in the whole data body were is unknown -- almost certainly no significant correlations

Even after that surgery on the data, the hazard ratios were still very low -- less than 1.0 -- meaning that the relationships were not strong enough to support policy recommendations. In a word,the conclusions below are rubbish

The original journal article is here

Following the Mediterranean diet can slash a woman's chance of an early death by nearly a quarter, a study suggests.

In the study of more than 700,000 women, the famed diet decreases a woman's chances of dying from any cause by 23 percent. Australian researchers also highlighted similar drops in deaths from heart disease and stroke.

Rich in whole grains, vegetables, fruit, legumes, nuts, fish and olive oil — the diet has been lauded in recent years for its brain-boosting and heart-helping effects.

A study just last week found it could even drop a person's risk of suffering dementia.

The Mediterranean diet has been described as a 'gold standard' by experts. Some have even declared it as a form of preventative medicine.

It appeared on the radar of American doctors in the 1950s, when reports of low rates of chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's and hear disease began to arise.

Further exploration found that the typical diets of people in the region were playing a role in their great health.

In the time since, a growing body of research has continued to confirm the benefits of the diet rich in vegetables and healthy fats.

Whether one gender may benefit from the diet more than the other has not been explored much, though.

For their research, published in the journal Heart, a team from the University of Sydney combined data from 16 studies published between 2003 and 2021.

The studies, mainly from the US and Europe, included data from hundreds of thousands of women aged 18 and above.

Their cardiovascular health was monitored for an average of 12.5 years.

Sticking closely to a Mediterranean diet lowered the risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent, researchers found.

It also dropped the likelihood of death from any cause by 23 percent. The risk of coronary heart disease was 25 percent lower and they were less likely to suffer from stroke.

However, the reason why this diet is particularly beneficial for women is unknown.

The study author, Dr Sarah Zaman, of of the study's authors, said: 'Mechanisms explaining the sex-specific effect of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease and death remain unclear.

'Female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, including premature menopause, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes, or female predominant risk factors, such as systemic lupus, can all independently increase cardiovascular disease risk.

'It is possible that preventative measures, such as a Mediterranean diet, that targets inflammation and cardiovascular disease risk factors, impose differing effects in women compared with men.'

Cardiovascular disease accounts for more than a third of all deaths in women around the world.

However, many clinical trials and research include relatively few women and do not often report results by sex.

The current guidelines on how to best lower cardiovascular disease also do not differentiate by gender.

This latest study calls for more sex-specific research to help guide clinical practice in heart health.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11860147/Mediterranean-diet-rich-nuts-oils-leafy-veg-slashes-risk-early-death-women.html

***************************************************