Harvard researchers pinpoint TWO ultra-processed foods that surge heart attack risk - as well as 8 that surprisingly don't

I have had a look at the underlying academic journal article behind this report and am most amused. It is very much what I expected from previous studies of diet: Basically an attempt to find things that are not there

It's a general rule in academic reports that the fancier the statistics, the weaker are the effects being analysed. And this report has statistics of blinding complexity. And that foretells what this study has to report. They relied on extreme quintiles to detect what was going on in their data. That throws away the majority of your data before you analyse it. Not very reassuring! It suggests that there was nothing to report in the data as a whole.

And when they did squeeze something out of such tortured data, all they found were hazard ratios close to 1.0, indicating negligible effects

Given their tricks with the analysis, we have to conclude that there was nothing really going on in the data. Eating UPFs had NO effect on health

And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I note that among the plethora of confounders that they allowed for, one they left out was the big one: income. But they did find that big eaters of UPFs were fatter and smoked more, so that could suggest that income was in fact an important confounder that they missed.

There are NO negative policy implications of this study. Eat what you like. You will be no worse off doing so.

I am 81 and have always eaten what I liked regardless of the vagaries of official diet recommendations so take heart if you too just eat what you like

The journal article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(24)00186-8/fulltext

Sugary drinks and processed meats are the only two ultra processed foods associated with a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes, Harvard researchers have discovered.

The scientists used data collected from nurses and health professionals to test the risk of cardiovascular disease, heart disease and strokes from eating a range of different ultra-processed foods.

But although they have long been vilified not all ultra-processed food (UPF) is made equal.

In fact, yoghurt, wholegrain bread and savoury snacks were shown to slightly reduce the risk of the diseases.

UPFs make up 57 per cent of the average UK diet — and the category includes fizzy drinks, processed meats like ham and bacon, as well as breakfast cereal.

One sign of a UPF food is that it contains ingredients you wouldn't find in your kitchen cupboard, such as unrecognisable colourings, sweeteners and preservatives.

Another clue, some experts say, is the unusually high amount of fat, salt and sugar in each item.

But supermarket staples such as breakfast cereals and pre-packaged bread can be mass-produced and are also considered to be ultra-processed.

That's because they often contain extra ingredients such as emulsifiers, artificial flavours and sweeteners, instead of just flour, salt, yeast and water.

However, the study published in the Lancet this week suggests we should 'deconstruct' the ultra-processed food classification as many of the UPFs have a 'diverse nutritional composition' and therefore have cardiovascular benefits.

UPF intake was assessed through food frequency questionnaires in three studies.

Researchers looked at data from The NHS Nurses' Health Study of 75,735 female nurses aged 30 to 55 years, a second nurses health study of 90,813 women aged 25 to 42 years and a follow-up study of 40,409 men aged 40 to 75 years.

Those who had prior cardiovascular disease, cancer or who had a high BMI were excluded from the study.

A selection of UPFs were divided into ten groups: bread and cereals; sauces, spreads, and condiments; packaged sweet snacks and desserts; packaged savoury snacks; sugar-sweetened beverages; processed red meat, poultry, and fish; ready-to-eat/heat dishes; yoghurt/dairy-based desserts; hard liquors; artificially-sweetened beverages.

The scientists found there was an associated risk of consuming a diet heavy in sugary and artificially sweetened drinks and cardiovascular disease risk.

This risk was also found in diets high in processed meats, such as sausages, bacon and hotdogs.

However, there were inverse associations observed for bread, breakfast cereal, yoghurt, dairy desserts and savoury snacks.

Processed meats and soft drinks should be particularly discouraged due to their consistent adverse association with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, study authors said.

But they stress some of the UPFs they studied had potential 'cardioprotective benefits', due to the vitamins, minerals and fibre found in them.

This included wholegrain breads as well as yoghurt, especially fermented types.

Study authors noted the benefit remained despite the usually high saturated fat and added sugar content of the dairy products. They added that yoghurts that contain probiotic bacteria or fatty acids may contribute to lower cardiovascular risk.

Professor Gunter Kuhnle, a food scientist and nutritionist based at the University of Reading, posted a graph from the study on X explaining that the data showed most UPF food groups ‘actually protect and reduce disease risk’.

‘The big problem is so many foods are classed as UPF,’ he told MailOnline.

‘Most studies show people who consume a lot of soft drinks, especially sugar and sweetened drinks, are more likely to be obese and suffer diabetes, as well as other diseases.

‘The data show a huge impact of sugar sweetened beverages and processed meat, while everything else is very neutral.'

For example, bread sold in supermarkets is often classed as a UPF but Professor Kuhnle explains it can still be healthy.

He said: ‘Wholegrain bread is probably a healthy form of bread, whether it is manufactured in a big factory or made at home, the difference between the two will be tiny.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13808517/Harvard-ultra-processed-foods-surge-heart-attack.html

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

World’s biggest study finds array of harms from common plastics

This is yet another foray in the war against BPA etc. It appears to be based on a "report" that accepts as proven the harms alleged, depite the repeated failures of the central correlations to reach significant levels in research. See the originating article below:

https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4056

The world’s first major scientific review into the effects of plastics and microplastics chemicals on human health has found that the chemicals in many common products are associated with a wide range of health risks, including poor birth outcomes and miscarriage, infertility, metabolic disease and endocrine dysfunction.

Australian researchers who carried out the study say it “categorically proves” that none of the chemicals examined, including BPA, flame retardants, PFAS and an array of other common chemicals found in plastics that infiltrate people’s bodies in small quantities every day, can be considered safe.

“This is a red flag for the world,” said Sarah Dunlop, head of plastics and human health at the Minderoo Foundation. “We must minimise our exposure to these plastic chemicals, as well as the many that haven’t yet been assessed for human health outcomes but are known to be toxic.”

The peer-reviewed study published in the Annals of Global Health by Australian doctors and academics associated with the Perth-based Minderoo Foundation was an umbrella review – considered the highest level of scientific synthesis – of almost 800 published studies and 52 systematic reviews into the effects of plastics chemicals.

“To our knowledge, this study is first to investigate the complete, high-level, evidence for human health effects of plastics and plastic-associated chemicals across a broad range of plastic chemical groups,” the authors of the study said.

It follows a Florey Institute study earlier this month that for the first time established a biological ­pathway between the plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and autism spectrum disorder.

The umbrella review investigated five classes of chemicals including bisphenols and phthalates, PBDE, PCBs and PFAS, known as a ‘forever chemical’ used at defence bases that has been found in several crucial water supply plants. Also included were plasticisers and flame retardants – two classes of functional additive with the highest concentration ranges in plastic.

The study found that none of the investigated classes of chemicals are safe with statistically significant harmful impacts found for fertility in men and women, birth weight in babies, children’s neurodevelopment, and the development of Type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and asthma.

Bisphenol A (BPA) – commonly found in food packaging, water bottles and cosmetics – was found to be associated with genital changes in infants, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance in children and adults, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity and hypertension in children and adults and cardiovascular disease.

Phthalates plasticisers – found in a wide array of plastic products including nail polish, children’s toys, cosmetics and medical products – were associated with spontaneous pregnancy loss, genital changes in boys, and insulin resistance in children and adults.

There were additional associations between certain phthalates and decreased birth weight, type 2 diabetes in adults, precocious puberty in girls, reduced sperm quality, endometriosis, adverse cognitive development and intelligence quotient (IQ) loss, adverse fine motor and psychomotor development and elevated blood pressure in children and asthma in children and adults.

Other types of chemicals were similarly associated with pregnancy loss, decreased birth weight, endometriosis, bronchitis in infants, obesity, and the cancers Hodgkin’s lymphoma and breast cancer.

It is next to impossible for an individual to limit completely their exposure to harmful plastics chemicals, although experts advise reducing consumption of water in plastic bottles, reducing consumption of packaged food, and not heating plastic containers in the microwave.

Regulation of production and plastics chemicals in products is the only way to protect human health. But there is very little regulation of plastic chemicals in Australia or most other countries.

A Global Plastics Treaty is currently being negotiated that advocates of reform hope will set the stage for recognition of the substances’ harmful health effects and increase pressure on governments to regulate.

Professor Dunlop said there was now no doubt that plastics chemicals were harmful to human health.

“Plastic is not the safe, inert material we thought it was,” she said. “It’s made of 16,000 chemicals or so. We are exposed. We’re exposed across our lifespan, and there are health impacts across our lifespan.

“We’ve got to pull together and act fast, because plastic production is soaring. We need to really get the cause of the problem and reduce or cap plastic production.

“The second thing is to take a really good, hard look at the chemicals, because at the moment, unlike pharmaceuticals, which are highly regulated, industrial chemicals are being produced at a rate that is from this just outstripping our ability to identify what’s being produced and outstripping our ability to find out whether or not it’s harmful.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/health/worlds-biggest-study-finds-array-of-harms-from-common-plastics/news-story/09d9382f70c7db3b4edc199946bc0bb9

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

Eating just two slices of ham per day could raise diabetes risk

Rubbish! Another meta-analysis! You can prove anything you want by a meta-analysis. What you include and exclude is the key. And the "finding" here is totally predictable -- being a confirmation of a popular belief

Journal article here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00179-7/fulltext

Note that the finding was observed "in North America and in the European and Western Pacific regions" only. And note that the only confounders allowed for appear to have been age, sex, and BMI


Eating a ham sandwich a day could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by 15 per cent, a study has found.

The team, from the University of Cambridge, found that processed meat and unprocessed red meat significantly increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the next decade.

The researchers found that just 50 grams of processed meat per day - equivalent to two slices of ham - increased the risk by 15 per cent. Consuming red meat every day had a similar effect: those who had just 100 grams, the equivalent of a small steak, had a 10 per cent higher risk of diabetes in the next ten years.

The team also tested whether the consumption of poultry had the same effect, but found that this was minimal when controlling for factors such as age, gender and health-related behaviours, including smoking and drinking alcohol.

Professor Nita Forouhi of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, a senior author on the paper, said: “Our research provides the most comprehensive evidence to date of an association between eating processed meat and unprocessed red meat and a higher future risk of type 2 diabetes.

“It supports recommendations to limit the consumption of processed meat and unprocessed red meat to reduce type 2 diabetes cases.”

The research, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, used data from 31 different previous studies. Figures came from the InterConnect Project, which meant that researchers could analyse the data of the individual and not the results of the previous research as a whole. Data came from about two million participants across 20 different countries.

Professor Naveed Sattar, from the University of Glasgow, said: “The data suggest cutting red and processed meats from diets may not only protect people from heart disease and stroke but also from type 2 diabetes, a disease on the rise worldwide.

“Furthermore, a considerable part of the latter link may be weight gain but other mechanisms may be possible. Food systems should be adapted accordingly for the benefit of planetary and public health.”

Previous research, published last year, has also found that eating red meat only twice a week significantly increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

The research, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that those who ate at least two portions of meat each day - such as bacon for breakfast then a ham sandwich for lunch - were 62 per cent more likely to get diabetes than those who limited themselves to two servings of red meat a week.

Diabetes occurs when a person’s blood sugar becomes chronically high as the body stops producing or responding to insulin. Most cases are type 2 which can be linked to poor diet and obesity. Cases have doubled over the past two decades and last year 4.3 million people in Britain were living with a formal diagnosis, while about one million adults are living with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/eating-just-two-slices-of-ham-per-day-could-raise-diabetes-risk/news-story/c801826c52cb0913fa88f521119ac0de

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

BPA plastic chemicals in the womb have been found to be linked with higher levels of autism

Another vastly over-hyped headline in pursuit of the jihad against BPA. The article itself (below) is moderately sane, with large reservations expressed. e.g.:

“I do want to stress it’s not the cause of autism,”

"if the BPA-autism link was causal in nature"

"may be consistent with autism spectrum disorder,”

And in the journal article we read that effects were observed

"only in males with low aromatase genetic pathway activity scores"

So there is NO evidence that BPA is generally harmful in humans

The journal article is:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48897-8

Boys with lower levels of a key brain enzyme who are born to mothers with higher levels of plastic chemicals in their wombs are six times more likely to develop autism by the time they are a teenager, a world-first Australian study has found.

A decade-long study by the Florey Institute has for the first time established a biological ­pathway between the plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in food and drink containers, cosmetics and ­packaging, and autism spectrum disorder.

“BPA can disrupt hormone-controlled male fetal brain development in several ways, including silencing this key enzyme, aromatase, that controls neurohormones and is especially important in fetal male brain development,” study co-author Anne-Louise Ponsonby said. “This appears to be part of the autism puzzle.”

BPA is ?a chemical that is added to plastics to make them more malleable and durable. It is virtually impossible to avoid in daily life.

Several previous studies have posited a link between it and autism, but the Florey study is the first long-term research incorporate human studies to examine the interplay between prenatal BPA, aromatase function and the development of autism in a large cohort of mothers and babies.

Florey researchers have found evidence of higher levels of the plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in pregnant mothers who gave birth to sons with autism. Research published in Nature Communications, led by Florey scientists Dr Wah Chin Boon and…
The peer-reviewed Florey research, published in Nature Communcations, found that the link between BPA in mothers and ­autism in children was particularly evident in the top quarter of boys in the cohort with an ­inherent vulnerability to the endocrine-disrupting properties of BPA plastics – those with lower levels of the enzyme aromatase.

The researchers studied 1770 children over 10 years from two cohorts of mothers and children in the Barwon Infant Study in Australia and the Columbia Centre for Children’s Health and Environment in the US, finding that boys in this group who were born to mothers with higher urinary BPA levels in late pregnancy were 3½ times more likely to have autism symptoms by the age of two, and six times more likely to have a verified ­autism diagnosis by age 11.

“I do want to stress it’s not the cause of autism,” Professor Ponsonby said. “Autism is a multi-factorial disease, and it’s going to have a range of genetic and other drivers. So this is a contributing factor in some cases.”

In the two large birth cohorts studied, it was established that higher BPA levels in pregnant mothers were associated with epigenetic changes, or gene switching which suppressed the aromatase enzyme. As well as ­establishing the link in humans, Florey scientist and co-author Wah Chin Boon was also able to establish for the first time the biochemical pathway in which BPA suppressed aromatase in laboratory mice studies.

“We found that BPA suppresses the aromatase enzyme and is associated with anatomical, neurological and behavioural changes in the male mice that may be consistent with autism spectrum disorder,” Dr Boon said.

“This is the first time a biological pathway has been identified that might help explain the ­connection between autism and BPA.”

Autism affects between 1 and 2 per cent of all children in Western countries and the prevalence is on the rise.

Professor Ponsonby said that the findings indicated that among boys in the general population with a greater inherent vulnerability to the effects of endocrine disruptors, about 10 per cent of autism diagnoses may potentially be able to be prevented by BPA avoidance if the BPA -autism link was causal in nature.

Aromatase has been described as “a master controller of steroid hormone-directed brain development” and is responsible in the brain for converting the hormone testosterone to neuroeostrogen.

“Aromatase is more important in male brain development,” ­Professor Ponsonby said. “These finding may explain some of the male excess observed in ­autism.”

In lab studies, the Florey has also for the first time identified a possible “antitode” to this process – a type of fatty acid that when ­injected in mice was found to ­reverse the disruption of aromatase.

The scientists posited that the fatty substance, which is a major lipid component of the royal jelly of honeybees, may be able to correct a deficiency in aromatase-dependent estrogen signalling in the brain. They say this potential antidote warrants further study.

BPA is a chemical used in the lining of some food and beverage packaging to protect food from contamination and extend shelf life. Small amounts of BPA can migrate into food and beverages from containers. Tiny amounts of the chemical can enter the skin via clothes and cosmetics, and it can also be inhaled in things like paint fumes.

In 2010, the Australian government announced a voluntary phase-out of BPA use in polycarbonate baby bottles.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand recent said that when food safety authorities around the world reviewed BPA “they have generally concluded there are no safety concerns at the levels people are exposed to”.

However, last year the European Food Safety Authority published a re-evaluation of the risks to public health from the presence of BPA in food.

It concluded the tolerable daily intake for BPA should be substantially reduced from the temporary value it had previously established in 2015.

Australia’s regulator says it has “considered EFSA’s re-evaluation of BPA and has reservations about the approach taken”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/bpa-plastic-chemicals-in-the-womb-have-been-found-to-be-linked-with-higher-levels-of-autism/news-story/5f9ac75fa810cdbfcd447e51c017e224

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

Drinking from plastic bottles can raise blood pressure due to microplastics entering the bloodstream, study suggests

"Suggests" is the word. The study was based on the responses of only EIGHT people and there was NO measurement of microplastic intake at any point. So no evidence that microplastics caused the differences observed. And the results were highly variable with men mostly not affected. What a heap of steaming manure! The journal article is

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8929/3/3/26

Drinking from plastic bottles can raise blood pressure as a result of microplastics entering the bloodstream, a study suggests.

Microplastics have also been found in fluids in glass bottles, according to other research, and experts say the associated higher blood pressure can lead to an increased risk of heart disease.

The latest study found blood pressure went down after participants stopped all fluid intake, including water, from plastic and glass bottles, and drank only tap water for two weeks.

Researchers in the department of medicine at Danube Private University in Austra said: 'We concluded, after extensive research, that beverages packaged in plastic bottles should be avoided.

'Remarkable trends were observed. The results of the study suggest, for the first time, that a reduction in plastic use could potentially lower blood pressure, probably due to the reduced vol-ume of plastic particles in the bloodstream.

'The changes we observed in blood pressure suggest that reducing the intake of plastic particles could lower cardiovascular risk.'

Research shows that microplastics – microscopic fragments that are the result of plastic degradation triggered by UV radiation or the result of a bottle being knocked about – are ubiquitous.

Microplastics have been found in saliva, heart tissue, the liver, kidneys and placenta. Several studies have found high concentrations in water in plastic bottles.

In the new study, reported in the journal Microplastics, the researchers had eight men and women get their daily fluid intake from tap water and told them to abstain from drinks stored in plastic or glass bottles.

Several blood pressure measurements were taken at the start and during the study. The results showed a statistically significant decline in diastolic blood pressure – the pressure in the arteries when the heart rests between beats – after two weeks.

The researchers said: 'Based on the findings, indicating a reduction in blood pressure with decreased plastic consumption, we hypothesize that plastic particles present in the bloodstream might contribute to elevated blood pressure.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13706389/Drinking-plastic-bottles-raise-blood-pressure-microplastics-entering-bloodstream-study-suggests.html

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

Fizzy drinks are the new tobacco for young people... that's why I believe that Coca-Cola should be banned from sponsoring the Olympics

The evidence for this claim is very poor. The Results section for the academic study they cite is below:

Results During an average of 18.5 years of follow-up, 3447 (22.3%) participants with incident CVD and 7638 (49.3%) deaths were documented. After multivariable adjustment, when comparing the categories of lowest intake of beverages with the highest intake, the pooled hazard ratios for all cause mortality were 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.37) for sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs), 0.96 (0.86 to 1.07) for artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs), 0.98 (0.90 to 1.06) for fruit juice, 0.74 (0.63 to 0.86) for coffee, 0.79 (0.71 to 0.89) for tea, 0.77 (0.70 to 0.85) for plain water, 0.88 (0.80 to 0.96) for low fat milk, and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.44) for full fat milk. Similar associations were observed between the individual beverages and CVD incidence and mortality. In particular, SSB intake was associated with a higher risk of incident CVD (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.51) and CVD mortality (1.29, 1.02 to 1.63), whereas significant inverse associations were observed between intake of coffee and low fat milk and CVD incidence. Additionally, compared with those who did not change their consumption of coffee in the period after a diabetes diagnosis, a lower all cause mortality was observed in those who increased their consumption of coffee. A similar pattern of association with all cause mortality was also observed for tea, and low fat milk. Replacing SSBs with ABSs was significantly associated with lower all cause mortality and CVD mortality, and replacing SSBs, ASBs, fruit juice, or full fat milk with coffee, tea, or plain water was consistently associated with lower all cause mortality.

For start, it was a study of DIABETICS so may not generalize beyond that. And it can be seen that all the HRs were very low and were achieved only by discarding the middle ranges of their data. And there appears to have been no control for the big confounder in such studies: income. Nothing firm can be conluded from this study but the safest conclusion seems to be that Coke causes you no harm

Link for thestudy:

https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-073406

Because Coke is so popular, the superior people WANT it to be bad for you, but the evidence is not very co-operative


If you were watching the Paris Olympics and saw a winning athlete cross the finish line, light a cigarette and boast about the health-boosting benefits of their favourite tobacco brand, you'd be as surprised as you were disgusted.

Yet it's startlingly true that tobacco companies were major Olympic sponsors right up until 1988, when cigarette brands were finally banned from advertising at the Games.

For the previous 60 years, tobacco-funded Olympic medal-winners had lined up to extol the virtues of smoking and push the now bizarre claim that it enabled athletes to lead healthy lives — among them, the iconic Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals for sprinting, relay and long jump at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, but who died from lung cancer aged 66 in 1980, after decades of heavy smoking.

The biggest earner of tobacco funding, though, was the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which took millions of pounds every four years from cigarette-brand sponsorship, from 1920 until it was banned.

But you may be shocked to learn that today the IOC still takes similarly vast sums from another major industry — one that, I believe, when it comes to damaging the health of young people may now have overtaken cigarettes.

That industry is soft drinks — and that money comes from the global beverage giant Coca-Cola, which has sponsored the Olympics Games since 1928.

Sources estimate that Coca-Cola nowadays pays the Olympics around £70 million a year in sponsorship. In exchange, Coca-Cola can use the Olympic Games' five rings on all its products.

As an investigation in the French newspaper Le Monde said in May, this huge money deal enables Coca-Cola to 'promote the world's most talked-about sporting event, all over the world, while generating priceless advertising opportunities for itself'.

Indeed, Le Monde said of Coca-Cola's tie-up with the Olympics: 'The partnership has become so close that it's hard to say who runs the Games.'

Across the Olympics, wherever you look, Coca-Cola branding is ubiquitous. Even before the Games began, the drinks giant had sponsored the Olympic torch relay, so that a Coca-Cola van constantly flanked the torch's two-month tour.

It is time that all this Coca-Cola sponsorship stopped. For good. Because, beyond tobacco, as a doctor who advocates for public health, I fear the health-destroying power of fizzy drinks more than anything else. Soft drinks damage people's bodies, and the bodies of children in particular.

And what's more frightening is that these products are so friendly-looking, so familiar and so pervasive that we've become accustomed to them and have forgotten the damage they wreak.

The harms of soft drinks are extremely well documented over hundreds of scientific papers.

As a 2022 report by the University of North Carolina's Global Food Research Programme warned, they are 'a key driver of modern surges in nutrition-related diseases worldwide, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease — the leading causes of disability and death in the world'.

Furthermore, fizzy drinks have no real nutritional benefit. In fact, they contribute to under-nutrition when consumed in place of foods containing essential nutrients. A major review by Yale University of 88 studies showed that consumption of soft drinks meant lower intakes of milk, calcium and other nutrients.

In a large multinational European study published in the BMJ last year, higher levels of consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks was associated with increased risk of death from all causes. And in the shorter term, there's tooth decay — a national catastrophe in the UK that causes unbelievable suffering.

The link with soda was demonstrated last year when researchers at the universities of Cambridge and Glasgow reported how the sugar tax on soft drinks, introduced in 2018, has helped prevent more than 5,600 hospital admissions for children having to have their teeth pulled out under general anaesthetic.

Part of the problem is a chronic shortage of dentists, but this study underlined how closely sugary drinks also play a key role.

Nor is it just sodas with sugar: low or no-sugar 'diet' versions often contain the enamel-rotting likes of phosphoric, citric and tartaric acids. There is concerning evidence that these acids don't just rot teeth: the phosphoric acid may also dissolve your bones from the inside.

Beyond the sugar tax, these harmful products remain basically unregulated. My seven-year-old can use the money from the Tooth Fairy to go into any corner shop and buy a fizzy drink without it carrying any health warning either for her or her parents.

The idea that the Olympics would partner with brands that market such products is appalling. The Games are effectively the strongest health brand in the world — and sponsorship by the likes of Coca-Cola cements in the minds of children and adults that soft drinks are deeply associated with healthiness, athleticism and building strong bodies.

Indeed, Australian researchers reported in the journal Public Health Nutrition in 2011 that parents perceive food products as healthier when endorsed by a professional athlete, making them more likely to buy them for their children.

(It's not just Coca-Cola: while it's the most active soft drink sponsor in global sports worldwide, other drinks companies have contracts with sporting events, such as PepsiCo's sponsorship of the National Football League in the U.S.)

Big-brand soda sponsorship of sport also effectively undermines the wealth of scientific evidence of the dangers of soft drinks. Consumers look at the Olympic branding and ask themselves: 'Well, how bad can these products be if they're linked with the most elite physical competition in the world?'

The reach of this kind of marketing is titanic. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics had a broadcast audience of more than three billion worldwide, with online videos of the event being watched more than 28 billion times. Such marketing power demolishes anything a doctor can tell their patients.

These brands don't even position themselves as 'health-neutral'. Coca-Cola and the rest trade on the idea that their products can provide 'sports nutrition' — supplying energy for people to do sports and live super-active fun lives.

These companies even fund medical studies. A team from Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine mapped the universe of Coca-Cola's research funding, which involves almost 1,500 different researchers (probably not all direct grant recipients), corresponding to 461 publications funded by the brand. Many of these promoted the idea that exercise and activities could help offset the excess calories from products such as Coca-Cola.

But we know from the research evidence that this isn't what happens. We know that physical inactivity is not actually a significant part of the obesity epidemic: it's down to calorie over-consumption from soft drinks and other junk foods.

Yet, as it stands, Coca-Cola will continue to peddle this 'health' message for the next two Olympics at least, as they have locked the Games' organisers into a contract that lasts until 2032.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13685447/fizzy-drinks-tobacco-young-people-coca-cola-olympics-cigarette.html

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

What, Exactly, Is so Great About the Mediterranean Diet?

The journal article referred to below is "Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women with a Mediterranean diet: systematic review and meta-analysis"

At: https://heart.bmj.com/content/109/16/1208

Meta analyses are very susceptible to finding what you want to find and the hazard ratios reported were very low, indicating very marginal effects. And it appears that the authors did not even begin to look at confounders such as ethnicity and social class.

So this study is a very poor recommendation for a Mediterranean diet indeed. The diet is essentially a fad and nothing more

Healthful eating is important at any age to lower the risk of obesity and keep the heart and everything else inside the body functioning well. This becomes especially crucial later in life, because good nutrition helps reduce the risk of chronic conditions like hypertension, high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

Being smart about what you eat also can affect your mood no matter your age—ultra-processed foods that include hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup, for instance, can increase the risk of depression—and some studies even suggest that healthy eating patterns can help delay or prevent developing dementia as we get older.

One way to improve your health while also eating some really wonderful foods, says Natalie Bruner, a registered dietitian and nutritionist with St. Clair Health, is to follow the Mediterranean style of eating.

Often referred to as the Mediterranean diet, it’s not so much a “diet” in the traditional sense, which is often defined by a bunch of hard-and-fast rules such as calorie counting and macro-tracking what you put in your mouth each day. Eating Mediterranean style is more of a lifestyle.

Patterned around the foods eaten by people who live in countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea—think Italy, Greece, Spain and Northern Africa—it puts a daily emphasis on plant-based dishes and heart-healthy, unsaturated fats such as olive oil instead the refined or hydrogenated oils that are so common in fast food meals and snack foods.

Half a Tablespoon of Olive Oil Daily May Protect Brain Health
The diet also emphasizes whole, minimally processed foods such as beans, seeds and legumes, antioxidant-rich fresh fruits and vegetables, and moderate portions of lean protein like chicken and seafood, with only the occasional serving of red meat.

Fish that is high in omega-3 fatty acids, such as salmon, is especially key since it can help reduce inflammation and pain caused by arthritis, which is common in seniors, as well as improve cholesterol levels.

“It’s not a diet that’s restrictive,” says Bruner. “You’re eating everything that’s good for you, which is great.”

Dietitians and nutritionists generally don’t like to characterize food as “good” or “bad” because that can lead to restrictive behaviors, she says. Yet multiple studies have shown that those who follow the Mediterranean diet have better cognitive function and brain health in old age, she says.

Because of its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and its effectiveness at preventing obesity, there also are a lot of heart health benefits, along with the prevention and progression of diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with lifestyle and diet.

For instance, according to a 2023 study in the medical journal Heart, women who follow a Mediterranean diet more closely than others had a 24 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease. They also had a 23 percent lower risk of mortality.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bright/what-exactly-is-so-great-about-the-mediterranean-diet-5688853?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=leisure-medium-0

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

WFH could be WRECKING your health, study suggests... as experts find that 'active commuters' have a 47 per cent reduced risk of death

I thought that some of the claims below sounded a bit fishy so I looked up the underlying journal article. Its full citation is below:

Health benefits of pedestrian and cyclist commuting: evidence from the Scottish Longitudinal Study, BMJ Public Health (2024). DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-001295

But it appears to have been withdrawn. It is offline. It no longer exists anwhere on the net. So there must have been something REALLY fishy about it!

Working from home really is unhealthier, it seems, as a new study reveals 'active commuters' have up to a 47 per cent reduced risk of death.

People who cycle or walk to and from work have lower risks of mental and physical ill health compared to those who don't rely on these options, a large, long-term study suggests.

Active travel is considered to be one of the easiest ways to increase the amount of daily physical activity we do, and there is mounting evidence in favour of its health benefits.

Researchers from the Glasgow Centre for Population Health analysed data from 82,000 people in Scotland aged between 16 and 74.

Participants were asked questions including which mode of travel they used for the longest part, by distance, of their journey to work.

Nearly all people who walked to work had a commuting distance of less than 5km.

Four-fifths of cyclists also travelled less than 5km, while 14 per cent travelled 5-9.9km to work.

Meanwhile, 58 per cent of inactive commuters travelled further than 5km to get to work.

Over the 18-year study period, participants' health data was also collected.

The researchers found that compared with inactive commuters who drove or took public transport to work, those who walked or cycled had lower risks of death and mental and physical ill health.

Commuting by bike was linked with a 47 per cent lower risk of death and a 10 per cent lower risk of any hospital admission.

It was also associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of being prescribed a drug to treat cardiovascular disease, a 51 per cent lower risk of dying from cancer, and a 20 per cent lower risk of being prescribed drugs for mental health problems.

Meanwhile, walking to work was linked with an 11 per cent lower risk of hospital admission for any cause, a 10 per cent lower risk of being prescribed drugs to treat cardiovascular disease and a 7 per cent lower risk of being prescribed drugs for mental health issues.

The authors said active commuting has clear health benefits and can be an effective way to accommodate physical activity into everyday working life.

While the study did not directly compare the health of those working from home and active commuters, previous research has shown that working from home is linked with more sedentary behaviour and less physical activity.

Writing in the journal BMJ Public Health the researchers said: 'This study strengthens the evidence that active commuting has population-level health benefits and can contribute to reduced morbidity and mortality.

'That cyclist and pedestrian commuting is associated with lower risks of being prescribed medication for poor mental health is an important finding.

'This study has wider global relevance to efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to shift to more active and sustainable travel modes.'

While the study did not determine the ideal commuting distance, the researchers pointed out that national guidelines suggests adults should spend 30 minutes a day being moderately physically active.

Cycling and walking briskly would both count. Therefore, someone cycling at 14km/h would reach this with a 3.5km return journey to work.

Meanwhile, a pedestrian walking at 4.8km/h would achieve this guideline level after 2.4km.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13640327/WFH-health-commuters-death.html

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

Study finds women who regularly eat ultra-processed foods are more likely to develop lupus

The journal article:

Ultra-Processed Food Intake and Risk of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus among Women followed in the Nurses’ Health Study Cohorts

The link

https://acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Oakes/Emily+G .

This study was impressive for the range of controls used and for the fact that the HRs, while low, were a little higher than in most diet studies. But it was again a study of tertiles only, suggesting that there was no overall significance. Lupus is in any case a rare disease (213 cases out of 204,175 in this study). So the study is NO warrant to avoid UPFs

Women who regularly eat ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have a higher risk of developing a debilitating autoimmune disease, a study has suggested.

In a trial, those who had a diet rich in these foods – which are packed with artificial sweeteners and preservatives – were 56 per cent more likely to contract lupus, which leads to joint pain, skin rashes and fatigue.

And those who regularly consumed artificially sweetened beverages and sugary foods also had a 45 per cent greater risk of developing the condition.

The study, by researchers at Harvard University in the US, also found there was no connection between obesity and lupus – which suggests that the artificial ingredients in UPFs are to blame.

UPFs – such as ready meals, ice cream and some frozen food – have previously been linked to a number of life-threatening diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease.

Systematic lupus erythematosus is a long-term condition where the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue in the body.

Studies have shown that roughly one in every 1,000 people in the UK has lupus – and 90 per cent of sufferers are female.

While its causes are not fully understood, it has previously been linked to viral infections, certain medications, sunlight and the menopause.

But the research from Harvard, published in the medical journal Arthritis Care And Research, suggests there could be a correlation between the disease and eating foods that contain artificial colourings, sweeteners and preservatives.

However Professor Gunter Kuhnle, of the University of Reading, warned the research may not be conclusive.

‘Ultra-processed food may be one of the risk factors [for lupus] but there are likely to be other factors as well that may be more important,’ he explained.

‘People with a high-fat and high-sugar intake are more likely to have other conditions.

‘They are already less healthy, and that may be one of the reasons why this group of women are developing lupus.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13632237/Study-women-ultra-processed-foods-autoimmune-disease.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Air pollution can decrease odds of live birth after IVF by 38%, study finds

Oh Dear! Another "pollution" study that does not measure anything about people and pollution at all. The constancy of these empty reports has become boring. The journal abstract is here:

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/39/Supplement_1/deae108.182/7703768?searchresult=1

They have NO data on how much pollutant each person actually breathed in at the time concerned. They have data only on what the weather was like in one place at one time in Perth.

It's the usual failure of control. WHY was time a factor in implantation success? They say it was times of low pollution that generated the improvement. But was that in fact the influence at work?

That low pollution days were also days that were more congenial to exercise was not looked at but it is an easy inference that they were. So maybe what they have really found is that doing light exercise before implantation is beneficial, which is not at all improbable. It was the exercise that conferred benefit, not the low levels of pollution

And the odds ratios were in any case very low, suggesting a high probability of non-replicability

I'll leave it at that


Air pollution exposure can significantly decrease the chance of a live birth after IVF treatment, according to research that deepens concern about the health impacts of toxic air on fertility.

Pollutant exposure has previously been linked to increased miscarriage rates and preterm births, and microscopic soot particles have been shown to travel through the bloodstream into the ovaries and the placenta. The latest work suggests that the impact of pollution begins before conception by disrupting the development of eggs.

“We observed that the odds of having a baby after a frozen embryo transfer were more than a third lower for women who were exposed to the highest levels of particulate matter air pollution prior to egg collection, compared with those exposed to the lowest levels,” said Dr Sebastian Leathersich, a fertility specialist and gynaecologist from Perth who is due to present the findings on Monday at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual meeting in Amsterdam.

Air pollution is one of the leading threats to human health and is estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO) to have caused 6.7 million deaths in 2019. Microscopic soot particles have been shown to cross from the lungs into the bloodstream and are transported to every organ in the body, raising the risk of heart disease, gastric cancers and dementia. The contamination has also being linked to reductions in intelligence.

“Pollution is harmful to almost all aspects of human health and it’s no surprise to me that reproductive health is also affected,” Leathersich said. “I’m hopeful that these findings will help to highlight the urgency of the situation – that climate change poses a serious and immediate threat to human reproductive health, even at so-called safe levels.”

The study analysed fertility treatments in Perth over an eight-year period, including 3,659 frozen embryo transfers from 1,836 patients, and tracked whether outcomes were linked to the levels of fine particulate matter, known as PM10. The overall live birthrate was about 28% per transfer. However, the success rates varied in line with exposure to pollutants in the two weeks leading up to egg collection. The odds of a live birth decreased by 38% when comparing the highest quartile of exposure to the lowest quartile.

“These findings suggest that pollution negatively affects the quality of the eggs, not just the early stages of pregnancy, which is a distinction that has not been previously reported,” Leathersich said.

The team now plan to study cells directly to understand why pollutants have a negative effect. Previous work has shown that the microscopic particles can damage DNA and cause inflammation in tissues.

Prof Jonathan Grigg, whose group at Queen Mary University of London uncovered evidence that air pollution particles are found in the placenta, said: “This study is biologically plausible since it has recently been discovered that inhaled fossil-fuel particles move out of the lung and lodge in organs around the body. Reproductive health can now be added to expanding list of the adverse effects of fossil fuel-derived particulate matter, and should prompt policymakers to continue to reduce traffic emissions.”

The link was apparent despite excellent overall air quality during the study period, with PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeding WHO guidelines on just 0.4% and 4.5% of the study days, the scientists said. Australia is one of just seven countries that met the WHO’s guidelines in 2023, and this study is the latest to show evidence of harm even at relatively low levels of pollution.

Prof Geeta Nargund, a senior NHS consultant and medical director of abc IVF and Create Fertility, said further work would be crucial to better understand the full impact of air pollution, which disproportionately affects those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

“In the face of a global fertility crisis, a clear picture of the link between environmental factors such as air pollution and fertility health or treatment outcomes could play an important part in tackling falling fertility rates,” she said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jul/07/air-pollution-live-birth-ivf-fertility-study

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

Microplastics in Bloodstream Increase Stroke Risk 4.5-Fold: Study

"The study SUGGESTED". Opinion masquerading as fact

The issue of microplastic pollution in the environment is gaining increasing societal attention. Research indicates that once microplastics enter the human body, they can increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes, or even death. What kind of everyday behaviors raise the risk of ingesting microplastics?

Lin Xiaoxu, a U.S. virology expert with a doctorate in microbiology, explained what microplastics and nanoplastics are on New Tang Dynasty TV’s “Health 1+1” program and how to reduce exposure to them.

Plastic is a crucial product in industrial production and is deeply intertwined with daily life. When plastic products break down, they become microplastics or even smaller nanoplastics. Microplastics are plastic pieces smaller than 5 millimeters, while nanoplastics measure below 1 micron (1,000 nanometers).

Sources of Microplastics

Mr. Lin explained that everyday plastic products release microplastics. Synthetic textiles shed fiber fragments, and worn-out tires produce plastic-containing dust. Even seemingly smooth plastic water bottles can shed microplastics during washing.

In nature, sunlight and ultraviolet radiation continuously degrade plastics into smaller particles. Textiles, hygiene products, bottles, bags, particles emitted from factories, tire dust, fishing nets, and more all contribute to microplastic pollution. Humans and other animals ingest some of these particles, while others accumulate and break down in oceans and soils. Marine organisms like shellfish, small fish, and shrimp, especially those near coastlines, are particularly prone to ingesting microplastics.

Mr. Lin emphasized that the main sources of microplastics are industrial waste and wastewater discharge, which can cause significant environmental damage if not adequately treated.

Therefore, before wastewater is released from factories, it must undergo processes like screening, sand removal, sedimentation, biological reactions, chlorination, ultraviolet treatment, membrane technology, etc., to remove over 90 percent of microplastics. However, complete elimination is not achievable. Natural environments may take thousands to tens of thousands of years to fully degrade microplastics.

Health Hazards of Microplastics

Potential Harm of Microplastics to Cardiovascular and Brain Health

“If you ingest something toxic, people usually say to wash it out quickly, but microplastics are very tiny particles that adhere to the surface of the stomach. It’s not guaranteed that washing out will remove them; the body needs to slowly eliminate them, increasing the burden on the body,” Mr. Lin noted.

Studies have found that after exposure to ultraviolet light and microbial degradation in the natural environment, microplastics become more adsorbent, forming complexes with various environmental pollutants on their surfaces, making them more toxic to organisms.

Microplastics, which serve as carriers for heavy metals and pathogens, exhibit various toxicities upon entering the body. Most microplastics ingested through food are excreted via feces, but a small portion can remain in the intestines for days, causing intestinal damage, inflammation, and disruption of gut microbiota. Over time, microplastics can be absorbed into intestinal cells and enter the bloodstream, damaging organs and systems throughout the body. Organs like the liver and kidneys and bodily systems such as the immune, reproductive, and nervous systems are particularly affected. Additionally, excessive inhalation of microplastics can cause respiratory tissue damage and disease.

In March, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that most carotid artery plaques contained microplastics. The study included 257 patients aged 18 to 75 with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Following plaque removal from the arteries, researchers detected polyethylene in 150 patients (58.4 percent) and polyvinyl chloride in 31 patients (12.1 percent) of removed carotid artery plaques.

Macrophages within the plaques contained visible foreign particles, some with jagged edges and chlorine content. * The study suggested * that patients with detected microplastics had over 4.5 times higher risk of heart attacks, strokes, or death compared to those without microplastics.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/microplastics-in-bloodstream-increase-stroke-risk-4-5-fold-study-5675519?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-top-stories-0-title-0

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

Salt Is OK for People With Heart Failure: Review

Not this old scare again. It has long ago been shown that salt is harmless.

I have written previously on the salt phobia here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt2.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/saltsum.html

Salt restriction, a long-standing recommendation for patients with heart failure, has no proven clinical benefits, according to a review published Wednesday in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

While some studies reported possible improvements in quality of life and functionality, the review author, Dr. Paolo Raggi from the University of Alberta, wrote that there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction reduces mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure.

The review evaluated randomized controlled trials conducted from 2000 to 2023. Most were small, and a single large trial concluded early due to futility.

“Doctors often resist making changes to age-old tenets that have no true scientific basis; however, when new good evidence surfaces, we should make an effort to embrace it,” Dr. Raggi said in a news release.

How Does Salt Affect the Heart?

Heart failure is a chronic condition that occurs when the heart muscles cannot pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs for blood and oxygen.

Reduction in salt intake is recommended for heart failure because salt draws water. More salt in the blood can increase blood volume, thereby increasing blood pressure, which can then cause further damage to blood vessels and the heart.

Severe reductions in salt intake can also cause a drastic decrease in blood volume, which can be harmful.

Scientists cannot agree on how much salt should be reduced, and this discrepancy is due to differences in data interpretation, Dr. Raggi wrote.

It has also been difficult to conduct a proper study evaluating the long-term effects of salt restriction since low-salt diets are challenging for patients to adhere to, and salt intake is hard to measure.

Several prominent health organizations, including the American Heart Association (AHA), recommend that patients with heart failure consume under 2 grams (about half a teaspoon) of salt daily. The author said that this recommendation likely arose from the conclusions of several trials, including the famous DASH-sodium trial, which found that people who consumed less than 1.5 grams of salt daily had lower blood pressure.

While proponents of the DASH-sodium trial support its findings and recommendations, dissidents argue it was too short and that such salt restrictions are unlikely to be sustainable.

Dr. Raggi wrote that moderating salt intake would benefit people consuming high levels of salt. However, just how much salt should be reduced is unknown. Quality of life does improve with lower salt intake; however, there is no clinical evidence that it results in fewer cardiovascular events and deaths.

While salt restriction clearly lowers blood pressure, especially in hypertension patients, the effect appears to wane with time.

“It has been estimated that tens of thousands of patients (the numbers varying depending on the baseline risk profile of the population enrolled) would have to be followed for 5 to 10years [sic] to prove that a strict sodium intake is associated with a 15% reduction in cardiovascular events. Such a proposition seems unlikely to materialize,” the author wrote.

Even the Cochrane review, seen as the gold standard in research, yielded an inconclusive result.

“The Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient power to show an effect on mortality, although there might be a reduction in cardiovascular events with sodium restriction,” Dr. Raggi wrote.

He noted that none of the studies included in the Cochrane review and the many studies before it advised that salt intake should be as low as authorities such as the AHA suggested. Therefore, he concluded that questions about appropriate salt intake remain unanswered.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/salt-is-ok-for-people-with-heart-failure-review-5674916?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=health-large-0

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

This common drink increases the risk of serious heart condition, study finds

The commentary below is greatly over hyped. The "Results" section of the journal abstract below. We see that all the Hazard Ratios were quite low -- meaning weak effects -- with the results from sugar-sweetened and articially sweetened drinks being virually the same. As usual, income was not controlled for so all we are probably seeng here is that poor people (big drinkers of fizzy drinks) have worse health. Richer and wiser people drink orange juice. Rather amusing, really


During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented. Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed >2 L/wk of SSB or ASB had an increased risk of AF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01–1.20] and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10–1.31]) in the multivariable-adjusted model. A negative association was observed between the consumption of ≤1 L/wk of PJ and the risk of AF (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]). The highest HRs (95% CIs) of AF were observed for participants at high genetic risk who consumed >2 L/wk of ASB (HR, 3.51 [95% CI, 2.94–4.19]), and the lowest HR were observed for those at low genetic risk who consumed ≤1 L/wk of PJ (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65–0.92]). No significant interactions were observed between the consumption of SSB, ASB, or PJ and genetic predisposition to AF.


Whether you're looking to satisfy a craving with a crisp can of sugary goodness or offset it completely with the refreshing taste of your favourite diet soda, when it comes to selecting a beverage from a drinks menu, we’re spoilt for choice.

But are our ‘healthier’ drink choices really adding much value to our well-being in the long run? According to a new study, they could be having the opposite effect.

Published in the journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, the research follows the drinking habits of roughly 202,000 adults aged 37 to 73 in the United Kingdom, examining the results of a 24-hour diet questionnaire.

Specifically, the findings of the study suggest a strong correlation between adults drinking no to low-sugar beverages and their risk of developing atrial fibrillation.

Individuals who reported consuming more than two litres of artificially sweetened drinks in the 24-hour time period were found to have a 20 per cent higher chance of developing the condition (that’s roughly six standard cans).

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious cardiovascular disease defined by having a heartbeat that is too slow, too fast or irregular. Additionally, patients diagnosed with AF report symptoms such as lightheadedness, chest pain, extreme fatigue, and shortness of breath. Most notably, atrial fibrillation has been found to be the leading cause of stroke in the United States.

According to the Heart Foundation, atrial fibrillation is the most common recurring arrhythmia found in clinical practice, prevalent in two to four per cent of the population in developed nations such as Australia.

Additionally, the findings indicated that the individuals who reported consuming beverages with added sugars had an increased risk of the disease by up to ten per cent. On the flip side, consuming unsweetened juices, such as natural orange juice, was associated with a reduced risk of up to eight per cent.

“Our study’s findings cannot definitively conclude that one beverage poses more health risk than another due to the complexity of our diets and because some people may drink more than one type of beverage,” says lead study author Dr Ningjian Wang, a professor at the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.


“However, based on these findings, we recommend that people reduce or even avoid artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened beverages whenever possible,” Wang added in a statement discussing the study’s findings.

While the results are certainly worth discussing, this is the first study of its kind to examine the correlation between atrial fibrillation and both sugar-sweetened and no-to-low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages, indicating much further research is needed to fully understand the risks associated with each beverage.

So, if diet sodas and ‘no-sugar’ alternatives could be facilitating equally as much damage to our health, what’s the safest drink to turn to? Based on the study’s results, the safest hydration option is plain and simple H2O.

“Do not take it for granted that drinking low-sugar and low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages is healthy, it may pose potential health risks,” warns Wang.

https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/health/health-news/this-common-drink-increases-the-risk-of-serious-heart-condition-study-finds/image-gallery/c1442ee9ef82a08436afe5a7f4b9558d

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

Taking daily vitamin supplements doesn't help you live longer, may shorten your life

A bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Once again we have to look at who took something and why. Rather obviously: people who were concerned with their healh -- sick people in an extreme. So pill-taking could be an index of poor health rather than poor health being caused by pill-taking.

What happens when generally healthy people take a small amount just as a precaution -- as I do? The amount taken and the reasons for it clearly need to be sorted out before we can draw useful conclusions

And it seems possible that supplements might contribute to well-being, even without a mortality reduction. Let me give an example: I am prone to leg cramps. If take magnesium tablets they go away. If I stop taking them the cramps come back. The pills are unlikely to make me live longer but they make my life better. That probably follows wherever there is a deficiency problem.

And deficiencies might not always be obvious. It was, for instance, only a blood-test that revealed that I had a vitamin D deficiency. It can led to brittle bones, which is a horror. Did I have brittle bones? I don't know. And I don't want to find out. So I now take a supplement that has brought me up to par

They promise health benefits from boosting the immune system to strong bones.

But multivitamins do not help you live longer, a major study has found.

Regularly taking the supplements was found to have no effect on whether people lived longer, according to the research involving nearly 400,000 healthy adults.

In fact, using multivitamins daily was associated with a 4 per cent higher mortality risk, the analysis found.

The vitamins industry is estimated to be worth billions in the UK and US, taken by people in the hope of improving their health.

But the potential benefits and harms of supplementing diet with additional vitamins and minerals remains unclear, often hindered by study size and short follow-up times.

Led by researchers at the National Cancer Institute in the US, researchers followed participants with an average age of 61, who had no history of cancer or other chronic disease, for more than 20 years.

They looked at their multivitamin use from 1993 to 2001 and again between 1998 and 2004 with a follow up period of up to 27 years.

During this time, some 164,762 people died, with 49,836 deaths attributed to cancer, 35,060 to heart diseases, and 9,275 attributed to cerebrovascular diseases.

Researchers assessed for other factors such as education level, whether they were ever smokers, body-mass-index, marital status, alcohol and coffee intake.

They also looked for family history of cancer and factored this into the findings, according to the research published in JAMA.

Those who used multivitamins were also more likely to use individual supplements and have lower BMI and better diet quality.

But there were no longevity benefits found in those who took daily vitamins – in contrast, they were linked to a 4 per cent heightened risk of death.

It concludes: ‘The analysis showed that people who took daily multivitamins did not have a lower risk of death from any cause than people who took no multivitamins.

‘There were also no differences in mortality from cancer, heart disease, or cerebrovascular diseases.’

But the results do not necessarily mean that taking vitamins is a waste of time.

Research published earlier this year by Harvard University finding they can help slow the cognitive deterioration that occurs with age.

Other research has suggested they can help people to feel healthier, although it could be the placebo effect.

Duane Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer at Aston medical school, said: ‘It’s not surprising to see these do not significantly reduce the risk of mortality.

‘A vitamin and mineral supplement will not fix an unhealthy diet on its own, but it can help cover key nutrients if someone is struggling to get them from food.

‘An example of this might be vitamin D where adults in the UK are encouraged to take as a supplement in winter or vegans and vegetarians who might benefit from a supplement of vitamin B12.’

Writing in a linked commentary, Neal Barnard, Hana Kahleova and Roxanne Becker, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, said: ‘Refocusing nutrition interventions on food, rather than supplements, may provide the mortality benefits that multivitamins cannot deliver.

‘Vegetables, fruits, legumes and cereal grains are staples in areas of remarkable longevity, known as Blue Zones—Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica; the island of Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California.’

They suggested that some vitamins in the supplements may have an impact on other drugs being taken, for example vitamin K may reduce the efficacy of the anticoagulant warfarin.

And the inclusion of iron in a supplement adds to that in foods, increasing the risk of iron overload, which is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and dementia, the commentary continued.

The experts also said similar concerns may apply to copper supplementation, and calcium and zinc may reduce the absorption of certain antibiotics

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13571785/Taking-daily-vitamin-supplements-doesnt-help-live-longer-review-400-000-people-finds.html

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

A plant-based diet is good for your health. But there’s one exception

The journal article is:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00115-7/fulltext

It's yet another rubbishy diet study. They anaysed their data using extreme quartiles, which means that they threw away half of their data before testing it, which in turn usually means that there were NO correlations in the full dataset. And even then they got only marginal hazard ratios. For instance:

"After adjustment for potential confounders, a 10% increase in the contribution of plant-sourced non-UPF in diet was associated with a 7% reduced risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 8% reduced risk of incident coronary heart disease (adjusted HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.90–0.94)"

Relationships as weak as that are often not replicable so the study is most safely seen as failing to show that diet has any certain effect on health at all. In plain speech, eat what you like. The best thing to do for your health is probably to have friends


Eating a plant-based diet is good for your health, but not if those plant foods are ultra-processed, a new study has found.

The findings show that all plant-based diets aren’t the same, and that plant foods can have very different effects on your health depending on what manufacturers do to them before they reach your plate.

The new research, published on Monday in the journal, Lancet Regional Health-Europe, found eating plant-derived foods that are ultra-processed – such as meat substitutes, fruit drinks and pastries – increases the risk of heart attacks and stroke. But when plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts are only minimally processed – meaning they are cleaned, cut or squeezed before packaging but served largely as they are found in nature – they have a protective effect against cardiovascular disease. The study treated freshly squeezed fruit juices as unprocessed.

Ultra-processed foods have faced intense scrutiny from health authorities in recent years. What’s unusual about the new study is that it zeroed in on the health effects of ultra-processed foods that begin as plants, comparing them with minimally processed plant foods. Given that plant-based foods are generally healthy in their natural state, the research suggests that there’s something uniquely damaging about ultra-processing that changes a food in a way that can harm a person’s health long term.

“The artificial and heightened flavours of these foods can lead people to become addicted to these flavours, making it difficult for them to appreciate the natural flavours of real foods such as fruits and vegetables,” says Fernanda Rauber, the lead author of the new study and a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

The new study analysed data on 118,000 adults who were followed for roughly a decade as part of the UK Biobank, a study that has been tracking the health and lifestyle habits of people throughout the United Kingdom. As part of the long-running study, the participants answered questions about their diets, habits and environments on different occasions and provided biological samples, and health and medical records. The findings included:

The more ultra-processed foods people consumed, the higher their likelihood of dying of heart disease.

Every 10 per cent increase in kilojoules from plant-derived ultra-processed foods was associated with a 5 per cent higher likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease and a 6 per cent higher risk of coronary heart disease in particular.

For every 10 per cent increase in the consumption of whole plant-based foods — those that were not ultra-processed — the participants had an 8 per cent reduction in their likelihood of developing coronary heart disease and a 20 per cent reduction in their risk of dying of it. They also had a 13 per cent lower risk of dying of any cardiovascular diseases.

Many of the foods studied were not foods people would typically consider a plant food. But the main ingredients in many junk foods come from plants, such as cane and beet sugars, wheat flour, corn, potatoes, fruit juices and vegetable oils.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/a-plant-based-diet-is-good-for-your-health-but-there-s-one-exception-20240614-p5jlt7.html

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

Major study reveals whether eating meat will help you live to 100

The big hole in this study stands out like canine testicles. All it probably does is to reaffirm the most persistent finding in epidemiology: The old, old finding that rich people live longer. Most Chinese live principally on rice and beans. Only the rich can afford a lot of meat, eggs, dairy products etc. So the diet was basically an indirect index of income, which was NOT directly controlled for in the study. So the study conclusions do not support meat eating or anything else. Sorry about that

Americans are often told to cut down on steak consumption to avoid heart disease and diabetes.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands are still turning to veganism in the hope that it will help them live healthier and better lives.

But now a growing number of studies seem to reach the same consensus. Despite the anti-meat scare stories, eating meat makes you more likely to live longer. Specifically, you might have a better chance of living to 100.

The most recent paper that spoke to this conclusion studied the diets of 5,200 people — including 1,500 centenarians — from across China.

It found that those eating a more diverse weekly diet, including meat, were 23 percent more likely to become centenarians than their peers who ate one that was more restrictive.

It adds to other recent evidence, including one 2022 Australian paper on meat consumption and life expectancy by country, that found life expectancy is higher in nations that, on average, consume more meat.

About 81 percent of Americans are meat eaters, with meat considered a great source of both muscle-building protein and a host of other essential nutrients.

These include vitamin B12, which is not found in plants and is used by the body to help extract energy from food and keep our blood cells healthy.

Experts say meat is also a rich source of iron, which helps red blood cells carry oxygen around the body.

The USDA dietary guidelines recommend two to three servings of meat every day, with daily portions equivalent to a small steak or one chicken breast.

In the 2022 Australian study, researchers compared the life expectancy in 170 nations to the amount of meat consumed in the diet according to surveys.

Lead researcher Dr Arthur Saniotis, said: 'While this is no surprise to many of us, it still needs to be pointed out.

'It highlights that meat has its own components contributing to our overall health beyond just the number of calories consumed, and that without meat in our diet, we may not thrive.' ....

In the Chinese study, published today in JAMA Network Open, scientists found those who ate the most diverse diets were more likely to live longer.

The study was based on data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey.

Participants were recruited in 1998 at the ages of 80 years or older and then surveyed every few years.

For the analysis, each centenarian in the database was matched to at least two people who had died before reaching centenarian status.

Participants were 94 years old on average, mostly women, and lived across almost all of China's provinces.

To measure dietary diversity, participants were quizzed on how often they ate nine food groups: cereal, vegetables, fruits, soybeans and its products, eggs, meat, fish, milk and dairy products and oil.

The results showed that those who ate all nine food groups at least weekly were more likely to live to 100.

The analysis also found that never smoking and exercising more made it more likely that someone would live to be a centenarian.

But that education, marital status and alcohol consumption in later life made little to no difference to how long someone lived.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13550999/does-eating-meat-improve-longevity-study.html

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

Most illnesses are a combination of symptoms. We should look at the symptoms one at a time

My heading above is a simplified version of the heading below. And I agree in principle with the propositon it expressees. And the conclusion they draw from their survey data supports that proposition.

But it doesn't! The correlations they report are abysmally low so the findings actually DISPROVE what they set out to show

And that happens all the time in medical research. I have documented it many times. What amazes me is that such crazy studies regularly get reported in top medical journals, as they did below. I am glad that I have lived to 80 so that I can continue to point such follies out -- as there is clearly an acute shorage of sanity about the matters concerned.

The sad thing is that Google has search-blocked me so that my critical comments will only ever become known to regular readers of this blog. A Google search of the subject will not disclose these comments. Criticism is essential to science but Google don't seem to care about that

UPDATE: Google appears to have lifted the search block on this blog. Things I write here will now appear in response to a searches for information on topics I have written about here. So my comments above should appear soon in searches


Polygenic Scores and Networks of Psychopathology Symptoms

Giulia G Piazza et al.

Abstract

Importance
Studies on polygenic risk for psychiatric traits commonly use a disorder-level approach to phenotyping, implicitly considering disorders as homogeneous constructs; however, symptom heterogeneity is ubiquitous, with many possible combinations of symptoms falling under the same disorder umbrella. Focusing on individual symptoms may shed light on the role of polygenic risk in psychopathology.

Objective
To determine whether polygenic scores are associated with all symptoms of psychiatric disorders or with a subset of indicators and whether polygenic scores are associated with comorbid phenotypes via specific sets of relevant symptoms.

Design, Setting, and Participants
Data from 2 population-based cohort studies were used in this cross-sectional study. Data from children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) were included in the primary analysis, and data from children in the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) were included in confirmatory analyses. Data analysis was conducted from October 2021 to January 2024. Pregnant women based in the Southwest of England due to deliver in 1991 to 1992 were recruited in ALSPAC. Twins born in 1994 to 1996 were recruited in TEDS from population-based records. Participants with available genetic data and whose mothers completed the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire when children were 11 years of age were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Psychopathology relevant symptoms, such as hyperactivity, prosociality, depression, anxiety, and peer and conduct problems at age 11 years. Psychological networks were constructed including individual symptoms and polygenic scores for depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), body mass index (BMI), and educational attainment in ALSPAC. Following a preregistered confirmatory analysis, network models were cross-validated in TEDS. Results Included were 5521 participants from ALSPAC (mean [SD] age, 11.8 [0.14] years; 2777 [50.3%] female) and 4625 participants from TEDS (mean [SD] age, 11.27 [0.69] years; 2460 [53.2%] female). Polygenic scores were preferentially associated with restricted subsets of core symptoms and indirectly associated with other, more distal symptoms of psychopathology (network edges ranged between r = −0.074 and r = 0.073). Psychiatric polygenic scores were associated with specific cross-disorder symptoms, and nonpsychiatric polygenic scores were associated with a variety of indicators across disorders, suggesting a potential contribution of nonpsychiatric traits to comorbidity. For example, the polygenic score for ADHD was associated with a core ADHD symptom, being easily distracted ( r = 0.07), and the polygenic score for BMI was associated with symptoms across disorders, including being bullied ( r = 0.053) and not thinking things out ( r = 0.041).

Conclusions and Relevance
Genetic associations observed at the disorder level may hide symptom-level heterogeneity. A symptom-level approach may enable a better understanding of the role of polygenic risk in shaping psychopathology and comorbidity.

June 2024 JAMA Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.1403

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

Is fake meat bad for you?

This is a funny one. Food freaks are suspicious of highly processed food, but overlook that fake meat is a highly processed food. There has been quite an upsurge in sales of fake meat in the last couple of years so it seems that lots of people think they are doing themslves some good by avoiding the dreaded red meat. So some journalists are having fun with that. They are condemning fake meat as unhealthy.

Real vegetarians won't be bothered. They mostly live on lightly processed legumes -- nutmeat and the like -- as a protein source. Fake meat would be a low priority for them

I have never had any time for fake meat. I had a very nice piece of thinly sliced Scotch fillet steak for dinner last night washed down by a good Australian Shiraz. The wine:

So it is all a non-issue to me. I have always eaten whatever I fancy and at age 80, living with no pain or discomfort, I think I have had the last laugh. But it is nice to see a piece of research intelligently dissected below. I don't agree with all her conclusions but for someone writing in a mainstream source she does pretty well. She is a clever Greek girl, judging by her name

By EVANGELINE MANTZIORIS

We're hearing a lot about ultra-processed foods and the health effects of eating too many. And we know plant-based foods are popular for health or other reasons.

So it's not surprising new research out this week including the health effects of ultra-processed, plant-based foods is going to attract global attention.

And the headlines can be scary if that research and the publicity surrounding it suggests eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or dying early.

Here's how some media outlets interpreted the research. The Daily Mail ran with:

Vegan fake meats are linked to increase in heart deaths, study suggests: Experts say plant-based diets can boost health – but NOT if they are ultra-processed

The New York Post's headline was:

Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death: study

But when we look at the study itself, it seems the media coverage has focused on a tiny aspect of the research, and is misleading.

So does eating supermarket plant-based burgers and other plant-based, ultra-processed foods really put you at greater risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?

Here's what prompted the research and what the study actually found.

Remind me, what are ultra-processed foods?

Ultra-processed foods undergo processing and reformulation with additives to enhance flavour, shelf-life and appeal. These include everything from packet macaroni cheese and pork sausages, to supermarket pastries and plant-based mince.

There is now strong and extensive evidence showing ultra-processed foods are linked with an increased risk of many physical and mental chronic health conditions.

Although researchers question which foods should be counted as ultra-processed, or if all of them are linked to poorer health, the consensus is that, generally, we should be eating less of them.

We also know plant-based diets are popular. These are linked with a reduced risk of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. And supermarkets are stocking more plant-based, ultra-processed food options.

How about the new study?

The study looked for any health differences between eating plant-based, ultra-processed foods compared to eating non-plant based, ultra-processed foods. The researchers focused on the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease and stroke) and deaths from it.

Plant-based, ultra-processed foods in this study included mass-produced packaged bread, pastries, buns, cakes, biscuits, cereals and meat alternatives (fake meats). Ultra-processed foods that were not plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.

The researchers used data from the UK Biobank. This is a large biomedical database that contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle (diet and exercise) and health information and biological samples from half a million UK participants. This databank allows researchers to determine links between this data and a wide range of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.

They used data from nearly 127,000 people who provided details of their diet between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. On average, the researchers followed each participant's diet and health for nine years.

What did the study find?

With every 10% increase of total energy from plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods there was an associated 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke) and a 12% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

But for every 10% increase in plant-sourced, non-ultra-processed foods consumed there was an associated 7% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

The researchers found no evidence for an association between all plant-sourced foods (whether or not they were ultra-processed) and either an increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular disease or dying from it.

This was an observational study, where people recalled their diet using questionnaires. When coupled with other data, this can only tell us if someone's diet is associated with a particular risk of a health outcome. So we cannot say that, in this case, the ultra-processed foods caused the heart disease and deaths from it.

Why has media coverage focused on fake meats?

Much of the media coverage has focused on the apparent health risks associated with eating fake meats, such as sausages, burgers, nuggets and even steaks.

These are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by deconstructing whole plant foods such as pea, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms, and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.

However this was only one type of plant-based, ultra-processed food analysed in this study. This only accounted for an average 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all the participants.

Compare this to bread, pastries, buns, cakes and biscuits, which are other types of plant-based, ultra-processed foods. These accounted for 20.7% of total energy intake in the study.

It's hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there is one clue in the media release issued to promote the research.

Although the media release did not mention the words "fake meat", an image of plant-based burgers, sausages and meat balls or rissoles featured prominently.

The introduction of the study itself also mentions plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, nuggets and burgers.

So it's no wonder people can be confused.

Does this mean fake meats are fine?

Not necessarily. This study analyzed the total intake of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, which included fake meats, albeit a very small proportion of people's diets.

From this study alone we cannot tell if there would be a different outcome if someone ate large amounts of fake meats.

In fact, a recent review of fake meats found there was not enough evidence to determine their impact on health.

We also need more recent data to reflect current eating patterns of fake meats. This study used dietary data collected from 2009 to 2012, and fake meats have become more popular since.

What if I really like fake meat?

We have known for a while that ultra-processed foods can harm our health. This study tells us that regardless if an ultra-processed food is plant-based or not, it may still be harmful.

We know fake meat can contain large amounts of saturated fats (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.

So like other ultra-processed foods, they should be eaten infrequently. The Australian Dietary Guidelines currently recommends people should only consume foods like this sometimes and in small amounts.

Are some fake meats healthier than others?

Check the labels and nutrition information panels. Look for those lowest in fat and salt. Burgers and sausages that are a "pressed cake" of minced ingredients such as nuts, beans and vegetables will be preferable to reformulated products that look identical to meat.

You can also eat whole plant-based protein foods such as legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy beans. As well as being high in protein and fibre, they also provide essential nutrients such as iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms alongside these in your recipes can replicate some of the umami taste associated with meat.

https://www.salon.com/2024/06/13/are-plant-based-burgers-really-for-your-heart-heres-whats-behind-the-scary-headlines_partner/

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