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But it appears to have been withdrawn.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/

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

Scientists raise alarm over common sunscreen ingredient being found in frozen pizzas and candies

Another scare about a "possible" harm. The link to the main article is here:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38367662/

There are HUGE barriers to using this study a a basis for policy:

* How were the respondents selected? Were they a representative sample of any specifiable popuation? If not, no generlizations can be made from them. That may seem a harsh stricture but in my extensive reseach I always used representative samples. You can do it if you try. If you don't do it you are just playing games

* Once again only high and low scorers were used in the analysis. What happened to the middling scorers? Would including them have made the overall corelations insignificant? It often does.

* I have not been able to see details of the confounders that they alowed for but I doubt that they allowed for the big confounder: income

* They had NO clinical evidence of health problems. The differences they found may or may not lead to illness. Many ingested substances lead to physiological changes without ill effects. We call them drugs

* Since it is ubiquitous, if it did lead to illness of any kind we would surely by now have heard a raft of complaints about it. We have not. If people have ingested it a trillion times without harm, what more do we need to call it harmless?

Scientists have raised concerns of the effects of a common ingredient of sunscreen being used in foods including frozen pizzas, bakery products, and children’s candies.

Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) is a synthetically produced substance that is not classed as hazardous and is used in a vast range of industrial and consumer goods.

It is found in products including sunscreen, sunscreen, cosmetics, paint, plastics, paper, and wallpaper due to its non-flammable and insoluble properties. It also absorbs UV light, though cannot penetrate through the skin.

TiO2 is also regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a type of food coloring and used in a variety of FDA regulated foods, including cottage cheese, salad dressing, and brightly colored sweets such as Skittles – so long as the quantity does not exceed 1 percent by weight of food.

In foods that contain TiO2, it will appear on the ingredients label as either “artificial color” or “colored with titanium dioxide”, though it is not required to be listed, according to the FDA.

Though it is currently approved by the FDA in the US, the substance is currently under reviewed following a 2023 petition by environmental groups, which are seeking to have it banned from foods.

In February, California lawmakers advanced a bill to bar foods with titanium dioxide from being served in public schools. The substance was banned by the European Union in 2022.

Chief among the concerns is that TiO2 contains nanoparticles which – due to their miniscule size – can get inside cells and cause harm to internal organs.

An article in npj Science and Food cited studies done in animals that found that consumption of titanium dioxide nanoparticles led to damage to the liver, immune and reproductive systems, as well as DNA.

Other research found that as well as such damage, the particles can inhibit the spread of beneficial gut bacteria.

A study of 35 healthy adults, published in February, found that those with higher levels of TiO2 in their stool also had higher levels of certain gut inflammation. They also had indications of more gut permeability or how “leaky or separated the cells are,” said Dr Kelsey Mangano, lead scientist of the study.

The concern is that chronic increased gut inflammation and permeability could increase the risk of health issues including colon cancer, nutrient deficiencies and the low-grade inflammation, Dr Mangano said.

Despite this, organizations including the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) have opposed a “knee-jerk” ban on the substance, stating that it would have “far-reaching consequences”.

A statement released by the CHPA in August 2023, in response to the FDA announcement of a review of the use of TiO2 described a ban as “unjustified”.

“We strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration to deny the petition to repeal [a section of its regulations], which permits the use of TiO2 in food and dietary supplements,” the statement read.

“While consumer safety is of paramount importance, a knee-jerk ban on TiO2 in food and dietary supplements would be unjustified. Based on extensive scientific research and regulatory evaluations, TiO2 is deemed safe for use as a food additive when consumed within established regulatory limits.

“Furthermore, its regulatory approval, manufacturing oversight, and industry best practices ensure the responsible use of this ingredient. Continued adherence to these safety measures and ongoing research will contribute to maintaining the safety and integrity of TiO2 as an essential food additive.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/frozen-pizza-candy-titanium-dioxide-sunscreen-foods-b2561031.html

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

Harvard scientists find new incredible benefit of following Mediterranean diet

Incredible is the word. This study has so many holes in it that I found it hard to know where to start pointing them out.

So I'll start with the big picture: Japan has the longest lived national population by far. So shouldn't we all be living on a diet of rice and fish with a side-salad of sea-weed? That may suggest that a Mediterranean diet is NOT optimal. Another permissible inference is that both diet and geography do not matter as influences on lifespan

OK: On to the study below. The journal article is here:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2819335

I think the most obvious point is that the hazard ratios were tiny, indicating extrememly marginal effects. And very weak effects tend to be unreplicable -- nothing to be relied on for policy purposes.

And as a study based on self-reports it is very questionable. Pychologists have known since the '30s that self reports often misrepresent behaviour: Mainly because respondents tend to "fake good" on questionnaires.

And it's alarming that no allowance for confounders was reported. Income is the big confounder. Poor people regularly have worse healh. So was it poor people who did less well on the qauestionnaire. Were the less long-lived people in the study simply poorer? We don't know.

And possible psychological confounders are ignored too. Was it more stable personalities or higher IQ people who stuck more to the diet? Was it their characteristics that extended life? We don't know. High IQ people do in general tend to live longer

So there was a tiny tendency for the diet regulars to live longer but was it really the diet that mattered? What if the regulars lived longer because they were also smarter, richer, more emotionally stable etc? Was the diet simply a marker for something else? Was the real cause of the longer life something other than the diet? We do not know and the researchers appear to have done nothing to find out.

They did put a lot of work into their study so it is quite sad that the safest conclusion we can draw from their work is that we do not know if diet matters

The Mediterranean diet has been found to reduce the risk of death by all causes by nearly a quarter in women.

A study of more than 25,000 healthy middle-aged American females with an average age of 55 found that following a diet rich in fish, legumes, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains was linked with a 23 percent lower risk of dying by the end of the 25-year study.

Every woman was quizzed on their adherence to the diet annually, and thos who stuck closely to it over that 25-year period enjoyed a 16 percent lowered risk of death from all causes.

The Mediterranean diet, which has been crowned the best diet for seven years in a row, has been shown to reduce inflammation in the body, improve the body's regulation in insulin, and manage weight, all of which protect against heart disease, dementia, and diabetes.

The diet is common in Greece, Italy, and Spain, countries that border the Mediterranean Sea.

The latest study from Harvard University is among the largest, with 25,315 women involved and perhaps the longest-running, with the women being followed for more than two decades.

At the start of the study, women filled out health questionnaires about their dietary habits, their health, their height and weight to calculate BMI.

They also had their blood pressure assessed.

Participants filled out health questionnaires every six months during the first year and annually thereafter.

Researchers assigned scores for adherence to the diet on a scale from zero to nine, with a higher score indicating that the woman stuck to the diet closely.

The scoring was based on the intake of nine dietary components, including a high intake of vegetables (except potatoes), fruits, nuts, whole grains, fish, and monosaturated fats.

If a woman ate less red and processed meats, she got points. If their alcohol consumption fell between five to 15 grams per day, they got an additional point.

Then, the participants were broken into three categories based on their scores, with low adherence scores ranging from zero to three, intermediate adherence scores being a four or five, and high adherence scores falling between six and nine.

Over about 25 years, researchers counted 3,879 deaths, including 935 from heart disease and 1,531 from cancer.

Women with high adherence scores of six or higher were 23 percent less likely to die from all causes, while those with a score of four or five had a 16 percent lower risk.

The researchers said: ‘Our results suggest that a proportion of the lower risk of mortality may be accounted for by several cardiometabolic risk factors, in particular, biomarkers related to metabolism, inflammation, TRL pathways, insulin resistance, and BMI.

They added: ‘Most of the potential benefit of adherence to the Mediterranean diet and mortality remains unexplained, and future studies should examine other pathways that could potentially mediate the Mediterranean diet–associated lower mortality as well as examine cause-specific mortality.’

Their study was published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Few diets are loved by doctors as much as the Mediterranean diet. In addition to reducing one’s risk of heart disease, obesity, and dementia, it has a protective effect against stroke and can extend one’s life.

A 2016 study in the journal Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care reported that people who followed the diet lived about four and half years longer than those who didn’t.

It is meant to be as enjoyable as it is straightforward. It prescribes loading up on veggies and fruits, cutting back on red meat, and incorporating fats, especially extra virgin olive oil, nuts, peanuts, olives, and avocados.

The diet also recommends exercise, the first dietary pyramid to do so. The prescription is based on the lifestyles of people in Mediterranean-bordering countries, specifically Sardinia, Italy, and Ikaria, Greece.

Both are considered Blue Zones – areas of the world where people consistently reach 100 years old. People in Blue Zones plant gardens, go on walks with fellow members of their community, dance with friends, and perform manual labor that anchors them to their surroundings.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13480755/Harvard-scientists-new-incredible-benefit-following-Mediterranean-diet.html

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

Ultra-processed foods do NOT cause obesity, says US government's top diet advisors in bombshell review of current evidence: 'Studies have been biased'

At last! Some sanity and honesty! I have been pointing out the inconclusiveness of existing food & health studies for many years. I give a new example immediately following the report below

Ultra-processed foods — demonized for years for their supposed effect on our waistlines — do not actually make people fat, according to a bombshell report.

The US government's top dietitians found 'limited' evidence these foods cause people to gain weight faster than any other food, after reviewing more than a dozen studies dating back to the 1990s.

The report has not been released in full and only segments have been uploaded online.

But the snippets suggest there is nothing intrinsic about processed food that causes obesity and that the amount of calories one eats is the most important factor for weight gain.

People have been hearing a lot about the health risks of ultra processed foods recently, which might make this report surprising, Carolyn Williams, a registered dietitian who was not involved in the review told DailyMail.com.

The report comes from the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), whose findings inform nutrition labels and public health recommendations for food.

'What they're saying is not that there is no relationship between ultra processed foods and larger body size or greater body fat,' Dr Williams told DailyMail.com.

'They're saying, right now, we don't have enough conclusive research to come out and say, avoid all ultra processed foods.'

This report comes from a group of 20 nutrition experts from across the country that are elected by the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture to draft new national nutrition recommendations. T

The current group has gathered to make recommendations about what Americans should eat from 2025 to 2030, this report will likely inform their new guidelines.

They recommend that more research needs to be conducted before they are able to make rules about ultra processed foods.

The report has yet to be made live online, but two slides were shared in a screenshot from Kevin D Hall, a nutrition scientist at the National Institutes of Health, in an X post.

In their report, the DGCA said they had 'serious concerns' about bias in the studies that have linked ultra processed foods to weight gain.

This is chiefly because the definition of ultra processed food isn't an exact science, which means that the studies may be subject to 'misclassification bias'.

This means that studies that use variables that are hard to categorize may lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions.

There is a system for classifying ultra processed foods, called NOVA, that was developed by Brazilian scientists who first started looking into the topic in the 1990's. But there's a lot of 'room for interpretation' in these guidelines, Dr Williams said.

Generally if a food has ingredients you wouldn't use in home cooking - additives and stabilizers with long names, for example - then it's probably an ultra processed item.

This system doesn't classify foods based on the nutritional content within them.

For example, mountain dew is ultra processed, which has next to zero nutritional benefit, but so are many brands of multigrain bread, which contain fiber, vitamins and even some protein.

This, nutritionists like Dr Williams said, brings the validity of ultra processed foods as a label into question.

Another issue that the DGAC seems to have is that many of the studies they felt were robust enough to include in their review have taken place in other countries and only one study has been performed in a lab.

Without laboratory studies of a topic, it's difficult for scientists to conclude that ultra processed foods are definitely causing health problems.

Some commentators are striking back at the report, saying it doesn't address many of the other concerns people have about processed foods.....

It's understandable that people would read this portion of the DGAC's report and react angrily, Dr Williams said. It doesn't seem in line with what most people have been hearing recently, but it represents how science works, she said.

In her opinion, and many other dietitians, these foods likely have contributed to some of the public health problems we've been seeing in the US. But science is a slow process, and the body of research isn't 'definitively' there yet, she said.

The report merely highlights that ultra processed foods need to be investigated further.

She added: 'This is really what you want. You don't want your federal committee jumping to conclusions.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13480569/ultra-processed-foods-weight-gain-new-report.html

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