ReportWire

Tag: hypertension

  • Fighting Inflammation with Flaxseeds  | NutritionFacts.org

    Fighting Inflammation with Flaxseeds  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory, aging-associated oxylipins can be normalized by eating ground flaxseed. 

    I previously explored the “Potent Antihypertensive Effect of Dietary Flaxseed in Hypertensive Patients” study in my video Flaxseeds for Hypertension. That was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial where researchers disguised ground flaxseed in baked goods versus flax-free placebo muffins and saw an extraordinary drop in high blood pressure. As you can imagine, the flaxseed industry was overjoyed, praising the “impressive” findings, as was I. After all, high blood pressure is “the single largest risk factor” for death in the world. Yes, we give people medications, lots and lots of medications, but most people don’t take them. Nine out of ten people take less than 80 percent of their prescribed blood pressure pills. 
     
    It’s not difficult to understand why. “Patients are asked to follow an inconvenient and potentially costly regimen, which will likely have a detrimental effect on health-related quality of life, to treat a mostly asymptomatic condition that commonly does not cause problems for many years.” So, they may feel worse instead of better, due to the side effects. Then, some think the answer is to give them even more drugs to counteract the effects of the first drugs, like giving men Viagra to counteract the erectile dysfunction caused by their blood pressure pills. 
     
    How about using a dietary strategy instead, especially if it can be just as effective? And, indeed, the drop in blood pressure the researchers saw in the flaxseed study “was greater than the average decrease observed with the standard dose of anti-hypertensive medications.” Flaxseeds are cheaper, too, compared to even single medications, and most patients are on multiple drugs. Plus, flaxseeds have good side effects beyond their anti-hypertensive actions. Taking tablespoons of flaxseed a day is a lot of fiber for people living off of cheeseburgers and milkshakes their whole lives, and your gut bacteria may need a little time to adjust to the new bounty. So, those who start with low-fiber diets may want to take it a little slow with the flaxseeds at first. 
     
    Not all studies have shown significant blood pressure–lowering effects, though. There have been more than a dozen trials by now, involving more than a thousand subjects. And, yes, when you put them all together, overall, there were “significant reductions in both SBP and DBP”—systolic blood pressure (the upper number) and diastolic blood pressure (the lower number)—“following supplementation with various flaxseed products.” But none was as dramatic as what the researchers had found in that six-month trial. The longer trials tended to show better results, and some of the trials just used flaxseed oil or some kind of flaxseed extract. We think this is because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. “Each of the components of interest within flaxseed, ALA, lignans, fiber, and peptides”—the omega-3s, the cancer-fighting lignans, all the soluble fiber, and the plant proteins, for instance—“all contribute towards BP reduction.” Okay, but how? Why? What is the mechanism? 
     
    Some common blood-pressure medications like Norvasc or Procardia work in part by reducing the ability of the heart to contract or by slowing down the heart. So, might it be that’s how flaxseeds work, too? But, no. In my video Benefits of Flaxseeds for Inflammation, I profile the “Dietary Flaxseed Reduces Central Aortic Blood Pressure Without Cardiac Involvement but Through Changes in Plasma Oxylipins” study. What are oxylipins? 
     
    “Oxylipins are a group of fatty acid metabolites” involved in inflammation and, as a result, have been implicated in many pro-inflammatory conditions, including aging and cardiovascular disease. “The best-characterized oxylipins about cardiovascular disease are derived from the w-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid,” a long-chain omega-6 fatty acid. These are found preformed in animal products, particularly chicken and eggs, and can be made inside the body from junky oils rich in omega-6, such as cottonseed oil, as noted below and at 3:49 in my video. But, as this study is titled, “Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory oxylipins in older subjects are normalized by flaxseed consumption.” 

    That’s how we think flaxseed consumption reduces blood pressure in patients with hypertension: by inhibiting the enzyme that makes these pro-inflammatory oxylipins. I’ll spare you from acronym overload, but eating flaxseeds inhibits the activity of the enzyme that makes these pro-inflammatory oxylipins, called leukotoxin diols, which in turn may lower blood pressure. “Identifying the biological mechanism adds confidence to the antihypertensive actions of dietary flaxseed,” but that’s not all oxylipins do. Oxylipins may also play a role in the aging process. However, we may be able to “beneficially disrupt these biological changes associated with inflammation and aging” with a nutritional intervention like flaxseed. Older adults around age 50 have higher levels of this arachidonic acid–derived oxylipin compared to younger adults around age 20, as you can see in the graph below and at 4:56 in my video. “These elevated concentrations of pro-inflammatory oxylipins in the older age group…may…explain the higher levels of inflammation in older versus younger individuals.” As we get older, we’re more likely to be stricken with inflammatory conditions like arthritis. So, this “elevation of pro-inflammatory oxylipins…may predispose individuals to chronic disease conditions.”

    What if you took those older adults and gave them muffins, like the ones with ground flaxseed? That’s just what a group of researchers did. Four weeks later, the subjects’ levels dropped down to like 20-year-olds’ levels, as seen in the graph below and at 5:32 in my video, “demonstrating that a potential therapeutic strategy to correct the deleterious pro-inflammatory oxylipin profile is via a dietary supplementation with flaxseed.”

    What about flax and cancer? See the related posts below. 

    I also have a video on diabetes: Flaxseeds vs. Diabetes. 

    If you’re interested in weight loss, see Benefits of Flaxseed Meal for Weight Loss. 

    What about the cyanide content of flax? I answered that in Friday Favorites: How Well Does Cooking Destroy the Cyanide in Flaxseeds and Should We Be Concerned About It?.

    What else can help fight inflammation? Check out in related posts below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Pros of Early Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Pros of Early Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Calories eaten in the morning count less than calories eaten in the evening, and they’re healthier, too.
     
    Time-restricted feeding, where you limit the same amount of eating to a narrow evening window, has benefits compared to eating in the evening and earlier in the day, but it also has adverse effects because you’re eating so much, so late, as you can see below and at 0:12 my video The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating. 

    The best of both worlds was demonstrated in 2018 when researchers put time-restricted feeding into a narrow window earlier in the day. As you can see below and at 0:28 in my video, individuals who were randomized to eat the same food, but only during an 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. eating window, experienced a drop in blood pressure, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance, even when all of the study subjects were maintained at the same weight. Same food, same weight, but with different results. The drops in blood pressure were extraordinary, from 123/82 down to 112/72 in five weeks, and that is comparable to the effectiveness of potent blood-pressure drugs.


    The longest study to date on time-restricted feeding only lasted for 16 weeks. It was a pilot study without a control group that involved only eight people, but the results are still worth noting. Overweight individuals, who, like most of us, had been eating for more than 14 hours a day, were instructed to stick to a consistent 10- to 12-hour feeding window of their own choosing, as you can see below and at 1:17 in my video. On average, they were able to successfully reduce their daily eating duration by about four and a half hours and had lost seven pounds within 16 weeks. 

    They also reported feeling more energetic and sleeping better, as seen in the graph below and at 1:32 in my video. This may help explain why “all participants voluntarily expressed an interest in continuing unsupervised with the 10-11 hr time-restricted eating regimen after the conclusion of the 16-week supervised intervention.” You don’t often see that after weight-loss studies. 

    Even more remarkably, eight months later and even one year post-study, they had retained their improved energy and sleep (see in the graph below and 1:55 in my video), as well as retained their weight loss (see in the graph below and 1:58 in my video)—all from one of the simplest of interventions: sticking to a consistent 10- to 12-hour feeding window of their own choosing. 
    How did it work? Even though the study “participants were not overtly asked to change nutrition quality or quantity,” they appeared to unintentionally eat hundreds of fewer calories a day. With self-selected time frames for eating, you wouldn’t necessarily think to expect circadian benefits, but because they had been asked to keep the eating window consistent throughout the week, “metabolic jet lag could be minimized.” The thinking is that because people tend to start their days later on weekends, they disrupt their own circadian rhythm. And, indeed, it is as if they had flown a few time zones west on Friday evening, then flew back east on Monday morning, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:40 in my video. So, some of the metabolic advantages may have been due to maintaining a more regular eating schedule. 


    Early or mid-day time-restricted feeding may have other benefits as well. Prolonged nightly fasting with reduced evening food intake has been associated with lower levels of inflammation and has also been linked to better blood sugar control, both of which might be expected to lower the risk of diseases, such as breast cancer. So, data were collected on thousands of breast cancer survivors to see if nightly fasting duration made a difference. Those who couldn’t go more than 13 hours every night without eating had a 36 percent higher risk of cancer recurrence. These findings have led to the suggestion that efforts to “avoid eating after 8 pm and fast for 13 h or more overnight may be a beneficial consideration for those patients looking to decrease cancer risk and recurrence,” though we would need a randomized controlled trial to know for sure. 
     
    Early time-restricted feeding may even play a role in the health of perhaps the longest-living population in the world, the Seventh-day Adventist Blue Zone in California. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:55 in my video, slim, vegetarian, nut-eating, exercising, non-smoking Adventists live about a decade longer than the general population. 

    Their greater life expectancy has been ascribed to these healthy lifestyle behaviors, but there’s one lesser-known component that may also be playing a role. Historically, eating two large meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a prolonged overnight fast, was a part of Adventist teachings. Today, only about one in ten Adventists surveyed were eating just two meals a day. However, most of them, more than 60 percent of them, reported that breakfast or lunch was their largest meal of the day, as you can see below and at 4:26 in my video. Though this has yet to be studied concerning longevity, frontloading one’s calories earlier in the day with a prolonged nightly fast has been associated with significant weight loss over time. This led the researchers to conclude: “Eating breakfast and lunch 5–6 h apart and making the overnight fast last 18–19 h may be a useful practical strategy” for weight control. The weight may be worth the wait. 


    For more on fasting, click here. 
     
    My big takeaway from all of the intermittent fasting research I looked at is, whenever possible, eat earlier in the day. At the very least, avoid late-night eating whenever you can. Eating breakfast like a king and lunch like a prince, with or without an early dinner for a pauper, would probably be best. 
     
    For more on fasting, fasting for disease reversal, and fasting and cancer, check the related videos below.  

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What the Science Says About Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    What the Science Says About Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Are there benefits to giving yourself a bigger daily break from eating? 
     
    The reason many blood tests are taken after an overnight fast is that meals can tip our system out of balance, bumping up certain biomarkers for disease, such as blood sugars, insulin, cholesterol, and triglycerides. Yet, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:20 in my video Time-Restricted Eating Put to the Test, fewer than one in ten Americans may even make it 12 hours without eating. As evolutionarily unnatural as getting three meals a day is, most of us are eating even more than that. One study used a smartphone app to record more than 25,000 eating events and found that people tended to eat about every three hours over an average span of about 15 hours a day. Might it be beneficial to give our bodies a bigger break? 

    Time-restricted feeding is “defined as fasting for periods of at least 12 hours but less than 24 hours,” and this involves trying to confine caloric intake to a set window of time, typically ranging from 3 to 4 hours, 7 to 9 hours, or 10 to 12 hours a day, which results in a daily fast lasting 12 to 21 hours. When mice are restricted to a daily feeding window, they gain less weight even when fed the same amount as mice “with ad-lib access.” Rodents have such high metabolisms, though, that a single day of fasting can starve away as much as 15 percent of their lean body mass. This makes it difficult to extrapolate from mouse models. You don’t know what happens in humans until you put it to the test. 
     
    The drop-out rates in time-restricted feeding trials certainly appear lower than most prolonged forms of intermittent fasting, suggesting it’s more easily tolerable, but does it work? Researchers found that when people stopped eating from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for two weeks, they lost about a pound each week compared to no time restriction. Note that “there were no additional instructions or recommendations on the amount or type of food consumed,” and no gadgets, calorie counting, or record-keeping either. The study participants were just told to limit their food intake to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., a simple intervention that’s easy to understand and put into practice. 
     
    The next logical step? Put it to the test for months instead of just weeks. Obese men and women were asked to restrict eating to the eight-hour window between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Twelve weeks later, they had lost nearly seven pounds, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:18 in my video. This deceptively simple intervention may be operating from several different angles. People not only tend to eat more food later in the day, but eat higher fat foods later in the day. By eliminating eating in the late-evening hours, one removes prime-time snacking on the couch, a high-risk time for overeating. And, indeed, during the no-eating-after-7:00-p.m. study, the subjects were inadvertently eating about 250 fewer calories a day. Then, there are also the chronobiological benefits of avoiding late-night eating. 

    I did a whole series of videos about the role our circadian rhythms have in the obesity epidemic, how the timing of meals can be critical, and how we can match meal timing to our body clocks. Just to give you a taste: Did you know that calories eaten at dinner are significantly more fattening than the same number of calories eaten at breakfast? See the table below and at 3:08 in my video. 

    Calories consumed in the morning cause less weight gain than the same calories eaten in the evening. A diet with a bigger breakfast causes more weight loss than the same exact diet with a bigger dinner, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:21 in my video, and nighttime snacks are more fattening than the same snacks if eaten in the daytime. Thanks to our circadian rhythms, metabolic slowing, hunger, carbohydrate intolerance, triglycerides, and a propensity for weight gain are all things that go bump in the night.  


    What about the fasting component of time-restricted feeding? There’s already the double benefit of getting fewer calories and avoiding night-time eating. Does the fact that you’re fasting for 11 or 16 hours a day play any role, considering the average person may only make it about 9 hours a day without eating? How would you design an experiment to test that? What if you randomized people into two groups and had both groups eat the same number of calories a day and also eat late into the evening, but one group fasted even longer, for 20 hours? That’s exactly what researchers at the USDA and National Institute of Aging did. 
     
    Men and women were randomized to eat three meals a day or fit all of those same calories into a four-hour window between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., then fast the rest of the day. If the weight-loss benefits from the other two time-restricted feeding studies were due to the passive calorie restriction or avoidance of late-night eating, then, presumably, both of these groups should end up the same because they’re both eating the same amount and they’re both eating late. That’s not what happened, though. As you can see below and at 4:49 in my video, after eight weeks, the time-restricted feeding group ended up with less body fat, nearly five pounds less. They got about the same number of calories, but they lost more weight. 

    As seen below and at 5:00 in my video, a similar study with an eight-hour eating window resulted in three more pounds of fat loss. So, there does seem to be something to giving your body daily breaks from eating around the clock.


    Because that four-hour eating window in the study was at night, though, the participants suffered the chronobiological consequences—significant elevations in blood pressure and cholesterol levels—despite the weight loss, as you can see below and at 5:13 in my video. The best of both worlds was demonstrated in 2018: early time-restricted feeding, eating with a narrow window earlier in the day, which I covered in my video The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating. 


    Isn’t that mind-blowing about the circadian rhythm business? Calories in the morning count less and are healthier than calories in the evening. So, if you’re going to skip a meal to widen your daily fasting window, skip dinner instead of breakfast. 

    If you missed any of the other videos in this fasting series, check out the related videos below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • A Look at the 5:2 Diet and the Fasting-Mimicking Diet  | NutritionFacts.org

    A Look at the 5:2 Diet and the Fasting-Mimicking Diet  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What are the effects of eating only five days a week or following a fasting-mimicking diet five days a month? 
     
    Instead of eating every other day, what if you ate five days a week and fasted for the other two? As I discuss in my video The 5:2 Diet and the Fasting-Mimicking Diet Put to the Test, the available data are similar to that of alternate-day fasting: About a dozen pounds of weight loss was reported in overweight men and also reported in overweight women over six months, with no difference found between participants on the 5:2 intermittent fasting regimen and those on a continuous 500-calories-a-day restriction. The largest trial to date found an 18-pound weight loss within six months in the 5:2 group, which isn’t significantly different from the 20 pounds lost in the continuous calorie restriction group. Weight maintenance over the subsequent six months was also found to be no different.
     
    Though feelings of hunger may be more pronounced on the 5:2 pattern than on an equivalent level of daily calorie cutting, it does not seem to lead to overeating on non-fasting days. One might expect going two days without food may negatively impact mood, but no such adverse impact was noted for those fully fasting on zero calories or sticking to just two packets of oatmeal on each of the “fasting” days. (The oatmeal provides about 500 calories a day.) Like alternate-day fasting, the 5:2 fasting pattern appeared to have inconsistent effects on cognition and on preserving lean mass, and it also failed to live up to the “popular notion” that intermittent fasting would be “easier” to adhere to than daily calorie restriction. 
     
    Compared to those in the continuous-restriction control group, fewer subjects in the 5:2 pattern group expressed interest in continuing their diet after the study was over. This was attributed to quality-of-life issues, with 5:2 fasting participants citing headaches, lack of energy, and difficulty fitting the fasting days into their weekly routine. However, as you can see below and at 1:53 in my video, there has yet to be a single 5:2 diet study showing elevated LDL cholesterol compared with continuous calorie restriction at six months. Nor has it been shown for a year. This offers a potential advantage over alternate-day regimens. 

    Instead of 5:2, what about 25:5, spending five consecutive days a month on a “fasting-mimicking diet” (FMD)? Longevity researcher Valter Longo designed a five-day meal plan to try to simulate the metabolic effects of fasting by being low in protein, sugars, and calories with zero animal protein and zero animal fat. By making the diet plant-based, he hoped to lower the level of the cancer-promoting growth hormone IGF-1. He indeed accomplished this goal, along with a drop in markers of inflammation, after three cycles of his five-days-a-month program, as you can see below and at 2:33 in my video. 

    One hundred men and women were randomized to consume his fasting-mimicking diet for five consecutive days per month or maintain their regular diet the whole time. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:47 in my video, after three months, the FMD group was down about six pounds compared to the control group, with significant drops in body fat and waist circumference, accompanied by a drop in blood pressure. 

    Those who were the worst off accrued the most dramatic benefits, as seen in the graph below and at 3:04 in my video. What’s even wilder is that three further months after completion, some of the benefits appeared to persist, suggesting the effects “may last for several months.” It’s unclear, though, if those randomized to the FMD group used it as an opportunity to make positive lifestyle changes that helped maintain some of the weight loss. 


    Dr. Longo created a company to market his meal plan commercially, but, to his credit, says “he does not receive a salary or a consulting fee from the company…and will donate 100% of his shares to charity.” The whole diet appears to be mostly dehydrated soup mixes, herbal teas like hibiscus and chamomile, kale chips, nut-based energy bars, an algae-based DHA supplement, and a multivitamin dusted with vegetable powder. Why spend 50 dollars a day on a few processed snacks when you could instead eat a few hundred calories a day of real vegetables? 
     
    How interesting was that? All-you-can-eat above-ground vegetables for five days would have the same low amount of protein, sugars, and calories with zero animal protein or animal fat. But we’ll probably never know if it works as well, better, or worse because it’s hard to imagine such a study ever getting done without the financial incentive. 

    To learn more about IGF-1, see my video Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking.
     
    In this series on fasting, I’ve covered several topics, including the basics of calories and weight loss, water-only fasting, and the types of alternate-day fasting, see them all in the related videos below. 
     
    I close out the series with videos on time-restricted eating: Time-Restricted Eating Put to the Test and The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating. 
     
    If you want all of the videos in one place, I’ve done three webinars on fasting—Intermittent Fasting, Fasting for Disease Reversal, and Fasting and Cancer—and they’re all available for download now. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How Safe Is Alternate-Day Intermittent Fasting?  | NutritionFacts.org

    How Safe Is Alternate-Day Intermittent Fasting?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Eating every other day can raise your cholesterol. 
     
    Are there any downsides to fasting every other day? For example, might go all day without eating impair your ability to think clearly? Surprisingly, as I discuss in my video Is Alternate-Day Intermittent Fasting Safe?, the results appear to be “equivocal.” Some studies show no measurable effects and the ones that do fail to agree on which cognitive domains are affected. Might the cycles of fasting and feasting cause eating disorder–type behaviors, like bingeing? So far, no harmful psychological effects have been found. In fact, there may be some benefit. However, the studies that have put it to the test specifically excluded those with a documented history of eating disorders, for whom the effects may differ. 
     
    What about bone health? No change in bone mineral density was noted after six months of alternate-day fasting despite about 16 pounds of weight loss, which would typically result in a dip in bone mass. However, the researchers did not note any skeletal changes in the control group either, and they lost a similar amount of weight using continuous caloric restriction. They suggested this is because both groups tended to be “more physically active than the average obese American,” getting about 1,000 to 2,000 more steps a day. 
     
    Proponents of intermittent fasting suggest it can better protect lean body mass, but most of the intermittent trials have employed less accurate methods of body composition analysis, whereas the majority of continuous caloric restriction trials used “vastly more accurate techniques.” So, to date, it is not clear if there’s a difference in lean mass preservation. 
     
    Improvements in blood pressure and triglycerides have been noted on intermittent fasting regimens, though this is presumed to be due to the reduction in body fat since the effect appears to be “dependent on the amount of weight lost.” Alternate-day fasting can improve artery function, too, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:55 in my video, though it does depend on what you’re eating on the non-fasting day. For study participants randomized to an alternate-day diet high in saturated fat, their artery function worsened despite a ten-pound weight loss, whereas it improved, as expected, in the lower-fat group. The decline in artery function was presumed to be because of the pro-inflammatory nature of saturated fat. 

    A concern has been raised about the effects of alternate-day fasting on cholesterol. After 24 hours without food, LDL cholesterol may temporarily bump up, but this is presumably because so much fat is being released into the system by the fast. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:33 in my video, an immediate negative effect on carbohydrate tolerance may stem from the same phenomenon—the repeated elevations of free fat floating around in the bloodstream. After a few weeks, though, LDL levels start to drop as the weight comes off. However, results from the largest and longest trial of alternate-day fasting have given me pause. 


    A hundred obese men and women were randomized into one of three groups: alternate-day modified fasting (25 percent of their baseline calories on fasting days and 125 percent calories on eating days), continuous, daily caloric restriction (75 percent of baseline), or a control group instructed to maintain their regular diet. So, for those going into the trial eating 2,000 calories a day, they would continue to eat 2,000 calories a day in the control group. The calorie-restriction group would get 1,500 calories every day, and the intermittent-restriction group would alternate between 500 calories a day and 2,500 calories the next. 
     
    As you can see in the graph below and at 3:32 in my video, with the same overall, average, prescribed calorie cutting in the two weight-loss groups, they both lost about the same amount of weight, but, surprisingly, the cholesterol effects were different. In the continuous calorie-restriction group, the LDL levels dropped as expected compared to the control group as the pounds came off. 

    But, in the alternate-day modified fasting group, they didn’t, as you can see below, and at 3:55 in my video. At the end of the year, the LDL cholesterol in the intermittent fasting group ended up being 10 percent higher than in the constant calorie-restriction group—despite the same loss of body fat. Given that LDL cholesterol is a prime causal risk factor for heart disease, our number one killer—or is even the prime risk factor—this strikes a significant blow against alternate-day fasting. If you want to try it anyway, I would advise you to have your cholesterol monitored to make sure it comes down with your weight. 


    If you’re diabetic, you must talk with your physician about medication adjustment for any changes in diet, including fasting of any duration. Even with proactive medication reduction, advice to immediately break the fast should sugars drop too low, and weekly medical supervision, people with type 2 diabetes who fasted for even just two days a week were twice as likely to suffer from hypoglycemic episodes compared to an unfasted control group. We still don’t know the best way to tweak blood sugar medications to prevent blood sugar from dropping too low on fasting days. 
     
    Even fasting for just one day can significantly slow the clearance of some drugs (like the blood-thinning drug Coumadin) or increase the clearance of others (like caffeine). Fasting for 36 hours can cut your caffeine buzz by 20 percent. So, consultation with your medical professional before fasting is an especially good idea for anyone on any kind of medication. 

    If you missed it, check out Alternate-Day Intermittent Fasting Put to the Test. 
     
    So, with ambiguous cognitive, lean mass, and bone effects, plus these cholesterol findings, I wouldn’t suggest alternate-day fasting for weight loss, but dropping pounds isn’t the only thing this way of eating is purported to do. Check out Does Intermittent Fasting Increase Human Life Expectancy?. 
     
    For other types of intermittent fasting, total fasting, and more on fasting, check out the related videos below. 



    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Flavonoid Benefits from Apple Peels  | NutritionFacts.org

    Flavonoid Benefits from Apple Peels  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Peeled apples are pitted head-to-head against unpeeled apples (and spinach) in a test of artery function. 

    Regularly eating apples may contribute to a lower risk of dying prematurely. “Moderate apple consumption,” meaning one or two apples a week, “was associated with a 20% lower risk of all-cause mortality”—that is, dying from all causes put together—“whereas those who ate an apple a day had a 35% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with women with low apple consumption.” 
     
    You’ll often hear me talking about a lower or higher risk of mortality, but what does that mean? Isn’t the risk of dying 100 percent for everyone, eventually? As you can see in my graph below and at 0:40 in my video Friday Favorites: For Flavonoid Benefits, Don’t Peel Apples, I present some survival curves to help you visualize these concepts. For example, if you follow thousands of older women over time, nearly half succumb over a period of 15 years, but that half includes those who rarely, if ever, ate apples—less than 20 apples a year. Instead, those averaging more like half a small apple a day lived longer; over the same time period, closer to 40 percent or so of them died. And, those who ate one small apple or about a quarter of a large apple a day survived even longer. 

    Why is that the case? It seems to be less the apple of one’s eye than the apple of one’s arteries. Even a fraction of an apple a day is associated with 24 percent lower odds of having severe major artery calcifications, a marker of vascular disease. You may think that’s an obvious benefit since apples are fruits and fruits are healthy, but the effect was not found for pears, oranges, or bananas. 
     
    Both of these studies were done on women, but a similar effect (with apples and onions) was found for men. We think it’s because of the flavonoids, naturally occurring phytonutrients concentrated in apples. As you can see below and at 2:02 in my video, they’re thought to improve artery function and lower blood pressure, leading to improvements in blood flow throughout the body and brain, thereby decreasing the risk of heart disease and strokes. You don’t know, though, until you put it to the test.


    When I first saw a paper on testing flavonoid-rich apples, I assumed they had selectively bred or genetically engineered a special apple. But, no. The high-flavonoid apple was just an apple with its peel, compared to the low-flavonoid apple, which was the exact same apple with its peel removed. After eating the apples, flavonoid levels in the bloodstream shot up over the next three hours in the unpeeled apple group, compared to the peeled group, as you can see below, and at 2:36 in my video. This coincided with significantly improved artery function in the unpeeled apple group compared to the peeled one. The researchers concluded that “the lower risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease] with higher apple consumption is most likely due to the high concentration of flavonoids in the skin which improve endothelial [arterial] function”—though, it could be anything in the peel. All we know is that apple peels are particularly good for us, improving artery function and lowering blood pressure. 
    Even compared to spinach? As you can see in the graph below and at 3:14 in my video, if you give someone about three-quarters of a cup of cooked spinach, their blood pressure drops within two to three hours. If you instead eat an apple with some extra peel thrown in, you get a similar effect. The researchers concluded that apples and spinach almost immediately improve artery function and lower blood pressure. 
    What’s nice about these results is that we’re talking about whole foods, not some supplement or extract. So, easily, “this could be translated into a natural and low-cost method of reducing the cardiovascular risk profile of the general population.” 

    For more about apples, see the topic page and check out the related videos below. 

    What about dried apples? See Dried Apples vs. Cholesterol. What about apple cider vinegar? Check out Flashback Friday: Does Apple Cider Vinegar Help with Weight Loss?. And what about apples going head-to-head with açai berries? See The Antioxidant Effects of Açai vs. Apples.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Any Pitfalls with Restricting Calories?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Any Pitfalls with Restricting Calories?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How may we preserve bone and mass on a low-calorie diet? 
     
    One of the most consistent benefits of calorie restriction is that blood pressure improves in as little as one or two weeks. Blood pressure may even be normalized in a matter of weeks and blood pressure pills discontinued. Unfortunately, this can work a little too well and cause orthostatic intolerance, which can manifest as lightheadedness or dizziness upon standing and, in severe cases, may cause fainting, though staying hydrated can help. 
     
    What about loss of muscle mass? In the CALERIE trial, which I profile in my video Potential Pitfalls of Calorie Restriction, 70 percent of the body weight the subjects lost was fat and 30 percent was lean body mass. So, they ended up with an improved body composition of about 72 percent lean mass compared to 66 percent in the control group, as you can see at 0:51 in my video. And, even though leg muscle mass and strength declined in absolute terms, relative to their new body size, they generally got stronger. 

    Is there any way to preserve even more lean mass, particularly among older individuals who naturally tend to lose muscle mass with age? Increased protein intakes are commonly suggested, but most studies fail to find a beneficial effect on preserving muscle strength or function whether you’re young or old, active or sedentary. For example, during a 25 percent calorie restriction, researchers randomized overweight older men and women to either a normal-protein diet with 4 grams for every ten pounds of body weight or a high-protein diet with about 8 grams per ten pounds. That doubling of protein intake had no discernible effect on lean body mass, muscle strength, or physical performance. As you can see below and at 1:48 in my video, most such studies found the same lack of benefit, but when they’re all put together, one can tease out a small advantage of about one or two pounds of lean mass over an average of six months. 

    Unfortunately, high protein intake during weight loss has also been found to have “profound” negative metabolic effects, including undermining the benefits of weight loss on insulin sensitivity. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:14 in my video, if you lose 20 pounds, you can dramatically improve your body’s ability to handle blood sugars, compared to subjects in a control group who maintained their weight. But, if you lose the exact same amount of weight on a high-protein diet, getting about an extra 30 grams a day, it’s like you never lost any weight at all. 


    Though you can always bulk back up after weight loss, the best way to preserve muscle mass during weight loss is to exercise. The CALERIE study had no structured exercise component, and, similar to bariatric surgery, about 30 percent of the weight loss was lean mass. In contrast, that proportion was only about 16 percent of The Biggest Loser contestants, chalked up to their “vigorous exercise program.” Resistance training even just three times a week can prevent more than 90 percent of lean body mass loss during calorie restriction. 
     
    The same may be true of bone loss. Lose weight through calorie restriction alone, and you experience a decline in bone mineral density in fracture risk sites, such as the hip and spine. In the same study, though, those randomized to lose weight with exercise did not suffer any bone loss. The researchers concluded: “Our results suggest that regular EX [exercise] should be included as part of a comprehensive weight loss program to offset the adverse effects of CR [caloric restriction] on bone.” 
     
    It’s hard to argue with calls for increased physical activity, but even without an exercise regimen, the “very small” drop in bone mineral density in the CALERIE trial might only increase a ten-year risk of osteoporotic fracture by about 0.2 percent. The benefits of calorie restriction revealed by the study included improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:54 in my video, as well as improved mood, libido, and sleep. These would seem to far outweigh any potential risks. The fact that a reduction in calories seemed to have such wide-ranging benefits on quality of life led commentators in the AMA’s internal medicine journal to write: “The findings of this well-designed study suggest that intake of excess calories is not only a burden to our physical homeostasis [or equilibrium], but also on our psychological well-being.” 
     


    Check out my other videos on calorie restriction, fasting, intermittent fasting, and time-restricted eating in the related videos below. 

     

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Restricting Calories for Longevity?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Restricting Calories for Longevity?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Though a bane for dieters, a slower metabolism may actually be a good thing.

    We’ve known for more than a century that calorie restriction can increase the lifespan of animals, and metabolic slowdown may be the mechanism. That could be why the tortoise lives ten times longer than the hare. Rabbits can live for 10 to 20 years, whereas “Harriet,” a tortoise “allegedly collected from the Galapagos Islands by Charles Darwin, was estimated to be about 176 years old when she died in 2006.” Slow and steady may win the race. 
     
    As I discuss in my video The Benefits of Calorie Restriction for Longevity, one of the ways our body lowers our resting metabolic rate is by creating cleaner-burning, more efficient mitochondria, the power plants that fuel our cells. It’s like our body passes its own fuel-efficiency standards. These new mitochondria create the same energy with less oxygen and produce less free radical “exhaust.” After all, when our body is afraid famine is afoot, it tries to conserve as much energy as it can. 
     
    Indeed, the largest caloric restriction trial to date found metabolic slowing and a reduction in free radical-induced oxidative stress, both of which may slow the rate of aging. The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long. But, whether this results in greater human longevity is an unanswered question. Caloric restriction is often said “to extend lifespan in every species studied,” but that isn’t even true of all strains within a single species. Two authors of one article, for instance, don’t even share the same view: One doesn’t think calorie restriction will improve human longevity at all, while the other suggests that a 20 percent calorie restriction starting at age 25 and sustained for 52 years could add five years onto your life. Either way, the reduced oxidative stress would be expected to improve our healthspan. 
     
    Members of the Calorie Restriction Society, self-styled CRONies (for Calorie-Restricted Optimal Nutrition), appear to be in excellent health, but they’re a rather unique, self-selected group of individuals. You don’t really know until you put it to the test. Enter the CALERIE study, the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy, the first clinical trial to test the effects of caloric restriction. 
     
    Hundreds of non-obese men and women were randomized to two years of 25 percent calorie restriction. They only ended up achieving half that, yet they still lost about 18 pounds and three inches off their waists, wiping out more than half of their visceral abdominal fat, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:47 in my video. 

    That translated into significant improvements in cholesterol levels, triglycerides, insulin sensitivity, and blood pressure, which you can see in the graph below and at 2:52 in my video. Eighty percent of those who were overweight when they started were normal-weight by the end of the trial, “compared with a 27% increase in those who became overweight in the control group.” 

    In the famous Minnesota Starvation Study that used conscientious objectors as guinea pigs during World War II, the study subjects suffered both physically and psychologically, experiencing depression, irritability, and loss of libido, among other symptoms. The participants started out lean, though, and had their calorie intake cut in half. The CALERIE study ended up being four times less restrictive, only about 12 percent below baseline calorie intake, and enrolled normal-weight individuals, which in the United States these days means overweight on average. As such, the CALERIE trial subjects experienced nothing but positive quality-of-life benefits, with significant improvements in mood, general health, sex drive, and sleep. They only ended up eating about 300 fewer calories a day than they had eaten at baseline. So, they got all of these benefits—the physiological benefits and the psychological benefits—just from cutting about a small bag of chips’ worth of calories from their daily diets. 
     
    What happened at the end of the trial, though? As researchers saw in the Minnesota Starvation Study and in calorie deprivation experiments done on Army Rangers, as soon as the subjects were released from restriction, they tended to rapidly regain the weight and sometimes even more, as you can see below and at 4:18 in my video. 

    The leaner they started out, the more their bodies seemed to drive them to overeat to pack back on the extra body fat, as seen in the graph below and at 4:27 in my video. In contrast, after the completion of the CALERIE study, even though their metabolism was slowed, the participants retained about 50 percent of the weight loss two years later. They must have acquired new eating attitudes and behaviors that allowed them to keep their weight down. After extended calorie restriction, for example, cravings for sugary, fatty, and junky foods may actually go down. 
    This is part of my series on calorie restriction, intermittent fasting, and time-restricted eating. See related videos below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Diabetes Associations Recognize Plant-Based Diets  | NutritionFacts.org

    Diabetes Associations Recognize Plant-Based Diets  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Plant-based diets are the single most important—yet underutilized—opportunity to reverse the pending obesity and diabetes-induced epidemic of disease and death. 

    Dr. Kim Williams, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, started out an editorial on plant-based diets with the classic Schopenhauer quote: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” In 2013, plant-based diets for diabetes were in the “ridiculed” stage in the official endocrinology practice guidelines and placed in the “Fad Diets” section. The guidelines acknowledged that strictly plant-based diets “have been shown to reduce the risk for T2DM [type 2 diabetes] and improve management of T2DM” better than the American Diabetes Association recommendations, then inexplicably went on to say that it “does not support the use of one type of diet over another” with respect to diabetes or in general. “The best approach for a healthy lifestyle is simply the ‘amelioration of unhealthy choices’”—whatever that means. 

    But, by 2015, the clinical practice guidelines from the same professional associations explicitly endorsed a plant-based diet as its general recommendation for diabetic patients. The times they are a-changin’! 

    As I discuss in my video Plant-Based Diets Recognized by Diabetes Associations, the American Diabetes Association itself is also now on board, listing plant-based eating as one of the dietary patterns acceptable for the management of the condition. The Canadian Diabetes Association, however, has really taken the lead. “Type 2 diabetes mellitus is considered one of the fastest growing diseases in Canada, representing a serious public health concern,” so it isn’t messing around and recommends plant-based diets for disease management “because of their potential to improve body weight and A1C [blood sugar control], LDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol levels, in addition to reducing the need for diabetes medications.” The Canadian Diabetes Association uses the Kaiser Permanente definition for that eating pattern: “a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products and eggs, as well as all refined and processed foods,” that is, junk. 

    It recommends that diabetes education centers in Canada “improve patients’ perceptions of PBDs [plant-based diets] by developing PBD-focused educational and support as well as providing individualized counseling sessions addressing barriers to change.” The biggest obstacle identified to eating plant-based was ignorance. Nearly nine out of ten patients interviewed “had not heard of using a plant-based diet to treat or manage T2DM.” Why is that? “Patient awareness of (and interest in) the benefits of a plant-based diet for the management of diabetes…may be “influenced by the perception of diabetes educators and clinicians.” Indeed, most of the staff were aware of the benefits of plant-based eating for treating diabetes, yet only about one in three were recommending it to their patients.  

    Why? One of the common reasons given was they didn’t think their patients would eat plant-based, so they didn’t even bring it up, but “[t]his notion is contrary to the patient survey results that almost two-thirds of patients were willing” to at least give it a try. The researchers cite the PCRM Geico studies I’ve covered in other videos, in which strictly plant-based diets were “well accepted with over 95% adherence rate,” presumably because the study participants just felt so much better, reporting “increased energy level, better digestion, better sleep, and increased satisfaction when compared with the control group.” 

    A number of staff members also expressed they were unclear about the supportive scientific evidence as their second reason for not recommending this diet, but it’s been shown to be more effective than an American Diabetes Association–recommended diet at reducing the use of diabetes medications, long-term blood sugar control, and cholesterol. It’s therefore possible that the diabetes educators were simply behind the times, as there is “a lag-time” in the dissemination of new scientific findings from the literature to the clinician and finally to the patient. Speeding up this process is one of the reasons I started NutritionFacts.org. 

    As Dr. Williams put it, “the ‘truth’ (i.e., evidence) for the benefits of plant-based nutrition continues to mount. This now includes lower rates of stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, myocardial infarction, and mortality [heart attacks and cardiac death], as well as many non-cardiac issues that affect our patients in cardiology, ranging from cancer to a variety of inflammatory conditions.” We’ve got the science. The bigger challenge is overcoming the “inertia, culture, habit, and widespread marketing of unhealthy foods.” He concludes, “Reading the existing literature and evaluating the impact of plant-based nutrition, it clearly represents the single most important yet underutilized opportunity to reverse the pending obesity and diabetes-induced epidemic of morbidity and mortality,” disease and death. 

    I highlighted the PCRM Geico studies in my videos Slimming the Gecko and Plant-Based Workplace Intervention. 

    Aren’t plant-based diets high in carbs? Get the “skinny” by checking out my video Flashback Friday: Benefits of a Macrobiotic Diet for Diabetes. 

    To learn more about diet’s effect on type 2 diabetes, see the related videos below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • US adult cigarette smoking rate hits new all-time low

    US adult cigarette smoking rate hits new all-time low

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — U.S. cigarette smoking dropped to another all-time low last year, with 1 in 9 adults saying they were current smokers, according to government survey data released Thursday. Meanwhile, electronic cigarette use rose, to about 1 in 17 adults.

    The preliminary findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are based on survey responses from more than 27,000 adults.

    Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, heart disease and stroke, and it’s long been considered the leading cause of preventable death.

    In the mid-1960s, 42% of U.S. adults were smokers. The rate has been gradually dropping for decades, due to cigarette taxes, tobacco product price hikes, smoking bans and changes in the social acceptability of lighting up in public.

    Last year, the percentage of adult smokers dropped to about 11%, down from about 12.5% in 2020 and 2021. The survey findings sometimes are revised after further analysis, and CDC is expected to release final 2021 data soon.

    E-cigarette use rose to nearly 6% last year, from about 4.5% the year before, according to survey data.

    The rise in e-cigarette use concerns Dr. Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health. Nicotine addiction has its own health implications, including risk of high blood pressure and a narrowing of the arteries, according to the American Heart Association.

    “I think that smoking will continue to ebb downwards, but whether the prevalence of nicotine addiction will drop, given the rise of electronic products, is not clear,” said Samet, who has been a contributing author to U.S. Surgeon General reports on smoking and health for almost four decades.

    Smoking and vaping rates are almost reversed for teens. Only about 2% of high school students were smoking traditional cigarettes last year, but about 14% were using e-cigarettes, according to other CDC data.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • High-Salt Diet a Danger Even With Normal Blood Pressure

    High-Salt Diet a Danger Even With Normal Blood Pressure

    [ad_1]

    April 10, 2023 – It is well-known that high blood pressure is a risk factor for heart attacks and strokes.

    Now, new research from Sweden has shown that too much salt in the diet is an important risk factor for clogged arteries in the neck and heart, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes even if you don’t have high blood pressure.

    The study was published online in European Heart Journal Open.

    The finding raises the possibility that salt could cause damage even before someone develops high blood pressure, said study author Jonas Wuopio, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, and Clinical Research Center at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    Salt is bad for heart health because of its link to high blood pressure, also known as hypertension, but the role salt plays in the development of plaque in the arteries has not been examined, Wuopio said.

    “Ours is the first study to examine the association between a high salt intake and hardening of the arteries in both the head and neck. The association was linear, meaning that each rise in salt intake was linked with more atherosclerosis,” he said.

    The study included 10,778 adults ages 50 to 64. The research team measured the amount of salt found in the their urine to estimate their salt consumption. 

    The researchers then captured images of the arteries of the heart to check for calcium and blockages or stenosis, and ultrasound to detect blockages in the carotid arteries in the neck.

    They found that the more salt people consumed, the higher their risk of calcifications in the heart and neck arteries. 

    The findings were seen even after the researchers excluded people with high blood pressure.

    “This means that it’s not just patients with high blood pressure or heart disease who need to watch their salt intake,” Wuopio said.

    He tells his patients to follow guidance from the World Health Organization and other groups to limit salt to about a teaspoon a day. 

    “It can be hard to estimate how much salt we eat, so I advise patients to limit the use of table salt, or to replace salt with a salt substitute,” he said.

    Food is Medicine

    The lower you can get your blood pressure, the better, said Alon Gitig, MD, an assistant professor and director of cardiology for Mount Sinai Doctors in Westchester, NY. 

    “Everybody knows that high blood pressure is associated with future cardiovascular disease risk, but what many don’t realize is that that risk starts to increase” even at the upper end of what is considered normal. “Most of the people in the U.S. over the age of 60 have hypertension,” Gitig said.

    A good way to lower your blood pressure is through diet, exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight, he said.

    The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet – which suggests several servings of fruits and vegetables a day, with few refined carbohydrates, flour, and sugar – has been shown in a study to dramatically lower blood pressure, Gitig said.

    “There are two reasons for that. One is that fruits and vegetables have many phytonutrients that are good for our arteries. The other is that most of U.S. adults have insulin resistance, and insulin resistance leads to high blood pressure,”  he said. 

    Eating more fruits and vegetables and lean meats while limiting sugar and flour will improve insulin resistance. Do that, Gitig said, “and you can bring your blood pressure down that way.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ten-minute scan enables detection and cure of the commonest cause of high blood pressure

    Ten-minute scan enables detection and cure of the commonest cause of high blood pressure

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Doctors at Queen Mary University of London and Barts Hospital, and Cambridge University Hospital, have led research using a new type of CT scan to light up tiny nodules in a hormone gland and cure high blood pressure by their removal. The nodules are discovered in one-in-twenty people with high blood pressure.

    Published today in Nature Medicine, the research solves a 60-year problem of how to detect the hormone producing nodules without a difficult catheter study that is available in only a handful of hospitals, and often fails. The research also found that, when combined with a urine test, the scan detects a group of patients who come off all their blood pressure medicines after treatment.

    128 people participated in the study of a new scan after doctors found that their Hypertension (high blood pressure) was caused by a steroid hormone, aldosterone. The scan found that in two thirds of patients with elevated aldosterone secretion, this is coming from a benign nodule in just one of the adrenal glands, which can then be safely removed. The scan uses a very short-acting dose of metomidate, a radioactive dye that sticks only to the aldosterone-producing nodule. The scan was as accurate as the old catheter test, but quick, painless and technically successful in every patient. Until now, the catheter test was unable to predict which patients would be completely cured of hypertension by surgical removal of the gland. By contrast, the combination of a ‘hot nodule’ on the scan and urine steroid test detected 18 of the 24 patients who achieved a normal blood pressure off all their drugs.

    The research, conducted on patients at Barts Hospital, Cambridge University Hospital, and Guy’s and St Thomas’s, and Universities of Glasgow and Birmingham, was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and Medical Research Council (MRC) partnership, Barts Charity, and the British Heart Foundation.

    Professor Morris Brown, co-senior author of the study and Professor of Endocrine Hypertension at Queen Mary University of London, said: “These aldosterone-producing nodules are very small and easily overlooked on a regular CT scan. When they glow for a few minutes after our injection, they are revealed as the obvious cause of Hypertension, which can often then be cured. Until now, 99% are never diagnosed because of the difficulty and unavailability of tests. Hopefully this is about to change.”

    Professor William Drake, co-senior author of the study and Professor of Clinical Endocrinology at Queen Mary University of London, said: “This study was the result of years of hard work and collaboration between centres across the UK. Much of the ‘on the ground’ energy and drive came from the talented research fellows who, in addition to doing this innovative work, gave selflessly of their time and energy during the national pandemic emergency. The future of research in this area is in very safe hands.”

    In most people with Hypertension (high blood pressure), the cause is unknown, and the condition requires life-long treatment by drugs. Previous research by the group at Queen Mary University discovered that in 5-10% of people with Hypertension the cause is a gene mutation in the adrenal glands, which results in excessive amounts of the steroid hormone, aldosterone, being produced. Aldosterone causes salt to be retained in the body, driving up the blood pressure. Patients with excessive aldosterone levels in the blood are resistant to treatment with the commonly used drugs for Hypertension, and at increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

    ENDS

    [ad_2]

    Queen Mary University of London

    Source link

  • ViaSat, Nvidia rise; Cal-Maine Foods falls

    ViaSat, Nvidia rise; Cal-Maine Foods falls

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Stocks that traded heavily or had substantial price changes Thursday:

    ViaSat Inc., up $1.91 to $31.76.

    The provider of satellite and wireless networking technology announced a $325 million U.S. military contract.

    Cal-Maine Foods Inc., down $9.02 to $53.17.

    The egg producer reported weak fiscal second-quarter earnings.

    Goldman Sachs, up $2.56 to $343.43.

    The investment bank is reportedly working on a new round of job cuts.

    Novartis AG, up 76 cents to $91.60.

    The pharmaceutical company is reportedly paying $245 million to settle an antitrust case over a hypertension drug.

    Devon Energy Corp., up 15 cents to $61.04.

    Oil prices fell and weighed down energy stocks.

    Nvidia Corp., up $5.67 to $146.03.

    Chipmakers gained ground as part of a broader rally and as China continues rolling back strict COVID-19 restrictions.

    Exxon Mobil Corp., up 82 cents to $109.20.

    The oil company is reportedly suing the European Union over a windfall tax on energy companies.

    Kraft Heinz Co., up 24 cents to $40.68.

    Food producers and other stocks considered less risky lagged the broader market rally.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ask Money Today: Can diabetes, hypertension or high BP lead to the rejection of your health insurance claim?

    Ask Money Today: Can diabetes, hypertension or high BP lead to the rejection of your health insurance claim?

    [ad_1]

    Question: Is diabetes, hypertension or high BP, considered a pre-existing ailment? Can it lead to a rejection of claims for complications arising out of them? What happens if one didn’t know or didn’t have the condition at the time of buying the policy?

    Preeti, Mumbai

    Vivek Chaturvedi, CMO and Head of Direct Sales, Go Digit General Insurance

    Before buying a health insurance policy, it is imperative to understand the importance of disclosing your pre-existing conditions or diseases. Insurance works on the principle of utmost good faith and therefore, it is expected of the insured and the insurer to disclose all essential information before closing the transaction.

    Note that pre-existing diseases (PED) are conditions that exist at the time of buying a health insurance policy. High blood pressure, diabetes, asthma, hypertension etc., fall under PEDs and must be disclosed to the insurer when you are buying health insurance. Non-disclosure of PEDs can lead to a rejection of claims as most policies have a specific waiting period for existing diseases.

    Waiting periods for pre-existing conditions could range anywhere from 1-4 years. Despite declaring your PED, insurers could still choose to cover you, perhaps at a relatively higher premium (loading). However, if one fails to be transparent, the consequences could be as harsh as the cancellation of the policy altogether. Any claim arising out of an unrelated illness also could get repudiated if the PED is discovered at the time of the investigation.

    If you think you may have a PED, it’s advisable to get the relevant tests done and share the results with the insurer should you get diagnosed with a disease. This not only gives the insurer an opportunity to make necessary amends in the policy but also protects you from having your claims rejected.

    Further, if you get diagnosed with a disease after buying the policy and are hospitalised for the same, your insurer will accept the claim. Note that it is also not mandatory to disclose new diseases at the time of renewing the policy because all conditions except the exclusions in the policy will be covered. However, if you choose to disclose the PED at the time of renewal (which should’ve been done while buying the policy), then the insurer may either cancel the policy or apply some restrictions or a waiting period.

    Given the importance of health insurance in today’s day and age, it’s advisable to be transparent and disclose all details honestly instead of bearing the brunt of rejected claims or policy cancellations.

    (Views expressed by the investment expert are his/her own. E-mail us your investment queries at askmoneytoday@intoday.com. We will get your queries answered by our panel of experts)

    Also read: Ask Money Today: Will my lost luggage be covered under travel insurance and is there any time limit for filing the claim?

    Also read: Ask Money Today: How much maximum tax benefit can I claim on home loan?

    [ad_2]

    Source link