ReportWire

Tag: obesity

  • 4 Healthy Cat Diet Tips to Prevent Obesity | Animal Wellness Magazine

    These four key healthy cat diet tips will help you understand how to use food to keep your feline friend lean and full of energy!

    Obesity is a common health issue in cats. In fact, it’s estimated that over 60% of cats are overweight or obese. Luckily, it’s easy to prevent, and there are plenty of reasons you should take steps to do so. Excess weight can shorten their lifespan, reduce their quality of life, and cause health conditions like diabetes, joint problems, and heart and liver disease. Regular play and exercise are essential components for a healthy lifestyle, but the real key to preventing obesity in cats lies in their food bowl. Here are four healthy cat diet tips that will help you keep your kitty lean, happy, and healthy!

    1. Practice Portion Control

    Overfeeding is one of the biggest contributors to cat obesity. The easiest way to combat it is by feeding your cat twice daily instead of allowing them to free feed, which can easily lead to constant snacking, overeating, and weight gain. And be sure to measure the proper amount of food for your cat based on the feeding guidelines provided by your vet or the food manufacturer.

    2. Adjust Calories Based on Life Stage and Activity Level

    Cats have different caloric needs depending on their age and how active they are. Kittens need more calories and nutrients to support growth, while adults and seniors typically require fewer calories. Spayed or neutered cats also have slower metabolisms and may gain weight more easily. Similarly, indoor cats who aren’t as active as outdoor cats may need a weight-maintenance formula. Regular checkups with your veterinarian will help you stay on track with a healthy cat diet.

    3. Prioritize Nutrient-Rich Cat Foods

    While it is important to pay attention to the number of calories your cat consumes, it’s just as important to make sure they’re getting the right nutrients. Cats are obligate carnivores, and they thrive on meat-rich diets. Look for foods with real animal protein as the first ingredient, minimal carbohydrates, and no artificial additives. High-quality foods ensure your cat gets the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients they need while also helping them feel satisfied with smaller portions.

    4. Keep Treats and Human Food to a Minimum

    Treats are okay, as long as they’re just that—treats. They shouldn’t make up more than 10% of your cat’s daily calories. And that includes human food. Even though some human foods are safe for cats (like lean meats, salmon, tuna, and even some vegetables), you must be careful not to overfeed. When you do feed treats, prioritize nutrient-dense ones. Here are some things to look for:

    • Single- or minimal-ingredient treats
    • Meat as the first ingredient
    • No added salt or sugar
    • Real-food ingredients

    A Healthy Cat Diet Starts with NutriSource Recipes!

    NutriSource has been nourishing cats for over 60 years with nutrient-dense foods, prioritizing high-quality ingredients and meat-rich recipes that supply cats with the calories and nutrients they need to maintain energy and a healthy body condition. They have a variety of options for cats of all ages in their NutriSource, Element, and PureVita lines, including grain-inclusive options, grain-free recipes, and weight management formulations, all of which feature animal protein as the first ingredient.

    Visit NutriSource to learn more and find the purrfect healthy cat diet for your feline friend!

    Post Views: 230


    Animal Wellness is North America’s top natural health and lifestyle magazine for dogs and cats, with a readership of over one million every year. AW features articles by some of the most renowned experts in the pet industry, with topics ranging from diet and health related issues, to articles on training, fitness and emotional well being.

    Animal Wellness

    Source link

  • Plant-Based Hospital Menus | NutritionFacts.org

    The American Medical Association passed a resolution encouraging hospitals to offer healthy plant-based food options.

    “Globally, 11 million deaths annually are attributable to dietary factors, placing poor diet ahead of any other risk factor for death in the world.” Given that diet is our leading killer, you’d think that nutrition education would be emphasized during medical school and training, but there is a deficiency. A systematic review found that, “despite the centrality of nutrition to a healthy lifestyle, graduating medical students are not supported through their education to provide high-quality, effective nutrition care to patients…”

    It could start in undergrad. What’s more important? Learning about humanity’s leading killer or organic chemistry?

    In medical school, students may average only 19 hours of nutrition out of thousands of hours of instruction, and they aren’t even being taught what’s most useful. How many cases of scurvy and beriberi, diseases of dietary deficiency, will they encounter in clinical practice? In contrast, how many of their future patients will be suffering from dietary excesses—obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease? Those are probably a little more common than scurvy or beriberi. “Nevertheless, fully 95% of cardiologists [surveyed] believe that their role includes personally providing patients with at least basic nutrition information,” yet not even one in ten feels they have an “expert” grasp on the subject.

    If you look at the clinical guidelines for what we should do for our patients with regard to our number one killer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, all treatment begins with a healthy lifestyle, as shown below and at 1:50 in my video Hospitals with 100-Percent Plant-Based Menus.

    “Yet, how can clinicians put these guidelines into practice without adequate training in nutrition?”

    Less than half of medical schools report teaching any nutrition in clinical practice. In fact, they may be effectively teaching anti-nutrition, as “students typically begin medical school with a greater appreciation for the role of nutrition in health than when they leave.” Below and at 2:36 in my video is a figure entitled “Percentage of Medical Students Indicating that Nutrition is Important to Their Careers.” Upon entry to different medical schools, about three-quarters on average felt that nutrition is important to their careers. Smart bunch. Then, after two years of instruction, they were asked the same question, and the numbers plummeted. In fact, at most schools, it fell to 0%. Instead of being educated, they got de-educated. They had the notion that nutrition is important washed right out of their brains. “Thus, preclinical teaching”— the first two years of medical school—“engenders a loss of a sense of the relevance of the applied discipline of nutrition.”

    Following medical school, during residency, nutrition education is “minimal or, more typically, absent.” “Major updates” were released in 2018 for residency and fellowship training requirements, and there were zero requirements for nutrition. “So you could have an internal medicine graduate who comes out of a terrific program and has learned nothing—literally nothing—about nutrition.”

    “Why is diet not routinely addressed in both medical education and practice already, and what should be done about that?” One of the “reasons for the medical silence in nutrition” is that, “sadly…nutrition takes a back seat…because there are few financial incentives to support it.” What can we do about that? The Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School identified a dozen different policy levers at all stages of medical education and the kinds of policy recommendations there could be for the decision-makers, as you can see here and at 3:48 in my video.

    For instance, the government could require doctors working for Veterans Affairs (VA) to get at least some courses in nutrition, or we could put questions about nutrition on the board exams so schools would be pressured to teach it. As we are now, even patients who have just had a heart attack aren’t changing their diet. Doctors may not be telling them to do so, and hospitals may be actively undermining their future with the food they serve.

    The good news is that the American Medical Association (AMA) has passed a resolution encouraging hospitals to offer healthy food options. What a concept! “Our AMA hereby calls on [U.S.] Health Care Facilities to improve the health of patients, staff, and visitors by: (a) providing a variety of healthy food, including plant-based meals, and meals that are low in saturated and trans fat, sodium, and added sugars; (b) eliminating processed meats from menus; and (c) providing and promoting healthy beverages.” Nice!

    “Similarly, in 2018, the State of California mandated the availability of plant-based meals for hospital patients,” and there are hospitals in Gainesville (FL), the Bronx, Manhattan, Denver, and Tampa (FL) that “all provide 100% plant-based meals to their patients on a separate menu and provide educational materials to inpatients to improve education on the role of diet, especially plant-based diets, in chronic illness.”

    Let’s check out some of their menu offerings: How about some lentil Bolognese? Or a cauliflower scramble with baked hash browns for breakfast, mushroom ragu for lunch, and, for supper, white bean stew, salad, and fruit for dessert. (This is the first time a hospital menu has ever made me hungry!)

    The key to these transformations was “having a physician advocate and increasing education of staff and patients on the benefits of eating more plant-based foods.” A single clinician can spark change in a whole system, because science is on their side. “Doctors have a unique position in society” to influence policy at all levels; it’s about time we used it.

    For more on the ingrained ignorance of basic clinical nutrition in medicine, see the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Why Employers Still Cover GLP-1 Drugs as Prices Skyrocket

    Among the workplace benefits employees say they appreciate most are flexible work arrangements, paid time off, 401(k) retirement accounts, career development programs, and of course company health insurance plans. But now, many businesses are scaling back or ending an increasingly popular benefit within their wider healthcare coverage – paying for workers’ use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medication for weight loss.

    Initially developed to treat diabetes by regulating blood sugar levels, GLP-1 medication has become increasingly popular for losing weight. Recent surveys found that 60 percent of people taking Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Saxenda, and other versions of the drug did so primarily for weight loss. But that surging demand has led pharmaceutical manufactures to repeatedly hike their prices for GPL-1s, which has spiked the costs of employer coverage of the drugs. As a result, many businesses are now having to rethink the terms of including those medications in their plans, or remove them entirely.

    Most businesses had already had to adjust to the average 6 percent rise in their employee health insurance premiums this year, with many facing double-digit rises in 2026. At the same time, a recent joint study by nonprofits Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF determined employee use of GLP-1s has been far higher than anyone had anticipated — mostly due to the drug’s growing use for weight loss. Those factors are adding to the financial pinch for employer health plans and forcing them to respond.

    According to the Peterson-KFF survey, 19 percent of all employers with 200 employees or more cover GLP-1 use for losing weight in their health plans. But that rises to 30 percent among companies with 1,000-5,000 workers, and 43 percent for even bigger firms. Those latter figures represent a roughly 28 increase in coverage of the drug compared to 2024.

    Not surprisingly, nearly a quarter of all employers said staff use GLP-1 drugs for weight loss was higher than they expected, with that number rising to nearly 60 percent at larger businesses. That led nearly a third of respondents to report those medications had “significantly impacted their prescription drug spending,” rising to 66 percent at companies with 5,000 workers or more.

    “Before we knew it, we spent half a million dollars and were projected to go up to $1.2 million the following year,” a benefits manager with a retailing company said in anonymous comments to the Peterson-KFF survey about GLP-1 costs.

    Many employers are responding to both rising premiums and higher medication costs by passing on some of the increases to employees, and inching up co-pays workers have to finance. But that probably won’t be enough to offset the surging costs of GLP-1s. As a result, most companies are revising the way their plans cover the medication.

    Many businesses are limiting GLP-1 exclusively for diabetes treatment — with some requiring company health officials to approve that use beforehand. But because taking the medication has become so popular for weight loss, other employers don’t feel they can cut employees off from it.

    On the one hand, by covering the drug under company health plans, some employers have found GLP-1s have become a de facto benefit capable of attracting new recruits, while also helping to retain existing workers. Meantime, a lot of businesses have calculated that as expensive as the medication is, its effectiveness in helping weight loss has led to reduced costs related to employee cardiovascular diseases and other conditions attributed to obesity.

    Still, employers facing rising prices of the drug are having to stem its spreading use. In some cases, companies have decided to continue covering GLP-1s for weight loss, but only by employees above new body mass index (BMI) thresholds. Others additional measures include creating lifestyle and nutrition programs to make sure workers using the medication stay slimmer once they stop taking the medication.

    “(W)e put in the requirement that you have type 2 diabetes for certain GLP-1s, and then we put in a BMI of 35 or higher for the weight loss GLP-1s,” a HR official with a manufacturing company said in survey comments, noting some employees had been “grandfathered in” for continued use while others will need to qualify for it in the future. “We are trying to decide how to manage this crazy cost of the GLP-1s.”

    What’s behind that determination to keep covering GLP-1s?

    It comes partly from employers’ desire to safeguard employees’ health while sparing them much of the costs of doing that. At the same time, a lot of managers already recognize GLP-1 medications are likely to become ever bigger factors in healthcare coverage. That’s growing increasingly likely with the number of diseases the drug has been shown to improve continuing to multiply over time.

    As a result, even health insurance companies providing employee health coverage to business owners have warned that GLP-1 isn’t going away any time soon — whether the drugs are used for treating diabetes, losing weight, or addressing other conditions.

    “Our insurance provider, Cigna told us that within the next nine to 12 months, there’s really not going to be a choice,” said a health manager with a manufacturing company in the survey comments. “(A)ll insurance companies are probably going to be covering GLP-1s for weight loss.” 

    And as a result, many employers are resolving themselves to do likewise — though they’re starting so set some limits.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Ozempic’s Latest Weight Loss Competition Is Like Nothing We’ve Seen Before

    The race to develop the next generation of weight loss drugs has taken an interesting new turn. In recent research, Eli Lilly’s experimental treatment eloralintide helped people lose a substantial amount of weight—without needing to use the same approach as existing popular medications like Ozempic.

    Earlier this month in The Lancet, Eli Lilly researchers and others published the latest phase II trial results of eloralintide. Over a 48-week span, people taking eloralintide lost up to 20% of their baseline body weight, well above the average weight loss experienced by those on placebo. Eloralintide’s early success so far is all the more notable because it isn’t a GLP-1 drug.

    A different mechanism

    Eloralintide mimics the hormone amylin. Our pancreas naturally releases amylin alongside insulin into the bloodstream in response to eating food. Once released, amylin helps tell our body that it’s full, tamps down our appetite, and slows the passage of food through our digestive system.

    The most effective weight loss drugs today, such as semaglutide (the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy), are long-acting mimics of the hormone GLP-1. Like GLP-1, amylin plays a part in regulating our hunger and blood sugar control. The two hormones even share some overlap in how they affect the body to carry out these functions. But they also have some key distinctions, and that’s made amylin a promising new target for obesity treatment.

    There is an existing amylin-based drug, pramlintide, which was first approved two decades ago as a treatment for diabetes. But it’s the newest amylin analogues in development, like eloralintide, that have really excited scientists. These experimental drugs are designed to last much longer in the body than natural amylin, ideally boosting the hormone’s effects to help people lose weight and control their blood sugar. Much like semaglutide, eloralintide is intended to be taken once a week via subcutaneous injection.

    Early promise

    Eli Lilly’s phase II trial involved 263 participants without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (a body mass index over 30) or who were overweight (a BMI over 27) with weight-related health conditions. They were randomly assigned to either receive a placebo or varying doses of eloralintide. Some were given the same dosage of the drug throughout the study, while others were given gradually escalating dosages.

    People on eloralintide, no matter the dosing strategy, saw greater improvements in weight loss over 48 weeks on average compared to the placebo group, the study showed. People taking the highest weekly dose, nine milligrams, saw the best results, an average 20% weight loss during the study, as did people who steadily increased their dose from six to nine milligrams.

    It also appeared to be safe and generally well-tolerated. The adverse events typically associated with the drug were gastrointestinal, similar to the known side effects of GLP-1 therapy. The most common adverse event was nausea, with about a third of people on the highest dose reporting the symptom.

    “Eloralintide produced clinically meaningful, dose-dependent reductions in bodyweight over 48 weeks and was generally well tolerated, supporting eloralintide’s potential use for obesity treatment,” the study researchers wrote.

    What does this mean for the future of weight loss?

    GLP-1s have greatly changed the field of obesity medicine in recent years. And though these drugs aren’t risk-free and can be highly expensive, they’ve already started to turn back the clock on obesity. For the first time in years, America’s obesity rate has noticeably declined as the use of these drugs has steadily climbed.

    There are now plenty of obesity drugs in development, many of which are iterations of GLP-1. Other drugs are combining GLP-1 with other hunger-related hormones, including amylin. Eloralintide’s results are especially tantalizing, though, since the drug is only relying on amylin. That’s important because it may mean that eloralintide can eventually become an appealing alternative for people who haven’t responded to GLP-1 therapy.

    It’s far too early to be sure, especially without a study directly comparing these medications in a trial. But it’s worth noting that semaglutide only helped people lose about 15% of their body weight on average in clinical trials. Eli Lilly’s existing obesity drug tirzepatide, which pairs GLP-1 and the hormone GIP, has shown weight loss rates hovering around 20%.

    These early findings will have to be verified by data from larger trials, of course. But if this research continues to show promise, eloralintide could open up a whole new area of obesity treatment.

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • Trump is ramping up a new effort to convince a skeptical public he can fix affordability worries

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is adjusting his messaging strategy to win over voters who are worried about the cost of living with plans to emphasize new tax breaks and show progress on fighting inflation.

    The messaging is centered around affordability, and the push comes after inflation emerged as a major vulnerability for Trump and Republicans in Tuesday’s elections, in which voters overwhelmingly said the economy was their biggest concern.

    Democrats took advantage of concerns about affordability to run up huge margins in the New Jersey and Virginia governor races, flipping what had been a strength for Trump in the 2024 presidential election into a vulnerability going into next year’s midterm elections.

    White House officials and others familiar with their thinking requested anonymity to speak for this article in order to not get ahead of the president’s actions. They stressed that affordability has always been a priority for Trump, but the president plans to talk about it more, as he did Thursday when he announced that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk would reduce the price of their anti-obesity drugs.

    “We are the ones that have done a great job on affordability, not the Democrats,” Trump said at an event in the Oval Office to announce the deal. “We just lost an election, they said, based on affordability. It’s a con job by the Democrats.”

    The White House is keeping up a steady drumbeat of posts on social media about prices and deals for Thanksgiving dinner staples at retailers such as Walmart, Lidl, Aldi and Target.

    “I don’t want to hear about the affordability, because right now, we’re much less,” Trump told reporters Thursday, arguing that things are much better for Americans with his party in charge.

    “The only problem is the Republicans don’t talk about it,” he said.

    The outlook for inflation is unclear

    As of now, the inflation outlook has worsened under Trump. Consumer prices in September increased at an annual rate of 3%, up from 2.3% in April, when the president first began to roll out substantial tariff hikes that suddenly burdened the economy with uncertainty. The AP Voter Poll showed the economy was the leading issue in Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey, Virginia, New York City and California.

    Grocery prices continue to climb, and recently, electricity bills have emerged as a new worry. At the same time, the pace of job gains has slowed, plunging 23% from the pace a year ago.

    The White House maintains a list of talking points about the economy, noting that the stock market has hit record highs multiple times and that the president is attracting foreign investment. Trump has emphasized that gasoline prices are coming down, and maintained that gasoline is averaging $2 a gallon, but AAA reported Thursday that the national average was $3.08, about two cents lower than a year ago.

    “Americans are paying less for essentials like gas and eggs, and today the Administration inked yet another drug pricing deal to deliver unprecedented health care savings for everyday Americans,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai.

    Trump gets briefed about the economy by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials at least once a week and there are often daily discussions on tariffs, a senior White House official said, noting Trump is expected to do more domestic travel next year to make his case that he’s fixing affordability.

    But critics say it will be hard for Trump to turn around public perceptions on affordability.

    “He’s in real trouble and I think it’s bigger than just cost of living,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal economic advocacy group.

    Owens noted that Trump has “lost his strength” as voters are increasingly doubtful about Trump’s economic leadership compared to Democrats, adding that the president doesn’t have the time to turn around public perceptions of him as he continues to pursue broad tariffs.

    New hype about income tax cuts ahead of April

    There will be new policies rolled out on affordability, a person familiar with the White House thinking said, declining to comment on what those would be. Trump on Thursday indicated there will be more deals coming on drug prices. Two other White House officials said messaging would change — but not policy.

    A big part of the administration’s response on affordability will be educating people ahead of tax season about the role of Trump’s income tax cuts in any refunds they receive in April, the person familiar with planning said. Those cuts were part of the sprawling bill Republicans muscled through Congress in July.

    This individual stressed that the key challenge is bringing prices down while simultaneously having wages increase, so that people can feel and see any progress.

    There’s also a bet that the economy will be in a healthier place in six months. With Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s term ending in May, the White House anticipates the start of consistent cuts to the Fed’s benchmark interest rate. They expect inflation rates to cool and declines in the federal budget deficit to boost sentiment in the financial markets.

    But the U.S. economy seldom cooperates with a president’s intentions, a lesson learned most recently by Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, who saw his popularity slump after inflation spiked to a four-decade high in June 2022.

    The Trump administration maintains it’s simply working through an inflation challenge inherited from Biden, but new economic research indicates Trump has created his own inflation challenge through tariffs.

    Since April, Harvard University economist Alberto Cavallo and his colleagues, Northwestern University’s Paola Llamas and Universidad de San Andres’ Franco Vazquez, have been tracking the impact of the import taxes on consumer prices.

    In an October paper, the economists found that the inflation rate would have been drastically lower at 2.2%, had it not been for Trump’s tariffs.

    The administration maintains that tariffs have not contributed to inflation. They plan to make the case that the import taxes are helping the economy and dismiss criticisms of the import taxes as contributing to inflation as Democratic talking points.

    The fate of Trump’s country-by-country tariffs is currently being decided by the Supreme Court, where justices at a Wednesday hearing seemed dubious over the administration’s claims that tariffs were essentially regulations and could be levied by a president without congressional approval. Trump has maintained at times that foreign countries pay the tariffs and not U.S. citizens, a claim he backed away from slightly Thursday.

    “They might be paying something,” he said. “But when you take the overall impact, the Americans are gaining tremendously.”

    _____

    Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Rates of high blood pressure in children have nearly doubled in 20 years

    (CNN) — Global rates of hypertension, or high blood pressure, in childhood and adolescence have nearly doubled since 2000, putting more kids at risk for poor health later in life.

    “In 2000, about 3.4% of boys and 3% of girls had hypertension. By 2020, those numbers had risen to 6.5% and 5.8% respectively,” said Dr. Peige Song, a researcher from the School of Public Health at Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China. Song is one of the authors of a study describing the findings that published Wednesday in the journal The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.

    Children who have hypertension could be at greater risk later on of developing heart disease –– the No. 1 cause of death in the United States, said Dr. Mingyu Zhang, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He was not involved in the research.

    “The good news is that this is a modifiable risk,” Song said in an email. “With better screening, earlier detection, and a stronger focus on prevention, especially around healthy weight and nutrition, we can intervene before complications arise.”

    High blood pressure in kids can be addressed

    The rise in hypertension in children is likely due to many factors.

    Childhood obesity is a significant risk factor, because it is associated with factors like insulin resistance, inflammation and vascular function, Song said.

    Dietary factors such as consuming high levels of sodium and ultraprocessed food can also contribute to hypertension risk, as well as poor sleep quality, stress and genetic predisposition, she said.

    Many children also get less movement than past generations and spend more time on sedentary activities, like screen use, which may be affecting risk, she said.

    “We are also starting to know that other factors, including environmental pollutants, can contribute,” Zhang added.

    Zhang served as senior author on a previous study that showed a connection between prebirth exposure to chemicals called PFAS — a class of about 15,000 human-made compounds linked to cancers, endocrine-related conditions and developmental issues in children — and childhood hypertension. Short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they don’t fully break down in the environment.

    The biggest takeaway of this research for families is not to assume high blood pressure is only a problem for adults, Song said.

    If you are worried about your child’s risk for obesity or hypertension, pressure, shame and restriction are not the best approaches.

    Instead, focus on increasing healthy behaviors in a happy way, said Jill Castle, a pediatric dietitian in Massachusetts, in a previous CNN article.

    “The goal of the food pillar is really to embrace flexibility with food and to emphasize foods that are highly nutritious and … to allow foods also that might be minimally nutritious within the diet in ways that can be fully enjoyed and flexible,” Castle said.

    Try to prioritize sitting down as a family for meals and avoid labeling foods as “good” or “bad,” said Castle, author of “Kids Thrive at Every Size.”

    “The clean plate club or rewarding with sweets — they might work in the moment, but they don’t do a good job of establishing the self-trust and an intuitive, good relationship with food as kids grow up,” Castle said.

    Masked hypertension in children

    The study didn’t just track rates in the United States. Instead, researchers analyzed data from 96 studies across 21 countries.

    Another important consideration the study team made is how blood pressure differs in and outside the doctor’s office. Some children might have normal blood pressure at home, but a higher reading in the office, while others might have a lower blood pressure in the office than they normally would.

    By including data from both office visits and at-home blood pressure readings, the researchers were able to include hypertension rates that are “masked,” or wouldn’t be caught in a doctor’s visit, Zhang said. Masked hypertension was found to be the most common kind, according to the data.

    “This is important because it means that many children with true hypertension could go undetected if we rely only on office blood pressure readings,” he said.

    The result show that one reading may not be enough, and there may be a need for more scalable solutions for better monitoring and care of hypertension around the world, Song added.

    Madeline Holcombe and CNN

    Source link

  • Pfizer clinches deal for obesity drug developer Metsea after a bidding war with Novo Nordisk

    Pfizer has signed a deal to purchase Metsera Inc., an obesity drugmaker in the development stage, after winning a bidding war against Novo Nordisk

    NEW YORK — U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer signed a deal to purchase development-stage obesity drugmaker Metsera Inc., winning a bidding war against Novo Nordisk, the Danish drugmaker behind weight-loss treatments Ozempic and Wegovy.

    Metsera, based in New York, has no products on the market, but it is developing oral and injectable treatments. That includes some potential treatments that could target lucrative fields for obesity and diabetes.

    The deal comes as Pfizer is attempting to develop its own stake in that market, several months after ending development of a potential pill treatment for obesity.

    In a statement issued Friday, Metsera said Pfizer will acquire the company for up to $86.25 per share, consisting of $65.60 per share in cash and a contingent value right entitling holders to additional payments of up to $20.65 per share in cash.

    Metsera cited U.S. antitrust risks in Novo’s bid, saying in its statement that the board has determined Pfizer’s revised terms represent “the best transaction for shareholders, both from the perspective of value and certainty of closing.”

    The deal comes three days after Novo Nordisk raised the stakes in its push to outbid Pfizer, saying Tuesday it would offer to pay as much as $10 billion for Metsera. That was higher than its previous bid of up to $9 billion which sparked a lawsuit from Pfizer.

    Pfizer had also altered the offer it made in September of nearly $4.9 billion to provide more cash up front, Metsera had said.

    New York-based Pfizer said in an email that it was happy with the terms of the deal, and expects to close the transaction shortly following the Metsera shareholder meeting on Nov. 13.

    Novo Nordisk said Saturday it would not increase its offer and would leave the race to acquire Metsera.

    Novo’s proposed deal had involved paying $62.20 in cash for each Metsera share, up from its previous bid of $56.50. The Danish drugmaker planned to tack on a contingent value right payment of $24, another improvement from its previous bid, if certain development and regulatory milestones were met.

    Source link

  • Pfizer Clinches Deal for Obesity Drug Developer Metsea After a Bidding War With Novo Nordisk

    NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer signed a deal to purchase development-stage obesity drugmaker Metsera Inc., winning a bidding war against Novo Nordisk, the Danish drugmaker behind weight-loss treatments Ozempic and Wegovy.

    Metsera, based in New York, has no products on the market, but it is developing oral and injectable treatments. That includes some potential treatments that could target lucrative fields for obesity and diabetes.

    The deal comes as Phizer is attempting to develop its own stake in that market, several months after ending development of a potential pill treatment for obesity.

    In a statement issued Friday, Metsera said Pfizer will acquire the company for up to $86.25 per share, consisting of $65.60 per share in cash and a contingent value right entitling holders to additional payments of up to $20.65 per share in cash.

    Metsera cited U.S. antitrust risks in Novo’s bid, saying in its statement that the board has determined Pfizer’s revised terms represent “the best transaction for shareholders, both from the perspective of value and certainty of closing.”

    Pfizer had also altered the offer it made in September of nearly $4.9 billion to provide more cash up front, Metsera had said.

    New York-based Pfizer said in an email that it was happy with the terms of the deal, and expects to close the transaction shortly following the Metsera shareholder meeting on Nov. 13.

    Novo’s proposed deal had involved paying $62.20 in cash for each Metsera share, up from its previous bid of $56.50. The Danish drugmaker planned to tack on a contingent value right payment of $24, another improvement from its previous bid, if certain development and regulatory milestones were met.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Trump unveils deal to expand coverage and lower costs on obesity drugs

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unveiled a deal Thursday with drugmakers Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to expand coverage and reduce prices for the popular obesity treatments Zepbound and Wegovy.

    Known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, the drugs have soared in popularity in recent years, but patient access has been a consistent problem because of their cost — around $500 a month for higher doses — and insurance coverage has been spotty. More than 100 million American adults are obese, according to federal estimates.

    Coverage of the drugs for obesity will expand to Medicare patients starting next year, according to the administration, which said some lower prices also will be phased in for patients without coverage. Starting doses of new, pill versions of the treatments also will cost $149 a month if they are approved.

    “(It) will save lives, improve the health of millions and millions of Americans,” said Trump, in an Oval Office announcement in which he referred to GLP-1s as a “fat drug.”

    Thursday’s announcement is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to rein in soaring drug prices in its efforts to address cost-of-living concerns among voters. Pfizer and AstraZeneca recently agreed to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Medicaid after an executive order in May set a deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices or face new limits on what the government will pay.

    As with the other deals, it’s not clear how much the price drop will be felt by consumers. Drug prices can vary based on the competition for treatments and insurance coverage.

    Obesity drugs are popular, but costly

    The obesity drugs work by targeting hormones in the gut and brain that affect appetite and feelings of fullness. In clinical trials, they helped people shed 15% to 22% of their body weight — up to 50 pounds or more in many cases.

    Patients usually start on smaller doses and then work up to larger amounts, depending on their needs. They need to stay on the the treatments indefinitely or risk regaining weight, experts say.

    The medications have proven especially lucrative for Lilly and Novo. Lilly said recently that sales of Zepbound have tripled so far this year to more than $9 billion.

    But for many Americans, their cost has made them out of reach.

    Medicare, the federally funded coverage program mainly for people ages 65 and over, now covers the cost of the drugs for conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but not for weight loss alone. Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, proposed a rule last November that would have changed that, but the Trump administration nixed it.

    Few state and federally funded Medicaid programs, for people with low incomes, offer coverage. And employers and insurers that provide commercial coverage are wary of paying for these drugs in part because so many people might use them.

    The $500 monthly price for higher doses of the treatments also makes them unaffordable for those without insurance, doctors say.

    Trump tries to show he is in touch with cost-of-living concerns

    Thursday’s announcement comes as the White House is looking to demonstrate that Trump is in touch with Americans’ frustrations with rising costs for food, housing, health care and other necessities.

    “Trump is the friend of the forgotten American,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at Thursday’s announcement. “Obesity is a disease of poverty. And overwhelmingly, these drugs have only been available for people who have wealth.”

    (Obesity rates actually are slightly higher for middle-income Americans than they are for those with the lowest and highest incomes, according to 2017-2020 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

    Kennedy had previously expressed skepticism about GLP-1s, but he was full of praise for Trump for pushing to help a broader segment of Americans have access to the drug.

    Trump, who has a history of commenting on people’s appearance, asked the officials who joined him in the Oval Office whether they had used the weight-loss medications.

    “Do you take any of this stuff, Howard?” Trump asked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. “Not yet,” Lutnick replied. “He’s taking it,” the president said of Steven Cheung, who is the White House director of communications.

    The drug-pricing announcement came days after Democrats swept elections in races across the country. Economic worries were the dominant concern for those casting their ballots, according to findings from the AP voter poll.

    Plan calls for phased-in price reductions

    The White House sought to diminish price-reduction efforts by the previous Democratic administration as a gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

    Trump, instead, consummated a deal that ensures Americans aren’t unfairly financing the pharmaceutical industry’s innovation, claimed a senior administration official, who briefed reporters ahead of Thursday’s Oval Office announcement.

    Another senior administration official said coverage of the drugs will expand to Medicare patients starting next year. The program will start covering the treatments for people who have severe obesity and others who are overweight or obese and have serious health problems, the official said. Those who qualify will pay $50 copays for the medicine.

    Lower prices also will be phased in for people without coverage through the administration’s TrumpRx program, which will allow people to buy drugs directly from manufacturers, starting in January.

    Administration officials said the average price of the drugs sold on TrumpRx will start at around $350 and then drop to $245 over the next two years.

    A Novo Nordisk spokesperson declined to provide details on their pricing changes.

    Lilly said it will sell a starter dose of Zepbound for $299 a month and additional doses at up to $449. Both represent $50 reductions from current prices for doses it sells directly to patients.

    Administration officials said lower prices also will be provided for state and federally funded Medicaid programs. And starting doses of new, pill versions of the obesity treatments will cost $149 a month if they are approved.

    U.S. health regulators on Thursday separately agreed to dramatically expedite review of Lilly’s obesity pill, orforglipron. An FDA decision on Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy pill is expected later this year.

    Doctors who treat patients for obesity say help is needed to improve access. Dr. Leslie Golden says she has roughly 600 patients taking one of these treatments, and at least 75% struggle to afford them. Even with coverage, some face $150 copayments for refills.

    “Every visit it’s, ‘How long can we continue to do this? What’s the plan if I can’t continue?’” said Golden, an obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin. “Some of them are working additional jobs or delaying retirement so they can continue to pay for it.”

    ___

    AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone contributed to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Source link

  • Pfizer sues to stop rival bid for drugmaker Metsera by Denmark’s Novo Nordisk

    Pfizer is suing over some unsolicited competition in its nearly $5 billion bid to buy the drugmaker Metsera.

    New York-based Pfizer said Friday after markets closed that it was suing Metsera and a third drugmaker, Denmark’s Novo Nordisk, over a bid for Metsera that Novo announced Thursday.

    Novo said it planned to buy Metsera in a deal that could be worth up to $9 billion, and Metsera said the offer appeared to be superior to Pfizer’s bid, which was announced in September.

    Metsera Inc. has no products on the market, but it is developing potential oral and injectable treatments. That includes some potential treatments that could target lucrative fields for obesity and diabetes.

    Novo already has the treatments Wegovy and Ozempic on the market in those respective categories.

    Pfizer said the offer from Novo cannot be considered superior to its bid because it carries significant regulatory risk that makes it unlikely to be completed.

    Pfizer, which ended development of a potential pill to treat obesity this spring, also said Novo’s offer represents “an illegal attempt by a company with a dominant market position to suppress competition.”

    Representatives of both Novo and Metsera did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

    Source link

  • Obesity, Diabetes Treatments Fuel Eli Lilly Growth and Spark Bidding War

    The market for obesity and diabetes treatments remains scorching hot, funneling billions in sales to Eli Lilly and fueling a bidding war over another drugmaker.

    Lilly said Thursday that its top-selling drugs, Mounjaro and Zepbound, brought in more than $10 billion combined during the recently completed third quarter. That made up over half of the drugmaker’s $17.6 billion in total sales.

    Separately, Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk announced plans to buy Metsera Inc. in a deal that could be worth up to $9 billion.

    Popular treatments labeled GLP-1 receptor agonists are fueling the soaring sales and deal interest. They work by mimicking hormones in the gut and the brain to regulate appetite and feelings of fullness. But they don’t work for everyone and can produce side effects that include nausea and stomach pain.

    Supplies of the drugs have improved this year, and some insurance coverage is growing. That helps improve access to drugs that can cost around $500 a month without coverage. That can put them out of reach for many patients.

    U.S. sales of Lilly’s weight-loss treatment Zepbound nearly tripled to $3.57 billion in the third quarter. Meanwhile, revenue from the diabetes drug Mounjaro, which has been on the market longer, doubled to $6.52 billion thanks to growth outside the U.S.

    Combined, the drugs have brought in nearly $25 billion in sales so far this year for Indianapolis-based Lilly. That surpasses the entire company’s revenue total from 2020.

    The drugs helped Eli Lilly and Co. record a $5.58 billion profit in the third quarter and deliver a better performance than Wall Street expected.

    Novo Nordisk said it will pay $56.50 in cash for each Metsera share and could pay an extra $21.25 if the company meets some drug development milestones. The drugmaker already has the obesity and diabetes treatments Wegovy and Ozempic on the market.

    That combined total of $77.75 more than doubles the closing price of Metsera shares on Sept. 19, the last trading day before Pfizer made its offer.

    Pfizer Inc. is known for the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty and the treatment Paxlovid, among other drugs. But the New York drugmaker decided to take another stab at obesity treatments months after ending development of its own drug.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Poll: Americans Getting Skinnier, Weight Loss Drug Use Expands – KXL

    FILE – This file photo shows a closeup of a beam scale in New York, April 3, 2018. (AP Photo/Patrick Sison, File)

    WASHINGTON, DC – America is reportedly getting skinnier and weight loss drugs may be a contributing factor. According to a self-reported Gallup poll, for the first time in more than 15 years, obesity rates in the U.S. have fallen from almost 40-percent in 2022 to 37-percent today. That’s an estimated seven-point-six million fewer obese adults.

    According to a self-reported Gallup poll, for the first time in more than 15 years, obesity rates in the U.S. have fallen from almost 40-percent in 2022 to 37-percent today. Acquired Through MGN Online

    The same poll reports 15-percent of women and just under 10-percent of men are on GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, more than double the number who said they used them last year.

    More about:

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Obesity rate is declining as more Americans use weight loss drugs, survey finds

    As more Americans turn to weight loss drugs, the U.S. adult obesity rate is declining, according to new survey data from Gallup.

    The data published Tuesday showed the obesity rate among participants has gradually declined to 37% in 2025 after previously hitting a record high of 39.9% in 2022. Results were based on data from three nationally representative surveys of 16,946 U.S. adults interviewed by web in the first three quarters of 2025.

    “This is a statistically meaningful decrease representing an estimated 7.6 million fewer obese adults compared with three years ago,” the report noted.

    In the report, obesity was defined using the federal standard of having a BMI of 30 or higher.

    The report also explored the simultaneous increase in GLP-1 drug usage for weight loss, including semaglutides like Ozempic and Wegovy. These drugs are also used to treat type 2 diabetes, which the report noted was still at an all-time high, with 13.8% of Gallup’s Well-Being Index participants saying they’ve been diagnosed with the chronic disease.

    When Gallup first measured GLP-1 usage in February 2024, 5.8% of adults reported taking this type of medicine for weight loss. Now, the percentage has increased to 12.4%, the report said.

    “Amid increased use of GLP-1 injectables for weight loss, obesity rates have been coming down for most age groups since 2022,” the report added.

    The report found the biggest reduction in obesity was among those aged 40 to 49 and those aged 50 to 64. These are the same age groups with the highest rates of GLP-1 injectables for weight loss, the report said.

    The report does have some limitations, however, including potential bias in how respondents present themselves.

    “However, because Gallup’s method of collecting self-reported weight and height has been consistent, the trend still provides valuable information regarding changes over time,” the report said.

    Gallup also did not measure GLP-1 usage for weight loss in 2022 or 2023, but said available data via its Well-Being Index are “consistent with reports of steadily increasing use since the initial FDA approval in 2021.”

    Despite the reported decline in obesity rates, the U.S. continues to exceed many Western countries in weight, the report pointed out — but expanding access to weight loss treatments may be a factor in the obesity decline becoming a lasting trend, the authors note.

    Around 40% of adults in the U.S. are obese, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested in September 2024 — marking the first time in over a decade that the nation’s obesity rate has not inched up, results from the federal government’s national health survey showed. 

    Edited by

    Kiki Intarasuwan

    Source link

  • Skinny Is the New Fat: Plenty of People Have ‘Normal’ BMI but Hidden Obesity, Study Finds

    Your number on the bathroom scale could be misleading. New research finds that a substantial portion of people with “normal” weight still have obesity—and the higher risk of other health problems that goes along with it.

    A large, international team of scientists examined survey data from the World Health Organization. They found that roughly one in five people worldwide with a healthy body mass index (BMI) show clear signs of abdominal obesity, or excess body fat. These skinny-fat individuals were also more likely to have conditions like high blood pressure. Doctors could be missing important health issues if they only focus on their patients’ BMI, the researchers say.

    “Relying solely on BMI may be insufficient to identify these high-risk individuals and provide timely interventions,” they wrote in their paper, published this month in JAMA Network Open.

    “Normal” but obese

    BMI is calculated using a person’s weight and height, with obesity traditionally defined as having a BMI of 30 and over. In recent years, however, some doctors and patients have pushed for an expansion of what should be considered obese.

    In January, a large group of obesity experts, backed by organizations like the American Heart Association, released alternative criteria for diagnosing obesity. This criterion asks doctors to either use BMI alongside one other measurement of excess body fat or to rely on these other measurements entirely. One such measurement is waist circumference.

    In this new study, the researchers analyzed data from the WHO STEPS survey, a long-running project monitored by the WHO that allows countries to keep track of their residents’ risk factors for noncommunicable diseases, particularly those related to their lifestyle. In total, they looked at nearly a half million participants across 91 countries between 2000 and 2020.

    All in all, 21% of respondents met the threshold for “normal-weight abdominal obesity,” meaning they had a healthy BMI but a large enough waistline to be categorized as obese. Compared to people with a normal BMI and healthy waistline, this group also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes, the researchers found.

    Not just BMI

    Other recent research has highlighted the importance of moving past BMI alone.

    A study earlier this month, for instance, found that nearly 70% of Americans today meet the newer definition of obesity; this included 25% of Americans who had a normal BMI but other measures of excess body fat, such as waist circumference. This study also found that people with skinny obesity had a higher overall risk of health problems than nonobese people. That said, the authors of the latest study say theirs is the first to examine how common this form of hidden obesity is across the globe.

    Rather than wholly abandon BMI altogether, the study researchers argue that doctors should use it in combination with these other measurements to truly get a better sense of their patients’ overall cardiovascular and metabolic health.

    “Our findings suggest the need to use both BMI and waist circumference together, rather than in isolation, to provide a more complete and accurate assessment of cardiometabolic risk across diverse populations,” they wrote.

    These results should also motivate the average person to get a thorough checkup at their next physical, one that doesn’t just stop at BMI.

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • Study Promoting Apple Cider Vinegar for Weight Loss Was Complete Bunk

    Anyone who’s tried to lose weight knows there’s no shortage of products or fad foods out there that will supposedly speed up your slimming. One such advertised food, apple cider vinegar, will have less credibility behind it now, as a clinical trial claiming to show its weight loss success has just been yanked by the publisher.

    BMJ Group announced the retraction of the study this afternoon. Originally published last year, the small trial purportedly showed that people who drank apple cider vinegar daily lost more weight than controls over a three-month period. The publisher cited several factors, including implausible data, as reasons to yank the study.

    “Tempting though it is to alert readers to an ostensibly simple and apparently helpful weight loss aid, at present the results of the study are unreliable, and journalists and others should no longer reference or use the results of this study in any future reporting,” said Helen Macdonald, Publication Ethics and Content Integrity Editor at BMJ Group, in a statement from BMJ.

    Too good to be true

    Researchers in Lebanon conducted the study, first published in March 2024 in the journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. The trial reportedly involved 120 teens and young adults who were overweight and obese. The volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four groups: three groups were asked to drink different doses of apple cider vinegar (diluted in water) once a day in the morning, while the fourth was asked to drink a placebo liquid.

    The trial reportedly ran for 12 weeks, and by the study’s end, the researchers claimed that people drinking apple cider vinegar lost significantly more weight than those on the placebo. On average, people taking apple cider vinegar were said to have lost between 13 and 17 pounds, and those who drank the most apple cider vinegar also tended to lose more weight than the other groups—a potential sign that the ingredient was truly improving people’s odds of weight loss (in medicine, this is called a dose-response effect). People on the apple cider vinegar diet were also said to have improved their levels of blood glucose, triglycerides, and cholesterol as well.

    It wasn’t long before outside scientists began to raise red flags about the statistical analysis underpinning the study’s findings, however. The BMJ Group initially saw fit to publish some of these critiques alongside the study itself, a common practice in science. But after further review, they determined that this wasn’t a mere disagreement about some figures here and there, but something more concerning. They enlisted statisticians to examine the raw data and to try replicating the study results from said data.

    Ultimately, the outside experts were not able to replicate the authors’ analyses; what’s more, they identified other sketchy stuff. They determined that the data contained “implausible values” and found potential evidence that participants were not truly randomized into their group as claimed. The authors also failed to proactively register their trial prior to performing it—a common precaution against later data tweaking that’s required by the BMJ Group—and didn’t explain their methods thoroughly enough, the publisher determined.

    The study authors, according to the BMJ, maintain that the statistical oddities were only honest mistakes in how they presented, exported, or calculated the data. But they’ve nonetheless agreed with the publisher’s decision to retract the work.

    Gizmodo reached out to the study authors for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

    The weight loss takeaway

    Even before this retraction, though, there really wasn’t much evidence to suggest that apple cider vinegar—or any single food, for that matter—can supercharge your weight loss attempt.

    Yes, people can certainly lose weight, even lots of it, through healthy changes in their diet and lifestyle. The much harder part is maintaining this weight loss for a sustained period of time, which is why many, if not most, people eventually regain the weight back. Newer options like GLP-1 therapies have made it easier to treat obesity, though these too aren’t miracles with no drawbacks.

    Unfortunately, long-term successful weight loss still remains a challenge, and no amount of apple cider vinegar will change that reality.

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • Coloradans can get updated COVID vaccines, but insurance might not cover the shots

    Anyone 6 months and older who wants a COVID-19 shot in Colorado can now get one, but the vaccine will only be free for those with the right insurance — at least for now.

    Initially, pharmacies couldn’t administer the updated shots in Colorado unless a patient had a prescription. The state allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee, but not other shots.

    Dr. Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the state health department, responded by issuing a standing order — essentially, a prescription for every resident – allowing them to get vaccinated at retail pharmacies.

    But that order doesn’t guarantee insurance will cover the shots or that pharmacies will choose to stock them. Last year, fewer than half of people over 65 nationwide received an updated COVID-19 shot, with uptake dropping further in younger age groups, raising questions about whether health care providers will believe demand is high enough to justify buying the vaccine.

    “The standing order provides accessibility. It doesn’t necessarily provide availability,” Calonge said Tuesday.

    The Colorado Division of Insurance issued a draft rule last week that would require state-regulated plans to cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for people of any age, assuming the division passes it as written. Insurance cards from state-regulated plans typically have CO-DOI printed in the lower left corner.

    The state’s rule doesn’t apply to federally regulated plans, which account for about 30% of employer-sponsored insurance plans in Colorado, Calonge said. Typically, however, those plans try to offer competitive benefits, since they mostly serve large employers, he said.

    “My hope would be they would want to keep up with other insurers,” he said.

    This isn’t the first time that people on state-regulated plans have had benefits not guaranteed for people with federally regulated insurance.

    Colorado capped the cost of insulin and epinephrine shots to treat severe allergic reactions in state plans, but couldn’t require the same for plans the state doesn’t oversee. In those cases, it offered an “affordability program” requiring manufacturers to supply the medication at a lower cost for people who aren’t covered by the state caps, Medicare or Medicaid.

    At least two Colorado insurers surveyed by The Denver Post said all of their plans will cover COVID-19 vaccines, while others hedged.

    Select Health, which sells Medicare and individual marketplace plans in Colorado, said its plans currently cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for everyone. Kaiser Permanente Colorado said in a message to members that it will pay for the shot for anyone 6 months or older.

    Donna Lynne, CEO of Denver Health, said the health system’s insurance arm is waiting on clarification about when it should cover the vaccines. Denver Health Medical Plan offers multiple plan types, some state-regulated and some under federal rules, she said.

    “It’s less of a decision on our part than understanding what the health department and the insurance department are saying,” she said. “You can’t have one insurance company saying they are doing it and one saying they aren’t doing it.”

    Anthem said it considers immunizations “medically necessary” if the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians or the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee has recommended them, but didn’t specify whether it would charge out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary vaccines.

    If those bodies stated that certain people could get a particular vaccine — but not that they should — Anthem would decide about coverage “on an individual basis,” its website said. The other groups have recommended the shots for people over 18 or under 2, with the option for healthy children in between to get a booster if their parents wish.

    The state’s Medicaid program is still waiting for guidance from federal authorities about whose vaccines it can cover, according to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, and Medicare isn’t yet paying for the shots.

    For most of the COVID-19 vaccines’ relatively brief existence, they were free and recommended for everyone 6 months and older. In 2024, the federal government stopped paying for them, which meant uninsured people no longer could be sure they could get the shot without paying.

    Almost all insurance plans still were required to pay for the shots, though, because the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended them.

    In previous years, the committee recommended updated shots within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them. In late August, the FDA approved the updated vaccines for people over 65 and those with one of about 30 conditions increasing their risk of severe disease, including asthma, obesity and diabetes.

    Doctors still could prescribe the vaccine “off-label” to healthy people, in the same way that they prescribe adult medications for children when an alternative specifically approved for kids isn’t available.

    This year, however, the committee won’t meet until Thursday, and may not recommend the shots when it does. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all of the committee’s members earlier this year and replaced them with new appointees, most of whom oppose COVID-19 vaccines.

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Taking Advantage of Sensory-Specific Satiety  | NutritionFacts.org

    How can we use sensory-specific satiety to our advantage?

    When we eat the same foods over and over, we become habituated to them and end up liking them less. That’s why the “10th bite of chocolate, for example, is desired less than the first bite.” We have a built-in biological drive to keep changing up our foods so we’ll be more likely to hit all our nutritional requirements. The drive is so powerful that even “imagined consumption reduces actual consumption.” When study participants imagined again and again that they were eating cheese and were then given actual cheese, they ate less of it than those who repeatedly imagined eating that food fewer times, imagined eating a different food (such as candy), or did not imagine eating the food at all.

    Ironically, habituation may be one of the reasons fad “mono diets,” like the cabbage soup diet, the oatmeal diet, or meal replacement shakes, can actually result in better adherence and lower hunger ratings compared to less restrictive diets.

    In the landmark study “A Satiety Index of Common Foods,” in which dozens of foods were put to the test, boiled potatoes were found to be the most satiating food. Two hundred and forty calories of boiled potatoes were found to be more satisfying in terms of quelling hunger than the same number of calories of any other food tested. In fact, no other food even came close, as you can see below and at 1:14 in my video Exploiting Sensory-Specific Satiety for Weight Loss.

    No doubt the low calorie density of potatoes plays a role. In order to consume 240 calories, nearly one pound of potatoes must be eaten, compared to just a few cookies, and even more apples, grapes, and oranges must be consumed. Each fruit was about 40 percent less satiating than potatoes, though, as shown here and at 1:45 in my video. So, an all-potato diet would probably take the gold—the Yukon gold—for the most bland, monotonous, and satiating diet.

    A mono diet, where only one food is eaten, is the poster child for unsustainability—and thank goodness for that. Over time, they can lead to serious nutrient deficiencies, such as blindness from vitamin A deficiency in the case of white potatoes.

    The satiating power of potatoes can still be brought to bear, though. Boiled potatoes beat out rice and pasta in terms of a satiating side dish, cutting as many as about 200 calories of intake off a meal. Compared to boiled and mashed potatoes, fried french fries or even baked fries do not appear to have the same satiating impact.

    To exploit habituation for weight loss while maintaining nutrient abundance, we could limit the variety of unhealthy foods we eat while expanding the variety of healthy foods. In that way, we can simultaneously take advantage of the appetite-suppressing effects of monotony while diversifying our fruit and vegetable portfolio. Studies have shown that a greater variety of calorie-dense foods, like sweets and snacks, is associated with excess body fat, but a greater variety of vegetables appears protective. When presented with a greater variety of fruit, offered a greater variety of vegetables, or given a greater variety of vegetable seasonings, people may consume a greater quantity, crowding out less healthy options.

    The first 20 years of the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended generally eating “a variety of foods.” In the new millennium, they started getting more precise, specifying a diversity of healthier foods, as seen below and at 3:30 in my video. 

    A pair of Harvard and New York University dietitians concluded in their paper “Dietary Variety: An Overlooked Strategy for Obesity and Chronic Disease Control”: “Choose and prepare a greater variety of plant-based foods,” recognizing that a greater variety of less healthy options could be counterproductive.

    So, how can we respond to industry attempts to lure us into temptation by turning our natural biological drives against us? Should we never eat really delicious food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment. We can also use some of those same primitive impulses to our advantage by minimizing our choices of the bad and diversifying our choices of the good. In How Not to Diet, I call this “Meatball Monotony and Veggie Variety.” Try picking out a new fruit or vegetable every time you shop.

    In my own family’s home, we always have a wide array of healthy snacks on hand to entice the finickiest of tastes. The contrasting collage of colors and shapes in fruit baskets and vegetable platters beat out boring bowls of a single fruit because they make you want to mix it up and try a little of each. And with different healthy dipping sauces, the possibilities are endless.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • CVS, Walgreens now require prescriptions for COVID vaccines in Colorado

    People who want to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine at CVS or Walgreens pharmacies in Colorado this fall will need to present a prescription.

    State law allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group that counsels the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about who will benefit from which shots.

    In previous years, the committee recommended updated COVID-19 vaccines within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them. This year, the committee doesn’t have any meetings scheduled until late September, and may not recommend the shot when it does meet, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appointed multiple members with anti-vaccine views after removing all prior appointees in June.

    The lack of a recommendation also means that insurance companies aren’t legally required to pay for the COVID-19 vaccine without out-of-pocket costs. Most private insurers will cover the updated shots this year, though that could change in 2026, according to Reuters.

    Initially, CVS said it couldn’t give the COVID-19 vaccine to anyone in Colorado or 15 other states, because of their ACIP-approval requirement. As of Friday morning, its pharmacies can offer the shots to eligible people who have a prescription, spokeswoman Amy Thibault said.

    As of about 10 a.m. Friday, CVS’s website wouldn’t allow visitors to schedule COVID-19 shots in Colorado.

    Walgreens didn’t respond to questions about its COVID-19 vaccine policy, but its website said patients need a prescription in Colorado. A New York Times reporter found the same in 15 other states.

    The FDA this week recommended the updated shots only for people who are over 65 or have a health condition that puts them at risk for severe disease.

    The listed conditions include:

    • Asthma and other lung diseases
    • Cancer
    • History of stroke or disease in the brain’s blood vessels
    • Chronic kidney disease
    • Liver disease
    • Cystic fibrosis
    • Diabetes (all types)
    • Developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome
    • Heart problems
    • Mental health conditions, including depression and schizophrenia
    • Dementia
    • Parkinson’s disease
    • Obesity
    • Physical inactivity
    • Current or recent pregnancy
    • Diseases or medications that impair the immune system
    • Smoking

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Dietary Diversity and Overeating  | NutritionFacts.org

    Big Food uses our hard-wired drive for dietary diversity against us.

    How did we evolve to solve the daunting task of selecting a diet that supplies all the essential nutrients? Dietary diversity. By eating a variety of foods, we increase our chances of hitting all the bases. If we only ate for pleasure, we might just stick with our favorite food to the exclusion of all others, but we have an innate tendency to switch things up.

    Researchers found that study participants ended up eating more calories when provided with three different yogurt flavors than just one, even if that one is the chosen favorite. So, variation can trump sensation. They don’t call it the spice of life for nothing.

    It appears to be something we’re born with. Studies on newly weaned infants dating back nearly a century show that babies naturally choose a variety of foods even over their preferred food. This tendency seems to be driven by a phenomenon known as sensory-specific satiety.

    Researchers found that, “within 2 minutes after eating the test meal, the pleasantness of the taste, smell, texture, and appearance of the eaten food decreased significantly more than for the uneaten foods.” Think about how the first bite of chocolate tastes better than the last bite. Our body tires of the same sensations and seeks out novelty by rekindling our appetite every time we’re presented with new foods. This helps explain the “dessert effect,” where we can be stuffed to the gills but gain a second wind when dessert arrives. What was adaptive for our ancient ancestors to maintain nutritional adequacy may be maladaptive in the age of obesity.

    When study participants ate a “varied four-course meal,” they consumed 60 percent more calories than those given the same food for each course. It’s not only that we get bored; our body has a different physiological reaction.

    As you can see below and at 2:13 in my video How Variation Can Trump Sensation and Lead to Overeating, researchers gave people a squirt of lemon juice, and their salivary glands responded with a squirt of saliva. But when they were given lemon juice ten times in a row, they salivated less and less each time. When they got the same amount of lime juice, though, their salivation jumped right back up. We’re hard-wired to respond differently to new foods. 
    Whether foods are on the same plate, are at the same meal, or are even eaten on subsequent days, the greater the variety, the more we tend to eat. When kids had the same mac and cheese dinner five days in a row, they ended up eating hundreds fewer calories by the fifth day, compared to kids who got a variety of different meals, as you can see below and at 2:35 in my video.

    Even just switching the shape of food can lead to overeating. When kids had a second bowl of mac and cheese, they ate significantly more when the noodles were changed from elbow macaroni to spirals. People allegedly eat up to 77 percent more M&Ms if they’re presented with ten different colors instead of seven, even though all the colors taste the same. “Thus, it is clear that the greater the differences between foods, the greater the enhancement of intake,” the greater the effect. Alternating between sweet and savory foods can have a particularly appetite-stimulating effect. Do you see how, in this way, adding a diet soda, for instance, to a fast-food meal can lead to overconsumption?

    The staggering array of modern food choices may be one of the factors conspiring to undermine our appetite control. There are now tens of thousands of different foods being sold.

    The so-called supermarket diet is one of the most successful ways to make rats fat. Researchers tried high-calorie food pellets, but the rats just ate less to compensate. So, they “therefore used a more extreme diet…[and] fed rats an assortment of palatable foods purchased at a nearby supermarket,” including such fare as cookies, candy, bacon, and cheese, and the animals ballooned. The human equivalent to maximize experimental weight gain has been dubbed the cafeteria diet.

    It’s kind of the opposite of the original food dispensing device I’ve talked about before. Instead of all-you-can-eat bland liquid, researchers offered free all-you-can-eat access to elaborate vending machines stocked with 40 trays with a dizzying array of foods, like pastries and French fries. Participants found it impossible to maintain energy balance, consistently consuming more than 120 percent of their calorie requirements.

    Our understanding of sensory-specific satiety can be used to help people gain weight, but how can we use it to our advantage? For example, would limiting the variety of unhealthy snacks help people lose weight? Two randomized controlled trials made the attempt and failed to show significantly more weight loss in the reduced variety diet, but they also failed to get people to make much of a dent in their diets. Just cutting down on one or two snack types seems insufficient to make much of a difference, as seen below and at 4:44 in my video. A more drastic change may be needed, which we’ll cover next.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Hijacking Our Appetites  | NutritionFacts.org

    I debunk the myth of protein as the most satiating macronutrient.

    The importance of satiety is underscored by a rare genetic condition known as Prader-Willi syndrome. Children with the disorder are born with impaired signaling between their digestive system and their brain, so they don’t know when they’re full. “Because no sensation of satiety tells them to stop eating or alerts their body to throw up, they can accidentally consume enough in a single binge to fatally rupture their stomach.” Without satiety, food can be “a death sentence.”

    Protein is often described as the most satiating macronutrient. People tend to report feeling fuller after eating a protein-rich meal, compared to a carbohydrate- or fat-rich one. The question is: Does that feeling of fullness last? From a weight-loss standpoint, satiety ratings only matter if they end up cutting down on subsequent calorie intake, and even a review funded by the meat, dairy, and egg industries acknowledges that this does not seem to be the case for protein. Hours later, protein consumed earlier doesn’t tend to end up cutting calories later on.

    Fiber-rich foods, on the other hand, can suppress appetite and reduce subsequent meal intake more than ten hours after consumption—even the next day—because their site of action is 20 feet down in the lower intestine. Remember the ileal brake from my Evidence-Based Weight Loss lecture? When researchers secretly infused nutrients into the end of the small intestine, study participants spontaneously ate as many as hundreds fewer calories at a meal. Our brain gets the signal that we are full, from head to tail.

    We were built for gluttony. “It is a wonderful instinct, developed over millions of years, for times of scarcity.” Stumbling across a rare bounty, those who could fill themselves the most to build up the greatest reserves would be more likely to pass along their genes. So, we are hard-wired not just to eat until our stomach is full, but until our entire digestive tract is occupied. Only when our brain senses food all the way down at the end does our appetite fully dial down.

    Fiber-depleted foods get rapidly absorbed early on, though, so much of it never makes it down to the lower gut. As such, if our diet is low in fiber, no wonder we’re constantly hungry and overeating; our brain keeps waiting for the food that never arrives. That’s why people who even undergo stomach-stapling surgeries that leave them with a tiny two-tablespoon-sized stomach pouch can still eat enough to regain most of the weight they initially lost. Without sufficient fiber, transporting nutrients down our digestive tract, we may never be fully satiated. But, as I described in my last video, one of the most successful experimental weight-loss interventions ever reported in the medical literature involved no fiber at all, as you can see here and at 2:47 in my video Foods Designed to Hijack Our Appetites.

    At first glance, it might seem obvious that removing the pleasurable aspects of eating would cause people to eat less, but remember, that’s not what happened. The lean participants continued to eat the same amount, taking in thousands of calories a day of the bland goop. Only those who were obese went from eating thousands of calories a day down to hundreds, as shown below and at 3:22 in my video. And, again, this happened inadvertently without them apparently even feeling a difference. Only after eating was disconnected from the reward was the body able to start rapidly reining in the weight.

    We appear to have two separate appetite control systems: “the homeostatic and hedonic pathways.” The homeostatic pathway maintains our calorie balance by making us hungry when energy reserves are low and abolishes our appetite when energy reserves are high. “In contrast, hedonic or reward-based regulation can override the homeostatic pathway” in the face of highly palatable foods. This makes total sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In the rare situations in our ancestral history when we’d stumble across some calorie-dense food, like a cache of unguarded honey, it would make sense for our hedonic drive to jump into the driver’s seat to consume the scarce commodity. Even if we didn’t need the extra calories at the time, our body wouldn’t want us to pass up that rare opportunity. Such opportunities aren’t so rare anymore, though. With sugary, fatty foods around every corner, our hedonic drive may end up in perpetual control, overwhelming the intuitive wisdom of our bodies.

    So, what’s the answer? Never eat really tasty food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment.

    Ironically, some researchers have suggested a counterbalancing evolutionary strategy for combating the lure of artificially concentrated calories. Just as pleasure can overrule our appetite regulation, so can pain. “Conditioned food aversions” are when we avoid foods that made us sick in the past. That may just seem like common sense, but it is actually a deep-seated evolutionary drive that can defy rationality. Even if we know for a fact a particular food was not the cause of an episode of nausea and vomiting, our body can inextricably tie the two together. This happens, for example, with cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Consoling themselves with a favorite treat before treatment can lead to an aversion to their favorite food if their body tries to connect the dots. That’s why oncologists may advise the “scapegoat strategy” of only eating foods before treatment that you are okay with, never wanting to eat again.

    Researchers have experimented with inducing food aversions by having people taste something before spinning them in a rotating chair to cause motion sickness. Eureka! A group of psychologists suggested: “A possible strategy for encouraging people to eat less unhealthy food is to make them sick of the food, by making them sick from the food.” What about using disgust to promote eating more healthfully? Children as young as two-and-a-half years old will throw out a piece of previously preferred candy scooped out of the bottom of a clean toilet.

    Thankfully, there’s a way to exploit our instinctual drives without resorting to revulsion, aversion, or bland food, which we’ll explore next.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link