Categories
News on Health & Science

Potassium to Sodium Ratio Affects the Heart

[amazon_link asins=’B00A5MRFBU,B0719FSZZS,B00A7O71JM,B01MV792PW,0440245613,B004DSE56K,B00Z75ZDAU,B0017I25TI,B01LXI206S’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’8d41e213-04a5-11e8-b449-81befe96eb0e’]

Consuming twice as much potassium as sodium might halve your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

CLICK & SEE
Ate too many nachos? Consider a banana chaser — your heart might thank you for it.

A new study suggests that consuming twice as much potassium as sodium can halve your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. The study is the first to show that the ratio of these nutrients in your diet matters more than exactly how much you get of either one.

The best strategy for good health, experts are quick to stress, is to eat less sodium and more potassium. But the new research suggests that simply upping your intake of potassium can at least soften the blow of a high-sodium diet.

“Potassium and sodium are like peas in a pod, except they’re in opposite pods,” says epidemiologist Paul Whelton, president and chief executive of the Loyola University Health System in Chicago and one of the authors of the study. “This is the first study to show that the two together give you a benefit over and above what you can get with either one.”

Between processed foods and restaurant meals, most Americans eat far too much sodium — significantly above the 2,300 milligrams the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend as a maximum daily intake for adults. Excess sodium, according to plenty of large, well-designed studies, causes the body to retain fluids, which raises blood pressure and ups the risk of dying from heart disease.

Just as strong — albeit less commonly known — is the link between heart health and potassium. In 1997, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. compiled the results of 33 clinical trials and found that people who took potassium supplements lowered their blood pressure by 3/2 mm Hg. (Blood pressure is measured as two numbers that indicate how hard it is for the heart to pump blood through the blood vessels. Ideally, it should be 120/80 or less.) High blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart attacks and strokes.

That study was pivotal in influencing current dietary guidelines, which recommend that Americans get at least 4,700 mg of potassium daily — about double the recommended maximum for sodium. Yet, according to nationwide nutritional surveys, the average American gets just 2,600 mg of potassium a day and 4,000 mg or more of sodium — far more sodium than potassium, even though guidelines suggest we do the opposite.

Scientists have long suspected that the ratio of the two nutrients in our diets is important, but there hasn’t been strong enough evidence to say for sure. In the new study, Nancy Cook, a statistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues were able to test the idea with data from two large trials originally designed to see how blood pressure responds to a variety of factors, such as diet and weight loss.

The studies involved thousands of people and took place in the late 1980s and early ’90s. For either 18 months or three years, some participants were assigned to cut sodium intake by up to 35%. Others went along eating like they always did. A handful of times over the course of the study, participants provided all their urine over a 24-hour period. Then, by analyzing the urine, scientists could accurately determine what nutrients each person was eating. (Prior studies relied on people reporting everything they ate — a method that is notoriously inaccurate.)

One earlier report from this project, published in the British Medical Journal in 2007, found that participants who had been instructed to reduce sodium intake, even for just a few years, were 25% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease 10 to 15 years later than were those who kept eating larger amounts of sodium.

In the current study, the researchers looked at the other group — those who had continued to eat as they normally would. They found that people who ate more potassium tended to have a slightly lower long-term risk of death from heart disease.

But they also found that people who had consumed the highest levels of potassium and the lowest levels of sodium (about twice as much potassium as sodium) were 50% less likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those who ate the most sodium and the least potassium (about four times as much sodium as potassium).

The ratio of the two nutrients mattered more than the amount of either one when it came to predicting cardiovascular disease, the study found.

Scientists aren’t sure how potassium dampens the heart-damaging effects of salt. One possibility, Cook says, is that potassium may prevent the body from absorbing as much sodium. But regardless of the mechanism, trying to boost your ratio is pretty much guaranteed to improve your health because you’ll eat more fruits and vegetables, says Edgar Miller III, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Medical University in Baltimore.

A banana has more than 400 mg of potassium, for example. There are more than 900 mg in a potato, nearly 950 mg in a cup of spinach, 600 mg in half a cup of raisins and 500 mg in an 8-ounce cup of orange juice.

A diet rich in fruits and vegetables delivers other health-enhancing properties, Miller says, including fiber and antioxidants. And filling up on fresh, whole foods may reduce the reliance on sodium-packed processed meals.

In that way, the new study supports the results of the landmark DASH trials, which in the 1990s found that even when people ate plenty of sodium they were able to lower their blood pressure by eating lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy foods, and not a lot of red meat, sweets or saturated fats. “This provides further proof,” says Eva Obarzanek, a registered dietitian and research nutritionist at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and one of the authors of the new study, “that sodium is bad and potassium is good.”

Sources: Los Angeles Times

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
News on Health & Science

A Big Bottom Can Cut Diabetes Risk

[amazon_link asins=’0062219987,B01LZP3JLK,1580405584,B000LY3G7O,1119090725,B00CQZ6EK2,1523642343,0544302133,1594868107′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’8e89918a-30df-11e7-bbba-f52dcd985391′]

Here’s some good news for women who find it hard to squeeze into their skinny jeans, courtesy their big bottoms: a generously proportioned derriere could be good for health, say scientists.
……………..CLICK & SEE
Accord to research, the fat in buttocks and hips may protect against type 2 diabetes.

Scientists at Harvard Medical School in America reckon that the type of fat that accumulates around the hips and bottom may offer some protection against developing the condition.

Fat found commonly around the lower areas, known as subcutaneous fat, or fat that collects under the skin, helps to improve the sensitivity of the hormone insulin. Insulin is responsible for regulating blood sugar and therefore a big bottom might offer some protection against diabetes.

The boffins said that fat which collects around the stomach can raise a person’s risk of diabetes and heart disease. But, people with pear-shaped bodies, with fat deposits in the buttocks and hips, are less prone to these disorders.

Lead researcher Dr Ronald Kahn said that the research on mice had shown that not all fat was bad and could help to prevent the onset of Type 2 diabetes.

The team is trying to find the substances produced in subcutaneous fat that provide the benefit because they could lead to the development of drugs, reports the Daily Express.

The study was published in the journal Cell Metabolism.

Sources:The Times Of India

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Healthy Tips News on Health & Science

Fish-Eating Moms’ Diet Affects Kids, Study Shows

[amazon_link asins=’B00OH5M1PG,0470238275,B015HKMM94,1546960392′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’4d5df555-480c-11e7-91fe-85135af9fbc4′][amazon_link asins=’B004RUN3G2,B004KAT9HQ,0786866020,B004U3Y9FU’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’6f97673f-480c-11e7-85c1-bf5e80c46b78′]

Since the current guidelines on fish consumption were issued, Dr. Emily Oken, a physician and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has led studies to examine the sum effect of eating fish.

………….….CLICK & SEE

One of those was published in May in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Researchers asked 341 pregnant women in Massachusetts about their diet and tested their blood mercury levels during the second trimester. Then, when their children were 3, they were tested in a range of thinking and movement tasks.

Children of mothers who ate more than two servings of fish per week had higher scores than kids of non-fish-eating moms, even when other influences of early childhood development, such as birth weight and breast-feeding duration, were factored out. No measurable benefit was seen in kids born to women who ate fewer than two servings of fish per week, which corresponds to the current FDA/EPA advice.

The improvements in kids were even more striking in kids of moms with lower mercury levels, suggesting that choosing low-mercury fish is key. Researchers did ask about broad categories of fish, but, Oken says, it’s a big uncertainty in this kind of research. “We don’t really know a lot of detail about the kind of fish that women are eating.”

On the flip side, children of mothers with the highest mercury levels in their blood scored poorly, and if their moms ate less fish, the detriments were greater.

In short, Oken was able to demonstrate both the benefits of fish eating and the risks of mercury intake. When both fish and mercury are taken together, Oken’s study suggests that the good may outweigh the bad, at least in the fish-eating habits of her subjects.

Sources: The Times Of India

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Featured

Happiness is ‘Infectious’

[amazon_link asins=’0394451686,B073LTKT8N,B01MTKU07P,B013O161RW,B018U9STIC,B074TDDYCV,B019Y9UAPW,B00HOA75DY,B00UY89QH6′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’1589d88c-ac3c-11e7-abea-5dabde27043c’]

Believe it or not, happiness is “infectious” and can “ripple” through friends, neighbours and family members, a new study has suggested.


Researchers have found that happiness is not just an individual experience or choice, but is dependent on happiness of others to whom individuals are connected either directly or indirectly, and requires close proximity to spread.

According to them, “Changes in individual happiness can ripple through social networks and generate large scale structure in the network, giving rise to clusters of happy and unhappy individuals.” In fact, the researchers, led by Nicholas Christakis of the Harvard Medical School, have based their findings on an analysis of data collected in the Framingham Heart Study, the British Medical Journal reported. In the Framingham Heart Study, 5,124 adults aged 21-70 were recruited and followed between 1971 and 2003, to examine various aspects of their life and health. All the participants were asked to identify their relatives, “close friends,” place of residence, and place of work to ensure they could be contacted every two to four years for follow-up.

The researchers found 53,228 social ties between the 5,124 participants and a total of 12,067 people. They focused on 4,739 people followed from 1983 to ’03 and found a person’s proximity to happy people, specifically partners, siblings and neighbours, could make them happy too. They also found that clusters of happy and unhappy people were visible in the networks and the effect lasted for three degrees of separation — meaning one person benefited from the happiness of their friends’ friends. “Most important from our perspective is the recognition that people are embedded in social networks and that the health and wellbeing of one person affects the health and wellbeing of others.

“This fundamental fact of existence provides a fundamental conceptual justification for the speciality of public health. Human happiness is not merely the province of isolated individuals,” the researchers concluded.

Sources: The Times Of India

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Featured

Generics Are as Good as Branded Drugs’

[amazon_link asins=’B06XYZMMX7,1449664989,B01CDH83U6,B0181IF8WC,B00TSN5564,B00N51594S,B00EQJ0J20,B00OL26RVE,0323101909′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’finmeacur-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’ba7bd841-e47e-11e7-8dbb-1bbefef7d340′]

There is no evidence that brand-name drugs given to treat heart and other cardiovascular conditions work any better than their cheaper generic counterparts, US researchers said.
..
The findings run counter to the perception by some doctors and patients that pricier brand-name drugs are clinically superior, said Aaron Kesselheim of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who led the study.

Kesselheim and colleagues combined the results of 30 studies done since 1984 comparing nine sub-classes of cardiovascular drugs to generic counterparts.

The brand-name drugs did not offer any advantage for patients’ clinical outcomes in those studies, they wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“Brand-name drugs for cardiovascular disease can be as much as a few dollars a pill, whereas generic drugs might be as little as a few cents a pill,” Kesselheim said.

“If a patient is prescribed a generic drug because that’s what’s appropriate for their condition, then they should feel confident taking that drug. And physicians themselves should also feel confident prescribing generic drugs where appropriate,” Kesselheim said. He said rising costs of brand-name prescription drugs strain the budgets of patients as well as public and private health insurers. Overall US prescription drug sales hit $286.5 billion in 2007.

Pharmaceutical companies retain exclusive rights to drugs they develop for a certain number of years, after which others can sell generic versions that are chemically equivalent. The active ingredient is the same, but the colour and shape may differ and they may have different inert binders and fillers.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration must approve a generic version of a drug before it can be sold. Kesselheim said cardiovascular drugs to treat conditions of the heart and blood vessels are the most commonly prescribed category.

The study covered beta-blockers, diuretics, calcium-channel blockers, statins, antiplatelet agents, ACE inhibitors, alpha-blockers, anti-arrhythmic agents and warfarin.

Sources: The Times Of India

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
css.php