Health & Fitness

Heart disease can include several problems related to the heart and blood vessels, many of which are related to atherosclerosis. A buildup of plaque in the walls of the arteries makes it difficult for blood flow, which can lead to a heart attack or stroke. In 2017, 859,125 deaths in the U.S. were attributed to cardiovascular disease.¹

According to the American Heart Association, the disease kills more people every year than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. Coronary heart disease is the main problem, followed distantly by stroke, high blood pressure and heart failure.

The high rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the U.S. contributes to an estimated financial burden that in 2017 topped $320 billion related to treatment and productivity.² On the current trajectory, estimates are that the price tag will exceed $1 trillion by 2035.³

In addition to the health challenges from the disease itself, CVD increases your risks from COVID-19. Researchers have found that those with pre-existing heart disease, who subsequently are infected with COVID-19, have an increased risk of heart attack or congestive heart failure which may be related to the combination of viral illness and higher demands on the heart.⁴

Heart arrhythmias can develop, and severe heart muscle injury is strongly associated with an increased risk of death. Risk factors linked to cardiovascular disease include smoking, physical inactivity, overweight and obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure.⁵

Low-Dose Aspirin Raises Risk for Healthy People

In a study recently published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, researchers sought to identify outcomes associated with taking low-dose aspirin.⁶ Using data from 67 studies published by August 15, 2019, they performed a meta-analysis of observational and randomized controlled trials.⁷

The data were separated by type. In the observational studies, researchers found “highly suggestive evidence” that using aspirin could raise the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

In the randomized control trials, they found “strong evidence” that low-dose aspirin could lower the risk of CVD in healthy people, but it came with a high risk of bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract and brain.

After years of prescribing low-dose aspirin to reduce the risk of CVDs, the researchers felt there was a lack of evidence related to the balance between risk and benefit.⁸ They noted that low-dose aspirin in otherwise healthy people without CVD could lower the incidence of heart events by 17%.

The events included nonfatal heart attacks and strokes as well as deaths related to cardiovascular events. However, while taking low-dose aspirin slightly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events, it also raised the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding to 47% and intracranial bleeding to 34%.

While the practice is no longer recommended by the Food and Drug Administration for those who’ve not had a cardiovascular event,⁹ results from a 2019 study revealed that people were taking aspirin without a physician's recommendation.¹⁰

Of those surveyed, 44.6% of people from age 70 to 79 and 34.7% of those age 60 to 69 were taking aspirin as a primary means of preventing cardiovascular disease. They concluded:¹¹

“… that low‐dose aspirin decreased the risk of CVD events in the general population (when compared to placebo/no intervention) with strong evidence according to GRADE criteria, whilst the data for individual CVD outcomes are limited.”

Not Recommended for Primary Prevention of Heart Disease

Following the results of several studies, the recommendation for daily aspirin was rescinded. One of the writers of the new guidelines, which were adopted and developed by the American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC), said:¹²

"We're talking about healthy people who don't have known heart disease or stroke, who might have been considering or already taking an aspirin to prevent that heart attack or stroke in the first place.”

The new guidelines came five years after the FDA indicated that low-dose aspirin was not for everyone and should be used only on the advice of a clinician.¹³ In 2019 the guidelines were then changed by the AHA and ACC, highlighting the need for people to make healthy lifestyle changes to help reduce their risk of heart disease.¹⁴

The British study supports results from past research. In one study, published in JAMA Network in 2019,¹⁵ researchers were investigating whether there is an association between aspirin and bleeding events in those who do not have CVD.

They performed a meta-analysis of 13 trials involving people who did not have heart disease and found that the use of “aspirin was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding.”¹⁶

Importantly, the authors of other studies have found that prophylactic use of aspirin in people over the age of 70 can cause harm.¹⁷ Of course, older individuals may have higher potential risk for heart disease and therefore more likely to be prescribed aspirin therapy as a preventive measure.

The results of current studies and guidelines by the AHA point to avoiding daily aspirin for those with no history of heart disease, or those who have a low to moderate risk. As the AHA writes:¹⁸

“The new recommendation doesn't apply to people who already have had a stroke or heart attack, or who have undergone bypass surgery or a procedure to insert a stent in their coronary arteries. These individuals already have cardiovascular disease and should continue to take low-dose aspirin daily, or as recommended by their health care provider, to prevent another occurrence.”

Is the Risk Profile Lower for People With Heart Disease?

Although the AHA and ACC recommend low-dose aspirin for people who have heart disease or have had a cardiovascular event, there is evidence suggesting it may not be the ideal solution for this population.

For example, in a study published in 2004, scientists assessed the risks and benefits of aspirin and Warfarin in people who had heart failure.¹⁹ They found that the treatment group receiving aspirin had worse cardiac outcomes, including deteriorating heart failure. According to the authors in that study, their data showed “no evidence that aspirin is effective or safe in patients with heart failure.”²⁰

In a 2010 study it was reported that older adults with heart disease and a history of using aspirin had an increased risk of having another heart attack, compared to those who had not been on aspirin therapy.²¹

In a 2009 meta-analysis, researchers looked at six studies and found no evidence that clearly supported aspirin as an effective strategy in preventing cardiovascular events in people with diabetes.²² The study’s authors go so far as to note that aspirin actually increases mortality in this group, based on the title of their paper.

A 2009 study was conducted to examine the effects of daily aspirin in patients with diabetes; the authors found it "significantly increased mortality in diabetic patients without cardiovascular disease from 17% … at age 50 years to 29% … at age 85 years."²³ The results also indicated that aspirin may also lower mortality in elderly diabetic individuals who do have CVD.

Reducing Your Iron Levels May Also Offer Protection

Addressing your serum iron levels also helps protect your heart health. Data show th at iron can build up in your body and that it’s linked to CVD.²⁴ More specifically, it’s linked to atherosclerosis as it helps catalyze the development of reactive oxygen free radicals that contribute to the formation of arterial plaque.

What many people, physicians included, fail to appreciate is that the body has no significant way of getting rid of excess iron. Women who are still menstruating will have blood loss each month, but other minor amounts lost through normal bodily processes are not enough to reduce overall excess iron in everyone else.²⁵

Many supplements include iron, and it’s added to lots of processed foods. For instance, two servings of fortified breakfast cereal may provide you with as much as 44 mg,²⁶ bringing you dangerously close to the upper tolerance limit of 45 mg for adults. This is well over the recommended daily allowance, which is 8 mg for men and 18 mg for premenopausal women.²⁷

Iron overload is much more common than deficiency and is linked to several chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's disease.²⁸ One of the simplest ways to address this issue is by donating blood. You may not know you have too much iron unless you get tested.

Blood donation is also safe. Results from several studies have demonstrated improvements in chronic conditions with consistent blood donation, including reducing high blood pressure and improving glycemic control²⁹ as well as reducing symptoms and severity of gout³⁰ and heart disease.³¹

Nattokinase or Lumbrokinase Reduces Clot Formation

Another option to protect heart health is using nattokinase or lumbrokinase. Nattokinase is produced by Bacillus subtilis as it is fermenting soybeans to produce natto.³² The compound is a strong thrombolytic comparable to aspirin, but without the serious side effects.

It works by dissolving fibrin in the blood vessels, improving circulation and decreasing blood viscosity. These effects can also help reduce high blood pressure. In one study, participants experienced a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure while taking nattokinase.³³

Using aspirin and statin medications comes with a long list of serious side effects, but nattokinase has been used for centuries with few reported adverse events. A second option is lumbrokinase, which may be even better than nattokinase.

This is a fibrinolytic enzyme³⁴ that's extracted from earthworms and helps reduce blood viscosity. It also degrades fibrin, a key factor in clot formation.³⁵ The substance is not well known by health experts, especially by Western health practitioners and consumers. The compound is effective for multiple purposes in overall health. Discover more in “Lumbrokinase for Heart Health?”

from Articles https://ift.tt/3emdUHW
via IFTTT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been conflicting advice about wearing face masks or face coverings, even within the same public health agencies. For example, some medical organizations claim that wearing a mask only protects others from you if you are carrying the virus, but urge you to wear one if you are in close contact with a COVID-19 patient — which infers that a mask could protect you from an infected person.

The advice raises several questions. First, many people can be carrying the virus and not know it because they are asymptomatic and have not been tested. How would these people know to wear a mask? Secondly, if a mask is indicated if you are in close contact with a COVID-19 patient, then that would indicate that a mask does protect you from others and not just others from you. So, which is the truth?

There is another element to the conflicting advice. Some medical experts claim that wearing a face mask is harmful to the wearer. Not only does it not protect you, they say, but it can limit your oxygen and even redirect harmful pathogens that you may be carrying back into your airway. As COVID-19 lockdowns end and people are getting out in the public again, what does the evidence say about wearing masks?

Advice From WHO and CDC About Face Masks Differs

The World Health Organization, founded in 1948,¹ consists of more than 7,000 people from more than 150 countries.² Its staff includes medical doctors, public health specialists, scientists, epidemiologists and experts in health statistics, economics and emergency relief.³ When it comes to masks for COVID-19, this body of experts does not cast masks as the panacea. Originally, the WHO listed these guidelines as to who should wear masks:⁴

• If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
• Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
• Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

The WHO changed its mind, though, and modified its recommendations June 5, 2020,⁵ to advise the general public to wear a mask in specific situations when social distancing isn't possible. Otherwise, "… there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the U.S.'s leading health agency, administered under the Department of Health and Human Services. When it comes to battling COVID-19, its advice is not the same as WHO's. Pointing out that people can carry the virus with no symptoms or before symptoms like coughing and sneezing surface, it wrote on its website April 3, 2020:⁶

"This means that the virus can spread between people interacting in close proximity ... CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission ...

CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others."

By May 22, 2020, the CDC had added a yellow-highlighted banner to its page, saying, "A cloth face covering may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others."⁷

Many medical and political leaders support wearing masks. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the high-profile medical member of the White House coronavirus task force and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has endorsed them.⁸ So has former acting CDC director Dr. Richard Besser.⁹

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed an executive order at the end of May 2020 mandating masks in his state¹⁰ and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said wearing a mask is an expression of "loving your fellow human being."¹¹

Countries that routinely use face masks have lowered their COVID-19 transmission. Does that mean those who reject face masks are increasing the risk of transmission to themselves and others? Many questions remain.

What Does Research Say About Face Mask Effectiveness?

Dr. Chris Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, has said that face masks represent "probably a 50% protection against transmission,"¹² but other estimates are less reassuring. For example, a study on the ability of masks to block COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, published by South Korean researchers in the Annals of Internal Medicine in April 2020, found:¹³

"Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission.

However, the size and concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown.

Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter ... assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size [to SARS–CoV], surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus."

Contamination was found on the outside of the masks, wrote the researchers:¹⁴

"Of note, we found greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces ... The mask's aerodynamic features may explain this finding. A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface. Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 generated during a high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks.

In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

Criticism of the study by other researchers was brisk, ranging from questioning the handling of the masks before the experiment, which could have caused the observed contamination, to noting that only a small number of subjects were involved.

Paul W. Leu,¹⁵ an associate professor of industrial engineering, mechanical engineering and materials science at the University of Pittsburgh, noted in a letter to the editor that the premise of the research was wrong since masks are not intended to "shorten the trajectory of droplets emitted during coughing." Instead, he wrote:¹⁶

"The conclusions of this study … are not only erroneous but misleading … The function of the mask is to reduce how far aerosol droplets travel during breathing, speaking, singing, sneezing, or coughing. This is the same reason one should cover one's mouth or nose with your forearm, inside of your elbow, or tissue when sneezing."

Another critic, Ken Lim of CyberMedia Convergence Consulting, wrote that the experiment should have been "how many viral droplets appeared on another person or surface," not on the masks themselves.¹⁷ Subsequently, in June, the authors retracted this study. Acknowledging that readers had called attention to flaws in their work, they said they had offered to correct it "with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction."¹⁸

More Questions About Face Mask Effectiveness

Research that appeared in April 2020 on medRxiv found that:¹⁹

"The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations."

However, Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, disagreed with these findings, according to the journal BMJ.²⁰ "If an aerosol droplet hits the weave of the mask fabric rather than the hole it is clearly arrested ... helps to slow the epidemic," he said, stating that masks are not a "cure" but are useful in flattening the curve.

Also according to BMJ, Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, saw another problem with widespread wearing of masks. "Mass face mask wearing by the public would likely cause shortages among people who genuinely need protective equipment — health care workers on the front line in our hospitals," he said.

According to the Mayo Clinic, even though masks are useful, the fear of a shortage of them shaped the CDC's original recommendations. The clinic wrote on its website:²¹

"The CDC acknowledged this concern when it recommended cloth masks for the public and not the surgical and N95 masks needed by health care providers."

There was another reason for the CDC's delay in endorsing masks when the pandemic first surfaced, wrote Mayo.²²

"At that time, experts didn't yet know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do an about-face on face masks. The CDC updated its guidance to recommend widespread use of simple cloth face coverings to help prevent transmission of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't know it."

Another hurdle to a full endorsement of face masks by public health groups was the concern that they could provide a false sense of security. Experts also feared the masks could lead to more touching of the face²³ or contamination if the wearer puts the mask down on an unclean surface.²⁴

When it comes to health care workers, they should not work without respiratory protection of some kind, according to the authors of a 2015 study who updated their comments in April 2020:²⁵

"There are now numerous reports of health workers wearing home made cloth masks, or re-using disposable mask and respirators, and asking for guidance. If health workers choose to work in these circumstances, guidance should be given around the use.

There have been a number of laboratory studies looking at the effectiveness of different types of cloth materials, single versus multiple layers and about the role that filters can play. However, none have been tested in a clinical trial for efficacy. If health workers choose to work using cloth masks, we suggest that they have at least two and cycle them, so that each one can be washed and dried after daily use.

Sanitizer spray or UV disinfection boxes can be used to clean them during breaks in a single day. These are pragmatic, rather than evidence-based suggestions, given the situation.

Finally for COVID-19, wearing a mask is not enough to protect healthcare workers — use of gloves and goggles are also required as a minimum, as SARS-CoV-2 may infect not only through the respiratory route, but also through contact with contaminated surfaces and self-contamination."

Face Masks May Do Harm, Some Experts Say

The face mask controversy does not just revolve around whether they are effective or ineffective in preventing infections or whether widespread use would create shortages for health care professionals. Some medical experts say the masks can cause harm to wearers.

Virus expert Judy Mikovits of "Plandemic" fame has been very outspoken about the dangers of face masks. According to Weblyf.com, in social media posts she has written:²⁶

"Do you not know how unhealthy it is to keep inhaling your carbon dioxide and restricting proper oxygen flow? ... The body requires AMPLE amounts of oxygen for optimal immune health. Proper oxygenation of your cells and blood is ESSENTIAL for the body to function as it needs to in order to fight off any illness. Masks will hamper oxygen intake.

Unless you are working in a hospital setting, it is NOT necessary ... [If] [y]ou want to be healthy ... Stop smoking, change your diet, stop consuming alcohol, turn off your wifi and cell phone, stop getting injected with neurotoxins, stop taking toxic medications, stop using so many chemicals ... get some sun, drink plenty of (filtered) water [and] sleep well."

Mikovits is not the only expert warning about face mask dangers. According to News-Medical.Net, Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, has warned the public against wearing facemasks "as the virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in."²⁷

Nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also believes face masks are capable of causing serious harm:²⁸

"Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask.

This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications ... By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain."

Face masks can also pose a danger to health care workers, wrote Blaylock,²⁹ by causing "a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood CO2 (hypercapnia)," as well as headaches. The elderly are at risk, too, he warns:

"Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind — which can cause a severe worsening of lung function.

This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung."

Face Shields May Be More Effective Than Face Masks

Face shields, plastic covers over the whole face that function as visors, may look extreme or "dorky" but they have some advantages over cloth masks. First, unlike cloth masks, they can be cleaned with soap and water or disinfectants and reused over and over because they are plastic and won't degrade.

Second, face shields are more comfortable to wear, especially on hot days, since they are not placed directly over your mouth and nose and allow free breathing. Finally, and most importantly, face shields protect you better than face masks because the mouth and nose are not the only inlets of infection. According to the National Post, face shields also:³⁰

"… block the virus from entering 'portals, (mouths, noses and eyes) and 'reduce the potential for autoinoculation,' meaning implanting the virus into our own bodies after touching a contaminated surface, by preventing the wearer from touching his or her face ...

While SARS-CoV-2 is spread by breathing in tiny liquid virus-containing droplets, there is evidence it can enter the body through mucus membranes, including the mucus membranes on the surface of the eye and inner eye lids."

Face shields, when studied with influenza, protected people from inhaling 96% of flu-laden droplets produced by a cough even when the face shield wearers were only 18 inches of someone coughing, the Post said.³¹ Clearly, they provide some of the protections of social distancing which may explain why we are increasingly seeing them used by health care practitioners.

If You Do Wear a Face Mask Follow These Guidelines

Clearly, there is evidence both for and against wearing face masks during the pandemic. If you do decide to wear a face mask, here are useful tips from WHO for usage and disposal to make sure you use your mask safely:³²

• Before putting on a mask, ideally clean your hands with soap and water.
• Cover your mouth and nose with the mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask.
• Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not reuse single-use masks.
• To take off the mask: Remove it from behind (do not touch the front of the mask); discard it immediately in a closed bin; and clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

from Articles https://ift.tt/30VYbet
via IFTTT

A new study unveils a novel mechanism that allows viruses to produce unexpected proteins.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3efHONE

Older women in the workforce should be considered collectively as a unique demographic group that includes both gender and age if they're to receive adequate protection against workplace discrimination, according to a new article.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YIGOey

Researchers have developed a test that uses children's ability to assemble LEGO pieces to assess their spatial visualization ability. Spatial visualization is the ability to visualize 3D shapes in one's mind, which is tied to increased GPAs and graduation rates in STEM college students.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3eds2mJ

Coconut oil has developed a cultlike following in recent years, with proponents touting benefits ranging from body fat reduction to heart disease prevention. Sadly for devotees, the evidence to support these assertions remains rather sparse.

But there is plenty of research to suggest that other plant-based oils have advantages over their animal-derived counterparts, particularly when it comes to heart health. So which is best? While no specific type should be hyped as a panacea, one variety isn’t getting the press it deserves: olive oil.

The case for olive oil continues to grow

Olive oil is a staple fat in the Mediterranean diet, and its previously publicized benefits have largely relied on examining its use by European populations. This information is useful, but looking at olive oil within the context of American diets provides us with stronger data to guide dietary choices here at home.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at adults in the United States and found that replacing margarine, butter, or mayonnaise with olive oil was associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This is particularly notable because Americans tend to consume less olive oil than our European counterparts. In the US, high consumers averaged a little less than one tablespoon of olive oil a day, whereas daily intake in studies examining Mediterranean populations has been as high as three tablespoons.

After taking demographic and lifestyle factors into consideration, those consuming more than half a tablespoon per day had a reduced risk of developing CVD compared to those using olive oil infrequently (less than once per month). Consuming more olive oil was also associated with a decreased likelihood of dying from CVD. Even slight increases in olive oil consumption, like replacing roughly a teaspoon of margarine or butter each day with a similar amount of olive oil, had advantages.

Olive oil was also correlated with a reduction in inflammatory compounds that may contribute to the progression of CVD. Olives contain plant chemicals called polyphenols that may help reduce inflammation. Using virgin olive oil, which is extracted through mechanical rather than chemical means, is thought to offer higher levels of protective plant compounds than refined olive oils. Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is a product of the preferred, mechanical processing.

Though we need more research, these polyphenols may also extend benefits to other areas of the body, like the brain. For instance, along with other healthy diet habits like eating leafy greens, primarily using olive oil when cooking has been associated with combating the decline in brain function that happens as we age.

How does coconut oil compare?

Proponents of coconut oil cite the medium-chain fatty acids it contains as a benefit because of the unique way these fats are digested. It’s claimed these fats offer advantages related to weight loss and cholesterol, though these assertions remain controversial. Regardless, lauric acid, the primary fat found in coconut oil, is thought to behave differently from other medium-chain fats, and may not deliver as promised.

In a recently published study in the journal Circulation, which compiled data from a variety of trials, coconut oil did not show benefits related to waist circumference or body fat compared to other plant-based fats. Coconut oil, a tropical plant oil, also did not fare as well as nontropical plant oils, like olive oil, with respect to reducing other cardiac risk factors. In fact, coconut oil increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, the kind associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

Coconut has been an important fat in a variety of traditional diets in Asia, and is touted to impart health benefits within these communities, including fewer cardiac complications and premature deaths. However, these diets often feature minimally processed coconut products, like coconut flesh, which are also higher in nutrients like fiber. Lifestyle habits in these Asian communities also typically include eating more fruits, vegetables, and fish than in many American diets.

That said, extra virgin coconut oil, which can be purchased in the United States, is arguably less processed, and often refined in a manner similar to EVOO. A recent trial published in BMJ Open looking at extra virgin coconut oil did not show an increase in LDL cholesterol when compared to EVOO during a four-week period. (Both oils performed better than butter.) Unfortunately, there are not enough human studies involving extra virgin coconut oil to support its use as a primary fat in our diets. Nor do we have information about its long-term effects here in the US.

And the winner is… olive oil

The benefits of using nontropical plant-based oils remain very promising, making olive oil a natural choice in the kitchen. Try oil and vinegar on a fresh summer salad, or in place of mayo in potato or tuna salad. Consider a drizzle of olive oil instead of a pat of butter or margarine when cooking vegetables. And keep coconut fat to occasional use, say, to enhance the flavor of a vegetable curry, or as a substitute for butter in baked desserts.

The post Olive oil or coconut oil: Which is worthy of kitchen-staple status? appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/37HA84u

Researchers have discovered some of the secrets to longevity with new research revealing not smoking and being social engaged throughout older age are common traits of New Zealand centenarians.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hzC2Zz

A deep-learning powered single-strained electronic skin sensor can capture human motion from a distance. The single strain sensor placed on the wrist decodes complex five-finger motions in real time with a virtual 3D hand that mirrors the original motions. The deep neural network boosted by rapid situation learning (RSL) ensures stable operation regardless of its position on the surface of the skin.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2N95Xd1

In the largest mapping of proteins ever to be conducted across different species, an international team of researchers have analysed and compared the proteins of 100 animal, plant and bacterial species. The different life forms appear to have remarkable similarities when looking at their proteins. The new study has also doubled the number of experimentally confirmed proteins.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30QMMNf

A new test will enable better management of patients with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID).

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30RxS9q

A device to directly measure blood oxygen saturation in a fetus during labor has been developed by researchers at UC Davis. By providing better information about the health of a fetus right before birth, the device could both reduce the rate of Cesarean sections and improve outcomes in difficult deliveries.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2ADWPdV

New hires especially should keep their cell phones stashed away during business meetings, a new study strongly implies. Researchers have just published an article that finds viewers perceive someone who appears to be using their cell phone during a business meeting far more negatively than someone who takes notes on a pad.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/37I0jI5

Scientists develop AI-based tool to predict adverse drug events. Such events are responsible for some 2 million U.S. hospitalizations per year. The free, open-source system could enable safer drug design, optimize drug safety.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Yebbu8

Teenagers who experience very poor sleep may be more likely to experience poor mental health in later life, as depressed teens in study slept 30 minutes less per night than other groups.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hBjyYy

Researchers have developed a technique, using artificial intelligence, to analyze opinions and draw conclusions using the brain activity of groups of people. This technique, which the researchers call ''brainsourcing'', can be used to classify images or recommend content, something that has not been demonstrated before.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2N6gdCT