Connect with us

Health

Gluten-Free Diets Aren’t Necessarily Healthier for Your Heart

Published

on

A new study found that the trendy “gluten-free diets” can do more harm than good for people without coeliac disease, and may increase the risk of heart disease.

Gluten is a protein found in grains such as wheat, barley and rye. In people with coeliac disease, it damages the intestines and triggers digestive symptoms such as diarrhoea, meaning they need to follow a gluten-free diet.

Recently there has been increasing interest in the possible health benefits of avoiding gluten among people who do not have coeliac disease, though the long term evidence about its effects in this group is currently limited. Despite this, the gluten-free food market is reported to have made $3.5bn worth of global sales in 2016.

The current study followed more than 100,000 people from 1986 to 2012, assessing their diets and whether they had heart attacks during that time. These people did not have heart disease at the start of the study, and importantly did not have coeliac disease.

Overall, it found that once other risk factors were taken into account, people’s consumption of gluten was not related to their risk of heart attack. However, further analyses suggested that lower consumption of gluten specifically from whole grains (wheat, barley and rye) was associated with increased heart attack risk compared to higher consumption from these sources.

Ideally these findings would be confirmed by other studies, but this research will take time. In the meantime, if you don’t need to avoid gluten for medical reasons, this study suggests it may be beneficial to continue including whole grains in your diet for their cardiovascular benefits.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from Columbia University in New York, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston. The authors were funded by grants from the American Gastroenterological Association, Massachusetts General Hospital and the National Institutes of Health.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal on an open access basis so it is free to read online.

The UK media provided reasonable coverage of the study. As you would expect, most of the otherwise academic reporting was given a touch of glamour by listing celebrities associated with gluten-free dieting.

What kind of research was this?

This was a prospective cohort study looking at whether how much gluten a person eats is linked to their risk of developing heart disease over a long period of time.

Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye, and barley. It causes inflammation and damage to the intestines in people with coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease have an increased risk of heart disease, but eating a gluten-free diet helps to reduce this risk, as well as symptoms.

Eating a gluten free diet has become increasingly popular among people who do not have coeliac disease as a result of concerns that gluten may cause various digestive and other health problems. However, the impact a low gluten diet may have on risk of heart disease in people who do not have coeliac disease has not been studied in long term prospective studies. This is what the current study wanted to assess.

While a randomised controlled trial is generally the best way to test whether a particular factor causes a specific outcome, it would not be feasible to randomly allocate thousands of people to eat gluten or not for a long period of time. Therefore, a large cohort study such as this is the best way to look at this question.

The main challenge with this study type is to try and single out the effect of gluten as opposed to any other factor. Researchers do this by using statistical techniques to try and “remove” the impact of these other factors (known as confounders).

What did the research involve?

The researchers analysed data from two very large cohort studies in the US called the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

The 110,017 participants without coeliac disease who did not have heart disease in 1986 filled out detailed questionnaires about their diet at the start of the study and every four years after that, up to 2010. The researchers followed them up to see who developed heart disease over this period, and whether different levels of gluten consumption affected the likelihood of developing the condition.

The standard diet questionnaire included more than 130 questions about how often a person consumed specified portions of certain foods and drinks. The researchers used the participants’ responses to estimate how much gluten they were consuming on average over the study period using a database of nutritional contents of the foods and drinks.

They included gluten from wheat, rye and barley, but did not include the small amounts of gluten which are present in oats or condiments such as soy sauce as they felt these would be negligible. People were then split into five groups with increasing levels of gluten consumption for comparison.

Because people might change their diet as a result of illness, for people who developed diabetes, cancer, or certain heart disease events such as stroke or had surgery to treat heart disease, the researchers only considered their diet before they developed these conditions.

Participants filled out questionnaires about their health every two years, and if they reported having a heart attack their medical records were checked.

Deaths from heart attack were identified from state and national records, or reports from next of kin. Medical and post-mortem records and death certificates were also checked for these individuals. If these record checks confirmed the reported diagnosis, these people were considered as having developed heart disease.

The researchers analysed whether participants who consumed more gluten were any more or less likely to develop heart disease. They took into account many potential confounders that could be related to heart disease risk, including:

  • age
  • race
  • body mass index
  • history of diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol
  • regular use of aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
  • current use of statins
  • current use of a multivitamin
  • smoking history
  • physical activity
  • parental history of heart attack
  • menopausal status and menopausal hormone use
  • other dietary factors such as alcohol, red and processed meats, polyunsaturated and trans fats, and fruit and vegetables

In addition, the researchers also looked at what happened if they took into account consumption of whole and refined grains, as these contain gluten, and have been linked to level of heart disease risk.

What were the basic results?

The mean daily intake of gluten at the start of the study was:

  • 7.5g among women and 10.0g among men in the highest consumption group
  • 2.6g among women and 3.3g among men in the lowest consumption group

People with higher gluten intake tended to have:

  • lower alcohol intake
  • smoke less
  • consume less fat overall
  • eat less unprocessed red meat
  • consume more whole grains and refined grains

During the study 6,529 participants (5.9%) experienced a heart attack.

Before taking into account potential confounders, heart attacks were more common in the group with the highest gluten consumption than in those with the lowest consumption.

However, after taking into account known risk factors for heart disease, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant.

When the researchers looked at the impact of consumption of gluten from just refined grains they also found the difference between groups was not statistically significant.

And when they did consider the impact of consumption of gluten in whole grains – they found those with highest gluten consumption were 15% less likely to develop heart attacks over follow up (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.93).

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that differences in long term dietary intake of gluten were not associated with risk of heart disease. However, their results suggested that avoiding gluten may reduce consumption of whole grains, and this may lead to increased risk of heart disease.

They recommended that “promotion of gluten-free diets among people without [coeliac] disease should not be encouraged”.

Conclusion

This study has found that while overall gluten consumption in people without coeliac disease may not be related to heart disease risk, avoiding whole grains (wheat, barley and rye) in order to avoid gluten may be associated with increased heart disease risk.

This study has several strengths, including its large size, the fact that data was collected prospectively and diet assessed at several time-points, the long period of follow up, and that it took into account a wide range of potential confounders.

As with all studies of this type, it is possible that other factors may affect the results. However, the researchers took into account as many potential confounding factors as they could in their analyses. This increases confidence in the results, but it is still possible that these or other unmeasured confounding factors are having an effect.

The researchers noted that they did not specifically ask participants whether they were intentionally following a “gluten free” diet or consumption of gluten-free substitute foods.

It is important to emphasise that this study was only in people who did not have coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease need to eat a gluten free diet to control their symptoms, and it is thought that this diet may actually contribute to the reduction in risk of heart disease seen after diagnosis in this group. So people eating a gluten free diet for this purpose should not be concerned by the findings in this study.

The study collected data from 1986 to 2012. Diets over this period have changed, and avoidance of gluten is likely to be more common nowadays. It would be interesting to repeat the study now to see if the same results are found. While it would be good to have these findings confirmed by other studies, carrying out similarly large scale and long term research will take time.

Ideally, if you don’t need to avoid gluten for medical reasons, then this study suggests it may be beneficial to continue including whole grains in your diet for their cardiovascular benefits.

Continue Reading

Health

Report Causes Pfizer Stock to Climb Approximately $1 Billion Acquired by Starboard

Published

on

By

Pfizer

(VOR News) – According to a rumor that activist investor Pfizer Starboard Value has taken a holding in the struggling pharmaceutical business that is expected to be worth around one billion dollars, the stock of Pfizer (PFE) is on the increase in premarket trading on Monday.

This comes after the report was made public. The report was made available to the general public following this. Starboard Value was successful in moving forward with the acquisition of the position.

Starboard is said to have approached Ian Read, a former chief executive officer of Pfizer, and Frank D’Amelio, a former chief financial officer, in order to seek assistance with its goals of boosting the performance of the company, according to the Wall Street Journal. Read and D’Amelio are both former Pfizer executives.

The purpose of this is to facilitate the accomplishment of its objectives, which include enhancing the overall performance of the firm.

In their previous jobs, D’Amelio and Read were chief financial officers.

It is stated in the report that the hedge fund is of the opinion that Pfizer, which is currently being managed by Albert Bourla, who succeeded Read as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in 2019, does not demonstrate the same level of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) discipline that Read did. Bourla took over for Read in 2019. Read was succeeded by Bourla in the year 2019.

Pfizer, a multinational pharmaceutical conglomerate, has made substantial investments in the acquisition of more companies that are involved in the research and development of cancer medicines.

These businesses have been acquired for billions of dollars. The biotechnology company Seagen, which was acquired by Pfizer in the previous year for a price of $43 billion, is included in this category. One of the businesses that can be classified as belonging to this category is Seagen.

In spite of the fact that the S&P 500 Index experienced a 21% increase in 2024.

No major trading occurred in Pfizer stock that year.

Due to the fact that the demand for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines fell after the firm reached its pandemic peak in 2021, the share price of the corporation has decreased by over fifty percent since that time.

This drop has occurred ever since the company’s shares reached their maximum peak, which was during the time that this decline occurred. Not only have they not changed at all, but they have also remained essentially stable. This is in contrast to the S&P 500, which has gained 21% since the beginning of this year.

Recently, the corporation was forced to take a hit when it decided to recall all of the sickle cell illness medications that it had distributed all over the world.

Fears that the prescription could lead patients to experience severe agony and possibly even death were the impetus for the decision to recall the product. In spite of the fact that Pfizer’s stock is increasing by almost three percent as a result of the news that followed the company’s decision, this is the circumstance that has come about.

SOURCE: IPN

SEE ALSO:

New Study Reveals Drinking Soda Pop Increases the Risk of Stroke

The Mpox Vaccine’s Protection Decreases Within a Year; Booster Requirements

 

Continue Reading

Health

New Study Reveals Drinking Soda Pop Increases the Risk of Stroke

Published

on

By

Soda Pop Increases the Risk of Stroke
If you drink too much soda, fruit juice and coffee, beware!

A recent report from global research indicates that excessive consumption of coffee or soda pop is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although the intake of black and green tea is correlated with a reduced risk. Excessive consumption of soda pop or coffee warrants caution!

Recent research indicates that it may substantially elevate the risk of stroke.

Consuming four cups of coffee daily elevates the risk of stroke, according to studies, although ingesting 3-4 cups of black or green tea daily typically offers protection against stroke. Additionally, consume more coffee; it may reduce your risk of mortality.

Recent findings from global research studies co-led by the University of Galway and McMaster University, alongside an international consortium of stroke researchers, indicate that soda, encompassing both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened variants such as diet or zero sugar, is associated with a 22 percent heightened risk of stroke. The risk escalated significantly with the consumption of two or more of these beverages daily.

Stroke Risk Fizzy Drinks and Soda Pop

The correlation between fizzy drinks consumption and stroke risk was most pronounced in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Women exhibit the most elevated risk of stroke from bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage) associated with fruit juice beverages. Consuming over 7 cups of water daily diminishes the likelihood of stroke due to a clot.

Researchers observed that numerous items advertised as fruit juice are derived from concentrates and have added sugars and preservatives, potentially negating the advantages often associated with fresh fruit and instead elevating stroke risk.

Fruit juice beverages were associated with a 37 percent heightened risk of stroke resulting from bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage). Consuming two of these beverages daily increases the risk thrice.

Consuming over four cups of coffee daily elevates the risk of stroke by 37 percent, although lower consumption levels do not correlate with stroke risk. Conversely, tea consumption was associated with an 18-20 percent reduction in stroke risk. Additionally, consuming 3-4 cups daily of black tea, such as Breakfast and Earl Grey varieties, excluding green and herbal teas, was associated with a 29 percent reduced risk of stroke.

Consuming 3-4 cups of green tea daily was associated with a 27 percent reduction in stroke risk. Notably, the addition of milk may diminish or inhibit the advantageous effects of antioxidants present in tea. The lower risk of stroke associated with tea consumption was negated for individuals who added milk.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for informational reasons and should not be considered a replacement for professional medical counsel. Consistently consult your physician regarding any inquiries pertaining to a medical problem.

Related News:

Starbucks Faces Sales Decline Amid Price Fatigue and Rising Competition

Starbucks Faces Sales Decline Amid Price Fatigue and Rising Competition

Continue Reading

Health

Following a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, What Else Should You Know?

Published

on

By

Breast Cancer

(VOR News) – Even though breast cancer affects one in eight American women, receiving a diagnosis can make a woman feel isolated.

Experts in breast cancer from the American College of Physicians (ACS) advise patients on how to manage their disease so that they may better cope with this awful information.

First, the kind and stage of breast cancer dictates the course of your care.

In addition to immunotherapy and chemotherapy, there are various surgical options available for the treatment of breast cancer.

Women of African descent are disproportionately affected by triple-negative breast cancer, an extremely aggressive form of the disease that has never proven easy to treat.

According to the American Cancer Society, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), an immunotherapy, has been shown to be helpful when combined with chemotherapy and is currently the recommended course of treatment for certain combinations of triple-negative breast cancer.

In her presentation, Dr. Katharine Yao said, “It’s really important that the patient and physician discuss the patient’s preferences and values when deciding what type of treatment to pursue and that they have an honest, individualized discussion with their care team.”

She is currently responsible for developing breast cancer treatment recommendations for more than 575 hospitals and institutions nationwide in her role as chair of the American College of Surgeons’ National Accreditation Program for Breast Institutions (NAPBC).

Yao, vice chair of research at Endeavor Health NorthShore Hospitals in New York, pointed out that each decision made about a patient’s treatment plan should take her preferences and diagnosis into consideration.

She ought to think about whether she would prefer a mastectomy—a surgical procedure that involves removing the entire breast with or without reconstruction—or a lumpectomy, which involves a surgical procedure that spares part of the breast tissue.

She stated that “the breast cancer you have may be very different from the breast cancer you hear about in your neighbor, colleague, or friend” in a press release issued by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

“Consider that while discussing breast cancer with others.”

Throughout your journey, it is critical that you look after your emotional health because having breast cancer may have a detrimental impact on your mental health.

“Getting a cancer diagnosis does not mean that everything in your life stops to be normal.” Director of the Fellowship in the Diseases of the Breast program at the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute at the University of Arkansas and state head of the American Cancer Society Commission on Cancer for Arkansas, Dr. Daniela Ochoa She thinks adding the burden of a cancer diagnosis and treatment to all the other pressures in life may be taxing.

“Managing stress and emotional health is vital component of a treatment plan.”

Ochoa recommends clinically trained psychologists and social workers who have assisted people in coping with cancer to anyone receiving treatment. Learning coping techniques might also be facilitated by joining cancer support groups or cancer wellness initiatives.

Breast cancer specialists say your care team is crucial.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) defines comprehensive care as having support at every stage of the procedure from surgeons, oncologists, patient navigators, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and other specialists.

After receiving a breast cancer diagnosis, women should see a surgeon or medical oncologist to explore their options; nevertheless, treatment shouldn’t be discontinued after just one appointment or after surgery is over.

Additionally, you can ask trustworthy friends or family members to accompany you to appointments and aid you with research or notes. They could serve as a network of support for you.

Yao stated in his talk that “one of the most important things is that patients should search out a team they have confidence in, that they trust will have their back when they need it, and a team they feel they can get access to and that will help them when they are in need.”

SOURCE: MP

SEE ALSO:

The Mpox Vaccine’s Protection Decreases Within a Year; Booster Requirements

COVID was a Paradigm Shift in Health Policymaking, Says Commissioner Stella Kyriakides.

Rwanda Reports 8 Deaths Linked To Ebola-Like Marburg Virus Days After It Declared An Outbreak

 

Continue Reading

Trending