A couple of heart-friendly dark brews.
Link to this page
Alcohol consumption can reduce heart disease risk, according to a variety of studies (SN: 3/30/96, p. 197). Will any type of alcohol do? Yes, but for persons with coronary artery disease, dark beer may be particularly effective.
People may get as much benefit from drinking two glasses of dark beer as from 12 servings of uncolored alcoholic drinks, a new study finds. But you're a teetotaler? No problem. Two cups of tea a day provide the same benefits-at least in dogs.
For years, John D. Folts of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been testing the ability of various agents to reduce the stickiness of blood platelets. To mimic human atherosclerosis, he uses dogs whose coronary arteries have been artificially damaged and constricted by 60 to 80 percent.
Under the influence of stress, cigarette smoking, or various diseases, platelets periodically become activated, turning sticky and forming clumps. At such times, they tend to lodge in narrowed vessels, posing a risk of heart attack or stroke.
Last year, Folts showed that red wine and red grape juice, both rich in pigmented antioxidants known as flavonoids, inhibited platelet activation, while flavonoid-shy white grape juice did not. Now, Folts and his colleagues have tested several other commonly consumed flavonoid-rich beverages.
In one study, they delivered Guinness Extra stout, a dark, malty brew, directly into the stomachs of 11 animals. Another 5 received Heineken lager, a light-colored beer possessing fewer flavonoids. Chemically induced platelet clogs disappeared in all animals given dark beer and did not recur, even when the dogs were again challenged with a platelet-activating compound. Platelet clogs persisted in dogs receiving the lager but fell from an initial average of about seven per dog to roughly four.
In a companion study, the equivalent of two cups of tea eliminated platelet clogs in dogs as efficiently as dark beer did. This result supports studies that have linked reduced heart attack rates in humans to tea drinking (SN: 10/30/93, p. 278). Coffee appeared to aggravate clogging in Folts' canine study.
Other studies by the group suggest that flavonoids may bind to circulating platelets, eventually making a given amount more effective. Indeed, Folts points out, after 7 days of tea consumption, only half as much is needed to prevent platelet blockages.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+couple+of+heart-friendly+dark+brews.-a018283895
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
CW: What’s better for predicting heart disease: A CT-scanner or a Timex?
May 26, 2011
in Cycling Wed,General Cardiology,Healthy Living
Good morning all. Cycling Wednesday fell prey to the Springtime weather in Kentucky. Right before post time last evening, our power (which means internet) went down when a large thunderstorm rolled through.
Here’s what I have for you this week:
It is hardly news to say that we need better means to predict who will die of heart disease. No matter how much you may hear about medical errors, hospital acquired infections, or even distracted driving, it’s still heart disease that kills the most of us.
The inflammation that begins narrowing our arteries starts when we are young. It percolates quietly, stealth-like for years. The young usually skate by unscathed. But all the cookies, beers, chips, inactivity and work stress adds up. The tension of life squeezes our arteries, daring them to crack or fissure. This cataclysm is one of the ways that middle age may introduce herself.
A friend, or colleague, or sibling dies suddenly of heart problems. Those of us that our “masters-aged” have likely felt these sensations of sadness, and then the reality that they may be next.
“I should probably come in and get a check-up,” is something I hear frequently in the doctor’s lounge after such a tragedy.
I agree. When you are old enough to use reading glasses it is time to think about what lurks inside your heart’s blood vessels.
But herein lies the catch.
What’s the best way to evaluate people without symptoms?
Is it with simple tests or complex imaging procedures?
If we find partial blockages, should they be treated with medicines, or a procedure?
And…does treating non-symptomatic blockages make any difference in outcomes?
These are the tough questions that keep preventive cardiologists coming to work.
As an illustration of how tough it is to predict heart disease, let me briefly mention two recent studies that highlight opposite spectrums of complexity. One study looked at using complex imaging of the heart with modern CT scanners, and the other used a stop-watch and a treadmill.
Let’s start with the fancy new test. You have all heard about coronary CT angiography. The notion behind CT-Angio is that a CT-scan of the chest (often with the IV injection of contrast) can detect coronary artery disease. At a minimum, CT-scanners can detect calcium deposits in the heart, and at a maximum, these same machines can create beautiful 3D-images of the arteries surrounding the heart. They are indeed stunning images.
In this recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, (summarized nicely here at Cardiobrief), researchers looked at the impact of using CT-scans for screening low-risk individuals. They compared 1000 South Korean patients that got a CT scan to a 1000 who did not.
There were interesting findings.
CT scans found more than 200 (of 1000) patients with heart blockages.
Many more patients in the CT scan group were treated with aspirin and statins.
More patients in the CT group underwent other heart tests or procedures.
All this sounds good, right? CT scans enhanced detection of disease, and more patients got treated.
But their final, and most telling finding was that none of this mattered.
At 18 months follow-up, there was one heart-related event in each group. In other words, the enhanced detection of CT-angiography had no impact on real outcomes!
(Now…I know it was a small study with short term follow-up. Larger trials are needed to be more conclusive. Plus, these were low-risk patients; the results may have been different in moderate-risk patients.)
The point is that detecting heart disease, starting medicines, and even doing procedures, in patients without symptoms, may not make much difference in real outcomes.
So are their any other tests that could be done to better predict heart outcomes?
You bet…check this out:
In a recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers studied the long-term predictive value of a single measurement of fitness at age 45, 55 and 65. Their metric did not involve radiating the patient, nor did it require injecting any potentially kidney-damaging dye. Rather they simply measured how long it would take a person to run a mile. They used a Timex.
The Cooper Institute in Dallas followed 11,000 patients for 23 years. They found that differences in fitness (as measured by mile times) were associated with marked differences in the chance for heart-related death. Listen to these numbers: A 55 year-old man who measured to be low fitness (>15 min/mile) had a 34% lifetime risk, while a high fitness (<10min/mile) 55 year-old had only a 15% risk.
They also found one other striking result
“the combination of high fitness with a high traditional risk factor burden was associated with a lifetime risk for CVD death that was comparable to that of a person with low risk burden.”
At least in their cohort, being fit counterbalanced having many of the traditional risk factors. That’s a strong statement.
Folks, I am still suffering a little withdrawal symptoms from Europe. All that pragmatism and mastery of the obvious was very infectious. But even so, I still love telling you about simple, inexpensive tests that speak strongly to our cardiovascular risk.
A simple measurement like the time it takes one to run a mile cannot make beautiful images of the heart’s blood vessels. It just tell us about the end result–it measures function. And how things function aren’t always predicted by how they look.
When will it be that the message of fitness gets broadcasted as loud as the next new drug, bio-absorbable stent, or million dollar x-ray machine?
Taking care of the heart isn’t always complicated.
If it were, I’d only be a blogger, not a doctor.
http://www.drjohnm.org/2011/05/cw-whats-better-for-predicting-heart-disease-a-ct-scanner-or-a-timex/
Lifetime Risks for Cardiovascular Disease Mortality by Cardiorespiratory Fitness...
Berry et al. J Am Coll Cardiol.2011; 57: 1604-1610
May 26, 2011
in Cycling Wed,General Cardiology,Healthy Living
Good morning all. Cycling Wednesday fell prey to the Springtime weather in Kentucky. Right before post time last evening, our power (which means internet) went down when a large thunderstorm rolled through.
Here’s what I have for you this week:
It is hardly news to say that we need better means to predict who will die of heart disease. No matter how much you may hear about medical errors, hospital acquired infections, or even distracted driving, it’s still heart disease that kills the most of us.
The inflammation that begins narrowing our arteries starts when we are young. It percolates quietly, stealth-like for years. The young usually skate by unscathed. But all the cookies, beers, chips, inactivity and work stress adds up. The tension of life squeezes our arteries, daring them to crack or fissure. This cataclysm is one of the ways that middle age may introduce herself.
A friend, or colleague, or sibling dies suddenly of heart problems. Those of us that our “masters-aged” have likely felt these sensations of sadness, and then the reality that they may be next.
“I should probably come in and get a check-up,” is something I hear frequently in the doctor’s lounge after such a tragedy.
I agree. When you are old enough to use reading glasses it is time to think about what lurks inside your heart’s blood vessels.
But herein lies the catch.
What’s the best way to evaluate people without symptoms?
Is it with simple tests or complex imaging procedures?
If we find partial blockages, should they be treated with medicines, or a procedure?
And…does treating non-symptomatic blockages make any difference in outcomes?
These are the tough questions that keep preventive cardiologists coming to work.
As an illustration of how tough it is to predict heart disease, let me briefly mention two recent studies that highlight opposite spectrums of complexity. One study looked at using complex imaging of the heart with modern CT scanners, and the other used a stop-watch and a treadmill.
Let’s start with the fancy new test. You have all heard about coronary CT angiography. The notion behind CT-Angio is that a CT-scan of the chest (often with the IV injection of contrast) can detect coronary artery disease. At a minimum, CT-scanners can detect calcium deposits in the heart, and at a maximum, these same machines can create beautiful 3D-images of the arteries surrounding the heart. They are indeed stunning images.
In this recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, (summarized nicely here at Cardiobrief), researchers looked at the impact of using CT-scans for screening low-risk individuals. They compared 1000 South Korean patients that got a CT scan to a 1000 who did not.
There were interesting findings.
CT scans found more than 200 (of 1000) patients with heart blockages.
Many more patients in the CT scan group were treated with aspirin and statins.
More patients in the CT group underwent other heart tests or procedures.
All this sounds good, right? CT scans enhanced detection of disease, and more patients got treated.
But their final, and most telling finding was that none of this mattered.
At 18 months follow-up, there was one heart-related event in each group. In other words, the enhanced detection of CT-angiography had no impact on real outcomes!
(Now…I know it was a small study with short term follow-up. Larger trials are needed to be more conclusive. Plus, these were low-risk patients; the results may have been different in moderate-risk patients.)
The point is that detecting heart disease, starting medicines, and even doing procedures, in patients without symptoms, may not make much difference in real outcomes.
So are their any other tests that could be done to better predict heart outcomes?
You bet…check this out:
In a recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers studied the long-term predictive value of a single measurement of fitness at age 45, 55 and 65. Their metric did not involve radiating the patient, nor did it require injecting any potentially kidney-damaging dye. Rather they simply measured how long it would take a person to run a mile. They used a Timex.
The Cooper Institute in Dallas followed 11,000 patients for 23 years. They found that differences in fitness (as measured by mile times) were associated with marked differences in the chance for heart-related death. Listen to these numbers: A 55 year-old man who measured to be low fitness (>15 min/mile) had a 34% lifetime risk, while a high fitness (<10min/mile) 55 year-old had only a 15% risk.
They also found one other striking result
“the combination of high fitness with a high traditional risk factor burden was associated with a lifetime risk for CVD death that was comparable to that of a person with low risk burden.”
At least in their cohort, being fit counterbalanced having many of the traditional risk factors. That’s a strong statement.
Folks, I am still suffering a little withdrawal symptoms from Europe. All that pragmatism and mastery of the obvious was very infectious. But even so, I still love telling you about simple, inexpensive tests that speak strongly to our cardiovascular risk.
A simple measurement like the time it takes one to run a mile cannot make beautiful images of the heart’s blood vessels. It just tell us about the end result–it measures function. And how things function aren’t always predicted by how they look.
When will it be that the message of fitness gets broadcasted as loud as the next new drug, bio-absorbable stent, or million dollar x-ray machine?
Taking care of the heart isn’t always complicated.
If it were, I’d only be a blogger, not a doctor.
http://www.drjohnm.org/2011/05/cw-whats-better-for-predicting-heart-disease-a-ct-scanner-or-a-timex/
Lifetime Risks for Cardiovascular Disease Mortality by Cardiorespiratory Fitness...
Berry et al. J Am Coll Cardiol.2011; 57: 1604-1610
Truth and Lies In Heart Disease.... The Earth's No. 1 Killer
24.05.2011
A Review Of The Latest Truth and Lies In Heart Disease.... The Earth's No. 1 Killer
Truth and Lies In Heart Disease.... The Earth's No. 1 Killer. 44418.jpegFor both women and men of all ages, heart disease may be the primary killer. It kills more people than ALL forms of cancer tumors grouped together. If you're black or over 65, your chance of a heart attack is greater, but it's an equal opportunity destroyer. Anyone, anywhere, at any time could have a cardiac arrest [1].
Myth #1: Exclusively older adults need to worry about their cardiovascular system.
The things that will cause heart disease build-up over the years. To be a couch-potato, boredom eating and also not training are typical bad habits that could possibly begin in when we are children. Increasing numbers of health professionals are starting to have victims of strokes in their 20's and 30's instead of patients generally in their 50's and 60's.
Appearing fit and at the appropriate body weight will not make you proof against heart attacks. Though, both working out regularly and having a good body weight helps. You still want to check your cholesterol and blood pressure level. A really good cholesterol (or lipid profile) number is below two hundred. A very good blood pressure level is 120/80.
Myth #2: I'd feel ill if I had high blood pressure or high-cholesterol.
They consider these, "silent killers" basically because they present NO warning signs. 30 % of all mature people have hypertension. Of those, one-third have no idea they have got it.
Share
Print version
+ - Font Size
Send to friend
High cholesterol is a way of measuring the fats stocked by your blood. Fats could be dropped anywhere in your system, but may congregate all around body organs. As well as your heart. This tendency may run in family members. So, even if you're at a good weight and don't smoke cigarettes, have your cholesterol levels and blood pressure levels checked regularly. Once may not be enough [2].
Myth #3: Both males and females DON'T experience the same symptoms.
Men and women CAN have precisely the same indicators, but they commonly will not. Ladies are more likely to get the subtler signs though males usually experience the form of heart attacks you see in the movie films. But, either gender CAN have any symptoms.
These subtler signs or symptoms, for example jaw achiness, nausea, difficulty breathing and intense weakness, are more likely to get identified away. "My jaw hurt because my lunch sandwich was on whole-grain bread and I was forced to chew very, very hard," or , while clutching their stomach, "I shouldn't have had that extra piece of pizza." "Half of ladies do not have chest pain after all," announces Kathy Magliato, a heart specialist at California's St. John's Health Center. Put all the little signs or symptoms at the same time and pay attention to your physique.
Obviously, both women and men could experience the "grab-your-chest-and-fall-down-gasping" form of stroke, but now you already know, that isn't the only way.
Myth #4: So long as my blood sugar level is in check, Diabetes isn't a heart risk.
While trying to keep your blood sugar level with a proper range (80ml-120ml) keeps you healthier, just having the added glucose in your body takes its toll on arteries. You'll need working out and eating more healthy to help take control of your type 2 diabetes, bear in mind to check your blood pressure and cholesterol levels, too.
Myth #5: My doctor would order tests if I were at risk for heart problems.
Sometimes, most people overlook to inform the doctor about the little pains we're feeling. The medical professionals, with no knowledge of most of the things we deem as unimportant, may pass over heart exams.
"Mammograms and Colonoscopies are regularly prescribed by doctors," says Merdod Ghafouri, a cardiologist at Inova Fairfax Medical center in the state of Virginia, [3] "and are very important, but heart scans usually are not often done." A cardiac scan can find plaque build-up inside the arteries even before you discover you've a problem.
Do you have the oil pressure and transmission fluid checked in your auto? Have other preventive service done? Doesn't your only heart deserve as much care as your auto?
Links to Extra Sources About Heart Disease:
- [1] Family Doctor by American Academy of Family Physicians provides trustworthy wellness information and resources for patients. They have a very good guide covering high cholesterol and arterial blood vessels
- [2] Mediterranean Book is the National Board for the preservation of the Italian healthy eating traditions. It's a non-profits blogging site managed by Italians that enhance the Mediterranean Diet. They provide headlines and medical-related research linked to the many benefits of the Mediterranean sea eating plan and cardiovascular disease prevention
- [3] Circulation is the part of the American Heart Association associated to cardiac journals, they have a very good report in .pdf that discusses the connection between tryglicerides and cardiovascular disease
http://english.pravda.ru/health/24-05-2011/117992-heart_disease-0/
24.05.2011
A Review Of The Latest Truth and Lies In Heart Disease.... The Earth's No. 1 Killer
Truth and Lies In Heart Disease.... The Earth's No. 1 Killer. 44418.jpegFor both women and men of all ages, heart disease may be the primary killer. It kills more people than ALL forms of cancer tumors grouped together. If you're black or over 65, your chance of a heart attack is greater, but it's an equal opportunity destroyer. Anyone, anywhere, at any time could have a cardiac arrest [1].
Myth #1: Exclusively older adults need to worry about their cardiovascular system.
The things that will cause heart disease build-up over the years. To be a couch-potato, boredom eating and also not training are typical bad habits that could possibly begin in when we are children. Increasing numbers of health professionals are starting to have victims of strokes in their 20's and 30's instead of patients generally in their 50's and 60's.
Appearing fit and at the appropriate body weight will not make you proof against heart attacks. Though, both working out regularly and having a good body weight helps. You still want to check your cholesterol and blood pressure level. A really good cholesterol (or lipid profile) number is below two hundred. A very good blood pressure level is 120/80.
Myth #2: I'd feel ill if I had high blood pressure or high-cholesterol.
They consider these, "silent killers" basically because they present NO warning signs. 30 % of all mature people have hypertension. Of those, one-third have no idea they have got it.
Share
Print version
+ - Font Size
Send to friend
High cholesterol is a way of measuring the fats stocked by your blood. Fats could be dropped anywhere in your system, but may congregate all around body organs. As well as your heart. This tendency may run in family members. So, even if you're at a good weight and don't smoke cigarettes, have your cholesterol levels and blood pressure levels checked regularly. Once may not be enough [2].
Myth #3: Both males and females DON'T experience the same symptoms.
Men and women CAN have precisely the same indicators, but they commonly will not. Ladies are more likely to get the subtler signs though males usually experience the form of heart attacks you see in the movie films. But, either gender CAN have any symptoms.
These subtler signs or symptoms, for example jaw achiness, nausea, difficulty breathing and intense weakness, are more likely to get identified away. "My jaw hurt because my lunch sandwich was on whole-grain bread and I was forced to chew very, very hard," or , while clutching their stomach, "I shouldn't have had that extra piece of pizza." "Half of ladies do not have chest pain after all," announces Kathy Magliato, a heart specialist at California's St. John's Health Center. Put all the little signs or symptoms at the same time and pay attention to your physique.
Obviously, both women and men could experience the "grab-your-chest-and-fall-down-gasping" form of stroke, but now you already know, that isn't the only way.
Myth #4: So long as my blood sugar level is in check, Diabetes isn't a heart risk.
While trying to keep your blood sugar level with a proper range (80ml-120ml) keeps you healthier, just having the added glucose in your body takes its toll on arteries. You'll need working out and eating more healthy to help take control of your type 2 diabetes, bear in mind to check your blood pressure and cholesterol levels, too.
Myth #5: My doctor would order tests if I were at risk for heart problems.
Sometimes, most people overlook to inform the doctor about the little pains we're feeling. The medical professionals, with no knowledge of most of the things we deem as unimportant, may pass over heart exams.
"Mammograms and Colonoscopies are regularly prescribed by doctors," says Merdod Ghafouri, a cardiologist at Inova Fairfax Medical center in the state of Virginia, [3] "and are very important, but heart scans usually are not often done." A cardiac scan can find plaque build-up inside the arteries even before you discover you've a problem.
Do you have the oil pressure and transmission fluid checked in your auto? Have other preventive service done? Doesn't your only heart deserve as much care as your auto?
Links to Extra Sources About Heart Disease:
- [1] Family Doctor by American Academy of Family Physicians provides trustworthy wellness information and resources for patients. They have a very good guide covering high cholesterol and arterial blood vessels
- [2] Mediterranean Book is the National Board for the preservation of the Italian healthy eating traditions. It's a non-profits blogging site managed by Italians that enhance the Mediterranean Diet. They provide headlines and medical-related research linked to the many benefits of the Mediterranean sea eating plan and cardiovascular disease prevention
- [3] Circulation is the part of the American Heart Association associated to cardiac journals, they have a very good report in .pdf that discusses the connection between tryglicerides and cardiovascular disease
http://english.pravda.ru/health/24-05-2011/117992-heart_disease-0/
The world's first international polypill trial has shown that a four-in-one combination pill can halve the predicted risk of heart disease and stroke. The results are published online today in the open access journal PLoS One.
The once-a-day polypill contains aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol. These drugs are currently prescribed separately to millions of patients and are known individually to cut the risk of disease, but many experts believe that combining them into a single pill will encourage people to take the medications more reliably.
The trial tested the effectiveness and tolerability of the polypill in 378 people with raised risk of cardiovascular disease, who did not necessarily have high blood pressure or cholesterol, against a placebo. The participants came from the UK, Australia, Brazil, India, New Zealand, The Netherlands, and the USA, with core funding for the central coordination of the trial provided by the Wellcome Trust.
"The results show a halving in heart disease and stroke can be expected for people taking this polypill long-term," said Professor Anthony Rodgers of The George Institute for Global Health, who led the international consortium.
"We know from other trials that long-term there would also be a 25-50% lower death rate from colon cancer, plus reductions in other major cancers, heart failure and renal failure," Professor Rodgers said. "These benefits would take several years to 'kick in', but of course one of the hopes with a polypill is it helps people take medicines long-term."
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-05-international-trial-polypill-halves-heart.html
The once-a-day polypill contains aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol. These drugs are currently prescribed separately to millions of patients and are known individually to cut the risk of disease, but many experts believe that combining them into a single pill will encourage people to take the medications more reliably.
The trial tested the effectiveness and tolerability of the polypill in 378 people with raised risk of cardiovascular disease, who did not necessarily have high blood pressure or cholesterol, against a placebo. The participants came from the UK, Australia, Brazil, India, New Zealand, The Netherlands, and the USA, with core funding for the central coordination of the trial provided by the Wellcome Trust.
"The results show a halving in heart disease and stroke can be expected for people taking this polypill long-term," said Professor Anthony Rodgers of The George Institute for Global Health, who led the international consortium.
"We know from other trials that long-term there would also be a 25-50% lower death rate from colon cancer, plus reductions in other major cancers, heart failure and renal failure," Professor Rodgers said. "These benefits would take several years to 'kick in', but of course one of the hopes with a polypill is it helps people take medicines long-term."
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-05-international-trial-polypill-halves-heart.html
Baked or Broiled Fish May Cut Heart Failure Risk
Study Shows the Way You Cook Fish Plays a Role in Reducing Heart Risk
By Bill Hendrick
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Woman cutting fish
May 24, 2011 -- Eating baked or broiled fish regularly may decrease the odds of heart failure in older women, new research suggests. But eating fried fish, even in small amounts, may have the opposite effect.
Researchers analyzed the self-reported diets of 84,493 postmenopausal women who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. They found that those who ate the most baked or broiled fish -- five or more servings per week -- had a 30% lower risk of heart failure, compared to those who ate it less than once a month. In the study, eating fish included shellfish.
The scientists note that previous research has found that fatty acids in fish, called omega-3 acids, may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease by decreasing inflammation and improving blood pressure and heart and blood vessel function.
This study shows an association between eating fish and heart failure risk, but it is not designed to show cause and effect.
Slideshow: The Truth About Omega-3, the Good Fat
Type of Fish Affects Heart Risk
The study also found that the type of fish eaten may affect the risk of heart failure. Dark fish, such as salmon, mackerel, and bluefish, was associated with a significantly greater risk reduction than tuna or white fish, such as sole, snapper, and cod.
The study showed that even one serving a week of fried fish was found to be associated with a 48% higher risk of heart failure.
"Not all fish are equal, and how you prepare it really matters," study researcher Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, of Northwestern University, says in a news release. "When you fry fish, you not only lose a lot of the benefits, you likely add some things related to the cooking process that are harmful."
Previous research has shown that frying increases trans fats in foods, which is associated with increased heart disease risk.
But in the new analysis, an observational study, no association was found between trans fats and heart failure risk.
The analysis was based on data from 1991 through August 2008. During an average follow-up of 10 years, 1,858 cases of heart failure had occurred.
Benefits of Fish
Participants whose diets included more baked or broiled fish tended to be healthier and younger than those who ate fried fish. They also were more physically active and fit, more educated, and less likely to smoke, have diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
In addition, their diets included more fruits and vegetables, more beneficial fatty acids, and less unhealthy saturated and trans fatty acids.
Eating fried fish was associated with lower fiber consumption, a higher calorie intake, and a higher body mass index (BMI).
"Baking or broiling fish and eating it frequently seem to be part of a dietary pattern that is very beneficial for a number of things," says Lloyd-Jones, who is an associate professor at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine. "In this case, we demonstrated that it's associated with heart failure prevention. This suggests that fish is a very good source of lean protein that we ought to be increasing as a proportion of our diet and decreasing foods that contain less healthy saturated and trans fats."
The American Heart Association recommends eating at least two 3.5-ounce servings of fish, particularly fatty fish, per week.
The study is published in Circulation: Heart Failure, a journal of the American Heart Association.
Study Shows the Way You Cook Fish Plays a Role in Reducing Heart Risk
By Bill Hendrick
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Woman cutting fish
May 24, 2011 -- Eating baked or broiled fish regularly may decrease the odds of heart failure in older women, new research suggests. But eating fried fish, even in small amounts, may have the opposite effect.
Researchers analyzed the self-reported diets of 84,493 postmenopausal women who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. They found that those who ate the most baked or broiled fish -- five or more servings per week -- had a 30% lower risk of heart failure, compared to those who ate it less than once a month. In the study, eating fish included shellfish.
The scientists note that previous research has found that fatty acids in fish, called omega-3 acids, may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease by decreasing inflammation and improving blood pressure and heart and blood vessel function.
This study shows an association between eating fish and heart failure risk, but it is not designed to show cause and effect.
Slideshow: The Truth About Omega-3, the Good Fat
Type of Fish Affects Heart Risk
The study also found that the type of fish eaten may affect the risk of heart failure. Dark fish, such as salmon, mackerel, and bluefish, was associated with a significantly greater risk reduction than tuna or white fish, such as sole, snapper, and cod.
The study showed that even one serving a week of fried fish was found to be associated with a 48% higher risk of heart failure.
"Not all fish are equal, and how you prepare it really matters," study researcher Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, of Northwestern University, says in a news release. "When you fry fish, you not only lose a lot of the benefits, you likely add some things related to the cooking process that are harmful."
Previous research has shown that frying increases trans fats in foods, which is associated with increased heart disease risk.
But in the new analysis, an observational study, no association was found between trans fats and heart failure risk.
The analysis was based on data from 1991 through August 2008. During an average follow-up of 10 years, 1,858 cases of heart failure had occurred.
Benefits of Fish
Participants whose diets included more baked or broiled fish tended to be healthier and younger than those who ate fried fish. They also were more physically active and fit, more educated, and less likely to smoke, have diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
In addition, their diets included more fruits and vegetables, more beneficial fatty acids, and less unhealthy saturated and trans fatty acids.
Eating fried fish was associated with lower fiber consumption, a higher calorie intake, and a higher body mass index (BMI).
"Baking or broiling fish and eating it frequently seem to be part of a dietary pattern that is very beneficial for a number of things," says Lloyd-Jones, who is an associate professor at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine. "In this case, we demonstrated that it's associated with heart failure prevention. This suggests that fish is a very good source of lean protein that we ought to be increasing as a proportion of our diet and decreasing foods that contain less healthy saturated and trans fats."
The American Heart Association recommends eating at least two 3.5-ounce servings of fish, particularly fatty fish, per week.
The study is published in Circulation: Heart Failure, a journal of the American Heart Association.
Study Questions Treatment Used in Heart Disease
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: May 26, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
comments (111)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
WASHINGTON — Lowering bad cholesterol levels reduces heart attack risks, and researchers have long hoped that raising good cholesterol would help, too. Surprising results from a large government study announced on Thursday suggest that this hope may be misplaced.
Related
Health Guide: Heart Disease
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (111) »
The study could change the way doctors treat millions of patients with heart disease. Common wisdom has been that such patients should take a statin drug like Lipitor or Zocor to lower bad cholesterol and, in many cases, the vitamin niacin to raise their good cholesterol. But in the trial, niacin provided no benefit over simple statin therapy.
The results are part of a string of studies that suggest that what doctors thought they knew about cholesterol may be wrong. Studies that track patients over time have for decades shown that patients with higher levels of high-density lipoproteins (H.D.L., or good cholesterol) tend to live longer and have fewer heart problems than those with lower levels of this cholesterol.
Not surprisingly, doctors thought that if they could raise H.D.L. levels, their patients would benefit. So far, that assumption is not panning out. Nobody knows why.
In 2006, Pfizer halted development of a drug that raised good cholesterol levels after studies showed that the medicine increased the risks of death. And on Thursday, government scientists announced that Niaspan, an extended release form of niacin, not only did not provide any protection against heart attacks when taken with Zocor in patients with heart disease but also slightly increased their risk of stroke.
“We were stunned, to say the least,” said Dr. William E. Boden, a professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University at Buffalo who was a trial investigator.
What is remarkable about the study is that niacin seemed to be working. Patients taking the medicine along with Zocor had higher levels of H.D.L. and lower levels of triglycerides, a fat in the blood. Despite these seeming improvements, the patients fared no better and may have done slightly worse than those taking Zocor alone. That is why the entire theory behind trying to increase H.D.L. levels in patients with heart disease may need rethinking.
The study results may be greeted as a mixed blessing by some patients. A drug many had hoped would help is now thought to be at best useless. But for many people, niacin is hard to take because it can cause flushing and headaches. Doctors have for years wheedled patients into tolerating these side effects in hopes that the medicine would save their lives. Now, they will not have to.
Dr. William M. Schreiber, a Louisville, Ky., internist, said he had stopped prescribing niacin because so many patients told him they could not abide its effects. “I’m delighted to hear that statins alone are just as good as statins and niacin,” he said.
The study is bad news for the maker of Niaspan, Abbott Laboratories, for the drug industry as a whole and even for the Food and Drug Administration. Abbott last year had $927 million in Niaspan sales, and the company spent $32 million on the study (the government spent $21 million) in the hope that it would increase sales. Instead, the results are bound to lower use of the drug.
In a statement, Dr. Eugene Sun, a vice president at Abbott, said, “Based on its long history of clinical evidence, Niaspan remains an important agent for patients with” blood lipid problems.
The study gives no comfort to other drug makers, many of which have been trying to come up with new drugs to raise levels of good cholesterol or otherwise lower heart attack risks. Statins and other drugs have proven so effective in treating heart disease that improvements are proving very tough to find.
The study is also bad news for the F.D.A., which heavily relies on laboratory results to decide whether to approve drugs.
“This study shows that approving drugs and allowing them to stay on the market on the basis of how they affect lipids and other biomarkers is not good policy,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s time to have a new regulatory approach.”
In the trial, 3,414 participants with heart and vascular disease were given either Zocor and a placebo or Zocor and Niaspan and followed for 32 months. The trial ended 18 months early because it was found that there was almost no chance taking Niaspan would prove beneficial. Zocor and other medications did a good job of keeping patients’ bad cholesterol levels relatively low.
Researchers said patients should not stop taking Niaspan without talking to their doctors first.
“We have great evidence that lowering L.D.L. is beneficial,” said Dr. Bruce Psaty, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington. “We lack good evidence that changing H.D.L. or triglycerides does much.”
h/t ny times
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: May 26, 2011
Recommend
comments (111)
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
WASHINGTON — Lowering bad cholesterol levels reduces heart attack risks, and researchers have long hoped that raising good cholesterol would help, too. Surprising results from a large government study announced on Thursday suggest that this hope may be misplaced.
Related
Health Guide: Heart Disease
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (111) »
The study could change the way doctors treat millions of patients with heart disease. Common wisdom has been that such patients should take a statin drug like Lipitor or Zocor to lower bad cholesterol and, in many cases, the vitamin niacin to raise their good cholesterol. But in the trial, niacin provided no benefit over simple statin therapy.
The results are part of a string of studies that suggest that what doctors thought they knew about cholesterol may be wrong. Studies that track patients over time have for decades shown that patients with higher levels of high-density lipoproteins (H.D.L., or good cholesterol) tend to live longer and have fewer heart problems than those with lower levels of this cholesterol.
Not surprisingly, doctors thought that if they could raise H.D.L. levels, their patients would benefit. So far, that assumption is not panning out. Nobody knows why.
In 2006, Pfizer halted development of a drug that raised good cholesterol levels after studies showed that the medicine increased the risks of death. And on Thursday, government scientists announced that Niaspan, an extended release form of niacin, not only did not provide any protection against heart attacks when taken with Zocor in patients with heart disease but also slightly increased their risk of stroke.
“We were stunned, to say the least,” said Dr. William E. Boden, a professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University at Buffalo who was a trial investigator.
What is remarkable about the study is that niacin seemed to be working. Patients taking the medicine along with Zocor had higher levels of H.D.L. and lower levels of triglycerides, a fat in the blood. Despite these seeming improvements, the patients fared no better and may have done slightly worse than those taking Zocor alone. That is why the entire theory behind trying to increase H.D.L. levels in patients with heart disease may need rethinking.
The study results may be greeted as a mixed blessing by some patients. A drug many had hoped would help is now thought to be at best useless. But for many people, niacin is hard to take because it can cause flushing and headaches. Doctors have for years wheedled patients into tolerating these side effects in hopes that the medicine would save their lives. Now, they will not have to.
Dr. William M. Schreiber, a Louisville, Ky., internist, said he had stopped prescribing niacin because so many patients told him they could not abide its effects. “I’m delighted to hear that statins alone are just as good as statins and niacin,” he said.
The study is bad news for the maker of Niaspan, Abbott Laboratories, for the drug industry as a whole and even for the Food and Drug Administration. Abbott last year had $927 million in Niaspan sales, and the company spent $32 million on the study (the government spent $21 million) in the hope that it would increase sales. Instead, the results are bound to lower use of the drug.
In a statement, Dr. Eugene Sun, a vice president at Abbott, said, “Based on its long history of clinical evidence, Niaspan remains an important agent for patients with” blood lipid problems.
The study gives no comfort to other drug makers, many of which have been trying to come up with new drugs to raise levels of good cholesterol or otherwise lower heart attack risks. Statins and other drugs have proven so effective in treating heart disease that improvements are proving very tough to find.
The study is also bad news for the F.D.A., which heavily relies on laboratory results to decide whether to approve drugs.
“This study shows that approving drugs and allowing them to stay on the market on the basis of how they affect lipids and other biomarkers is not good policy,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s time to have a new regulatory approach.”
In the trial, 3,414 participants with heart and vascular disease were given either Zocor and a placebo or Zocor and Niaspan and followed for 32 months. The trial ended 18 months early because it was found that there was almost no chance taking Niaspan would prove beneficial. Zocor and other medications did a good job of keeping patients’ bad cholesterol levels relatively low.
Researchers said patients should not stop taking Niaspan without talking to their doctors first.
“We have great evidence that lowering L.D.L. is beneficial,” said Dr. Bruce Psaty, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington. “We lack good evidence that changing H.D.L. or triglycerides does much.”
h/t ny times
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)