Tanningdeelight

In a perfect world, indulging in a daily portion of French fries instead of almonds would be a simple choice, and no negative consequences would stem from selecting the salty, deep-fried option.

But a Harvard expert says we should take the findings of a new study supporting this scenario with, er, a grain of salt. This potato industry-funded research suggests there’s no significant difference between eating a 300-calorie serving of French fries and a 300-calorie serving of almonds every day for a month, in terms of weight gain or other markers for diabetes risk.

Perhaps snacking on fried potato slivers instead of protein-packed almonds won’t nudge the scale in the short term, but that doesn’t make the decision equally as healthy, says Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Crunchy, satisfying almonds deliver health benefits, including lowering “bad” LDL cholesterol. Over the long haul, they’re a far better option to help ward off chronic illnesses — including diabetes — or delay their complications.

“We’ve learned from many studies over the past two decades that weight loss studies lasting less than a year are likely to give misleading results, so a study lasting only 30 days is less than useless,” Dr. Willett says. “For example, studies of six months or less show that low-fat diets reduce body weight, but studies lasting one year or longer show the opposite.”

What health-related factors did the study measure?

The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The researchers randomly split a group of 165 adults (average age 30; 68% women) into three groups for 30 days and assigned them to eat a daily 300-calorie portion of one of the following:

• almonds, roasted and salted (about 1/3 cup)
• plain French fries (medium serving)
• French fries seasoned with herbs and spices (medium serving).

Researchers provided participants with 30 single-day portions of their food item, telling them to incorporate it into their daily diet but offering no additional instructions to change diet or activity levels to offset the 300-calorie intake.

The amount of fat in participants’ bodies was measured, along with total weight, blood sugar, insulin, and hemoglobin A1C (a longer-term reflection of blood sugar levels) at both the start and end of the month. Five participants from each group also underwent post-meal testing to evaluate short-term blood sugar responses.

Weight isn’t all that matters to health

After 30 days, changes in the amount of body fat and total body weight were similar among the French fry and almond groups. So were glucose and insulin levels measured through blood tests after fasting.

One key difference emerged, however: participants in the French fry sub-group had higher blood glucose and insulin levels just after eating their fries compared with the almond eaters.

It’s tempting to conclude there’s not much difference between fries and almonds — it’s the calories that count. But closer reading reinforces the notion that two items generally placed on opposite ends of the healthy food spectrum are still farther apart than study findings might have us believe.

“The one clear finding was that consumption of French fries increased blood glucose and insulin secretion much more than did almonds,” Dr. Willett says. “This is consistent with long-term studies showing that consumption of potatoes is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, especially when compared to whole grains.”

A new scientific report supports research suggesting that even low levels of pollution — well below the current national regulatory cutoffs — may harm our health.

Outdoor air pollution stems largely from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil), which generate noxious gases, smog, and soot. Smog, which makes air look hazy, is created by ground-level ozone. Soot is fine particles — you may see a dusting of soot on a windowsill, for example. The burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change that occurs over years, but it has more immediate health effects.

How can air pollution affect our health?

Research links increased levels of fine particles in the air that are tiny enough to be easily inhaled (called PM2.5) to more hospitalizations for heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and pneumonia. It also worsens existing lung disease, known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and may cause other serious health problems. Both long-term exposure and short-term exposure seem to matter to our health.

A 2021 study looked at global models of pollution levels and risk assessments of the world population over 14 years. It tied fossil fuel alone to nearly nine million premature deaths worldwide in 2018 — that’s one in five deaths — including more than 350,000 in the United States. Most of these deaths are due to heart attacks and strokes.

People with underlying health conditions like asthma, heart disease, or diabetes, older adults, and people who live in low-income communities, which are often situated near polluting sources, are among those who are more likely to be harmed by air pollution.

How does low-level pollution affect us?

In the US, air pollution has improved quite a bit since the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Current air quality standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spell out a certain annual threshold of particulates aimed at protecting health. But as we learn more about complex relationships between pollution and our ecosystem, growing evidence suggests that harm may occur at PM2.5 levels lower than the current standard.

The new Health Effects Institute report (note: automatic download) studied 68 million older Americans from all but two states across the US over a 16-year period.

The researchers had set themselves an incredibly challenging question to answer. There are innumerable variables to calculate: an individual’s exposure to pollution based on where they live, the independent contribution of the major air pollutants separately, health and behavior confounders that factor into mortality, and more.

The study drew on Medicare demographic and mortality data from more than 68 million Americans ages 65 and older. Calculations of yearly average pollution exposures came from multiple sources, including the EPA Air Quality System monitoring and satellite-derived data. The authors adjusted for many factors known to affect health, such as socioeconomic status, smoking, and body mass index. They developed several statistical models, all of which demonstrated similar results: between 2000 and 2016, death rates rose by 6% to 8% for each incremental increase in PM2.5 exposure.

Just how small were these increases in exposure to air pollution? Particle pollution is measured in micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3). Each time exposure levels rose by 10 μg/m3, death rates also rose by 6% to 8%. Excess deaths occurred even at low levels of PM2.5 exposure (2.8 μg/m3), which is well below the current EPA standards cutoff. The study authors estimate that adjusting the cutoff down from the current level of 12 μg/m3 to 10 μg/m3 could save more than 143,000 lives over 10 years.

What are the limitations of this study?

One limitation is that the variety of data are compiled at different levels: the individual, zip code, and county level. For example, pollution exposure is estimated in clusters by zip code. Yet someone living near a highway may have higher exposure than another person living further from the highway in the same zip code.

Additionally, the groups with the lowest PM2.5 exposure most likely exclude many cities and include a higher proportion of rural areas. Rural areas tend to be less dense, have fewer air quality data points, and may have zip codes spanning greater distances. Details like these may affect the certainty of conclusions that can be drawn. Nonetheless, this study has many groundbreaking features with sound science.

Staying healthy: The bottom line

Air pollution is known to contribute to disease and death. Now we have more evidence suggesting that this is true even at low levels of pollution. Currently the US is considering whether to adjust regulatory cutoffs for annual fine particulate matter pollution known as PM2.5 to protect human health.

But don’t wait. You can take steps described in my previous blog post to reduce your exposure (and contribution) to pollution, and thus your health risks. And some of these steps have the added benefit of combatting climate change and improving planetary health.

Follow me on Twitter @wynnearmand

I’ve been a physician for 20 years now, and a strong proponent of lifestyle medicine for much of it. I know that it’s hard to make lasting, healthy lifestyle changes, even when people know what to do and have the means to do it. Yet many studies and my own clinical experience as a Lifestyle Medicine-certified physician have shown me a few approaches that can help make long-lasting healthy lifestyle changes happen.

What is lifestyle medicine?

In the US, lifestyle medicine is built around six pillars: eating healthy foods; exercising regularly; easing stress; getting restful sleep; quitting addictive substances like tobacco and limiting alcohol; and nurturing social connections.

How will this help you? Here’s one example. A study published this summer in the Journal Neurology followed over 70,000 health professionals for more than two decades. Those who reported eating a diet high in colorful fruits and vegetables had a significantly lower risk of subjective memory loss — which is a sign of dementia — compared with those who did not.

A multitude of studies over many years have mined health data on this same cohort. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett observed that, based on these studies, four combined healthy lifestyle factors — a healthy diet, not smoking, engaging in moderate activity, and avoiding excess weight — could prevent about 70% to 80% of coronary heart disease and 90% of type 2 diabetes. The catch, he noted, is that only about 4% of people participating in these studies attained all four.

Abundant research shows healthy lifestyle factors protect us against serious, often disabling health problems: diabetes, high blood pressure, dementia, heart disease, strokes, cancer, and more. Clearly, taking steps toward a healthier lifestyle can make a big difference in our lives, but it can be hard to change our habits. Below are a few tips to help you start on that path.

Find motivation

What motivates you? Where will you find good reasons to change? Yes, studies show that being at a healthy weight and shape is associated with a longer life and lower risk of many chronic diseases. However, in my experience, only emphasizing weight or waist size isn’t helpful for long-term healthy lifestyle change. Indeed, studies have shown that focusing too much on those numbers is associated with quitting a health kick, whereas small goals related to positive actions were associated with successful long-term lifestyle change.

Examples of this include aiming for at least 21 minutes of activity per day and/or five servings of fruits and vegetables per day. (These activity and nutrition goals are actually recommendations of the American Heart Association, FYI!) If we strive to live healthy so that we can live a long, healthy life, we have a greater chance of long-term success — which typically will result in weight and waist loss.

Put healthy habits on automatic

Healthy choices can become more automatic if you remove the “choice” part. For example, take the thinking out of every eating or activity decision by planning ahead for the week to come:

• Choose a basic menu for meals and build in convenience. Focus on simple, healthy recipes. Frozen produce is healthful, easy to keep on hand, and sometimes less expensive than fresh. Shopping the salad bar costs more, but could help on busy nights.
• Jot down your activity schedule. Choose some physical activity most days — the more vigorous and the longer the better, but anything counts! Even as little as 10 minutes of light to moderate activity per week has been associated with a longer life span.
• Track food and activity choices each day. Using an app or notebook for this can help you become more aware and accountable. Try noting barriers, too, and brainstorm workarounds for overly busy days and other issues that push you off track.

Understand how emotions affect you

If feeling stressed, angry, or sad is a trigger for overeating or another unhealthy activity, it’s important to recognize this. Writing down triggers over the course of a week can enhance your awareness. Building better stress management habits can help you stick to a healthy lifestyle plan. Getting sufficient restful sleep and scheduling personal time, regular activity, and possibly meditation, therapy, or even just chats with good friends are all steps in the right direction.

A healthy lifestyle is key to a long, healthy life, and is attainable. Success may require some thoughtful trial and error, but don’t give up! I have seen all kinds of patients at all ages make amazing changes, and you can, too.

The blood supply in the US is critically low. Donations dropped off so dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic that the American Red Cross has declared a national blood crisis. And since donated red blood cells only last about six weeks, supplies cannot be stockpiled in advance. A severe shortage could require difficult decisions about who should or shouldn’t receive a transfusion — decisions with life-or-death consequences.

So it makes sense to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on who can donate blood, right? And yet, one group of potential blood donors — men who have sex with men (MSM) — is not eligible to donate blood if they’ve been sexually active in the last three months, according to FDA guidelines.

Why single out men who have sex with men?

Such restrictions were first applied in the 1980s. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, had not yet been discovered, but it had become clear that men who had sex with men were at particularly high risk for AIDS. Additionally, researchers learned that HIV could be transmitted through blood, including blood transfusions. The lifetime restriction on blood donations made by gay and bisexual men that quickly became policy was intended to help stop the spread of AIDS.

What’s the justification now?

More than 40 years later, the viral cause of AIDS is well established and detection tools have advanced.

• Highly accurate blood tests can detect HIV.
• Potential blood donors are asked about risk factors for HIV and other infections that can spread through a blood donation.
• Donated blood is routinely tested so that tainted blood is not transfused.

Yet not until 2015 was the lifetime ban on blood donation revised by the FDA to allow donation by MSM who reported being abstinent for a full year. When blood donations plummeted during the pandemic, restrictions were revised again. Currently, men who have sex with men can choose to donate blood as long as they attest to not having had sex with men for three months.

Why three months? The concern is that even with highly accurate testing, a recently acquired infection could be missed.

Vital steps to keep the blood supply safe

Of course it’s vitally important to keep the blood supply safe. No system is perfect, but the safety track record of transfused blood in the US is remarkably good: transfusion-related infections such as HIV and hepatitis are exceedingly rare. For HIV, the estimated risk of infection by transfusion is well under one in a million in this country.

Blood banks achieve this high safety standard through

• Questionnaires that seek to disqualify people whose donation could cause illness in the recipient. For example, potential blood donors are asked detailed questions about risk factors for infection and medicines they take. Of course, this relies on accurate and honest self-reporting.
• Testing donated blood: Regardless of answers to the screening questions, all donated blood is routinely tested for a number of transmissible infections, including
  • hepatitis B and C
  • HIV
  • syphilis
  • West Nile virus.

Not surprisingly, blood testing is much more reliable than self-reporting. The spectacularly accurate testing available now is far more effective than an honor system that asks potential donors about risk factors for having an infectious disease.

That’s one big reason behind increasing calls for changes in the blood donation policies that apply to MSM. Research underway now may help with policy decisions. The ADVANCE study (Assessing Donor Variability And New Concepts in Eligibility) is examining the impact of changing the screening questionnaire to ask gay and bisexual men about specific behaviors that raise infection risk, rather than requiring sexual abstinence for the previous three months. For example, having unprotected sex with multiple partners or being paid for sex are high-risk activities, regardless of one’s sex or sexual orientation.

The bottom line: Who can safely donate blood?

Currently, no compelling evidence shows that blood donation by men who have sex with men compromises the safety of our blood supply. Policies that require a period of abstinence for MSM may exclude many people at low risk for having an infection spread through blood, while allowing others at higher risk to donate.

Many countries focus on individual risk factors for infections that can be transmitted through a blood transfusion, not a person’s sex or sexual orientation. Britain, France, Israel, and other countries use such policies to keep their blood supplies safe. The American Medical Association, American Red Cross, and several US senators support similar policies for the US — an approach also backed by many experts in the field.

In my view, a change in blood donation policy is long overdue: all donor eligibility should be based on medically justified risk factors, and all potential donors should be screened the same way. And the sooner these restrictions are lifted, the better. A just, equitable, and medically sound blood donation policy is not only the right choice — it could allow donation of blood that saves your life.