Fitness classes help elderly Ugandan women fight rising rates of obesity and diabetes
The exercise class is part of a project aimed at reducing increasing rates of noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart disease and has attracted more than 1,000 people since it began five years ago.
While famine and malnutrition remain major concerns in several African countries, obesity is increasingly on the march, especially among Ugandan women.
Jane Anonyaalaba, a grandmother, is one of those looking to buck the trend. She used to struggle with high blood pressure, persistent aches and occasional paralysis in her limbs.
"I would breathe with difficulty. Climbing a hill was almost impossible," the 70-year-old said.
Now, she bends over double to whack three tennis balls with a cricket bat before running between a set of blue plastic wickets.
A quarter of a century ago, just 4% of Ugandan women were obese, but that figure had more than doubled to 10.4% by 2019, according to the latest available dataset provided by the Global Nutrition Report, which tracks global nutrition.
By comparison, male obesity had risen to just 2.3%.
Weekly fitness clubs like Kivubuka may be a model for a local, low-cost approach to supporting aging communities across Africa, where 17% of adult women and 6.8% of men are obese.
As people lead more urban, sedentary lifestyles, and eat cheaper ultra-processed foods, the continent is becoming more obese, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Obesity has brought a corollary rise in deaths: around one-third of Ugandans died from NCDs in 2016, almost double the number in 2000.
"I want to think and believe that there (has been) a change in their lives," said Isaac Imaka, who organises the club on behalf of the Gabula Royal Foundation, a charity established by a Ugandan traditional leader.
"This... is a place where you can come and find a new friend, and just have something to talk about."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The size of a surprising body part can predict how long you will live
Get your tape measure ready - it turns out the size of one particular body part may be able to predict your lifespan. Several studies have found evidence that suggests a person's calf size relative to the rest of their body is a predictor of various health markers, including cardiovascular risk factors, nutritional status, and even mortality. If the calf is more muscular, health experts say it is a strong indicator of better physical performance, which applies especially to the elderly. Muscle decline, known as sarcopenia, generally accelerates after the age of 60 and it can lead to various health problems, including decreased mobility, increased risk of falls and fractures and reduced physical function. Sarcopenia is estimated to affect 10 to 16 percent of the elderly worldwide and is linked to a higher likelihood of developing multiple other health issues. It is also associated with a significantly increased risk of death, with some studies reporting a 364 percent higher risk for centenarians with sarcopenia compared to those with normal muscle mass. However, health experts say calf circumference can indicate overall health and disease risk, including sarcopenia, because it is correlated with muscle mass and fat distribution in the body. Some studies looking at calf circumference compared to the circumference of a person's waist. This is because it takes into account both obesity (excess abdominal fat) and muscle mass, making it potentially a better indicator of overall health risks than BMI or waist circumference alone. To calculate your own waist-to-calf ratio (WCR), divide your waist circumference by your calf circumference. Both measurements should be taken in the same units (e.g., centimeters or inches). Experts say a healthy WCR is generally around 2.4 or less, in whichever unit you are measuring in. A WCR within this range suggests a healthy balance between middle and lower body fat distribution. Ratios above 2.4 are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, while those below this range are considered healthy. One study by scientists at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Fuwai Hospital in Beijing looked at data from 37 studies involving 62,736 participants over the age of 18. From their analysis, they found that for each 1cm (0.4 inches) increase in calf circumference, the risk of death was reduced by five percent. In another study, led by researchers at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Italy, scientists discovered that calf circumference was directly linked to strength elsewhere in the body. They evaluated the relationship between calf circumference and frailty, physical performance, muscle strength, and functional status in people 80 and older. The calf circumference was measured independently at the point of greatest circumference as opposed to in ratio with a person's waist. They found physical performance and muscle strength 'significantly improved' as the calf circumference increased. They also measured the frailty of participants by grading them based on their walking speed, strength, weight, energy levels and levels of exhaustion. When the frailty grades were matched with calf circumference, they found the 'frailty index score was significantly lower among subjects with higher calf circumference'. The experts concluded that their findings support the notion that calf circumference can be an indicator of muscle mass, and potentially strength and overall fitness. They did not state if participants were overweight. Obesity can lead to larger calf circumference measurements simply due to the accumulation of fat, even if the underlying muscle mass is low. This can result in false-normal calf circumference values, potentially masking sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) or a decline in muscle strength that would otherwise be indicated by a smaller circumference. Last year, another study out of Italy investigated the link between calf circumference and diabetes. The researchers found after analyzing data from 8,900 participants that the WCR values were higher among those with diabetes than in those without diabetes, which affects more than 37 million Americans. Further analyses were conducted to compare the average WCR among subjects with diabetes, pre-diabetes, and no diabetes. The results showed 'significant differences' in the mean values of WCR across the groups, with an average WCR of 2.4 in individuals without diabetes, 2.6 in individuals with pre-diabetes, and 2.7 in diabetic individuals. The researchers concluded: 'Muscle mass plays a crucial role in glucose metabolism and overall metabolic health. 'Indeed, sarcopenia has been linked to insulin resistance and an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular complications.' Additionally, one 2022 study out of China suggests that WCR could also be used as an indicator for cognitive impairment in older adults, which is often considered a precursor to dementia. Researchers recruited 3,312 participants who were free of cognitive impairment and then in a follow-up test more than three years later, they found that 565 of these recruits had developed a decline in mental abilities that affected thinking, memory, and decision-making. From looking at their WCR they found a 'relatively stronger association with cognitive impairment compared with each circumference, suggesting maintaining both higher lean mass and lower central fat in older adults for the prevention of cognitive impairment'. Experts say that strong calf muscles, particularly the soleus muscles, play a role in pumping blood back up to the heart. This contributes to healthy blood pressure and blood flow to the brain, which are crucial for optimal cognitive function.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, CDC report says
Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new federal report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultraprocessed foods make up a big chunk of the U.S. diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, however, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. The report comes amid growing scrutiny of such foods by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who blames them for causing chronic disease. 'We are poisoning ourselves and it's coming principally from these ultraprocessed foods,' Kennedy told Fox News earlier this year. Overall, about 55% of total calories consumed by Americans age 1 and older came from ultraprocessed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultraprocessed foods made up about 53% of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62%. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultraprocessed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultraprocessed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultraprocessed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56% in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66% for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. But Andrea Deierlein, a nutrition expert at New York University who was not involved in the research, suggested that there may be greater awareness of the potential harms of ultraprocessed foods. ' People are trying, at least in some populations, to decrease their intakes of these foods,' she said. Concern over ultraprocessed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultraprocessed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods — such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables — than ultraprocessed foods, even those matched for nutrition components and considered healthy, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, protein bars and shakes. Part of the problem is simply defining ultraprocessed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be 'hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats,' the CDC report said. U.S. health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions 'accurately capture' the range of foods that may affect health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultraprocessed foods for products in the U.S. food supply. In the meantime, Americans should try to reduce ultraprocessed foods in their daily diets, Deierlein said. For instance, instead of instant oatmeal that may contain added sugar, sodium, artificial colors and preservatives, use plain oats sweetened with honey or maple syrup. Read food packages and nutrition information, she suggested. 'I do think that there are less-processed options available for many foods,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
