Cardiologists Are Begging You To Add These 3 Budget-Friendly Foods to Your Grocery List for Better Circulation
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and the world, making it an important health condition to try to prevent. But cardiovascular disease is made up of a complicated group of conditions, so it's often difficult to pin down just one cause. Still, cardiologists say that the right diet can help lower your risk.'A heart-healthy diet is an essential component to improved cardiovascular health,' says , director of General & Preventive Cardiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Cardiovascular health involves several elements, but good circulation is crucial to supporting your heart and lowering the risk of blood clots. The American Heart Association (AHA) provides a lot of guidance on the best eating plan to follow to support cardiovascular health, but there's a lot of advice to wade through. If you're interested in revamping your diet and want to make quick and easy dietary changes, cardiologists say there are a few foods that can give you a lot of bang for your buck. Bonus: These are budget-friendly, too.
🩺SIGN UP for tips to stay healthy & fit with the top moves, clean eats, health trends & more delivered right to your inbox twice a week💊
The Best Budget-Friendly Foods for Circulation
The AHA urges people to eat a plant-forward diet for good cardiovascular health. That's why beans, beets, and berries are good options to add to your grocery cart, according to cardiologists.All of these foods provide a variety of nutritional benefits, along with specific elements that make them good for the cardiovascular system, according to , interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Structural Heart Program at MemorialCare Saddleback Medical Center in Laguna Hills, CA.
Related:
Beans
'Beans are a good, well-rounded food source,' Dr. Chen says. There has been a big push in the dietary community for Americans to eat more beans. A report released in 2024 from an advisory committee to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggests adjusting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to recommend that people have at least 2.5 cups of beans and lentils a week. (Current recommendations suggest having 1.5 cups of beans and lentils a week.)'Rich in soluble fiber, magnesium, and plant-based protein, beans help lower LDL ('bad') cholesterol and improve blood vessel function,' says Dr. Ragavendra Baliga, MBBS, a cardiologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. They also have a low glycemic load, meaning they won't cause blood sugar spikes, he says. The magnesium in beans, along with their potassium content, helps to regulate blood pressure, too, points out , director of Adult Congenital Heart Disease at Northwell's Lenox Hill Hospital.
Related:
Beets
Beets are also a circulation-friendly food, according to Dr. Mills. 'Beets contain nitrates, which lead to higher levels of circulating nitric oxide,' he says. Nitric oxide helps widen blood vessels, ultimately improving their function, Dr. Mills explains. 'They also have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects,' which can support circulation even more, says Dr. Anne B. Curtis, MD, cardiologist and professor at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.
Berries
Berries also help your body produce nitric oxide, Dr. Weinberg says. 'That tells your blood vessels to relax and widen,' she says. Berries are packed with polyphenols—compounds that act like antioxidants—and can help to reduce inflammation in the body, Dr. Baliga says. Chronic inflammation is linked to a range of serious health conditions, including cardiovascular disease.
Related:
Other Foods to Eat for Good Cardiovascular Health
There are a few other things to keep in mind around your diet if you're trying to support good circulation and cardiovascular health as a whole. Dr. Weinberg suggests focusing on an anti-inflammatory diet, like the Mediterranean diet. 'Include omega-rich fatty fish, plenty of colorful vegetables and olive oil as your primary fat,' she says. 'Sprinkle in some daily nuts and seeds for their heart-protective compounds. Try adding fermented foods like yogurt and kimchi, as emerging research connects gut health with heart health.'It's best to limit ultra-processed foods, too, Dr. Chen says. These often have higher amounts of sodium and fat, with minimal nutritional value, he points out. 'Try to avoid these as much as possible,' Dr. Chen says. Dr. Baliga also suggests focusing on whole foods, limiting added sugars and sodium, and being aware of portion sizes. 'What we eat is as important as how consistently we eat it,' he says. It may take some tinkering to find the best diet for you, Dr. Weinberg says. 'The key to lasting success is the 'smart swap,'' she says. 'Instead of feeling deprived by just cutting out unhealthy foods, actively find satisfying and healthier replacements. This approach is what makes a heart-healthy diet sustainable.'
Up Next: Sources:
Cardiovascular Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Cardiovascular Diseases, World Health Organization
Dr. James D. Mills, MD, director of General & Preventive Cardiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
The American Heart Association Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations, American Heart Association
Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, United States Department of Agriculture
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025, United States Department of Agriculture
Dr. Catherine Weinberg, MD, director of Adult Congenital Heart Disease at Northwell's Lenox Hill Hospital
Dr. Cheng-Han Chen, MD, interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Structural Heart Program at MemorialCare Saddleback Medical Center in Laguna Hills, CA
Dr. Ragavendra Baliga, MBBS, a cardiologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
Chavda VP, Feehan J, Apostolopoulos V. Inflammation: The Cause of All Diseases. Cells. 2024. DOI: 10.3390/cells13221906
Cardiologists Are Begging You To Add These 3 Budget-Friendly Foods to Your Grocery List for Better Circulation first appeared on Parade on Aug 3, 2025
This story was originally reported by Parade on Aug 3, 2025, where it first appeared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
38 minutes ago
- Medscape
Meta-Analysis Finds Biologic Switches Effective in Psoriasis
TOPLINE: Interclass biologic switching is effective and safe in patients with psoriasis, though switching from an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-alpha to an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A treatment was associated with higher risk for adverse events (AEs), according to a meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of switching treatments after an initial biologic treatment fails, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 24 randomized clinical trials published through January 25, 2025, which included 12,661 adults with psoriasis who switched from one biologic agent to another within the same class or in a different class. Eight switching categories were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score, and secondary endpoints included safety. TAKEAWAY: PASI 90 improved significantly in patients after interclass biologic switching both at week 4 (11 studies; odds ratio [OR], 6.53; 95% CI, 2.58-16.51) and long term (OR, 28.61; 95% CI, 12.89-63.47). All switches were effective in the short term, whereas most switches achieved a PASI 90 response in the long term, except for switches from anti-IL-17A agents to anti-IL-17A/F agents. Long-term, marked improvements were observed when switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-23p19 agents (OR, 23.72; 95% CI, 4.29-130.98) and from anti-IL-12/23p40 agents to anti-IL-23p19 agents (OR, 19.87; 95% CI, 10.40-37.94). No major safety differences were observed overall, except for increased serious adverse events (AEs) when switching from an anti-TNF-alpha agent to an anti-IL-17A agent (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.25-4.83). Switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-23p19, anti-IL-17A, or anti-IL-12/23p40 agents was associated with infection rates of 0.62%, 0.54%, and 0.39%, respectively. The highest risk for Candida infection (0.16%) was observed when switching from anti-TNF-alpha agents to anti-IL-17A/F agents. Switching to a different biologic class showed comparable effectiveness and safety with continuing the same agent, with regards to AEs. IN PRACTICE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that 'interclass biologic switching was effective, and there were no safety differences for most patients,' the study authors wrote. 'Switching to anti-IL-23p19, anti-IL-17A, or anti-IL-12/23p40 agents from anti-TNF-alpha agents posed the greatest risk of infection,' they added, recommending 'vigilance for infections while switching to different biologics.' SOURCE: The study was led by Miao Zhang, MD, Department of Dermatology, Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China, and was published online on August 6 in JAMA Dermatology. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included heterogeneity in study designs, potential differences between biologics and batch variability which could have affected effectiveness comparisons after switching, insufficient data for several comparisons. DISCLOSURES: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Key Discipline Construction Project of Shanghai's 3-Year Action Plan for Strengthening the Construction of Public Health System, Shanghai Oriental Talent Program for Top-notch Project, CACMS Innovation Fund, Shanghai Healthy Special Project, The Shanghai 2022 Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan Medical Innovation Research Special Project, the Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center, the High-level Chinese Medicine Key Discipline Construction Project, Evidence-based dermatology base sponsored by State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Shanghai Hospital Development Center Foundation. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
38 minutes ago
- Medscape
As Copay Aid Recedes, Retina Treatment ‘Unsustainable'
A funding shortfall for a key copay assistance program to help make eye injections more affordable for low-income patients has caused widespread disruption in treatment, researchers have found. Good Days is a nonprofit charitable organization set up to help people on Medicare who have retinal disease and other chronic conditions cover copays for treatments, such as intravitreal injections to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema, diabetic retinopathy, and geographic atrophy. Retina practices have reported the program, which receives financial support from Regeneron, stopped accepting new enrollees in 2025. According to the group's 2024 financial statements, Good Days — an arm of the Chronic Disease Fund, Inc. — provided funding to more than 422,000 patients that year and reported more than $480 million in contributions and grants. The new analysis, of more than 280,000 treated eyes in a national database of electronic health records, found people in low-income zip codes have been disproportionately affected by the loss of assistance. Ghassan Ghorayeb, MD, MBA 'There is clear evidence that the loss of copay assistance triggered widespread disruptions in evidence-based care,' Ghassan Ghorayeb, MD, MBA, a vitreoretinal specialist at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, told Medscape Medical News . Ghorayeb presented the findings at the 2025 meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) 2025 Annual Meeting in Long Beach, California. Ghorayeb said he and colleague Philip Niles, MD, MBA, undertook the two-part study — a survey of ASRS members paired with an analysis of real-world data — after 'the abrupt underfunding' of the Good Days program in late 2024. Most Vulnerable, Most Harm The analysis used electronic health record data from 340 retina specialists in 68 US practices collected from January 2024 to June 2025. The study included 146,551 eyes treated for AMD, 113,375 treated for diabetic macular edema, and 95,925 treated for geographic atrophy. The analysis calculated the effect of the funding shortfall on people who had switched out of more costly branded treatments to off-label bevacizumab (Avastin), which can cost between $50 and $80 per injection before copays. Bevacizumab is a cancer drug compounding pharmacies repackage for off-label ocular administration. Medicare and Medicaid cover the off-label use for retinal disease. According to a schedule posted by Retina Specialty Institute, a retina practice in three Southeastern states, out-of-pocket costs for branded intravitreal injections can range from $88 and $137 for ranibizumab 0.3 and 0.5 mg to $558 for a ranibizumab biosimilar and $537 for aflibercept 8 mg. 'We saw significant increases in off-label Avastin switching, sample reliance, and treatment discontinuation,' Ghorayeb told Medscape Medical News . 'These shifts were not benign: real-world data and physician surveys both linked them to higher rates of visual decline, particularly in economically disadvantaged zip codes. The most vulnerable patients experienced the most harm.' The analysis found switching from branded drugs to lower-cost bevacizumab has increased 45.6% for AMD and 37% for diabetic macular edema from 2024 to 2025, Ghorayeb reported. That translated into an increase in vision loss of 26% for the former patients and 19% for the latter. Clinicians in the study also relied more on using samples of medicines that were previously reimbursed, with a 44% increase for AMD injections, 8.3% for diabetic macular edema, and 203% for geographic atrophy, Ghorayeb said. While injections for geographic atrophy increased by 40% from 2023 to 2024 as new agents won FDA approval, injections for the indication have declined by 1% so far in 2025, he said. The study also tracked what Ghorayeb described as 'unsustainable' practices in clinics, when patients receive multiple samples of the same drug in a single eye or were switched to off-label bevacizumab despite declining vision with the drug. 'We found a sharp increase in unsustainable care patterns across the board, more than 30% in diabetic macular edema and hovering around 60% in wet AMD and geographic atrophy,' he told attendees at the meeting. Vision decline after switching from on-label therapies to bevacizumab were 44% more common in lower-income zip codes, Ghorayeb said. 'Not Marginal Effects' 'These are not marginal effects,' Ghorayeb told Medscape Medical News. 'They reflect real harm attributable to affordability-driven treatment changes.' Programs such as Good Days are 'fundamental to equitable care delivery,' he said. 'Even patients with Medicare or Medicare Advantage were unable to maintain their treatment regimens without supplemental support. Loss of assistance led to downgraded therapy, missed injections, and vision loss. We believe that maintaining copay support is a clinical and economic imperative.' Looming Medicaid cuts and reductions in Medicare reimbursements 'could tip the balance from unsustainable to untenable,' Ghorayeb said. 'Without systemic support, we risk abandoning our most vulnerable patients and undermining the gains made in treating retinal disease over the past two decades.' The study underscores a broader truth, he added: 'When the cost of care becomes a barrier, outcomes suffer.' Michael Lai, MD, PhD 'The study findings show that the economics of intravitreal injections are extremely fragile and tightly tethered to copay assistance programs,' Michael Lai, MD, PhD, a retina specialist at the Retinal Group of Washington, DC, told Medscape Medical News. 'A significant number of Medicare and Medicare Advantage patients depend on supplemental financial support to obtain necessary vision-saving retinal therapies.' The study demonstrated that disparities of care in lower-income communities 'are even greater than we had assumed,' Lai said. 'The underfunding of Good Days caught many patients and retina specialists off guard,' he added. 'All of the coping mechanisms we have resorted to so far, including switching to repackaged Avastin, using free samples and skipping or postponing injections, are unsustainable.' 'I sincerely hope that the information and data from this presentation will motivate all relevant stakeholders including industry partners, policymakers, and our societies to come together to find a solution to help our patients.' Ghorayeb had no relevant disclosures. Lai had served as a consultant to Apellis Pharmaceuticals.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Brain Retraining Yields Lasting Relief of Chronic Back Pain
Psychological therapy that changes an individual's beliefs about pain can provide lasting relief for chronic back pain (CBP), long-term follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial showed. More than half of those who received the brain-focused pain reprocessing therapy (PRT) reported being nearly or completely pain-free 5 years later, outperforming placebo and usual care. While improved coping with chronic pain is the goal of some psychological treatments, 'our findings indicate that PRT can provide durable recovery from CBP for some patients,' noted the authors, led by Yoni Ashar, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City. The study was published online on July 30 in JAMA Psychiatry . Retraining the Brain CBP is a leading cause of disability, and durable, nonpharmacologic treatments are scarce. PRT educates patients about the role of the brain in generating chronic pain, helps them reappraise their pain as they engage in movements that they had been afraid to undertake, and helps them address emotions that may exacerbate pain. The original study included 151 adults (54% women; mean age, 41 years) who had had primary CBP of low-to-moderate severity (mean pain intensity, 4 of 10) for an average of 10 years. In all, 50 participants were randomly allocated to PRT (one telehealth session with a physician and eight PRT sessions over 4 weeks), 51 to placebo (subcutaneous saline injection in the back), and 50 to continue their routine, usual ongoing care. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News , PRT led to large reductions in CBP severity, with benefits generally maintained through 1-year follow-up. A total of 113 (75%) participants completed the 5-year follow-up, including 38 in the PRT group, 39 in the placebo group, and 36 in the usual care group. At 5 years, PRT participants reported significantly lower pain intensity than placebo and usual care participants; the adjusted mean pain intensity was 1.93 in the PRT group vs 3.19 in the placebo and 2.60 in the usual care groups; PRT was superior to both comparators ( P = .006 vs placebo; P = .04 vs usual care). In the PRT group, 55% of PRT patients were nearly or completely pain free at 5 years vs 26% in the placebo and 36% in the usual care groups ( P = .03). Beyond pain intensity, PRT yielded significant improvements in pain interference, depression, anger, reduced kinesiophobia, and stronger attribution of pain to mind-brain processes. PRT had no significant differential effects at 5 years on sleep, anxiety, positive effect, catastrophizing, or perceived controllability of pain. The authors noted that the original sample had low-to-moderate baseline pain severity, and trials in higher-severity populations are needed to evaluate generalizability.
