Wearing red to spread awareness for women's heart health
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — February 7 is Wear Red Day, a day created by the American Heart Association to spread awareness about heart disease, the number one cause of death for American women.
The day was created to try and combat the lack of research and education around women's heart health, and to hopefully bring more public knowledge on how to prevent heart disease and what the symptoms are.
Dr. Kavitha Kalvakuri-Meduru is a cardiologist at OSF Healthcare's Cardiovascular Institute and pointed out some of those warning signs.
'Any discomfort around the chest location, if it is associated with exertion, is an important sign to recognize and get treated. The earlier the better,' she said.
The signs can vary, as there could be nausea and vomiting involved as well. Kalvakuri-Meduru said when you're in doubt, you should get checked out.
Other important factors to consider include knowing your cholesterol level, blood pressure, glucose levels, and any family history of heart issues.
Rachel Klousnitzer is a communications director for the American Heart Association and shared some statistics about heart disease.
Nearly 45% of women 20 years of age or older had some form of cardiovascular disease.
There are significant biological differences between men and women, and clinical trials have not always adequately enrolled women or analyzed sex-specific differences in the data. Only 38% of cardiovascular clinical research trial participants are women.
Women experience unique life stages, like pregnancy and menopause, that can increase their risk of developing cardiovascular diseases over the course of their lifetime.
You can prevent heart disease by eating healthy, limiting your alcohol intake, being physically active, quitting smoking, and optimizing your blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels. Getting a healthy amount of sleep can help as well.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas approved to ban SNAP recipients from using benefits for soda, candy
USDA Sec. Brooke Rollins (left) stands next to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders as she announces Arkansas' request to exclude soda and candy from SNAP benefits on April 15, 2025. (Ainsley Platt/Arkansas Advocate) Candy and sodas are coming off the menu for SNAP recipients in Arkansas, and rotisserie chickens are taking their place. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins officially approved a waiver to allow Arkansas to ban its SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase certain types of food on Tuesday. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders made the waiver request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, when Rollins visited Little Rock in April. The waiver will take effect July 1, 2026. Sanders specifically asked the federal government to allow Arkansas to restrict SNAP participants from purchasing certain types of food and drink deemed unhealthy with their benefits, such as soda, juices with less than 50% natural juice and other 'unhealthy drinks,' along with 'confectionary products with flour and artificially sweetened candy.' In their place, Sanders requested that Arkansas SNAP recipients be allowed to purchase rotisserie chickens with their food benefits. Arkansas asks USDA to exclude soda, candy from state SNAP benefits In an emailed press release Tuesday, Sanders said the approval 'sends a clear message' that Arkansas stands with the Trump administration to tackle the 'chronic disease epidemic' in the U.S. 'Arkansas leads the nation in getting unhealthy, ultra-processed foods off food stamps and helping our most vulnerable citizens lead healthier lives,' Sanders said. The exclusion of soda and candy would not decrease overall SNAP benefits received by beneficiaries, Sanders said during Rollins' April visit, but would rather free up more of their benefits for healthier foods. Arkansas was one of the first states to request the junk food waiver. Nebraska was the first to receive approval on May 20. In a Monday night press release, the USDA said Rollins would host U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Indiana Gov. Mike Braun and Sanders for 'a discussion about President [Donald] Trump's government wide effort to Make America Healthy Again.' 'America's governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,' the Sanders release quoted Rollins as saying. Since aligning himself with President Donald Trump last year after a failed presidential campaign, Kennedy has continued his criticisms of companies and foods he says contribute to Americans' poor health. It spawned the broader MAHA movement among conservatives, with GOP governors such as Sanders repeating Kennedy's warnings of a 'chronic disease epidemic' caused by food dyes and ultraprocessed foods. Sanders' waiver request was made as Arkansas legislators considered — and ultimately approved — legislation that requires the Arkansas Department of Human Services, which oversees SNAP in the state, to apply for a junk food waiver over the objections of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, who said the requirement was a 'slippery slope in terms of debating what foods are healthy or not.' A better way to address poor health outcomes would be to address root causes such as poverty and access to medical care, Christin Harper, AACF's policy director told legislators in April. The food industry pushed back on Sanders' assertions that their products were driving a health crisis in April, with the National Confectioners Association calling the waiver 'misguided.' The NCA argued then that the 'candy purchasing patterns' of those who received SNAP benefits and those who didn't were 'basically equivalent.' The American Beverage Association also pushed back on the arguments Sanders made in April, saying at the time that granting the waiver 'won't make one ounce of difference on health.' The waiver decision comes after the USDA backed down on a demand to states that they provide a variety of personally-identifiable information on SNAP beneficiaries while lawsuits played out. Arkansas shares certain SNAP applicant numbers with federal government
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden's COVID czar hammers RFK Jr. over vaccine panel overhaul
Former White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, who served under former President Biden, criticized the decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fire all 17 experts on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine panel. Kennedy announced the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Monday, saying, 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' But in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Jha pushed back against Kennedy's reasoning. 'Look, what he said in his op-ed was a series of nonsense about a group of individuals, experts …who shape what vaccines, if any, are going to be available to the American people,' Jha said in the interview. 'So obviously this is very concerning,' he continued. 'We'll have to see who he appoints next. But this is a step in the wrong direction.' Jha said he is concerned about what the move foretells about the secretary's agenda on vaccines. Jha pointed to what he characterized as a lackluster response from the secretary to 'the worst measles outbreak of the last 25 years.' He also expressed concern regarding Kennedy's raising questions about vaccines causing autism, which Jha dismissed and said was 'settled science.' 'Then you put this in the middle of all of that,' Jha said, referring to the vaccine panel sweep, 'and what you have is a pretty clear picture that what Secretary Kennedy is trying to do is make sure that vaccines are not readily available to Americans, not just for kids, for the elderly.' 'He could go pretty far with this move, and I really am worried about where we're headed,' Jha continued. He said he's particularly concerned about the effect Kennedy's move will have on kids and whether they will continue having access to certain vaccines in the future. 'Kids rely on vaccines. I'm worried about whether the next generation of kids are going to have access to polio vaccines and measles vaccines. That's where we're heading. That's what we have to push back against.' Kennedy said in his op-ed that he was removing every member of the panel to give the Trump administration an opportunity to appoint its own members. Kennedy has long accused members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of having conflicts of interest, sparking concern among vaccine advocates that he would seek to install members who are far more skeptical of approving new vaccines. But Jha pushed back against criticism that the panel was all Biden-appointed experts, saying, 'When the Biden administration came in, almost all of the appointees had come from the first Trump administration.' 'That was fine because they were good people,' he said. 'They were experts. Right now, it's the same thing. The people he is firing are experts — like a nurse in Illinois who spent her entire career getting kids vaccinated, cancer doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering — like these are really good people.' 'And generally, CDC has not worried about when were they appointed. The question is, are they good and are they conflict free.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH Director Struggles To Defend His Own Plan To Slash $18 Billion In Medical Research
WASHINGTON ― National Institutes of Health director Jayanta Bhattacharya got a cool reception from Democratic and Republican senators on Tuesday as he defended his agency's budget request for 2026, which would slash billions in cutting-edge biomedical research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and other health conditions. NIH is considered the crown jewel of American science and the global leader in biomedical research and innovation. Senators in both parties are proud of its success and of their own roles in boosting its funding over the years in support of medical breakthroughs. So Bhattacharya had to know his budget request would land with a thud as he presented it to a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He kept trying to square two things that didn't make sense: that Trump is committed to preserving America's role as the leader in biomedical research, and that his proposed $18 billion in cuts to the agency next year ― or 40% of its entire budget ― won't hamper that. Senators didn't buy it. At times, Bhattacharya didn't seem to want to defend it, either. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the full Senate Appropriations Committee, called the administration's proposed cuts to NIH 'so disturbing.' 'It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH, and it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases,' Collins said. 'We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.' In particular, she asked why the administration is calling for the cutting of funding by 40% for the National Institutes of Aging, which funds most Alzheimer's research, when it's been successfully developing breakthrough drugs and blood tests. Bhattacharya, without defending his own proposed cuts, said 'the intention' of the Trump administration is to lead the world in biomedical research, suggesting Congress could make a counteroffer and potentially propose more spending. 'The budget is a collaborative effort between the Congress and the administration,' he said. Collins simply replied, 'We look forward to working with you to remedy these problems and the deficiencies in the budget.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel, ripped the administration's 'catastrophic' cuts to NIH to date. She said Trump has so far forced out nearly 5,000 employees, prevented nearly $3 billion in grants from being awarded, and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research. 'The Trump administration is already systematically dismantling the American biomedical research enterprise that is the envy of the world, throwing away billions in economic activity in every one of our states,' Murray fumed. 'This budget proposal would effectively forfeit our leadership in research innovation and competitiveness to China.' She tangled with Bhattacharya over one of dozens of clinical trials that have been halted due to frozen NIH funds: a 23-year research effort to develop an HIV vaccine. Scientists there are on 'the cusp of a functional cure for HIV,' she said, and now 6,000 people in that trial have been cut off from treatment. Bhattacharya jumped in to say he is 'absolutely committed' to supporting research on HIV. 'But you did terminate the HIV research at Fred Hutch that, again, was on the cusp of a treatment for 6,000 patients nationwide,' Murray replied, referring to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. 'You did do that,' she said, as they talked over each other. 'I'd have to get back to you on that,' said Bhattacharya. 'You did do that,' she repeated. After more back and forth, the NIH director said again, 'The budget request is a work of negotiation between Congress and the administration.' Minutes later, he said it yet again, as Murray pressed for details on how many fewer clinical trials there would be next year because of the Trump administration's proposed cuts. 'I'll say this,' Bhattacharya declared. 'The budget itself is a negotiation between Congress and the administration.' He said it several other times, too. In fact, it became clear this was the NIH director's go-to line for defending his own devastating budget request. It simultaneously allowed him to stand by his bosses ― Trump, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ― while not exactly arguing in support of its specific cuts. 'President Trump has committed that the U.S. be the leading nation in biomedicine in the 21st century,' he said at one point. 'I entirely support that goal.' 'Well, I do too, but it's hard to understand how we're going to get there when the budget slashes funding,' replied Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). 'Particularly in critical areas of research where our most critical competitor, the Chinese, are increasing funding in those areas and we're slashing the budgets.' Bhattacharya didn't respond. It's possible he may not have agreed with some of his own budget's cuts. Bhattacharya certainly had a hand in crafting his agency's budget, but so did other officials at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. Before becoming NIH director in April, Bhattacharya was a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University. He knows how vital and highly esteemed NIH is, worldwide. Why not put it on Congress to save it? 'You say this is a collaborative effort, and you're absolutely right, and I encourage Congress to exert its authorities,' said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). 'If Congress were to provide additional dollars above and beyond the president's budget request, how would we as a committee and how would you as NIH recommend for us to prioritize that spending?' Bhattacharya said he's focused on the 'real health needs' of Americans, like diabetes and cancer, and on the 'need to think big' for advancing science. 'Again, the budget, it's a collaborative effort,' he said. 'But I think it's going to be important that we address the real problems in science and the real needs of the American people with whatever budget comes out. That's my job.' Moran redirected Bhattacharya back to the need for more funding at NIH. 'I assume that means we need more resources,' said the Republican senator. 'And that you would put them to good use. Is that accurate?' 'That's my job,' replied the NIH director.
