Your Blood Type Affects Your Heart Health. Here's How
Your blood type and its connection to your heart health may matter more than you give it credit for. Like most things in life, context and the big picture are important factors to consider. Your lifestyle, diet, stress management and much more contribute to your overall well-being, including your heart health.
Read more: Don't Know Your Blood Type? You Should, and Here's How to Figure It Out
Best Blood Pressure Monitors
See at Cnet
The letters A, B and O represent various forms of the ABO gene, which program our blood cells differently to form the different blood groups. If you have type AB blood, for example, your body is programmed to produce A and B antigens on red blood cells. A person with type O blood doesn't produce any antigens.
Blood is said to be "positive" or "negative" based on whether there are proteins on the red blood cells. If your blood has proteins, you're Rhesus, or Rh, positive.
People with type O-negative blood are considered "universal donors" because their blood doesn't have any antigens or proteins, meaning anyone's body will be able to accept it in an emergency.
But why are there different blood types? Researchers don't fully know, but factors such as where someone's ancestors are from and past infections which spurred protective mutations in the blood may have contributed to the diversity, according to Dr. Douglas Guggenheim, a hematologist with Penn Medicine. People with type O blood may get sicker with cholera, for example, while people with type A or B blood may be more likely to experience blood clotting issues. While our blood can't keep up with the different biological or viral threats going around in real time, it may reflect what's happened in the past.
"In short, it's almost like the body has evolved around its environment in order to protect it as best as possible," Guggenheim said.
Strengthen Your Heart Health With These Workouts
See at Cnet
People with type A, type B or type AB blood are more likely than people with type O to have a heart attack or experience heart failure, according to the American Heart Association.
While the increased risk is small (types A or B had a combined 8% higher risk of heart attack and 10% increased risk of heart failure, according to one large study) the difference in blood clotting rates is much higher, per the AHA. People in the same study with type A and B blood were 51% more likely to develop deep vein thrombosis and 47% more likely to develop a pulmonary embolism, which are severe blood clotting disorders that can also increase the risk of heart failure.
A reason for this increased risk, according to Guggenheim, might have to do with inflammation that happens in the bodies of people with type A, type B or type AB blood. The proteins present in type A and type B blood may cause more "blockage" or "thickening" in the veins and arteries, leading to an increased risk of clotting and heart disease.
Guggenheim also thinks this may describe the anecdotal decrease in risk of severe COVID-19 disease in people with type O blood. (Note: Since this article was first published, more research has added to the notion people with type A blood may have a higher risk of infection. This because the COVID-19 virus binds to cells slightly differently based on blood type.)
People with type O blood enjoy a slightly lower risk of heart disease and blood clotting, but they may be more susceptible to hemorrhaging or bleeding disorders. This may be especially true after childbirth, according to a study on postpartum blood loss, which found an increased risk in women with type O blood.
People with type O blood may also fare worse after a traumatic injury due to increased blood loss, according to a study published in Critical Care.
Other research has found people with type AB blood might be at an increased risk for cognitive impairment when compared to people with type O. Cognitive impairment includes things like trouble remembering, focusing or making decisions.
Read more: Mediterranean Diet for Heart Health: Foods to Eat and How to Get Started
While research available now shows that blood type can tip the scale in terms of someone's risk of developing heart disease, big factors such as diet, exercise or even the level of pollution you're exposed to in your community are the major players in determining heart health.
Guggenheim says that for patients trying to keep their heart healthy, there's no special recommendation that he'd make other than a good heart-healthy diet that lowers inflammation, regardless of someone's blood type.
But, he notes, future research could offer more definitive ways doctors treat patients based on their blood type. All factors considered equally, a patient with healthy cholesterol levels and type A blood may benefit from taking aspirin each day whereas it might not be necessary for a person in the same boat with type O blood.
"A well-balanced, heart-healthy diet in general is going to be what any physician is going to recommend, and I would say that ABO doesn't change that," Guggenheim said.
"I don't think there's a protective benefit from just having type O blood that contributes to being scot-free," he added.
Read more: Should You Eat Based On Your Blood Type?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
5 hours ago
- American Military News
Video/Pic: Trump demands drug companies lower prices
President Donald Trump sent 17 pharmaceutical companies letters on Thursday and demanded that the companies lower prices for Americans. The president warned that the 'unacceptable burden' of prescription drug prices will 'end' with his administration. During a press briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'The president signed an executive order earlier this year to solve the problem of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing.' 'According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay,' Leavitt added. 'The president is determined to solve this problem and took further action today. He has signed 17 letters to pharmaceutical companies' CEOs.' .@PressSec reads one of the letters sent by @POTUS today to the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies: "Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices…" — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025 Leavitt also shared the letter Trump wrote to the CEO of Eli Lilly and Company. In the letter, Trump warned Eli Lilly and 16 other pharmaceutical companies that the 'unacceptable burden' of brand-name drugs costing 'up to three times higher on average' for Americans than for citizens of other countries 'ends with my administration.' Trump told the pharmaceutical companies, 'Most proposals the Trump administration has received to resolve this critical issue promised more of the same shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry.' The president added, 'Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.' READ MORE: Video: Trump order against 'Big Pharma' aims to reduce drug prices While Trump explained that a collaborative effort to reach 'global pricing parity' would be most effective for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. government, and U.S. patients, he warned that his administration will 'deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families' if pharmaceutical companies refuse to take action. In addition to the letter sent to Eli Lilly and Company, Trump sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. In the letters, Trump gave the companies 60 days to extend 'Most-Favored-Nation' pricing to Medicaid and provide 'full portfolios' of drugs for Medicaid patients, guarantee Most-Favored-Nation pricing for new drugs, negotiate with 'foreign freeloading nations' and return 'increased revenues abroad' to patients in the United States, and allow Americans to directly purchase drugs at Most-Favored-Nation prices. Today, @POTUS sent letters to 17 drug manufacturers outlining steps they must take to bring down prescription drug prices. If they refuse to step up, the Administration will use every tool to protect Americans from continued abusive drug pricing practices. Letter to Eli Lilly: — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
California Removes 900,000 People From Health Care Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Hundreds of thousands have been removed from a health care plan in California over the course of two years, according to data from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization. About 900,000 Americans were disenrolled from Medicaid in the state as part of the unwinding process happening nationwide after Medicaid coverage was expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. Newsweek has contacted the California Department of Public Health via email for comment. Why It Matters The unwinding process has resulted in significant drops in Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. There is now growing concern about the rising population of those without health insurance and the wider impacts this could have, such as worsening health outcomes, increasing strain on emergency services and rising medical costs. The worry has been amplified by the recent passing of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, in which funding cuts, a focus on "waste, fraud and abuse" and work requirements are in store for Medicaid. Many have voiced concern that the measures will result in millions losing health coverage. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a hospital. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a To Know In California, there were 14,285,643 covered by Medicaid in March 2023, but by March 2025, that number was 13,392,566, KFF data shows. This was because during the pandemic, some states expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing nationwide enrollment levels to increase. Federal rules forced states to keep most Medicaid enrollees on the program, even if their eligibility status changed, until March 2023, when they were then allowed to start rolling recipients off the program. This marks a change of about 900,000, a decline that was smaller than other highly populated states like Texas, Florida and New York. In March 2025, the number of people with Medicaid coverage in California was still higher than pre-pandemic levels, by 16 percent. The reason why Medicaid coverage is unwinding at different rates in states is because "states approached the process of reviewing the eligibility of their Medicaid beneficiaries with fundamentally different strategies," Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek. He said that Florida and Texas began the review process "as fast as they could and immediately declared ineligible those beneficiaries who did not promptly respond to review notices." "There is clear evidence that many beneficiaries who were still eligible lost coverage simply because they did not timely navigate the administrative hurdles to recertification," he added. Meanwhile, he said that New York and California "were far more deliberate in how they approached the review process, thus the number who've lost their eligibility via this process is far fewer." What People Are Saying Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "Medicaid enrollment surged during the pandemic for several reasons, including increased unemployment combined with a requirement that in exchange for additional federal funding, states could not recertify beneficiary eligibility until the "public health emergency" was declared over. Put simply, millions signed up during the pandemic and their eligibility could only be reviewed beginning in the spring 2023. "There is reason to be quite concerned about how this has played out and also what it suggests may happen when Medicaid work requirements, which create their own set of administrative hurdles, are implemented. First, persons who are eligible for coverage should not lose coverage. Bad health outcomes will follow. Second, persons who are no longer Medicaid eligible should be guided to other options, such as subsidized ACA marketplace coverage. Finally, the variation in how states conduct Medicaid eligibility reviews leads to unfortunate inequities." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected in California and across the country. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.
15 hours ago
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ 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.
