Latest news with #NationalDeathIndex
Business Mayor
17-05-2025
- Health
- Business Mayor
Who needs more exercise: Women or men?
Exercising regularly is known to lower the risk of death, especially from heart problems. But scientists have discovered that that reduction in risk may differ between the sexes, with some people reaping greater benefits in less workout time. So, who has to exercise more to reduce their risk of death: Women or men? It turns out that women may reap these survival benefits more easily than men do. That's according to a large study published in 2024 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology , which included data from more than 412,000 American adults ages 27 to 61, 55% of whom were female. You may like 'The beauty of this study is learning that women can get more out of each minute of moderate to vigorous activity than men do,' study co-lead author Dr. Martha Gulati , director of preventive cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, said in a statement . 'It's an incentivizing notion that we hope women will take to heart.' The researchers collected participants' physical activity data via the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the largest and longest-running health survey in the U.S. The study looked at data collected between 1997 and 2017. Related: 11 minutes of moderate exercise a day cuts early death risk by 20%, huge analysis suggests The survey itself included questions about the types of exercises people performed and at what frequencies, durations and intensities. It also included participants' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and medical conditions. The study excluded people who had certain health conditions at the start of the study time frame, such as coronary heart disease or cancer. Read More Most melatonin gummies have higher doses than what's on the label Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox. The researchers also looked through the National Death Index — a national database of death records — for deaths from any cause, as well as cardiovascular-related deaths. The data from survey participants is linked to this death-record data , so the researchers could then connect the data from their NHIS participants to the mortality data through the end of 2019. Overall, 39,935 participants died in the study timeframe, including 11,670 cardiovascular-related deaths, such as those from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes. About 32% of the women and 43% of the men surveyed said they engaged in regular aerobic exercise , exercising for at least 150 minutes per week. Compared to inactive individuals of the same sex, women who exercised regularly had up to a 24% lower risk of death from any cause. For men who exercised regularly, however, the reduction in mortality risk reached only 15%. Women also gained these survival benefits much more quickly than men did, the study found. In men, the highest reduction in death risk was seen at about 300 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week. That came with an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality. Women saw an equal benefit in less than half that time, at about 140 minutes of MVPA a week. Women who trained more than that each week saw a greater benefit until they also peaked at around 300 minutes of weekly MVPA. That trend held true across all durations of exercise, the researchers found, with women consistently seeing 'proportionately greater benefits' for any amount of exercise than men did. About 20% of women and 28% of men said they engaged in two or more sessions of strength training, such as lifting weights, each week. Overall, though, women reported an average of about 0.85 sessions per week, while men averaged 1.25 sessions per week. On average, the women who strength-trained at least twice a week had a 19% lower mortality risk than women who trained less often or not at all. Men, on average, saw a 11% lower risk compared with inactive men. These benefits were even greater when it came to cardiovascular health specifically. Related: Why is it harder for some people to build muscle than others? Compared with inactive individuals, women who performed aerobic physical activity had a 36% lower cardiovascular mortality risk, while for active men, this risk reduction was about 14%. Muscle strengthening produced similar outcomes, with a cardiovascular risk reduction of 30% for women and 11% for men, compared to baseline. 'What surprised us the most was the fact that women who do muscle strengthening had a reduction in their cardiovascular mortality by 30%,' Gulati told NPR . 'We don't have many things that reduce mortality in that way,' she added. The study did have some limitations, including that people's exercise data was self-reported, so it relied on the participants accurately reporting their activity study also tracked only leisure-time exercise, meaning it didn't count exercise completed during household tasks or as part of a job, which may have also contributed to the results. In addition, the study didn't account for potentially unassessed health issues in some participants, or changes in people's exercise trends over time. That said, the results echo similar findings from a 2011 meta-analysis published in the journal Circulation . This review of 33 studies concluded that there was a stronger link between exercise and lower death risk in women than men. The researchers behind the 2024 study hope their findings could help motivate more women to exercise, whether through traditional ' cardio ' or muscle strengthening regimes including bodyweight exercises or lifting weights. 'I am hopeful that this pioneering research will motivate women who are not currently engaged in regular physical activity to understand that they are in a position to gain tremendous benefit for each increment of regular exercise they are able to invest in their longer-term health,' Dr. Christine Albert , chair of the Department of Cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute who was not involved in the study, said in the statement.
Fox News
07-03-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Food fight about butter? Study says subbing in plant-based oils could reduce risk of death
A greater consumption of butter has been linked to increased mortality rates – and replacing it with certain plant-based oils may help reduce the risk of death, according to a new study. The study, published on Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, revealed that "substituting butter with plant-based oils, particularly olive, soybean and canola oils, may confer substantial benefits for preventing premature deaths." Researchers analyzed the data of over 200,000 adults over a long period of time and found that replacing butter with plant-based oils was associated with an estimated 17% reduction in total mortality and cancer mortality, according to the study. Using data collected from three cohort studies spanning 33 years, researchers assessed diets from "food frequency questionnaires" done every four years. "Women and men who were free of cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes or neurodegenerative disease at baseline were included," according to the cohort study. The study was done by the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston along with other Boston institutions. The Department of Public Health at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark also took part. Total mortality was the primary outcome, and mortality due to cancer and CVD were secondary outcomes, the study said. "Deaths were identified through systematic searches of state vital records and the National Death Index, supplemented by reports from next of kin and postal authorities," the study noted. "Using these methods, we achieved more than 98% completeness in mortality follow-up for the cohorts." Lauren Manaker, a registered dietitian in South Carolina, told Fox News Digital she's not surprised by the study results. "We are already aware that consuming excessive amounts of saturated fats is not something that supports our health – and butter is a source of saturated fat," said Manaker, who was not involved in the new research. But chef Andrew Gruel, who owns the American Gravy restaurant group in California, recently told Fox News Digital that he believes butter is better than it's perceived. "The idea that butter is inherently bad for you comes from outdated dietary advice rooted in the mid-20th century push against saturated fats," Gruel said. Butter, once "demonized because it is high in saturated fat, which was thought to increase cholesterol levels and directly lead to heart disease," Gruel said, "isn't the villain it was once made out to be." He said that "studies, like those reviewed in a 2014 meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found no clear evidence that higher saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease when you account for the overall diet." Gruel added, "Butter's saturated fat – about 7 grams per tablespoon – does raise LDL ('bad') cholesterol, but it also raises HDL ('good') cholesterol, which can offset some of the risk. Plus, not all LDL is created equal." He said, "Butter increases the more significant, less harmful LDL particles than small, dense ones tied to artery clogging." Dr. Walter C. Willett, a medical doctor and professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, said it's a mistake to think that butter is better than conventional cooking oils. "If you want to have a heart attack, that's the right step to take," Willett, who co-authored the new study, told Fox News Digital. Willett also said the idea that seed oils are bad "is a complete myth." "There's no evidence to support that," he said. Willett pointed out that it's worth noting the new study doesn't mean "somebody should never use butter." "What we're really talking about is what people do on a daily basis," he said. Manaker agreed with that. "This doesn't mean that you have to avoid butter like it's poison," she said.
