Latest news with #participants
CBC
a day ago
- Sport
- CBC
What's your favourite bear?
It's week two of B.C.'s Best Symbol Bracket and bears are competing against each other.
CBC
a day ago
- Entertainment
- CBC
St. John's marks one of its biggest parades ever with ‘Pride'
The 12-day Pride festival celebrated each July in St. John's ended with a parade on Sunday. Over 3,500 people were registered, and many more joined, in what organizers said might be the largest parade to date.
Globe and Mail
a day ago
- Health
- Globe and Mail
Even a small amount of processed meat increases health risks, study finds
There's abundant evidence that eating lots of processed meat is linked to an increased risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and, most notably, colorectal cancer. According to the World Cancer Research Fund, there is no intake level of processed meat that does not pose a colorectal cancer risk. Now, findings from a large review of research add to the increasing body of evidence that underscores the harmful health effects of processed meat. Here's what to know about the latest research, plus why you don't have to completely abandon your summer hot dog. Processed meat refers to meat – red meat and poultry – that has been preserved by smoking, curing, salting or the addition of chemical preservatives. Ham, bacon, pastrami, salami, deli meats, beef jerky, sausages and hot dogs, for example, are processed meats. Commercially produced burgers can also fall into the processed meat category if they're preserved with chemicals. For the study, published June 30 in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers analyzed dozens of previous studies that investigated the relationship between processed meat and risk of colorectal cancer, Type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. To assess the connection between processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer, 18 studies involving 2,678,052 participants were reviewed. All studies controlled for age and sex and most adjusted for other risk factors including body mass index, smoking, alcohol intake, calorie intake and physical activity. On average, eating 50 grams of processed meat a day – versus none – was tied to a 26 per cent increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. A healthy diet helps with heart health, even without weight loss For perspective, 50 g of processed meat is equivalent to roughly four slices of cooked bacon, three slices of packaged deli ham or two-thirds of a jumbo-sized hot dog (75 g). A standard-sized hot dog typically weighs 38 g. To examine processed meat intake and Type 2 diabetes risk, 16 studies with a total of 1,115,885 participants were reviewed. The studies accounted for other influences such as age, sex, body mass index and dietary factors. The risk of developing Type 2 diabetes was, on average, 30 per cent higher for a daily intake of 50 g of processed meat compared to none. The researchers also conservatively estimated that consuming processed meat within the range of 0.6 to 57 g per day, compared to consuming none, was associated with, on average, at least a 7 per cent higher risk of colorectal cancer and an 11 per cent higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. The risk of colorectal cancer and Type 2 diabetes rose as consumption increased. Notably, health risks increased the fastest at low intake levels, suggesting there is no 'safe' amount of processed meat with respect to colorectal cancer or Type 2 diabetes risk. A regular intake of processed meat was also tied to an increased risk of coronary heart disease. This finding, however, wasn't statistically significant, meaning it could have occurred by chance. A high intake of processed meat is thought to increase visceral fat (deep abdominal fat) and inflammation. Processed meat is also typically high in sodium and saturated fat. As well, chemical compounds in cooked processed meat called heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been shown to induce tumours in experimental studies. Heme iron in processed red meat may promote colon tumours by stimulating the formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. Processed meat can also contain nitrate additives, which can contribute to the formation of N-nitroso compounds in the body. The new study also analyzed previous studies that examined the link between chronic disease risk and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), which include pop, iced tea, lemonade, sports drinks, energy drinks and sugary coffee drinks. Consuming 250 g (eight ounces) of SSB per day, compared to none, was associated with a 20 per cent higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and a 7 per cent greater risk of developing coronary heart disease. A high intake of added sugars, especially in liquid form, contributes to elevated inflammatory markers in the bloodstream and accumulation of harmful visceral fat. The analysis included studies that were observational and, as such, found associations between diet and chronic disease. The findings don't prove there is a causal relationship. As well, participants self-reported their dietary intake. Memory errors can occur when trying to recall long-term food intake. Despites these limitations, the new findings are very consistent with prior research. They reinforce recommendations to avoid or minimize the consumption of processed meat and sugar-sweetened drinks to improve health. If processed meat and/or sugary drinks are a regular part of your diet, it's wise to cut back. Remember, too, it's your overall dietary pattern that matters when it comes to health. A diet that's plentiful in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts and pulses can, if you like, include the occasional hot dog. Leslie Beck, a Toronto-based private practice dietitian, is director of food and nutrition at Medcan. Follow her on X @LeslieBeckRD
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
How Long You May Need To Walk Outside To See A Boost In Your Mental Health
There's a reason why the sounds of nature — chirping birds, flowing streams, falling rain — are often sound options for white noise machines and meditation apps: They're calming. A new small study published in Molecular Psychiatry further underscores this. The study found that a one-hour nature walk reduces stress when compared to a one-hour walk in a bustling city environment. The study followed 63 people who were randomly assigned a nature walk or an urban walk. The nature walk took place in a forest in Berlin and the urban walk took place on a busy street in the city. Participants were instructed not to check their phones or stop in stores while on their walk. They were given a bagged lunch and a phone with a 30-minute timer that instructed them to turn around. Before the walk, participants filled out a questionnaire and then underwent an fMRI scan that measured two tasks. The first task measured brain activity during a 'fearful faces task,' in which participants were shown 15 female and 15 male faces that either had a neutral or scared expression. The second task measured was brain activity during an 'Montreal Imaging Stress Task,' which is designed to create a level of stress in participants. During the task, participants had a set amount of time to solve challenging arithmetic problems. After the walk, participants filled out another questionnaire and underwent another fMRI scan that measured the same tasks they conducted before their walk. The results showed that nature significantly improved people's stress levels. The study found that those who took part in the 60-minute nature walk experienced lower stress levels following their time outside. 'The results of our study show that after only [a] one-hour walk in nature, activity in brain regions involved in stress processing decreases,' Sonja Sudimac, the lead author of the study, told Medical News Today. Particularly, the researchers found the brain's amygdala activity (which is responsible for our stress and fear response) decreased in those who were in the nature walk group. This decrease was not seen in people who completed the city walk. According to the study, urban environments can negatively impact one's mental health, leading to increased rates of anxiety, depression and mood disorders. (Just think about the stress that comes with frequently honking horns, running to catch a bus or dealing with long lines just to get some groceries.) In fact, other studies show that mental health can suffer in urban areas because of the crowded nature of cities and, in general, the increased amount of stressors throughout the environment. It's worth noting that the study had a few limitations: All participants were from a similar background and the study could not control who participants saw on their walk. So, for example, if someone on a walk in the forest saw someone relaxing on their day off, it could have further decreased the stress response in the participant. This study also only focused on the benefits of a one-hour-long nature walk — it's unclear if the same positive results would occur in a shorter amount of time. But, Sudimac told Medical News Today that there is evidence that levels of the stress hormone cortisol decrease after a 15-minute nature walk, which would make a version of this study that looked at shorter walks interesting. Plus, outside of this study, there is extensive research on the positive effects of the outdoors, so it's not hard to conclude that even a few minutes outside is better than nothing. Beyond decreased stress, nature has other benefits. Dr. Tamanna Singh, co-director of the sports cardiology center at Cleveland Clinic, previously told HuffPost that walking in nature has additional mental health benefits, too. 'Many of us just don't get enough of nature, and a walk is a fantastic way to focus on taking in air, walking on mother earth, listening to the leaves rustling, the birds chirping, essentially 'forest bathing,'' she said. Forest bathing has a number of benefits, she pointed out: It can help improve mindfulness, can be meditative and can improve your breathing. Spending time outside has also been shown to improve your sleep, increase your creativity and boost your immune function. Whether you live in a city or a rural area, try to prioritize nature walks. The results are clear: Spending time in nature is good for your mental health. But don't be discouraged if you live in a city. It's important to note that the study's nature walk took place in an urban forest within the city of Berlin. So, even just a walk through your local park or nature reserve can help you achieve a sense of calm. The key is getting around green space ― and dedicating 60 minutes to moving your body and soaking up the outdoors. The headline and subheadline of this story have been updated to better reflect the study. Related... This Type Of Walking May Drastically Improve Your Heart Function How Much You Need To Walk Every Day To Cut Your Risk Of Heart Disease Should We All Be Squatting More?
Medscape
5 days ago
- Health
- Medscape
Long-Term Rimegepant Use Safe for Migraine Prevention
TOPLINE: The use of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist rimegepant 75 mg for 52 weeks showed a favorable safety profile and sustained benefits for migraine prevention in a new open-label extension (OLE) study. The treatment was associated with a reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), as well as a low frequency of adverse events (AEs) and no significant hepatic safety concerns. METHODOLOGY: The original phase 2/3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included adult participants who had 4-18 moderate-to-severe migraine attacks per month. As reported previously, participants who received one tablet of rimegepant 75 mg every other calendar day for 12 weeks had significantly fewer MMDs than those who received matching placebo, meeting the primary endpoint. The treatment phase was then followed by a 52-week OLE period, where safety and tolerability were assessed through AE monitoring, vital signs assessments, physical examinations, ECGs, and laboratory tests, with special attention to hepatic-related AEs. All OLE participants received the active anti-CGRP. Exploratory outcomes during the extension period included the mean reduction in the number of MMDs and the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% and 100% reductions in the number of MMDs. TAKEAWAY: Among 603 participants who entered the OLE period, 71% of the participants completed the study; 52% experienced at least one AE, with most deemed to be mild. Only 2% of participants reported serious AEs, none of which were related to the liver or related to the study drug. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 15% of participants, leading to drug discontinuation in 3%. The most common AEs reported were constipation, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, migraine, increased liver enzymes, and weight gain, although each occurred in ≤ 1% of participants. The hepatic safety profile was favorable, and liver-related AEs were rare. The mean number of MMDs decreased by 6.2 d/mo over the OLE period, with sustained and increasing treatment benefits being observed without a decrease in the effect. The proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% and 100% reductions in the number of MMDs increased during the extension period. IN PRACTICE: 'This trial found that participants who took rimegepant every other day and as needed (up to one 75 mg tablet a day) experienced a reduction in migraine days and experienced few side effects. Moreover, the treatment benefits of rimegepant increased over a 1-year period without losing effectiveness,' the investigators wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by David Kudrow, MD, California Medical Clinic for Headache, Santa Monica, California. It was published online on June 30 in Headache. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations included the exclusion of participants with extremely frequent headaches (> 18 headache days per month), which limited the generalizability of the findings. The requirement for a consistent ≥ 50% monthly reduction may have underestimated sustained efficacy, post-randomization dropouts may have skewed the OLE sample, the lack of an active comparator may have introduced bias, and participants' awareness of receiving the drug may have affected reporting. Efficacy endpoints were also exploratory, so definitive conclusions on long-term effectiveness could not be drawn. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Several investigators reported having financial or employment ties with the funder or other pharmaceutical companies. One investigator also reported being on the editorial board of journals, including Headache. Full details are provided in the original article. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
