Health Journal Online

Tag: Risks

  • Are We Being Misled About the Benefits and Risks of Statins? 

    Are We Being Misled About the Benefits and Risks of Statins? 

    What is the dirty little secret of drugs for lifestyle diseases?

    Drug companies go out of their way—in direct-to-consumer ads, for example—to “present pharmaceutical drugs as a preferred solution to cholesterol management while downplaying lifestyle change.” You see this echoed in the medical literature, as in this editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Despite decades of exhortation for improvement, the high prevalence of poor lifestyle behaviors leading to elevated cardiovascular disease risk factors persists, with myocardial infarction [heart attack] and stroke remaining the leading causes of death in the United States. Clearly, many more adults could benefit from…statins for primary prevention.” Do we really need to put more people on drugs? A reply was published in the British Medical Journal: “Once again, doctors are implored to ‘get real’—stop hoping that efforts to help their patients and communities adopt healthy lifestyle habits will succeed, and start prescribing more statins. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Note that the author of these comments [the pro-statin editorial] disclosed receipt of funding from 11 drug companies, at least four of which produce or are developing new classes of cholesterol-lowering agents,” which make billions of dollars a year in annual sales.

    Every time the cholesterol guidelines expand the number of people eligible for statins, they’re decried as a “big kiss to big pharma.” This is understandable, since the majority of guideline panel members “had industry ties,” financial conflicts of interest. But these days, all the major statins are off-patent, so there are inexpensive generic versions. For example, the safest, most effective statin is generic Lipitor, sold as atorvastatin for as little as a few dollars a month. So, nowadays, the cholesterol guidelines are not necessarily “part of an industry plot.”

    “The US way of life is the problem, not the guidelines…” The reason so many people are candidates for cholesterol- and blood-pressure-lowering medications is that so many people are taking such terrible care of themselves. The bottom line is that “individuals must take more responsibility for their own health behaviors.” What if you are unwilling or unable to improve your diet and make lifestyle changes to bring down that risk? If your ten-year risk of having a heart attack is 7.5 percent or more and going to stay that way, then the benefits of taking a statin drug likely outweigh the risk. That’s really for you to decide, though. It’s your body, your choice.

    “Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile.” This was recognized by some of medicine’s “historical luminaries such as Hippocrates,” but “only in recent decades has the medical profession begun to shift from a paternalistic ‘doctor knows best’ stance towards one explicitly endorsing patient-centered, evidence-based, shared decision-making.” One of the problems with communicating statin evidence to support this shared decision-making is that most doctors “have a poor understanding of concepts of risk and probability and…increasing exposure to statistics in undergraduate and postgraduate education hasn’t made much difference.” But that understanding is critical for preventive medicine. When doctors offer a cholesterol-lowering drug, “they’re doing something quite different from treating a patient who has sought help because she is sick. They’re not so much doctors as life insurance salespeople, peddling deferred benefits in exchange for a small (but certainly not negligible) ongoing inconvenience and cost. In this new kind of medicine, not understanding risk is the equivalent of not knowing about the circulation of the blood or basic anatomy. So, let’s dive in and see exactly what’s at stake.

    Below and at 3:55 in my video Are Doctors Misleading Patients About Statin Risks and Benefits? is an ad for Lipitor. When drug companies say a statin reduces the risk of a heart attack by 36 percent, that’s the relative risk.

    If you follow the asterisk I’ve circled after the “36%” in the ad, you can see how they came up with that. I’ve included it here and at 3:56 in my video. In a large clinical study, 3 percent of patients not taking the statin had a heart attack within a certain amount of time, compared to 2 percent of patients who did take the drug. So, the drug dropped heart attack risk from 3 percent to 2 percent; that’s about a one-third drop, hence the 36 percent reduced relative risk statistic. But another way to look at going from 3 percent to 2 percent is that the absolute risk only dropped by 1 percent. So, in effect, “your chance to avoid a nonfatal heart attack during the next 2 years is about 97% without treatment, but you can increase it to about 98% by taking a Crestor [a statin] every day.” Another way to say that is that you’d have to treat 100 people with the drug to prevent a single heart attack. That statistic may shock a lot of people.

    If you ask patients what they’ve been led to believe, they don’t think the chance of avoiding a heart attack within a few years on statins is 1 in 100, but 1 in 2. “On average, it was believed that most patients (53.1%) using statins would avoid a heart attack after statin treatment for 5 years.” Most patients, not just 1 percent of patients. And this “disparity between actual and expected effect could be viewed as a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not ethically acceptable for caregivers to deliberately support and maintain illusive treatment expectations by patients.” We cannot mislead people into thinking a drug works better than it really does, but on the other hand, how else are we going to get people to take their pills?

    When asked, people want an absolute risk reduction of at least about 30 percent to take a cholesterol-lowering drug every day, whereas the actual absolute risk reduction is only about 1 percent. So, the dirty little secret is that, if patients knew the truth about how little these drugs actually worked, almost no one would agree to take them. Doctors are either not educating their patients or actively misinforming them. Given that the majority of patients expect a much larger benefit from statins than they’d get, “there is a tension between the patient’s right to know about benefiting from a preventive drug and the likely reduction in uptake [willingness to take the drugs] if they are so informed,” and learn the truth. This sounds terribly paternalistic, but hundreds of thousands of lives may be at stake.

    If patients were fully informed, people would die. About 20 million Americans are on statins. Even if the drugs saved 1 in 100, that could mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost if everyone stopped taking their statins. “It is ironic that informing patients about statins would increase the very outcomes they were designed to prevent.”



    Source link

  • Heat Risks Force World Marathons And Race Walks To Start Earlier

    Heat Risks Force World Marathons And Race Walks To Start Earlier

    The marathons and 35km race walks at the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo will start half an hour earlier because of health risks posed by unseasonably hot weather, organisers said Thursday.

    The energy-sapping race walks are scheduled to open the championships on Saturday morning, with the women’s marathon on Sunday and the men’s on Monday.

    Temperatures have been as high as 33C this week and, with the heatwave set to continue into next week, organisers have been forced to move the road race starts to 7:30 am.

    “Due to expected elevated heat conditions that could pose a health and safety risk to competing athletes, all road events on the first three days … will start 30 minutes earlier than scheduled,” said a joint statement from the organisers and World Athletics.

    “The start time for the road events had originally been set at 08:00 am in consideration of climate conditions, operational aspects, and maximising spectator attendance.”

    World Athletics chief Sebastian Coe admitted in Tokyo on Tuesday that the high temperatures would be an issue for athletes.

    Marathon and race walk events at the pandemic-delayed 2021 Tokyo Olympics, which were held from July 23 to August 8, were moved to the cooler northern city of Sapporo because of heat concerns.

    However, this time round they have remained in Tokyo where the temperatures in mid-September “have remained at those of mid-summer”, the statement noted.

    “(The decision) has been communicated to the athletes as early as possible to allow them to prepare and adjust to the new start time.”

    Fears over the heat in Doha at the 2019 world championships resulted in the marathons beginning at midnight with the walks half an hour earlier.

    Japan’s average temperature between June and August was 2.36C above “the standard value”, making it the hottest summer since records began in 1898, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) said.

    It was the third consecutive summer of record high temperatures, the agency noted.

    Coe said after Tuesday’s meeting of the World Athletics Council the future risks of global warming had been discussed.

    “These are not transient, they’re here to stay,” he said.

    “Governments have not stepped up to the plate and sport is going to have to take some unilateral judgments and decisions here.

    “And we have reflected in the past, if we are committed to athlete welfare, then we should probably be openly committed to that,” he added.

    In-stadium competition start times on each of the first three days remain unchanged.

    Source link

  • Robin Avalos on Shaping a Public Health Response to Substance Risks

    Robin Avalos on Shaping a Public Health Response to Substance Risks

    The United States faces a pervasive crisis too often overlooked. Addiction, unintentional exposure, and gaps in education and access quietly undermine families and communities. Beneath everyday life lies a problem demanding clearer attention. In response, Robin Avalos, MMS, PA-C, brings clinical expertise and advocacy to advance practical, evidence-informed solutions.

    Avalos brings training and on-the-ground experience to conversations many find difficult. She began her career as an EMT, studied neuroscience and biology, and completed graduate work focused on correctional healthcare. Working in jails, emergency departments, and group homes exposed her to how fragmented responses and missed screenings can leave people unprotected. Personal tragedy, family members lost to overdose, sharpened her commitment to change and to compassionate, evidence-informed care.

    Her insights stem from years of clinical practice and a refusal to simplify a complex problem. Avalos has reconnected people to treatment through telehealth, coordinated medication access, and trauma-informed follow-up. She has stood in school offices and staff rooms asking practical questions about prevention and screening and pushed for policies that treat safety as routine rather than punitive. “We can approach this like public health: small steps that keep people alive and ready to get help,” she says, urging a steady, human-centered response.

    The broader landscape helps explain why that steadiness matters. National data show overdose counts have been tragically high and that illicit synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are central drivers of the crisis. Laboratory testing and law enforcement data also document how lethal contamination of counterfeit pills and other supplies has worsened risk.

    Within that reality, Avalos highlights an important mismatch. The tools to obtain dangerous substances are often easy to reach, while practical testing and reliable, nonjudgmental information aren’t always in place. Fentanyl test strips, low-cost, rapid screening tools that detect fentanyl in a variety of drug forms, are endorsed as a harm-reduction option by health agencies and can be paired with naloxone distribution and counseling to lower risk.

    Avalos frames these steps as practical prevention rather than punishment. “A simple test can change a decision in a moment, and that moment can be life-saving,” she says. For instance, a study shows that people who use fentanyl test strips are more likely to engage in risk-reduction behaviors. “When testing is paired with clear information and access to rescue medication, those benefits can increase,” Avalos adds.

    Yet distribution and adoption remain uneven due to different policies and varying views about harm reduction across communities. Avalos sees two linked priorities. First, improve screening and immediate safeguards in places where young people and families spend time, such as schools, community centers, and primary care clinics, without turning every conversation into a punitive exam.

    Second, invest in education so parents, teachers, and clinicians can recognize subtle signs of exposure and respond with curiosity and care rather than blame. Avalos urges school leaders and health officials to make sensible, age-appropriate changes so safety becomes part of routine care rather than an emergency-only reaction. It’s worth noting that some jurisdictions have begun to pilot such approaches and policy changes in schools.

    Her approach is intentionally practical. Streamline access to lifesaving interventions, ensure continuity of care after acute events, and remove barriers that make follow-up treatment difficult. Screening should complement, not replace, clinical judgment and therapeutic support. After all, it’s an entry point to care rather than an end. “We’re not trying to shame anyone,” Avalos says. “We want a simple way for people to look after one another and then walk together toward recovery.”

    Addressing this crisis will not be quick, but Avalos’s advocacy models a steady pathway. It asks for more listening, better training for adults who care for young people, and small structural adjustments that reduce harm and create clear pathways back to treatment. For policymakers, clinicians, educators, and parents, her work points to pragmatic actions. Normalize harm reduction where appropriate, expand screening and naloxone access, and commit to honest, nonpunitive education that keeps communities safer. She remarks, “Start with safety, keep doors open to care, and treat one another with the decency we all deserve.”

    Source link

  • The Risks vs. Benefits of Angioplasty and Heart Stents 

    The Risks vs. Benefits of Angioplasty and Heart Stents 

    What do physicians and stent companies have to say for themselves, given that they promote expensive, risky procedures with no benefit?

    “Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)”—angioplasty and stent placement—“continues to be frequently performed for patients with stable [non-emergency] coronary artery disease, despite clear evidence that it provides minimal benefit…” The procedure does not prevent heart attacks or death for patients with stable angina pectoris, for example, yet nearly nine out of ten patients mistakenly believed that it would reduce their chances of having a heart attack. “At the same time, the cardiologists who referred them for PCI and those who performed the procedure generally did not believe that PCI reduces the risk for MI [myocardial infarction or heart attack] in stable angina.” Then why on earth were they doing it?

    “Focus groups of cardiologists have documented a chasm between knowledge and behavior; while aware of the results of clinical trials”—that is, evidence to the contrary—“they recommend and perform PCI because they believe that it helps in some ill-defined way.” “Physicians tended to justify a non-evidence-based approach (‘I know the data shows there is no benefit, but’) by focusing on the ease of PCI and belief that an open artery was better”—even if it doesn’t actually affect outcomes—“while minimizing the risks of PCI.” The procedure only kills 1 in 150, so some are blaming the patients for not listening, but maybe the physicians are the ones who are ignoring the evidence.

    Or “physicians may have too poor a grasp of relevant statistics to adequately inform their patients.” Regardless, what we have is “a failure to communicate.” So, tools have been developed. For example, a sample informed consent document lays out the potential benefits and risks, even laying out how many procedures doctors have performed and any out-of-pocket costs. As you can see below and at 1:58 in my video Angioplasty Heart Stent Risks vs. Benefits, there are a lot of blanks to be filled in. What are some concrete numbers? 

    As you can see below and at 2:20 in my video, the Mayo Clinic came up with some prototype decision-making tools. In terms of benefits, “Will having a stent placed in my heart prevent heart attacks or death? No. Stents will not lower the risk of heart attack or death,” but a week later those getting stents report they feel better—though, a year later, even the symptomatic-relief benefit appears to disappear. Nevertheless, there appeared to be a benefit of temporary relief of chest pain. What about the risks? 

    As shown below and at 2:53 in my video, during the stent procedure, out of a hundred people, two will have bleeding or damage to a blood vessel and one will have a more serious complication, such as heart attack, stroke, or death. Then, during the first year after the stent placement, three will have a bleeding event because of the blood thinners that must be taken because of the foreign material in the heart, but that doesn’t always work, so two people will have their stent clog off, leading to a heart attack. 

    What does the world’s number one stent manufacturer have to say for itself? It acknowledges that the evidence shows that stents don’t make people live longer, but the manufacturer thinks living longer is overrated. If we only cared about living longer, in medicine, “entire disciplines would dwindle or even disappear, such as dermatology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, and dentistry.” So why go to the dentist? Of course, the difference is that 80 percent of people don’t believe that getting a cavity filled is going to save their life, like they mistakenly do for stents, as shown here and at 3:18 in my video, and there isn’t a one in a hundred chance you won’t make it out of the dentist chair. 

    The stent companies actively misinform with ads making heart-warming copy. “Open your heart and your life.” “When you open up your heart, you open up your life. LIFE WIDE OPEN.” “Freedom begins here.” Their TV ads mention a few side effects, but it turns out they missed a few. More importantly, they’re giving the false impression that stents are more than just expensive, risky band-aids for temporary symptom relief. But what’s wrong with symptom relief? Even if the benefits are only symptomatic and won’t last long, what’s the problem if people think that outweighs the risk?

    What if I told you that even the symptom relief might just be an elaborate placebo effect, and you could get the same relief from a fake surgery, so there really aren’t any benefits at all? We’ll see what the science says—next. 



    Source link

  • Heart Stents and Their Risks 

    Heart Stents and Their Risks 

    Why are doctors killing or stroking out thousands of people a year for nothing? How do doctors even convince patients to sign up for procedures that are all risk without benefit?

    Millions of people have gotten stents for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), yet we now know that angioplasty and stent placement don’t actually prevent heart attacks, offer long-term angina pain relief, or improve survival for such patients. Why? Because the most dangerous plaques—the ones “most vulnerable to rupture or erosion—leading to a subsequent cardiac event,” that is, a heart attack, are not the ones doctors put stents into. They aren’t even the ones that are often seen on angiograms to be obstructing blood flow. So, “we need to avoid the ‘therapeutic illusion’ that we are accomplishing more than is shown by the evidence.” Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) looks great. Angioplasty and stents open up blood flow again, but if PCI doesn’t actually help, why do it?

    We aren’t just talking about billions of dollars wasted either. Stent placement and the blood-thinner drugs that need to be taken can cause complications, including heart failure, stroke, and death, but the risks are relatively low. There is less than a 1 percent chance PCI will kill you or stroke you out, and the 15 percent risk of heart attack is only if your stent clogs off at a later date, which only happens in about 1 percent in the near term. There is a 13 percent chance of kidney injury, though, due to the dyes that have to be injected, but that typically heals on its own. The most serious complications, like death, happen in only about 1 in 150 cases, but that must be multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of procedures being done every year.

    In an emergency setting, like while you’re actively having a heart attack, angioplasty can be lifesaving, but these hundreds of thousands of procedures are done for stable coronary artery disease, for which there appear to be no benefits. So, doctors are killing or stroking out thousands of people a year for nothing. And that’s not even counting the tens of thousands of silent mini-strokes that may contribute to cognitive decline caused by these procedures. Between 11 and 17 percent of people who go through angioplasty or stenting come away with new brain lesions, as you can see below and at 2:16 in my video The Risks of Heart Stents. That’s up to about one in six individuals.

    How do doctors convince patients to sign up for PCI when it doesn’t lower the risks of death or heart attack, nor does it offer long-term symptom relief? Apparently, by conveniently failing to “inform the patient that PCI would not lower their risk of death or MI [myocardial infarction or heart attack], or that the symptom benefit is gone after 5 years,” thereby not offering long-term symptom relief.

    Cardiologists are aware of how little they help, but studies have “consistently demonstrated” that patients think stents will reduce their risk of heart attack or death. More than 70 percent of patients erroneously believed that stents would extend their life expectancy or prevent future heart attacks. That’s why this study was done—to figure out “why patients overestimate these benefits.” Where are they getting these wild ideas? The answer is that many patients are being kept in the dark. Doctors, who overstate the benefits and understate the risks, may pressure patients into procedures that won’t benefit them the way they think. Why? Well, one reason may be because doctors may be paid per procedure. “Current reimbursement favors procedures over medication and lifestyle change, and it is possible that reimbursement may influence physicians’ recommendations.” Doctors are paid more for offering stents than recommending common sense diet and lifestyle changes.

    Patients with stable coronary disease who undergo angioplasty and stent placement are frequently misinformed of the benefits. Of 59 recorded conversations between cardiologists and their patients, only two discussions included all seven elements of informed decision-making—telling people they have a choice, explaining the problem, discussing alternatives and the pros and cons, informing patients the procedure may not work, asking if they understand, asking if they have any questions, and asking them what they want to do. Only 3 percent of doctor-patient discussions about stents hit even just these basic elements! And this was the case when “the physicians and patients knew that they were being recorded, which could have affected their behavior. If so, it is likely that this represents a best-case scenario for these physicians.” Only 3 percent! Quoting from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, when it comes to angioplasty and stents, “true informed consent rarely occurs.”

    It’s no wonder that among the nearly 1,000 patients surveyed across ten U.S. academic and community hospitals, just 1 percent knew the truth. Remarkably, some blame the patients for their ignorance, saying patients are the ones who “commonly overestimate or misunderstand the benefits of treatment, such as patients with cancer who believe that palliative chemotherapy offers the potential for cure—the ‘therapeutic misconception.’”

    “Why are so many patients having procedures with benefits that they poorly understand? Don’t look at the patients to find out why. Instead, examine the doctor’s motivation…Patients think they are having life-saving procedures because medical professionals want them to believe that this is so.” Now, it’s not like those 95 percent of cardiologists are lying to their patients and saying it will reduce their risk; they just happen to conveniently omit those details. But “[i]n the absence of information to the contrary, most patients and some doctors assume that PCI is life-saving and are biased towards choosing it. As a result, patients are rarely able to give true informed consent to undergo PCI.”

    Why would they assume that? Because many have a wild concept of “‘personal care’—that a physician’s first obligation is solely to the patient’s well-being,” but isn’t that naïve? “In the absence of information, or even when presented with evidence to the contrary, patients tend to believe that treatments offered will be beneficial.”

    It’s true, even if you explicitly tell patients that stents do not reduce the risk of heart attacks. You can cut that misperception in half “with relatively little effort—as little as 2 lines of text,” dispelling the myth in many people. But many participants continued to believe that angioplasty and stents prevent heart attacks, even when explicitly told they do not and given a detailed explanation of why they do not. After all, why would doctors be pushing them if they didn’t help? That’s a good question, which we’ll address next. 



    Source link

  • Ephedra-Like Weight Loss Minus the Risks 

    Ephedra-Like Weight Loss Minus the Risks 

    The diving reflex shows that it’s possible to have selective adrenal hormone effects.

    Thermogenic drugs like DNP can cause people to overheat to death; they can increase resting metabolic rates by 300 percent or more. A more physiological spread would range about ten times less, from a 30 percent slower metabolism in people with an underactive thyroid to a 30 percent higher metabolism when the part of our nervous system that controls our fight-or-flight response is activated. In response to a fright or acute stress, special nerves release a chemical called noradrenaline to ready us for confrontation. We experience this by our skin getting paler, cold, and clammy, as blood is diverted to our more vital organs. Our mouth can get dry as our digestive system is put on hold, and our heart starts to beat faster. What we don’t feel is the extra fat being burned to liberate energy for the fight.

    That’s why people started taking ephedra for weight loss—“to stimulate the release of noradrenaline from nerve endings.”

    Ephedra is an evergreen shrub. It’s been used in China for thousands of years to treat asthma because it causes that same release of noradrenaline that offers relief to people with asthma by dilating their airways. In the United States, it was appropriated for use as a metabolic stimulant, shown to result in about 2 pounds (0.9 kg) of weight loss a month in 19 placebo-controlled trials. By the late 1990s, millions of Americans were taking it. The problem is that it also had all the other noradrenaline effects, like increasing heart rate and blood pressure. So, chronic use resulted in “stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, and death.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned of its risks in 1994, but ephedra wasn’t banned until a decade later after a 23-year-old Major League Baseball pitcher dropped dead. His “autopsy report revealed evidence of ephedra, which the medical examiner said contributed to his death.”

    In the current Wild West of dietary supplement regulation, not only can a supplement be “marketed without any safety data” at all, but the manufacturer is under no obligation to disclose adverse effects that may arise. No surprise, then, that online vendors assured absolute safety: “No negative side effects to date.” “No adverse side-effects, no nervous jitters or underlying anxiety, no moodiness…” “100% safe for long-term use.” “It will not interact with medications and has no harmful side effects.” The president of Metabolife International, a leading seller of ephedra, assured the FDA that the company had never received a single “notice from a consumer that any serious adverse health event has occurred…” In reality, it had received about 13,000 health complaints, including reports of serious injuries, hospitalizations, and even deaths. 

    If only there were a way to get the good without the bad. As I discuss in my video How to Get the Weight Loss Benefits of Ephedra Without the Risks, there is. But to understand it, you first have to grasp a remarkable biological phenomenon known as the diving reflex.

    Imagine walking across a frozen lake and suddenly falling through the ice, plunging into the freezing depths. It’s hard to think of a greater, instantaneous fight-or-flight shock than that. Indeed, noradrenaline would be released, causing the blood vessels in your arms and legs to constrict to bring blood back to your core. You can imagine how fast your heart might start racing, but that would be counterproductive because you’d use up your oxygen faster. Remarkably, what happens instead is your heart rate slows down. That’s the diving reflex, first described in the 1700s. Air-breathing animals are born with this automatic safety feature to help keep us from drowning.

    In medicine, we can exploit this physiological quirk with what’s called a “cold face test.” To determine if a comatose patient has intact neural pathways, you can apply cold compresses to their face to see if their heart immediately starts slowing down. Or, more dramatically, it can be used to treat people who flip into an abnormally rapid heartbeat. Remember that episode of ER where Carter dunked a patient’s face into a tray of ice water? (That show aired on TV when I was in medical school, and a group of us would gather around and count how many times they violated “universal precautions.”)

    What does this have to do with weight loss? The problem with noradrenaline-releasing drugs like ephedra is the accompanying rise in heart rate and blood pressure. What the diving reflex shows is that it’s possible to experience selective noradrenaline effects, raising the possibility that there may be a way to get the metabolic boost without the risk of stroking out. Unbelievably, this intricate physiological feat may be accomplished by the simplest of acts: Instead of drowning in water, simply drink it. Really? Yes, you can boost your metabolism by drinking water. Buckle your safety belts because you are in for a wild ride—one that continues next.

    This is the first in a four-part video series. Stay tuned for:

    You may also be interested in Friday Favorites: The Best Diet for Weight Loss and Disease Prevention.



    Source link

  • No Cardiovascular Benefits, Raises Circulatory Risks; Study Finds

    No Cardiovascular Benefits, Raises Circulatory Risks; Study Finds

    Sitting for extended periods has long been linked to various health risks including cardiovascular issues, driving the popularity of standing desks among office workers. However, a recent study suggests that standing for extended periods offers no long-term cardiovascular benefits and may not be the better option.

    According to the latest study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, standing for long periods may not benefit heart health and could increase the risk of circulatory problems, such as deep vein thrombosis and varicose veins.

    Researchers from the University of Sydney analyzed heart conditions and circulatory disease data from 83,013 UK adults, collected over seven to eight years. These participants, who did not have any heart disease at the start, were monitored using wrist-worn wearables similar to smartwatches to track their activity and health.

    The analysis revealed that for every additional 30 minutes spent standing beyond two hours, the risk of circulatory disease increased by 11 percent.

    “The key takeaway is that standing for too long will not offset an otherwise sedentary lifestyle and could be risky for some people in terms of circulatory health. We found that standing more does not improve cardiovascular health over the long-term and increases the risk of circulatory issues,” Dr Matthew Ahmadi, the lead author of the study said in a news release.

    The researchers also found that sitting for more than 10 hours a day raises the risk of both cardiovascular disease and orthostatic issues.

    Based on these findings, the researchers recommend that people who are regularly sedentary or stand for extended periods incorporate regular movement throughout the day to mitigate these risks.

    “For people who sit for long periods on a regular basis, including plenty of incidental movement throughout the day and structured exercise may be a better way to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” said Professor Emmanuel Stamatakis, Director of the Mackenzie Wearables Research Hub.

    “Take regular breaks, walk around, go for a walking meeting, use the stairs, take regular breaks when driving long distances, or use that lunch hour to get away from the desk and do some movement,” Stamatakis said.

    Earlier research by the team found that just 6 minutes of vigorous exercise or 30 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous exercise per day can reduce the risk of heart disease, even in individuals who are highly sedentary for over 11 hours a day.

    Source link