Connect with us

Health and Wellness

Are plant-based burgers really bad for your heart? Here’s what’s behind the scary headlines

Published

on

We hear quite a bit about ultra-processed foods and the health effects of eating an excessive amount of of them. We also know that plant-based foods are popular for health or other reasons.

So this shouldn’t be surprising recent research This week’s information on the health effects of ultra-processed plant-based foods will attract global attention.

The headlines could be scary when the research and publicity surrounding them suggests that eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or premature death.

Here’s how some media outlets interpreted the study. Daily Mail. ran with: :

Study Suggests Vegan Fake Meats Are Linked to Rise in Heart Disease Deaths: Experts Say Plant-Based Diets Can Improve Health – But NOT If They’re Ultra-Processed

New York Post. heading was:

Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease and premature death: study

However, after we have a look at the study itself, it seems that the media reports concentrate on a small aspect of the study and are misleading.

So does eating plant-based burgers and other ultra-processed plant-based foods from the supermarket really increase your risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?

Here’s what led us to conduct the study and what it actually found.

Remind me what ultra-processed food is?

Ultra-processed food processed and reformulated with additives to enhance taste, durability and attractiveness. These include every thing from packaged pasta cheeses and pork sausages to supermarket cakes and plant-based mince.

There is now strong and extensive evidence showing that ultra-processed foods are linked to: increased risk many chronic physical and mental illnesses.

Though researchers the query is what food products needs to be counted as ultra-processed or in the event that they are all linked to poorer health, the consensus is that we should always eat less of them overall.

We also know that plant-based diets are very talked-about. They are related to reduced risk chronic conditions resembling heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. Supermarkets offer more plant-based, ultra-processed foods.

What about the recent study?

The test looked for any health differences between eating ultra-processed plant foods versus eating ultra-processed non-plant foods. Scientists focused on the risk of heart problems (resembling heart disease and stroke) and death from it.

In this study, ultra-processed plant-based foods included mass-produced packaged bread, cookies, rolls, cakes, pastries, cereals, and meat alternatives (fake meat). Ultra-processed foods that weren’t plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.

The researchers used data from the British Biobank. This is a big biomedical database containing unidentified genetic, lifestyle (weight loss program and exercise) and health information, in addition to biological samples from half one million UK participants. This database allows researchers to find out links between this data and a big selection of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.

They used data from almost 127,000 individuals who detailed their diets between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. The researchers monitored each participant’s weight loss program and health for a mean of nine years.

The plant-based, ultra-processed foods included on this study included packaged supermarket bread.
Doublelee/Shutterstock

What did the study show?

Every 10% increase in total energy from ultra-processed plant-based foods was related to a 5% increased risk of heart problems (resembling heart disease or stroke) and a 12% greater risk of death from heart problems.

However, each 10% increase in consumption of unprocessed plant-based foods was related to a 7% lower risk of heart problems and a 13% lower risk of death from heart problems.

Scientists found no evidence of an association between whole plant-based foods (no matter whether or not they were ultra-processed or not) and an increased or decreased risk of heart problems or death from them.

It was an observational study wherein people used questionnaires to recall their weight loss program. When combined with other data, this could only tell us whether someone’s weight loss program is at particular risk of health effects. So we won’t say that on this case ultra-processed food caused heart disease and heart disease deaths.

Why is the media focused on fake meat?

Most media reports have focused on the obvious health risks related to eating fake meats resembling sausages, hamburgers, nuggets and even steaks.

They are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by breaking down whole plant foods resembling peas, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.

However, on this study, it was only one variety of ultra-processed plant-based food. This represented only a mean of 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all participants.

Compare this to bread, cookies, rolls, cakes and biscuits, that are other sorts of ultra-processed plant-based foods. They accounted for 20.7% of the total energy intake in the study.

Plant-based foods such as hamburgers and sausages on trays
This photo was at the top of the press release.
Screenshot/Imperial

It’s hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there’s one clue in Press Release issued to advertise research.

While the press release didn’t mention the phrase “fake meat,” images of plant-based burgers, sausages, and meatballs or rissoles were prominently featured.

The introduction to the study itself also mentioned plant-based, ultra-processed foods resembling sausages, nuggets and burgers.

So it’s no wonder people can get confused.

Does this mean fake meat is okay?

Not necessarily. This study analyzed total consumption of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, including fake meats, although they make up a really small percentage of individuals’s diets.

Based on this study alone, we cannot tell whether someone would have eaten large amounts of faux meat if the final result had been different.

In fact, a last review of the fake meats found, there was insufficient evidence to find out their health effects.

We also need more moderen data to reflect current patterns of eating fake meat. The study used dietary data collected between 2009 and 2012, and since then fake meat has turn out to be increasingly popular.

What if I really like fake meat?

We have known for an extended time that ultra-processed food could be harmful to our health. This study shows that whether ultra-processed foods are plant-based or not, they could be harmful.

We know that fake meat may contain large amounts of saturated fat (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.

Like other ultra-processed foods, they needs to be eaten rarely. The Australian Dietary Guidelines now recommends that individuals eat a majority of these foods only occasionally and in small amounts.

Are some fake meats healthier than others?

Check labels and nutrition facts panels. Look for products with the lowest fat and salt content. Hamburgers and sausages which can be “pressed dough” from ground ingredients resembling nuts, beans and vegetables can be higher than reformulated products that look similar to meat.

You can even eat healthful protein products of plant origin, resembling legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy. In addition to being wealthy in protein and fiber, additionally they provide essential nutrients resembling iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms in your recipes can recreate the umami flavor related to meat.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health and Wellness

Jury awarded $310 million to parents of teenager who died after falling on a ride at Florida amusement park – Essence

Published

on

By

Sun Sentinel/Getty Images

The family of Tire Sampson, the 14-yr-old who tragically died on an amusement park ride in Orlando, Florida, in 2022, has been awarded $310 million in a civil lawsuit.

Tire, who was visiting ICON Park along with his family on March 24, 2022, fell from the FreeFall drop tower. Although he was taken to a nearby hospital, he didn’t survive his injuries.

Now, greater than two years later, a jury has held the vehicle manufacturer, Austria-based Funtime Handels, responsible for the accident and awarded the Tire family $310 million. According to reports from local news stations WFTV AND KSDKthe jury reached its verdict after about an hour of deliberation.

Tyre’s parents will each receive $155 million, according to attorney spokesman Michael Haggard.

Attorneys Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, who represented Tyre’s family, shared their thoughts on this landmark decision via X (formerly Twitter). “This ruling is a step forward in holding corporations accountable for the safety of their products,” they said in a statement.

Lawyers stressed that Tyre’s death was attributable to “gross negligence and a failure to put safety before profits.” They added that the ride’s manufacturer had “neglected its duty to protect passengers” and that the substantial award ensured it could “face the consequences of its decisions.”

Crump and Jackson said they hope the result will encourage change throughout the theme park industry. “We hope this will spur the entire industry to enforce more stringent safety measures,” they said. “Tire heritage will provide a safer future for drivers around the world.”

An investigation previously found that Tyre’s harness was locked through the descent, but he dislodged from his seat through the 430-foot fall when the magnets engaged. Tire’s death was ruled the result of “multiple injuries and trauma.”

ICON Park said at the time that it could “fully cooperate” with the authorities.

This article was originally published on : www.essence.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Tireless HIV/AIDS advocate A. Cornelius Baker dies

Published

on

By

HIV/AIDS Advocate, A. Cornelius Baker


A. Cornelius Baker, a tireless advocate of HIV and AIDS testing, research and vaccination, died Nov. 8 at his home in Washington, D.C., of hypertensive, atherosclerotic heart problems, in response to his partner, Gregory Nevins.

As previously reported, Baker was an early supporter for people living with HIV and AIDS within the Nineteen Eighties, when misinformation and fear-mongering in regards to the disease were rampant.

According to Douglas M. Brooks, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy under President Obama, it was Baker’s Christian faith that guided him toward compassion for others.

“He was very kind, very warm and inclusive – his circles, both professional and personal, were the most diverse I have ever seen, and he was guided by his Christian values,” Brooks told the outlet. “His ferocity was on display when people were marginalized, rejected or forgotten.”

In 1995, when he was executive director of the National AIDS Association, Baker pushed for June 27 to be designated National HIV Testing Day.

In 2012, he later wrote on the web site of the Global Health Advisor for which he was a technical advisor that: “These efforts were intended to help reduce the stigma associated with HIV testing and normalize it as part of regular screening.”

https://twitter.com/NBJContheMove/status/1856725113967632663?s=19

Baker also feared that men like himself, black gay men, and other men from marginalized communities were disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS.

Baker pressured the Clinton administration to incorporate black and Latino people in clinical drug trials, and in 1994 he pointedly told the Clinton administration that he was bored with hearing guarantees but seeing no motion.

According to Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings, yes that daring attitude that defines Baker’s legacy in the world of ​​HIV/AIDS promotion.

“Cornelius was a legendary leader in the fight for equality for LGBTQ+ people and all people living with HIV,” Jennings said in a press release. “In the more than twenty years that I knew him, I was continually impressed not only by how effective he was as a leader, but also by how he managed to strike the balance between being fierce and kind at the same time. His loss is devastating.”

Jennings continued: “Cornelius’ leadership can’t be overstated. For many years, he was one in all the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS warriors, working locally, nationally and internationally. No matter where he went, he proudly supported the HIV/AIDS community from the Nineteen Eighties until his death, serving in various positions including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association of Persons with Disabilities AIDS, and the Whitman-Walker Clinic . Jennings explained.

Jennings concluded: “His career also included several honors, including being the first recipient of the American Foundation for AIDS Research Foundation’s organization-building Courage Award. Our communities have lost a pillar in Cornelius, and as we mourn his death, we will be forever grateful for his decades of service to the community.”

Kaye Hayes, deputy assistant secretary for communicable diseases and director of the Office of Infectious Diseases and HIV/AIDS Policy, in her comment about his legacy, she called Baker “the North Star.”.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact his loss had on public health, the HIV/AIDS community or the place he held in my heart personally,” Hayes told Hiv.gov. “He was pushing us, charging us, pulling us, pushing us. With his unwavering commitment to the HIV movement, he represented the north star, constructing coalitions across sectors and dealing with leaders across the political spectrum to deal with health disparities and advocate for access to HIV treatment and look after all. He said, “The work isn’t done, the charge is still there, move on – you know what you have to do.” It’s in my ear and in my heart in the case of this job.

Hayes added: “His death is a significant loss to the public health community and to the many others who benefited from Cornelius’ vigilance. His legacy will continue to inspire and motivate us all.”

Baker is survived by his mother, Shirley Baker; his partner Nevins, who can be senior counsel at Lambda Legal; his sisters Chandrika Baker, Nadine Wallace and Yavodka Bishop; in addition to his two brothers, Kareem and Roosevelt Dowdell; along with the larger HIV/AIDS advocacy community.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Bovaer is added to cow feed to reduce methane emissions. Does it pass into milk and meat? And is it harmful to humans?

Published

on

By

There are growing concerns in regards to the use of feed supplements, Bowar 10to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (mainly sand), propylene glycol (food stabilizer approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and lively substance 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation in regards to the safety of 3-NOP, with some milk from herds fed this additive being labeled “Frankenmilk”. Others feared it could get to humans through beef.

The most significant thing is that 3-NOP is secure. Let’s clear up some major misconceptions.

Why do we want to limit methane production?

In our attempts to limit global warming, we’ve placed the best emphasis on CO₂ because the major man-made greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is: a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest a man-made source of methane. As cattle herds expand to meet our growing demand for meat and milk, reducing methane production from cows is a vital way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several ways to do that. Stopping bacteria within the stomachs of cows that produce methane one approach is to produce methane.

The methane produced by cows and sheep doesn’t come from the animals themselves, but from the microbes living of their digestive systems. 3-NO stop the enzymes that perform the last step of methane synthesis in these microorganisms.

3-NOP is not the one compound tested as a feed additive. Australian product based on seaweed, Rumin8for instance, it is also in development. Saponins, soap-like chemicals present in plants, and essential oils as well has been examined.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the popular effective treatments.

Nitrooxypropanol structure: red balls are oxygen, gray carbon, blue nitrogen and white hydrogen.
PubChem

But is not it poison?

There are concerns on social media that Bovaer is “poisoning our food.”

But, as we are saying in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. For example, arsenic is deadly 2–20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal on the doses utilized in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight. At a dose of 100 mg per kg body weight in rats, it didn’t cause any adversarial effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on the reproductive organs has generated numerous commentary.

Studies in rats and cows showed that doses of 300–500 mg per kg body weight caused: contraction of the ovaries and testicles.

In comparison, to achieve the identical exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would want to eat 21–35 grams (about 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP every day for a lot of weeks to see this effect.

No human will likely be exposed to this amount because 3-NOP doesn’t pass into milk – is fully metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

No cow will likely be exposed to these levels either.

The cow licks itself
Cows will not be exposed to levels tested on animals in laboratory studies.
Ground photo/Shutterstock

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenicwhich implies it cannot damage DNA. Thus, the results of 3-NOP are dose-limited, meaning that small doses will not be harmful, while very high doses are (unlike radiation where there is no secure dose).

Scientists found that at a dose of 300 mg per kilogram of body weight benign tumors of the small intestine of female ratsbut not male rats, after 2 years of every day consumption. At a dose of 100 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight, no tumors were observed.

Cows eat lower than 2 grams of Bovaer 10 per day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams is 3-NOP). This is about 1,000 times lower than the appropriate every day intake 1 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight per day for a cow weighing 450 kg.

This level of consumption will likely be not the result in cancer or any of them other adversarial effects.

So how much are people exposed to?

Milk and meat consumers will likely be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat: is completely metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

Farmers could also be exposed to small amounts of the feed additive, and industrial employees producing 3-NOP will potentially be exposed to larger amounts. Farmers and industrial employees already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and it is advisable to do that with Bovear 10 as well.

Milk
3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat.
Shutterstock

How widely has it been tested?

3-NOP has been in development for 15 years and has been subject to multiple reviews by European Food Safety Authority, UK Food Safety Authority AND others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle and has produced no unintended effects. Some studies actually say so improves the standard of milk and meat.

Bovaer was approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union from 2022 and Japan in 2024. It is also utilized in many other countries, including: in beef products, amongst others Australia.

A really small amount of 3-NOP enters the environment (lower than 0.2% of the dose taken), no accumulates and is easily decomposed subsequently, it doesn’t pose a threat to the environment.

Since humans will not be exposed to 3-NOP through milk and meat, long-term exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with this?

Bill Gates has invested in a distinct feed processing method for methane, Australian seaweed-based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded research grants to the corporate producing 3-NOP for malaria control researchnot for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed doesn’t pose any risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending