Chocolate may be good for your heart: study

chocolate

Chocolate may be good for your heart: study

(Reuters) – Eating chocolate is not only a treat for the tongue — it may also have some tangible benefits for heart health, such as lowering blood pressure slightly, according to a study involving more than a thousand people.
The study, which combined the results of 42 smaller studies and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also found that participants had small improvements in blood vessel function and a dip in their insulin levels.
A number of past studies have found that chocolate lovers seem to have lower rates of certain heart risks, such as high blood pressure.
“My take-away message would be that if people like dark chocolate, then eating a little in place of other ‘treat’ foods is fine, and may be beneficial,” said study leader Lee Hooper, at Norwich Medical School in the UK.
“However, the evidence is not yet good enough to suggest that we should all be doing this.”
She cautioned that the studies involved were neither large enough nor long enough to show whether eating chocolate has any effect on a person’s risk of having a heart attack or stroke.
In contrast to past studies, which were largely observational and couldn’t prove cause-and-effect — that chocolate itself caused the changes — the current study focused on clinical trials, where researchers assigned people to eat chocolate or not and then watched for changes in blood pressure, cholesterol and other heart risk factors.
Hooper and her team pooled data from 42 small clinical trials involving about 1,300 people and found that chocolate eaters had a few points knocked off their blood pressure readings, along with lower insulin levels and other benefits.
Though it’s not clear why chocolate has this affect, it’s believed to be due to compounds known as flavonoids, which are also present in foods such as nuts, soy, tea and wine.
But researchers acknowledged shortcomings in their study, including differences in the people involved in the trials — some healthy, some with chronic health problems — and different ways of testing chocolate’s effects.
Some studies used cocoa drinks, some solid chocolate and some cocoa supplements. They also varied in how long people were “treated,” though most trials lasted less than six weeks.
The biggest question may be whether any benefits would be worth the downside of chocolate. Based on the studies they used, Hooper’s team writes, it could take several hundred calories’ worth of chocolate to see effects on insulin and blood vessel function — and that could mean trouble for your waistline.
“From a practical perspective it is premature to advise individuals to consume chocolate or cocoa to decrease their risk of cardiovascular disease,” said Alice Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at Tufts University in Boston, who was not part of the study.
For now, she added, if you enjoy a little chocolate in your life, you can probably keep doing so. Just don’t add it in the hopes of helping your heart.
(Reporting from New York by Amy Norton at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)
Chocolate with Bill & Sheila
_____________________________________________________________________
If you require a high quality printout of this article, just click on the printer symbol next to ’Share and enjoy’, and we will do the rest. This site is hosted by (click on the graphic for more information)chocolate

Return from chocolate to Home Page


If you want to increase your site popularity and gain thousands of visitors – check out these sites THEY ARE FREE. Spanishchef more than doubled its ‘New Visitors’ last month simply by signing up to these sites:
facebook likes google exchange
Ex4Me
Earn Coins Google +1
Ex4Me
Follow spanishchef.net on TWITTER

Guide to heart health: Oregon cardiologists dish about diet, supplements, surgery

HEART.jpgView full size

David Badders, The Oregonian

Guide to heart health: Oregon cardiologists dish about diet, supplements, surgery

We’ve heard too many loud claims about heart healthy super foods, miracle diets and medical “breakthroughs.” If there’s evidence to back them up, it’s often overstated. And the next week, we’re given contradictory advice. Eating eggs clog your arteries. Eating eggs is just fine. Anti-oxidant vitamins fight inflammation. Anti-oxidants might shorten your life. We talked to cardiologists and preventive health experts to cut through the noise about preventing and treating heart disease, still the leading cause of death in the U.S.

Our experts:

Dr. Miles Hassell, medical director for integrative medicine, Providence Health Services

Dr. Sandeep Garg, cardiologist with Pacific Heart Associates practicing at Legacy Meridian Park Medical Center

Dr. Michael D. Shapiro, director of preventive cardiology, assistant professor of medicine and radiology, Oregon Health Science University

Q: Every food maker seems to claim their products are heart healthy. What should you really eat to prevent or minimize heart disease?

 Dr. Miles Hassell: If we go by evidence, studies where we see an actual measure of outcomes — fewer heart attacks, fewer strokes, lower mortality — you are forced to conclude that the foods that are healthy are vegetables, nuts, fish, probably whole grains and beans, all used in the least-processed form.

It really looks like extra virgin olive oil is probably the best oil. We encourage that; we don’t tell people not to use butter. Milk, eggs, butter, meats — all the traditional foods people like can be part of a healthy diet. People who drink a small amount of alcohol are less likely to die of heart disease. It’s not hard to adopt a heart-healthy diet, but it forces people to cook and it does require avoiding things that are highly processed.

It’s under-appreciated that there is strong evidence to show that refined carbohydrates — sugary drinks, white flour and white rice — contribute to heart disease more than saturated fat. Diet drinks appear to be just as bad as sugary soft drinks in their association with heart disease and diabetes.

Dr. Sandeep Garg: Be suspicious of any food that comes in a convenient package. Be suspicious of any foods advertised on TV. I firmly believe that best way to prevent heart disease is a plant-based diet. Minimize animal fats and focus on eating more fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grain foods, and nothing that is packaged or processed. Remember that there is no shortcut to a healthy lifestyle. Adopt these habits, turn your back on processed foods and never look back, never go back there again. For me it is not a diet, but a lifestyle choice.

Q: Are there any supplements worth taking to protect your heart?

Garg: I don’t think any supplement is going to make any difference for the general population. If you eat fruits and vegetables and healthy foods to begin with, you don’t need tablets. In specific populations, patients with high triglycerides for example, fish oil may be appropriate. For secondary prevention in people who’ve had a heart attack or diabetes, history of stroke, peripheral vascular disease, the evidence for a baby aspirin a day is excellent. For those who are at very high risk of having a first heart attack, there is some role for a baby aspirin a day.
Hassell: The supplements that are probably worth doing are fish oil and vitamin D. If you don’t eat a lot of oily fish, it may have a benefit. It may reduce blood pressure a tiny bit. Most studies seem to show a reduction in total mortality. In people who are at low risk of heart disease, fish oil still seems to be protective.

For many other supplements, evidence is accumulating that they are going to do more harm than good. Vitamin E may increase mortality rates. Other anti-oxidant supplements appear to be harmful. Even folic acid appears to have problems.

Almost everybody who’s had a heart attack deserves to be on aspirin; there is very solid evidence for secondary prevention. For primary prevention the evidence is really dubious. Daily aspirin increases the risk of internal bleeding to a degree that raises questions about any net benefit.

Q: How safe is it to do aerobics and strength training if you have heart disease or heart failure?

Dr. Michael D. Shapiro: In our cardiac rehabilitation programs, we find it to be incredibly safe. All of the science data support that. People with heart disease who do not exercise are taking a greater risk. Even outside of cardiac rehab, exercising is incredibly safe.

The benefits that patients glean from performing exercise are more than just effective for the heart. Exercise improves quality of life, improves mood, gives you more energy. Studies show that the reductions in morbidity and mortality from exercise are as good or maybe even better than medical therapy alone. It’s impressive.

That said, if you are having active chest pain, if you become really winded when you exert yourself, if you are having heart rhythm problems, that could indicate a problem. You should not exercise in those situations; you should consult with your doctor.

Hassell: The evidence for benefit is huge. In a German study published in 2004, a group of patients all had single-vessel coronary artery disease and chest pain when they exercised. Half got a stent and the other half got sent home with a stationary bicycle to exercise on every day. After one year, the exercisers experienced 60 percent fewer cardiac events.

And it’s not just heart disease. Stroke, cancer, disabling joint disease, osteoporosis — all are strikingly diminished when people exercise regularly. Exercise elevates mood and energy. It’s kind of unbelievable how much good exercise can do. We tell people it should be one of their highest priorities every day, above their work and right below God and family.

But if you’ve got a heart problem, start in a rehab program to build up your confidence. If you are feeling frail, start in tiny doses. You can do just 5 minutes and do it many times a day.

Q: Is bypass surgery obsolete now that stents work so well?

Garg: A lot of patients who were getting bypass surgery in the past are getting stents, but I don’t think surgery will ever become obsolete. There are some blockages where we can’t put in stents. And in some patients who have stents, arteries become blocked again and they need to have bypass surgery. Surgery is evolving and becoming less invasive. Minimally invasive techniques allow surgeons to operate on a beating heart. Hybrid approaches involve stenting one artery and minimally invasive bypass on another artery. For the patient needing to choose a treatment, it comes down to individual factors. Some patients may not be strong enough to undergo surgery. For others, you really don’t want to put in stents because of anatomical issues.

Shapiro: There are pros and cons to either approach. When you’re having a heart attack, generally speaking, stenting is the way to go. You want to get the arteries open as soon as possible and stenting is faster than surgery. It’s also safer when somebody is having a heart attack.

But in some other situations, you are better off having bypass surgery. This is particularly true if you have a blockage in your left main artery. If you have triple vessel blockages, especially if there is heart damage or diabetes, bypass could be better. Surgery will be a more complete procedure then stenting.

We know that with people who get stents the procedure is a much easier process. You go to the hospital, get a stent, leave the next day with really no serious disability. You are back to your normal self in a few days. But over the long term, people who get stents are likely going to need repeat procedures.

With surgery there is the upfront risk, and a much more difficult recovery. They crack your chest open and it’s painful. It takes patients months to really be back to their baseline. But the good news is, if all goes well with surgery, once you’ve recovered, you are not as likely to need repeat procedures. It’s a more complete therapy.

– Joe Rojas-Burke

Diet and Weight loss with Bill & Sheila
_____________________________________________________________________
If you require a high quality printout of this article, just click on the printer symbol next to ’Share and enjoy’, and we will do the rest. This site is hosted by (click on the graphic for more information)heart

Return from heart to Home Page


If you want to increase your site popularity and gain thousands of visitors – check out these sites THEY ARE FREE. Spanishchef more than doubled its ‘New Visitors’ last month simply by signing up to these sites:
facebook likes google exchange
Ex4Me
Earn Coins Google +1
Ex4Me
Follow spanishchef.net on TWITTER

Is cheese better than butter for heart health?

cheese

Is cheese better than butter for heart health?

According to their study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, people who ate daily servings of cheese for six-week intervals had lower LDL cholesterol, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, than when they ate a comparable amount of butter.

The cheese eaters also did not have higher LDL during the experiment than when they ate a normal diet.

Cheese lowers LDL cholesterol when compared with butter intake of equal fat content and does not increase LDL cholesterol compared with a habitual diet,” wrote Julie Hjerpsted and her colleagues, from the University of Copenhagen.

The group surveyed about 50 people. Each person was put on a controlled diet and added a measured amount of cheese or butter daily.

Throughout, each participant was compared against his or herself, to follow changes in the body caused by the foods. Researchers gave each person cheese or butter, both made from cows milk, equal to 13 percent of their daily energy consumption from fat.

During six-week intervals, each person ate the set amount of cheese or butter, separated by a 14-day cleansing period which they returned to their normal diet. Then they switched, and for six weeks those who had eaten the cheese before, ate butter, while the butter eaters in the first phase ate cheese.

Despite eating more fat than had been in their normal diet, the cheese eaters showed no increase in LDL or total cholesterol. While eating butter, however, the same subjects had LDL levels about seven percent higher on average.

While eating cheese, subjects’ HDL or “good” cholesterol dropped slightly compared with when they ate butter, but not compared with their normal eating period.

The researchers speculated that there could be several reasons why cheese affected people differently than butter. But there is nothing conclusive in the study, which was supported by the Danish Dairy Board and the National Dairy Research Institute.

For one, cheese has a lot of calcium, which has been shown to increase the amount of fat excreted by the digestive tract. Researchers did detect a little more fecal fat during the time the group ate cheese, but the amounts were not statistically significant.

Other possible explanations involve the large amount of protein in cheese and its fermentation process, both of which could affect the way it’s digested compared to butter.

Elizabeth Jackson, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Health Systems, told Reuters Health that the study was well done but does not really change what cardiologists currently recommend.

“We want people to have a diet focused on whole grains and vegetables and moderate fats,” said Jackson, who was not involved in the study.

“In terms of cheese, anything in moderation,” she added.

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

This site is hosted by (click on the graphic for more information)cheese

Return from cheese to Home Page



Cheese & eggs with Bill & Sheila