If you live in a neighbourhood where fast-food restaurants abound, you might be more likely to have a heart attack, new research suggests.

It turns out that heart attack rates are higher in neighbourhoods with more fast-food joints, the Australian study found.

Importance of food environment

For every additional fast-food outlet in a neighbourhood, there were four additional heart attacks per 100 000 people each year, according to the report.

To come to that conclusion, researchers examined data on nearly 3 100 patients hospitalised with a heart attack in a region of Australia between 2011 and 2013.

“The findings were consistent across rural and metropolitan areas of New South Wales and after adjusting for age, obesity, high blood lipids, high blood pressure, smoking status and diabetes. The results emphasise the importance of the food environment as a potential contributor towards health,” said study author Tarunpreet Saluja, from the University of Newcastle in Callaghan.

“Ischaemic heart disease, including heart attack, is one of the leading causes of death worldwide,” Saluja noted.

Poor nutritional value

“It is known that eating fast-foods is linked with a higher likelihood of fatal and non-fatal heart attacks. Despite this, there is rapid growth in the purchase and availability of fast-food. This highlights the need to explore the role of food availability in the probability of having a heart attack,” he said.

“Previous studies have shown that the poor nutritional value, high salt and saturated fat in fast-food is connected to heart disease, yet the role of greater access to these restaurants has been less clear,” Saluja said in a European Society of Cardiology (ESC) news release.

The study findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Research presented at meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

According to Jeroen Bax, past president of the ESC, “Tackling heart disease requires individual responsibility and actions at population level. This study highlights the impact of the food environment on health. In addition to regulating the location and density of fast-food outlets, local areas should ensure good access to supermarkets with healthy food.

^{Image credit: iStock}

HealthDay

Kurt Lefteroff knew Cheryl Murdock for nine years before they started dating in September 2001. She was 42 and seemed perfectly healthy.

He didn’t know that when Murdock was in sixth grade, she was diagnosed with a heart condition. He didn’t know she had taken medications to manage that heart issue for 30 years. And he didn’t know about the episode that happened two months earlier.

A surprise trip

While on vacation, atrial fibrillation caused her heart to beat quickly and irregularly for several days. Doctors used electric shocks to restore her normal heart rhythm and recommended she follow up with her cardiologist at home in Arizona.

Lefteroff learned all this in late October, when Murdock had a second episode. She went on medication for almost a year, then received a pacemaker. Lefteroff, meanwhile, had to decide whether to continue the journey they’d begun. He did, and they became engaged in 2005. But Murdock didn’t want to get married until she felt better.

By 2009, her heart condition worsened, and her lungs were gradually failing too. Lefteroff feared Murdock may never feel strong enough to marry. So he took her on a surprise trip to the courthouse that spring to get their marriage license, telling her that it was only valid for a year.

“You can’t be waiting for a different life,” he told her. “That may never come.”

In turn, she planned a surprise wedding on his birthday, Sept. 18.

Within hours of the hospital

By 2010, Murdock developed a persistent cough. She couldn’t walk across the room without stopping to catch her breath. She was added to the heart transplant waiting list on March 26.

Because they needed to be within four hours of the hospital once a match was found, they began looking for an apartment near Stanford Medical Center in California. Four days later, Murdock’s phone rang.

Early the next morning, the heart of a 14-year-old girl was beating in Murdock’s chest.

“It was bittersweet,” Lefteroff said. “Your heart aches for the donor family’s tragedy.”

The first month, then the first three months, then the first year – these are the most critical time periods for the body not rejecting the new heart. While Murdock wanted to say the recovery was easy and she felt like a new person, that would be a lie.

During three weeks in the hospital, she vomited regularly, her weight dropping to 99 pounds. She had excruciating back pain – a combination of years working as a dental hygienist and her nearly eight-hour transplant – and could not take medications for it.

She slowly improved

The next few months in recovery were spent at their California apartment, Lefteroff monitoring her like a drill sergeant. Every morning, he checked her vital signs and wiped every surface in the apartment with bleach, ran the air purifier and tracked her medications. In the middle of every night, he changed Murdock’s sweat-soaked shirt and bed towel. He laid out her medications in shot glasses, noting the times to take each set.

She slowly improved. A few months later, they returned home to Arizona. They were allowed to write a thank-you note to the donor’s parents at seven months. They were told they had a 50-50 chance of hearing back.

They did hear back.

Murdock had been calling her heart “Tesla”, as it ran fast, ran on electricity and was expensive. But now she learned that her heart’s name was Morgan.

Morgan Gallegos was 14, a triplet who liked riding roller coasters, reading Harry Potter books and creative writing. She died from injuries sustained in a watercraft accident while on a family vacation in Mexico. Her mother worked in a hospital emergency department. Every morning, Morgan would tell her, “Save lives, Mom”. Murdock was among at least five people whose lives Morgan saved.

Murdock stayed in touch with Morgan’s parents, Margot and Tim Gallegos. In March 2018, on the eighth anniversary of her transplant, Murdock and Lefteroff met them in San Francisco. She was both excited and nervous, fearful of saying the wrong thing.

A joyful celebration

“It ended up being a very intimate connection,” she said. And Tim confided in Lefteroff that he thought meeting Murdock would help with Margot’s healing and grieving. This year, they met Morgan’s siblings, Austin and Michaela, now 23.

“Instead of being tearful this year, our meeting was more joyful, a celebration of Morgan,” Murdock said. Lefteroff said the joy has buoyed her spirits, too.

In January, Murdock celebrated her 60th birthday by going to Universal Studios and spending time at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

“I wrote to Morgan’s parents about what I’ve been able to do with her heart,” Murdock said. “One of those things is riding roller coasters.”

^{Image credit: iStock}

As air quality declines, the prevalence of mental health conditions may rise, a large, new study suggests.

Looking at data on millions of people in the United States and Denmark, researchers found correlations between air pollution exposure and rates of certain psychiatric disorders. In both countries, poorer air quality was linked to a slightly heightened risk of bipolar disorder.

No conclusive answers

And in Denmark – where childhood data was available – people who were exposed to polluted air in the first 10 years of life had increased risks of depression, schizophrenia and personality disorders.

The big caveat: None of that proves air pollution is to blame.

“These are only correlations,” said Dr John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University in California. “Inherently, data like these will never give you conclusive answers.”

Ioannidis wrote an editorial published with the study in the journal PLOS Biology.

At this point, he said, the findings are an “interesting observation” that can spur more research.

“If there really is a link, that would be very important,” Ioannidis said.

Brain inflammation

Andrey Rzhetsky, senior researcher on the study, agreed that the findings point to an association – and are not proof of cause and effect.

But animal research has offered clues about how polluted air might affect mental health, according to Rzhetsky, a professor in the departments of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago.

It’s been shown, for example, that fine particles in air pollution can travel to the rodent brain via the nose. And lab animals exposed to air pollutants have shown signs of brain inflammation, along with impaired learning and memory, as well as depression-like behaviour.

Ioannidis, however, cautioned against making too much of the animal research.

“You can find biology to explain whatever you want,” he said. But that doesn’t prove it’s actually happening in humans.

For the current study, Rzhetsky’s team mined data on two large populations to look for links between pollution and psychiatric conditions.

Stronger associations in Denmark

For the US portion, the investigators looked at health insurance claims for more than 151 million Americans – noting mental health diagnoses made between 2003 and 2013. They had no way to gauge people’s personal exposure to air pollution. But they did have information on air quality in each person’s county of residence – for the years 2000 to 2005.

The researchers broke those counties into seven groups (or septiles) based on air pollution. Overall, the prevalence of bipolar disorder was about 29% higher in the most-polluted group of counties, compared to the group with the cleanest air.

The Denmark data, meanwhile, showed stronger associations. There, Rzhetsky’s team had enough information to estimate childhood air-pollution exposure for nearly 1.5 million people born between 1979 and 2002.

The investigators found that people exposed to air pollution during their first 10 years of life had increased risks of developing bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia or a personality disorder by age 37.

Again, the biggest difference was between the septile living in the most polluted areas, versus those breathing the cleanest air: Their rates of schizophrenia and personality disorders were more than doubled, while their rate of depression was 50% higher and bipolar disorder 29% higher.

Overall, the Danish data provided a “stronger signal”, Rzhetsky said. But does that mean that childhood exposure to air pollution during early brain development is more important than adulthood exposure?

At this point, it’s unclear, Rzhetsky said.

Many other exposures

The findings leave many unanswered questions, according to Ioannidis.

“Is it childhood exposure to air pollution that matters?” Ioannidis said. “Is it bad, no matter when you’re exposed? Or does it make no difference at all?”

That final question touches on the broader issue. Psychiatric disorders are complex, Ioannidis pointed out: They involve a mix of genetic vulnerability and a range of environmental influences.

And people living in the most polluted areas may have many other exposures that set them apart from people who breathe the cleanest air, Ioannidis said.

It’s not possible, of course, to conduct a trial where people are assigned to live in polluted areas. But, Rzhetsky said, there are other ways to approach the cause-and-effect question: For example, studies might look at whether the prevalence of mental health diagnoses goes down after air quality improves.

It will be important to figure out whether air pollution is, in fact, a contributor, Rzhetsky said, because air quality is something we can change.

Ioannidis made another point: There are already plenty of reasons to want cleaner air, since poor air quality is strongly linked to heart and lung disease, and to higher mortality.

“Air pollution is not good for us,” Ioannidis said. “We know that.”

^{Image credit: iStock}

The health risks of sugary drinks, from juice to cold drinks, are well known.

They can lead to overweight and diabetes, stroke and other problems in the brain, including poorer memory and smaller brain volume.

But cold drinks aren’t the answer.

Increased risk of disease

A number of studies have found an association between artificially sweetened beverages and an increased risk of stroke, heart disease, heart attack and other heart-related deaths in women.

The most recent was published earlier this year in the journal Stroke, with researchers suggesting that, even without identifying a specific cause and effect, people should seriously consider the potentially harmful effects of artificially sweetened drinks.

And there’s more.

Brain-altering substance

Researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine followed 4 000 people of both sexes over 10 years.

Using MRI tests, they linked just one artificially sweetened cold drink a day to brain changes that can lead to dementia, as well as the type of stroke caused by a blockage in a blood vessel.

These risks were triple those of people who don’t drink cold drinks. It didn’t seem to matter which common artificial sweetener – saccharin, aspartame or sucralose – was consumed.

While some people see diet cold drinks as a way of weaning off regular cold drinks, it may be healthier in the long run to skip this type of transition.

Healthier alternatives

If you like cold drink’s carbonation more than the better option of water, flavor plain seltzer (carbonated water) with a squeeze of your favorite citrus fruit, a few crushed berries or both.

For variety, try freshly grated ginger, chopped mint or a teaspoon of vanilla. Also consider replacing soda with a glass of milk – you’ll get important protein and a shot of calcium in the bargain.

^{Image credit: iStock}

HealthDay

Skimping on sleep could impact your overall health and wellbeing. According to a previous Health24 article, adequate sleep, which is a recommended 6–8 hours for adults, will also improve your vital functions and body weight.  

Yet, several health and lifestyle factors are standing in the way of getting a good night’s sleep for millions of adults across the globe.

But, if you’re always looking on the sunny side, you’re likely to sleep better and longer. That’s according to a new study that was published recently in the journal Behavioral Medicine, led by University of Illinois social work professor, Rosalba Hernandez.       

The study sample included more than 3 500 adults aged between 32 and 51. Participants were asked to rate, on a five-point scale, how much they agreed with positive statements such as “I’m always optimistic about my future”, and negatively worded sentences such as “I hardly expect things to go my way”. After determining their levels of optimism, the scientists then studied participants’ sleep quality and duration in order to assess how easy it was for them to drift off at night.

The survey also assessed their symptoms of insomnia, difficulty falling asleep and the number of hours of actual sleep they obtained each night. The study builds on previous research that has suggested that optimists have better cardiovascular health.

A ‘public health concern’

A subset of the participants were part of an ancillary sleep study based in Chicago. They wore activity monitors for three consecutive days, and data on their sleep duration, percent of time asleep and restlessness while sleeping were collected.

It was found that in individuals with greater levels of optimism were more likely to get 6–9 hours of sleep. They were also 74% less likely to have insomnia and reported less daytime sleepiness. 

A 2016 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that about one in three US adults fail to get adequate sleep, escalating their risk of many chronic diseases. South Africans also fare badly when it comes to getting quality shut-eye, with only 27% getting the recommended eight hours of sleep every night. 

Insufficient sleep is linked to several leading causes of death, including heart disease and certain cancers, as well as premature ageing and negative effects on metabolism, notes Health24.

Hernandez said the lack of healthy sleep is a public health concern, and that “dispositional optimism – the belief that positive things will occur in the future – has emerged as a psychological asset of particular salience for disease-free survival and superior health”.

The researchers hypothesise that positivity can impact stress levels in a good way, allowing optimists to sleep soundly.

“Optimists are more likely to engage in active problem-focused coping and to interpret stressful events in more positive ways, reducing worry and ruminative thoughts when they’re falling asleep and throughout their sleep cycle,” Hernandez explained.

While the results indicate a significant and positive association between optimism and better-quality sleep, Hernandez suggested that the findings should be interpreted cautiously as only limited work has examined whether optimism is associated with better quality sleep.

^{Image: iStock}

Compiled by Zakiyah Ebrahim