Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

The incidence of EO-CRC, which refers to when people under 50 years of age develop the condition, has increased markedly in several wealthy countries.

One 2020 article in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians suggested that over the course of the year, about 150,000 U.S. individuals would receive a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and about 53,200 would die as a result.

The authors also predicted about 18,000 cases of individuals younger than 50 years of age receiving a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, with 3,640 forecasted deaths in this population.

Compared with adults born in the U.S. around 1950, those born around 1990 have twice the risk of developing colon cancer and four times the risk of developing rectal cancer.

A new study in the journal Gut links drinking two or more SSBs per day in adulthood with a doubling in the risk of bowel cancer before the age of 50 years.

Researchers found that each daily SSB serving among adult women may be associated with a 16% higher risk of developing EO-CRC.

Also, the study found that each additional SSB serving per day among individuals aged 13–18 years may be linked to a 32% increase in the risk of developing EO-CRC.

Examples of SSBs include soft drinks, pre-packaged fruit drinks, energy drinks, and sports drinks. Sugary drinks are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet.

In fact, from 1977 to 2001, energy intake from SSBs increased by a whopping 135%.

Unique epidemiologic evidence

For this study, the researchers used data from 95,464 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II. This is an ongoing monitoring study of 116,430 U.S. registered nurses, all women, who were aged 25–42 years when they enrolled in 1989.

Every 4 years beginning in 1991, the women in the study reported on what they ate and drank using validated food frequency questionnaires.

In 1998, researchers asked the participants to recall their health status and lifestyle habits as teenagers.

Also, 41,272 of the women reported on what they typically ate and drank as well as on the quantities of these items between 1960 and 1982. They were aged 13–18 years at this point.

The participants also gave information on potentially influential factors, including their family history of bowel cancer, their lifestyle habits, and any regular use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or vitamin supplements.

Over 24 years of monitoring, 109 women developed bowel cancer before the age of 50 years.

The study authors write that their findings “add unique epidemiologic evidence that SSB intake may partly contribute to the rapid increase of CRC in younger adults.”

Notes on the study

It is important for researchers to understand what is behind this increase, said study co-author Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt. He is the clinical director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA.

“It is presumed that exposures early in life are contributing to this rise,” Dr. Meyerhardt told Medical News Today. “Studying exposures that can be prevented is [essential] to getting control of this rising health issue.”

Substituting SSBs with reduced-fat milk or whole milk appears to be beneficial, according to study co-author Dr. Yin Cao. She is an associate professor of surgery at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO.

“In this study,” she told us, “we showed [that] replacing one daily serving (8 oz) of SSBs with an equivalent amount of reduced-fat milk or total milk was associated with a 35–36% lower risk of EO-CRC.”

“During the second half of the 20th century, for which average U.S. per capita soft drink consumption has dramatically increased by ~500%, milk consumption has declined by half. Milk is a good source of calcium, a mineral found to be protective of colorectal cancer.”

“We postulate [that] low milk consumption could be plausibly linked with the increased risk of EO-CRC, and further research on this topic is in the pipeline.”

The researchers point to several limitations of their study. First, they caution that this was an observational study, which can only establish correlation, not cause. They also note that the majority of the participants were white women, so the findings may not apply to men or other ethnic groups.

Even so, the study provides insight into possible actions that public health leaders might take, Dr. Cao explained.

“Particularly in adolescence,” she wrote, “the immature and rapidly growing organs could be more susceptible to exposures that could lead to cancer development.”

“Campaigns, education programs, and interventions targeting the young population to reduce SSB intake and/or replace SSBs with other healthier beverages could help reduce the accrual of time at risk and convert this window of increased susceptibility into an opportunity for better health outcomes later in life.”

Kidney cancer is the eighth most common cancer in adults, with just over 10,100 people diagnosed each year.

Signs and symptoms of kidney cancer can include: blood in your urine; a constant pain in your side, just below the ribs; and a lump or swelling in the kidney area (on either side of the body).

See your General Practitioner (GP) as soon as possible if you experience any of these symptoms. They will examine you and may refer you to a specialist clinic for further tests.

In around half of all cases of kidney cancer, there are no symptoms, and the condition is detected during tests for other unrelated conditions.

The kidneys and cancer
The kidneys are two bean-shaped organs located on either side of the body, just underneath the ribcage. Their main role is to filter out waste products from the blood, in addition to producing urine. Only one of the kidneys is usually affected by cancer.

The human body is made up of billions of cells, which normally grow and multiply in an orderly way, with new cells being created only when and where they’re needed. In cancer, this orderly process goes wrong and cells begin to grow and multiply uncontrollably.

Exactly what triggers this growth is unknown; however, there are certain risk factors that can increase the chances of the condition developing, such as smoking and obesity.

Kidney cancer most frequently affects people over 50 years of age and is more common among men.
Treating kidney cancer

The earlier kidney cancer is diagnosed, the easier it is to treat. How it is treated will depend on the size and spread of the cancer. Surgery to remove the cancerous cells is usually the first course of action.

Unlike most other cancers, chemotherapy isn’t very effective at treating kidney cancer. However, non-surgical treatments are available, such as radiotherapy or targeted therapies. These are most commonly used in the more advanced stages of kidney cancer, when the cancer has spread beyond the kidney.

Preventing kidney cancer
As the causes of kidney cancer aren’t fully understood, it is not possible to fully prevent it.

However, leading a healthy lifestyle may reduce the chances of developing the condition. A combination of a healthy diet and regular exercise will help to avoid becoming overweight or obese, which is a significant risk factor for kidney cancer.

If you are overweight or obese, you can lose weight and maintain a healthy weight by combining regular exercise with a calorie-controlled diet.

The unmistakable taste and smell of coffee — not to mention its ability to perk people up in the morning — have made it one of the world’s most popular beverages.

Better still, observational studies indicate that coffee may protect against cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and certain cancers.

Prospective studies, which follow people over time, have provided evidence that drinking this beverage is safe for most people and is associated with lower mortality rates.

However, a new study suggests that some of the supposed health benefits of coffee for cardiovascular health may have been overblown. The research was limited to white British participants.

As a result of the caffeine that coffee contains, excessive consumption can cause unpleasant symptoms such as tachycardia (a fast resting heart rate) and palpitations.

Drinking coffee can also lead to a moderate, temporary increase in blood pressure.

So it may come as a surprise that regular coffee drinkers either have normal or reduced blood pressure compared with people who do not drink coffee.

One explanation may be that coffee drinkers develop a physiological tolerance for the effects of caffeine.

But a new study suggests that people with a high genetic risk of cardiovascular disease unconsciously reduce how much they drink to avoid unpleasant cardiovascular symptoms.

The research found that individuals with high blood pressure, angina, or arrhythmia drank less caffeinated coffee and were more likely to drink decaffeinated coffee.

Crucially, there was strong evidence that their genetic vulnerability to cardiovascular disease led to their reduced consumption of coffee.

This rules out the alternative explanation that consuming less coffee made them more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.

Researchers at the University of South Australia in Adelaide conducted the study, which appears in The American Journal of Clinical NutritionTrusted Source.

Guided by genetics

“Whether we drink a lot of coffee, a little, or avoid caffeine altogether, this study shows that genetics are guiding our decisions to protect our cardio health,” Professor Elina Hyppönen, who led the research and directs the Australian Centre for Precision Health at the university.

“If your body is telling you not to drink that extra cup of coffee, there’s likely a reason why,” she adds. “Listen to your body — it’s more in tune with your health than you may think.”

In observational studies, this effect could give the false impression that coffee prevents high blood pressure and protects the heart.

In reality, people vulnerable to high blood pressure may simply avoid drinking coffee because, for them, the caffeine is more likely to cause unpleasant symptoms.

The scientists drew on information about 390,435 white British participants aged 39–73 years who are part of a medical and genetic database called UK Biobank.

On recruitment, participants reported their regular coffee consumption. Researchers also measured their blood pressure and heart rate and noted any cardiovascular symptoms.

Participants with high blood pressure, angina, or arrhythmia consumed less caffeinated coffee compared with those without these symptoms.

To determine whether regular coffee consumption caused the symptoms, or whether the symptoms triggered a reduction in coffee consumption, the researchers used a statistical technique called Mendelian randomization.

This technique exploits the random inheritance of genetic variants that increase a person’s risk of a particular outcome later in life — in this case, the association between blood pressure and heart rate with habitual coffee consumption.

Because factors, such as lifestyle or diet, cannot change a person’s genetic sequence, any associations that the researchers discovered must be due to the gene variants rather than any other factors.

When they analyzed the data, it showed that having a particular genetic variant determined how much coffee a person drank.

“What this means is that someone who drinks a lot of coffee is likely more genetically tolerant of caffeine, as compared to someone who drinks very little,” says Prof. Hyppönen.

“Conversely, a noncoffee drinker, or someone who drinks decaffeinated coffee, is more likely prone to the adverse effects of caffeine and more susceptible to high blood pressure,” she adds.

Psychological effects

Medical News Today asked Prof. Hyppönen whether the psychological effects that some people experience when they drink a lot of coffee, such as anxiety and agitation, could also play a role.

“This is not something that we looked at in our study, but any unpleasant sensation that an individual feels in response to coffee consumption is likely to reduce their wish to drink coffee,” said Prof. Hyppönen.

MNT asked Dr. Edo Paz, a doctor atdigital primary care platform K Health, about the effects of drinking too much coffee.

He responded:

“[D]rinking too much coffee can result in headache, anxiety, tremors, and difficulty sleeping. With regards to the heart, in particular, excess coffee intake can result in palpitations and may trigger events in the heart, such as abnormal heart rhythms, in susceptible individuals.”

The problem of reverse causation

The findings of the new research suggest that observational studies that found an association between coffee consumption and better health may have fallen prey to “reverse causation.”

In other words, heart health issues led people to drink less coffee, rather than the other way round.

Prof. Hyppönen said Mendelian randomization studies had cast doubt on other apparent protective effects.

For example, epidemiological studies have led people to infer that moderate alcohol consumption protects against cardiovascular disease, and that having excess weight reduces mortality compared with moderate weight.

“According to [Mendelian randomization] studies, there does not appear to be any benefit for having [excess weight] versus [slim or moderate] weight, with the possible exception for smokers,” she said.

Smoking reduces appetite and hence weight, but it also has links with a wide range of negative effects on health.

“Also for alcohol, [the] evidence suggests linear increases in blood pressure and stroke risk, with no benefit for light alcohol consumption,” she added.

While further studies are necessary using a more diverse population, this study suggests using a considered, personalized approach when promoting high coffee intakes.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer accounted for 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Globally, it is a leading cause of death.

In the United States, an estimated 39.5% of people will receive a cancer diagnosis within their lifetime.

Myths tend to develop around particularly prevalent conditions. It is no surprise, therefore, that people often misunderstand cancer.

“Cancer” is a generic term for a group of diseases that can affect any part of the body. This variety adds fuel to the fire of confusion.

In this article, we hope to dispel some myths and clarify this common and varied group of diseases.

1. Cancer is a death sentence

Cancer is not a death sentence. Despite the sobering statistics quoted above, cancer is not always terminal.

As scientists understand cancer better and develop improved treatments, recovery rates continue to improve.

For instance, in January 2019, an estimated 16.9 million cancer survivors were living in the United States. In the United Kingdom, survival rates have doubled in the last 40 years.

It is also worth noting that survival rates vary significantly depending on the type of cancer. For instance, in the U.K., survival rates for testicular cancer are 98%, whereas survival rates for pancreatic cancer are just 1%.

According to the National Cancer Institute:

“In the United States, the likelihood of dying from cancer has dropped steadily since the 1990s. Now, 5-year survival rates for some cancers, such as breast, prostate, and thyroid cancers, are 90% or better. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers combined is currently about 67%.”

Overall, cancer death rates are slowly declining, although the survival rates of some cancers are increasing more than others. An annual report on the status of cancer in the U.S., which appears in Cancer in 2020, concludes:

“[C]ancer death rates decreased 1.5% on average per year during 2001 through 2017.”

2. Cancer is contagious

This is a myth. Cancer is not contagious. Someone with cancer cannot spread it to others.

However, some sexually transmitted diseases, including human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B and C, can cause cancers in the cervix and the liver. In these cases, an infectious agent causes the cancer, but the cancer itself is not contagious.

As an interesting aside, scientists have documented that cancers in some animals, including Tasmanian devils and dogs, can cause fatal transmissible cancers: devil facial tumor disease and canine transmissible venereal tumor, respectively.

3. Cell phones cause cancer

To date, there is no evidence that cell phones cause cancer. One of the reasons this myth developed is that these devices emit radiofrequency radiation (radio waves), a form of non-ionizing radiation. The body absorbs this radiation.

Scientists know that exposure to ionizing radiation, for instance, X-rays, increases the risk of cancer. However, radiofrequency radiation is non-ionizing radiation, which does not increase cancer risk. The National Cancer Institute writes:

“[A]lthough many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans.”

4. Power lines cause cancer

This is also a myth. The extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields produced by power lines are non-ionizing and, therefore, do not cause cancer.

The American Cancer Society writes:

“Several large studies have looked at the possible effects of ELF magnetic fields on cancer in rats and mice. These studies expose the animals to magnetic fields much stronger than what people are normally exposed to at home […]. Most of these studies have found no increase in the risk of any type of cancer. In fact, the risk of some types of cancer was actually lower in the animals exposed to the ELF radiation.”

However, the American Cancer Society also explains that some studies have found a slight increase in leukemia risk for children who live close to power lines. However, the reasons for this remain unclear.

Medical News Today spoke with Dr. Joel Newman, a consultant hematologist and specialty lead for pathology at East Sussex Healthcare Trust in the U.K. He puts the risk into perspective:

“We don’t have any real evidence that cell phones or power lines cause cancer, and there are many other things that we do daily that put us at a much greater risk than these ever could, including smoking and alcohol consumption.”

5. Artificial sweeteners cause cancer

To date, there is no good evidence that artificial sweeteners increase the risk of developing cancer.

The National Cancer Institute explains why this myth may have arisen:

“Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals.”

However, they explain that further studies “have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.”

Similarly, a study investigating aspartame and cancer, which included data from more than half a million participants, found no links between “aspartame consumption and lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer.”

6. Cancer surgery causes cancer to spread

This is only a partial myth. It is true that cancer surgery can cause the cancer to spread, but this is rare. As the American Cancer Society explains:

“Advances in equipment used during surgery and more detailed imaging tests have helped make this risk very low.”

A related myth indicates that a tumor will grow faster or spread to other parts of the body when exposed to the air. This is untrue.

7. Herbal medicines can cure cancer

There is no evidence that any herbal medicines can cure or treat cancer.

However, some people find certain alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, meditation, and yoga, help with the psychological stress associated with cancer and some of the side effects of cancer treatment.

As the National Cancer points out, just because something is “natural” does not mean it is safe. In some circumstances, herbal supplements can harm a person’s health; they provide a couple of examples:

“[S]ome studies have shown that kava kava, a herb that some people use to help with stress and anxiety, may cause liver damage. And St. John’s wort, which some people use for depression, may cause certain cancer drugs not to work as well as they should.”

It is important that people with cancer speak with a doctor about supplements and vitamins before taking them.

8. Cancer runs in families

Although some cancers are passed on genetically through families, they are the minority of cases: an estimated 3–10% of cancers result from mutations inherited from parents.

Because people are more likely to develop cancer as they age, and people today live longer lives, it is not uncommon for people to have some relatives who develop cancer. This might help explain why this myth persists.

Most cases of cancer are due to a buildup of mutations in genes that accumulate over time. As the American Cancer Society explains:

“Some types of cancer run in certain families, but most cancers are not clearly linked to the genes we inherit from our parents. Gene changes that start in a single cell over the course of a person’s life cause most cancers.”

9. Cancer always comes back

To address this question, MNT spoke with Dr. Collin Vu, a medical oncologist and hematologist at MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, CA. He said:

“Fortunately for all of us, this statement is a myth and entirely not true. The current therapies for cancers are improving to the point where the cure of cancer — that is, treatments that will kill cancer completely — are improving continuously.”

However, he explains that the subject is complicated because “different cancer types have a markedly different ability to be cured, and different cancer types also have different time frames for which a cancer may typically recur. [This] makes it very difficult for patients to know when they may be truly ‘cured’ or when they still have a high risk of cancer recurrence.”

Dr. Vu has great hopes for the future of cancer treatment; he told MNT:

“In the future, with current scientific progress in better treatments for cancer, and improved population awareness of cancer risks and diagnosis, the statement that ‘cancer always comes back’ may become even more of a myth.”

10. There is no cure for cancer

Thankfully, this is also a myth. As medical science delves deeper into the mechanisms behind cancer, treatments steadily grow more effective.

According to Dr. Vu, some cancers, such as testicular and thyroid cancer, have a 60% cure rate. Dr. Vu defines the cure rate as “the population of cancer patients that has the same life expectancy as the general population.”

Breast, prostate, and bladder also have cure rates of around 50%. Dr. Vu concludes:

“As can be seen by the above data, some cancers can be eradicated, but, unfortunately, not all cancers can be cured completely. There is ongoing optimism that cure rates are increasing given the ongoing focus on screening and better treatments for cancer.”

MNT also spoke with Dr. Anton Bilchik, Ph.D., a surgical oncologist, professor of surgery, chief of gastrointestinal research, and chief of medicine at Saint John’s Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA. He also leads with a message of hope:

“It is imperative that patients who are diagnosed with cancer, even at an advanced stage, do not lose hope: there are many effective, novel therapies, as well as more effective surgical techniques. A good example is with the use of modern immunotherapy, up to 40% of patients with stage 4 melanoma are curable, and 50% of patients with stage 4 colon cancer metastatic to the liver can be cured with a combination of chemotherapy and surgery.”

In short: although the battle with cancer is ongoing, science is making significant headway.

Scientists have offered a detailed view of the biochemical pathway surrounding Parkin — a protein that plays a key role in maintaining cellular energy.

The research, which appears in the journal Science Advances, may help scientists develop new treatments for Parkinson’s disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, which can all occur when Parkin is not functioning properly.

Mitophagy

Parkin’s central role is to remove damaged mitochondria, which are the power stations of the cell that are responsible for generating energy. Cellular stress can damage mitochondria.

Damaged or dysfunctional mitochondria tend to accumulate in the cell, and the body needs to clear them away using a process known as mitophagy. This process is essential for cell health and energy production.

Researchers have implicated mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.

A key question for scientists has been how Parkin is able to respond to cellular stress so quickly. The signal for Parkin to do its work appeared to occur after it had already started.

Biochemical pathways

In the present study, the scientists gained a better perspective on the biochemical pathway that signals Parkin to clear away damaged mitochondria.

According to Prof. Reuben Shaw, director of the Salk Cancer Center in La Jolla, CA, and senior author of the study, “our findings represent the earliest step in Parkin’s alarm response that anyone has ever found by a long shot.”

“All the other known biochemical events happen at 1 hour; we have now found something that happens within 5 minutes.”

“Decoding this major step in the way cells dispose of defective mitochondria has implications for a number of diseases.”

Building on their prior research, the scientists searched for proteins that activate in response to the enzyme ULK1, which the enzyme AMPK triggers. They found that Parkin was a prime candidate.

The results were surprising as biochemical pathways are normally very complicated, involving up to 50 different proteins.

The scientists confirmed the findings using mass spectrometry. This process revealed how ULK1 was interacting with Parkin, offering a detailed view of how the various proteins work together.

It is this chain, from AMPK to ULK1 to Parkin, that accounts for the speed with which Parkin can react to cellular stress.

Future treatments?

By drawing a link between Parkin and AMPK, the research may aid in the development of new treatments for various diseases.

For Prof. Shaw, “the big takeaway […] is that metabolism and changes in the health of your mitochondria are critical in cancer, they are critical in diabetes, and they are critical in neurodegenerative diseases.”

“Our finding says that a diabetes drug that activates AMPK, which we previously showed can suppress cancer, may also help restore function in patients with neurodegenerative disease.”

“That is because the general mechanisms that underpin the health of the cells in our bodies are way more integrated than anyone could have ever imagined.”

Sara Johansen/Offset

Humans first drank caffeinated tea more than 4,000 years ago in China. Since then, it has become one of the most popular drinks worldwide, second only to water.

Both green and black teas are brewed from the leaves of the same shrub, Camellia sinensis, but green tea, which is made from unfermented leaves, contains more antioxidants.

Oxidation during the fermentation process of black tea reduces its antioxidant levels.

Several studies have found that green tea inhibits the formation of cancers, lowers high blood pressure, and reduces the risk of heart disease.

However, the molecular mechanism responsible for the effect on blood pressure has been unclear until now.

Scientists at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) and the University of Copenhagen, in Denmark, have found that antioxidants in tea open ion channels and can relax the muscles that line blood vessels.

They report their findings in the journal Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry.

Preventable risk factor

The discovery could guide the design of more effective antihypertensive drugs, which could potentially improve the health of millions of people around the world.

According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, controlling or lowering high blood pressure can help prevent chronic kidney disease, heart attacks, heart failure, and possibly dementia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that almost half of all adults in the United States have hypertension. It estimates that in 2018, the condition played a role in the deaths of nearly half a million people in the country.

The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, estimate that more than 1 billion people worldwide have hypertension.

The new study first shows that two antioxidants in tea, known as catechins, open a protein channel in the membranes of the smooth muscle cells that line blood vessels. This allows positively charged potassium ions to leave the cells.

Channels in nerve and muscle cells maintain voltages across their membranes by allowing negative and positive ions to pass in and out in a controlled way. They are “voltage-gated,” which means that they respond to changes in this voltage by opening or closing.

The researchers found that the catechins in green tea activate a particular type of potassium ion channel, called KCNQ5.

Previous work by some of the same scientists suggests that this protein channel may underlie the antihypertensive effects of several plants used as folk medicines for millennia.

Voltage sensor

For the new study, the researchers used computer modeling and mutated versions of the channel protein to show that the two catechins bind to a section that senses voltage changes.

“This binding allows the channel to open much more easily and earlier in the cellular excitation process,” explains senior study author Prof. Geoffrey Abbott, of the Department of Physiology & Biophysics at the UCI School of Medicine.

In theory, this should make the muscle cells less “excitable” and therefore less likely to contract. They should instead relax, dilating the blood vessel and reducing blood pressure.

To test this theory, Prof. Abbott’s co-authors at the University of Copenhagen measured changes in tension in the walls of arteries from rats. Their findings confirmed that the two catechins from tea relax and dilate arteries by activating the KCNQ5 ion channel.

Milky tea

The authors are confident that adding a dash of milk to black tea does not reduce its antihypertensive effects.

Milky tea, applied directly to cells in the lab, failed to activate their KCNQ5 channels. But this is likely not the case when a person drinks it.

Prof. Abbott explains:

“We don’t believe this means one needs to avoid milk when drinking tea to take advantage of the beneficial properties of tea. We are confident that the environment in the human stomach will separate the catechins from the proteins and other molecules in milk that would otherwise block [the] catechins’ beneficial effects.”

The scientists also discovered that warming green tea to 35°C increased the activation of KCNQ5.

However, lovers of iced tea need not be concerned.

“Regardless of whether tea is consumed iced or hot, this temperature is achieved after tea is drunk, as human body temperature is about 37°C,” says Prof. Abbott. “Thus, simply by drinking tea, we activate its beneficial, antihypertensive properties.”

Electrical activity in the brain

KCNQ5 also exists in the membranes of nerves in the brain, where it helps regulate electrical activity and signal transmission.

People with a disorder called epileptic encephalopathy have a version of the channel protein that does not respond effectively to voltage changes, which leads to frequent seizures.

The study authors point out that catechins can cross the blood-brain barrier, which prevents larger molecules, including some drugs, from entering the brain.

In theory, drugs modeled on catechin molecules could, therefore, help correct the cause of epileptic encephalopathy.

“Discovery of their ability to activate KCNQ5 may suggest a future mechanism to fix broken KCNQ5 channels to ameliorate brain excitability disorders stemming from their dysfunction,” the researchers conclude.

Anna Larson/Offset

For many decades, nutritionists have recommended a balanced diet to provide the body with the proper nutrients to stay healthy. The core components of this diet include vegetables, fruits, grains, proteins, and dairy.

A recent study by researchers at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, MA, provides further evidence for current dietary guidelines and expands on them, finding that consuming at least 2 fruit and 3 vegetable servings on a daily basis may lower the risk of both disease-related death and death from all causes.

The study appears in Circulation, a scientific journal of the American Heart Association (AHA).

Current dietary guidelines

“While groups like the American Heart Association recommend 4–5 servings each of fruits and vegetables daily, consumers likely get inconsistent messages about […] the recommended amount and which foods to include and avoid,” says Dr. Dong D. Wang, M.D., Sc.D., an epidemiologist and nutritionist at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the study.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture published their recommendations in the form of the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

According to this set of guidelines, half of the plate for every meal should contain fruits and vegetables.

However, the guidelines also note that more than 80% of people in the United States do not meet this recommendation and should aim to increase their consumption of nutrient-dense foods.

Participant dietary information

The researchers collected self-reported dietary information from two large cohort studies: the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study (HPFS).

The NHS cohort included registered female nurses between the ages of 30 and 55 years, while the HPFS cohort included males aged 40–75 years with occupations in the health profession. These studies included follow-ups with the participants every 2–4 years to accumulate dietary information over a span of approximately 30 years.

The researchers excluded participants with baseline heart disease, cancer, or diabetes, leaving them with data from 66,719 females and 42,016 males.

They also incorporated data from an additional 26 studies involving a total of 1.9 million participants, which examined the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and death rates.

The high participant numbers and continuous longitudinal assessments provided the team with an extensive collection of data for analysis.

However, it is important to note that the criteria of the two cohorts — occupation and corresponding education — suggest a similar socioeconomic status across the participants, who may have been more likely than other members of the population to have access to a healthy diet. The study does not address the realities and effects of food insecurity.

Nutritional values of fruits and vegetables lower risk of death

The study outcomes showed that an increased intake of fruits and vegetables is associated with a lower risk of death, including death due to cancer, heart disease, or respiratory disease.

Additionally, the researchers saw the lowest risk of death at a threshold of a combined 5 servings, beyond which there was no apparent benefit on risk.

These results point to the nutritional value of these foods. For example, higher consumption of fruits and vegetables increases the intake of potassium and antioxidant activity, which link to lower blood pressure and improved lung function, respectively.

As the data are fully self-reported, there may be discrepancies between the actual and reported intakes. Participants with higher intake, in particular, may have tended to overestimate how many servings they consumed.

This margin of error may blur the defined threshold of 5 servings, so the study authors acknowledge that slightly higher servings (up to 10) could also lead to lowered risk.

This study also expands beyond current guidelines by differentiating among specific groups of fruits and vegetables.

The researchers observed trends with a lowered risk of death for leafy greens and foods rich in vitamin C and beta carotene. Fruits and vegetables that fall into these categories include spinach, kale, carrots, and citrus fruits.

Conversely, they did not identify any trends for fruit juices or starchy vegetables, such as potatoes and peas. One possible reason for the latter is the prominence of canned foods. The canning process may deprive starchy vegetables of their antioxidant properties.

Compared with whole fruits, the fluid form of juices may cause a more rapid elevation of blood glucose and insulin levels, which can increase the risk of disease.

In contrast to the existing guidelines, which include canned foods and juices among the recommended foods and drinks, this study calls for further research on the effects of these items on health.

Continued support for ‘5-a-day’ serving recommendation

Rather than being an interventional study, in which researchers directly implement variables and analyze the effects, this study was observational. As a result, it is not possible to conclude that the trends present in this study indicate a causal relationship.

Regardless, there is plentiful evidence that highlights the benefits of a balanced diet containing plenty of fruits and vegetables. The present conclusions also correspond to findings from similar observational studies on the associations between fruit and vegetable intake and disease.

The findings of this study conform to the overall current dietary guidelines to eat at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Additionally, it provides further insight into the specificities and benefits of fruit and vegetable intake.

Asian female buying some wine at a supermarket

Doctors have warned that people in the United States may be drinking excessively as a way to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a new viewpoint article, two doctors have warned that more people in the U.S. may be turning to alcohol as a way of coping with the “myriad stressors” of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, proposes a series of interventions to try to minimize this behavior and better support people with alcohol use disorder.

Coping strategy

It is well documented that drinking alcohol is one way that people cope with stressful situations. For example, research has shown that in the U.S., people tend to drink more alcohol following terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, if a person has alcohol use disorder, they are more likely to use alcohol to cope with the stress of a traumatic event.

In this context, the current COVID-19 pandemic is a particular cause for concern. The authors of the current article point out that rather than being a single event, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are prolonged over time, potentially exposing people to ongoing trauma.

Further, the pandemic has caused various potential stressors that a person may cope with by drinking alcohol.

As well as the catastrophic effect on people’s health and the loss and grief experienced by many, the pandemic has also disrupted economies and social and cultural life, threatening people’s jobs, disrupting their interpersonal support structures, increasing barriers to health care, and forcing many people into isolation.

Before the pandemic, researchers had noted that people in the U.S. were tending to drink more. This was particularly the case for females.

Recent research suggests that people in the U.S. increased their alcohol consumption in the early phase of the pandemic. This is in line with similar findings from studies in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Alcohol health effects

This matters because well-documented links exist between increased alcohol consumption and adverse health outcomes.

As the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism point out, alcohol consumption can change mood and behavior, damage a person’s heart, liver, and pancreas, increase the risk of several types of cancer, and weaken a person’s immune system.

Research has also linked excessive alcohol consumption to mental health disorders, such as anxiety and depression, which may worsen during the pandemic.

Consequently, it is important to encourage people to find alternative coping strategies in response to the stressors of the pandemic. Effective support should also be available for people experiencing the effects of increased alcohol consumption or people with alcohol use disorder.

Interventions

The authors of the present study offer various suggestions for interventions that may help reduce people’s dependence on alcohol during the pandemic. Other suggestions focus on better preparing clinical services to support people with substance abuse issues.

According to Dr. Shelly F. Greenfield, director of the Alcohol, Drug, and Addiction Clinical and Health Services Research Program at McLean Hospital in Belmont, MA, “[i]ncreasing identification of harmful alcohol use in patients and intervening early are key components of addressing this problem.”

“In addition, recognition of the problem from policymakers could lead to changes in federal regulations — such as we have seen with telehealth — and improvements in access to healthcare,” she notes.

The authors suggest that public health messaging should raise awareness of the potential for increased drinking during the pandemic, as well as giving advice on alternative coping strategies for the stressors of the pandemic.

They also suggest that primary care practitioners should offer increased screening for alcohol use disorder when people contact primary care services.

Technologies, such as telehealth — that enable clinical information to pass between doctors and individuals at a distance — may also be valuable for people who are isolating or where the pandemic has forced a reduction in the enrolment for some face-to-face clinical services.

Finally, the authors highlight that ensuring people have access to health insurance to cover medical treatment costs is crucial. This is particularly important given the number of people who depend on work-place health insurance and the significant number of people who have lost their jobs during the pandemic.

Co-author Dr. Dawn E. Sugarman, a research psychologist in the Center of Excellence in Alcohol, Drugs, and Addiction at McLean Hospital, notes that:

“We hope this article will call attention to the pandemic’s effects on alcohol use and offer mitigating approaches to this under-recognized public health concern.”

1182246174 Bombaert/Getty Images

Over the years, scientists have demonstrated an association between red and processed meats and cancer. However, they are still unpicking the mechanisms that drive this relationship.

The authors of a recent study, which appears in BMC Medicine, argue that at least part of the answer might lie in an immune interaction.

Nutrition and dietary habits play pivotal roles in a wide range of health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

Red meats and processed meats have each received a fair amount of attention in this regard. Both have been implicated in cancer risk, but how they exert their influence is up for debate. As the authors of the latest study explain:

“Although various mechanistic explanations have been proposed, [such as a] high energy/fat diet, N-nitroso, nitrates, nitrites, heme iron, [and] compounds produced by gut microbiome or during cooking, none seems to be specific to red meat or dairy.”

A role for antibodies?

The authors point to tentative evidence that N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) might be a risk factor for colorectal cancer.

Neu5Gc is a carbohydrate, or sugar, present in foods derived from mammals, and it is abundant in red meat and dairy. It occurs at low levels in some fish but is absent from poultry.

Humans cannot synthesize Neu5Gc, but when we consume it, small amounts accumulate on cell surfaces. When immune cells encounter this nonhuman material, it triggers the production of anti-Neu5Gc antibodies. Studies have shown that humans have a wide range of these antibodies.

Scientists have also found evidence that long-term exposure to these antibodies promotes inflammation and cancer in animal models. However, they have yet to identify any clear effect of eating mammalian products on levels of these antibodies.

As these anti-Neu5Gc antibodies travel around the body, they bump into Neu5Gc on cell surfaces, sparking inflammation. Experts believe that this, in turn, exacerbates cancer, because cancer cells tend to have higher levels of Neu5Gc on their surfaces.

In one study, researchers demonstrated an association between levels of circulating Neu5Gc antibodies and colorectal cancer risk. However, the level of antibodies was not associated with red meat intake.

Now, the latest study has set out to unpick the relationship between a person’s diet and their levels of Neu5Gc once and for all.

Diet and Neu5Gc

In the study, a group of scientists — most from Tel Aviv University, in Israel, or the Sorbonne Paris Cité Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center, in Bobigny, France — took data from the NutriNet-Santé survey. This extensive survey conducted in France aims to investigate the complex relationships between nutrition and health.

The authors of the present study took data from 16,149 adults, all of whom had registered a minimum of six dietary records.

Meanwhile, the researchers calculated the amount of Neu5Gc in a wide range of common foods. Using this data, they constructed what they refer to as the “Gcemic index,” which ranks food according to levels of Neu5Gc —specifically, the Neu5Gc content in each food relative to the amount measured in beef.

Next, the researchers analyzed blood samples from 120 participants with at least eighteen 24-hour dietary records; they noted the levels of anti-Neu5Gc antibodies in the serum.

“We found a significant correlation between high consumption of Neu5Gc from red meat and cheeses and increased development of those antibodies that heighten the risk of cancer,” explains corresponding author Dr. Veder Padler-Karavani, of Tel Aviv University.

“For years, there have been efforts to find such a connection, but no one did. Here, for the first time, we were able to find a molecular link thanks to the accuracy of the methods used to measure the antibodies in the blood and the detailed data from the French diet questionnaires.”

Now, combining earlier knowledge and the data provided by the new study, the theory becomes more solid: Consuming mammal products, such as red meat and dairy increases the amount of Neu5Gc on cell surfaces. In turn, this increases the level of circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies.

With an increase in these antibodies comes an increase in inflammation, which might raise the risk of exacerbating certain medical conditions, such as cancer.

It is worth noting that the immune response described above is unlikely to be the only link between red meat and cancer.

The authors also mention other factors, including the high fat content in meat and mutagens — chemical compounds that cause irreversible changes in cellular genetic material — such as heterocyclic amine, which is produced when meat is cooked at high temperatures.

In the future, the researchers hope that their Gcemic index will become a tool to assess the amount of Neu5Gc in a person’s diet. This might help design personalized recommendations for at-risk individuals.

Getty Images

New research reveals how gum disease might exacerbate inflammation elsewhere in the body. The findings help explain associations between gum disease and several other conditions that involve excessive inflammation.

In gum disease, or periodontitis, bacteria in dental plaque provoke an attack by the immune system. This triggers inflammation, which over time, erodes the soft tissue and bone supporting the teeth.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost half of adults over 30 in the United States have periodontal disease.

Research suggests that it contributes to a wide range of other conditions in which chronic inflammation plays a role. The long list includes arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, respiratory disease, and dementia.

However, the mechanism linking these conditions to periodontal disease has been unclear until now.

Experiments by researchers in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Canada, have revealed that gum disease primes blood cells called neutrophils, which then overreact to infection elsewhere in the body.

The neutrophils, which are part of the body’s innate immune defenses, release signaling molecules called cytokines that exacerbate inflammation.

“It’s almost as if these white blood cells are in second gear when they should be in first,” says the study’s senior author, Prof. Michael Glogauer. “The [neutrophils] are much more likely to release cytokines much more quickly, leading to negative outcomes.”

The results appear in the Journal of Dental Research.

Systemic immune response

When the researchers induced periodontal disease in mice, it led to a proliferation of neutrophils in the animals’ bone marrow, suggesting a widespread or “systemic” immune response.

By contrast, mice with peritonitis — an infection of the peritoneum, the membrane lining the abdomen — had increased numbers of neutrophils in their blood close to the site of infection.

However, mice that already had periodontal disease when they developed peritonitis had a significantly greater number of neutrophils at the infection site.

After further investigation, the researchers found that neutrophils from animals with gum disease and peritonitis had molecular markers in their outer membranes indicating they were “primed” to cause inflammation.

However, the mice with peritonitis but not gum disease did not have neutrophils primed in the same way.

To determine whether similar immune changes occur in people, the scientists asked healthy volunteers not to brush or floss their teeth for 3 weeks. This led to gingivitis, a mild form of gum disease.

When the scientists analyzed blood samples from the participants in the lab, they found neutrophils primed to cause inflammation, just like those in their earlier animal experiments.

After the volunteers went back to brushing and flossing their teeth, the neutrophils in their blood returned to their previous, less reactive state.

The authors conclude:

“Together, these results demonstrate that periodontal tissue inflammation has systemic effects that predispose toward an exacerbated innate immune response. This indicates that [neutrophils] can respond synergistically to simultaneous and remote inflammatory triggers and therefore contribute to the interaction between [periodontal disease] and other inflammatory conditions.”

Cytokine storms and COVID-19

The researchers caution that their work had some limitations. In particular, they would like to repeat their experiments in other models of periodontal disease, both in mice and nonhuman primates.

In addition, it remains unclear whether inflammation caused by neutrophils primed in this way contributes to worse outcomes in inflammatory conditions, such as heart disease.

According to one study, COVID-19 may be such a condition. In severe infections, an immune overreaction or “cytokine storm” can lead to vascular collapse, respiratory failure, and problems with other organs, such as the kidneys.

“There is evidence out there that patients with periodontal disease may be much more likely to have negative outcomes with COVID-19,” says Prof. Glogauer. “Neutrophils are the cells that are at prime risk of causing cytokine storms. That’s the exact cell we show is primed in people with periodontal disease.”

A recent article in the journal Medical Hypotheses proposes that screening for periodontal disease could help identify people at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 infections.