Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Extension
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1571
Nutrition and Research Updates
April-June 2007
Vol 29, Issue 2
Go to Table of Contents for this issue
Updated Guidelines for Women's Heart Health
The American Heart Association has released guidelines suggesting that healthcare professionals should focus on women’s lifetime heart disease risk rather than short-term risk. The 2007 Guidelines for Preventing Cardiovascular Disease in Women – published in a special women’s health issue of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association – also include new directions for using aspirin, hormone therapy, and vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease and stroke in women.
The guidelines include a new paradigm for risk assessment based on risk factors and family history, as well as the Framingham risk score. Recommendations include guidelines for lifestyle factors such as physical activity, nutrition and smoking cessation and medical treatment for blood pressure and cholesterol control. Furthermore, guidelines on hormone and aspirin therapy and antioxidant and folic acid supplements have been revised.
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) is the largest single cause of mortality among women, accounting for 38 percent of all deaths among females. The public health impact of CVD in women is not solely related to mortality, as advances in science and medicine allow many women to survive heart disease. For example, in the United States 42.1 million (36.6 percent) women live with CVD and the population at risk is even larger.
In fact, “nearly all women are at risk for CVD, underscoring the importance of a heart-healthy lifestyle in everyone,” the authors wrote. “Some women are at significant risk of future heart attack or stroke because they already have CVD and/or multiple risk factors. These women are candidates for more aggressive preventive therapy and we define them as high risk.”
This 2007 update provides the most current clinical recommendations for preventing CVD in women 20 and older. Highlights of the changes include:
- Recommended lifestyle changes to help manage blood pressure include weight control, increased physical activity, alcohol moderation, sodium restriction, and an emphasis on eating fresh fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products.
- Women should avoid environmental smoke and should not smoke.
- Physical activity recommendations for women who need to lose weight or sustain weight loss have been added – minimum of 60–-90 minutes of moderate-intensity activity (e.g., brisk walking) on most, and preferably all days of the week.
- The guidelines now encourage all women to reduce saturated fat intake to less than 7 to 10 percent of calories.
- Specific guidance on omega-3 fatty acid intake and supplementation recommends eating oily fish at least twice a week, and consider taking a capsule supplement of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) in women with heart disease.
- Hormone replacement therapy and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are not recommended to prevent heart disease in women.
- Antioxidant supplements (such as vitamin E, C and beta-carotene) should not be used for primary or secondary prevention of CVD.
- Folic acid should not be used to prevent CVD – a change from the 2004 guidelines that did recommend it be considered for use in certain high-risk women.
- Routine low dose aspirin therapy may be considered in women age 65 or older regardless of CVD risk status, if benefits are likely to outweigh other risks.
- In addition to recommended lifestyle changes, women at high-risk may need additional pharmacotherapy.
Source: circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.181546
Go to top of this page.
Nutrition Information in Today’s Popular Magazines:
Is it accurate?
Top-circulating magazines are a common source of information for many American consumers. Sometimes, this information may even translate into new lifestyle changes. Given the fact that these publications dedicate a significant portion (up to 6.7% in 2005) of their non-advertising space to food and nutrition, it is important to assess the accuracy of the nutrition information presented. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, nutrition articles in magazine publications saw consistent improvement in quality. Today’s consumers are exposed to far fewer outrageous-claim articles. However, this trend has seemingly leveled off, according to an article published by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
“Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines: January 2004 - December 2005” surveyed 20 popular magazines, targeted at a variety of readers, and ranked them as “Excellent” (90-100%), “Good” (80-90%), “Fair” (70-80%), or “Poor” (< 70%). The rankings, based on the individual critiques of four nutrition and food science experts, examined the factual accuracy, presentation, and recommendations of nutrition articles in the sample of magazines.
Compared to the previous ACSH survey from 2000-2002, fewer publications were given a “Good” ranking (71%, verses 80% in 2000-2002). In general, experts found that short compilation articles fell short in providing accurate nutrition information. Conversely, judges usually found more accurate, well-documented nutrition information in longer, feature articles. Most publications suffered, to some degree, from a lack of appropriate documentation in support of claims or relied heavily on preliminary scientific evidence. The survey also found that magazines which were classified in the “Consumer” category scored significantly higher than those in the “Health” group. While Men’s Fitness was the only “Poor” ranking magazine (72%), the following publications ranked in the top five:
- Consumer Reports (90%)
- Glamour (87%)
- Ladies’ Home Journal (87%)
- Shape (87%)
- Child (86%)
Source: American Council on Science and Health. 2007; acsh.org
Go to top of this page.
Frequent Nut Consumption May Contribute to Lower Weight Gain in Adults
In a prospective study involving 8,865 adult men and women in a Mediterranean population, frequent nut consumption was associated with a reduced risk of weight gain of 11 pounds (5 kg) or more. During a median follow-up period of 28 months, 937 subjects reported weight gain of at least 11 pounds (5 kg.). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status,  and leisure time physical activity and other known risk factors for obesity, subjects who ate nuts at least twice a week showed a 31% (significant) reduced risk of weight gain, compared to subjects who never or almost never ate nuts. Additionally, subjects who never or almost never ate nuts gained an average of nearly one pound (424 g) more than subjects who ate nuts more frequently. However, a significant association between nut consumption with incident overweight/obesity in the cohort was not observed. Thus, the authors of this study conclude, “Frequent nut consumption was associated with a reduced risk of weight gain (11 pounds/5 kg or more). These results support the recommendation of nut consumption as an important component of a cardio protective diet and also allay fears of possible weight gain.”
Source: Obesity, 2007, 15(1):107-16 (January)
Go to top of this page.
Drinking Black Tea May Reduce the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
 Epidemiological and clinical studies published between 1990 and 2004 on black tea consumption and coronary health were identified and reviewed. The most clear evidence for black tea's beneficial effect on health were studies showing that drinking three or more cups of black tea per day reduced the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Links to other health conditions including cancer risk, bone mineral density, mental performance, and risk for anemia were also investigated. The reviewers concluded that consumption of 3 or more cups of black tea per day may reduce the risk of CHD. Limiting consumption to less than 8 cups per day would help to minimize the risk of adverse effects due to excess caffeine consumption. Black tea generally had a positive effect on health.
Sponsorship: The Tea Council. The authors confirm that the sponsors played no role in the writing of this review.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007; 61(1):3-18 (January)
Go to Table of Contents for this issue
|
