Think leisure is a waste? That may not bode well for your mental health

 Feeling like leisure is wasteful and unproductive may lead to less happiness and higher levels of stress and depression, new research suggests.

In a series of studies, researchers examined the effects of a common belief in modern society: that productivity is the ultimate goal and time's a-wasting if you're just having fun.

People who most strongly agreed with this belief not only enjoyed leisure less, but also reported poorer mental health outcomes, said Selin Malkoc, co-author of the study and associate professor of marketing at Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business.

"There is plenty of research which suggests that leisure has mental health benefits and that it can make us more productive and less stressed," Malkoc said.

"But we find that if people start to believe that leisure is wasteful, they may end up being more depressed and more stressed."

One bright side: Some skeptical people could enjoy fun activities if leisure was part of a larger goal, and not an end in itself.

"If leisure can be framed as having some kind of productive goal, that helps people who think leisure is wasteful get some of the same benefits," said study co-author Rebecca Reczek, professor of marketing at Ohio State.

The study was published online Aug. 21, 2021 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

In one study, 199 college students rated how much they enjoyed a variety of leisure activities and completed assessments that measured their levels of happiness, depression, anxiety and stress.

They were also asked how much they agreed with five statements assessing the degree to which they believed leisure is wasteful (such as "Time spent on leisure activities is often wasted time.")

Results showed that the more the participants believed leisure to be wasteful, the less they enjoyed leisure activities.

That was true whether the leisure activity was active (exercising) or passive (watching TV), social (hanging out with friends) or solitary (meditating).

In addition, the more they thought leisure was wasteful, the lower their levels of happiness and the higher their levels of depression, anxiety and stress.

In one study, 302 online participants were asked what they did to celebrate Halloween a few days after the holiday in 2019. Some of the activities they could choose from were fun for their own sake, like going to a party. Others served a larger goal, such as taking your kids out trick or treating.

The participants were asked to rate how much they enjoyed their Halloween experience.

Results showed that those who thought leisure was more wasteful reported less enjoyment of activities, like parties, that were only about the fun.

"But those who participated in fun activities that fulfilled responsibilities, like trick or treating with your kids, didn't see such a reduction in how much they enjoyed their Halloween," said study co-author Gabriela Tonietto, an assistant professor of marketing at the Rutgers Business School.

The negative view of leisure is not just an American issue. One study, which compared people in the United States, India and France, found that the French were less likely than those in the U.S. and India to believe leisure was wasteful - as is consistent with cultural stereotypes. But for those in France who did disdain leisure, the bad effects were the same.

"We live in a global society and there are people everywhere that hear the same messages about how important it is to be busy and productive," Reczek said.

"And once you believe that, and internalize the message that leisure is a waste, our results suggest you're going to be more depressed and less happy, no matter where you live."

The researchers were struck by how the negative views of leisure affected enjoyment of anything fun, no matter the situation or how short the leisure activity was.

In one study, college student participants were asked to watch a short funny cat video in the middle of other parts of an experiment. Some read articles beforehand that touted leisure as a way to manage stress and increase energy. Even then, the same effects persisted.

"These are students who are coming into the lab to answer surveys, which can be boring. In the middle of that we give them a funny video to watch, which you would expect would be a nice break - and even then, some participants didn't enjoy it as much," Malkoc said.

"They had no way to use the time more productively. We were giving them a break from other, more boring activities. And still, those who believe leisure is wasteful didn't think watching the videos was as fun as others did."

The study showed it is not easy to change people's beliefs about the value of leisure. So a different approach may be needed, the researchers said.

For those who believe leisure is wasteful, "it may be helpful to think about the productive ways that individual leisure activities can serve their long-term goals," Tonietto said.

In other words, connect each leisure activity to something you want to accomplish, she said.

"Find ways to make fun activities part of a larger goal in your life," Malkoc added. "Think about how it is productive, instrumental and useful."

Source: ScienceDaily

What happens in your brain when you 'lose yourself' in fiction

 If you count yourself among those who lose themselves in the lives of fictional characters, scientists now have a better idea of how that happens.

Researchers found that the more immersed people tend to get into "becoming" a fictional character, the more they use the same part of the brain to think about the character as they do to think about themselves.

"When they think about a favorite fictional character, it appears similar in one part of the brain as when they are thinking about themselves," said Timothy Broom, lead author of the study and doctoral student in psychology at The Ohio State University.

The study was published online recently in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

The study involved scanning the brains of 19 self-described fans of the HBO series "Game of Thrones" while they thought about themselves, nine of their friends and nine characters from the series. (The characters were Bronn, Catelyn Stark, Cersei Lannister, Davos Seaworth, Jaime Lannister, Jon Snow, Petyr Baelish, Sandor Clegane and Ygritte.)

Participants reported which "Game of Thrones" character they felt closest to and liked the most.

"Game of Thrones" was a fantasy drama series lasting eight seasons and concerning political and military conflicts between ruling families on two fictional continents. It was ideal for this study, Broom said, because it attracted a devoted fan base and the large cast presented a variety of characters that people could become attached to.

One of the key findings involved participants in the study who scored highest on what is called "trait identification." In a questionnaire they completed as part of the study, these participants agreed most strongly with statements like "I really get involved in the feelings of the characters in a novel."

"People who are high in trait identification not only get absorbed into a story, they also are really absorbed into a particular character," Broom said. "They report matching the thoughts of the character, they are thinking what the character is thinking, they are feeling what the character is feeling. They are inhabiting the role of that character."

For the study, the participants' brains were scanned in an fMRI machine while they evaluated themselves, friends and "Game of Thrones" characters. An fMRI indirectly measures activity in various parts of the brain through small changes in blood flow.

The researchers were particularly interested in what was happening in a part of the brain called the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vMPFC), which shows increased activity when people think about themselves and, to a lesser extent, when thinking about close friends.

The process was simple. While in the fMRI, participants were shown a series of names -- sometimes themselves, sometimes one of their nine friends, and other times one of the nine characters from "Game of Thrones." Each name appeared above a trait, like lonely, sad, trustworthy or smart.

Participants simply said "yes" or "no" to whether the trait described the person while the researchers simultaneously measured activity in the vMPFC portion of their brains.

As expected, the vMPFC was most active when people were evaluating themselves, less active when they evaluated friends, and least active when they evaluated "Game of Thrones" characters.

But for those who were high in trait identification, the vMPFC was more active when they thought about the fictional characters than it was for participants who identified less with the characters. That brain area was especially active when they evaluated the character they felt closest to and liked the most.

The findings help explain how fiction can have such a big impact on some people, said Dylan Wanger, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State.

"For some people, fiction is a chance to take on new identities, to see worlds though others' eyes and return from those experiences changed," Wagner said.

"What previous studies have found is that when people experience stories as if they were one of the characters, a connection is made with that character, and the character becomes intwined with the self. In our study, we see evidence of that in their brains."

Source: ScienceDaily

Perceptions of supernatural beings reveal feelings about good and bad in humans

 What transpires in comedies and cartoons when a character has a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other is not far off from people's perceptions of the real world, finds a new study from the University of Waterloo.

Intended to illustrate the characters' decision-making dilemma with comedic results, the moral character and motives of the supernatural beings are obvious. And people have similar expectations when it comes to individuals they see as good or bad.

The researchers explored expectations about how good and evil individuals respond to requests. The researchers were interested in understanding why movies and folktales often depict the devil and demons as eager to grant accidental requests, whereas angels are not depicted this way.

Their study indicates that people's beliefs about good and evil characters are influenced by their views of ordinary humans.

"Our results suggest people expect good agents will be sensitive to intentions behind requests whereas they expect evil individuals will be relatively insensitive to these intentions," said Ori Friedman, developmental psychology professor at Waterloo and lead author of the study. "These findings shape people's expectations about requests directed both to regular humans and to supernatural agents."

The study shows that people have distinct ideas of how being good or bad influences the decisions of others. People assume that evil individuals are indifferent about anything that doesn't directly impact their own aims.

These findings support previous research in suggesting that at least some of people's everyday beliefs about supernatural beings could be based on their views of humans.

"One aspect of seeing someone as evil might be that we expect that person to put less emphasis on the intentions of others, and instead focus more on the outcome of people's actions," says Brandon Goulding, a PhD candidate in developmental psychology and co-author of the study. "Whereas we think that a good person will also consider what someone meant to do, and weigh that against what they actually did."

Researchers investigated people's expectations about good and evil agents with five experiments. In the study, 2,231 participants read short stories about a protagonist's request to either a human or supernatural being and rated the likelihood the request would be granted. When the request was directed to someone good, ratings depended on whether the requester actually understood what they were requesting. Evil individuals were expected to grant requests just as often when they were confused and didn't reflect the requester's intentions.

"This research tells us something very interesting about how people view good and evil, which is that people don't just think that evil agents focus exclusively on causing harm. Instead, people relate evil to being indifference and to not caring about what people want," Friedman said. "It also suggests that people think moral goodness is about more than producing good outcomes. People also see moral goodness as being connected with caring about what people want and intend."

Source: ScienceDaily

Through my eyes: How lockdown anxiety with a newborn broke me

I walked out of the hospital on March 17, 2020, having just given birth to my beautiful daughter the day before.

My husband and I rounded the corner and encountered a woman smoking a cigarette. “Ooh, cute, can I have a look?” she said, peering at my baby. “No, thanks,” we replied and kept on walking.

I declined her request because she was a stranger and had a cigarette in her hand, not because I was afraid of COVID-19. The truth is, it wasn’t really on my radar then.

But I’m one of the lucky moms. My daughter was born just on the right side of the chaos, when the realities of the virus hadn’t yet upended our lives.

She was born on a Monday, and by that Friday, the Prime Minister announced that schools would close in advance of the first national lockdown here in the United Kingdom.

Holding my 4-day-old baby in my arms, I learned that I would be homeschooling my 5-year-old son for some undefined amount of time.

Life as an unpaid teacher

How do you teach a 5-year-old how to form letters and write sentences when you have a newborn in your arms? How do you muster enough mental energy to convince your wonderful but very bouncy son to sit down and do the work when you’ve only had a cumulative 8 hours of sleep in the past 4 days?

While I was giving birth, I didn’t imagine I would be asking myself these questions a mere 4 days later. I was concerned with how I would bond with my daughter and physically recover from the beautiful but taxing job of bringing life into this world.

Bonding? Sitting around and snuggling your newborn? Sleep when the baby sleeps? (That one always irked me anyway.) Laughable! I found myself in one of the most impossible situations during what is one of the most vulnerable times in a woman’s life.

Desperate times

There is a hub run by the New York Times called “Primal Scream.” They have a hotline set up for mothers homeschooling their children where they can just vent. Listen to the desperation in their voices. Their voices are mine.

In the early days, while my body was knitting itself back together after giving birth, and while my only pressing concern should have been whether my daughter was feeding well and thriving, I also needed to be teacher, peer, lunch lady, playmate… everything for my son, who couldn’t even go to the playground.

It was relentless.

There are things I can teach him with bleary eyes, such as handwriting and mathematics, but I cannot be a kid his age and help him learn the social skills that are so important at 5 years.

What is more, he would not sit still. (Do any 5-year-olds?) The constant jumping, running, and bouncing set my nerves on edge, and my protective motherly instincts went into overdrive to keep my daughter safe.

Anxiety intrudes

During the first year of my son’s life, I can remember experiencing anxiety.

I later learned that this is common due to the brain going wild with the instinct to keep your baby safe. This happened again after my daughter’s birth, but with the pandemic bearing down on me, the worry about my children’s safety sat on my chest like a hippopotamus.

I would tell my husband that I was experiencing anxiety and intrusive images, but I realized I wasn’t adequately explaining it to him. One day I did, and his jaw dropped. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

What I communicated to my husband: “I’m anxious about our son’s safety while I’m walking with him and our daughter alone.”

The event that happened in real life: While I was walking around our neighborhood with my kids, my son skipped ahead of me. To ensure he stayed safe, I called out to him to stop while I caught up with my daughter in the stroller, which we did.

What happened in my head: As my son ran ahead, and I worried for his safety, a truck came from out of nowhere and crashed into him at 60 miles an hour.

My brain played this image in front of my eyes as if it were actually happening. And it would sit with me for hours or days afterward. My body didn’t know the difference between daymare and reality — the cortisol, the worry, the trauma was real for me.

A trip to the hospital

These uninvited slideshows of horror would play in my mind daily. It was insidious because they would materialize from out of nowhere anytime I thought about potential dangers.

Source: Medical News Today 

Can we eat fish sustainably and maintain health benefits?

 As many people try to improve their diet by cutting down on red meat, fish seems like a good healthy option. However, the sustainability of eating fish has increasingly been called into question. Here, we investigate the health claims and arguments for and against eating fish and explore some alternatives.

Some people consider fish to be a healthy alternative to red meat. It is a good source of protein, omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and several minerals and vitamins.

Omega-3 fatty acids, which, as research has shown, can have a positive effect on heart health, are present in high concentrations in oily fish, such as salmon and mackerel.

Research indicates these fatty acids can also promote greater blood flow to the brain, which is vital for delivering oxygen essential for brain function. And one study has suggested that omega-3s may have a role in healthy brain agingTrusted Source.

Eating fish may also combat inflammation: a recent study found that regular consumption of fish helped reduce the incidence of chronic inflammatory conditions and may even benefit the immune systemTrusted Source.

Medical News Today spoke to Kate Cohen, MS, RDN, for the Ellison Clinic at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, to find out the science behind some of these claims.

“Fish and shellfish are the main sources in our diet of the polyunsaturated fats, DHA [docosahexaenoic acidTrusted Source] and EOA [eicosapentaenoic acid], which are associated with brain development in pregnancy and linked to a number of potential overall health benefits,” she said.

But not all fish are equal. “Cold-water fish have a higher amount of fat to keep the fish warm in icy waters, but this also loads the fish with beneficial omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids,” she added.

Choose carefully

However, there are some concerns about the high levels of mercuryTrusted Source in some of these cold-water fish. Suitable options with high concentrations of beneficial fatty acids and low mercury levels are wild salmon, sardines, rainbow trout, and Atlantic mackerel.

And what of white fish and shellfish? Lower in calories than oily fish, they do not contain high levels of omega-3 but are a good source of lean protein and many minerals and vitamins, such as iron, zinc, and vitamins A, B12, and D.

Cohen recommended including fish in your diet 2–3 times a week to get the benefits, but advised that you “rotate your fish. Your body needs all the different vitamins and minerals available in fish, so don’t stick with just one kind.”

Is wild-caught fish sustainable?

Shocking images of waste, environmental pollution, and bycatch (catching a species of fish or marine species unintentionally), including marine mammals, turtles, and seabirds, have led many to question whether the health benefits of fish and seafood are worth the environmental costs.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) regulates fisheries in the U.K., with organizations such as Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch fulfilling a similar role in the United States. The MSC refutes the claim that there is no such thing as sustainable fishing, outlining three principles for sustainable fisheries: sustainable fish stocks, minimizing environmental impacts, and effective fisheries management.

The MSC states that “fish stocks can recover and replenish if they are managed carefully for the long-term.” Its website includes a list of fish that are sustainable when they carry the MSC label.

In the U.S., the Washington-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) goes further, giving a regularly updated list of fish that are both healthy — in terms of contaminant levels — and sustainable. Similar information is listed on the U.S. government’s Fishwatch.

Josep Lloret, Director of Oceans and Human Health Chair at the University of Girona, Spain, agreed that sustainable fishing is possible but challenging: “Artisanal (small scale) fisheries are seen as the most sustainable, but even these have their own environmental footprints, such as the impact on vulnerable species due to selectivity issues.”

“Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be effective if they are well implemented and well managed. However, many MPAs around the world lack a proper management plan,” he added.

There is some good news. According to the European Environment Agency, there are signs of recovery in the North-East Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea.

However, it states that further collective action is necessary to regain healthy commercial fish and shellfish populations in European waters. In the U.S., despite overfishing, some stocks are starting to recover because of the careful management of fisheries.

What is the alternative?

So, if wild fish stocks cannot supply the amount of fish needed for optimal intake of fatty acids, where can the fish originate?

An obvious alternative to wild-caught fish is fish farming, or aquaculture. There are no issues with bycatch, the fish is cheaper to buy, supply is more reliable, and there is less effect on wild habitats. But is farmed fish as good for us as wild-caught fish?

“It really comes down to what the fish eats and its environment,” said Cohen. “Farmed salmon, for example, can have about 40% more calories than wild salmon and about 50% more fat — which is a pretty huge difference.”

She added that “there is also a greater risk of contaminants in farm-raised fish that are kept in small, enclosed pens, as well as antibiotic exposure from the farms’ attempts at disease prevention.”

There is also concern about the food that these farmed fish eat.

Josep Lloret commented: “Farmed fish have several problems, including the need for forage fish to feed them (then the forage fish get overexploited), compared to land, we raise ‘lions’ at sea (predators, such as sea bass, that consume a lot of forage fish), [and there is] impact on sea bottoms because of pollution.”

Pollution concerns

One way of minimizing this pollution is by combining different types of aquaculture, as outlined in a 2020 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

If fish farmers grow an extractive species, such as filter-feeding mussels, near fish pens, the mussels remove the waste from the water. And those bivalves are a nutrient-rich, low-mercury seafood themselves.

Organizations, such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, promote responsible aquaculture and provide certification for farms that meet their standards through independent inspections.

And fish farming organizations are looking at alternatives to fish-based feeds, such as soy, canola, and seaweed, which provide the omega-3s that fish need.

Fish without the fish

But what about those who do not eat fish — either because they dislike it, have allergies, or are vegetarian or vegan for ethical reasons?

According to Cohen, fish are the best source of DHA and EPA. Other marine foods, such as algae or seaweed, are an option, and omega-3s are also present in grass-fed beef and eggs from chickens that have flaxseed in their diet.

Vegetarian and vegan alternatives to fish are available and do not have sustainability issues, but do these have the same nutritional benefits as real fish?

Food producer Novish, which makes plant-based fish sticks, nuggets, and burgers, states that its products, now available through multinational seafood chain Nordsee, contain no soy or artificial additives. And to give the fishy taste, the brand flavors its foods with seaweed and algae.

But Cohen advised consumers buying fish alternatives to check carefully: “Try to avoid plant-based alternatives to fish that involve multiple mysterious ingredients since it’s ultimately just processed food.“

The Good Food Institute Europe (GFI), an organization that advocates alternative proteins, has launched a sustainable seafood initiative to promote plant-based, cultivated, and fermentation-derived alternatives to fish.

It states that “companies are able to turn plant ingredients into end products that create the sensory experience and nutritional profile of conventional seafood.”

Source: Medical News Today

COVID-19: Fewer deaths in US states with stronger controls

 

• A study has found a clear correlation between stronger state interventions to control the spread of COVID-19 and fewer deaths from the disease.
• Being neighbors with a state that imposed weaker interventions, however, tended to cancel out the benefits of strong control measures.
• Travel between jurisdictions with tough regulations and those with weaker regulations may partly explain the effect.
• The scientists behind the study believe that a more uniform federal response to the pandemic would have saved more lives.

Around the time the World Health Organization (WHO)Trusted Source declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, countries such as China, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and some European nations were already imposing nationwide control measures.

By contrast, throughout 2020, the United States government implemented no federal interventions to control the spread of the disease.

Rather, individual states decided what control measures to take and when, such as restricting public gatherings, closing schools, and imposing stay-at-home orders.

Researchers have now investigated how effective these state-level “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) were between March 2020 and March 2021.

They have reported their findings, which have not yet gone through the peer-review process, in a preprint on medRxiv.

The research was a collaboration between the School of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, PA, and the Department of Statistics and Data Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA.

Unfathomable loss

More than 620,000 people have died with COVID-19 in the U.S.

“In the face of this unfathomable loss, there exists an opportunity to understand how specific NPIs may affect transmission of COVID-19 in the United States,” the authors write.

They first developed a system to score the stringency of measures in five categories:

• stay-at-home orders
• nonessential business restrictions
• indoor gathering bans
• restaurant/bar restrictions
• mask/face covering mandates

They gleaned information about control measures and how they evolved over time from the state governments’ and governors’ websites of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Their analysis revealed an association between stronger statewide interventions and fewer deaths, though it took at least 2 weeks before new measures had an impact on case numbers.

“Our data clearly demonstrates a negative correlation between NPI scores and COVID-19 deaths, where states with more NPI had less COVID-19 deaths,” said senior author Seema S. Lakdawala, Ph.D., associate professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA.

“Based on this, it is my opinion that a uniform federal response would have saved lives and set a standard of minimum NPI amongst states,” she told Medical News Today.

Possible effects of travel

Surprisingly, neighboring states tended to have similar trajectories in their case numbers over this 12-month period, even if the strength of their interventions differed.

“We discovered that some groups of states located geographically close to one another — such as in the Midwest — had similar patterns in case counts, despite the fact that their mitigation strategies were different,” says Rebecca Nugent, Ph.D., professor of statistics at Carnegie Mellon and co-author of the study.

The researchers believe that similarities in climate or demographics between neighboring states, or travel across state borders, may explain this.

“Our study did not examine interstate travel. However, we did observe that neighboring states had similar COVID-19 case curves even when the NPI restrictions were different,” said Prof. Lakdawala.

“This could have been due to interstate travel or similar climates,” she added.

She said this suggests that neighboring states should coordinate their control measures to minimize case numbers in future outbreaks.

A 2020 studyTrusted Source found that inconsistent control measures between counties and states may encourage people to travel farther in order to attend church or go to a gym, for example.

This increased travel from jurisdictions with a high incidence of COVID-19 may lead to a rise in case numbers over the border in jurisdictions with fewer control measures in place.

“In the most severe cases, individuals not complying with policies by traveling to neighboring jurisdictions can create epidemics when the outbreak would otherwise have been contained,” write the authors of the 2020 study.

Source: Medical News Today

High fat diet, gut bacteria, and heart disease: Exploring the connection

 

• A high fat diet disrupts the inner workings of the gut, and this may contribute to cardiovascular disease risk, according to a recent study.
• The researchers investigated the link between greasy diets, gut microbes, and the risk of developing heart diseases in mice.
• The findings may shed light on the exact mechanism through which high fat diets increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases — and how to prevent these negative outcomes.

A high fat diet, such as one that includes plenty of fast food, increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. This type of diet interferes with normal functioning in the gut and promotes the growth of harmful microbes.

In addition, gut microbes convert chemicals in fatty foods into a harmful metabolite that promotes atherosclerosis — a disorder in which the formation of plaques narrows the arteries.

Until recently, scientists were unsure of the exact mechanism through which gut microbes caused heart diseases. Now, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, TN, have set out to explain this phenomenon.

Their findings appear in the journal Science.

Diet, microbiota, and heart disease

As the World Gastroenterology Organisation explains, the food we eat has complex interactions with the gut, including its microbiota.

The gut microbiota plays an important role in human health and the prevention of disease. As a result, changes in its regular functioning may play a part in some medical conditions, such as irritable bowel syndromeTrusted Source, obesityTrusted Source, and cardiovascular diseasesTrusted Source.

Before now, scientists had often wondered about the link between the intestines, gut microbes, and health outcomes.

Dr. Mariana Byndloss and her team at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center suggest answers to this puzzle.

Their research in mice reveals that chronic exposure to a high fat diet damages the intestinal epithelium and causes low grade inflammation. It also shows that a high fat diet interferes with the energy-generating functions of the mitochondria.

Dr. Byndloss told Medical News Today that her team’s research was inspired by a previous study that showed the negative effect of high fat diets on the gut and the gut microbiota.

“[Based on previous studies], we hypothesized that the damage to the intestinal mucosa caused by a high fat diet could be driving negative changes to the gut microbiota, including expansion of harmful bacteria (e.g., Enterobacteriaceae) and promoting disease,” she said.

“Our research is finding that the host cells, specifically the intestinal epithelium, play a crucial role in modulating microbiota function, and can ‘turn on’ or ‘turn off’ metabolic pathways in the microbes that will directly affect risk for certain diseases,” Dr. Byndloss added.

This supports previous studies that show that a healthy intestinal epithelium is important in supporting beneficial microbes and maintaining intestinal health.

Dr. Byndloss stressed the need for a complete understanding of the relationship between human hosts and gut microbes.

She explains, “Only by fully understanding the relationship between the host — us — and gut microbes during health and disease are we going to be able to design therapies that will be effective in controlling obesity and obesity-associated outcomes like cardiovascular disease.”

Testing hypotheses 

The scientists employed animal models in testing their hypotheses. First, they noticed that in high fat diets, gut microbiota converted dietary choline to trimethylamine. This was further converted to trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) by the liver.

TMAO alters cholesterol metabolism, leading to the formation of plaque deposits in the arteries — which results in atherosclerosis.

Next, the team noted that a high fat diet disrupted the regular functions of the mitochondria, leading to increased oxygen and nitrate production. Consequently, these gases fueled the growth of potentially disease-causing Enterobacteriaceae microbes, such as Escherichia coliTrusted Source.

These findings confirmed the researchers’ hypotheses about the role of high fat diets on disease outcomes. It also explained precise mechanisms through which these diseases might occur.

And in a key finding, the researchers demonstrated that after treatment with the drug 5-aminosalicylic acid, normal mitochondria oxygen and nitrate levels were restored. Furthermore, the drug also slowed the increase in circulating TMAO in the animal models.

While these results are intriguing, the researchers acknowledge that their study had limitations. First, they conducted their research in mouse models, not human participants. Second, the study did not show an increase in cardiovascular disease. This is because it required specific mouse lines that were unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, there are plans for follow-up studies to demonstrate that an increase in TMAO due to a high fat diet directly promotes atherosclerosis and cardiovascular diseases.

Dr. Byndloss and her team also plan to explore the role of the host-microbe relationship in the development of other diseases. And their first area of interest might be colorectal cancer.

Until then, they are pleased that their study has been able to demonstrate how dietary choices may be promoting the survival of harmful microbes in the gut.

Source: Medical News Today

Sleep apnea may almost double the risk of sudden death

 

• Obstructive sleep apnea has become a worldwide health concern.
• Sleep apnea has associations with an increased risk of sudden and cardiovascular-related deaths.
• Future research should focus on decreasing and preventing this serious sleep condition.

Obstructive sleep apnea has become a globally prevalent health concern. Recent literature estimates that more than 1 billion individualsTrusted Source experience this chronic sleep disorder.

A study by Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, which appears in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, found that those who receive a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea are at a significantly greater risk of dying suddenly than those who do not have the condition.

The word apnea means “without breath.” During obstructive sleep apnea, there is a reduction or complete blockage of airflow during sleep. This sleep disturbance manifests itself in various ways, including excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, heavy snoring, and non-refreshing sleep.

Serious consequences of sleep apnea

While these symptoms can potentially affect a person’s quality of life, they can also have even more serious consequences.

Researchers at Penn State performed a systematic review of the literature and identified 22 studies focusing on obstructive sleep apnea, cardiac death, and sudden death. The team analyzed the combined data of these studies by meta-analysis.

The quantitative analysis included a combined total of over 42,000 individuals across the world. The mean age of participants was 62 years old, and 64% were men.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals with obstructive sleep apnea were approximately twice as likely to experience sudden death than those who did not have the sleep condition. The study also identified that obstructive sleep apnea resulted in a nearly twofold risk of cardiovascular death that increased with age.

According to Dr. John S. Oh, assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and one of the study authors, many patients do not realize the seriousness of an apnea diagnosis.

Timely diagnosis and treatment

In an interview with Medical News Today, Dr. Ryan Soose, director of the UPMC Sleep Division, said: “We’ve known for a long time that untreated sleep apnea patients are more likely to develop high blood pressure, heart disease, and a number of other health conditions. But the risk of sudden death reported in this study is eye-opening and makes a timely diagnosis and treatment even more pressing.”

The effects of the nervous systemTrusted Source on the human sleep cycle may explain the association between sleep apnea and the increased rate of sudden death.

Because of the intermittent lack of oxygen that people with sleep apnea experience, the central nervous system may be over-aroused to increase airflow. In turn, this can cause increases in both the systolic and diastolic blood pressure of an individual.

In addition, someone with sleep apnea will experience oxidative stressTrusted Source, which can contribute to an imbalance of antioxidants in the body. This imbalance can damage cells and speed up the aging process, causing numerous health problems over time.

In a podcast, Dale Coller, DO, from Holland Hospital Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine in Michigan, OH, has commented on the serious stressors resulting from obstructive sleep apnea.

“Every time [the throat] closes off, it’s very similar to if someone is being choked,” Coller explains. “This can happen hundreds of times in one night, causing the person stress and fragmentation of their sleep.”

Additional research needed

“Providing accessible and affordable treatments for populations with [obstructive sleep apnea] may ultimately reduce adverse health outcomes for these individuals,” added co-author Emily Heilbrunn.

The Penn State researchers noted some study limitations.

Because the research involved 22 separate studies, factors other than obstructive sleep apnea may have affected the data in each study.

Also, although the meta-analysis included studies from North America, Australia, Europe, Asia, and South America, there were no studies from Africa. The authors note that more research is needed to determine if the results from this study apply to African populations.

In addition, they stress the need for treatments and interventions related to decreasing and eventually preventing obstructive sleep apnea across the globe to optimize survival and increase a person’s quality of life.

Source: Medical News Today

How can pharma companies ensure equitable vaccine distribution?

 

• A new paper asks: “what are the obligations of pharmaceutical companies in a global health emergency?”
• The article notes that a disorganized, ad hoc approach is hampering the world’s efforts to distribute vaccines worldwide equitably.
• The authors of the paper present four principles that should steer the response to pandemics, such as the current one, as well as four approaches for achieving these principles.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there have been more than 207 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 4.3 million deaths from the disease.

Although there are vaccines that can reduce the risk of developing COVID-19, getting the global population vaccinated is a monumental task.

According to Our World in Data, just 31.7% of the world’s population has received a single vaccine dose, while only 23.7% of people worldwide are fully vaccinated. In low income countries, a scant 1.3% of individuals have received a single vaccine dose.

These numbers seem to contradict a commitment to vaccine distribution expressed in a recent joint statement from the Gates Foundation and major pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson.

A paper that appears in The LancetTrusted Source seeks to identify the obstacles standing in the way of the successful, comprehensive, and equitable global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. It also offers recommendations for doing better in the next worldwide pandemic.

Moral obligation

The paper begins with the statement: “During a global health emergency, everyone is morally required to help to combat the disease.”

Bioethicist Dr. L. Syd M Johnson of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, NY, explained to Medical News Today that “[w]e usually think of moral agents as individuals, but it makes sense to also think of organizations as moral agents with moral obligations.”

Dr. Johnson, who was not involved in writing the paper, said that organizations have a unique ability to contribute to the public good: “When we are talking about global problems like a worldwide pandemic, the actions of single individuals cannot have significant impact, but the actions of organizations — including governments and corporations — can.”

“The pharmaceutical companies who make COVID-19 vaccines are uniquely positioned to ensure fair, just access to those vaccines, and as collective moral agents, they have a moral obligation to do so,” Dr. Johnson also noted.

However, adjunct professor Dr. Timothy Mackey, of UC San Diego’s global health program in the Department of Anthropology, told MNT: “I don’t believe there is consensus about what exactly would constitute a moral or ethical obligation for equitable vaccine access and distribution.”

Dr. Mackey, who also was not involved in The Lancet paper, has called for a more equitable means of distributing vaccines.

An unsuccessful worldwide response

In general, the paper’s authors assert that the primary issue preventing a more successful response to COVID-19 is the improvised, uncoordinated nature of the response so far. They describe the situation this has created:

It is not helping, either, that there are so many vaccines in use in different countries, each with its advocates and supporters. The WHO currently has approved seven vaccines for use, and that does not represent all the vaccines deployed in different parts of the world, nor are all of them equally effective.

“Conversations about access would likely be different if there was a gold standard treatment developed for COVID-19,” said Dr. Mackey.

Principles and recommendations

The paper presents four principles that should govern responsible parties’ moral obligations. The authors note they are all equally important, writing that “[a]ny decision to give greater weight to some principles rather than others is inherently controversial.”

The four principles are:

1. “optimizing vaccine production”
2. “fair distribution”
3. “sustainability”
4. “accountability”

The paper also presents four possible approaches for achieving these goals, including:

1. Tiered pricing: “Pharmaceutical companies distribute vaccines on the basis of tiered pricing, charging more to wealthy nations and less or even nothing for low income countries.”
2. Global public goods: “Pharmaceutical companies voluntarily waive their patent rights and engage in technology transfer; vaccines are made available to all.”
3. Partly bilateral: “Pharmaceutical companies distribute vaccines through both bilateral contracts and to an international facility (e.g., COVAX).”
4. Fully multilateral: “Pharmaceutical companies distribute all vaccines through an international facility, such as COVAX.”

However, the paper states that pharmaceutical firms have tried most of these approaches to some degree, and none are perfect. For example, while these manufacturers could waive vaccine copyrights, it may still be the case that few other parties would have the requisite knowledge to produce the vaccine.

Looking forward

“There is no authoritative and widely accepted institutional arrangement for ensuring a fair distribution of burdens in response to pandemics or other global health emergencies,” say the authors of the paper.

Addressing the lack of this agreement should be our focus, said Dr. Mackey.

“Instead of focusing on principles of ethical obligations,” he said, “there needs to be a set of globally agreed-upon norms and standards around access to medicines during health crises.”

Dr. Mackey noted that there are plans to discuss a future pandemic treaty during a World Health Assembly meeting in November.

It is clear the world’s response to the spread of COVID-19 has been unsatisfactory, and the paper suggests that the one possible silver lining is what the current pandemic is teaching us.

“Improving the system requires a critical evaluation of how well the existing uncoordinated conglomeration of public and private institutions can generate and fairly distribute the benefits of innovation, and what is needed for a more sustainable institutional solution that avoids unnecessary death and suffering while ensuring sufficient incentives to respond to a future crisis,” the authors emphasize.

Source: Medical News Today