The unusual message was contained in a scientific statement published on Thursday by the American Heart Association, which convened a panel of experts to review years of data on the cardiovascular benefits of owning a pet. The group concluded that owning a dog, in particular, was “probably associated” with a reduced risk of heart disease.

People who own dogs certainly have more reason to get outside and take walks, and studies show that most owners form such close bonds with their pets that being in their presence blunts the owners’ reactions to stress and lowers their heart rate, said Dr. Glenn N. Levine, the head of the committee that wrote the statement.

But most of the evidence is observational, which makes it impossible to rule out the prospect that people who are healthier and more active in the first place are simply more likely to bring a dog or cat into their home.

“We didn’t want to make this too strong of a statement,” said Dr. Levine, a professor at the Baylor College of Medicine. “But there are plausible psychological, sociological and physiological reasons to believe that pet ownership might actually have a causal role in decreasing cardiovascular risk.”

Nationwide, Americans keep roughly 70 million dogs and 74 million cats as pets.

The heart association publishes about three scientific statements each month, typically on more technical matters, but the group was prompted to take a stance on the pet issue by the growing number of news reports and medical studies linking pet ownership to better health.

Dr. Levine noted that the more traditional methods of risk reduction for heart disease had proven effective, and that now was a good time to investigate alternative approaches. “We felt this was something that had reached the point where it would be reasonable to formally investigate,” he said.

Dr. Richard Krasuski, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, viewed the new statement as an indictment of societal attitudes toward exercise.

“Very few people are meeting their exercise goals,” he said. “In an ideal society, where people are actually listening to physician recommendations, you wouldn’t need pets to drag people outside.”

The new report reviewed dozens of studies, and over all it seemed clear that pet owners, especially those with dogs, the focus of most of the studies, were in better health than people without pets.

“Several studies showed that dogs decreased the body’s reaction to stress, with a decrease in heart rate, blood pressure and adrenaline-like hormone release when a pet is present as opposed to when a pet is not present,” Dr. Levine said.

Pet owners also tended to report greater amounts of physical activity, and modestly lower cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Some research showed that people who had pets of any kind were also more likely to survive heart attacks.

In one of the only randomized controlled studies included in the report, 48 stressed stockbrokers with hypertension were put on medication that lowered their blood pressure, and then researchers divided them into groups. Those in one group were told to adopt a dog or cat. Six months later, the researchers found that when the stockbrokers who had adopted pets were around their new companions, they were markedly calmer in the face of stressful events than the stockbrokers without pets.

But nearly all of the other studies included in the report were correlational, meaning they could not prove cause and effect. And the research also strongly suggested that among dog owners, there was a sharp contrast between those who walked their dogs themselves and those who did not.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that pet owners are just as likely to be overweight as people without pets. One large study involving thousands of people found that 17 percent of those who walked their dogs were obese, compared with 28 percent of dog owners who did not walk their dogs and 22 percent of those without pets.

Dr. Levine said that he and his colleagues were not recommending that people adopt pets for any reason other than to give them a good home.

“If someone adopts a pet, but still sits on the couch and smokes and eats whatever they want and doesn’t control their blood pressure,” he said, “that’s not a prudent strategy to decrease their cardiovascular risk.”

Read More: HERE

About 79% of adults don’t meet the physical activity guidelines that advise getting at least 2½ hours a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity such as brisk walking, or one hour and 15 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, such as jogging. Plus, the guidelines recommend that adults do muscle-strengthening activities, such as push-ups, sit-ups or exercise using resistance bands or weights. These activities should involve all major muscle groups and be done on two or more days a week, the guidelines say.

Regular physical activity has been shown to lower the risk of early death, help control weight and reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, depression and some types of cancer and a host of other conditions. It lowers the risk of cognitive decline and hip fractures.

Other research indicates that people are less active than these statistics suggest. Scientists with the National Cancer Institute, using actual motion sensors, found that fewer than 5% of adults in the USA get at least 30 minutes a day of moderate-intensity physical activity in bouts of at least 10 minutes.

The latest statistics, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, a journal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are based on self-reported data from more than 450,000 respondents participating in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual phone survey of adults, 18 and older.

Among the findings:

• 21% of adults say they met both the aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines.

• About 52% say they are meeting the aerobic activity guideline.

• 29% say they are meeting the muscle-strengthening activity recommendation.

• The range of people meeting the overall guidelines varied by state. For instance, 27% of those in Colorado met them compared with 13% in Tennessee and West Virginia.

• Women, Hispanics, older adults and obese adults were all less likely to meet the exercise guidelines.

“This is a great start, and we can use this information to encourage other adults to increase their aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity,” says Carmen Harris, an epidemiologist in CDC’s physical activity and health branch. “Improving access to safe and convenient places, such as parks, walking trails and sidewalks, can increase opportunities for physical activity in communities.”

Tim Church, director of preventive medicine research at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, says, “It amazes me that given all the well-known benefits of physical activity that so few Americans choose to be regularly active. The most powerful thing you can do for your health is become active.”

Here are some ways people can meet these exercise recommendations in a week, according to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans:

• Take a brisk walk for 30 minutes on five days (moderate intensity); exercise with resistance bands two days (muscle strengthening).

• Run for 25 minutes three days (vigorous intensity); lift weights on two days.

• Take a brisk walk for 30 minutes two days (moderate); go dancing for an hour one evening (moderate); mow the law for 30 minutes (moderate); do heavy gardening two days (muscle strengthening).

• Do 30 minutes of an aerobic dance class (vigorous); do 30 minutes of running one day (vigorous); take a brisk walk for 30 minutes one day (moderate); do calisthenics (sit-ups, push-ups) on three days.

• Bike to and from work for 30 minutes on three days (moderate); play softball for 60 minutes one day (moderate); use weight machines two days.

• Play doubles tennis for 45 minutes two days (moderate); lift weights one day; hike vigorously for 30 minutes and go rock climbing one day (muscle strengthening).

READ FULL STORY HERE

© HealthDay

The finding is based on an analysis of data collected from more than 28,000 people in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The increased risk of developing diabetes associated with having one sugar-sweetened soft drink a day fell to 18 percent when the investigators took into account people’s total calorie intake and body-mass index (BMI), a measurement of body fat based on height and weight.

Both total calorie intake and BMI are believed to play a role in the link between sugar-sweetened soft drinks and diabetes risk. The fact that diabetes risk fell only slightly when these two factors were taken into account could indicate that the effect of sugar-sweetened soft drinks on diabetes goes beyond their impact on body weight, said Dora Romaguera, of the Imperial College London, and colleagues.

The findings are published in the April 24 issue of the journalDiabetologia.

The study found an association between consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks and heightened risk of type 2 diabetes. It did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

Consumption of pure or diluted fruit juice was not significantly associated with diabetes risk, according to the report.

The 22 percent increased risk of diabetes among Europeans who drink sugar-sweetened soft drinks is similar to previous research showing that North Americans who consume these types of beverages have a 25 percent increased risk of diabetes, the researchers said in a journal news release.

“Given the increase in sweet beverage consumption in Europe, clear messages on the unhealthy effect of these drinks should be given to the population,” Romaguera said.

Previously, weight-loss experts have said you should focus on your diet first and then concentrate on exercise; but the study, which appears in this month’s Annals of Behavioral Medicine, said focusing on both right up front is the way to go.

However, study author Abby King, a professor of health research and policy and of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, said “if you need to start with one, consider starting with physical activity first.”

King and her team looked at published studies in which more than one change was made to health habits – and the results were conflicting. She also noticed researchers hadn’t really looked at what happens when people attempted to change more than one habit at a time. That’s what made her decide to start her own investigation.

King’s focus was on people who said they didn’t have enough time to think about changing their diet and exercise at the same time. She thought if she could find it worked for that group, then it could work for any group.

Researchers recruited 200 people over the age of 45 who were not regularly exercising or eating healthy for the study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, and all of them were coached over the telephone for one year.

One coach helped the group make changes to both diet and exercise – at the same time. A second coach tackled diet first, then exercise. A third coach encouraged the group to worry about exercise first and their diet later.

The fourth group was a control group – so they didn’t concentrate on diet or exercise, but rather how to manage stress.

All the groups had to maintain the U.S. guidelines of eating five to nine servings of fruit and vegetables per day, making sure calories from saturated fats were less than 10 percent of their total intake, and exercise for at least 150 minutes per week of moderate activity.

The most successful group was the one who changed their diet and exercise at the same time, despite having a busy lifestyle. The group who concentrated on fitness first found the next-best results.

King said she thought coaching over the phone played a key role, since the study’s participants were already so busy. Telephone sessions did not last more than 40 minutes at a time, and sometimes they lasted only 10 minutes.

King’s study was funded by grants, which were provided through the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

Read more of this story: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/04/22/tackle-diet-and-exercise-at-same-time-to-effectively-lose-weight/#ixzz2RDFpItEf

A diet high in fried, sweet, and processed foods is not associated with healthy aging, a large cohort study found.

Participants on a Western-style diet had lower odds of ideal aging, defined as the absence of chronic diseases and mental health problems, as well as good cardiometabolic, respiratory, musculoskeletal, and cognitive function, according to Tasnime Akbaraly, PhD, of INSERM in Montpellier, France, and colleagues.

The odds of participants in the Western diet group aging ideally were low (OR 0.58 for top tertile versus bottom tertile, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.94, P=0.02), researchers wrote in an early online release of a study in the May edition of the American Journal of Medicine.

Researchers characterized the Western diet as one consisting of fried food, processed food and red meat, pies, sweetened desserts, chocolates, refined grains, high-fat dairy products, and condiments.

“We showed that specific dietary recommendations … may be useful in reducing the risk of unhealthy aging, while avoidance of the ‘Western-type foods’ actually might improve the possibility of achieving older ages free of chronic disease and remaining highly functional,” the investigators concluded.

At this point in time, cardiologists like Dr. Chauncey Crandall, are supporting diets like the Mediterranean Diet.

“This study by Akbaraly and colleagues adds more information in support of the association between healthy eating and better clinical outcomes that all clinicians can impart to their patients during consultations,” he added.

Although the impact of diet on specific age-related diseases has been studied extensively, few investigations have adopted a more holistic approach to determine the association of diet with overall health at older ages, researchers said.

They therefore sought to identify dietary factors assessed in midlife that can not only prevent premature death, but also promote ideal aging.

“Identifying predictors of exceptional health in old age … may provide new insights into optimal levels of established risk and protective factors,” Akbaraly and colleagues wrote.

The investigators suggested that new thresholds and targets for intervention may surface when more research into ideal aging is commenced.

Akbaraly and colleagues used data from the Whitehall II cohort (phase III) and included 3,775 men and 1,575 women (mean age 51 at baseline) whose baseline assessment spanned 1991-1993. Diet was ascertained at baseline, and health status was ascertained every 5 years from various sources.

The research team created five potential phenotypes to characterize aging outcomes after 16 years of follow-up: ideal aging (comprising 4% of the cohort), nonfatal cardiovascular event (7.3%), cardiovascular death (2.8%), noncardiovascular death (12.7%), and normal aging (73.2%).

For a comparator, the investigators relied on dietary patterns and adherence to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

The AHEI is a “validated index of diet quality, originally designed to provide dietary guidelines with the specific intention to combat major chronic conditions such as cardiovascular diseases,” diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome, according to the study. High AHEI scores have correlated with reduced risk of these conditions.

“Analyses were adjusted successively for age, sex, total energy intake (model 1), and health behavior: smoking and physical activity (model 2),” the authors explained.

They found that a diet with high intake of vegetables, fruits, and fish (the “healthy-foods” diet) was significantly inversely associated with noncardiovascular mortality (model 1; OR per 1 standard deviation [SD] increment 0.76).

However, when researchers adjusted for smoking status and physical activity (model 2), the association was no longer significant (OR 0.90).

Participants in the highest tertile of Western diet were nearly 50% less likely to reach ideal aging compared with the bottom tertile (model 1), and 42% less likely using model 2.

The Western diet conferred a 53% greater chance of cardiovascular death and a 36% greater chance or noncardiovascular death in model 1 (per 1 SD increment on the OR), which lost significance after further adjustments.

Other disadvantages associated with the Western diet (top versus bottom tertile) included poorer musculoskeletal status, measured by walking speed (OR 1.45), and worse cognitive function (OR 1.58).