While cardiovascular disease affecting young people is a fact, the doctors said that the cause is constantly smoking habits. And if you think that women are not threatened by the disease, think again because the majority of patients are young women. Work stress coupled with a sedentary lifestyle that women are losing their biological protection with heart disease.
The cardiologist said that nearly 12% of women of working age in the city of Pune (India) will be affected by heart disease at a young age in 2020, this figure one decade ago was 2.5%
Dr. Ajay Kale's Lokmanya Hospital Chinchwad (India) said that of the 500 patients (10% female) are being treated for heart disease in 2013, 50% of patients who smoke. Some young women start smoking to lose weight, because they believe that nicotine affects the appetite that we do not feel hungry, eat less and thus reduce weight.
By Rekha Aditya Birla Hospital Dubey, then 30% of the patients were taken to hospital for heart disease are smoking. Manoj Kadam - a regular smokers - are examples of young people working in an IT company. With busy schedules, sleeping and eating less often, Manoj was myocardial infarction at a young age unexpected
The study shows that pressure, curiosity is the most common reason for a person starts smoking. Most smokers said that they smoke regularly to relieve stress. However, a lot of them end up in a special care unit of the hospital for cardiovascular disease. The doctor also said that five years ago, the case is not known. But the number of young people admitted to hospital for cardiovascular disease and increasing smoking is the main risk factor. In the past few years, the hospitalization related to heart under age 40 increased by about 30-40% of which are heavy smokers.
Depkhoenews.com
Showing posts with label effect of vitamin D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label effect of vitamin D. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 April 2015
Monday, 2 February 2015
Vitamin D, the gut and food allergies
What's behind the current allergy epidemic? New research linking a lack of vitamin D with food allergies in children is an important new piece in the jigsaw.
Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a range of health issues from poor bone health to heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
Now Australian researchers have found a new connection: children with vitamin D deficiency are at an increased risk of food allergies.
Allergy rates have massively increased over the past 20 years. In Australia, food allergies are of particular concern with studies finding one in 10 children under 12 months of age is affected.
In new research, a team led by Professor Katie Allen, paediatric gastroenterologist, allergist and researcher with Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), found children deficient in vitamin D are three times more likely to have a food allergy. They are also more likely to have multiple food allergies.
"This study provides the first direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency may be an important protective factor for food allergy in the first year of life; this adds supporting evidence for medical correction of low vitamin D levels," Allen says.
The rise in food allergy runs parallel with increased prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy (and in the community generally), but it's not clear if this is a cause or if other factors occurring during the child's first year of life are to blame.
Inadequate exposure to sunlight, rather than diet, is the most common cause of low vitamin D levels as vitamin D is present in only very low amounts in most foods.
The new findings are based on a study of more than 5000 children and confirm earlier research showing the further you live from the equator the more likely you are to have food allergy.
Interestingly, it appears the link between vitamin D and food allergy was found only in children whose parents were born in Australia, leading researchers to speculate that genetic factors, such as parents' ethnicity, may also play a role.
Reducing your child's allergy risk
Unfortunately there aren't specific guidelines on how to reduce a child's allergy risk, but Allen and her colleagues believe the current evidence suggests a few simple steps could help.
These include:
breastfeed your baby for at least six months
introduce a wide variety of solid foods around six months
learn to be more relaxed if your baby is exposed to environments that aren't perfectly clean (that doesn't mean you should ignore everyday hygiene measures, such as handwashing etc)
ensure your children get enough safe sunlight exposure to meet their vitamin D needs (this is also likely to important for mothers during pregnancy). For more information on how to do this see Vitamin D: how do you know you are getting enough?
Allen recommends pregnant women have their vitamin D levels checked and parents talk to their GP about testing their baby if they have any concerns.
Read more at: depkhoenews.com
Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a range of health issues from poor bone health to heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
Now Australian researchers have found a new connection: children with vitamin D deficiency are at an increased risk of food allergies.
Allergy rates have massively increased over the past 20 years. In Australia, food allergies are of particular concern with studies finding one in 10 children under 12 months of age is affected.
In new research, a team led by Professor Katie Allen, paediatric gastroenterologist, allergist and researcher with Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), found children deficient in vitamin D are three times more likely to have a food allergy. They are also more likely to have multiple food allergies.
"This study provides the first direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency may be an important protective factor for food allergy in the first year of life; this adds supporting evidence for medical correction of low vitamin D levels," Allen says.
The rise in food allergy runs parallel with increased prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy (and in the community generally), but it's not clear if this is a cause or if other factors occurring during the child's first year of life are to blame.
Inadequate exposure to sunlight, rather than diet, is the most common cause of low vitamin D levels as vitamin D is present in only very low amounts in most foods.
The new findings are based on a study of more than 5000 children and confirm earlier research showing the further you live from the equator the more likely you are to have food allergy.
Interestingly, it appears the link between vitamin D and food allergy was found only in children whose parents were born in Australia, leading researchers to speculate that genetic factors, such as parents' ethnicity, may also play a role.
Reducing your child's allergy risk
Unfortunately there aren't specific guidelines on how to reduce a child's allergy risk, but Allen and her colleagues believe the current evidence suggests a few simple steps could help.
These include:
breastfeed your baby for at least six months
introduce a wide variety of solid foods around six months
learn to be more relaxed if your baby is exposed to environments that aren't perfectly clean (that doesn't mean you should ignore everyday hygiene measures, such as handwashing etc)
ensure your children get enough safe sunlight exposure to meet their vitamin D needs (this is also likely to important for mothers during pregnancy). For more information on how to do this see Vitamin D: how do you know you are getting enough?
Allen recommends pregnant women have their vitamin D levels checked and parents talk to their GP about testing their baby if they have any concerns.
Read more at: depkhoenews.com
Monday, 26 January 2015
New Evidence for Protective Effects of Vitamin D on Your Heart
By Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, Special to Everyday Health
Although vitamin D is obtained from diet and dietary supplements, the main source of vitamin D is production in our skin under the influence of solar radiation.
As sun exposure varies with the latitude of regions and during the year, so vitamin D concentrations of populations vary accordingly. Furthermore, women are generally more prone to low vitamin D concentrations than men. Vitamin D deficiency is especially common among the elderly who often have less sun exposure because of reduced outdoor activity and reduced capacity of the skin to produce vitamin D.
Research on Vitamin D’s Protective Role
We conducted an international study of eight populations from Europe and the United States to investigate the association of level of vitamin D in blood and deaths from all-causes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer mortality, published in the British Medical Journal in June 2014. We paid attention to differences between countries, sexes, age groups and seasons of blood sampling. The study was conducted with the CHANCES Project, a research initiative funded by the European Commission and coordinated by scientists at the Hellenic Health Foundation in Athens, Greece, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and primary authors were from the German Cancer Research Center, in Heidelberg.
A total of 26,018 people had their vitamin D level measured in blood samples collected at enrolment in the study, when they were ages 50 to 79, and were followed for an average of 4 to 16 years, depending on the population. During this period 6,695 of them died, including 2,624 from cardiovascular disease and 2,227 from cancer. We compared the risk of dying between the group with highest vitamin D level and those with lower levels by dividing each study population in five groups of equal size based on their baseline vitamin D level.
Increased Deaths in People With Low Vitamin D Levels
Compared with the group with the highest vitamin D, people in the group with lowest vitamin D had a 57 percent increased mortality for all causes. They also had a 41 percent increased mortality from heart disease for those who were free from heart disease at the study’s start. In addition, individuals with history of cardiovascular disease had a 65 percent increased risk. People with a history of cancer had a 70 percent increased risk. However, for cancer mortality, we saw no benefit in those who were free from cancer at the start.
For all these associations, the three groups with intermediate vitamin D level were at intermediate risk, with a dose-response relation. These associations did not vary by sex, age group, or season of blood collection.
For the US population in the study, the comparison was between people with level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (the main metabolite of vitamin D, and the active compound measured in blood) just above 85 nmol/L on the high end, and people with a level below about 42 nmol/L on the lowest. In that population, the difference in mortality was 42 percent for all causes and 26 percent for cardiovascular diseases.
Since ours an observational study, it cannot directly address the issue of causality. In other words, it is possible that blood vitamin D is a marker of some other characteristics causally linked to disease and mortality, like general good or poor health status. Controlled vitamin D trials, in which individuals are randomly allocated to vitamin D supplement or placebo, are needed to disentangle the effect of vitamin D from that of other factors. However, such studies can only address the effect of dietary supplementation, not of normal dietary intake and sun-related endogenous production. Prior trials showed a protective effect of vitamin D on mortality, albeit of smaller magnitude than observational studies, including ours.
Why Vitamin D Is Good for the Heart
If indeed the protective effect of vitamin D on mortality is real, our study provides important evidence that the effect is present for cardiovascular disease — but not for cancer. The protective effect is present at all ages and in both sexes. Unfortunately, our study did not include a sufficient number of people of different racial and ethnic groups to provide information on this important issue.
An important question is the identification of who should increase their vitamin D status using supplements. There is no consensus on ideal cut-off values for vitamin D deficiency. Our observation that the use of cut-off levels which were specific for country, age, sex, or season produced comparable results, raises the question whether such factors should be considered for defining vitamin D deficiency.
Future population-based studies with standardized vitamin D measurements are needed to fully resolve this issue; in the meantime, caution should be used in extrapolating results across regions with different latitudes.
Despite these uncertainties, I recommend moderate sun exposure, in particular in the elderly. The amount of sun exposure depends on the type of skin (15-30 minutes are sufficient for a fair skinned person, while one or two hours are needed for dark skinned person) and on the latitude the person lives (more time is needed in Northern regions, in particular in winter). If sun exposure is not sufficient, people can consider taking supplements, after talking with their doctor.
Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH is a chronic disease epidemiologist who is Director of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and Associate Director for Population Sciences of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine, which is part of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. He is also Adjunct Professor in the Department of Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and in the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. He has edited 12 books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles.
Read more at: depkhoenews.com
Although vitamin D is obtained from diet and dietary supplements, the main source of vitamin D is production in our skin under the influence of solar radiation.
As sun exposure varies with the latitude of regions and during the year, so vitamin D concentrations of populations vary accordingly. Furthermore, women are generally more prone to low vitamin D concentrations than men. Vitamin D deficiency is especially common among the elderly who often have less sun exposure because of reduced outdoor activity and reduced capacity of the skin to produce vitamin D.
Research on Vitamin D’s Protective Role
We conducted an international study of eight populations from Europe and the United States to investigate the association of level of vitamin D in blood and deaths from all-causes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer mortality, published in the British Medical Journal in June 2014. We paid attention to differences between countries, sexes, age groups and seasons of blood sampling. The study was conducted with the CHANCES Project, a research initiative funded by the European Commission and coordinated by scientists at the Hellenic Health Foundation in Athens, Greece, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and primary authors were from the German Cancer Research Center, in Heidelberg.
A total of 26,018 people had their vitamin D level measured in blood samples collected at enrolment in the study, when they were ages 50 to 79, and were followed for an average of 4 to 16 years, depending on the population. During this period 6,695 of them died, including 2,624 from cardiovascular disease and 2,227 from cancer. We compared the risk of dying between the group with highest vitamin D level and those with lower levels by dividing each study population in five groups of equal size based on their baseline vitamin D level.
Increased Deaths in People With Low Vitamin D Levels
Compared with the group with the highest vitamin D, people in the group with lowest vitamin D had a 57 percent increased mortality for all causes. They also had a 41 percent increased mortality from heart disease for those who were free from heart disease at the study’s start. In addition, individuals with history of cardiovascular disease had a 65 percent increased risk. People with a history of cancer had a 70 percent increased risk. However, for cancer mortality, we saw no benefit in those who were free from cancer at the start.
For all these associations, the three groups with intermediate vitamin D level were at intermediate risk, with a dose-response relation. These associations did not vary by sex, age group, or season of blood collection.
For the US population in the study, the comparison was between people with level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (the main metabolite of vitamin D, and the active compound measured in blood) just above 85 nmol/L on the high end, and people with a level below about 42 nmol/L on the lowest. In that population, the difference in mortality was 42 percent for all causes and 26 percent for cardiovascular diseases.
Since ours an observational study, it cannot directly address the issue of causality. In other words, it is possible that blood vitamin D is a marker of some other characteristics causally linked to disease and mortality, like general good or poor health status. Controlled vitamin D trials, in which individuals are randomly allocated to vitamin D supplement or placebo, are needed to disentangle the effect of vitamin D from that of other factors. However, such studies can only address the effect of dietary supplementation, not of normal dietary intake and sun-related endogenous production. Prior trials showed a protective effect of vitamin D on mortality, albeit of smaller magnitude than observational studies, including ours.
Why Vitamin D Is Good for the Heart
If indeed the protective effect of vitamin D on mortality is real, our study provides important evidence that the effect is present for cardiovascular disease — but not for cancer. The protective effect is present at all ages and in both sexes. Unfortunately, our study did not include a sufficient number of people of different racial and ethnic groups to provide information on this important issue.
An important question is the identification of who should increase their vitamin D status using supplements. There is no consensus on ideal cut-off values for vitamin D deficiency. Our observation that the use of cut-off levels which were specific for country, age, sex, or season produced comparable results, raises the question whether such factors should be considered for defining vitamin D deficiency.
Future population-based studies with standardized vitamin D measurements are needed to fully resolve this issue; in the meantime, caution should be used in extrapolating results across regions with different latitudes.
Despite these uncertainties, I recommend moderate sun exposure, in particular in the elderly. The amount of sun exposure depends on the type of skin (15-30 minutes are sufficient for a fair skinned person, while one or two hours are needed for dark skinned person) and on the latitude the person lives (more time is needed in Northern regions, in particular in winter). If sun exposure is not sufficient, people can consider taking supplements, after talking with their doctor.
Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH is a chronic disease epidemiologist who is Director of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and Associate Director for Population Sciences of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine, which is part of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. He is also Adjunct Professor in the Department of Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and in the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. He has edited 12 books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles.
Read more at: depkhoenews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)