Living near gym may make you slimmer

Agencies
January 6, 2018

People who live close to gyms, pools and playing fields weigh less and have smaller waistlines than their counterparts residing farther away from exercise facilities, a UK study suggests.

Living far away from fast food outlets also appeared to help people maintain a lower weight and trimmer waist, although this connection wasn’t as strong as the proximity of gyms, researchers report in the Lancet Public Health.

“It is likely that communities without the neighborhood resources needed to encourage a healthy lifestyle put their residents at a higher risk of obesity,” said senior study author Steven Cummins of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“This could be improved by restricting the number of new fast food outlets in a neighborhood and how close they can be to people’s homes, incentivizing operators of physical activity facilities to open in residential areas with few facilities, or funding local authorities to provide such facilities,” Cummins said by email.

Globally, more than 1.9 billion adults are overweight or obese, according to the World Health Organization. The condition contributes to a variety of common medical problems including heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.

For the study, researchers examined data on weight, waist measurements and body fat for more than 400,000 men and women ranging in age from 40 to 70.

The study used data collected between 2006 and 2010 that included demographic characteristics like household income, as well as what types of eating and exercising options were available near people’s home addresses.

To determine exercise opportunities, researchers looked for indoor and outdoor facilities for sports and leisure activities such as gyms, swimming pools and playing fields. They didn’t consider public parks or cycling and walking paths.

On average, people had just one exercise facility within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of home. And almost one-third of participants had no options this close to where they lived, the study found.

People typically had to travel just 1.1 kilometers (0.68 miles) to reach a fast food outlet. Nearly one in five people had a fast food restaurant within a half-kilometer (0.31 miles) of home.

Better access to exercise options translated into a healthier weight.

Compared to people who had no facilities near home, people who had at least six places to work out weighed less, had a 1.22 centimeter (0.47 inch) slimmer waistline, and had a body fat percentage that was 0.81 percent lower on average.

At the same time, people who lived at least 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) from a fast food outlet had a waistline 0.26 centimeters (0.10 inches) smaller than individuals who lived less than a half-kilometer away, the study also found.

One limitation of the study is that not all fast food restaurants may have been included in the database, the authors note. The study also didn’t account for the proximity of healthy dining establishments near home, or the type of food and workout options close to where people worked.

The study was not a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how neighborhood characteristics like the availability of gyms or greasy spoons might impact obesity rates.

It’s hard to rule out the possibility that healthier people may choose to live near the amenities they need to stay healthy, said Pablo Monsivais, author of an accompanying editorial and a nutrition and exercise researcher at Washington State University in Spokane.

But the study still suggests that where we live matters, Monsivais said by email.

“Individually, each of us makes choices that affect whether we maintain a healthy weight or put on pounds, but these choices are shaped by the environments we inhabit,” Monsivais added. “This study looked at just a few features of the environment, but research shows that things like green space, walkability, noise, air quality and the availability of healthy food choices all seem to matter for our health and body weight.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 19,2020

While coughing, fever and difficulty in breathing are common symptoms of COVID-19, a new case study has found that pink eye is also a reason to be tested for the disease.

The study, published in the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, determined that conjunctivitis and keratoconjunctivitis can also be primary symptoms of COVID-19.

The researchers noted that in March, a 29-year-old woman arrived at the Royal Alexandra Hospital's Eye Institute of Alberta with a severe case of conjunctivitis and minimal respiratory symptoms.

After the patient had undergone several days of treatment with little improvement -- and after it had been determined that the woman had recently returned home from Asia -- a resident ordered a COVID-19 test.

The test came back positive, according to the researchers.

"What is interesting in this case, and perhaps very different to how it had been recognised at that specific time, was that the main presentation of the illness was not a respiratory symptom. It was the eye," said Carlos Solarte, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta in Canada.

"There was no fever and no cough, so we weren't led to suspect COVID-19 at the beginning. We didn't know it could present primarily with the eye and not with the lungs," Solarte said.

Academic studies at the outset of the pandemic identified conjunctivitis as a secondary symptoms in about 10 to 15 per cent of COVID-19 cases, he said.

Since then, scientists have gained greater knowledge of how the virus can transmit through and affect the body's mucous membrane system, of which the conjunctiva -- the clear, thin membrane that covers the front surface of the eye -- is an extension.

While the finding provides important new health information for the public, it also makes eye exams more complicated for ophthalmologists and staff, the researchers noted.

"The patient in this case eventually recovered well without any issues. But several of the residents and staff who were in close contact with the patient had to be under quarantine," said Solarte.

"Fortunately, none who were involved in her care also tested positive," he said.

Patients coming into an eye clinic with conjunctivitis and keratoconjunctivitis are now treated as potential cases of COVID-19 and extra precautions are taken by staff, according to the researchers.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 19,2020

New York, May 19: Cigarette smoke spurs the lungs to make more of the receptor protein which the novel coronavirus uses to enter human cells, according to a study which suggests that quitting smoking might reduce the risk of a severe coronavirus infection.

The findings, published in the journal Developmental Cell, may explain why smokers appear to be particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.

"Our results provide a clue as to why smokers who develop COVID-19 tend to have poor clinical outcomes," said study senior author Jason Sheltzer, a cancer geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the US.

"We found that smoking caused a significant increase in the expression of ACE2, the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter human cells," Sheltzer said.

According to the scientists, quitting smoking might reduce the risk of a severe coronavirus infection.

They said most individuals infected with the virus suffer only mild illness, if they experience any at all.

However, some require intensive care when the sometimes-fatal virus attacks, the researchers said.

In particular, they said three groups have been significantly more likely than others to develop severe illness -- men, the elderly, and smokers.

Turning to previously published data for possible explanations for these disparities, the scientists assessed if vulnerable groups share some key features related to the human proteins that the coronavirus relies on for infection.

First, they said, they focused on comparing gene activity in the lungs across different ages, between the sexes, and between smokers and nonsmokers.

The scientists said both mice that had been exposed to smoke in a laboratory, and humans who were current smokers had significant upregulation of ACE2.

According to Sheltzer, smokers produced 30-55 per cent more ACE2 than their non-smoking counterparts.

While the researchers found no evidence that age or sex impacts ACE2 levels in the lungs, they said the influence of smoke exposure was surprisingly strong.

However, they said, the change seemed to be temporary.

According to the data, the level of the receptors ACE2 in the lungs of people who had quit smoking was similar to that of non-smokers.

The study noted that the most prolific producers of ACE2 in the airways are mucus-producing cells called goblet cells.

Smoking is known to increase the prevalence of such cells, the scientists said.

"Goblet cells produce mucous to protect the respiratory tract from inhaled irritants. Thus, the increased expression of ACE2 in smokers' lungs could be a byproduct of smoking-induced secretory cell hyperplasia," Sheltzer explained.

However, Sheltzer said other studies on the effects of cigarette smoke have shown mixed results.

"Cigarette smoke contains hundreds of different chemicals. It's possible that certain ingredients like nicotine have a different effect than whole smoke does," he said.

The researchers cautioned that the actual ACE2 protein may be regulated in ways not addressed in the current study.

"One could imagine that having more cells that express ACE2 could make it easier for SARS-CoV-2 to spread in someone's lungs, but there is still a lot more we need to explore," Sheltzer said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 5,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 5: After a woman filed a lawsuit against a diet soda company, the California court has declared that the beverage does not promise to help buyers in losing weight.

The woman had gulped down the drink for over a decade but did not lose inches as a result.

The three-judge panel declared during the hearing: "The prevalent understanding of the term in (the marketplace) is that the 'diet' version of a soft drink has fewer calories than its 'regular' counterpart."

However, the members of the US 9th circuit court have felt that the consumers tend to make out something of their own that is unreasonable and eventually hamper the reputation of brands through a deceptive allegation, reports Fox News.

The response was due to a misleading case filed against Diet Dr Pepper by Shana Becerra from Santa Rosa, California. Shana claimed that she has been addictively purchasing the low-calorie beverage for the past 13 years hoping for losing some fat but failed to lose even a single inch.

The woman also stated that the attractive and fit models misled her into believing that drink will help her in perfecting her body like them.

However, the court's decision was that advertisements are for representational purposes only. "Cannot be reasonably understood to convey any specific meaning at all," as written by Judge Jay Bybee.

Shana had last week made such allegation against Diet coke as well where the court came to a similar verdict. She claimed that she had found various studies where it is evident that the artificial sweetener aspartame used in diet beverages actually boosts weight gain.

But the artificial sweetener is approved in by the concerned administrative department and thus is used in most American drinks.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.