The behavior most associated with an increased risk of developing an eating disorder is ____

POPPING the Pill first thing in the morning is a daily ritual for millions of women.

Since it was introduced to the UK in the early Sixties, the tiny tablet has helped millions of Brits take control of their reproductive cycle.

But a major new study from the University of Oxford sparked concern last week after scientists warned progestogen-only forms could raise risk of breast cancer by 26 per cent.

So what is the risk and should you really be worried?

Here, I answer some of the main questions.

Q) What did the Oxford study find?

A) SCIENTISTS looked at the medical records of 27,699 women for the study, published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

They found that 44 per cent of women with breast cancer had been taking a hormonal contraceptive three years on average before diagnosis.

This compares with 39 per cent of women who did not get breast cancer.

There was a 23 per cent increased risk of breast cancer for the combined Pill, a 26 per cent increased risk for the progestogen-only Pill — which accounts for half of Pill prescriptions — a 22 per cent increased risk for the progestogen implant and a 32 per cent increased risk for the IUS or hormonal coil.

Once women stop taking the progestogen-only Pill, their cancer risk starts to drop.

Between one and four years after stopping, the risk drops to 17 per cent, and after five years it is 15 per cent.

Ultimately, a woman’s increased risk was found to disappear completely.

Q) So how big is the risk in reality?

A) IT sounds like a sizable percentage and there is a risk that women may start to worry about their contraceptive choices as a result.

But let’s look at the actual statistics, because 20 per cent of a very small number is an even smaller number and therefore, in absolute terms, the risk is very small.

In younger women, aged 16 to 20, the average risk of developing breast cancer is very low — around 0.8 per cent over 15 years in women who do not use hormonal contraception.

The study found that taking the oral combined or progestogen-only contraceptive for five years would raise that risk to around 0.9 per cent — the equivalent to eight additional breast cancer cases for every 100,000 women over 15 years.

In women aged 35 to 39, hormonal contraception was found to cause an additional 265 cases per 100,000 over 15 years.

That’s still a very small increase in risk when considering the protective benefits of taking it, mainly unwanted pregnancies.

Q) Is this new?

A) WE have known for many years that the combined oral contraceptive Pill, which contains synthetic versions of both oestrogen and progesterone, is linked to a 20 per cent increased risk of breast cancer.

But this study is the first to help us understand the risk associated with progestogen-only methods.

Q) What are the benefits of taking the Pill?

A) ASIDE from helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it is worth remem-bering that both types of contraceptive Pill protect against other female cancers, namely ovarian and endometrial or womb cancer.

The combined Pill also protects against colorectal or bowel cancer.

It has been well documented that there is no overall increased cancer risk associated with taking the combined Pill.

There are also lots of other potential benefits to taking various forms of hormonal contraception.

I prescribe it to patients for a range of conditions, including polycystic ovaries and to help with heavy and painful periods.

Q) Why is the new study important?

A) STUDIES like the one reported last week are important because they give women information to help them make the right choice for them.

For most people this new research will not give any reason to change their contraception, because the benefits still outweigh any risk.

There may be a minority of women who have a particular cause for concern when it comes to breast cancer, and some may decide to stop using hormonal contraception because of these new findings.

That’s entirely their right to do so, and as doctors we want our patients to be informed and take an active role in their health care.

Q) What else should women know?

A) WHILE the study offers useful information, what isn’t mentioned much when it comes to the report is the fact that lifestyle factors have a more significant impact when it comes to our risk of getting cancer.

The risks associated with smoking, alcohol use, excess body fat and being physically inactive are far more important for health and cancer risk than hormonal contraception.

The Cancer Research UK website states that if everyone in the UK had been living a healthy lifestyle for the past ten years, then a typical GP would see only six new cases of cancer in a year, instead of ten.

We know tobacco can cause up to 15 different types of cancer: Lung, larynx, oesophagus, oral cavity, nasopharynx, pharynx, bladder, pancreas , kidney, liver , stomach, bowel , cervix, leukaemia and ovarian.

Q) What have other experts said?

A) WHEN asked for comment on the report, Kirstin Pirie, statistical programmer at Oxford Population Health and one of the lead authors, said: “The findings suggest that current or recent use of all types of progestogen-only contraceptives is associated with a slight increase in breast cancer risk, similar to that associated with use of combined oral contraceptives.

“These excess risks must, however, be viewed in the context of the well-established benefits of contraceptive use in women’s reproductive years.”

Claire Knight, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, added: “Combined and progestogen-only hormonal contraception can increase the risk of breast cancer, but the risk is small.

“For anyone looking to lower their cancer risk, not smoking, eating a healthy balanced diet, drinking less alcohol and keeping a healthy weight will have the most impact.”

Q) So should you stop taking it?

A) INFORMED patients make informed choices so any education around medicines can only be a good thing.

But for the vast majority of women, the increased risk of cancer if they’re taking any type of contraceptive pill is small and the benefits very much outweigh the risks.

Human sewage is some of the cheapest fertilizer a farmer can find. It comes neatly packaged in pellets, which can be spread on fields to help grow the grass on which livestock will later graze. If you’re a meat eater, it’s probably best not to think about it. But if you’re a meat eater who hopes to have children, new research suggests you (and regulators) might want to take a second look at the practice.

All the eggs that any female mammal will have in her lifetime are formed in the ovaries while she’s still in utero. In a paper published March 2 in the journal Scientific Reports , scientists found that if pregnant sheep are grazed on sewage-fertilized fields, their female fetuses will develop fewer healthy eggs, and more unhealthy eggs, than their counterparts whose mothers grazed on commercial fertilizers. Fewer healthy eggs, of course, means lower fertility.

Something about the sewage sludge was messing with the reproductive systems of the next generation of sheep while they were still in the womb, the researchers concluded. And because humans are likely to eat the meat of sheep (or cows) grazed this way, “there are quite worrying implications for female fertility in the human,” says Richard Lea, a reproductive biologist at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham and lead author of the study.

“There is a concern that by eating the meat from the sheep, we’re taking onboard these chemicals,” Lea says. “Given that these chemicals are very persistent, and they’ve survived the very intensive processing of the sewage to begin with, there’s a very high chance” that they’ll end up inside of us.

The male fetuses of animals grazed on fields fertilized with human sewage also appear to be affected. In 2005, researchers showed that grazing pregnant sheep on sewage-fertilized fields caused the reproductive system of their male sheep fetuses to develop improperly too. “The cell types important to testosterone secretion were reduced,” Lea says.

Though Lea’s recent study looked only at how the sewage fertilizer affected the sheep, and was not a toxicological assessment of the fertilizer itself, his team did identify certain constituents in the sewage that are known to impair hormone behavior in humans and animals alike. The sewage contained phthalates at levels high enough to significantly increase levels of the chemical in the fetuses’ liver, which is one way researchers determine whether an animal has absorbed the chemical into its body. Phthalates are a class of plastic compounds found in all sorts of consumer goods, from plastic containers to shampoos to carpeting. Phthalates mimic estrogen in the body, messing with the body’s hormone production, and have been connected with early puberty in girls , as well as numerous health problems, including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and breast cancer.

The researchers also found polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the sewage sludge, a broad group of chemicals that were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1977 but which were used so widely and persist so long in the environment that they’re currently found in nearly “all outdoor and indoor air, soil, sediments, surface water, and animals,” according to the Centers for Disease Control . PCBs also mimic estrogen, acting as endocrine disruptors, and exposure to them has been linked to impaired fertility , as well as a heightened risk for cancer and immune system disorders .

The sheep fetuses suggest there’s a lot that should be studied about the practice of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural fields, Lea says. We still don’t know, for example, if and how transmission would occur from eating the meat of animals grazed that way. “There’s the way we metabolize chemicals, for example; it may be different from how the sheep metabolizes it.”

But either way, Lea says, we should be taking another look. “At the end of the day, if we are putting our own reproductive capacity at risk, which I haven’t proven here, by the way, then we should be taking steps to reduce that risk.”

CARDIOLOGISTS see first hand how certain foods affect your heart.

And at a time when more that than 66,000 Brits are dying each year from cardiovascular diseases , it’s more important than ever to be looking after our hearts.

To make matters worse, recent studies have found some heart diseases in people under age 40 have been increasing over the past decade.

According to two doctors, the western lifestyle – which often involves eating processed foods – is fuelling heart disease.

Still, it’s not always be possible to eliminate problem foods, so moderation and portion control are key.

Speaking to TODAY , Dr Sharonne Hayes, a cardiologist based at the Women’s Heart Clinic in, Minnesota, US , said: “There isn’t a food that will save your life.

“And there isn’t one that’s going to kill you, it is about balance.

“So the occasional cheesecake isn’t going to kill you, but it really is what you eat and how much you eat that’s so critical.”

Dr Sharonne and fellow cardiologist Dr Andrew Freeman, who works at National Jewish Health in Colorado, US, share some of the top foods they try to avoid or limit for optimal health

1. Sausages

Processed meats like sausages and bacon are high in calories , saturated fat, salt and have added ingredients like nitrates – all of which are bad for your heart, the experts explain.

And it’s not only heart health that may suffer from overindulging on hotdogs Dr Andrew told TODAY.

The World Health Organization has determined eating processed meats causes cancer , he explained.

2. Crisps

Stay clear of small bags of salty, crunchy processed carbs that you might find in vending machines, the doctors advised.

“Our culture values convenience, which is great, but convenience doesn’t mean you have to eat packaged processed foods with added sugars and salt,” Dr Andrew said.

According to the NHS , high salt consumption can raise blood pressure – and high blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke .

“Nature has provided for us the exact foods we should be eating; we just need to eat them,” the doctor explained.

Instead, opt for healthy portable foods, like apples, carrots and other fruits and vegetables, he explained.

3. Pudding

It’s fine too enjoy sugar , but keep your consumption of sweet treats to a minimum.

Eating too much sugar can contribute to people having too many calories, which can lead to weight gain .

Being overweight increases your risk of health problems such as heart disease, some cancers and type 2 diabetes , explains the NHS.

Dr Sharonne said she indulges once a week at most and keeps her portion small to limit calories.

4. Too much protein

As a nation, we’ve become pretty obsessed with protein – especially those of us who enjoy the gym.

It’s not uncommon to see people getting two times as much protein as they may need in a day and that taxes the kidneys and may cause more problems down the road,” he added.

A recent study found men who consumed a high-protein diet increased their risk of developing heart failure by 33 percent.

Another issues is that protein from meat often comes high in saturated fats, which may raise cholesterol levels,  the American Heart Association warns.

So don’t overdo it and opt for plant protein, both doctors advised.

Most adults need around 0.75g of protein per kilo of body weight per day (for the average woman, this is 45g, or 55g for men).

That’s about two portions of meat, fish, nuts or tofu per day.

5. Energy drinks

Dr Andrew said he avoids energy drinks at all costs.

Studies have found the combination of sugar and caffeine found in the drinks can induce problems like high blood pressure or arrhythmia.

That doesn’t mean you should skip caffeine, the expert said.

It’s quite healthful to drink tea or coffee in moderation every day.

Other research suggests two cups of coffee per day can slash your risk of type 2 diabetes.

6. Coconut oil

Many people wrongly think coconut oil is a healthy fat alternative, when actually it contains more saturated fat than lard.

It is also used in studies in mice and rats to mimic cholesterol blockages in the arteries, known as atherosclerosis.

Dr Andrew suggests people use it as a moisturiser but keep it out of the kitchen.

Covid jabs might raise the risk of sudden cardiac deaths in young women, official UK data revealed today.

Government analysts trawled through data from England’s historic roll-out in order to re-check the safety profile of vaccines in under-30s.

No significant increase in deaths among the vaccinated was uncovered, debunking one of the biggest current conspiracy theories surrounding the lockdown-banishing scheme.

Although when the results were broken down further, experts found an elevated risk of cardiac-related deaths in women for one type of jab.

Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed women who got a non-mRNA jab were 3.5 times more likely to die of such ailments within 12 weeks of being vaccinated.

This was compared to after that time-frame, as opposed to the unvaccinated.

Looking at the figures this way allowed the ONS team to spot any noticeable link to vaccination.

Some deaths linked to vaccines might have been missed in official figures, hence the need to look at the data another way.

Non-mRNA jabs include ones made by AstraZeneca and Novavax, which were the only two available during the period the study covered.

Although, no data on specific vaccine brand was included in the analysis. In the US, the Johnson and Johnson was one of the non-mRNA jabs used.

Writing in the journal Nature , the ONS team concluded that 11 cardiac deaths in young women may be attributable to non-mRNA jabs.

However, the study doesn’t directly prove that any deaths were caused by any vaccine.

Fatalities could, for example, have been from an unrelated health condition or even a Covid infection itself given the virus is known to cause similar cardiac effects.

Researchers said young women given non-mRNA jabs in the period studied tended to be classified as clinically vulnerable, hence why they were prioritized for jabs.

This factor may have explained their increased risk of death, the team suggested.

No similar heightened risk was found in men. Academics did not offer a reason as to why, however, as that was beyond the scope of the analysis.

Nor did they uncover any proof that mRNA jabs, such as ones made by Pfizer and Moderna, carried such risk.

That disproves a conspiracy theory beloved by anti-vaxxers that the mRNA shots are responsible for a wave of ‘sudden’ deaths.

In fact, the study, which also examined the general risk of death after testing positive for Covid , found unvaccinated young people had significantly higher chance of dying than the jabbed from ‘all causes’.

Researchers opted to look at the 12 week period post vaccination as this was the original time period set between vaccination doses.

The analysis was based on data from between December 8 2020, when Covid jabs were first rolled out, until May 25 last year.

It included people in England between the ages of 12 and 29, with researchers looking at this group specifically in response to some studies pointing to a risk of cardiac diseases in young people post-Covid vaccination.

While credited with saving the nation from an endless lockdown and thousands of lives, Covid vaccines, like any medical treatment, aren’t risk free.

For example, mRNA vaccines can, in extremely rare cases, cause myocarditis. This inflammation of the heart is particularly a risk for young men and boys.

And the AstraZeneca jab was withdrawn for the under-40s in the UK in April 2021 after it was linked to a rare, but life-threatening, risk of developing blood clots.

Vahé Nafilyan, a senior statistician at the ONS, said overall the study showed mRNA vaccines, which have now been used for the majority of vaccinated young Brits, are generally safe.

‘We find no evidence the risk of cardiac or all cause death is increased in the weeks following vaccination with mRNA vaccines,’ he said.

However, he added they did find that young women given a non-mRNA Covid jab had a 3.52 times higher chance of cardiac death in the 12 weeks after.

While a 3.52 times increase in risk seems large, it should be noted that the actual number of deaths is estimated to be relatively small.

It equates to six cardiac deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.

But Mr Nafilyan said the context in which those jabs were given and to whom needed to be considered.

‘Vaccination with the main non-mRNA vaccine used in the UK was stopped for young people following safety concerns in April 2021,’ he said.

‘And most of the young people who received it would have been prioritised due to clinical vulnerability or being healthcare workers.

‘Therefore, these results cannot be generalised to the population as a whole.

‘Whilst vaccination carries some risks, these need to be assessed in light of its benefits.’

The ONS analysis did not speculate why women seemed to be at greater risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab compared to men.

While the data did record men had an estimated 1.18 increased risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab, the ONS said the evidence wasn’t strong enough to establish a link as these few deaths could just be down to chance.

It should also be noted that because young people’s general chance of a cardiac death is so small in the first place, any increase can seem dramatic.

The ONS analysis also included data on risk of death following a positive Covid test for both jabbed and unjabbed young people.

Those without a Covid vaccine had a 2.5 times higher risk of death from any cause, whilst, in comparison, those who were jabbed had only a 1.9 times higher risk of dying.

The ONS did not analyse cardiac deaths specifically among people vaccinated who tested positive due to ‘insufficient data’.

Other studies have shown that Covid vaccines greatly decrease the risk of hospitalisation and death among the general population, particularly for those most at risk, such as the elderly.

As a whole the study tears apart major claims peddled by anti-vaxxers who have wrongly said people who got the mRNA Covid vaccines are dying in droves.

However, a limitation of the study is that some deaths that have occurred in the period analysed might not be included due to ongoing investigations by a coroner.

Professor Adam Finn, an expert in paediatrics at University of Bristol, said the ONS study, ‘raised as many questions as answers’.

‘The findings are somewhat unexpected, as concerns about rare cardiac side-effects – specifically myocarditis and pericarditis – have hitherto been particularly associated with mRNA vaccine second doses in males especially when the dose interval was short, whereas the signal reported here is primarily in non-mRNA first doses in females,’ he said.

However, he said the data also showing the risk disappeared for the second dose was ‘reassuring’.

Professor Finn, a member of the UK’s vaccine advisory the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said in the end more detail on the cardiac deaths reported was needed.

‘The next and most pressing issue that needs to be addressed is to gather more detailed information on what the nature of the reported cardiac events actually was, as this would help us begin to understand what is really being seen in these figures and might help guide future policy and vaccine design,’ he said.

While AstraZeneca’s jab was pulled specifically for young people in April in 2021 it has been effectively withdrawn in the UK with the Government not ordering any more doses.

This was based on advice from the JCVI which has not listed AstraZeneca in their recommended jab list for booster campaigns.

There are currently two non-mRNA Covid jabs approved for use in the UK.

These are the Novavax and Sanofi/GSK jab.

UK drug watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) hasn’t had any safety reports about the Sanofi/GSK jab with it only being approved for use in December last year.

Novavax was approved in February last year and was deployed 1,200 times during the autumn booster campaign, with 57 safety reports.

The ONS said they would continue to monitor data on Covid vaccines outcomes in the future.

S ome 75 deaths have been known to occurred from jab-related side effects in the UK .

Strokes often occur with little to no warning signs – but there are some lifestyle changes you can make to help reduce your risk and boost your chances of recovery if you’re unfortunate enough to experience one.

A stroke is where the blood supply to part of the brain is cut off, with common symptoms including your face drooping on one side, not being able to lift your arms and slurred speech.

While many people won’t experience any obvious warning signs, before suffering a stroke, some experience a headache, numbness or tingling several days before. But researchers have found several preventable risk factors for the condition, with one centred on the fact that a great number of stroke patients show up at hospital dehydrated.

Harvard Health says signs of not drinking enough fluids include weakness, low blood pressure , confusion, dizziness, or urine that’s dark in colour. The minimum amount of water a person needs to avoid this is around four to six cups of water each day, according to the health body.

This tallies with research carried out by Loma Linda University, who previously found that drinking at least five glasses of water is necessary for reducing the risk of stroke by 53 per cent. Doing so may not only protect against the condition, but could also improve a person’s outcome in the event of a stroke.

Being hydrated is also vital for cardiovascular health.

Back in 2015, research on patients admitted to the Comprehensive Stroke Center at Johns Hopkins Hospital shed new light on the cardiovascular risks of dehydration. Patients who hadn’t drunk enough fluids were nearly four times more likely to suffer worse outcomes, compared to adequately hydrated patients.

Researchers noted: “dehydration appears to be common in hospitalised stroke patients and is associated with severe stroke and poor outcomes at hospital discharge”.

The report added: “We suggest that focusing on interventions to reduce the frequency and duration of dehydration have the potential to improve patient outcomes after stroke.”

A year later, research by the University of Arkansas made another discovery about the effects of dehydration on cardiovascular health. The findings suggested that hydration levels – even mild dehydration in healthy, young males – could play a role in a person’s cardiovascular risk. The effects of hydration were most evident in the ‘endothelial functions’ – the dilation and constriction of the inner lining – of the blood vessels.

“It plays a critical role in cardiovascular health,” explains Science Daily . The result, published in the European Journal of Nutrition , established that even mild dehydration could “impair vascular functions nearly as much as smoking a cigarette”.

The Michigan Neurology Associated noted that dehydration may also have a thickening effect on the blood, which poses its own set of risks. Viscous blood causes the body to retain more sodium, which in turn increases blood pressure.

Not only does this mean blood clots are more likely to form, but blood flow may also slow down. As a result, blood may back up in blocked or narrowed blood vessels and cause a stroke.

“If you have other heart disease risk factors, such as clogged arteries, dehydration can be especially dangerous,” warns the health body.

It should be noted that though drinking enough fluids is important for vascular health, consuming excessive amounts of water is not recommended either, as this can be especially dangerous for people who have heart and kidney conditions.

Symptoms of a stroke

The main symptoms of stroke can be remembered with the word FAST:

• Face – the face may have dropped on one side, the person may not be able to smile, or their mouth or eye may have dropped.
• Arms – the person with suspected stroke may not be able to lift both arms and keep them there because of weakness or numbness in one arm.
• Speech – their speech may be slurred or garbled, or the person may not be able to talk at all despite appearing to be awake; they may also have problems understanding what you’re saying to them.
• Time – it’s time to dial 999 immediately if you see any of these signs or symptoms.

Preventing a stroke

To limit the chances of suffering a stroke, the NHS advises you to:

• Eat well
• Take regular exercise
• Follow alcohol advice (not drinking more than 14 units a week)
• Quit smoking

If you have a condition that increases your risk of a stroke, it’s important to manage it effectively, says the health body. For example, taking medicine you’ve been prescribed to lower high blood pressure, or cholesterol levels.

If you’ve had a stroke or TIA (transient ischemic attack) in the past, these measures are particularly important because your risk of having another stroke is greatly increased.

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More