If you’re an adult in the U.S., you can expect to gain 10 to 25 pounds between your 20s and your 40s. Starting between ages 30 and 40, you may find losing weight and exercising more challenging. The exercise you do may not have the same effect as before. It’s not necessarily a sign that something is wrong. This weight gain in middle age—known as “middle-age spread”—is a natural consequence of aging.

“Your metabolism tends to slow down as you get older,” says NIH’s Dr. Rafael de Cabo, an expert on aging. “But your appetite and your food intake do not. So, you have a steady increase of body weight with age.”

Much of the weight gain comes in the form of fat tissue. The distribution of fat in your body also shifts. There’s less under your skin and more around your internal organs. Meanwhile, you start to lose lean muscle with age. Many people also become less active as they age, especially if they have a job that involves a lot of sitting. This can lead to further fat gain and muscle loss.

Those extra pounds have consequences beyond your clothes not fitting. The risk of many chronic diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, and neurodegenerative diseases, goes up with age. Excess weight can further heighten these risks.

Fortunately, you can take steps to maintain a healthy weight as you age. Your diet can play a key role. Having a slower metabolism means you’ll need fewer calories. But you also want to make sure you still get all the nutrients your body needs. Get tips on healthy eating as you age.

De Cabo studies the effects of dietary changes on health and longevity. One example is intermittent fasting, in which meals are interspersed with long fasting periods. For example, you might limit eating to only eight hours per day. Studies suggest intermittent fasting may help some people to eat less and keep weight off. But De Cabo and others have been finding that it might also have benefits for your metabolism.

His work has shown that mice live longer and stay healthier when they go for long periods between meals. This was true even if they were eating the same amounts and types of foods as mice that ate whenever they wanted. Other studies have also suggested that periods of fasting may bring benefits beyond weight loss.

Physical activity is important for combating the changes that come with aging, too.

“The key is to maintain an active lifestyle,” de Cabo says. “Try to incorporate daily walks or daily visits to the gym. If you have an office job, get a standup desk, so you spend a few hours a day standing instead of sitting. Small doses of exercise throughout the day will help tremendously.”

Visit: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2024/10/stopping-middle-age-spread for more information.

The post Stopping Middle-Age Spread appeared first on Medika Life.

Government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded research ensures the health of our people and drives the health of our economy. The current policy of cuts and freezes puts both at risk.

For decades, Congress has provided strong, bipartisan support to research programs, not simply to help Americans stay healthy and live longer but to give American researchers, businesses, and other institutions a leg-up. This has meant that costly, labor-intensive scientific research doesn’t have to be completely shouldered through private funding.

It would seem that American businesses and institutions — in particular patient advocacy groups, the ambassadors of communities that benefit most from science that leads to innovations that can sustain and save lives – should want to vigorously defend government-backed research. But in today’s political climate, leaders are taking a “wait and see” approach. While this may appear prudent, now is not the time for complacency.

The old saying, “fail to prepare and you prepare to fail,” couldn’t be more timely. Patient advocates and other leaders need to act now to marshal facts about the essential benefits of government-funded science. They need to develop a strategy to express their expert points of view, identifying which topics they will speak out about and to whom, in order to be ready to assert their influence when the timing is right.

As new policies unfold, voices calling us back to this shared national interest are essential. Patient advocates and business leaders hold tremendous power – and responsibility – to help rally support for essential programs and remind decision makers of what’s really at stake. Here are three considerations, based on many years of guiding clients through successful thought leadership campaigns, that can help leaders plan their words and actions for maximum impact, even as they operate in a “watch and wait” environment.

1. Define What Is at Stake

Publicly funded research has saved many millions of American lives. Since 1969, the U.S. stroke mortality rate has decreased by 70%, largely due to NIH-funded research on treatments and prevention. The American Cancer Society estimates that 3.5 million lives were saved from 1991 to 2019 because of publicly funded advances. These are only two of many examples.

But if these very real impacts – which touch all of us – do not carry enough weight, consider that government subsidized research has also been a powerful driver for American businesses. Every dollar spent by the NIH in research funding in the fiscal year 2024 (FY24) generated $2.56 of economic activity, according to a new report, “NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy.” And those dollars enabled the development and production of penicillin and other life-saving antibiotics, antiretrovirals, Ozempic and other GLP-1s, polio and measles vaccines, and discoveries such as deciphering the human genetic code.

This taxpayer-funded investment has made American drug companies, med-tech, hospitals and biotech global powerhouses. In this way, the U.S. has led the world, both in innovation and economically.

2. Determine the Audience(s) You Want to Reach

If the last few weeks have proven anything, it is that local conversations can have national impact. And, it’s local economies that stand to benefit the most from publicly funded science. These communities and states will also suffer most acutely should funding continue to be withheld from research programs located in their communities.

A new study from the Association of American Universities found that in FY24, the NIH alone awarded $36.94 billion in extramural research funding to researchers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, funding that supported 407,782 jobs and produced $94.58 billion in new economic activity nationwide.

That is all balanced on a knife edge at the moment. These figures demonstrate that local communities and their lawmakers – state and federal congresspeople and senators – are the natural allies of research programs that depend on federal dollars. Such programs put businesses and people to work in fields ranging from construction and maintenance to food services and research and development.

By acting hyper-locally, targeting the vulnerable communities and representatives who are impacted most by current policy, thought leaders can start to move the country away from self-harm towards a restoration of prosperity and health.

3. Actively Monitor for Opportunity to Assert Leadership

While it’s clear what’s at stake and who stands to benefit or lose the most, evaluating the right time to act is more challenging. What’s becoming more apparent is that, as the impact of cuts and freezes begins to be felt more broadly by patients, employees of local businesses and local communities – then leaders’ words will have more resonance and impact. Thought leadership will have an increasing ability to rally support and change minds.

In many places, this is already beginning to happen. Conducting outreach in those communities at the moment when the administration’s cuts are affecting people’s income and businesses’ bottom lines most acutely, leadership voices can begin to have an impact. Drawing attention to the struggles our neighbors are facing, and calling for action based on people’s experiences, the evident economic impacts, and real public health needs will resonate. Determining the right moment to act will take careful monitoring of economic and health impacts within key communities across America and seizing the right moment.

If advocacy groups want to continue to protect and promote the rights of patients, they must prepare to speak out. If the organizations, health systems and companies of the American health ecosystem that have been blessed with the fruits of publicly funded research want to continue to stay competitive, their leaders must speak out. If the small businesses that rely on their employees’ health and customers’ wallets wish to stay competitive, they, too, must raise their voices. What’s at stake is the health of all Americans and our nation’s world-leading position as the “arsenal of health.”

The time is now for leaders to make their plans. Those who are ready to speak will be thought leaders—and those who do not will not be. American thought leaders must prepare to speak up, loudly and often, to guarantee the future of U.S. leadership and to help America remain healthy—physically and financially.

The post For Leaders, When Is it Time to Speak Out for Science? appeared first on Medika Life.

So it wasn’t off-brand for us to spend a recent dinner conversation debating a hot topic: “What’s scarier – a new pandemic virus or a world without antibiotics?” The two titans of microbiology – the virus and the bacterium – took center stage alongside sheet-pan chicken to create a memorable family exchange.

Most American dinner discussions do not include hypothetical microbial doomsday scenarios. But how we prepare for the next pandemic and prevent the erosion of effective antibiotics are pressing issues. In many ways, they are interlinked.

Covid-19 brought public health into the spotlight and underscored the role of public-private partnerships to meet new disease threats. Vaccine R&D is enjoying a renaissance, buoyed by steady investment by major pharmaceutical companies over the past two decades and the viability of new start-ups. The application of mRNA and other new technologies offer the kind of innovative power required to meet the challenge of future viral threats, especially if matched with political will and new models for global coordination. Perhaps there is cause for a little optimism that we will be better prepared for the next pandemic.

Unfortunately, the same urgency does not exist to solve the looming specter of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Since the discovery of penicillin almost a century ago, antibiotics have been in the league of vaccines and clean water as the most important public health interventions in history. Yet, with rampant overuse in our food systems, over-prescription for patients and poor waste management practices, the potential for dangerous bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics increases each year.   

Several programs have been established to catalyze research investments in next-generation antibiotics.  Antimicrobial research grants from organizations ranging from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X) have helped close the gap. In the U.S., several lawmakers drafted the bipartisan PASTEUR Act to create a new model for pharmaceutical industry investment in the development of new antibiotics, but it died in committee last year following criticism that the private sector participants would not deliver the level of product innovation to justify billions of dollars in taxpayer funding.

The current pipeline for truly innovative antibiotics remains worryingly thin. In the past five years, only 12 antibiotics have been approved. That might seem okay if it didn’t mask a failure to deliver breakthrough products: 10 of the dozen new antibiotics belong to existing classes with established mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and only one, cefiderocol, protected against all gram-negative bacteria on the WHO list of priority pathogens. As of 2021, only 27 new antibiotics against priority pathogens were in clinical stages of development – a drop from 31 products only four years earlier. The number of new candidates in the preclinical stage of development remains stagnant.

For millions of patients facing the frightening possibility of untreatable infections, we need to move with greater urgency to bolster innovation and improve responsible use for existing antibiotics. Already, nearly 1.3 million people around the world die each year from AMR, a number that exceeds higher-profile diseases such as HIV or malaria and is expected to rise to 10 million annually within the next few decades.

Beyond the health implications, the economic imperative to counter antimicrobial resistance is stark: the global cost of AMR is expected to exceed $100 trillion by 2050. There are some important steps that can be taken by governments, drug makers and healthcare providers.

Antimicrobial resistance is not an American problem; it is a threat shared by every country. As such, we should be looking at ways to allocate funding to the entities that can ensure the best application of research takes place. In the U.S., BARDA, NIH and CARB-X need more resources and channels to collaborate more extensively with similar grant entities around the world.

The PASTEUR Act should be resuscitated in the current Congress with renewed emphasis on incentivizing participating pharmaceutical companies to develop innovative antibiotics with new mechanisms of action. To help make the case to policymakers of all stripes, organizations like the Center for Strategic International Studies and Chatham House have excellent track records for framing health imperatives to the right audiences in terms that help prompt action.

Beyond policy and research actions, healthcare provider and patient education on the responsible use of antibiotics should be a priority in every country. This is the responsibility of governments, drugmakers, health systems, individual healthcare providers, even patients and consumers. Infections are scary business, but we need a more effective way of educating people along the entire prescription decision chain to ensure antibiotic potency remains strong.

And that connects back to vaccines. One clear way to reduce our use of antibiotics is to increase vaccination against many of the pathogens that create an opening for bacterial infections. Pursuing this goal, improving AMR-related education and expanding the pipeline of innovative antibiotics give us a shot at avoiding a bleak future where we are defenseless against invisible enemies.

The post Too Much of a Good Thing appeared first on Medika Life.

A new paper published in the medical journal JAMA offers more encouraging news for pregnant women. Researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas published a study titled Pregnancy Outcomes Among Women With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

The results show that 95% of women who tested positive for Covid-19 during pregnancy had no adverse outcomes. Five percent of infected women experienced severe complications such as pneumonia and respiratory distress.

This study also showed a low rate of newborn infections (3%) consistent with our previous reporting. Previously published data from the PRIORITY Study(Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry) showed babies born to Covid-19-positive women do well with no increase in negative metrics such as low birth weight, difficulty breathing, apnea, or respiratory infections through the first eight weeks of life.

Based on current scientific understanding of Covid-19 infection in pregnancy, there is no evidence at this time indicating pregnant women are more at risk for severe illness from Covid-19 than the general public. In general, viral infections in pregnancy can lead to poor outcomes in mothers and newborns.

Pregnant women have a suppressed immune system and experience changes in the way the respiratory system functions. These physiological changes are essential but put pregnant women at a higher risk for respiratory problems when they contract other similar viruses such as MERS, SARS, influenza, or pneumonia.

This paper from UTSW adds to the growing body of medical evidence that most women who contract Covid-19 will do well. The authors acknowledge the scientific consensus that viral infections place pregnant women at risk but highlight the low number of sufficiently powered, large-scale studies conducted to accurately assess the specific risks associated with SARS-CoV-2. The purpose of this study was to address this gap in scientific research.

This large urban county health system’s research compared outcomes in 252 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 3,122 negative pregnant women. The data was collected from March 18 through August 22, 2020. The study population included 2,520 Latinx (75%), 619 Black (18%), and 125 White (4%) women. The statistical analysis controlled for variables such as age, parity, body weight, and other medical conditions.

The study found SARS-CoV-2 positivity was more common in Latinx women, accounting for 90% of the cases. Latinx women make up 75% of the 12,000 women delivering at UTSW.

Thirteen women (5%) developed severe respiratory complications requiring interventions, and one patient developed venous thromboembolism.

There was no difference in preterm birth rates, preeclampsia, C-section rates, or stillbirth in women with Covid-19. This data is further supportive evidence that pregnant women who test positive for Covid-19 and their newborn babies have a low risk of developing severe symptoms.

This study also evaluated the placenta for evidence of pathological changes. Scientists have been concerned the viral illness could lead to placental vasculopathy and inflammatory infiltrates. Pathologists studied the placentas of patients infected with Covid-19. This study found the majority were not affected by the virus.

NIH research indicates that in utero mom-to-baby transmission is rare because the placenta is missing key components the virus needs to enter the fetal circulation, namely ACE2 receptors and the TMPRSS2 enzyme. Both the ACE2 receptor and TMPRSS2 are present in the placenta but only in tiny amounts. The low levels likely explain why SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to cross the placenta from mom to baby.

How do pregnant women protect themselves from Covid-19?

We all must do our part to prevent the spread of the virus. Pregnant women should follow the same global recommendations:

1. Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
2. Use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol.
3. Avoid touching your face.
4. Practice social distancing.
5. Cover your mouth if you cough or sneeze.
6. Clean your cellphone and household surfaces.
7. Avoid travel.
8. Wear a mask when out in public.
9. Get your flu shot.

Adhikari EH, Moreno W, Zofkie AC, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes Among Women With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2029256. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29256

The post Here Is More Good News for Pregnant Women With Covid-19 appeared first on Medika Life.