Not every fast-food menu item is a bad one. In fact, some chicken sandwiches, burgers, chicken nuggets, and more are decent sources of protein that aren't packed full of other added ingredients. But, like other indulgences, science proves that moderation is key.

Eating at McDonald's, Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell, or other fast-food chainseven just for one meal every daycan have serious health consequences. While the nutritional information can be found for most items right on the menu, chains have enticing ways of getting you to buy more by way of a (likely fried) side, adding on extra sandwich toppings, or even upgrading your meal for cheap. Falling for these gimmicks only adds to the calories, fat, sodium, carbs, cholesterol, and sugar you're eating.

Here are some specific side effects of eating fast food every single day that you may experience, even if you're simply ordering a soda at McDonald's or a Whopper from Burger King for lunch. Before we start, read up on the 25 Best Fast-Food Hacks for Weight Loss.

The American Heart Association says you may not even realize how much salt is in the foods you eat. And fast food contains a ton of it (among other things). The AHA recommends consuming no more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day. Burger King's Triple Whopper with Cheese has 1,470 milligrams, so having that for lunch or dinner leaves you less than 1,000 milligrams to work with for the rest of the day. And that's only the burger!

If you regularly go over your daily recommended amount of sodium, your risk of high blood pressure goes up, as does your risk of a heart attack or stroke. Studies have found that people who eat four or more servings of French fries a week have a 17% higher risk of developing high blood pressure.

Related:28 Unhealthiest Fast Foods of 2020

The sodium in fast food isn't the only thing that increases your risk of a heart attack. Burgers, chicken, pizza, and other foods from restaurant chains contain a lot of saturated fat (not to be confused with monounsaturated fats, or healthy fats, which are found in foods like avocados, peanut butter, nut, and olive oil).

Saturated fat increases the LDL cholesterol numbers and lines the walls of the arteries that can lead to a heart attack, according to Harvard Health.

"The explosion of fast-food restaurants has significantly increased the intake of fried foods, and people are now eating 1,000 times the amount of soybean oil compared with the early 1900s," according to a review published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine in 2018. "Humans never ate 400 calories of oil a day the way people do in America, especially in the Southern stateswhich are known for the highest stroke and heart attack rates in the world."

The total amount of fat you should have in a day is between 44 and 78 grams, the Mayo Clinic says. Eating one (just one!) Monster Angus Thickburger from Carl's Jr. tips your fat amount over for the day (and then some) with 89 grams of fat.

For more on the burgers you shouldn't order, here are theWorst Fast Food Burgers of 2020.

A review of studies that focus on fast-food found that a diet "Fast food consumption and out-of-home eating behavior is a main risk factor for lower diet quality, higher calorie and fat intake, and lower micronutrients density of food."

While taking supplements can help, the best way to get nutrients out of what you eat is to consume whole, plant-based foods. Here's how to cook your food to get the most out of it.

The high sodium, fat, calorie, sugar, and carb amounts in fast food can also lead to an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. Of course, other factors, like your age, family history, activity level, and blood pressure also play a role, but a diet high in trans and saturated fats increase the amount of triglycerides in your blood, which can up your risk of developing this type of diabetes. That's not all: The high levels of sugar in some fast-foods can also be harmful.

For instance, Dunkin's new Sugarplum Frozen Coffee with Cream sounds pretty delicious, but the 167(!) grams of sugar in a large goes well beyond the American Heart Association's limit of 36 grams per day. A tip from the American Diabetes Association about how to control the sugar, fat, and other unhealthy ingredients says to order the smallest option or to split it with someone.

Other fast-food menu items have hidden sugar, too. Here are the14 Unhealthiest Restaurant Menu Items of 2020.

An ingredient often used in fast-food meat has been associated with breast, prostate, and colon cancers for over 10 years. A 2008 study revealed the link between the chemical PhIP and cancer, and a lawsuit was subsequently filed in 2009 involving Burger King. After that, the burger chain agreed to post warnings about PhIP in its California restaurants.

The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research both recommend limiting the amount of fast and processed foods to help maintain a healthy weight. "Greater body fatness is a cause of many cancers," both institutions say. For more on this, here are7 Amazing Things That Happen When You Give Up Fast Food.

To get other health tips delivered straight to your email inbox every day, sign up for our newsletter!

Go here to see the original:
Dangerous Side Effects of Eating Fast Food Every Day, According to Science - Eat This, Not That

If we all do our bit, said Boris Johnson, launching a Government strategy to tackle obesity during the summer of 2020, we can reduce our health risks and protect ourselves against coronavirusas well as taking pressure off the NHS. Following his own coronavirus scare, the prime minister appeared eager to get the nation to lose weight. An online videoshowed him walking his dog around the grounds of Chequers and referring to his personal battles with obesity and coronavirus.

But anew report by a cross-party think-tank suggests that Government messages on weight loss and coronavirus have done little to help people with obesity address their condition. So what was wrong with Boris Johnsons coronavirus weight loss plan?

The evidence is now in: obesity can double your chance of dying from coronavirus, saidNHS Englands chief executive in the run up to Johnsons strategy launch. Obesity may be one of the few modifiable risk factors for covid-19, announced Public Health England. But it had already been shown that obesity was not the only factor to double your risk of death from coronavirus. Nor is it the only modifiable risk factor for covid-19. Living in a deprived area doubles your chance of dying from coronavirus. Social deprivation is another modifiable risk factor for coronavirus mortality. And yet it has attracted little attention from the prime minister and no government initiatives were set up to address it.

Modifying, or eradicating, deprivation demands that the government make progressive changes in policies. Meanwhile, efforts to tackle obesity tend to push the responsibility onto individuals, encouraging them to make different life choices and change their behaviour. This was apparent when thegovernments obesity policy described a call to action for everyone who is overweight to take steps to move towards a healthier weight. The Health Secretary wrote of the policy that at its heart is better information:providing the public with information to help them make healthier choices. The focus on individuals and their personal choices was also apparent when, in anarticle accompanying his dog-walking video, the prime minister summoned a spirit of personal responsibility to tackle the problem of obesity, highlighting how your health depends on your own choices about how you lead your life.

But the emphasis on personal choice did not acknowledge the complex social causation of obesity. In particular, it did not acknowledge the higher incidence of obesity amongmore deprived groups. It ignored the unequal environments in which personal choices are made. Deprived areas have afive times greater density of fast food outletsand fewer shops selling fresh fruit and vegetables. Taking Dilyn the dog for a walk around the lawns of the Chequers estate is unarguably a more appealing option than taking exercise in many urban housing estates. Promoting personal choice also ignored the unequal resources that people have, including the fact that many children grow up in homes that struggle toafford a healthy diet,andfood poverty is a real issue. Having to depend on food banks does not facilitate personal choice. And making choices in order to lose weight relies upon a sense of personal agency and control that many people experiencing deprivation have had eroded over time, as life opportunities have been withheld from them, as state benefits have been cut despite their protestations, and as their efforts to secure employment or housing have resulted only in disappointment. Many of these issues have already been exacerbated by coronavirus, because it is people onlow incomes who have tended to lose their jobs or be furloughed, and the economic fallout will continue to hit hardest those who are already worst off. People who are more deprived may be more likely to be obese, but they are less able to respond to the governments call to action.

Of course, addressing obesity and addressing deprivation do not need to be conflicting priorities. After all, since rates of obesity are higher among more deprived groups, it might make sense to address these issues together. But when obesity is addressed in isolation it shifts attention, effort, and resources away from the issue of deprivation, and from the unfair impact of deprivation on peoples health.

The governments coronavirus-inspired weight loss plan was a failure. It marked a failure to acknowledge deprivation as a risk factor for coronavirus mortality. And it failed even to acknowledge the role of deprivation as a risk factor for obesity. Many observers anticipated this failure, with the PMs strategy branded a missed opportunity at the time, showing little sign of policies that will address the root causes of obesity. Without addressing those root causes, as a nation we will not only fail to lose weight, but we will continue to fail the more vulnerable members of our society.

A whole systems approach to obesity has been advocated; looking at the wide range of factors that may contribute to higher rates of obesity. With that in mind, and with recognition of the role of deprivation in relation to obesity, coronavirus, and many other health problems, we should take note of Michael Marmots recent invocation to Build Back Fairer. In the wake of coronavirus, priorities should include reducing social and economic inequalities, and ensuring that fair health outcomes are at the heart of government policy. The healthcare professions still have a powerful role in holding the government to account.

Andrew Moscrop, primary care physician, Oxford.

Competing interests: None declared.

More here:
Andrew Moscrop: Deprivation and the failure of Boris Johnson's covid-19 weight loss plan - The BMJ - The BMJ

In The Know

Walking your dog in Svalbard is not the same as walking your dog in, say, Florida. Svalbard, a chain of Norwegian islands located well inside the Arctic Circle, experiences total darkness for several months of the year. Add heavy snow, way-below-freezing temperatures and the threat of polar bears, and youve got a pretty tough walk on your hands. Thats what Svalbard resident Cecilia Blomdahl experiences each day. In a now-viral TikTok video, Blomdahl reveals what its like to prepare herself and her pups for a stroll. its currently pitch-black 24/7 outside her home. That means her dogs are basically invisible when she walks them even at 4 p.m. Blomdahl decks the pups out in high-visibility collars, bright vests and plenty of blinking lights. As for herself, she wears a headlamp and many, many, layers of warm clothes. The dog owner said she has to bring a gun with her due to the threat of polar bears. TikTok users seemed stunned by the amount of work behind Blomdahls daily routine. Im sorry. RIFLE? POLAR BEARS? one commenter reacted

See original here:
What Does It Mean When Your Dog Is Suddenly Losing Weight? - Yahoo Lifestyle

MONROE COUNTY, N.Y. Already planning to drop those pounds you put on in quarantine next year? Perhaps your New Years resolution is to get back out and travel more. Whatever the plan is, a professor from the University of Rochester says youre better off throwing your 2021 goals out now because few ever get accomplished. To change things up, and make yourself happier, the expert on motivation and well-being claims resolutions to help others will be better for you personally in the long run.

Richard Ryan, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Rochester, says motivational researchers always have mixed feelings about making New Years resolutions.

The evidence shows that most of the time people arent successful at them, he explains in a university release.That is because most of these midnight resolutions look more like pressure coming from the outsidean attempt to look better, relieve guilt, or meet the standards of others. Losing weight, for example, is one of the most common New Years goals and one that people tend to do poorly at. Part of the reason for that is where its coming from: its often coming from internal or external pressureas opposed to a goal thats something that you might intrinsically value such as having more health or vitality. If the goal is one that is not authentic and not really coming from your own values or interests, the energy for it fades fast.

The clinical psychologist says people shouldnt look at this as a reason to give up on making goals. Instead, Ryan contends that any occasion that gives someone the opportunity to reflect on their life is a good thing.Whenever that happens, if its really a reflective change something that you put your heart behind that can be good for people, he notes.

The professors tip for New Years suggests that goals which include giving back to others will likely be the most satisfying resolutions to make. He adds that such goals are especially helpful now as the world deals with COVID-19.

Think of how you can help. Theres a lot of distress out there: If we can set goals that aim to help others, those kinds of goals will, in turn, also add to our own well-being, Ryan explains.

Ryan and fellow professor emeritus of psychology Edward Deci created the self-determination theory, a framework for their research on human motivation and personality. Its basic principle is that all humans have a natural tendency to act in effective and healthful ways.

To that end, Ryan finds that being helpful satisfies all three psychological needs discovered by the self-determination theory autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When it comes to helping others, autonomy refers to engaging in activities which give you a feeling of personal value. Competence describes feeling effective while also having a sense of accomplishment regarding your good deed. Lastly, relatedness expresses the feeling of working and sharing a connection with others.

We found that when people are focused on giving to others they experience deeper satisfactions than when their goals are more self-oriented. For example, experiments show that doing something benevolent for others, even when you will never meet the beneficiary, increases your positive mood and energy, Ryan reports.

If you want to make a New Years resolution that really makes you happy, think about the ways in which you can contribute to the world. All three of these basic needs are fulfilled. The research shows its not just good for the world but also really good for you.

Ryans recent findings appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

See original here:
Forget weight loss: New Years resolutions to help others will make you happier - Study Finds

During the holidays, fasting may be the furthest thing from your mind. Once the Holidays are over, however, it may suddenly seem like an attractive option. Eating, as a basic activity of daily living, compensates for feelings of hunger and provides necessary nutrients to our physiological systems. Moreover, what we eat and how we eat can play a significant role in our health and well-being and may even impact longevity. Because of the significance of eating on well-being, diet interventions receive extensive attention in the media. Among different types of dietary interventions, fasting is emerging as the most significant; current research suggests that changing ones eating habits by reducing caloric intake, when coupled with modifying meals schedules may delay or prevent the onset of many types of diseases and extend years of functionality to cells, tissues and organs.

Dr. Valter Longo, director of the USC Longevity Institute, has done numerous studies supporting the positive effects of fasting on longevity. The rationale of fasting to improve health can be explained, in part, by the Disposable Soma Theory, a major theory in physiology of aging studies. This theory posits that the notion of senescence is the decrease in an organisms ability to reproduce and causes a related increase in the chances it will die as it ages. It assumes that the body needs to budget and appropriate the energy for various tasks to maintain subsistence. In allocating energy for different physiological activities, there is a tradeoff between using it for reproduction or for cell, tissue or organ repair.

In other words, if a substantial proportion of available energy is used for growing new tissues, less energy will remain for reproduction, regeneration and repair of existing body components. When we eat less food, our systems may interpret this behavior as a signal that the energy acquired from digesting food is becoming scarce. Therefore, our body will adjust so as not to deplete remaining energy by using too much of the it for reproductive activities. Instead, the body will focus more on maintaining the function of existing tissues and wait for a more suitable time to reproduce. As a result, existing tissues will be better maintained and protected. In maintenance mode, our body systems, tissues and organs will be kept strong and healthy. That is a general explanation on how fasting can reduce morbidity and contribute to longevity.

Fasting refers to purposefully restricting ones diet for a specific period. Traditionally, fasting was practiced in the manner of continuous caloric restriction, but the development of clinical trials and carefully designed programs have enriched our understanding of the effects of calorie-restricted fasting. Andrea Di Francesco, Clara Di Germanio, Michel Bernier, and Rafael de Cabo (2018) categorized fasting in four domains:

Human beings have practiced fasting and the unpleasant variance we know as starvation. However, because of their using unsophisticated medical technologies, the potential health benefits of fasting were not noted adequately. Today, fasting is receiving more attention and current scientific, social and economic developments make the health and beauty effects of fasting more attractive to consider. We have basic recommendations for those who may be considering one of these fasting options:

First, when deciding to practice fasting, take the time to do some research on possible negative outcomes. This will enhance your health literacy regarding fasting and possible consequences.

Second, before beginning a program of fasting, consult with a professional nutritionist on how best to proceed. For people who have no experience in fasting, suddenly being deprived of certain foods may be challenging; therefore, it is necessary to take a strategic approach to dieting to improve the odds of achieving diet goals.

Third, if it becomes impossible to tolerate the dietary restrictions, feel free to give up and restart when further motivated. The first few days of fasting could be difficult to bear. If the uncomfortable feelings have exceeded our level of tolerance, we should not feel guilty. Sometimes, ones own body may recognize that to continue fasting may result in unintentional, negative consequences to our health and well-being. Often, we can back off for a period and restart fasting when we are so inclined.

Remember that unless approached systematically, after undertaking weight-loss dieting, the weight lost often comes back and, even worse, additional pounds may accrue without carefully maintaining diet guidelines.

If you have questions, or comments about this article, please contact the authors at usc.rxxlab@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: Persons with eating disorders should consult with a physician before considering any fasting diet.

Mengzhao Yan, MA, Senior Lab Assistant; Erin Crutcher, MSG Candidate, Research Assistant; George Shannon, MSG, PhD; Director, USC Rongxiang Xu Regenerative Life Science Lab (RxX Lab).

Read the original here:
Fasting to Enhance Longevity? - L.A. Weekly