More trans fat intake linked to aggression and irritability.

Yet another reason to avoid fast foods. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine have shown – by each of a range of measures, in men and women of all ages, in Caucasians and minorities – that consumption of dietary trans fatty acids (dTFAs) is associated with irritability and aggression.

The study of nearly 1,000 men and women provides the first evidence linking dTFAs with adverse behaviors that impacted others, ranging from impatience to overt aggression.

Dietary trans fatty acids are primarily products of hydrogenation, which makes unsaturated oils solid at room temperature. They are present at high levels in margarines, shortenings and prepared foods. Adverse health effects of dTFAs have been identified in lipid levels, metabolic function, insulin resistance, oxidation, inflammation, and cardiac health.

Greater trans fatty acid intakes were significantly associated with greater aggression, and were more consistently predictive of aggression and irritability, across the measures tested, than the other known aggression predictors that were assessed. If the association between trans fats and aggressive behavior proves to be causal, this adds further rationale to recommendations to avoid eating trans fats, or including them in foods provided at institutions like schools and prisons, since the detrimental effects of trans fats may extend beyond the person who consumes them to affect others in that persons environment.

Red Meat Linked to Increased Mortality Risk

Eating a single serving of red meat per day may raise the risk of early death, a new study found.

The study, which followed more than 120,000 American men and women, linked daily consumption of unprocessed red meat with a 13 percent increase in mortality risk.

A daily serving of processed meat carried an even bigger risk. Eating one hotdog or two strips of bacon per day was associated with a 20 percent increased risk of death, according to the study.

"It's not really surprising because red meat consumption has been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer," said Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of the study published today in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. "What is surprising is the magnitude of risk associated with very moderate red meat consumption."

Nearly three-quarters of the study participants reported eating one or more daily servings of red meat.

"Habitual, daily consumption of these products is actually very common, both in our study and in the general population," said Hu.

People who ate red meat regularly tended to have other bad health habits, like smoking, drinking alcohol and being physically inactive, according to the study. They also tended to eat fewer fruits and vegetables, which are linked to decreased mortality. But even when Hu and colleagues controlled for those risk factors, the red meat-mortality link stood.

The study could not conclude that red meat consumption caused the increased risk of death, rather that there was an association between the two. But red meat contains compounds known to boost the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, such as saturated fat, sodium nitrites and other "chemicals produced during processing and cooking," Hu said.

Swapping red meat for healthy protein sources, such as poultry, fish, legumes and whole grains was linked to a decrease in mortality risk, ranging from 7 percent for fish to 19 percent for nuts.

Dr. Dean Ornish, clinical professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, urges people to scale back on red meat consumption for another reason: the environment. A quarter-pounder with cheese "takes 26 ounces of petroleum and leaves a 13-pound carbon footprint. This is equivalent to burning 7 pounds of coal," he wrote in an editorial accompanying the study. "What is personally sustainable is globally sustainable. What is good for you is good for our planet."

Sugary beverages linked to increased heart risk in men.

Throw out the sugar packets, skip the sweet tea, and just say no to sugar sweetened soft drinks...if you want to do everything you can to keep your heart healthy. So say the results of a new Harvard study.

Just one sugar-sweetened drink a day may be enough to raise a man’s risk for heart disease, a new study suggests.

Men who drank just one sugary drink a day had a 20% higher risk of heart disease than did non-drinkers, says researcher Frank Hu, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health.

"This study provides strong evidence that higher consumption of sugary beverages is an important risk factor for heart disease," he says. "Even moderate consumption -- one soda per day -- is associated with a 20% increased risk."

Hu's team followed nearly 43,000 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Previously, they conducted a similar study with women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study. In that study, they also found a link between sugar-sweetened drinks and heart disease.

"In this one we tried to replicate the results in men," he tells WebMD. The results are very consistent, he says. "That is really enhancing the validity of the findings."

The team found a link, but that does not prove cause and effect. The study is published in the journal Circulation.

Naturally, the Sugar Association, an industry group, took exception with the findings, stressing that sugar is not the main culprit, but lifestyle. So did the American Beverage Association. 

Men who drank sugar-sweetened drinks daily had higher indicators for heart disease than the non-drinkers did.

Those who had a daily sugar-sweetened drink had higher levels of blood fats called triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease. They had lower levels of HDL or "good"cholesterol, another risk factor.

American Heart Association (2012, March 12). Sugar-sweetened drinks linked to increased risk of heart disease in men. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 13, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2012/03/120312162744.htm