Predominantly plant-based or vegetarian diet linked to 39% lower odds of COVID-19

A predominantly plant-based or vegetarian diet is linked to 39% lower odds of COVID-19 infection, finds research published in the open access journal BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health.

The findings prompt the researchers to suggest that a diet high in vegetables, legumes, and nuts, and low in dairy products and meat may help to ward off the infection.

Several studies have suggested that diet may have an important role in the evolution of COVID-19 infection, as well as in the factors that heighten the risk of its associated complications.

The researchers therefore set out to evaluate the potential impact of dietary patterns on the incidence, severity, and duration of COVID-19 infection among 702 adult volunteers all of whom were recruited between March and July 2022.

Participants were surveyed on their usual eating patterns and food group frequency, as well as lifestyle and medical history, including vaccination against COVID-19. They were then divided into either omnivorous (424) or predominantly plant-based (278) dietary groups. 

The plant-based food group was further divided into flexitarians/semi-vegetarians who ate meat 3 or fewer times a week (87); and vegetarians and vegans (191).

Those who reported following predominantly plant-based or vegetarian diets routinely ate more vegetables, legumes, and nuts, and less/no dairy and meat.

There were no significant differences in sex, age, or vaccination uptake between the omnivores and plant-based groups. But a significantly higher number of people had been educated to postgraduate degree level in the latter. 

The omnivores also reported a higher rate of medical conditions and lower rates of physical activity. And the prevalence of overweight and obesity was significantly higher among the omnivores—all factors associated with higher COVID-19 infection risk and more severe symptoms/complications.

In all, 330 people (47%) said that they had had COVID-19 infection. Of these, 224 (32%) said they had mild symptoms and 106 (15%) moderate to severe symptoms. 

The omnivores had a significantly higher reported incidence of COVID-19 than the plant-based dietary groups: 52% vs 40%. And they were more likely to have had moderate to severe infection:18% vs just over 11%. 

There was no difference, however, in how long symptoms lasted.

After accounting for potentially influential factors, such as weight, pre-existing medical conditions, and physical activity levels, there was no overall difference in symptom severity between the omnivores and the plant-based dietary groups. 

But those following a predominantly plant-based or vegetarian/vegan diet were 39% less likely to become infected than the omnivores. 

It may be that predominantly plant-based diets provide more nutrients that boost the immune system and help to fight viral infections, they suggest, by way of an explanation for their findings.

“Plant-based dietary patterns are rich in antioxidants, phytosterols and polyphenols, which positively affect several cell types implicated in the immune function and exhibit direct antiviral properties,” they write.

This is an observational study, however, and as such, can’t establish causal factors. The researchers also acknowledge that the study relied on personal recall and subjective assessment, both of which are prone to error.

Nevertheless, they conclude: “In light of these findings and the findings of other studies, and because of the importance of identifying factors that can influence the incidence of COVID-19, we recommend the practice of following plant-based diets or vegetarian dietary patterns.”

"This research adds to the existing evidence, suggesting that diet may have a role in susceptibility to COVID-19 infection," comments  Shane McAuliffe, Senior Visiting Academic Associate, NNEdPro Global Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health, which co-owns BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health with BMJ.

"But this remains an area of research that warrants more rigorous and high quality investigation before any firm conclusions can be drawn about whether particular dietary patterns increase the risk of COVID-19 infection," he adds.

Bottled water can contain hundreds of thousands of previously uncounted tiny plastic bits,

Peer-Reviewed Publication

COLUMBIA CLIMATE SCHOOL

 

IMAGE: 

USING LASERS, SCIENTISTS HAVE IMAGED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PREVIOUSLY INVISIBLE TINY PLASTIC PARTICLES IN BOTTLED WATER. 

view more 

CREDIT: NAIXIN QIAN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

In recent years, there has been rising concern that tiny particles known as microplastics are showing up basically everywhere on Earth, from polar ice to soil, drinking water and food. Formed when plastics break down into progressively smaller bits, these particles are being consumed by humans and other creatures, with unknown potential health and ecosystem effects. One big focus of research: bottled water, which has been shown to contain tens of thousands of identifiable fragments in each container.

Now, using newly refined technology, researchers have entered a whole new plastic world: the poorly known realm of nanoplastics, the spawn of microplastics that have broken down even further. For the first time, they counted and identified these minute particles in bottled water. They found that on average, a liter contained some 240,000 detectable plastic fragments—10 to 100 times greater than previous estimates, which were based mainly on larger sizes.

The study was just published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Nanoplastics are so tiny that, unlike microplastics, they can pass through intestines and lungs directly into the bloodstream and travel from there to organs including the heart and brain. They can invade individual cells, and cross through the placenta to the bodies of unborn babies. Medical scientists are racing to study the possible effects on a wide variety of biological systems.

“Previously this was just a dark area, uncharted. Toxicity studies were just guessing what’s in there,” said study coauthor Beizhan Yan, an environmental chemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “This opens a window where we can look into a world that was not exposed to us before.”

Worldwide plastic production is approaching 400 million metric tons a year. More than 30 million tons are dumped yearly in water or on land, and many products made with plastics including synthetic textiles shed particles while still in use. Unlike natural organic matter, most plastics do not break down into relatively benign substances; they simply divide and redivide into smaller and smaller particles of the same chemical composition. Beyond single molecules, there is no theoretical limit to how small they can get.

Microplastics are defined as fragments ranging from 5 millimeters (less than a quarter inch) down to 1 micrometer, which is 1 millionth of a meter, or 1/25,000th of an inch. (A human hair is about 70 micrometers across.) Nanoplastics, which are particles below 1 micrometer, are measured in billionths of a meter.

Plastics in bottled water became a public issue largely after a 2018 study detected an average of 325 particles per liter; later studies multiplied that number many times over. Scientists suspected there were even more than they had yet counted, but good estimates stopped at sizes below 1 micrometer—the boundary of the nano world.

“People developed methods to see nano particles, but they didn’t know what they were looking at,” said the new study’s lead author, Naixin Qian, a Columbia graduate student in chemistry. She noted that previous studies could provide bulk estimates of nano mass, but for the most part could not count individual particles, nor identify which were plastics or something else.

The new study uses a technique called stimulated Raman scattering microscopy, which was co-invented by study coauthor Wei Min, a Columbia biophysicist. This involves probing samples with two simultaneous lasers that are tuned to make specific molecules resonate. Targeting seven common plastics, the researchers created a data-driven algorithm to interpret the results. “It is one thing to detect, but another to know what you are detecting,” said Min.

The researchers tested three popular brands of bottled water sold in the United States (they declined to name which ones), analyzing plastic particles down to just 100 nanometers in size. They spotted 110,000 to 370,000 particles in each liter, 90% of which were nanoplastics; the rest were microplastics. They also determined which of the seven specific plastics they were, and charted their shapes—qualities that could be valuable in biomedical research.

One common one was polyethylene terephthalate or PET. This was not surprising, since that is what many water bottles are made of. (It is also used for bottled sodas, sports drinks and products such as ketchup and mayonnaise.) It probably gets into the water as bits slough off when the bottle is squeezed or gets exposed to heat. One recent study suggests that many particles enter the water when you repeatedly open or close the cap, and tiny bits abrade.

However, PET was outnumbered by polyamide, a type of nylon. Ironically, said Beizhan Yan, that probably comes from plastic filters used to supposedly purify the water before it is bottled. Other common plastics the researchers found: polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polymethyl methacrylate, all used in various industrial processes.

A somewhat disturbing thought: the seven plastic types the researchers searched for accounted for only about 10% of all the nanoparticles they found in samples; they have no idea what the rest are. If they are all nanoplastics, that means they could number in the tens of millions per liter. But they could be almost anything, “indicating the complicated particle composition inside the seemingly simple water sample,” the authors write. “The common existence of natural organic matter certainly requires prudent distinguishment.”

The researchers are now reaching beyond bottled water. “There is a huge world of nanoplastics to be studied,” said Min. He noted that by mass, nanoplastics comprise far less than microplastics, but “it’s not size that matters. It’s the numbers, because the smaller things are, the more easily they can get inside us.”

Among other things, the team plans to look at tap water, which also has been shown to contain microplastics, though far less than bottled water. Beizhan Yan is running a project to study microplastics and nanoplastics that end up in wastewater when people do laundry—by his count so far, millions per 10-pound load, coming off synthetic materials that comprise many items. (He and colleagues are designing filters to reduce the pollution from commercial and residential washing machines.) The team will soon identify particles in snow that British collaborators trekking by foot across western Antarctica are currently collecting. They also are collaborating with environmental health experts to measure nanoplastics in various human tissues and examine their developmental and neurologic effects.

“It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff,” said Qian. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them there are.”

Hearing loss increases the risk of dementia

 

People who are hard of hearing spend more energy listening. That energy comes at the expense of other cognitive functions. Cognitive functions are the mental processes in the brain that enable us to think and solve problems, among other things.

In a new study featuring data from 573,088 people, researchers from the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark have found a link between hearing loss and the development of dementia. The study is the largest of its kind to date.

There is already an increase in the number of people with dementia. This is mainly due to the ageing of the population as a whole, but there are also other risk factors, such as lifestyle and hearing. 

- Previous studies have suggested that there could be a link between hearing loss and dementia. Our study is larger than the previous studies, and we have demonstrated a link between hearing loss and dementia, says Assistant Professor Manuella Lech Cantuaria from the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark.

Good news for hearing aid users

The results of the study show that people affected by hearing loss have up to a 13% higher risk of developing dementia compared to people with normal hearing. The high risk is especially seen in people with severe hearing loss.

The researchers also studied whether there was a difference in the risk depending on whether or not people wear hearing aids.

- We found that the risk of developing dementia was 20% higher for people who didn’t wear hearing aids compared to people with normal hearing. People who used hearing aids had a 6% increased risk of developing dementia. This suggests that wearing a hearing aid can prevent or delay the development of dementia, explains Manuella Lech Cantuaria.

About the study

The study is a so-called cohort study that follows a group of people with common characteristics over a longer period of time. In this study, all of the people were above 50 years of age and from the Region of Southern Denmark between 2003–2017. People diagnosed with dementia before the commencement of the study were excluded. The researchers compared data on people’s hearing with data on the development of dementia during the period. The researchers have found a significant – that is, clear – correlation between hearing loss and the development of dementia.

• The greatest risk of developing dementia was especially seen in people with severe hearing loss
• Hearing loss causes a 7% increased risk of developing dementia
• People with severe hearing loss have up to a 20% increased risk of developing dementia compared to people without hearing loss

Hearing loss and dementia

Hearing loss – a national scourge
Around 800,000 Danes suffer from hearing loss. And that number is only likely to get higher in the future because we are getting older in general, and we are exposed to more and more noise. Hearing loss is measured in decibels (dB). There are different degrees of hearing loss. For example, hearing loss above 60–70 dB means you can’t hear normal speech. Above 90–100 dB means you can’t hear shouting. 

Dementia
Dementia is a term used to describe the weakening of mental abilities due to illness in the brain. Dementia is characterised by an impairment of cognitive functions such as: Impaired memory and concentration, impaired orientation, language disorders, personality and behavioural changes. Alzheimer’s, for example, is a type of dementia.

New reasons eating less fat should be one of your resolutions

 

IMAGE: 

EVIDENCE MOUNTS THAT A LONG-TERM DIET HIGH IN FAT IS NOT HEALTHY.

view more 

CREDIT: IDAFIUN

A UC Riverside study to motivate your new year’s resolutions: it demonstrates that high-fat diets affect genes linked not only to obesity, colon cancer and irritable bowels, but also to the immune system, brain function, and potentially COVID-19 risk.

While other studies have examined the effects of a high-fat diet, this one is unusual in its scope. UCR researchers fed mice three different diets over the course of 24 weeks where at least 40% of the calories came from fat. Then, they looked not only at the microbiome, but also at genetic changes in all four parts of the intestines. 

One group of mice ate a diet based on saturated fat from coconut oil, another got a monounsaturated, modified soybean oil, a third got an unmodified soybean oil high in polyunsaturated fat. Compared to a low-fat control diet, all three groups experienced concerning changes in gene expression, the process that turns genetic information into a functional product, such as a protein.

“Word on the street is that plant-based diets are better for you, and in many cases that’s true. However, a diet high in fat, even from a plant, is one case where it’s just not true,” said Frances Sladek, a UCR cell biology professor and senior author of the new study.

A new Scientific Reports paper about the study documents the many impacts of high-fat diets. Some of the intestinal changes did not surprise the researchers, such as major changes in genes related to fat metabolism and the composition of gut bacteria. For example, they observed an increase in pathogenic E. coli and a suppression of Bacteroides, which helps protect the body against pathogens. 

Other observations were more surprising, such as changes in genes regulating susceptibility to infectious diseases. “We saw pattern recognition genes, ones that recognize infectious bacteria, take a hit. We saw cytokine signaling genes take a hit, which help the body control inflammation,” Sladek said. ‘So, it’s a double whammy. These diets impair immune system genes in the host, and they also create an environment in which harmful gut bacteria can thrive.”

The team’s previous work with soybean oil documents its link to obesity and diabetes, both major risk factors for COVID. This paper now shows that all three high-fat diets increase the expression of ACE2 and other host proteins that are used by COVID spike proteins to enter the body.

Additionally, the team observed that high-fat food increased signs of stem cells in the colon. “You’d think that would be a good thing, but actually they can be precursors to cancer,” Sladek said.  

In terms of effects on gene expression, coconut oil showed the greatest number of changes, followed by the unmodified soybean oil. Differences between the two soybean oils suggest that polyunsaturated fatty acids in unmodified soybean oil, primarily linoleic acid, play a role in altering gene expression. 

Negative changes to the microbiome in this study were more pronounced in mice fed the soybean oil diet. This was unsurprising, as the same research team previously documented other negative health effects of high soybean oil consumption. 

In 2015, the team found that soybean oil induces obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and fatty liver in mice. In 2020, the researchers team demonstrated the oil could also affect genes in the brain related to conditions like autism, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression. 

Interestingly, in their current work they also found the expression of several neurotransmitter genes were changed by the high fat diets, reinforcing the notion of a gut-brain axis that can be impacted by diet.

The researchers have noted that these findings only apply to soybean oil, and not to other soy products, tofu, or soybeans themselves. “There are some really good things about soybeans. But too much of that oil is just not good for you,” said UCR microbiologist Poonamjot Deol, who was co-first author of the current study along with UCR postdoctoral researcher Jose Martinez-Lomeli.

Also, the studies were conducted using mice, and mouse studies do not always translate to the same results in humans. However, humans and mice share 97.5% of their working DNA. Therefore, the findings are concerning, as soybean oil is the most commonly consumed oil in the United States, and is increasingly being used in other countries, including Brazil, China, and India.

By some estimates, Americans tend to get nearly 40% of their calories from fat, which mirrors what the mice were fed in this study. “Some fat is necessary in the diet, perhaps 10 to 15%. Most people though, at least in this country, are getting at least three times the amount that they need,” Deol said. 

Readers should not panic about a single meal. It is the long-term high-fat habit that caused the observed changes. Recall that the mice were fed these diets for 24 weeks. “In human terms, that is like starting from childhood and continuing until middle age. One night of indulgence is not what these mice ate. It’s more like a lifetime of the food,” Deol said. 

That said, the researchers hope the study will cause people to closely examine their eating habits. 

“Some people think, ‘Oh, I’ll just exercise more and be okay. But regularly eating this way could be impacting your immune system and how your brain functions,” Deol said. “You may not be able to just exercise away these effects.”
 

Hearing aids reduce the risk of death by almost 25%

 

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - HEALTH SCIENCES

 

IMAGE: 

JANET CHOI, MD, MPH, IS AN OTOLARYNGOLOGIST WITH KECK MEDICINE OF USC AND LEAD RESEARCHER OF THE STUDY SHOWING THAT HEARING AIDS REDUCE THE RISK OF DEATH BY ALMOST 25%. 

view more 

CREDIT: RICARDO CARRASCO III

LOS ANGELES — Hearing loss affects approximately 40 million American adults, yet only one in 10 people who need hearing aids use them, research shows.  

Those who don’t use hearing aids but should may want to make wearing them one of their New Year’s resolutions, according to a new study from Keck Medicine of USC published today in The Lancet Healthy Longevity.  

“We found that adults with hearing loss who regularly used hearing aids had a 24% lower risk of mortality than those who never wore them,” said Janet Choi, MD, MPH, an otolaryngologist with Keck Medicine and lead researcher of the study. “These results are exciting because they suggest that hearing aids may play a protective role in people’s health and prevent early death.”  

Previous research has shown that untreated hearing loss can result in a reduced life span (as well as other poor outcomes such as social isolation, depression and dementia). However, until now, there has been very little research examining if the use of hearing aids can reduce the risk of death. The study represents the most comprehensive analysis to date on the relationship between hearing loss, hearing aid use and mortality in the United States, according to Choi. 

Choi and her fellow researchers used data compiled by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999-2012 to identify almost 10,000 adults 20 years and older who had completed audiometry evaluations, a test used to measure hearing ability, and who filled out questionnaires about their hearing aid use. Researchers followed their mortality status over an average follow-up period of 10 years after their evaluations.  

A total of 1,863 adults were identified as having hearing loss. Of these, 237 were regular hearing aid users, which were characterized as those who reported wearing the aids at least once a week, five hours a week or half the time, and 1,483 were identified as never-users of the devices. Subjects who reported wearing the devices less than once a month or less frequently were categorized as non-regular users. 

Researchers found that the almost 25% difference in mortality risk between regular hearing aid users and never-users remained steady, regardless of variables such as the degree of hearing loss (from mild to severe); age, ethnicity, income, education and other demographics; and medical history. There was no difference in mortality risk between non-regular users and never users, indicating that occasional hearing aid use may not provide any life-extending benefit.  

While the study did not examine why hearing aids may help those who need them live longer, Choi points to recent research linking hearing aid use with lowered levels of depression and dementia. She speculates that the improvements in mental health and cognition that come with improved hearing can promote better overall health, which may improve life span.  

Choi hopes this study will encourage more people to wear hearing aids, even though she acknowledges that factors, including cost, stigma and difficulty finding devices that fit and function well, are barriers to use.  

Choi can personally relate to these challenges. She was born with hearing loss in her left ear, but did not wear a hearing device until her 30s. It then took her several years to find ones that worked effectively for her.  

She is currently working on an AI-driven database that categorizes hearing aid choices and tailors them to individual patient needs. She also advocates for larger studies to further understand the link between regular hearing aid use and a lower mortality risk and to promote hearing care. 

RSV vaccines would greatly reduce illness if implemented like flu shots

 

Peer-Reviewed Publication

YALE UNIVERSITY

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines recently approved for people 60 and older would dramatically reduce the disease’s significant burden of illness and death in the United States if they were widely adopted like annual influenza vaccines, a new study has found.

A high level of RSV vaccination would not only potentially reduce millions of dollars in annual outpatient and hospitalization costs but would also produce an economy of scale with individual shots being delivered at a relatively modest cost of between $117 and $245 per dose, the study said.

The vaccines are currently covered by most private insurers without a patient copay because they are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Some Medicare beneficiaries can also obtain the shots at no cost, but only if they are enrolled in Part D of the program, which deals with drug benefits.

“RSV causes substantial morbidity and mortality among the elderly in the U.S. and globally, but this is the first time that RSV vaccines have been available,” said senior author Alison Galvani, the Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health. “We wanted to understand the potential impact of RSV vaccination in terms of averting illness, medical costs, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

RSV is a common respiratory virus that causes mild cold-like symptoms in most people, who usually recover in one or two weeks. But older adults and infants are more likely to develop serious RSV, which can be life-threatening. The current study looked only at the potential impact and cost of RSV vaccines for older adults.

Two RSV vaccines, Arexy and Abrysvo, were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration earlier this year. RSV disease causes an estimated 60,000 to160,000 hospitalizations and 6,000 to 10,000 deaths annually in adults 65 and older, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As of Dec. 1, just 14.8% of people 60 or older in the U.S. said they had obtained an RSV vaccine, CDC records show.

In conducting their study, the researchers created a model for RSV outcomes based on characteristics of the U.S. population 60 or older. Measured outcomes included the annual incidence of cases per 100,000 people requiring outpatient, inpatient, and intensive care, and the death rate for hospitalized patients. The researchers then calculated the medical care costs for these outcomes and lost productivity.

The researchers analyzed how these outcomes would be reduced if 66% of adults 60 and older received an RSV vaccine. That is the typical influenza vaccination coverage for adults 65 years or older in the U.S.

“It would be great if we could achieve even higher levels,” said Galvani, who also serves as the director of Yale’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. “But if we can achieve that for flu, it makes sense that would be feasible for RSV vaccination as well.”

For comparison, the researchers also analyzed the impact of 100% RSV vaccination coverage. In each scenario, they factored in the efficacy of the vaccine at preventing the need for medical care and death. They looked at the impact of these levels of RSV vaccination over one year and then over two years.

They found that 66% vaccination coverage in the first year reduced outpatient care by 41.4% to 53.6%, hospitalizations by 57.6% to 60.5%, and RSV-related deaths by 58.5% to 60.4%.

Increasing vaccination coverage to 100% reduced outpatient care by 62.9% to 81.2%, hospitalizations by 87.4% to 91.7%, and deaths by 87.6% to 91.3%.

Based on these numbers, the maximum cost-effective price per dose for one season at 66% coverage was $118 to $127. The difference was small — $1 to $3 — for 100% coverage.

With the annual cost savings achieved from vaccination, a program where 66% of adults 60 and older are vaccinated for RSV would cost the U.S. health care system $6.4 to $7.1 billion for one season, and $9.7 to $10.7 billion at 100% vaccination, the researchers found.

The vaccines are intended to protect people over two RSV seasons, as clinical trials for the vaccine showed efficacy for that time. But the researchers felt that until real-world efficacy data are available, a one-season analysis was more appropriate.

“Within the next year or two years, as these vaccines are rolled out, we will get a lot of data on effectiveness and better analysis,” said Seyed Moghadas, the paper’s first author and professor of applied mathematics and computational epidemiology at York University. “This new data will help us better inform vaccination strategies for improved impact against RSV disease.”

If real-world data show strong efficacy over two seasons, Arexvy could be cost effective up to $235 per dose and Abrysvo up to $245 per dose, the researchers found.

These are important issues to understand, Galvani said. Some private insurers have not decided if they will cover the vaccines, and whether Medicare does depends on the plan, she said. People 60 to 64 are not eligible for Medicare and may not have health coverage, she added.

“Accessibility and cost are definitely concerns in the American health care system,” she said. “We hope that our results will inform decision-makers about the health and economic benefits of vaccination, as our results demonstrate the importance of making these vaccines accessible to everyone over 60 years to realize their full benefit.”

The research was published Nov. 30 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Combine mindfulness with exercise for mental health boost in 2024

For people looking to start 2024 with a new routine to feel fitter and happier, a new study from the University of Bath suggests that combining mindfulness with exercise could be your key to success.

A study, published in the academic journal Mental Health and Physical Activity, suggests that life changes which combine both physical activity and mindfulness are most effective at lifting mood and improving health and wellbeing.

Both physical activity and mindfulness practice have well established psychological benefits. However, by reviewing existing research studies, this is one of the first to show how the positive effects can be increased when the two are combined.

Its findings suggest that mindfulness can help to unlock exercise by helping to motivate people to start in the first place, whilst overcoming minor pain, discomfort or feelings of failure when exercising gets hard.

Analysis of existing research found mindfulness to be highly effective at reducing worry, stress, anxiety, and helping people to live healthier, happier lives. The benefits for mental and physical health from mindfulness were found in people with and without health issues.

The study was conducted by psychologist Masha Remskar, an expert in behaviour change, mindfulness and exercise based at the University of Bath, with support from the Medito Foundation – a mindfulness non-profit with a mission to build a more mindful world.

Through its work, Medito has developed a mindfulness meditation app – a free alternative to paid-for services such as Headspace and Calm. It is collaborating with Bath to help improve people’s mental wellbeing but also to help them get more active.

Based on the research findings, the team have created and released the first of two mindfulness audio courses aiming to help people get into the habit of exercise. Later in 2024, they will release a second guide, focused on sustaining their exercise habit.

Masha Remskar from the University’s Department of Health explained: “Starting 2024 with a resolution to exercise more can have really positive physical and mental health benefits. But we know that starting out can be tough and that it can also be hard to stick with it over time.

“Mindfulness is an approach that can help us ‘train up’ the psychological strengths we need to exercise and be more in tune with our bodies, as well as make exercising more interesting and help us recognise its benefits.

“This may be because becoming more mindful prompts us to think differently about our lifestyle, makes us more accepting and less judgemental of our own shortcomings, which can help to build healthy habits.

“There is a huge potential to use mindfulness to unlock the positive benefits exercise can bring.”

Steven Yorke, co-founder at Medito added: “Mindfulness mobile apps are a great way to boost our mental wellbeing. Unfortunately, all too often companies put up paywalls, making the benefits of mindfulness inaccessible to some.

“At Medito, we believe that meditation and mindfulness should be available free of charge, to anyone, forever. This is why our mindfulness app, Medito, is and always will be free.

“This collaboration with the University of Bath has been a great way to expand the range of mindfulness meditations we can offer, and it feels great to be at the cutting edge of mindfulness science while we do this.”

Building on this work, the team are about to start conducting a larger trial to determine the effectiveness and optimal intervention moments for combining exercise and mindfulness.