My latest supplement

Ceylon cinnamon—often called "true cinnamon"—is a potent spice known for supporting blood sugar management, reducing inflammation, and offering heart protection. Its standout advantage over common Cassia cinnamon is extremely low coumarin levels, making it the safest choice for daily consumption. [1, 2]

Ceylon cinnamon provides several evidence-based benefits:

Blood Sugar Regulation: It helps improve insulin sensitivity and slows the breakdown of carbohydrates after meals, assisting in blood sugar management. [1]
Reduced Inflammation & Oxidative Stress: It is rich in antioxidants like polyphenols and cinnamaldehyde, which combat chronic inflammation and protect against cell damage. [1, 2]
Heart Protection: Regular intake is associated with reduced levels of total cholesterol, LDL ("bad") cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure. [1]
Antimicrobial Properties: The spice contains natural properties that help fight off bacteria, fungi, and viruses. [1, 2]

Also see:

https://healthnewsreport.blogspot.com/2026/04/some-of-my-supplements.html

https://healthnewsreport.blogspot.com/2026/04/5-more-of-my-supplements.html

 

Yo-yo dieting might mean losing muscle, too

 

Repeatedly losing and gaining weight may do more than frustrate dieters — it also accelerates muscle loss in middle-aged people, according to new UC San Francisco research that comes as weight-loss medications transform obesity treatment.

In a study published July 21 in Radiology, the researchers found that people whose weight repeatedly fluctuated lost significantly more thigh muscle over four years than people whose weight remained relatively steady, even though both groups finished the study at about the same overall weight as when they began.

“When people’s weight cycled, they lost tremendous amounts of muscle along with the fat, and they didn’t gain the muscle back,” said Thomas Link, MD, PhD, professor of Radiology, who led the study, along with co-first authors, Adrian A. Marth, MD, and Gabby Joseph, PhD. “This tells us that understanding how to protect muscle while people are losing weight is important for overall health.”

Although the study was not conducted in people taking GLP-1 drugs, Link said that the insight addresses a question likely to become increasingly important as more people go on and off weight-loss therapies.

Looking beyond the scale

The researchers analyzed MRI scans and health data from 1,433 middle-aged participants in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a long-running study of adults at risk for knee osteoarthritis that is funded by the National Institutes of Health. While some participants maintained a stable weight during the four-year study, others experienced repeated weight fluctuations.

Using artificial intelligence to analyze MRI scans, the team measured thigh muscle volume, fat within the muscles, and fat surrounding the knee. The difference between the two groups was striking.

People whose weight repeatedly fluctuated lost nearly four times as much thigh muscle over four years as those whose weight remained relatively steady. The loss was about 3.7% of thigh muscle volume in weight cyclers, compared with about 1% in non-cyclers, after accounting for age, sex, baseline BMI, physical activity, diet, and other health factors.

The findings also suggest that preserving muscle during weight loss deserves as much attention as losing fat.

“We need to better understand how weight loss affects the body in ways that aren’t about the number on the scale,” said Link. 

"Fat loss is just one piece of a much larger puzzle that includes how weight loss affects arthritis, muscle, bone, and other factors," Link said. "As more people use effective weight-loss therapies, we need to be thinking about how those pieces fit together.”

How many cups of caffeinated coffee are safe and good for you to drink each day?

Highlights:

• The latest research indicates that consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (equivalent to up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is generally safe for most adults and appears to be linked to a lower risk of several cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, heart disease and stroke in some individuals.
• However, higher amounts of caffeine, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, may increase the risk of high blood pressure and/or irregular heart rhythm or arrhythmia.
• More research is needed to better understand caffeine’s impact on the body, how different sources of caffeine impact heart health and how its impact may vary among different people, according to the scientific statement.

Previous studies have found that caffeine is the world’s most popular stimulant and psychoactive sub­stance, and coffee is the most common way people consume caffeine. The latest research supports the conclusion that for most adults, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (or up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is safe and appears to be linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease for some individuals. However, higher doses of caffeine, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, may cause cardiovascular harm, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement, “Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease,” published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship peer-reviewed scientific journal Circulation.

“Caffeine consumed in coffee is a key part of daily life for millions of people, and in our review of the most recent research, for most adults, intake of up to 400 mg of caffeine/day, the equivalent of up to 5 cups of caffeinated coffee per day without added sugars or fillers, is safe and does not increase cardiovascular risk,” said Chair of the scientific statement volunteer writing group Gregory M. Marcus, M.D., M.A.S., FAHA, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and the associate chief of Cardiology for Research at the University of California, San Francisco Health. “However, high doses of caffeine, such as those found in energy drinks including energy shots, may have harmful effects on the heart and should be avoided.”

The statement authors note that studying the effects of caffeine on the cardiovascular system is challenging. Coffee is the main source of caffeine in most research studies, and the observed cardiovascular effects may be due to other compounds in coffee. For example, experimental studies suggest that the bioactive compounds in coffee may have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which may help explain some health benefits. It’s also difficult to separate the effects of caffeine from other ingredients usually added to coffee, such as milk, cream, flavored syrups and/or sugar. In addition, most studies on caffeine are observational, meaning they cannot prove cause and effect. 

Although coffee is the main source of caffeine for most adults, tea, chocolate, soda and energy drinks, as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, also contribute to overall caffeine intake. More research is needed about other products with caffeine in order to understand caffeine content and caffeine’s impact on cardiovascular health.

The new scientific statement details the most recent research primarily on caffeinated coffee and the potential impact of caffeine in coffee on high blood pressure, cholesterol, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias and other cardiovascular conditions.

Caffeine and cardiovascular health: key things to know

• Based on the results of the latest research studies reviewed, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine per day, or no more than 3 to 5, 8-ounce cups of regular black caffeinated coffee per day (without sugars, sweeteners, flavors or added fillers), is considered safe for most adults. A regular brewed, non-specialty, caffeinated coffee typically contains 9.4-20.6 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce.
• Consuming caffeinated coffee without added sugars, flavors or cream was linked to a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, heart failure and some irregular heart rhythms.
• Randomized trials, the most rigorous and reliable type of study design, have shown that caffeine consumption in coffee is associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation but also a higher risk of premature ventricular contractions.
• Adding sugar, flavored syrups, milk and/or cream to coffee likely reduces its potential health benefits, and more research is needed to understand the impact of these additives.
• Higher caffeine intake, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, was associated with cardiovascular harm, such as increased risk of high blood pressure and irregular heart rhythm. Energy drink shots may contain 40-69 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce, 3-4 times more caffeine than regular caffeinated coffee.

How does caffeine affect the body?

Caffeine consumed in coffee is metabolized by the liver and generally reaches peak concentration for most people within an hour. However, how quickly individuals process caffeine depends on their genetics, metabolism, age and past caffeine use. When more caffeinated coffee is consumed regularly, some people may develop a tolerance to higher levels of caffeine. Other people may feel stronger effects from the same amount of caffeine. Short-term effects of caffeine may include temporary increases in blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugar and alertness. Some people may experience heart palpitations and/or sleep disruption.

Specific health impacts of caffeine:

• Effects on blood pressure: Studies have found that caffeinated coffee consumption may affect blood pressure differently depending on how much is consumed. In people with optimal blood pressure, drinking 1–3 cups a day was associated with an increased risk of developing high blood pressure, while drinking more than 3 cups per day was associated with a lower risk. High doses of caffeine (such as those from energy drinks or energy shots) can significantly increase blood pressure, especially in people who already have high blood pressure.

• Effects on Type 2 diabetes: Research suggests that caffeinated coffee may reduce insulin sensitivity in the short term. In addition, drinking black, caffeinated coffee (no additives, flavors or sweeteners) regularly was linked to a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. However, this benefit may be due to compounds in coffee other than caffeine. More research is needed to clarify the impact on Type 2 diabetes of caffeinated coffee vs. various compounds in coffee.

• Effects on cholesterol: Data from randomized clinical trials indicate cafestol, a component in both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, was associated with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein (also known as “bad” cholesterol). Cafestol is present in unfiltered coffee (such as espresso, French press, Turkish coffee or boiled coffee) but not present in coffee brewed with paper filters or instant coffee. More research is needed to understand which products have higher levels of cafestol and their mechanisms.  

• Effects on heart rhythm: The most recent analyses of health measures with self-reported information from participants have found that drinking 1-3 cups of caffeinated coffee per day was not associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation or abnormal heart rhythm. However, caffeinated coffee at that same level may be associated with more early beats from the lower chamber of the heart, called premature ventricular contractions (or PVCs). Very high doses of caffeine (such as those in caffeinated energy drinks or energy shots) have been linked to abnormal heart rhythm in people usually considered to have low cardiovascular disease risk, such as healthy adults younger than age 30.

• Effects on heart disease and stroke: Drinking 2-4 cups of caffeinated coffee per day was linked to a lower risk of heart disease, heart failure and stroke. However, drinking more than 4 cups of caffeinated coffee a day may increase the risk of heart failure.

Not all sources of caffeine are the same

More research is necessary to investigate the different health impacts of various types of caffeinated coffee and other products with caffeine, such as tea, soda, energy drinks and energy shots, and foods. There have been fewer studies focused on tea vs. coffee; however, tea has been associated with reduced risk of atrial fibrillation, heart failure and stroke, similar to caffeinated coffee. Energy drinks, bars, gels and caffeine-based supplements often contain other added ingredients that may increase the absorption of caffeine, may accelerate its effects on the body, may raise blood pressure and increase the risk of cardiovascular harm.

More randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of caffeine in coffee and other products that have caffeine on cardiovascular health are needed to better understand how caffeine affects different people and how different sources of caffeine impact heart health. The writing group emphasized that there is also a need for research focused on caffeinated energy drinks and other popular products containing caffeine. Due to the lack of sufficient, rigorous data to develop guidance on recommendations for caffeine intake, caffeine was not referenced in the Association’s 2026 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health. 

“Although research suggests that caffeine consumption may be associated with certain cardiovascular benefits for some people, it’s important to remember that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy for safe caffeine consumption. People can respond very differently to caffeine based on various factors, such as age, medications, underlying health conditions, genetics and how quickly their bodies metabolize it. What may be a reasonable amount for one person could cause unwanted effects, such as heart palpitations, anxiety or sleep disruption, in another. That’s why it’s important to pay attention to how your body responds to caffeine and talk with your healthcare team about what is right for you,” Marcus said.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; and the Stroke Council. American Heart Association scientific statements promote greater awareness about cardiovascular diseases and stroke issues and help facilitate informed health care decisions. Scientific statements outline what is currently known about a topic and what areas need additional research. While scientific statements inform the development of guidelines, they do not make treatment recommendations. American Heart Association guidelines provide the Association’s official clinical practice recommendations.

Brain development risks associated with certain medications during pregnancy

 

The medications studied include some statins, antidepressants, anxiety medications and cardiovascular drugs.

Cholesterol is a vital molecule, especially during embryonic development. Disruption of the cholesterol biosynthetic pathway can arise from pathogenic genetic variants or exposure to prescription medications. A study published in Molecular Psychiatry investigated the relationship between fifteen sterol biosynthesis inhibiting medications (SBIM) prescribed during pregnancy and the incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in the resulting offspring. The study included 6,135,213 children with linked maternal health records.  

The study evaluated the incidence of ASD associated with maternal prescription of aripiprazole, atorvastatin, bupropion, buspirone, fluoxetine, haloperidol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pravastatin, propranolol, rosuvastatin, sertraline, simvastatin, and/or trazodone during pregnancy.  

The study found that exposure to at least one SBIM during pregnancy was associated with a 1.47-fold (95% CI 1.45–1.49) increased risk of an ASD after adjusting for potential confounders. For each additional SBIM co-prescribed, there was a 1.33 (95% CI 1.32–1.34) times increased risk of ASD, reaching 2.33-fold risk when 4 or more SBIMs were prescribed simultaneously. 

Notably, in our dataset, utilization of SBIM medications by pregnant women increased from 4.6% in 2014 to16.8% in 2023. 

In conclusion, SBIMs may be potentially harmful to the developing fetus. Given that these drugs account for over 400 million prescriptions annually in the U.S. these should findings be considered before prescribing SBIM medications during pregnancy.

More than half of U.S. adults now eligible for statins under new guidelines

 

More than half of U.S. adults ages 30 to 79—about 87.5 million people—are now recommended for statins to prevent cardiovascular disease under newly updated clinical guidelines, according to a study by University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine researchers published today in JAMA.

 

The new recommendations significantly change how doctors assess cardiovascular risk by looking beyond the next 10 years to a person’s risk over several decades. Even though newer calculators often estimate lower short-term risk than older tools, the guidelines broaden statin eligibility. As a result, an additional 21.5 million Americans are now recommended for statins, bringing the total to 56.6% of adults ages 30 to 79.

 

In March 2026, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology and others released updated guidelines for managing high cholesterol to help prevent cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes. The recommendations incorporated an updated risk calculator released in 2023 and broadened eligibility by expanding the age range from 40–75 to 30–79 and extending the risk horizon from 10 years to 30 years.

 

“The shift to a longer view of cardiovascular disease risk is a sea change for doctors in counseling patients,” said Timothy S. Anderson, M.D., M.A.S., a primary care physician, health quality researcher and assistant professor of medicine at Pitt. “We wanted to better understand the potential population-health effect of this shift.”

 

“Before the new guidelines, people who were flagged with high cholesterol in their 30s and 40s tended to be recommended to focus on diet and exercise and were not recommended medication—unless the patient already had heart disease or other factors that made them particularly high-risk, like diabetes.”

 

The team analyzed data from 4,366 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing about 154.5 million U.S. adults who do not have existing cardiovascular disease, from 2017 to 2023. The analysis focused specifically on primary prevention—reducing risk before a heart attack or stroke occurs—and did not include pregnant individuals in the study sample.

 

The results showed that age remains a strong predictor of risk. Relatively few—just 11.1%—of adults in their 30s are recommended statins. Eligibility increases steadily over time, with 85% of people in their 60s and most individuals in their 70s—93.5%—qualifying under the new guidelines.

 

The vast expansion of people recommended for treatment is heavily driven by patients who are generally considered to be at low risk in the shorter term, meaning they are under 3% risk of having a heart attack or stroke within 10 years, but modest risk—over 10%—within 30 years.

 

Anderson, who was a member of the committee that wrote the new guidelines, acknowledges that they represent a major conceptual shift for patients, too, as they face the question of whether to start a daily medication now to prevent something from happening more than 10 years down the road.

 

“Many of my younger patients wonder why they can’t put off starting treatment—which is understandable, given they might have low risk of a cardiovascular event 10 years out—and some likely can with a strong focus on healthy diet, exercise and weight. But for patients seeking to fully minimize risks of heart attacks and strokes, early statin therapy may be a good choice.”

 

Anderson adds that the biology of cardiovascular disease is an evolving story.

 

“Observational evidence suggests the longer people are exposed to high levels of inflammatory cholesterol molecules, the greater their downstream risks of heart attacks and strokes are. Unfortunately, we do not have randomized clinical trials for low-risk people 30 years out that would directly support this new understanding of how risk builds more gradually over the years—because such trials are expensive, and we need to wait decades for the answer,” he said.

 

“Ultimately, in this grey zone, patients should talk to doctors. This is a preference-based decision that should take into account the potential for modest cardiovascular risk reduction alongside the potential for adverse drug events, costs and patient preferences.”

 

Importantly, Anderson stresses, medication is not the only tool in the toolkit for cardiovascular disease prevention. “It's certainly very reasonable that many people will talk about this with their doctor and say, ‘Okay, what can I do that does not involve medication?’” Physicians have long recommended lifestyle changes like healthy diet, exercise and smoking cessation to all their patients, regardless of whether they have high cholesterol—and will continue to do so.

Heavy TV watching associated with smaller brain structures,

Reduced volume was found in areas of the brain connected to memory formation, indicating a potential link between TV watching and higher dementia risk

Turn off that TV, it’ll rot your brain!” has been a household refrain for decades. While “rot” might be too strong a term, researchers are finding that the overall sentiment could have some merit.

A study published recently in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association revealed that those who reported watching TV “very often” in midlife later exhibited reduced volume in areas of the brain associated with memory, smaller frontal and occipital lobes, and areas of damage in the brain’s white matter that are associated with aging, stroke risk, cognitive decline and dementia. 

“For years we’ve focused on how much people sit. Our findings suggest we should also pay attention to what they’re doing while they’re sitting,” says David Raichlen, professor of biological sciences and anthropology at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and a senior author of the study. 

The findings weren’t just due to TV viewing’s sedentary nature. The study found that other types of sedentary activities did not have the same associations, indicating that what one does while sitting may matter much more than previously thought.

Watching changes

The researchers analyzed data from about 1,700 adults, average age 53, who enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study between 1987 and 1989. ARIC is a long-running study of the U.S. population designed to investigate cardiovascular and brain health. 

Participants were asked how frequently, on a scale ranging from “never/seldom” to “very often,” they watched television during their leisure time and how much of their workday they spent sitting.

More than two decades later, participants underwent brain MRI. Compared with people who reported “never” or “seldom” watching TV, those who watched TV “very often” showed widespread structural differences across the brain.

The researchers found smaller volumes in areas associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease and more white matter hyperintensity volumes, an indicator of cerebral small blood vessel disease associated with cognitive decline and dementia. These participants also had smaller occipital and frontal lobes, regions associated with visual processing and executive functioning.

Differences persisted even when the researchers controlled for factors such as physical activity, diabetes, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol use.

Of note, the researchers relied on self-reported data for TV consumption, which can be less precise than timed tracking. Study participants also did not undergo a baseline MRI. Future research could begin with a baseline MRI to more concretely demonstrate changes over time.

Not all sitting is made the same

Strikingly, the sedentary element of TV watching didn’t appear to be the main driver for these changes.

Those who reported high amounts of sitting at work actually had larger frontal and occipital lobes, as well as reduced white matter hyperintensity volumes, indicating better brain health than among those who sit to watch TV. This could be due to the intellectually stimulating nature of many sit-down jobs, say the study authors. 

Men appeared to be particularly vulnerable to these changes. When the MRI scans were separated by sex, researchers found that most of the changes to the brain, both from TV watching and occupational sitting, were seen in men.

Such findings indicate there is still more research to be done on this complex topic. However, we might eventually see a different approach to health guidance around sedentary activities. Rather than just directing their patients to move more, for example, physicians might recommend they reduce television time and add cognitively engaging activities for when they do sit.  

“We frequently encourage the public not to spend too much time sitting down, but experts may want to expand that recommendation to encompass the activities done while sitting, since those seems to have distinct impacts on brain health,” says study corresponding author Natan Feter, postdoctoral scholar in the Human and Evolutionary Biology program at USC Dornsife. 

 

Common diet tips about water intake and spicy foods could be wrong

  The common rationale for drinking water at meals is that it physically stretches the stomach, triggering fullness so you don’t eat too much. 

But a new Cornell study found no support for that idea in practice. 

Instead, for every additional 100 grams of water participants drank, they ate about 39 more grams of food – roughly 49 more calories. People who frequently switched back and forth between bites of food and sips of water ate even more: each additional switch was tied to about 4.4 more grams of food consumed.

Researchers suspect this “switching” effect works by delaying something called sensory-specific satiety – the way a food’s appeal naturally fades the longer you eat it. Alternating with water may reintroduce contrast that keeps the meal appealing longer, delaying the point at which people stop eating.

, Click to open gallery view

Credit:Laila Milevski/Cornell University

“There’s been this widespread advice that if we drink water, it fills us up,” said Paige Cunningham, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences in the College of Human Ecology. “But water is emptied quickly from the stomach so it likely doesn’t fill us up for long. Instead, water may increase how much we eat, providing lubrication which can speed up eating, and preventing a dry mouth which can prolong enjoyment of the food.”

Cunningham is the corresponding author on the new analysis, published in July in the journal Appetite and conducted with longtime collaborator John Hayes of Penn State’s Department of Food Science. In a second related study, the researchers measured the effect of spicy salsa on eating volume – and again found a surprising result.

“Both studies show how mealtime behaviors and food properties can significantly influence how much we eat, without us even realizing. We found that just drinking more water was associated with greater consumption, while adding a bit more spice to a snack slowed eating and decreased how much participants ate,” said Cunningham.

The drinking water study pooled data from two earlier lab experiments, 86 adults in all, who ate as much as they wanted of a lunch (either beef chili or chicken tikka masala) served with water, while researchers recorded every bite and sip on video.

One result cut against the researchers’ own expectations: Participants who drank water faster during a meal ended up eating less, not more. The paper offers this as a genuine open question rather than a settled explanation, noting it may reflect how long water sits in the mouth, or may simply track with how long a meal lasts overall. 

“This was a secondary analysis looking at associations,” Cunningham said. “We are following up on this right now so we can make those causal inferences.”

In a separate experiment, whose results published April in Food Quality and Preference, 49 adults were served tortilla chips alongside a mild or spicy salsa, once a week for two weeks; only the salsa’s cayenne content changed between conditions. The spicier version cut total snack intake by 28% – not just of the salsa itself, but of the chips too, even though the chips themselves didn’t change.

, Click to open gallery view

Credit:Laila Milevski/Cornell University

Participants ate the spicy snack about 30% more slowly than the mild one, which the researchers suspect drove the decrease: Heat slowed people down, and slower eating meant less eaten overall. Water intake during the snack was unaffected by spice level, which the researchers note rules it out as an explanation for the reduced intake.

“We were interested in whether making the salsa spicy would result in people eating the same amount of chips,” Cunningham said. “And they didn’t. The takeaway is that adding spice to one part of the snack can significantly influence how much people eat overall.”

Read together, the two papers make a case that runs against two different strands of popular nutrition advice at once: that water at meals is a simple ally in eating less, and that spicy food is something to approach with caution if you're watching what you eat. This research showed the opposite might be true: water tracked with eating more, and spice tracked with eating less.

“These strategies might help consumers achieve their goals to reduce energy intake,” Cunningham said. 

Both papers are explicit about their limits: the meals and snacks tested were a narrow set – chili, tikka masala and one chip-and-salsa combination – all eaten in a controlled lab setting, and the researchers caution against assuming the same patterns would hold for very different foods or in everyday, uncontrolled eating.

“We are looking to future experiments that explore what other factors or properties of foods can we leverage to influence behaviors,” Cunningham sai