Nearly 1 in 3 U.S. adults with high blood pressure may need medication

Nearly 23 million Americans with blood pressure 130/80 mm Hg or higher may be eligible for blood-pressure-lowering medications based on the 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline, according to new, independent research published today in the Journal of the American Heart Association, an open access, peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American Heart Association.

The 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology High Blood Pressure guideline advises lifestyle changes — eating a healthy diet, managing weight, getting regular physical activity and reducing salt and alcohol — as a key part of treatment for high blood pressure, with medication prescribed if appropriate. The guideline also suggests healthcare professionals use the American Heart Association’s PREVENTTM (Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs) risk equations to calculate 10-year cardiovascular disease risk among adults (ages 30-79 without known cardiovascular disease) with high blood pressure who do not have established cardiovascular disease.

This study is one of the first detailed assessments of the 2025 guideline on high blood pressure and updated cardiovascular disease risk estimates using the PREVENT risk equations.

“Through this study, our goal was to understand how many people may qualify for treatment according to the updated recommendations in the guideline and estimate how many deaths from any cause and from cardiovascular disease may be prevented in the long term if the guideline recommendations were applied and untreated patients received care that included medication,” said study lead author Mustafa Al-Jarshawi, M.B.Ch.B., M.Sc., MRCPUK, PgCert, an academic clinical fellow in cardiology, member of the Cardiovascular Research Group at the Centre for Prognosis Research at Keele University in the United Kingdom and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester.

Researchers examined links between blood pressure treatments and rates of deaths from all causes and from cardiovascular conditions. Their analysis predicted how many lives may be saved if treatment plans outlined in the 2025 guideline were prescribed.

The data analysis found:

• 81 million U.S. adults had a diagnosis of high blood pressure. Of these, 22.8 million (28%) were guideline-eligible for therapy based on a blood pressure reading of 130/80 mm Hg or higher. 13.1 million (57%) adults were already receiving treatment for high blood pressure, while 9.7 million (43%) remained untreated. Please note: The blood pressure readings were measured during one office visit for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected between 2009 and 2018. The current guideline advises taking multiple readings during multiple office visits. This is an important study limitation.
• The analysis estimates that, among eligible adults, receiving blood pressure-lowering medications was associated with a 23% lower risk of dying from any cause and a 50% lower risk of dying from heart-related issues. This was compared to eligible adults who do not receive treatment.
• If treatment with medications was extended to all untreated but eligible adults, the analysis estimates approximately 200,000 all-cause deaths and 162,000 cardiovascular deaths may be prevented during the next decade.
• People eligible for high blood pressure treatment with medication who would benefit most were older, with an average age of 66, and had more health conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

“What stood out most was the size of the treatment gap — more than 40% of people who were clearly eligible under the new guideline were not receiving treatment, as well as the scale of the potential benefit,” Al-Jarshawi said.

“Lifestyle modification remains the foundation of high blood pressure management. Maintaining a healthy weight, consuming a heart-healthy diet, reducing sodium intake, increasing physical activity, getting enough sleep, managing stress and limiting alcohol can meaningfully lower blood pressure and overall cardiovascular risk,” said study senior author Mamas A. Mamas, M.D, DPhil., Professor of Cardiology at Keele University and Honorary Professor of Population Health at the University of Manchester. “For many people, especially those with blood pressure under 140/90 mm Hg and no history of heart disease, stroke, chronic kidney disease or diabetes, lifestyle changes can be enough at first. If your 10-year risk of heart disease is low, with a PREVENT score under 7.5%, maintaining a healthy lifestyle can help you delay or avoid needing medication. Even if you do need medication to lower blood pressure, making lifestyle changes is important for effective treatment and overall health.”

“The 2025 guideline emphasizes a personalized approach to managing high blood pressure by considering blood pressure levels plus 10-year and 30-year overall cardiovascular disease risk. The American Heart Association’s PREVENT risk equations help to identify individuals who could benefit from treatment before a major cardiac event,” said Chair of the American Heart Association’s 2025 guideline writing committee Daniel W. Jones, M.D., FAHA.

“Controlling blood pressure is crucial for long-term health. While lifestyle changes are the foundation for better overall health, people with high blood pressure and higher risk for cardiovascular disease may also need medication to reduce the risk of serious complications from untreated high blood pressure. Healthcare professionals should assess overall cardiovascular risk and work together with their patients to combine lifestyle strategies and medication for optimal blood pressure control.” Jones, who was not involved in this study, is a past volunteer president of the American Heart Association (2007-2008) and is dean and professor emeritus of the University of Mississippi School of Medicine in Jackson, Mississippi.

Study details, background, design and limitations:

• The study had 53% male and 47% female participants, 9.4% had chronic kidney disease, 17 % had diabetes, 47% had dyslipidemia and 15% were current smokers.
• The participants self-identified as 70% white adults, 12% Black adults, 7.2% Mexican American adults, 5.8% multiracial adults and 4.2% other Hispanic adults.
• Study limitations include that researchers did not randomly assign the treatment, which means other unmeasured factors may have influenced treatment and the results. Since blood pressure was measured during a single NHANES visit and researchers examined treatment at only one point in time, the study could not capture how patients’ medication use or treatment routines may have changed over time as they worked with their healthcare teams.

 

Common antihistamines provide little meaningful benefit for eczema

 

It’s typical for someone looking for relief from dry, itchy, red and irritated skin – also known as eczema or atopic dermatitis – to turn to common allergy medications called antihistamines. New research from McMaster University, however, has found that these commonly used medications don’t make a meaningful difference in improving symptoms, and for some of the most commonly used antihistamines, they can cause harm.

Oral antihistamines are a common staple in households around the globe, with many available without a prescription. The belief is these medications will help temper down itching and disruptions to sleep caused by eczema, but clinical practice and guidelines vary in recommending for or against the potential benefits due to lack of clear evidence.

As detailed in the BMJ on July 29, 2026, researchers found that oral antihistamines do not importantly improve the outcomes that matter most in controlling eczema, and can increase the risk of cognitive impairment. To come to this conclusion, a systematic review of 47 randomized trials consisting of 6,230 children and adults with mild to severe eczema was conducted – the most comprehensive analysis to date on the topic.

“Eczema care increasingly focuses on controlling skin and immune inflammation with moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatments, and whole-body treatments like phototherapy, biologics, and oral JAK inhibitors. That makes it important to know whether antihistamines add important benefit or mostly add treatment burden and harm,” says senior author Derek Chu, associate professor with McMaster’s Department of Medicine, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Chair in Allergy, and Lead of Canada’s Allergy Clinical Trials Network.

The review looked at two categories of medications: modern, second-generation antihistamines and older, first-generation antihistamines. The study found that second-generation medications – commonly known under brand names such as Reactine, Claritin, Aerius, Allegra, Rupall, and Blexten – produced small changes in eczema severity and itch, but that relief fell short of what patients and their clinicians would consider as an important improvement.

First-generation antihistamines – commonly found under brand names such as Benadryl, Chlor-Tripolon and Polaramine – produced no noticeable improvement. These older medications, however, likely increase cognitive impairment, such as drowsiness, confusion, slowed thinking, or impaired school or work performance. Such impairments are increasingly recognized to last into the days after use. Among newer second-generation antihistamines, cognitive effects were much lower and differed by drug (bilastine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine being least sedating).

“The findings support moving away from routine antihistamine use in atopic dermatitis care and toward treatments that are more effective, less likely to cause harm, and are more certain to control eczema inflammation. This may also help keep eczema control as simple and straightforward as possible, with patients focusing on high-value treatments,” says Chu, who holds a joint appointment with McMaster’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact.

Researchers stress that oral antihistamines have a place in treating allergic conditions such as hay fever, seasonal allergies and hives.

The work was commissioned by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology through the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for the living atopic dermatitis guidelines.

The study used the McMaster-developed grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE), a leading global system for rating the certainty of evidence and translating evidence into clinical recommendations.

Aspects of the study were conducted with The Research Institute of St. Joe's Hamilton.

This McMaster-led research involved partners from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia/University of Pennsylvania, Boston Children's Hospital, National Jewish Health/University of Colorado, UMass Chan Medical School, Arizona State University, George Washington University, Northwestern University, University of Saskatchewan, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, University of Rochester, University of Florida, Children's Hospital Los Angeles/USC, Lakehead University, and Tufts University.

People with lived experience and advocacy partners including the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, National Eczema Association, and Allergy & Asthma Network were also involved.

For long-term health, diet quality matters more than food processing level

 What makes a diet healthy—or not? According to a new study, nutritional quality matters more than processing level when it comes to long-term health.

The study of over 200,000 people found that the overall quality of a person’s diet was strongly associated with their risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and death. However, these associations did not appear to substantially differ based on food processing levels.

“While many ultra-processed foods tend to be of poor nutritional quality and should generally be limited or avoided, processing itself is not inherently harmful,” said Xiaowen Wang, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Based on the study results, she said individuals should “focus on what you’re eating overall, not just whether it’s processed. A healthy plant-based diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and healthy plant oils is beneficial, even if it includes some processed foods.”

Wang will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, held July 25–28 in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C.

The nutritional quality of a person’s diet and the amount of ultra-processed foods they consume are often intertwined. Many ultra-processed foods are high in added sugars, sodium and refined carbohydrates, so eating a lot of these foods is associated with poor dietary quality. On the other hand, ultra-processed foods like fortified breakfast cereals, whole grain products, canned beans, or plant-based dairy can still provide important nutrients, fiber, antioxidants and other beneficial compounds, contributing to a healthy diet.

For the study, researchers sought to separate overall diet quality from the level of food processing. Using data from three studies that collectively followed over 200,000 U.S. adults from the 1980s through the 2020s, they used a framework known as the plant-based diet index to assess the degree to which each participant emphasized plant versus animal food products in their diet, the overall quality or healthfulness of their diet, and their consumption of plant-based foods across a wide spectrum of processing levels. The study was not limited to vegans or vegetarians; however, to enable consistent comparisons, the analysis focused on the plant-derived components of participants’ diets rather than animal-derived foods.

After assessing each participant’s overall diet and using the Nova classification system to categorize the processing level of the foods they consumed, researchers grouped participants according to their plant-based eating habits:

• Healthy/ultra-processed (for example, whole grain breakfast cereal with fortified plant-based milk, plant-based yogurt, whole-grain bread, and canned fruit);
• Healthy/minimally-processed (for example, oatmeal with fresh fruit and nuts, quinoa and vegetable salad with olive oil, and homemade lentil soup);
• Unhealthy/ultra-processed (for example, fast food meals, French fries, soda, packaged desserts, and refined snacks); and
• Unhealthy/minimally-processed (for example, white rice, fruit juice, potatoes, and homemade desserts made with refined flour and sugar).

About half of the study participants eventually died or developed heart disease or type 2 diabetes. According to the results, the risk of these outcomes varied significantly depending on overall diet quality: healthy diets were associated with lower risk, while unhealthy diets were associated with higher risk. Within each category, however, the risks were almost identical regardless of whether the diet was ultra-processed or minimally-processed.

The results call into question the use of processing level as a key indicator of healthy eating. Since the Nova classification does not take into account the nutritional value of foods, healthy foods can be classified as ultra-processed while minimally-processed foods can still be unhealthy. 

“Advising people to universally ‘avoid ultra-processed foods’ can lead to lower diet quality since healthy ultra-processed foods are beneficial and unhealthy minimally-processed foods are detrimental,” said Wang. “People should prioritize the quality of foods rather than focusing solely on the level of processing. Aim for more nutrient-dense, high-quality foods to help lower your risk of chronic diseases.”

Based on the findings, she suggested that dietary guidelines should continue to promote established high-quality diets, like the Mediterranean or healthy plant-based diets, rather than focusing on processing level. She noted that encouraging food manufacturers to improve the nutritional content of packaged foods could also help to make following a healthy plant-based diet more convenient and accessible.

The consumption of ultra-processed foods by fathers may influence their babies..

 

 birth weight and body measurements

A study conducted at the University of São Paulo reinforces the importance of including fathers in health and family planning guidance.

A father’s diet can affect his children’s health and body composition before they are even conceived. A study of 43 triads of fathers, mothers, and newborns treated in the public healthcare system of Ribeirão Preto in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, demonstrated this. The analysis revealed that the greater the consumption of ultra-processed foods by the fathers, the higher the birth weight and the greater the accumulation of fat in the baby’s thighs and suprailiac region (commonly known as “love handles”). High birth weight and elevated body fat early in life are risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases in adulthood.

“Maternal nutrition and health before, during, and after the baby’s birth have always received attention, but little is said about the role of the father’s diet. Our study shows that it also matters a great deal for the baby’s health," says Daniela Sartorelli, a professor at the Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine at the University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP) who coordinated the study published in the journal Nutrition Research. 

The study is the first to demonstrate an association between fathers’ consumption of ultra-processed foods and the body composition of newborns. So-called ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations mostly made of food-extracted substances and synthetic chemical additives; the presence of whole foods in the composition of items such as packaged snacks, filled cookies or soft drinks is either scarce or non-existing.

The researchers’ hypothesis is that consuming ultra-processed foods negatively impacts sperm formation, which occurs prior to conception. “Diets rich in ultra-processed foods can create a pro-inflammatory environment in the body, affecting sperm quality and altering the expression of genes that will be passed on to the baby. This process is known as epigenetics. Gene activity can be ‘activated’ or ‘deactivated’ depending on the father’s dietary habits,” explains Mariana Rinaldi Carvalho, a FAPESP doctoral scholarship recipient and co-author of the study.

One of the genes mentioned in the study is IGF-II, which is responsible for fetal growth and is inherited exclusively from the father. “Previous studies have shown that a father’s dietary habits can biochemically modify this gene in sperm through a process called methylation [the addition of a methyl group], thereby influencing fetal development,” says the researcher.

The study is part of a larger project supported by FAPESP that investigates how the diets of mothers and fathers influence the health of newborns.

According to the results, fathers’ consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with higher birth weights, while the effect of mothers’ consumption was the opposite. Consuming these foods early in pregnancy (up to the 16th week) was associated with lower birth weight, shorter height, and smaller head circumference at birth.

“We believe that the impact of maternal consumption of ultra-processed foods on the baby’s birth weight and body measurements may be related to placental development, which depends on many nutrients. Ultra-processed foods are, in fact, nutrient-poor,” Carvalho assesses.

Health predictor

A baby’s birth weight is considered an important predictor of health in both childhood and adulthood. In addition to an increased risk of death, numerous studies have shown that babies born with low (or high) birth weights may develop noncommunicable diseases later in life, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

“Although the study didn’t find an increase in total body fat, only fat accumulation in certain regions of the baby’s body, the results suggest that the quality of the father’s diet may also influence fetal development. This is important because, on average, ultra-processed foods accounted for 30% of the total energy consumed by the fathers whose diets were analyzed in the study, particularly processed meats, sugary drinks, and cookies,” Sartorelli notes.

In a previous study, the same team of researchers observed that overweight fathers tended to have babies with lower birth weights. However, by specifically analyzing diet quality, they demonstrated that it isn’t only the father’s weight that matters but also what he eats (read more at agencia.fapesp.br/53400). 

“With these two studies, we’ve shown that it isn’t just a matter of whether the father is overweight. The quality of the father’s diet before conception has a significant impact on the baby’s health,” says Sartorelli. 

Although the sample size was small, with only 43 families, the study is a pioneering effort to investigate the impact of ultra-processed foods on paternal and neonatal health. “The results pave the way for larger studies and reinforce the need to include men, not just women, in family planning guidance,” says Sartorelli. 

Omega-3 fatty acids are highest in milk labeled as organic grass-fed

 — When you pick up a gallon of milk at the store, the nutrients it contains may depend on both what’s on the label and the time of year. A new study reports that omega-3 fatty acids are highest in milk labeled as organic grass-fed and lowest in conventionally-produced milk. Other fatty acids varied by dairy production method and season.

“These findings contribute to a greater understanding of the role that production systems may play in determining the nutritional composition and potential nutritional value of milk,” said Emily Youngmark, MS, a PhD student at the University of Vermont. “The observed differences in fatty acid composition may represent one factor consumers consider when choosing milk products.”

Youngmark will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, held July 25-28 in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C. Youngmark conducted the study with Jana Kraft, PhD, associate professor at the University of Vermont.

U.S. consumers can often find a large array of options in the dairy aisle, but the differences among them are not always clear. Since products marketed as organic, grass-fed or pasture-based are often sold at premium prices and promoted as having nutritional advantages, the researchers sought to find out whether production systems actually influence milk composition.

Over the course of a year, the team collected over 300 samples of milk sold by retailers across Vermont and New York. Using information from dairy producers and product labels, they categorized each sample as conventional (63 samples), organic (111), organic grass-fed (91) or non-organic, pasture-based (40).

On average across all seasons, organic grass-fed milk contained significantly more omega-3 fatty acids than all other milks, providing 88 milligrams per serving compared with 25 mg/serving in conventionally-produced milk. By contrast, omega-6 fatty acids were highest in conventionally-produced milk, which contained 166 mg/serving versus 92 mg/serving in organic grass-fed milk. While both types of fatty acids are part of a healthy diet, experts recommend focusing on increasing omega-3 intake, which is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and inflammation.

The fatty acid composition of non-organic, pasture-based milk was generally comparable to organic milk, with some seasonal variation. In general, it appears that cows with more access to pasture and fresh forage produce milk with more beneficial fatty acids. Variation in nutritional composition throughout the year likely results from seasonal differences in forage quality.

Although the results revealed significant differences in fatty acid composition among milk samples, researchers noted that the health implications of these differences remain uncertain. Further studies would be needed to determine whether regularly consuming certain types of milk leads to measurable improvements in health outcomes.

“It is important to put these findings in perspective. While the differences we observed may be nutritionally relevant, they are unlikely to produce major health effects on their own. Rather, the fatty acid composition of organic grass-fed milk may contribute as one component of an overall healthy dietary pattern and lifestyle,” said Youngmark.

Conventional milk has no formal definition but generally refers to milk produced from intensively managed dairy systems. Certified organic milk is produced under federally regulated standards that prohibit the use of pesticides, genetically modified feeds and most synthetic additives and require pasture access for at least 120 days per year. Organic grass-fed certification imposes additional requirements, including pasture access for at least 160 days per year and the exclusion of grain products from feed. The term “pasture-based” can appear on both organic and non-organic milk; non-organic, pasture-based milk production systems emphasize pasture access but are not certified organic. 

A daily multivitamin may help older adults maintain functional health

 

The ability to perform everyday activities free of debilitating symptoms profoundly affects quality of life as we age. In a new study, older adults who took a daily multivitamin had significantly better measures of functional health after 3 years compared with those who took a placebo.

According to researchers, the findings suggest a daily multivitamin can help older people maintain day-to-day functioning by helping to preserve cognitive abilities, and it may also benefit blood circulation and physical stamina.

“What makes this work unique is our focus on functional health, how people actually feel and function in their daily lives—rather than just the prevention of major diseases,” said Bayu B. Bekele, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Georgia Prevention Institute of the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. “For older adults, these findings suggest that a daily multivitamin could be a helpful, low-risk addition to a healthy lifestyle to support physical well-being as they age, although it is not a substitute for a good diet or exercise.”

The researchers analyzed data from over 16,000 people aged 60 years and older who participated in the COcoa Supplement Multivitamins Outcomes Study (COSMOS). COSMOS participants were randomly assigned to take a daily multivitamin, a cocoa extract supplement, both or neither, with placebos used for the control group and for those taking only one supplement.

After 3 years, participants taking a multivitamin had significantly better functional health than those taking a placebo based on their responses to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. The greatest differences were seen in symptom burden and clinical summary score, which reflects an average of symptom burden and physical ability scores. 

“Multivitamin use supporting heart health and overall physical function may help maintain the ability to perform everyday activities such as dressing, bathing, walking, climbing stairs, jogging or hurrying, and completing household chores. These benefits may be particularly relevant for individuals experiencing fatigue, shortness of breath or swelling in the feet, which can limit daily functioning,” said Bekele.

Cocoa extract did not significantly change functional health scores in the overall population, although it provided a significant benefit in the patients with congestive heart failure.

It is important to check with a doctor before taking any new supplements.

Is your diet driving up your cholesterol? That may depend on your gene

 

Study suggests genetic factors explain why some people see their LDL cholesterol spike on a low-carb, high-fat diet

Can a low-carb diet cause your cholesterol to skyrocket? This question has vexed researchers and influencers alike as the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets has surged, yet the evidence has remained mixed. New research suggests that the answer depends on your genes.

According to the study, the high saturated fat intake that tends to accompany a low-carb diet interacts with genetic factors in ways that can increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, considered a key driver of heart disease risk. The role of genes explains why different individuals can follow the same diet but see different outcomes. 

“Our findings suggest that some individuals may be more sensitive to the LDL cholesterol-raising effects of saturated fat, particularly in the context of a low-carbohydrate diet, because of their genetic background,” said Alexa Barad, PhD, RDN, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University School of Medicine.

“These findings highlight that there is real heterogeneity in how people respond to diet. Dietary conversations can sometimes become overly simplified. One person may say, ‘Low-carb diets always raise LDL cholesterol,’ while another says, ‘My LDL cholesterol did not change at all.’ Our findings suggest that both experiences can be true, depending, at least in part, on the individual’s genetic makeup,” said Barad.

Previous studies have shown healthy low-carbohydrate diets can support weight loss and blood sugar control for some people, but these diets have inconsistent effects on LDL cholesterol. Researchers sought to find a way to predict who would likely benefit from a low-carb diet and who may see a dangerous spike in LDL cholesterol.

The research is based on data from DIETFITS, a randomized controlled trial in which over 600 adults followed either a healthy low-carb or healthy low-fat diet for a year. The primary study found that neither diet was superior to the other in terms of weight loss. For the new analysis, researchers assessed the relationships among genotype, saturated fat intake, diet type and change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to 6 months in 431 DIETFITS participants with available genetic data.

Among participants following the low-carb diet, the results showed that those with a genetic predisposition toward elevated LDL cholesterol were more likely to see their cholesterol rise. The results also showed that this was driven by a greater sensitivity to saturated fat, meaning that people at higher genetic risk had the largest increases in LDL cholesterol when they consumed more saturated fat. People following a low-fat diet did not show the same patterns.

Unlike prior studies, which have mostly focused on single genetic variants, researchers combined thousands of genetic variants across the genome (creating what is known as a polygenic score) to estimate each participant’s overall tendency for higher or lower LDL cholesterol. In the future, Barad said clinicians could potentially use polygenic scores to help identify people who are more likely to experience adverse LDL cholesterol responses to certain dietary modifications.

However, even without genetic testing, the study offers an important lesson that the response to diet can vary from person to person, underscoring the need to monitor how your body is responding to a dietary change rather than assuming the results will be the same for everyone, Barad added.

Further studies could help to confirm the findings and ensure they apply broadly to diverse populations. General dietary guidance suggests limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of daily calories and favoring unsaturated fats. For those choosing a low-carbohydrate diet, emphasizing healthier fat sources such as nuts, seeds, olive oil and avocado over foods high in saturated fat such as butter, beef tallow, fatty cuts of meat and processed meats may help reduce the risk of adverse cholesterol responses, Barad noted.

Prebiotic sodas typically contain as much sugar as fiber

While healthier than regular sodas and fruit drinks, prebiotic sodas do not necessarily compare favorably with other alternative

 Prebiotic sodas have become more popular in recent years, with a wave of new products promising gut health benefits and low-calorie enjoyment. According to a new analysis, however, many of these beverages contain relatively little prebiotic fiber content and more sugar than marketing claims might imply.

“Many products include nutrition and functional claims that may overstate their nutritional quality. For example, some labels claim ‘no added sugar,’ yet the product may still contain around 10 grams of total sugars from sources like juice,” said Carlos R. Soto Díaz, MPH, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “This raises concerns that such claims may create a ‘health halo,’ leading consumers to believe the product is healthier than its overall nutritional profile suggests.”

Prebiotic sodas represent one of the fastest growing beverage segments in the U.S. market, with estimated sales of $777 million in 2025. Using data from the Mintel Global New Products Database, researchers analyzed 108 prebiotic sodas launched in the U.S. between 2021-2025.  These were defined as carbonated beverages that contain fiber and use the term “prebiotic” in the product name, package claims or ingredient lists. They compared prebiotic sodas’ nutritional contents to regular sodas, diet sodas, fruit drinks and flavored sparkling waters introduced during the same time period.

On average, prebiotic sodas contained about 35 calories, 5 grams of sugar and 5 grams of fiber per 12-ounce can. In terms of calories and sugar, they ranked lower than regular sodas and fruit drinks but higher than diet sodas and flavored sparkling waters. In addition, nearly two-thirds of prebiotic sodas contained non-nutritive sweeteners such as stevia. By comparison, over 90% of diet sodas contained non-nutritive sweeteners, while less than 28% of fruit drinks, 16% of flavored sparkling waters and 12% of regular sodas contained them.

Prebiotic sodas consistently contained more fiber than other beverages, ranging from about 2 to 9 grams of fiber per can. In the U.S. market, the term “prebiotic” is not tied to a specific amount of fiber, so researchers cautioned that consumers should not assume a product contains a meaningful amount simply because it is labeled as prebiotic, and sodas should not be relied upon as a primary source of dietary fiber.

“I would encourage consumers not to be swayed by marketing claims and to carefully review the Nutrition Facts label,” said Soto Díaz. “While certain types of prebiotic fibers have been shown to support gut health, the extent to which the amounts found in these beverages provide meaningful benefits is still unclear. Any potential benefits should be considered alongside the product’s overall nutritional profile, including calories, sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners.”

When considering the healthfulness of prebiotic sodas, the researchers say it is important to consider what they are replacing. For people who regularly consume sugary beverages, switching to prebiotic sodas could help to reduce overall calorie and sugar intake. On the other hand, switching to prebiotic sodas might not be as beneficial for people who typically choose low- or no-calorie beverages.

Plant-forward planetary health diet linked to lower heart disease risk

 A 20-year study of more than 65,000 postmenopausal women found that higher adherence to the Planetary Health Diet was associated with a lower risk of overall cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure.

The findings showed that women whose diet most closely followed the Planetary Health Diet had about a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared with women in the group scoring the lowest for adherence. However, even moderate adherence to the diet was linked with lower risk.

The Planetary Health Diet emphasizes foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and unsaturated fats while limiting foods such as red and processed meats, added sugars, refined grains and saturated fats.

“Our results suggest that people may not need to follow a perfect or very restrictive diet to see potential heart-health benefits,” said Donya Shahamati, a doctoral student in public health at the University of California, Irvine. “This is especially important for postmenopausal women, because cardiovascular risk increases with age and tends to rise after menopause.”

“Moving toward a more plant-forward, higher-quality diet can be accomplished through small, realistic changes,” said Shahamati. “These changes might include filling half the plate with vegetables more often; using avocado or olive oil in place of butter; choosing oatmeal or whole-grain cereal for breakfast; or trying a meatless meal once per week.”

For the new research, the investigators followed 66,892 participants in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a long-term national health study funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. All the women included in the analysis were free of cardiovascular disease at the start of the study (1994-1998) and had complete information on diet and other important health and lifestyle factors.

Using information collected through a food frequency questionnaire administered at the beginning of the study, the researchers calculated a Planetary Health Diet Index score for each study participant, with higher scores indicating a diet was more aligned with the Planetary Health Diet. The researchers then divided the women into five groups based on how closely their diets aligned with the Planetary Health Diet.

The women, who were around 63 years old at the start of the study, were followed for about 20 years to see who developed cardiovascular disease. When analyzing the data, the researchers adjusted for several factors that could affect cardiovascular risk, including age, race and ethnicity, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, body mass index and total calorie intake.

“We did not only look at overall cardiovascular disease,” said Shahamati. “We also looked separately at coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure. This helped us see whether the pattern was similar across different types of cardiovascular outcomes.”

Overall, the results showed that women in the group whose diets were more closely aligned with the Planetary Health Diet had the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease. These women also showed a decreased risk of heart disease, heart failure and stroke risk compared to the women in the lowest-adherence group.

However, even moderate adherence to the diet was associated with a decrease in risk, with each 10-point increase in Planetary Health Diet Index score linked to further risk reduction.

The researchers caution that an observational study like this cannot show that diet directly caused the lower risk in women.

Which vaccines the CDC recommends during pregnancy

 

 Most Americans are unaware or unsure of which vaccines the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends during pregnancy, according to a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

Almost half of those surveyed know that the CDC recommends getting the seasonal flu vaccine during pregnancy, while less than a third know that the CDC recommends the Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and hepatitis B vaccines if one is not up to date on these vaccinations.

For the Covid-19 vaccine, over half of those surveyed do not know whether the CDC recommends it during pregnancy. While the CDC says that the vaccine helps reduce the risk for severe illness from Covid-19, it does not explicitly say the vaccine is recommended. Instead, the CDC says its Covid-19 vaccine recommendations are “now based on individual decision making, which emphasizes considering the benefits and risks of vaccination.”

Women of childbearing age (ages 18-49) are significantly more knowledgeable than other adult groups about most of the CDC’s pregnancy vaccine recommendations, although many in this group are also not sure what is recommended.

Uncertainty is a dominant finding in this survey. For each of four vaccines the CDC recommends during pregnancy, at least 45% of respondents are not sure whether the CDC recommends it.

The findings come from an APPC survey conducted on the research company SSRS’s Opinion Panel Omnibus platform among 1,031 U.S. adults from July 1-5, 2026. For further details, download the topline or see the end of this release.

“Our findings suggest that many Americans do not know which vaccines are recommended during pregnancy,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research. “The encouraging news is that relatively few people think that the CDC recommends vaccines that are not advised during pregnancy. The challenge is overcoming the widespread uncertainty over what the CDC does recommend.”

CDC recommendations during pregnancy

According to CDC guidance, four vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy include:

• Seasonal influenza vaccine during flu season.
• Tdap vaccine during every pregnancy, preferably between 27 and 36 weeks’ gestation.
• RSV vaccine during weeks 32-36, administered during RSV season, which is September through January in most of the continental United States. Additional doses are not recommended during subsequent pregnancies.
• Hepatitis B vaccination for individuals who have not already been vaccinated.

The CDC says: “Covid-19 vaccination offers the greatest benefit if you are at higher risk for severe illness, including if you are pregnant. Pregnancy increases your risk of becoming very sick from Covid-19.” It adds that if you get sick with Covid-19 during pregnancy, you are at increased risk of complications that can affect your health and the health of your baby. The CDC recommends that Covid-19 vaccination decisions be made through individual decision making after considering the benefits and risks.

Other medical professionals more clearly back the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) strongly recommends that pregnant individuals be vaccinated against Covid-19 and “continues to recommend that all pregnant and lactating individuals receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine or ‘booster.’”

Awareness of recommended vaccines is low

Survey respondents were asked whether the CDC recommends each of eight vaccines during pregnancy. In addition to the five vaccines noted above, respondents were asked about three vaccines the CDC does not recommend during pregnancy: MMR or measles, mumps and rubella; chickenpox or varicella; and human papillomavirus or HPV.

Among U.S. adults overall, about a quarter to less than half of adults correctly identify any of the CDC-recommended vaccines, with the fewest (23%) knowing that the CDC recommends the hepatitis B vaccine during pregnancy and the most (48%) knowing the seasonal flu vaccine.

With the exception of RSV, women age 18 to 49 are significantly more likely than other groups (all adult men and women over 49 years old) to correctly identify all of the CDC-recommended vaccines. Among women 18 to 49, the vaccine least known to be recommended during pregnancy is the hepatitis B vaccine (30%) and the most known is the seasonal flu vaccine (60%).

Uncertainty dominates

For most of the vaccines, the most common response to whether the CDC recommends it during pregnancy is “not sure.” For each of the four recommended vaccines and the Covid-19 vaccine, from 45% to 66% of the overall adult population was not sure whether these were recommended. Among women of childbearing age, from 32% to 58% were not sure for each of the vaccines.

Few incorrectly think non-recommended vaccines should be taken

Current CDC guidance advises against administering the MMR and chickenpox vaccines during pregnancy because they are live-virus vaccines. The MMR and chickenpox vaccines should be given only before or after pregnancy. HPV vaccination is not recommended during pregnancy and should be delayed until after pregnancy if needed.

The survey found that relatively small groups of people incorrectly think that CDC recommends these vaccines:

• 21% say the CDC recommends the MMR vaccine during pregnancy.
• 17% say the CDC recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
• 17% say the CDC recommends chickenpox (varicella) vaccination.

Women of childbearing age are no more likely than others to incorrectly identify these vaccines as recommended. For the HPV vaccine, for example, 20% of women 18-49 years old incorrectly say it is recommended during pregnancy, compared with 16% of others, which is not a statistically significant difference.

For all three of these vaccines, the bigger issue is that a majority of respondents are not sure whether the CDC recommends that they should or should not be taken during pregnancy.

“Many Americans routinely get their immunizations from their primary healthcare providers or at local pharmacies, said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, which oversees the health surveys. “It is critical that those professionals pay special attention to vaccine recommendations for recipients who are pregnant.”

Collagen peptides support bone health for female runners

 

Collagen is a protein found in skin, hair, nails, tendons, cartilage, and bones.

Our bodies naturally produce collagen using the foods we eat. But, in recent years, collagen peptides have gained popularity as a supplement to support joint, hair, skin, and gut health.

A new study led by Jennifer Fields, assistant professor of nutritional sciences in the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources (CAHNR), provides evidence in favor of yet another application for collagen peptides – protecting female runners’ bones.

The study was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

Bone health is a significant concern for endurance runners because, by the nature of their sport, they are consistently putting significant strain on their bones.

By putting stress on the bones, running activates osteoclasts to break down damaged bone. If a runner is, intentionally or not, not consuming enough calories, the osteoblasts that create new bone don’t have the fuel they need to rebuild the bone properly. This can lead to injury and long-term conditions like osteoporosis.

“Oftentimes, we associate running with being bad for us, bad for our bones, because runners are at a higher risk of stress-related injuries,” Fields says. “But oftentimes, it’s due to just simply under fueling and not giving your body enough calories to support training and recovery and adaptation.”

This is particularly relevant for female runners due to how the bone remodeling cycle interacts with hormones. Insufficient caloric intake lowers estrogen and progesterone levels, which in turn leads to increased bone breakdown and reduced bone formation.

Fields decided to study if collagen peptides could help intervene in this process, given that 90-95% of the organic bone matrix is comprised of collagen.

Collagen peptides are “incomplete amino acids.” Unlike complete amino acids, they do not trigger a response in our muscles. Instead, because of their unique structure (a repetitive pattern of three amino acids), they can trigger osteoclast and osteoblast activity.

“Unlike most dietary proteins, some of the dipeptides and tripeptides that make up collagen peptides can be absorbed intact by our intestine,” Fields says. “Those di- and tripeptides are what can potentially act on these osteoblast and osteoclast pathways to trigger a better bone turnover response where we’re favoring more bone formation.”

In this pilot study, Fields and her collaborators found that collagen peptides did indeed improve bone turnover. Looking at biomarkers in participants’ blood, the researchers saw that markers associated with bone formation increased and inflammation decreased in the group that took the collagen peptide supplements.

“We’re seeing some good preliminary data to show that four weeks is sufficient to move some of those acute biomarkers,” Fields says.

Other studies had looked at collagen peptides for bone health in postmenopausal women. Research on premenopausal women, on the other hand, has been extremely limited, and no one had looked at female runners specifically, despite their elevated risk of impaired bone remodeling and heightened risk of bone stress injuries.

Women’s bone density is generally not checked until after they enter menopause. But about 90% of bone mass develops by 18 and the remaining 10% by age 30. This means supporting bone health in young women is critical to ensuring their lifelong health and wellness.

“If we can target the premenopausal population and identify individuals who might be at risk of maladaptive bone responses, then hopefully we can reverse it and prevent early-onset osteopenia and osteoporosis,” Fields says.

Collagen peptides also have known benefits for hair, skin, joints, and gastrointestinal health, meaning incorporating them into the diet can have a host of benefits beyond bone health.

“What’s great about collagen peptides is that they’re universal,” Fields says. “It’s not a supplement where we’re only expecting one outcome. It can be incorporated into the diet as a supplement to help with some of these other health benefits.”

---

Journal

Frontiers in Nutrition

DOI

10.3389/fnut.2026.1825906 

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.