Category: 8. Health

For decades, the rising tide of obesity, diabetes, and declining sperm counts has puzzled doctors. Something in our modern world, it seemed, was fundamentally messing with our health. A new study offers a striking answer—and it may be hiding in your pantry.

In a meticulously controlled trial, scientists from the University of Copenhagen and international partners found that ultra-processed foods—regardless of calorie content—disrupted hormone levels, increased body fat, and introduced pollutants linked to poor sperm quality.

The findings, published last week in Cell Metabolism, deliver some of the most direct evidence yet that it’s not just how much we eat that matters—but what our food is made of, and how it’s made.

“Our results prove that ultra-processed foods harm our reproductive and metabolic health, even if they’re not eaten in excess,” said Jessica Preston, lead author of the study. “This indicates that it is the processed nature of these foods that makes them harmful.”

Same Calories, Different Outcomes

The researchers recruited 43 healthy men between the ages of 20 and 35. Each participant followed two tightly controlled diets—one rich in ultra-processed foods and one based on unprocessed ingredients—for three weeks each, with a 12-week washout period in between.

Crucially, both diets were matched for calories, macronutrients, and even protein, fat, and carbohydrate composition. Some participants received a normal caloric load; others received 500 extra calories per day to simulate overconsumption.

But even under these tightly matched conditions, the ultra-processed diet stood out for all the wrong reasons.

Men gained significantly more fat mass (about 1 kg) on the ultra-processed diet, whether or not they were overeating. Markers of metabolic health also worsened. Participants had increased cholesterol levels, higher LDL:HDL ratios, and a spike in diastolic blood pressure.

Senior author Romain Barrès suggests these weren’t just random fluctuations. “We were shocked by how many body functions were disrupted by ultra-processed foods, even in healthy young men. The long-term implications are alarming and highlight the need to revise nutritional guidelines to better protect against chronic disease.”

Hormonal Earthquake Served on a Plate

Beyond weight gain and cholesterol, the ultra-processed diet altered several hormones involved in metabolism and reproduction.

Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), essential for sperm production, dropped in participants on the ultra-processed diet. Testosterone levels trended lower. And total sperm motility—a key metric for male fertility—declined.

At the same time, blood samples revealed a disturbing rise in phthalates, specifically a compound called cxMINP, a metabolite of the plasticizer diisononyl phthalate (DINP). Manufacturers often use these chemicals in packaging, and scientists classify them as endocrine disruptors.

“The presence of cxMINP in higher levels after ultra-processed food consumption suggests that contaminants from packaging or processing may be leaching into the food supply,” the researchers wrote.

Lithium and mercury—elements that play roles in brain and reproductive function—also declined in the blood and semen of participants on the ultra-processed diet. Though the long-term consequences of such changes remain unclear, the authors note that trace elements and hormone-disrupting pollutants are likely underestimated in these kinds of studies, due to the relatively clean nature of the experimental diets compared to participants’ usual eating habits.

What Makes a Food “Ultra-Processed”?

The study used the NOVA classification, a widely accepted system that ranks foods by their degree of processing. Ultra-processed foods (NOVA Group 4) include items made primarily from industrial formulations—think extruded snacks, frozen meals, soft drinks, and shelf-stable baked goods.

These foods often include ingredients rarely found in home kitchens, like hydrolyzed proteins, maltodextrins, artificial flavorings, and stabilizers. They are engineered for convenience, long shelf life, and irresistible flavor.

But at what cost?

In the ultra-processed diet used in this study, over 77% of calories came from NOVA 4 foods. In contrast, the unprocessed diet drew 66% of calories from whole foods, including fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and legumes.

Both diets were delivered to participants’ homes, pre-portioned and ready to eat. The scientists monitored compliance with daily food diaries and questionnaires, ensuring the only variable was the nature of the food itself.

Why Does This Matter?

Ultra-processed foods have long been associated with poor health outcomes, such as higher risks of obesity, heart disease, cancer, and depression. But critics have often argued that these effects could be the result of overeating, not the food itself.

This study, however, eliminates that excuse.

By controlling for calories and macronutrients, the researchers isolated the effect of food processing. What they found is that even when people eat the same number of calories, the body responds very differently depending on how those calories are delivered.

Ultra-processed diets led to greater fat gain, altered hormone levels, and changes in markers of inflammation and pollutant accumulation—even without excess calories.

A Call for Change?

Sperm counts have dropped by more than 50% since the 1970s, a trend documented across continents. At the same time, diets in countries like the U.S., U.K., and Australia have shifted dramatically: over half of daily calories now come from ultra-processed foods.

The new study does not prove that processed foods alone are to blame for global fertility declines. But it strengthens a growing body of evidence that they may play a key role.

The authors note that they limited their trial to three-week interventions. They have yet to determine whether the damage accumulates or normalizes over time.

Still, the study provides a rare and controlled glimpse into the physiological cost of modern eating habits. And for many researchers, it tips the scales.

The implications are wide-ranging. If the structure of our food—not just the nutrients—alters how we store fat, regulate hormones, and reproduce, then public health strategies may need a dramatic overhaul.

Nutrition labels focusing solely on calories and fat content may be missing the bigger picture. And for consumers trying to navigate the supermarket aisle, it raises a thorny question: How much of what we’re eating is food—and how much is product?

Our ability to focus, ignore distractions, and follow through on goals is not fixed. It develops, peaks, and then changes again as we grow older. Scientists call this set of skills cognitive control. It underpins planning, decision making, impulse control, and the steady attention you need to finish hard tasks.

Why cognitive control matters

Life brings different mental demands at 15, 35, and 75 years of age. Knowing how cognitive control changes by age helps set realistic expectations and smarter training goals.

The study at the center of this article maps those changes in brain activity, not just behavior. It asks when the underlying control systems work the hardest, and when they ease off.

Dr. Zhenghan Li of Hangzhou Normal University (HZNU) led the work with collaborators across several institutes. The team focused on conflict tasks that are widely used to measure control in the lab.

They looked for patterns that hold across childhood, adulthood, and later life. They also examined how those patterns differ across key brain regions.

Goals of the study

The study pooled 139 neuroimaging reports with 3,765 participants aged 5 to 85, charting how conflict-related brain activity shifts with age. It used a standardized approach to combine many small studies into a single, age-by-activity curve.

Researchers relied on seed-based d mapping to summarize whole-brain activation patterns.

They then fit age curves with a generalized additive model and compared them to simpler functions to see which shape best explained the data.

The aim was straightforward. Identify the shape of change for the brain’s control system across the lifespan, and estimate when the peak occurs.

Key findings on cognitive control

Across core control regions, the lifespan curve forms an inverted U. Activity rises through childhood and adolescence, reaches a maximum in adulthood, then eases in later life.

“The predominant lifespan trajectory is inverted U-shaped, rising from childhood to peak in young adulthood before declining in later adulthood,” wrote Dr. Li.

Peak activity clustered between ages 27 and 36, and a skewed, square root curve fit the data better than a symmetric quadratic curve.

The analysis also tracked how activity is distributed across the two hemispheres.

Adolescents and older adults showed more pronounced hemispheric laterality than young and middle-aged adults, pointing to shifts in how each side contributes to control.

“Prefrontal activity during cognitive performances tends to be less lateralized in older adults than in younger adults,” wrote Roberto Cabeza.

A classic framework helps make sense of part of that pattern. The HAROLD model describes reduced prefrontal asymmetry with aging in many tasks. 

Testing conflict control

Conflict tasks ask you to respond to a target while ignoring conflicting cues. The standard Flanker task does this by placing distracting symbols to the left and right of the central one.

When the flankers point the other way, reaction times slow and errors rise. That interference cost is a clean readout of control because the goal is simple and the distraction is controlled.

Using conflict tasks across many ages helps avoid apples to oranges comparisons. It keeps the core demand the same while the brain systems that meet that demand change with age.

Why these brain networks matter

Two control networks are central when people resolve conflict in the lab. The frontoparietal network updates and adjusts settings on the fly, while the cingulo-opercular network helps maintain a stable task set.

Young and middle-aged adults tend to engage these networks most strongly during conflict. Children and adolescents show rising engagement as the networks mature, while older adults show a slower draw on the same circuitry.

These differences are not good or bad in themselves. They simply reflect how the system tunes itself across development and aging.

Cognitive control structure link

Large MRI charts show gray matter volume peaks earlier in life, while white matter peaks within young adulthood. Those structural arcs provide a backdrop for the functional curves seen in this analysis.

Structure and function do not map one-to-one, but they are related. Myelination, synaptic pruning, and vascular changes affect both the efficiency of neural signaling and the measured Blood Oxygen Level Dependent signals (BOLD) during tasks.

This is why the best fitting lifespan curve for control activity was not perfectly symmetric. A square root shape captured a faster rise and an earlier peak, followed by a gentler decline.

Implications for brain health

Peak control activity in the late 20s to mid 30s aligns with a phase when many people juggle complex decisions at work and home.

That does not mean control falls off a cliff after 40, it means the neural effort measured during conflict tasks tapers.

Middle adulthood becomes a practical time to reinforce healthy patterns. Consistent sleep, aerobic exercise, and cognitive challenges are simple levers that support attention and planning without overpromising results.

Later life patterns are nuanced, not uniform. Some regions may show lower activation during conflict, while others show selective increases that could reflect compensation rather than decline.

The study is published in Science Bulletin.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–

The hype around protein intake doesn’t seem to be going away.

Social media is full of people urging you to eat more protein, including via supplements such as protein shakes. Food companies have also started highlighting protein content on food packages to promote sales.

But is all the extra protein giving us any benefit – and can you have too much protein?

Protein’s important – but many eat more than they need

Eating enough protein is important. It helps form muscle tissue, enzymes and hormones and it plays a role in immune function. It can also give you energy.

Related: Does Added Protein Really Enhance The Nutrition of Your Food?

Australia’s healthy eating guidelines, penned by experts and backed by government, recommend we get 15–25% of our daily energy needs from protein.

The recommended daily intake of protein for adults is 0.84 grams per kilogram of body weight for men and 0.75 grams per kilogram of body weight for women

This is about 76 grams per day for a 90 kilogram man or 53 grams per day for a 70 kilogram woman. (It’s a bit more if you’re over 70 or a child, though).

Most Australian adults are already eating plenty of protein.

Even so, many people still go out of their way to add even more protein to their diet.

For people working to increase muscle mass through resistance training, such as lifting weights, a protein intake up to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day (that’s 144 grams a day for a 90 kilogram person) can help with increasing muscle strength and size.

But research shows there is no additional muscle gain benefit from eating any more than that.

For most of us, there’s no benefit in consuming protein above the recommended level.

In fact, having too much protein can cause problems.

What happens when I eat too much protein?

Excess protein is not all simply excreted from the body in urine or faeces. It stays in the body and has various effects.

Protein is a source of energy, so eating more protein means taking in more energy.

When we consume more energy than we need, our body converts any excess into fatty tissue for storage.

There are some health conditions where excess protein intake should be avoided. For example, people with chronic kidney disease should closely monitor their protein intake, under the supervision of a dietitian, to avoid damage to the kidneys.

There is also a condition called protein poisoning, which is where you eat too many proteins without getting enough fats, carbohydrates and other nutrients.

It’s also known as “rabbit starvation”, a term often linked to early 20th century explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in reference to the fact that those who subsisted on a diet of mainly rabbits (which are famously lean) quickly fell dangerously ill.

Where you get your protein from matters

We can get protein in our diets from plant sources (such as beans, lentils, wholegrains) and animal sources (such as eggs, dairy, meat or fish).

A high intake of protein from animal sources has been associated with an increased risk of premature death among older Australians (especially death from cancer).

High animal protein intake is also associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

On the other hand, consuming more plant sources of protein is associated with:

Many animal sources of protein are also relatively high in fat, particularly saturated fat.

A high intake of saturated fat contributes to increased risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease. Many Australians already eat more saturated fat than we need.

Many plant sources of protein, however, are also sources of dietary fibre, which most Australians don’t get enough of.

Having more dietary fibre helps reduce the risk of chronic diseases (such as heart disease) and supports gut health.

Striking a balance

Overall, where you get protein from – and having a balance between animal and plant sources – is more important than simply just trying to add ever more protein to your diet.

Protein, fats and carbohydrates all work together to keep your body healthy and the engine running smoothly.

We need all of these macro nutrients, along with vitamins and minerals, in the right proportions to support our health.

Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gentle physiotherapy exercises can help older adults maintain mobility and prevent falls. Know which all exercises are suitable. 

Older adults, as they age, often face difficulty with mobility. This is where gentle physiotherapy exercises assist seniors in staying healthy and agile in their movements.
ALSO READ: Poor knee health in older adults: 5 exercises to improve joint strength

Dr Pothiraj Pitchai, professor and head of the department of physiotherapy at K J Somaiya College of Physiotherapy, shared with HT Lifestyle that regular exercises help in improving mobility, maintaining muscle strength. He said, “Ageing brings changes beyond grey hair; even our muscles, joints, and nerves lose strength, flexibility, and balance, raising fall risk and limiting independence. Regular, gentle physiotherapy exercises support safer, healthier ageing. With guidance from a physiotherapist, simple daily practice of safe exercise, seniors can enjoy the movement as a medicine to prevent falls.”

It is important to note that the exercises need to be fine-tuned to be gentler and suit their energy levels.

Here are 5 easy exercises Dr Pitchai listed:

1. Chair squats

• How to do: Place the chair against the wall for stability. Stand up from the chair and then sit back down in a controlled manner. It improves lower-body strength.
• Frequency: Do this for 10-15 repetitions, 2-3 sets per day, at least 3 times per week.
• Precautions: Avoid using a low-level chair. Avoid it if you have severe lower-body joint pain.

2. Wall push-ups

• How to do: Stand facing a wall, about an arm’s length away, place your hands on the wall at shoulder height, and perform push-ups. It improves upper-body strength.
• Frequency: Do this for 10-15 repetitions, 2-3 sets per day, at least 3 times per week.
• Precautions: Avoid if you have severe shoulder pain or any recent upper limb surgeries. Avoid breath-holding while doing push-ups.

3. Brisk walking

• How to do: Walk at a speed that is faster than your usual walk but still comfortable enough to maintain a conversation. It improves cardiovascular health and joint mobility.
• Frequency: 20-30 minutes per day, at least 5 times per week.
• Precautions: Avoid uneven or slippery surfaces, wear comfortable footwear.

4. Heel-to-toe walk

• How to do: Walk in a straight line, placing one foot directly in front of the other. It improves balance and coordination.
• Frequency: 5–10 steps forward, repeat 2–3 rounds, at least 3 times per week.
• Precautions: Take the support of a table or wall while walking. Avoid any severe balance problems or dizziness.

5. One-leg stand supported:

• How to do: Take the support of a table or wall for support, lift one foot slightly off the ground, and hold for 10-15 seconds. Repeat on the other leg. It improves balance and stability.
• Frequency:Repeat 2–3 times per side, at least 3–4 times per week.
• Precautions: Avoid if you have an unsteady gait or severe balance issue.

Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.

Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crick-it, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Quizzes, Polls & much more. Explore now!.

Catch your daily dose of Fashion, Taylor Swift, Health, Festivals, Travel, Relationship, Recipe and all the other Latest Lifestyle News on Hindustan Times Website and APPs.

Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crick-it, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Quizzes, Polls & much more. Explore now!.

Catch your daily dose of Fashion, Taylor Swift, Health, Festivals, Travel, Relationship, Recipe and all the other Latest Lifestyle News on Hindustan Times Website and APPs.

News / Lifestyle / Health / Doctor reveals 5 physiotherapy exercises for older adults: Chair squats, wall push-ups and more

See Less

Anxiety seeps into daily life. It disrupts focus at work, strains relationships, and turns even small tasks into stress triggers. Standard treatments are available, but they do not work for everyone.

Many people cannot tolerate antidepressants in the long term, while others see no real relief. This gap has researchers asking a bold question: can psychedelics like LSD help?

LSD tested for anxiety

A research team at MindMed in New York recently carried out the first modern trial of LSD for generalised anxiety disorder. The goal was to test whether a single dose could reduce symptoms when standard care fails.

LSD is famous for its hallucinogenic effects, but scientists believe it does more. It boosts serotonin, a chemical that influences mood, and may help the brain form new thought patterns that break cycles of fear and worry.

Why current anxiety care fails

Generalized anxiety disorder goes far beyond occasional stress. It causes constant, broad worry about money, relationships, health, and even everyday routines.

Current treatment usually combines therapy with drugs such as SSRIs. These options help some people, but many experience only modest improvement or none at all. Others cannot handle side effects like emotional numbness.

The fact that antidepressants only work while taken daily adds another layer of frustration.

LSD reduces anxiety symptoms

The study included 198 adults diagnosed with severe anxiety. Participants gradually stopped their medications before entering the trial, though those already in therapy continued.

The individuals rated their symptoms – such as worry, tension, and poor focus – on a standard scale. Average scores were 30 out of 56, well above the threshold that defines severe anxiety.

Participants were randomly split into five groups. Four groups received LSD in doses from 25 to 200 micrograms. One group received placebo pills.

The results were striking. Those who took 100 or 200 micrograms felt noticeable relief within a day.

A month later, their anxiety scores had dropped by about 20 points, and nearly half reached remission. In contrast, the lower doses offered no more benefit than the placebo.

The placebo effect

Even the placebo group improved somewhat. Their scores dropped by 14 to 17 points, and one in five achieved remission.

This outcome is common in anxiety studies, where the attention, care, and expectation built into a trial provide comfort.

Still, the higher-dose LSD groups clearly outperformed placebo group, showing that the drug itself delivered an additional benefit.

Side effects and complications

The trial also revealed side effects. Some participants reported nausea or headaches within hours of taking the drug. Hallucinations and changes in visual perception were more common at higher doses.

Many participants guessed correctly whether they had received LSD, making it harder to fully separate the psychological impact of knowing from the direct biological effects.

Yet the size of the improvement left researchers confident that LSD was responsible for more than expectation alone.

LSD for anxiety relief

Independent reviewers described the results as a major step forward. They considered the reductions in anxiety both statistically solid and clinically meaningful.

In plain terms, the drug offered relief big enough to make daily life easier, not just a small change on paper.

The experts emphasized that such outcomes matter most when improvements translate into real-world functioning, allowing people to work, connect socially, and manage daily responsibilities with far less distress and uncertainty.

What lies ahead

The findings convinced regulators as well. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted LSD therapy from MindMed a special status that speeds development of drugs with strong potential.

Larger and longer trials are now in progress, designed to track benefits beyond three months and to untangle whether improvements come mainly from brain chemistry or from the psychological weight of the psychedelic experience.

Lasting relief from a single dose

LSD is not ready to become a mainstream treatment. Outside of controlled studies, it can be unpredictable and sometimes risky. But this research adds to the growing evidence that psychedelics may hold medical value that was once dismissed.

For people with anxiety who gain little from standard care, the idea of lasting relief from a single dose represents more than hope – it signals a possible shift in how we think about treatment.

Researchers emphasize the need for ongoing trials to confirm safety, clarify long-term effects, and establish appropriate dosing. Still, the growing evidence points to a future where psychiatry could move beyond conventional medications and embrace once-unthinkable psychedelic-based therapies.

The study is published in the journal JAMA.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–

Some doctors are now advising their pregnant patients to avoid plastic itself, which contains harmful chemicals that can hurt some mothers and babies alike.

Marya Zlatnik, a University of California at San Francisco fetal medicine specialist, told the Washington Post that when giving some of her early-pregnancy patients the rundown of what they should and shouldn’t consume or be exposed to, she’s begun adding plastic products to her no-no list.

Her concern: the chemicals known as phthalates, which make plastics stronger and more flexible but also act as a hormone disruptor that has been linked to everything from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma to obesity and premature birth, among countless other health issues.

Unlike per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, another widespread and terrifying class of contaminants referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their longevity, some scientists have taken to calling phthalates “everywhere chemicals,” because they dissipate quickly but are nonetheless constantly contaminating basically everyone on the planet thanks to massive plastic overconsumption.

Phthalates are believed to be inside basically every human body on Earth, and it’s not hard to see why: the Food and Drug Administration has approved nine different types of these compounds for food packaging, and they invariably rub off onto what we eat and then are ingested into our bodies.

While these chemicals are, as WaPo notes, detrimental to everyone’s health, gynecologists and obstetricians are becoming increasingly worried about how they specifically affect prenatal health as a growing body of evidence suggests they’re unduly dangerous for pregnant women and babies. Other scientists are also growing concerned about phthalate exposure in utero affecting fertility down the line, especially in men.

“If any of these chemicals get into a woman while she’s pregnant, the chemicals will go right across into the baby,” explained Boston College pediatrician Philip Landrigan in an interview with the newspaper. “The placenta provides no protection at all.”

The results of prenatal phthalate exposure can be immediate and dramatic.

In 2022, the National Institutes of Health found, based on a large systemic review involving more than 6,000 participants over more than three decades, that women with higher levels of phthalate byproducts in their urine were more between 12 to 16 percent likely to deliver their babies preterm, defined as least three weeks before their due dates.

Speaking to WaPo, senior NIH investigator Kelly Ferguson said that even those initial findings, which were published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics and led to subsequent research about related racial disparities in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, were a pretty big deal.

“Having an increase of 15 percent in preterm birth is huge for the overall population,” Ferguson, who was also a senior author on the 2022 study, told WaPo. “There’s health consequences for children and moms, financial costs.”

More recently, public health researchers from Emory, Columbia, and the University of North Carolina established a link between higher phthalate levels in mothers’ blood and metabolism issues that were detectable at birth in their babies.

As with other massive and avoidable environmental health issues, industry advocates and naysaying researchers aren’t convinced that phthalates are all that bad for us, in or outside the womb.

To explain away the well-documented health defects of these hormone disrupting chemicals, pediatric endocrinologist and testicle obsessive Rod Mitchell of Scotland’s University of Edinburgh — who was quoted by WaPo being very concerned about testosterone development during gestation — said he thinks phthalates might not be to blame for any prenatal problems.

“We’re just constantly exposed to a soup of chemicals,” he told the newspaper.

A paid plastic industry shill, meanwhile, had a more entertaining form of obfuscation.

Speaking on behalf of the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, representative Kevin Ott pointed to the phthalate content of things like blood bags and other medical devices as reaffirming use cases for the chemicals.

“Those benefits should be weighed against the concerns with phthalates,” Ott told WaPo in an email.

More on chemicals: How Did Walmart Frozen Shrimp Become Contaminated With Radioactive Material?

About The Study: In a large sample of U.S. children born between 1959 and 1966, higher blood pressure (BP) at age 7 was associated with greater risk of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. These findings build upon prior research that linked childhood systolic BP with fatal CVD in young adulthood, but that sample had a follow-up duration through a mean age of only 46 years. This study extends that work with follow-up into the mid-50s and demonstrated consistency in the magnitude of the associations within siblings, which mitigates concerns regarding unmeasured confounding due to shared family or lifestyle characteristics.

Research Highlights:

• Children who had higher blood pressure at age 7 were more likely to die early from cardiovascular disease by their mid-50s. The risk was highest for children whose blood pressure measurements were in the top 10% for their age, sex and height.
• Both elevated blood pressure (90-94^th percentile) and hypertension (≥95^th percentile) were linked with about a 40% to 50% higher risk of early cardiovascular death in adulthood.
• Researchers said their findings show why it’s important to regularly check children’s blood pressure and to help them develop heart-healthy habits early that can help lower their risk of health conditions later in life.
• Note: The study featured in this news release is a research abstract. Abstracts presented at the American Heart Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, and the findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Embargoed until 10 a.m. ET/9 a.m. CT, Sunday, Sept.7, 2025

This news release contains updated information from the researcher that was not in the abstract.

BALTIMORE, Sept. 7, 2025 — Blood pressure matters at all ages. Children with higher blood pressure at age 7 may be at an increased risk of dying of cardiovascular disease by their mid-50s,  according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2025. The meeting is in Baltimore, September 4-7, 2025, and is the premier scientific exchange focused on recent advances in basic and clinical research on high blood pressure and its relationship to cardiac and kidney disease, stroke, obesity and genetics. The study is simultaneously published today in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“We were surprised to find that high blood pressure in childhood was linked to serious health conditions many years later. Specifically, having hypertension or elevated blood pressure as a child may increase the risk of death by 40% to 50% over the next five decades of an individual’s life,” said Alexa Freedman, Ph.D., lead author of the study and an assistant professor in the department of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Our results highlight the importance of screening for blood pressure in childhood and focusing on strategies to promote optimal cardiovascular health beginning in childhood.”

Previous research has shown that childhood blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood, and a 2022 study found that elevated blood pressure in older children (average age of 12 years) increased the risk of cardiovascular death by middle age (average age of 46 years). The current study is the first to investigate the impact of both systolic (top number) and diastolic (bottom number) blood pressure in childhood on long-term cardiovascular death risk in a diverse group of children. Clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend checking blood pressure at annual well-child pediatric appointments starting at age 3 years.

“The results of this study support monitoring blood pressure as an important metric of cardiovascular health in childhood,” said Bonita Falkner, M.D., FAHA, an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Moreover, the results of this study and other older child cohort studies with potential follow-up in adulthood will contribute to a more accurate definition of abnormal blood pressure and hypertension in childhood.” Falkner, who was not involved in this study, is emeritus professor of pediatrics and medicine at Thomas Jefferson University.

The researchers used the National Death Index to follow up on the survival or cause of death as of 2016 for approximately 38,000 children who had their blood pressures taken at age 7 years as part of the Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP), the largest U.S. study to document the influence of pregnancy and post-natal factors on the health of children. Blood pressure measured in the children at age 7 years were converted to age-, sex-, and height-specific percentiles according to the American Academy of Pediatrics clinical practice guidelines. The analysis accounted for demographic factors as well as for childhood body mass index, to ensure that the findings were related to childhood blood pressure itself rather than a reflection of children who were overweight or had obesity.

After follow-up through an average age of 54 years, the analysis found: 

• Children who had higher blood pressure (age-, sex-, and height-specific systolic or diastolic blood pressure percentile) at age 7 were more likely to die early from cardiovascular disease as adults by their mid-50s. The risk was highest for children whose blood pressure measurements were in the top 10% for their age, sex and height.
• By 2016, a total of 2,837 participants died, with 504 of those deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease.
• Both elevated blood pressure (90-94^th percentile) and hypertension (≥95^th percentile) were linked with about a 40% to 50% higher risk of early cardiovascular death in adulthood.
• Moderate elevations in blood pressure were also important, even among children whose blood pressure was still within the normal range. Children who had blood pressures that were moderately higher than average had a 13% (for systolic) and 18% (for diastolic) higher risk of premature cardiovascular death.
• Analysis of the 150 clusters of siblings in the CPP found that children with the higher blood pressure at age 7 had similar increases in risk of cardiovascular death when compared to their siblings with the lower blood pressure readings (15% increase for systolic and 19% for diastolic), indicating that their shared family and early childhood environment could not fully explain the impact of blood pressure.

“Even in childhood, blood pressure numbers are important because high blood pressure in children can have serious consequences throughout their lives. It is crucial to be aware of your child’s blood pressure readings,” Freedman said.

The study has several limitations, primarily that the analysis included one, single blood pressure measurement for the children at age seven, which may not capture variability or long-term patterns in childhood blood pressure. In addition, participants in the CPP were primarily Black or white, therefore the study’s findings may not be generalizable to children of other racial or ethnic groups. Also, children today are likely to have different lifestyles and environmental exposures than the children who participated in the CPP in the 1960s and 1970s.

Study details, background and design:  

• 38,252 children born to mothers enrolled at one of 12 sites across the U.S. as part of the Collaborative Perinatal Project between 1959-1965. 50.7% of participants were male; 49.4% of mothers self-identified as Black, 46.4% reported as white; and 4.2% of participants were Hispanic, Asian or other groups.
• This analysis reviewed blood pressure taken at age 7, and these measures were converted to age-, sex-, and height-specific percentiles according to the American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents.
• Survival through 2016 and the cause of death for the offspring of CPP participants in adulthood were retrieved through the National Death Index.
• Survival analysis was used to estimate the association between childhood blood pressure and cardiovascular death, adjusted for childhood body mass index, study site, and mother’s race, education and marital status.
• In addition, the sample included 150 groups of siblings, and the researchers examined whether the sibling with higher blood pressure was more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than the sibling with lower blood pressure. This sibling analysis allowed researchers to ask how much shared family and early childhood factors might account for the mortality risk related to blood pressure.  

Note: Oral presentation #102 is at 10:00 a.m. ET, Sunday, Sept. 7, 2025.

Statements and conclusions of studies that are presented at the American Heart Association’s scientific meetings are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. Abstracts presented at the Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, rather, they are curated by independent review panels and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting. The findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The Association receives more than 85% of its revenue from sources other than corporations. These sources include contributions from individuals, foundations and estates, as well as investment earnings and revenue from the sale of our educational materials. Corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations to the Association. The Association has strict policies to prevent any donations from influencing its science content and policy positions. Overall financial information is available here.

Additional Resources:

###

The American Heart Association’s Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2025 is a premier scientific conference dedicated to recent advancements in both basic and clinical research related to high blood pressure and its connections to cardiac and kidney diseases, stroke, obesity and genetics. The primary aim of the meeting is to bring together interdisciplinary researchers from around the globe and facilitate engagement with leading experts in the field of hypertension. Attendees will have the opportunity to discover the latest research findings and build lasting relationships with researchers and clinicians across various disciplines and career stages. Follow the conference on X using the hashtag #Hypertension25.

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. Dedicated to ensuring equitable health in all communities, the organization has been a leading source of health information for more than one hundred years. Supported by more than 35 million volunteers globally, we fund groundbreaking research, advocate for the public’s health, and provide critical resources to save and improve lives affected by cardiovascular disease and stroke. By driving breakthroughs and implementing proven solutions in science, policy, and care, we work tirelessly to advance health and transform lives every day. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, X or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.

For Media Inquiries and AHA Expert Perspective:

AHA Communications & Media Relations in Dallas: 214-706-1173; ahacommunications@heart.org

Michelle Kirkwood: Michelle.Kirkwood@heart.org

For Public Inquiries: 1-800-AHA-USA1 (242-8721)

heart.org and stroke.org