A few weeks ago, a paper claimed that an extra glass of wine will shorten your life. The story circled the globe in minutes. A new paper, with better methodology, concluded what we all knew: Moderate alcohol consumption can be integrated into a healthy lifestyle. It, however, won't receive nearly as much attention as the sensationalist report. Such is the power of the academic PR hype machine combined with a gullible, sensationalist press.
Supporting prior studies, investigative work published in the Journal of the American Medical Association underscores the disparities of disease burden within states. When will our policies reflect that?
You best get your drink on this week, while beer and wine consumption is good for you! Over the years, there have mixed results on alcohol consumption and benefits to the body. This week, having two glasses of beer or wine could cut one's risk of premature mortality by 18 percent. At least that's the conclusion from one study which studied the habits of people who live past their 90s, since 2003.
If anyone embodies the ideals of healthy living and longevity, it seems there's no better person than Robert Marchand. The Frenchman's raison d'etre, if you will, includes "a lot of fruits and vegetables, no smoking, just the occasional glass of wine and exercising on a daily basis." Our recommendations exactly.
With medical fitness to serve being a recurring theme in 2016, Santa Claus requested his doctor release his latest health report. Will he be cleared by Christmas?
A new study published in JAMA details the U.S. county-level trends in mortality rates for major causes of death. While a bit flawed, it's a step in the right direction as regional health disparity is often way more vital to informing policy than national tendencies.
A pair of misleading health directive headlines, one in Tme Magazine, the other in The Daily Mail, play up the findings of a less-than-rigorous study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that failed to make a strong case for associating athletic activities and participation with lifespan.
Are the very real physical costs of your outrage worth it? Albeit the election, contentious divorce or nonstop negativity, there are tangible prices to our responses to these and other types of triggers.
By Stephanie Bucklin, Live Science Contributor Men still aren't living as long as women — and that holds true for humans' primate cousins as well, a new study shows. In the study, researchers looked at data from six populations of humans from both modern and historical times, in different countries. The investigators found that, "in spite of the huge gains in human longevity over the past century, the male-female difference has not shrunk," said Susan Alberts, a professor of biology at Duke University and a co-author of the new study.
We're excited to report that a new study in Health Affairs provides us with another metric that we have previously known and repeatedly been shown in the literature (and in medical practice): Life expectancy and well-being are positively linked.
What we eat – as opposed to how much – is a hot topic, and meat consumption is often scrutinized. A study that tracked almost 100,000 Americans for five years found that non-meat eaters were less likely to die – of any cause – during the study period than meat eaters. Now not all studies agree, however, as some show no difference at all in longevity between meat eaters and non-meat eaters.
Some good news for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a new study of British RA patients showed a significant improvement in overall life expectancy to almost that of the non-RA population.