This week, I’m sharing another collection of oldies-but-goodies—pieces from our newsletter archive that address a variety of topics of continued interest to our audience. Some provide additional context for recent or upcoming content; some address frequently asked questions; and some are simply worth repeating for anyone who might have missed them.
The world of biomedical science is constantly evolving, but in evaluating what has changed, we like to pause now and then to acknowledge information and ideas that have remained relevant despite the passage of time—a celebration of “aging well,” if you will.
Reducing heavy alcohol intake: a lifeline for cardiovascular health
Amid the growing popularity of “dry January” and the exploding market for zero-proof alternatives to alcoholic beverages, it’s clear that more and more individuals are rethinking their drinking habits and relationship with alcohol. Indeed, mounting evidence points to numerous negative consequences of alcohol on both lifespan and healthspan, yet many still believe that after a lifetime of heavy drinking, change might come too late. This piece, originally published last summer, highlights results of a study that contradict this belief—demonstrating meaningful improvements in cardiovascular health among former heavy drinkers who reduce their intake even modestly.1 The article serves as a timely companion for a soon-to-be-released premium article in which we examine more closely the impacts of alcohol across the “four horsemen” of chronic disease and consider various strategies for mitigating risk.
Do humans age in distinct rapid bursts instead of gradually over time?
Last year, a study published in Nature Aging reported that humans tend to age most rapidly at two distinct points in life—corresponding to around ages 44 and 60—rather than aging evenly throughout adulthood.2 The study gained such widespread attention that we’re still frequently asked about it over a year later, with some individuals even noting whether their own experiences have or have not aligned with the alleged “aging bursts.” So in light of the continued interest, we are re-sharing our commentary on the study, which explains why the results of this study might be misleading—and why you shouldn’t fear your 44th or 60th birthday any more than any others.
Our research team spends hundreds of hours each month vetting studies and distilling dense literature to deliver evidence-informed insights on health and longevity. If you find value in our work, consider becoming a premium member and supporting our mission.
With exercise, results matter more than “time served”
The holidays are a time when many of us find ourselves spending more time indoors on a couch or at the dinner table—and correspondingly less time engaging in physical activity. Even those of us who are committed to keeping up our exercise regimens can be tempted to settle for the bare minimum—but what exactly is the “bare minimum”?
It’s one of the most common questions we receive about exercise. But despite the surplus of pop science articles claiming that “you only need [x] minutes of exercise per week!,” there is no such thing as a universal, optimal amount of time you should be devoting to physical activity. As this newsletter explains, focusing on “time served” distracts from what really matters—i.e., whether you’re seeing improvements in your cardiorespiratory health and strength.
Clearing the air on hormone replacement therapy
Earlier this month, the US FDA and Department of Health and Human Services announced that they would soon lift the current requirements for “black box” warning labels on menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) products. As we will address in a future newsletter, this shift has the potential for both positive and negative impacts, but we nevertheless believe that it corrects a decades-old misstep that deprived countless women of improved health and quality of life during and after menopause. In this newsletter from 2023, we take an in-depth look at the alleged risks and benefits of HRT—and how misinterpretation of research prompted the demonization of HRT for more than a generation.
“The cholesterol paradox”: a catchy phrase for an idea with no substance
Ideas that completely upend long-established wisdom make for good headlines. Perhaps this is why, every so often, a handful of researchers come along claiming to have evidence that undermines the connection between high serum cholesterol and negative impacts on health. This piece from 2023 describes one such study, in which the authors profess to have uncovered a “cholesterol paradox,” in which high cholesterol levels—conventionally known to increase risk of cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide—were paradoxically associated with reduced mortality.3 Yet as the newsletter explains, convention-defying concepts must be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the conventions themselves. In this case, the so-called “paradox” doesn’t hold up, but it serves as a timeless reminder that flashy headlines and catchphrases often distract from flawed science—especially when they claim to contradict established concepts supported by decades of evidence.
For a list of all previous weekly emails, click here.
References
- Kang DO, Lee DI, Roh SY, et al. Reduced Alcohol Consumption and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Individuals With Previously High Alcohol Consumption. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(3):e244013-e244013. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4013
- Shen X, Wang C, Zhou X, et al. Nonlinear dynamics of multi-omics profiles during human aging. Nat Aging. Published online August 14, 2024:1-16. doi:10.1038/s43587-024-00692-2
- Rozanski A, Han D, Blaha MJ, et al. Association between hypercholesterolemia and mortality risk among patients referred for cardiac imaging test: Evidence of a “cholesterol paradox?” Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;74:60-69. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2022.10.007
