No abstract

Weight Cycling (WC) is a prevalent behavior associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) health. However, a 2010 review on the effects of WC and blood pressure (BP) determined that there was not enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Central BP is the principal predictor of CV risk compared to peripheral BP. The influence that WC may have specifically on central BP is unknown. Cross-sectional observation of self-reported history of WC on measures of CV health was undertaken. Seventy-five women completed a Weight and Lifestyle Inventory questionnaire, which is considered a reliable index of WC (r = 0.87, p < 0.001). Measures of visceral fat, BP, arterial stiffness, and VO2peak were taken. Regression equations were used to assess primary predictors of these outcomes. Seventy-five middle aged (39 ± 11 years), obese (32 ± 7 kg/m2), and relatively unfit (24 ± 8 ml·kg−1 min−1) women completed the study. Visceral fat was the strongest predictor of brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP; r2 = 0.283), brachial diastolic blood pressure (DBP; r2 = 0.176), central SBP (r2 = 0.375), and augmentation index (AIx; r2 = 0.535, all p < 0.001). VO2peak was the strongest predictor of central DBP (r2 = 0.062, p = 0.036) and augmentation pressure (AP; r2 = 0.491, p < 0.001). Weight cycling index was associated with visceral fat (r = 0.521, p < 0.001). Visceral fat was a mediator between WC and central SBP (confidence interval [CI] = 0.0053–0.0602), AP (CI = 0.0507–0.4915), AIx (CI = 0.0025–0.0699), and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (CI = 0.0115–0.1227; all p < 0.05). WC may increase visceral fat accumulation, which was associated with increased central SBP and measures of arterial stiffness.

Vegetarian diets can satisfy nutritional requirements and have lower environmental impacts than those containing meat. However, fruits and vegetables are wasted at higher rates than meat. Reducing both food waste (FW) and the environmental impacts associated with food production is an important sustainability goal. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine potential tradeoffs between vegetarian meals’ lower impacts but potentially higher FW compared to meat-containing meals. To examine this, seven consecutive days of plate FW data from Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC) patients were collected and recorded from 471 meals. Mean total FW and associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) were higher among meat-containing meals (293 g/plate, 604 g CO2-eq/plate) than vegetarian meals (259 g/plate, 357 g CO2-eq/plate) by 34 g (p = 0.05) and 240 g CO2-eq (p < 0.001), respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in both FW and associated GHGE across major food categories, except fruit, when comparing vegetarian and meat-containing meals. Overall, vegetarian meals were preferable to meat-containing meals served at LLUMC both in terms of minimizing FW and lowering environmental impacts. Other institutions serving vegetarian meal options could expect similar advantages, especially in reduced GHGE due to the high CO2 embodied in meat.

No abstract