Adopt-A-Stop community cleanup with ABQ RIDE
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – ABQ RIDE is holding its fourth annual Adopt-A-Stop Community Bus Stop Cleanup event on May 31, from 9 a.m. – 12 p.m.
Story continues below
Don't Miss: Body of airman recovered at Elephant Butte Lake, Kirtland Air Force Base says
Weather: When does monsoon season start in NM? What you can expect this summer?
Crime: Man reflects on YouTube after family killed by younger brother in NE ABQ
Volunteers will meet at the Uptown Transit Center and help clean bus stops on Central from Girard to Wyoming. ABQ Ride will provide cleanup gear to all volunteers and transport them to each bus stop. Transit Deputy Director Bobby Sisneros says they collected 1,100 pounds of trash at the last cleanup event and they hope to beat that number this time. Anyone interested in volunteering must RSVP before the event. For more information and to RSPV to volunteer, click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fart walking — do this 10-minute indoor walking workout immediately after eating to lower your blood sugar, aid weight loss
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If you've been on TikTok recently, you've probably heard about fart walking — the idea of going for a walk after eating to help boost digestion and relieve bloating. Yet according to research published in the International Journal of General Medicine, there's another huge benefit of walking directly after a meal: lowering your blood sugar. If weight loss is your goal, lowering your sugar levels is a good place to start. The best part about this workout is you don't have to leave your house — perfect if you've got kids upstairs in bed, or you don't want to walk alone in the evenings. All you'll need is 10 minutes, and perhaps a yoga mat to walk on. If you want to check out your calorie burn, strapping one of the best fitness trackers to your wrist might help, but as with all indoor walking workouts, you'll want to make sure you're swinging your arms throughout for a more accurate reading. The workout, devised by fitness coach Caroline Jordan, was shared on her YouTube channel. "You can use this video immediately after eating to lower your blood sugar," Caroline says, and users in the comment section of the video have claimed the workout helped them to lose weight. Far from just walking on the spot for 10 minutes, the workout involves various marches, side steps, hamstring stretches, and overhead reaches. It's designed to boost your digestion. The best part is, you won't need any special equipment; you can just follow along with Caroline in real time. According to the International Journal of General Medicine study, there are several benefits to walking straight after a meal. The researchers compared the benefits of a 30-minute walk straight after a meal to a 30-minute walk one hour after eating. Participants completed a month of walks, and the team found that the group who walked for 30-60 minutes right after their meals lost more weight. But why? Walking after a meal reduces your blood sugar levels and the level of sugar in your interstitial fluid (the layer of fluid surrounding your body's cells). While digestion uses this glucose for energy, excess glucose in your bloodstream can be stored as fat. If you're looking to lose or manage your weight, focusing on your blood glucose levels is a good place to start. Of course, if you'd prefer to head outdoors, especially in the summer months, you have the added mental health boost of an evening walk, which can lower your stress levels and help you sleep better. That fart walk might not be so silly after all! Why not carve out 10 minutes and give this workout a try? I swapped running for 'Jeffing' for a week — and now I'm hooked I tried the 5-4-5 walking technique for a week — and it boosted my fitness and mood How to lose weight and get in shape by walking
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Ozempic Alternative May Offer Weight Loss Without Injections or Muscle Loss
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new weight loss pill currently undergoing clinical trials could help burn fat and lower blood sugar levels like Ozempic and similar GLP-1 agonists, but without muscles loss as a potential side-effect. This is the conclusion of a new study by an international team of researchers led from the biotech firm Atrogi AB. "This drug represents a completely new type of treatment and has the potential to be of great importance for patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity," said paper author professor Shane Wright of the Karolinska Institutet in a statement. "Our substance appears to promote health aging weight loss—and, in addition, patients do not have to take injections." Stock image of weight loss pills. Stock image of weight loss pills. celsopupo/iStock / Getty Images Plus GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic work, in part, by altering gut-brain signals to decrease hunger; however, their side effects can include a loss in muscle mass. The new drug, in contrast, is a type of so-called "β2 agonist" which works by activating signaling pathways in the body in such a way that has a positive effect on muscles. Unlike existing β2 agonists, however, it does not have the drawback of overstimulating the heart. In mice models of diabetes and rat models of obesity, the drug has demonstrated benefits for both body composition and blood sugar control. "Our results point to a future where we can improve metabolic health without losing muscle mass," said paper co-author and Stockholm University molecular biologist professor Tore Bengtsson in a statement. "Muscles are important in both type 2 diabetes and obesity—and muscle mass is also directly correlated with life expectancy." While the effectiveness of the new treatment has yet to be evaluated in humans, a phase I clinical trial (which involved 48 healthy subjects and 25 people with type 2 diabetes) has shown that the drug is well-tolerated in humans. A further advantage of the new drug, the team explained, is that because it has a different mechanism of action to Ozempic and other GLP-1 agonists, they could be taken together. "This makes them valuable both as a stand-alone treatment and in combination with GLP-1 drugs," explained Wright. With this initial study complete, researchers are now looking to undertake a larger clinical study to see if the drug offers the same benefits to humans with type 2 diabetes or obesity as it did in the mice models of these conditions. Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about weight loss medication? Let us know via health@ Reference Motso, A., Pelcman, B., Kalinovich, A., Kahlous, N. A., Bokhari, M. H., Dehvari, N., Halleskog, C., Waara, E., de Jong, J., Cheesman, E., Kallenberg, C., Yakala, G. K., Murad, P., Wetterdal, E., Andersson, P., van Beek, S., Sandström, A., Alleluia, D. N., Talamonti, E., Youhanna, S., Sabatier, P., Koenig, C., Willems, S., Kemas, A. M., Hutchinson, D. S., Ham, S., Grätz, L., Voss, J., Marchan-Alvarez, J. G., Priede, M., Jaunsleine, K., Spura, J., Kovada, V., Supe, L., Stoddart, L. A., Holliday, N. D., Newton, P. T., Pillon, N. J., Schulte, G., Summers, R. J., Mutule, I., Suna, E., Olsen, J. V., Molenaar, P., Carlsson, J., Lauschke, V. M., Wright, S. C., & Bengtsson, T. (2025). GRK-biased adrenergic agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Cell.
Medscape
5 hours ago
- Medscape
Should CV Risk Equations Add Lp(a)?
Whether to measure Lp(a), a lipoprotein associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and how to use that information in risk assessment is a hot topic in cardiovascular medicine. The American Heart Association recently introduced the Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular EVENT (PREVENT) equations — an update to the pooled cohort equations. Neither risk calculator includes values for Lp(a). A recent study looked at whether adding Lp(a) to the PREVENT equations would improve risk prediction. It found that including the lipid parameter yielded a modest improvement at a population level but appeared to be more useful for personalized risk assessment, particularly among lower-risk individuals. 'Our results validate the PREVENT equations on a population level and show that they perform well, both in people with and without high levels of Lp(a),' lead author of the study, Harpreet Bhatia, MD, University of California San Diego, told Medscape Medical News . 'While I think our results would not support adding Lp(a) to the PREVENT equations, they confirm that on an individual-patient basis Lp(a) can add information,' he commented. Bhatia explained that the PREVENT risk equations are going to be the future paradigm of risk stratification in the primary prevention setting in the US, eventually replacing the pooled cohort equations which have been used for many years. The reason that Lp(a) wasn't included in either risk score, he suspects is because the datasets on which the risk equations are based would not have these values available. The PREVENT equations removed the consideration of race or ethnicity, as there is now acknowledgement that race is more of a social construct, but it is known that Lp(a) levels vary by ancestry, he said. Bhatia believes that Lp(a) should be routinely tested at least once in all adults; 'For those of us who practice preventive cardiology and lipidology, it can alter our clinical management.' Current American Heart Association/ American College of Cardiology cholesterol guidelines from 2018 do not recommend universal testing of Lp(a) but include it as a risk enhancing factor; updated guidelines are expected within the next year. Guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and Canada and the US National Lipid Association do recommend measuring Lp(a). For the current study, Bhatia and colleagues examined data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a US study of 6670 people started in the year 2000, and the UK Biobank, a study of over 500,000 individuals from the UK started around 2006. Participants had no known cardiovascular disease at baseline and most had an Lp(a) measurement. Bhatia noted that his study used risk thresholds established for the pooled cohort equations, but it has not yet been decided what the cut points will be for the PREVENT equations. Low risk was defined as < 5%; borderline as 5%-7.5%; intermediate as 7.5%-20%, and high as ≥ 20% predicted 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease. 'PREVENT Equations Generally Do A Good Job' 'Essentially, what we saw was that the PREVENT equations generally do a good job of putting people into those 10-year risk categories across the board,' Bhatia said. However, they also found that within each category and across the board, if Lp(a) was high, then the cardiovascular risk was increased compared to individuals with a lower Lp(a) and sometimes quite significantly increased. The researchers also tried to establish whether Lp(a) could improve risk prediction on top of the PREVENT equations, using the Net Reclassification Index (NRI) which looks at the percentage of people who would be reclassified based on the new model (the proportion who move up minus the proportion who move down). They found that Lp(a) levels led to a modest improvement in risk prediction according to the NRI. In terms of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including elevated Lp(a) on top of the PREVENT equations appropriately reclassified about 6% of people. With regard to coronary artery disease, which Lp(a) is most strongly associated with, the NRI was about 8%. Another measure of how well a new model predicts risk — the C index — found that the addition of Lp(a) did not significantly modify results. 'Our results suggest there does seem to be some improvement in risk prediction with Lp(a) for some individuals, particularly those at lower cardiovascular risk,' Bhattia said, an observation he described as 'intriguing'. He does not believe that new equations are needed that incorporate Lp(a). He pointed out that statin therapy for prevention is more strongly recommended in intermediate/higher risk patients, with a weaker recommendation for those at lower risk when there's the presence of an additional risk enhancing factor. 'It may be that someone at low risk in the equations with an elevated Lp(a) may be eligible for starting statins.' Bhatia already considers Lp(a) levels in this way in his clinic. He said that Lp(a) testing is simple and widely available, and the majority of people will only need to be tested once in their lifetime. He explained that most people who have low or high levels would stay in those categories long term, while people who have intermediate or borderline levels (30-50 mg/dL or 75-125 nmol/L) may need repeat testing if something changes that can affect Lp(a) levels longer term such as going through menopause, or the development of kidney or thyroid disease. Lp(a) Testing Worthwhile In an editorial accompanying the publication, Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, Framingham Center for Population and Prevention Science, Boston University, Framingham, Massachusetts, and Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said the results are a useful validation of the PREVENT risk equations in contemporary broad populations and large real-world clinical samples. In terms of whether Lp(a) should be incorporated directly as a variable in the PREVENT equations, the editorialists have a similar view to Bhatia. 'That appears unnecessary,' they wrote. But, like Bhatia, they believe that Lp(a) should be measured once in everyone to help understand and individualize risk. 'Lp(a) is indeed a risk-enhancing, likely causal, factor for ASCVD. Its absence does not exonerate traditional risk factors, but its presence can amplify and personalize that risk, and help guide clinicians and patients regarding use and intensity of preventive therapies,' they concluded. Also commenting on this latest study, was Nathan Wong, PhD, from the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. He told Medscape Medical News that the analysis shows that the PREVENT risk score predicts ASCVD outcomes similarly in those with and without elevated Lp(a) levels. The stronger prediction of Lp(a) in lower risk people 'argues for the need to promote increased screening in the broader population, including those at lower risk' he said noting that most recommendations in the past have focused on people at higher risk such as those with a personal history of ASCVD. Wong agreed with Bhatia that the value of Lp(a) is more at the individual level than at the population wide level. But he does believe a risk score incorporating Lp(a) could be helpful for personalizing treatment strategies in certain individual patients, particularly for those with elevated Lp(a) levels who may not already be identified as high risk. Indeed, Wong and colleagues recently published such a score and showed that incorporating Lp(a) into ASCVD risk prediction models developed using a real-world clinic population moderately improves performance over 10 years, with good generalizability when applied to other US population cohorts. In that paper, a 25 mg/dL increment in Lp(a) was associated with a 23% increased risk for incident ASCVD. Levels ≥ 75 mg/dL conferred a near two-fold greater risk for ASCVD, including a 2.5-fold greater risk for stroke compared with Lp(a) levels < 25 mg/dL. They also demonstrated that adding Lp(a) to the pooled cohort equations ASCVD risk calculator correctly reclassified 45% of borderline-intermediate risk patients who experienced incident ASCVD as high-risk. However, about 24% who did not experience events were incorrectly reclassified high-risk (for an NRI of 21%). He cited a use case of a Black man aged 65 years with an Lp(a) of 80 mg/dL and a 10-year ASCVD risk of 18% without considering Lp(a) who would be up-stratified to 24% after factoring in Lp(a). 'Based on current guidelines, this person would now be clearly recommended for a statin to lower his ASCVD risk which may not have been as certain based on the risk not incorporating Lp(a),' he said. Recent studies have also shown identification of elevated Lp(a) levels can result in greater use of lipid-lowering therapy, he added. Wong also agreed with Bhatia on the distinction between risk prediction in populations vs individuals. 'We don't practice medicine on populations. We practice it on individuals and for certain individuals a risk score that incorporates Lp(a) can reclassify their risk category significantly dependent on how high their Lp(a) is,' he stated.
