Leaving meat is not enough: New study reveals the vegetarian diet your heart really needs

Going vegetarian doesn't automatically mean a healthier heart, warns a Johns Hopkins University study. People who ate processed plant-based foods faced a 65% higher risk of heart damage. The research urges a shift from just 'plant-based' to 'nutrient-rich,' advocating for whole grains, fruits, and legumes over fries and refined carbs to truly safeguard cardiovascular health.
A new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Cardiology reveals that simply eliminating meat isn't enough to improve heart health. Researchers found that consuming unhealthy plant-based foods—like fries, chips, and refined grains—can raise cardiac risk markers. (Image: iStock)
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
When 'Plant-Based' Becomes Problematic
A well-balanced plant-based diet for heart health should be rich in fibre, antioxidants, and low in saturated fats. (Image: iStoxk)
Healthy Plants vs. Unhealthy Plants
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Not Just About What You Eliminate, But What You Choose
Limitations and Real-World Impact
For decades, giving up red meat has been seen as a fast track to better heart health . From lowering cholesterol to reducing blood pressure, the plant-based shift has been widely celebrated as a wholesome lifestyle choice. But new research suggests that this narrative needs a serious reality check.According to The Mirror, a recent study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Cardiology and reported by News Medical, reveals a startling insight: not all plant-based diets are created equal, and simply cutting out meat may not be enough to protect your heart. In fact, some vegetarian diets could be doing more harm than good.The study, led by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, analyzed the diets and heart health of more than 7,000 U.S. adults. What they found disrupts the usual assumptions about vegetarianism . Participants who consumed less healthy plant-based foods were found to have 65% higher chances of elevated cardiac troponin levels—biomarkers that indicate heart muscle damage and can be early warning signs of serious cardiac conditions like heart attacks.So what exactly counts as less healthy plant food? The list may surprise you. It includes staples like French fries, mashed potatoes, potato or corn chips, and refined grains such as white rice, white bread, and sugary breakfast cereals. All technically vegetarian, but far from heart-friendly.According to the American Heart Association, a well-balanced plant-based diet should be rich in fibre, antioxidants, and low in saturated fats. Think whole grains, nuts, legumes, fruits, and leafy greens. These form the basis of the hPDI ( Healthful Plant-Based Diet Index) and the DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension)—two dietary models that were closely examined in the study.The DASH diet, in particular, is designed to support individuals with high blood pressure. It emphasises vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins, while cutting back on sodium, sugar, and processed foods . Participants adhering to the DASH diet over 12 weeks showed a measurable reduction in heart disease markers.One of the key revelations of the study is this: eliminating animal-based food isn't inherently heart-healthy if it's replaced by processed, nutrient-poor vegetarian options. 'People often assume vegetarian equals healthy, but it's not that simple,' the researchers noted. It's the quality of plant-based foods that determines cardiovascular benefit—not just the absence of meat.While the study leaned on self-reported dietary habits—which can introduce bias—it still raises a critical point. The rush to embrace plant-based living must be accompanied by informed choices. It's not about rejecting meat, but about embracing better plants.The research aims to spark more nuanced conversations around diet culture, especially at a time when plant-based eating is trending globally. 'This could change the way we talk about vegetarianism,' experts believe—encouraging people not just to go green, but to go clean.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

5 hours ago

• Time of India

Cancer could be detected 3 years before symptoms appear with a simple blood test; new study reveals

One of the leading causes of death in recent years, cancer, is claiming to take millions of lives each year. Despite the significant advancements in the treatment, the biggest challenge in fighting cancer is that the detection is often too late. Detecting cancer earlier may dramatically improve survival rates and offer more treatment options. But, this is yet harder to diagnose at the earliest stage and is one of the crucial reasons for rising deaths worldwide. Now, a new study by Johns Hopkins University researchers suggests that a simple blood test could help identify cancer years before symptoms even begin to show, potentially transforming the future of early diagnosis and prevention. According to the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Discovery , this breakthrough might be a push in early diagnosis of cancer. A simple blood test may detect cancer early, before any symptoms start Cancer outcomes are heavily dependent on how early the disease is detected. When tumours are caught in their initial stages, they tend to be smaller, less aggressive, and more responsive to treatment. As researcher Yuxuan Wang from Johns Hopkins explains, 'Three years earlier provides time for intervention. The tumours are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable.' This time advantage could make the difference between curable and life-threatening cancer, especially in aggressive forms of the disease. At the heart of the research is a type of genetic material called circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Tumours naturally shed fragments of their DNA into the bloodstream, but these traces are extremely minute and hard to detect, especially in the early stages. Science behind detecting cancer in blood To identify these fragments, scientists used multi-step algorithms and cross-checks to scan blood samples for modifications in DNA patterns that are commonly linked to tumours. The technique forms the basis of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) test, designed to look for cancer-specific genetic changes in the blood. The research team analysed blood samples from 52 individuals, split into two groups: 26 people who were later diagnosed with cancer within six months of sample collection. 26 people who remained cancer-free. When subjected to the MCED test , eight cancer cases were flagged, indicating a 31% detection rate. While not perfect, this detection occurred before any formal diagnosis or visible symptoms appeared. Testing the method: What the study revealed What makes the findings even more groundbreaking is the analysis of older blood samples from some of the participants. Six of the eight individuals who were detected by the MCED test had blood samples available from 3.1 to 3.5 years before their diagnosis. Amazingly, cancer signals were found in four of those six samples. The ctDNA was present, although at levels up to 80 times lower than what the current test threshold requires. This suggests that tumours begin shedding DNA into the blood long before symptoms arise. if the tests are sensitive enough, these early signs could be caught. While the results are promising, they also highlight a key hurdle that the current technology needs to improve its sensitivity. The earlier the stage of cancer, the lower the ctDNA levels, making detection difficult. 'This study shows the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early,' says Dr. Bert Vogelstein, a senior cancer researcher involved in the project. 'But it also sets the benchmark sensitivities required for these tests to succeed.' In simpler terms, we now know what we should aim for—but we're not quite there yet. What happens after a positive cancer blood test Even though the science is encouraging, moving from lab to the clinic is not straightforward. Blood-based cancer screening tests must undergo rigorous clinical trials to prove their reliability and safety. Once proven effective, they still require regulatory approvals before being adopted into regular medical practice. There's also the question of what comes after a positive test. Dr. Nickolas Papadopoulos from the Ludwig Centre notes, 'We need to determine the appropriate clinical follow-up after a positive test result. That includes further scans, biopsies, or even preventive treatments.' Despite the current limitations, this research represents a hopeful shift in cancer diagnostics. Combined with ongoing advances in treatment, especially therapies targeting multiple cancer types, the future holds the potential for significantly improved survival rates. This could mark a revolutionary step forward in how cancer is screened and treated. Also Read | 10 common monsoon diseases that might cause serious health problems; know symptoms and how to protect yourself One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change

First Post

21 hours ago

• First Post

How new blood test could reveal cancer long before symptoms appear

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in the US have developed a new blood test that can detect signs of cancer up to three years before symptoms appear. When cancer is present, tumours release small fragments of genetic material into the bloodstream. Researchers found that these fragments can be identified in blood samples long before symptoms emerge. This could allow doctors to detect cancer much earlier than current screening methods, improving the chances of timely treatment read more This could let doctors find cancer much earlier than current screening methods. Pixabay/Representational Image Has a new way to detect cancer early been found? Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in the US have created a new blood test that can pick up signs of cancer up to three years before any symptoms appear. Why is this important? This could let doctors find cancer much earlier than current screening methods, giving people a better chance of getting treated in time. ALSO READ | British tourist dies after being 'scratched' by a pup in Morocco: How common are rabies deaths today? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The study was published in Cancer Discovery and carried out by teams from different Johns Hopkins centres. It was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health. So, what is this new test? And what did the researchers discover from the study? Let's take a look: What the researchers found The study showed that small traces of cancer can be found in a person's blood as early as three years before they are formally diagnosed. This raises the possibility that doctors could one day spot cancer much sooner, when it is easier to treat or even cure. When someone has cancer, tumours release tiny fragments of genetic material into the bloodstream. The researchers found that this material can be detected in blood samples well before any symptoms show up. The study was carried out by teams from different Johns Hopkins centres. Pixabay/Representational Image Dr Yuxuan Wang, one of the study's authors, said, 'We were surprised to find cancer signals in the blood so early. Finding cancer three years earlier gives us a chance to treat it before it spreads.' To conduct the research, scientists used plasma samples from a major Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, which looks at risk factors linked to heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and other heart-related conditions, according to a press release. They examined blood from 26 people who were diagnosed with cancer within six months of giving the sample, and compared it with samples from 26 people who were not diagnosed with cancer. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Out of the 52 people, eight tested positive using a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) lab test and were later diagnosed with cancer within four months of their blood being drawn. Notably, MCED tests are an experimental method of screening that checks for signs of several types of cancer at the same time. According to the American Cancer Society, these tests can look for pieces of DNA, RNA or proteins from abnormal cells. In six of the eight cancer cases, the researchers went back to check earlier blood samples, taken more than three years before diagnosis. In four of those cases, cancer markers were already present. What do the results mean? Dr Bert Vogelstein, senior author and professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins, said, 'This study shows the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early, and sets the benchmark sensitivities required for their success.' Dr Nickolas Papadopoulos, also a senior author and professor of oncology, added, 'Detecting cancers years before their clinical diagnosis could help provide management with a more favourable outcome. Of course, we need to determine the appropriate clinical follow-up after a positive test for such cancers.' At present, no MCED test has received full approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for general use. However, some are available commercially under more flexible rules as Laboratory Developed Tests. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD MCED tests are an experimental method of screening that checks for signs of several types of cancer at the same time. Pixabay/Representational Image Experts say MCED tests are not meant to replace current screening methods but could become useful tools for detecting cancers earlier, particularly those like colon cancer, which are often diagnosed at later stages. Of the eight participants whose cancers were picked up by the MCED test months before diagnosis, five later died from the disease. According to The New York Post, excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, more than two million new cancer cases are expected in the US in 2025, with over 618,000 people projected to die from the illness. That means nearly 1,700 deaths every day.

Time of India

a day ago

• Time of India

Harvard doctor's experiment can boost your happiness in one minute. A startup CEO is already practicing it

Dr. Trisha Pasricha, a Harvard physician, stepped outside the clinic to test if talking to strangers boosts happiness—and science backed her up. Her playful public experiment mirrors IITian entrepreneur Harsh Pokharna's Jaipur meetups, revealing that heartfelt conversations, not just data or design, might be the next big wellness hack in our increasingly disconnected world. Harvard doctor Trisha Pasricha proved that one-minute chats with strangers can boost happiness, echoing a University of Chicago study. In a parallel tale, startup CEO Harsh Pokharna found the same truth during spontaneous meetups in Jaipur, reinforcing that real connection starts offline. (Representational image: iStock) Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Startup CEO Who Tried Something Similar Without Meaning To Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads More Than Just Small Talk, A Public Health Tool? It wasn't a research lab or a stethoscope that Harvard doctor Trisha Pasricha turned to recently—it was the simple, brave act of chatting with strangers while waiting in line. A physician, an instructor at Harvard Medical School , and the Ask a Doctor columnist for The Washington Post, Dr. Pasricha tested a charming scientific theory on the bustling platforms of Boston's Green Line: that one-minute conversations with strangers can actually make you happier.'It is scientifically proven that you can boost your happiness in one minute by talking to a stranger,' she began in a video she shared on Instagram, proceeding to engage unsuspecting commuters in playful and warm exchanges. Whether she was joking about being a Celtics fan or asking if someone wanted to be a pediatrician, the result was almost always the same—people smiled, talked, and lingered in conversations they hadn't planned experiment wasn't just a cute social video. It was rooted in evidence. According to, several studies, including one from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business in 2014, showed that people who spoke to strangers during their daily commute felt more positive afterward—even though they originally assumed their fellow travelers wouldn't be interested.'I had a great time,' Dr. Pasricha said, visibly moved by the simplicity of connection. 'Most people were down to just keep talking for minutes and minutes on end.'Interestingly, this scientific truth found a surprising echo in the world of tech entrepreneurship. Harsh Pokharna, the CEO of Bengaluru-based fintech startup OkCredit and an IIT Kanpur alumnus, unintentionally embarked on a social experiment of his own. During a break in his hometown Jaipur, Pokharna posted a casual Instagram story inviting people to hang out. What began as boredom soon turned into an unexpectedly fulfilling journey of human connection From random DMs to heartfelt discussions about therapy, dating, and dreams, Pokharna's days became filled with spontaneous meetups that mirrored the spirit of Pasricha's scientific adventure. 'There were no rules, no agendas—just organic human connection,' Pokharna noted, as he sipped coffee, played badminton, and took walks with strangers who soon felt like old Pasricha and Pokharna's experiences—one rooted in medical science, the other in lived curiosity—prove the same point: in an era dominated by curated lives and digital walls, the art of spontaneous conversation is a quiet rebellion. It's free, it's freeing, and it might just be the one-minute happiness hack we all dare at the end of her video is more than an Instagram caption—'I dare you to try this with a stranger today'—it's an invitation to revive something ancient and humane: unfiltered, real-world connection. For a society struggling with loneliness, digital fatigue, and emotional burnout, it may be time to treat these micro-interactions not as throwaway moments, but as therapeutic the doctor and the startup CEO, from Harvard labs to Jaipur streets, remind us that wellness isn't always found in a prescription bottle or a productivity app. Sometimes, it's waiting in line with a stranger, ready to say hello.