The Hearts of Women: Lifestyle Choices, By Mrs. Vera West
The articles from Natural News ("Lifestyle Risks Weigh Heavier on Women's Hearts, Study Finds, Highlighting Evolutionary Biological Differences Between Male and Female," published March 24, 2025) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) press release ("Lifestyle Risks Weigh Heavier on Women's Hearts," published March 17, 2025)
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-24-lifestyle-risks-weigh-heavier-on-womens-hearts.html
report on a study presented at the ACC's Annual Scientific Session on March 29, 2025. Conducted by Maneesh Sud, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, the study analyses the impact of lifestyle factors on cardiovascular health, drawing data from the Ontario Health Study (2009-2017) involving over 175,000 Canadian adults, 60 percent of whom were women, none with pre-existing heart disease at the study's start.
Both sources highlight the study's core finding: lifestyle factors—diet, exercise, smoking, sleep, body mass index (BMI), blood glucose, lipids, and blood pressure—have a more pronounced effect on women's cardiovascular risk than men's. The ACC press release notes that women with poor health profiles (scoring low on an 8-point risk factor scale) faced nearly five times the risk of heart disease compared to women with ideal health (scoring 8/8), while men with poor health faced 2.5 times the risk compared to men with ideal health. Women were more likely to exhibit ideal health (9.1 percent scored perfectly vs. 4.8 percent of men), excelling in diet, glucose, cholesterol, and blood pressure, though slightly lagging in physical activity. However, when women deviated from ideal health, the consequences were disproportionately severe.
The Natural News article mirrors these findings but emphasises "evolutionary biological differences" as a potential explanation, suggesting that women's reproductive roles (e.g., pregnancy, menopause) may amplify lifestyle impacts on their hearts. It quotes Sud advocating for sex-specific screening, aligning with the ACC's call for tailored risk assessments to better motivate heart-healthy habits. Both sources underscore the novelty of this sex-disaggregated approach, with Sud noting, "It's not one-size-fits-all," a point echoed across both pieces.
Where they diverge is tone and framing. The ACC release is clinical and data-driven, focusing on statistical outcomes and implications for cardiology practice, with plans to present detailed results at the March 29 session. Natural News adopts a broader, more speculative lens, weaving in evolutionary theory and aligning with its natural health ethos, though it remains grounded in the study's data.
Both articles draw on a robust dataset—175,000 participants over eight years—offering a large, longitudinal sample that enhances statistical reliability. The ACC's credibility as a primary source tied to the study's presentation lends weight to the findings, while Natural News accurately reflects these results, broadening their reach.
The study's focus on sex differences in cardiovascular risk is groundbreaking, as both sources note it's the first to show lifestyle factors collectively hit women harder. This challenges the traditional unisex approach to heart disease prevention, a critical advancement given heart disease remains the leading cause of death for women in Western nations (e.g., CDC data shows over 300,000 U.S. women died from it in 2021).
The call for sex-specific screening is an actionable takeaway. If women's risk escalates more sharply with poor habits, targeted interventions could save lives—a point both articles emphasise, aligning with public health goals.
Neither source explains why lifestyle risks weigh heavier on women beyond vague nods to biology (Natural News) or statistical observation (ACC). The ACC promises more at the conference, but as of now, the "evolutionary differences" claim lacks substantiation—no specific hormones, genetic markers, or physiological pathways are cited. This leaves the argument speculative, weakening its scientific rigour.
The Ontario Health Study's Canadian focus raises questions about applicability elsewhere. Both articles assume global relevance, but dietary habits, healthcare access, and genetic diversity vary—U.S. or Australian women might face different risks, unaddressed here.
The establishment narrative—heart disease as a universal risk mitigated by generic lifestyle advice—is upended by this study, which both sources champion. Yet, their reliance on preliminary reporting (pre-conference) invites scepticism. The fivefold risk increase for women sounds alarming, but without raw data (e.g., absolute risk percentages, confidence intervals), it's hard to gauge real-world impact. Historical parallels—like the delayed recognition of women's unique heart attack symptoms (e.g., nausea over chest pain)—suggest this could be a legitimate oversight finally being corrected, but the absence of causal mechanisms tempers enthusiasm.
If borne out, this research could reshape cardiology, echoing earlier arguments at the blog about Western civilization's crossroads. A society ignoring women's unique health risks might weaken its demographic and cultural resilience—fewer healthy women, fewer families, a fraying social fabric. Yet, the material's current form—promising but incomplete—demands methodological scepticism; we should neither dismiss nor fully embrace it until the full study drops.
The ACC and Natural News articles spotlight a vital shift in understanding heart disease, with solid data suggesting lifestyle risks disproportionately burden women. Their strengths lie in highlighting this disparity and its implications, but weaknesses—speculative leaps, limited detail, and untested generalisability—call for caution. Critically, they challenge a complacent narrative, yet lack the depth to fully convince, as of yet.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-24-lifestyle-risks-weigh-heavier-on-womens-hearts.html
A new study reveals lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and smoking have a greater impact on women's heart health than men's.
Women with poor health face nearly five times the risk of heart disease compared to women with ideal health, while men face 2.5 times the risk.
Researchers suggest sex-specific screening and risk assessment could improve heart disease prevention and motivate healthier habits.
There are evolutionary biological differences between men and women.
The nurturer could be more impacted by environmental and dietary stressors.
The provider could be more adapted to handle those same environmental and dietary stressors.
Women's health: a double-edged sword
Heart disease, long considered a leading cause of death worldwide, may not affect men and women equally. A groundbreaking study presented at the American College of Cardiology's Annual Scientific Session reveals that lifestyle and health factors linked to heart disease have a more pronounced impact on women than men. The findings challenge the traditional one-size-fits-all approach to cardiovascular risk assessment and suggest that tailored strategies could better address the unique needs of each sex.
The study, led by Maneesh Sud, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, analyzed data from over 175,000 Canadian adults enrolled in the Ontario Health Study between 2009 and 2017. None of the participants had heart disease at the start of the study, and about 60% were women. Researchers focused on eight key factors associated with heart disease: diet, sleep, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, blood glucose, lipids, and blood pressure.
Biological and evolutionary insights
The results showed that women were more likely to have ideal health profiles compared to men. For instance, 9.1% of women scored a perfect 8 out of 8 on the risk factor scale, compared to just 4.8% of men. Women also had better outcomes in individual factors like diet, blood glucose, cholesterol, and blood pressure. However, when women did have poor health profiles, the consequences were far more severe.
Women with poor health faced nearly five times the risk of heart disease compared to women with ideal health, while men with poor health faced 2.5 times the risk. Similarly, women with intermediate health had 2.3 times the risk of heart disease compared to their ideal-health counterparts, while men with intermediate health had 1.6 times the risk.
"We found that women tend to have better health than men, but the impact on outcomes is different," Sud said. "The combination of these factors has a bigger impact in women than it does in men."
The study's findings align with the evolutionary roles of men and women. Men, historically tasked with defending and protecting their families, may be biologically hardwired to adapt to environmental stressors like physical exertion and exposure to danger. Women, on the other hand, are more biologically attuned to nurturing and emotional sensitivity, which may make them more susceptible to the effects of lifestyle choices like diet and exercise.
This evolutionary perspective underscores the importance of recognizing biological differences in heart health. For women, lifestyle decisions may carry greater weight due to their unique physiological and emotional wiring. As Sud noted, "For the same level of health, our study shows that the increase in risk [related to each factor] is higher in women than in men—it's not one-size-fits-all."
A call for tailored approaches
The study's findings highlight the need for sex-specific screening and risk assessment tools. Current approaches often treat men and women as interchangeable, but this research suggests that a more nuanced strategy could yield better outcomes. For example, women might benefit from more aggressive interventions targeting diet and exercise, while men might require different approaches to address environmental and stress-related factors. Heart-related stress in men could be exacerbated by their stoicism, by holding things in, by their inability to express emotions and rid their minds and bodies of stress. Heart-related stress in women could be more greatly impacted by sensitivities to their environment - their bodies not being provided what they need.
The researchers also plan to explore how these risk factors impact different racial and ethnic groups, as well as women before and after menopause. These additional analyses could provide even deeper insights into the complex interplay between biology, lifestyle, and heart health.
Comments