The one time you should never eat, according to a leading cardiologist
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Is Your Late-Night Snack Habit Hurting Your Health?
Why Eating Timing Matters More Than You Think?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
How Long After Dinner Should You Go To Sleep?
Can Intermittent Fasting Help Your Heart?
What Should You Eat to Stay Full At Night?
FAQs
If you find yourself heading to the kitchen for a snack after dinner, a top heart expert says it's time to rethink that habit. According to Dr. William Kraus, a preventive cardiologist at Duke Health, eating late at night is one of the most common yet harmful diet traps and it may be silently sabotaging your health and weight-loss goals, as per a Today.com report.Dr. Kraus told TODAY.com that, 'My No. 1 recommendation to every patient who walks in my office is not to eat after dinner,' as quoted in the report.The expert has pointed out that those nighttime nibbles may seem harmless, but they often lead to unnecessary calories, poor sleep, and long-term issues like weight gain and heart problems, according to the report.ALSO READ: Camila Cabello and her billionaire boyfriend Henry Chalhoub's romance heats up in Ibiza with passionate kisses! Are they the hottest couple of summer 2025? The doctor explained that the food which is consumed late in the day or just before bedtime will only get stored rather than burned for energy, as reported in the Today.com report. He said, 'Your body doesn't need it … so it's unnecessary calories going in your body. It also interrupts sleep if you eat too close to going to bed,' as quoted in the report.As per a research, eating at late night is considered to have a higher risk of obesity, high cholesterol and heart disease, and progression of arterial stiffness, because it requires digestion during sleep, a time when the body is used to an overnight fast, as reported by Today.com.ALSO READ: Is the Kennedy Center Opera House about to be renamed after Melania Trump? Here is what Republican lawmakers are proposing NBC News medical contributor Dr. Natalie Azar has advised to stop eating at least three hours before bedtime because it allows the body to fast overnight and make a metabolic switch where it's potentially burning fat after exhausting all of its sugar sources when the stomach is empty, as reported by Today.com.American Heart Association has recommended intermittent to protect your heart by controlling inflammation, according to the report.One of the commonly used method is the 16:8 intermittent fasting, which means that you fast for 16 hours and eat all meals during an eight-hour window that lets you finish your meals early, such as from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. or even earlier, according to the Today.com report.According to the report, to not feel post-meal hunger, it is recommended to eat a filling dinner with plenty of protein, fiber, and other nutrients that will make it a well-balanced dinner, like having Sheet-Pan Chicken Fajita Bowls, Vegan Black Bean Burgers or Crispy Salmon Rice Bowls.Studies suggest it may reduce inflammation and support cardiovascular health, as per Today.com report.Yes, late-night eating can disrupt your sleep by making your body work to digest while you're resting, as per Today.com report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Judge's vaccine exemption ruling sparks education crisis in West Virginia schools
A West Virginia judge's ruling on Thursday permitting three unvaccinated children to attend public school this fall has sparked intense debate over the intersection of religious freedom, student safety, and access to education. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Issued just weeks before the new school year begins, the injunction marks a significant moment in a growing national struggle over vaccine mandates in classrooms. The legal victory, though limited in scope, comes amid a high-stakes confrontation between Republican Governor Patrick Morrisey and the West Virginia Board of Education, potentially setting the tone for how vaccine-related disputes will influence education policy and student welfare. Religious exemptions vs. State Education law Raleigh County Circuit Judge Michael Froble granted a preliminary injunction in favour of three families who filed suit on June 24, asserting that their children should be allowed to attend school without required vaccinations on religious grounds. The order currently applies only to those three children, but its symbolic weight is far greater. Governor Morrisey, who took office in January, had issued an executive order allowing religious exemptions to long-standing school vaccine mandates. However, the West Virginia Board of Education voted to ignore the order, asserting that it violates existing state law, which prohibits religious exemptions for school-entry vaccinations. Calling the court decision a major step forward, Morrisey said as reported by the Associated Press: 'Today's ruling is another legal victory in the fight for religious freedom. No family should be forced to choose between their faith and their children's education, which is exactly what the unelected bureaucrats on the State Board of Education are attempting to force West Virginians to do. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Education infrastructure under pressure School administrators across the state now face growing uncertainty over how to prepare for a safe reopening. Public school vaccine mandates, long credited with shielding students from preventable illnesses, are deeply embedded in the state's education infrastructure. West Virginia requires immunizations against diseases such as measles, hepatitis B, polio, and chickenpox for school enrollment. Medical professionals warn that relaxing these rules may undermine classroom safety and disrupt student learning. Vaccination mandates for public schools are seen as a way to prevent the spread of once-common childhood diseases, according to national public health guidelines. Already, the United States is experiencing its worst year for measles in more than 30 years. Educators worry that rising vaccine hesitancy may not only spark outbreaks, but also cause spikes in absenteeism, learning loss, and increased pressure on teachers already coping with post-pandemic academic gaps. Colleges and careers could see Ripple effects High school students granted religious exemptions may also face hurdles in their higher education journey. Many colleges and universities require proof of immunisation for enrollment, on-campus housing, and participation in exchange programmes. A legal shift at the K-12 level could therefore introduce friction in the college application process, particularly for students eyeing out-of-state or international opportunities. Moreover, for students pursuing careers in healthcare, teaching, or early childhood education, fields where vaccinations are often non-negotiable, the decision could alter their eligibility and employability. Faith vs. medical consensus The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Miranda Guzman, a parent who identifies as Christian. According to the complaint, Guzman believes that altering her child's immune system via vaccines would 'demonstrate a lack of faith in God' and 'disobey the Holy Spirit's leading.' Two additional parents joined the suit after it was filed. Notably, the lawsuit does not specify any religious denomination, and the American Bar Association states that most religious denominations and groups support medical vaccinations. While the ruling supports the plaintiffs' right to an education aligned with their faith, critics argue that it sets a dangerous precedent by elevating personal belief above scientific consensus and community health. Board pushback and legal uncertainty The state Board of Education has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome. In a statement, it said it was 'disappointed by the ruling' and that its members 'will decide next steps in the near future.' Education officials remain firm that only the Legislature, not the Governor, can rewrite public health policy tied to school attendance. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit against Governor Morrisey's executive order was dismissed this week on procedural grounds due to a lack of a 30-day notice. However, the court has permitted it to be refiled, ensuring that the legal tug-of-war is far from over. Lawmakers in West Virginia also failed to pass a bill during their last session that would have legalized religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates, another sign of legislative gridlock. A fragile balance between belief and learning As classrooms prepare to welcome students back, the state must now grapple with a pivotal question: Can West Virginia safeguard both religious freedom and the public right to a safe education? Though this injunction currently affects only a few students, it opens the door to wider challenges—ones that could disrupt the very structure of school entry, student health policies, and post-secondary planning.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
New York: Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
NDTV
3 days ago
- NDTV
Trump Admin Asks US Supreme Court to Reinstate $783 Million In Research Funding Cuts
Washington: The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to roll back federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Justice Department argued a federal judge in Massachusetts was wrong to block the National Institutes of Health from making $783 million worth of cuts to align with President Donald Trump's priorities. US District Judge William Young found that the abrupt cancellations ignored long-held government rules and standards. Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, also said the cuts amounted to "racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community." "I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," Young said at a hearing last month. An appeals court left the ruling in place. The ruling came in lawsuits filed by 16 attorneys general, public-health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. His decision addressed only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects that have been cut. The Trump administration's appeal also takes aim at nearly two dozen cases over funding. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court's emergency docket from April that allowed cuts to teacher training programs to go forward. The order shows that district judges shouldn't be hearing those cases at all, but rather sending them to federal claims court, he argued. "Those decisions reflect quintessential policy judgments on hotly contested issues that should not be subject to judicial second-guessing. It is hardly irrational for agencies to recognize-as members of this Court have done-that paeans to 'diversity' often conceal invidious racial discrimination," he wrote.
