Coffee remains one of the most widely consumed beverages in the world, and researchers have long studied whether it may help explain lower rates of conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease seen in some populations. New findings from Finland now add a more detailed look at how regular coffee intake tracks with body composition, metabolic markers, and sex hormones in midlife adults. The research centers on a large birth cohort in Northern Finland, where coffee consumption is especially high by global standards.

Researchers tracked 2,264 adults and found measurable body-composition differences

The new study came from the University of Oulu and was published in the European Journal of Nutrition on July 16, 2026, according to the journal record and the university’s summary of the findings. Researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from 2,264 participants in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, all age 46 at the time of assessment. The team examined habitual coffee intake alongside circulating metabolites, cardiometabolic risk markers, and sex hormone levels.

The clearest body-composition findings were that participants with higher coffee consumption tended to have lower total body fat, lower visceral fat, and greater skeletal muscle mass, according to the University of Oulu and the published paper. Those differences appeared even though body mass index was similar across higher- and lower-intake groups. That distinction matters because BMI alone can miss meaningful differences in fat distribution and lean mass.

Researchers also reported lower circulating branched-chain amino acid concentrations in both men and women with higher coffee intake. The paper noted that persistently elevated branched-chain amino acids have previously been linked with insulin resistance and greater type 2 diabetes risk. The study’s authors said the results show associations, not proof that coffee directly produced those outcomes.

The study was based in Northern Finland, and its findings reflect that population

The data came specifically from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, a long-running population study administered through the University of Oulu. That means the findings reflect adults from one defined region and age group rather than a nationally representative sample of Finland, the United States, or global coffee consumers. The researchers have not said the results can be generalized without further study in other populations.

Finland is a notable setting for this research because it remains one of the world’s highest coffee-consuming countries. The University of Oulu said average annual consumption there is about 11.8 kilograms, or roughly 26 pounds, per person. That high baseline intake gave researchers a population where meaningful differences in habitual coffee use could be studied at scale.

What is not yet known is whether the same pattern would appear in younger adults, older adults, or people in countries with different diets, activity levels, and coffee habits. The published study focused on observational associations in one cohort at midlife. Researchers also have not issued any recommendation that people start drinking more coffee based on these findings alone.

Hormone patterns may help explain coffee’s broader health links, but causation is unproven

Some of the most striking findings involved sex hormones, especially in men. According to the published study, greater coffee consumption in men was associated with a more favorable glucose-insulin profile, higher total and bioavailable testosterone, and higher sex hormone-binding globulin, or SHBG. At the same time, free testosterone and the free androgen index were modestly lower.

Among women, the hormonal pattern was narrower. Higher coffee intake was mainly associated with increased SHBG and lower measures of free androgens, according to the study and the University of Oulu summary. Lead author Luca Verroest said the research identified a distinct hormonal signature that remained even after accounting for BMI and lifestyle factors, with several associations differing between men and women.

Researchers said those hormone-related findings could help explain why coffee has been linked in earlier studies with better metabolic health. Still, the paper was observational, so it cannot determine cause and effect. The University of Oulu said scientists are now studying whether coffee itself drives these biological changes in animal models, with the longer-term goal of moving toward human intervention studies before any dietary guidance changes.

Coca-Cola’s color seems obvious now. But for generations, people have confused the shade of the drink with the changing colors of the bottles that carried it.

That mix-up helped create one of the most persistent myths in food history: that Coke itself somehow changed from green to brown.

The myth started with the bottle, not the beverage

The biggest source of confusion is the famous early Coca-Cola bottle. According to The Coca-Cola Company’s own history, the 1915 contour bottle contract specified a green-tinted glass known first as “German Green,” later renamed “Georgia Green.” That meant consumers often encountered Coca-Cola in a distinctly green bottle, even though the liquid inside was already dark.

Collectors’ guides published by the company also show that early straight-sided Coca-Cola bottles came in several glass colors, including clear, light green, and amber. In other words, packaging varied widely by era and bottler. When people look at vintage glass today, it is easy to assume the drink’s color changed with the container.

That misunderstanding survives because the green contour bottle became such a strong visual icon. Coca-Cola spent decades building brand recognition around a package that could be identified by touch or even from broken glass on the ground. Over time, the bottle’s identity became so powerful that many people mentally merged the package with the product.

Why Coke looks brown in the first place

The drink’s brown appearance comes from caramel coloring, not from cola nuts, bottle glass, or some secret aging process. The FDA lists caramel as an approved color additive, and its guidance on carbonated soft drinks explicitly notes that caramel coloring may be used in beverages like cola. That makes Coke’s trademark look part chemistry, part regulation, and part brand consistency.

Caramel color is not the same thing as melted candy poured into soda. In food manufacturing, it is a controlled ingredient made by heating carbohydrates under specific conditions to create a range of shades from yellow-tan to deep brown. The FDA also classifies caramel among color additives exempt from certification, which helps explain why it has long been common in soft drinks and other foods.

That dark tone matters commercially as much as visually. A cola that looked pale, cloudy, or inconsistent would feel wrong to many consumers, even if the flavor stayed similar. The brown hue signals richness, familiarity, and the classic cola profile people expect before the first sip.

The stranger truth is that branding made the myth believable

What makes this story stranger than people expect is that Coca-Cola did not need a dramatic color change in the drink itself to create decades of confusion. The combination of green glass, vintage bottling variation, and powerful nostalgia was enough. In popular memory, packaging history became beverage history.

The myth also flourished because Coca-Cola has always been sold as more than a formula. From its earliest years, the company fought imitators by emphasizing distinctive visual identity, especially the contour bottle. When a package becomes that culturally dominant, consumers start treating every detail of it as evidence about the product inside.

So no, Coca-Cola was not once a green soft drink that later turned brown. The more accurate story is less obvious and more interesting: the liquid stayed dark because caramel coloring defined the look, while the bottle changed around it. In food history, that is often how myths are born—not from one shocking switch, but from decades of people remembering the wrong color.

Protein has become one of the most prominent marketing claims in American food retail, showing up across bars, chips, yogurt cups and ready-to-drink shakes. The current boom is especially visible in the snack aisle, where brands are racing to meet demand for portable, higher-protein products. Dietitians say the trend reflects real consumer interest, but they also say a protein label by itself does not make a snack a better choice.

Protein snacks are gaining ground across the U.S. food market

Consumer research shows the shift is not anecdotal. Mintel reported in its 2026 U.S. consumer protein outlook that one-third of U.S. consumers said they cared more about protein intake than they did six months earlier, a change the firm said is fueling growth across snacks, beverages and menu items. IFIC’s 2025 Food and Health Survey also found that “good source of protein” ranked as the top criterion Americans used to define a healthy food.

That broader demand is showing up in snack-specific data as well. Mintel said protein-forward snack innovation remained a major theme in 2025, particularly in bars and other convenient formats. Separate consumer research cited in a 2025 industry report from Cargill found 34% of consumers considered “high in protein” a very important factor when selecting snacks, up 9% from 2020.

Dietitians say the interest makes sense because protein can support fullness and help people bridge long gaps between meals. Harvard Health has advised that high-protein snacks can help slow digestion and promote satiety, while Mayo Clinic guidance says protein-rich snacks can provide energy and help people stay satisfied between meals. That does not mean every protein-branded product offers the same nutritional value.

Dietitians say the label matters more than the front-of-pack claim

Registered dietitians consistently separate the protein trend from product quality. Cleveland Clinic dietitian Beth Czerwony said shoppers choosing snack bars should look for protein and fiber together while avoiding products high in sugar and saturated fat. For snack bars specifically, Cleveland Clinic recommends no more than 2 grams of added sugar or 2 grams of saturated fat per bar when the product is being used as a snack rather than a meal replacement.

Harvard’s Nutrition Source makes a similar point in broader snack guidance. It says satisfying snacks often pair protein with fiber and whole grains, naming foods such as nuts, yogurt and popcorn as examples, while cautioning that many ultra-processed snacks can also bring excess sodium, added sugars and unhealthful fats. Harvard’s public health guidance on jerky likewise notes that the category can be high in sodium, saturated fat and added sugar even when it delivers substantial protein.

That is why dietitians often direct shoppers first to minimally processed foods. Mayo Clinic and Harvard both point to options such as Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, legumes, nuts, tuna and eggs as protein snacks that can fit into a balanced eating pattern. For packaged items, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics spokesperson Caroline Susie told the Associated Press that shoppers should read the nutrition facts panel for added sugar and sodium, not just protein grams on the front.

What shoppers should expect from the trend now

For consumers, the practical takeaway is that protein snacks are not a fad category anymore. IFIC reports that seven in 10 Americans snack at least once a day, and protein has become one of the strongest signals shoppers associate with health. That combination helps explain why manufacturers keep extending protein claims into more snack categories, from refrigerated dairy to shelf-stable meat snacks and bars.

Dietitians, however, say most healthy adults do not automatically need more protein from specialty products. IFIC’s dietitian-authored guidance notes that baseline needs for many healthy adults can be estimated at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight, and Mayo Clinic says many people can meet their needs through regular meals without adding protein shakes or supplements. In other words, the rise in protein branding reflects demand, but not necessarily a universal nutrition gap.

What shoppers should expect next is more choice, not a single dietitian-approved category winner. Expert guidance from Harvard, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic points in the same direction: a useful protein snack is one that fits the person’s overall diet, includes other nutrients such as fiber, and does not rely on heavy amounts of sugar, sodium or saturated fat to deliver its protein message.

Meat processors across the U.S. have been cutting capacity as a prolonged cattle shortage and shifting production strategies pressure plant networks. In Pennsylvania, JBS announced on June 12 that it would close beef operations at its longtime Souderton facility, putting more than 1,400 jobs at risk in Montgomery County. The move affects one of the region’s best-known meat plants and has since been partially revised by a plan to keep part of the site operating.

JBS confirms closure plan affecting 1,485 workers at Souderton facility

JBS said on June 12 that it would close its beef plant in Souderton, Pennsylvania, as part of a broader operational reset tied to conditions in the beef sector. Agri-Pulse, citing JBS spokesperson Nikki Richardson, reported that the company’s planned closure date was Aug. 14, 2026. The company initially described the site as a beef-processing facility with about 1,700 employees.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor & Industry later published the formal WARN entry for JBS Souderton. The state listing identifies two affected addresses, 249 Allentown Road and 741 Souder Road in Souderton, and classifies the action as a closure. The notice lists 1,485 affected workers in Montgomery County, with an effective date of Aug. 14, 2026.

That WARN posting provides the clearest public worker count tied to the closure action. It also supplies the specific site information required for employers making mass-layoff or plant-closing disclosures. The state notice does not describe the filing as conditional, and the public listing presents it as a closure effective on the August date.

What the Souderton shutdown means locally in Montgomery County

For Souderton and the surrounding Montgomery County labor market, the immediate significance is scale. A loss of 1,485 jobs at a single food-production site is large by regional standards, and the affected addresses sit within a long-established industrial footprint in the borough area. State records confirm the county, addresses, worker total and effective date, which gives local officials and workers a concrete timeline.

What remained unclear at the time of the original shutdown announcement was how many jobs, if any, could stay in place at the site. JBS later said on Aug. 10 that it would transform the Souderton facility into a dedicated value-added operation rather than fully vacating it. In that announcement, the company said approximately 400 jobs would remain and that beef harvesting and processing would still conclude on Aug. 14.

The company has not publicly released a full job-by-job breakdown showing which Souderton positions will be retained and which departments will be eliminated in the reworked operation. JBS also has not published a public list detailing exactly how retained roles will be distributed between the two Souderton addresses listed in Pennsylvania’s WARN system. What is confirmed is that the original closure notice covered 1,485 workers, while the later transition plan preserved a smaller employment base.

Cattle shortages and JBS’s modernization strategy are driving the change

JBS and industry publications have tied the Souderton decision to supply pressures in U.S. beef. Agri-Pulse reported that the closure came as the company adjusted to current cattle-supply conditions, while the Philadelphia and Memphis business journals described the move as part of a wider impact from the national cattle shortage on processors. In practical terms, fewer available cattle can leave plants with higher costs and less efficient utilization.

JBS has also framed the closure within a broader corporate investment strategy. According to Agri-Pulse, the company said the changes were part of a plan centered on growth, modernization and long-term competitiveness in the United States, alongside investments in other states. That makes the Souderton change not just a local labor story, but part of a network-level production shift.

For residents, the clearest near-term expectation is that beef harvesting and processing at Souderton are ending, even as part of the property remains in operation. JBS said on Aug. 10 that it plans to invest more than $30 million over the next decade to expand value-added and case-ready capabilities there, preserving about 400 jobs. That means the plant’s role in the local food economy is shrinking, but not disappearing entirely.

Legacy food brands continue to find new life as manufacturers bet that nostalgia can still drive grocery sales in a crowded snack aisle. That is the case with Hydrox, the chocolate sandwich cookie first introduced in 1908 and now showing up again on shelves through Leaf Brands after long stretches of disappearance from mainstream retail. Its return is tied to a trademark acquisition, a reformulated recipe, and a renewed distribution push aimed at national grocery and foodservice buyers.

Leaf Brands put Hydrox back into production, reviving a cookie first sold in 1908

Leaf Brands is the company behind the latest Hydrox return, and the company has said the relaunch began when it acquired the Hydrox trademark in 2015 and restarted production that year. According to Leaf Brands and trade coverage republished on its site, Hydrox was officially relaunched on September 4, 2015, with production beginning at the company’s facility in Vernon, California. That made the return a formal commercial relaunch, not just a one-off anniversary appearance.

The scale is broader than a boutique rerelease. Leaf’s current Hydrox product page says the cookie is “now available” and tells shoppers to ask local grocers to carry it, while the company’s catalog lists Hydrox sandwich cookies in 13-ounce packages with UPC 858932005078. Leaf also maintains a distributor page naming wholesalers and foodservice partners, indicating that the brand is being sold through more than direct online channels.

The product matters because Hydrox predates Oreo. Leaf Brands states that Hydrox debuted in 1908 under Sunshine Biscuits, while Oreo followed in 1912. That age gap appears to be the basis for headlines describing Hydrox as an early-20th-century cookie suddenly back on shelves, even though the cookie’s first appearance was 1908 rather than 1911.

The shelf return is national, but the company has not published a complete store-by-store list

For shoppers, the most important detail is that Hydrox appears to be available in the United States through a mix of local grocery requests, distributors, and online ordering rather than a single coast-to-coast chain rollout. Leaf Brands says consumers should “look for them throughout the US,” and its site also advertises direct purchase options. That confirms national availability in some form, but it does not amount to a complete public map of every store carrying the cookies.

The company has not released a full list of affected states, cities, or individual supermarket locations now stocking Hydrox. Its distributor page identifies business partners in places including Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, and other markets, but those listings are for distribution and foodservice channels, not a verified consumer-facing shelf list by city. In practical terms, that means shoppers may see Hydrox in independent grocers, specialty candy outlets, or regional chains before finding it uniformly in major national retailers.

That limited transparency helps explain why the cookie can feel “suddenly” back even after its formal relaunch occurred years ago. Availability has been uneven, and periodic media attention has made each fresh round of stocking look like a brand-new return.

The comeback is being driven by nostalgia, cleaner-label positioning, and shelf-space economics

Leaf Brands has directly tied Hydrox’s revival to consumer demand for older brands and to recipe changes designed to distinguish it from bigger competitors. On its Hydrox page, the company says it removed high-fructose corn syrup, replaced it with cane sugar, removed hydrogenated oils, and later eliminated artificial flavors and GMO ingredients. A separate Leaf announcement said Hydrox reached non-GMO status in 2017, giving the company a cleaner-label selling point alongside the nostalgia factor.

Shelf space remains part of the story. In a 2021 post on its site, Leaf said major retailers often charge significant slotting fees for shelf placement, describing that as a barrier for smaller brands trying to regain visibility. That helps explain why Hydrox can be back in production and in distribution, yet still appear only sporadically on shelves compared with dominant national cookie brands.

For customers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: Hydrox is back in active circulation, but access depends on local retailers and regional distributors. Leaf Brands continues to market the cookie as “America’s original sandwich cookie,” and the company’s current product pages indicate it is still actively supporting sales rather than treating the comeback as a temporary promotion.

Social media has spent the past several years turning ordinary routines into named trends, and food has become one of its most durable subjects. On August 16, 2026, NPR reported that the latest entry is “boy kibble,” a stripped-down bowl of ground meat and rice that has emerged as a counterpart to the 2023 “girl dinner” trend. Together, the labels show how internet culture keeps repackaging familiar eating habits as recognizable identities.

A new meal label moves from joke to trend

NPR reported on August 16 that “boy kibble” generally refers to a single-bowl meal built around ground beef and white rice, with some versions adding onions, peppers or sauce. The outlet described the trend as a convenience-first, high-protein meal style that has spread among fitness-focused social media users. The comparison point is “girl dinner,” the snack-plate format that became widely known in 2023.

In NPR’s reporting, Marquis Hawkes, a 30-year-old government contractor and part-time personal trainer, said the meal usually takes about 15 to 20 minutes to prepare and fits easily into batch cooking during the week. Los Angeles-based trainer Erik Rokisky told NPR he recommends lean ground beef, specifically a 96/4 blend, in many versions of the dish. NPR also reported that some people swap in turkey, quinoa or pasta, but the format remains intentionally repetitive.

That simplicity is part of the point. Zachary Mulvihill, a clinical professor and physician at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, told NPR the trend appeals to people trying to gain muscle mass while keeping meals basic and repeatable. Other coverage earlier in 2026 similarly described “boy kibble” as a TikTok-driven response to “girl dinner,” especially among younger men focused on protein intake.

The broader impact is cultural, not local

Unlike a restaurant opening, recall or chain closure, this story does not center on one state or city and there is no official list of affected locations because “boy kibble” is not a product launch or company campaign. What is confirmed is that the discussion has spread through national media and social platforms, with NPR, Healthline, The Independent and other outlets treating it as a recognizable 2026 food conversation. What is not publicly measurable is the total number of people making or posting the meal, because no central platform or company has released a comprehensive count.

The trend’s visibility also reflects how quickly internet food language travels across audiences. “Girl dinner” entered the wider culture in 2023 as shorthand for an unstructured, low-effort meal assembled from snack-like foods, and “boy kibble” now serves as a similarly reductive label for protein-heavy meal prep. Coverage in 2026 has consistently framed the two as related but distinct expressions of convenience eating.

For readers, the practical takeaway is less about a specific recipe than about what these labels reveal. Mulvihill told NPR that many “boy kibble” plates emphasize protein and rice while leaving out vegetables and fiber, and he recommended adding produce such as frozen vegetables or precooked beets to preserve convenience. Adrienne Bitar, a food studies lecturer at Cornell University, told NPR that the meals themselves are not new; what is new is the public naming and circulation of these ordinary habits online.

Why the names stick

The staying power of these meal labels appears to come from the overlap between time pressure, nutrition goals and identity-driven posting. NPR reported that Mulvihill sees the trend as a response to people with limited time, limited money or limited cooking experience who still want meals that feel efficient and nutritionally purposeful. In that framing, “boy kibble” is less a culinary innovation than a simplified answer to work schedules, gym routines and repetitive meal prep.

Bitar told NPR that people have long eaten monotonous, practical meals, comparing the underlying idea to older staples such as porridge, stew and other sustaining dishes. Her point was that the behavior predates social media, even if the label does not. The internet’s role is to turn ordinary private routines into shareable categories that can signal gender, lifestyle and attitude in just two words.

That helps explain why these names keep resurfacing. “Girl dinner” and “boy kibble” package routine food decisions into recognizable cultural shorthand: one emphasizing snack-style ease, the other emphasizing utilitarian protein and repetition. Based on the sources available, the trend is best understood as a naming phenomenon as much as a nutrition one, with social media continuing to turn everyday meals into public identities.

Tadalafil is one of the most widely prescribed drugs for erectile dysfunction, but recent research is pushing the conversation far beyond sexual health. An August 17 report from NPR highlighted how scientists, clinicians and telehealth companies are now examining whether the medication could also play a role in cardiovascular prevention. What is clear so far is that interest is rising; what remains unsettled is whether the drug itself is responsible for the better outcomes seen in large patient datasets.

Why tadalafil is getting fresh attention from heart researchers

Tadalafil belongs to a class of medicines called PDE-5 inhibitors, which also includes sildenafil, the drug sold as Viagra. These medications relax smooth muscle and widen blood vessels, which is why they are used for erectile dysfunction and, in some cases, pulmonary hypertension. Researchers say that same mechanism has made tadalafil a serious subject of discussion in preventive cardiology, according to NPR’s August 17 report.

Some of the strongest attention comes from large observational studies. A 2024 paper in Clinical Cardiology led by Dr. Robert Kloner examined more than 8,000 men with erectile dysfunction and found tadalafil exposure was associated with a 55% lower rate of cardiovascular death and a 44% lower rate of all-cause mortality during the study period. A separate large analysis involving more than 500,000 patients, as described by NPR, linked tadalafil use to a 32% lower risk of dementia along with lower mortality.

Those numbers have fueled discussion in medical and wellness circles because tadalafil is already generic and widely available. But the research cited by NPR and in the published studies is retrospective and observational, meaning it can show association rather than proof of cause. That distinction is central to how cardiologists are interpreting the data.

What experts say is known, and what is still unproven

The most important point for patients is that tadalafil is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent heart attack, stroke or death. Doctors interviewed by NPR said cardiologists are not routinely recommending it for those purposes, even as some specialists view the data as notable. Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic told NPR that without randomized controlled trial evidence, broad preventive use is hard to justify.

At the same time, some medical groups are beginning to discuss narrower use cases. NPR reported that the Princeton Consensus Panel, a group focused on men’s sexual function and cardiovascular health, recently reached consensus language that low-dose tadalafil is “appropriate” for a subset of men at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease because of plaque buildup in the arteries, according to panel co-chair Dr. Martin Miner. NPR also reported that the panel’s formal recommendations have not yet been published.

That leaves several open questions. Researchers have not yet established whether the apparent benefits come directly from the drug, from differences in the men who seek treatment, or from other factors not fully captured in claims data. Experts also told NPR that tadalafil has been less thoroughly studied in women, so the evidence base is not the same across sexes.

What this means for patients as the evidence develops

For now, the practical takeaway is cautious interest rather than a change in standard care. Tadalafil has a long safety record in approved uses, and prior safety analyses published in PubMed have not found an increased rate of major cardiovascular adverse events in clinical trial data. That safety profile is one reason the drug is being discussed seriously by some researchers instead of dismissed outright.

Still, the gap between “promising” and “proven” remains large. NIH’s DREAM study found that sildenafil and tadalafil did not reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s and related dementias in a Medicare-based analysis, showing that not all research points in the same direction. That mixed picture is why specialists continue to call for prospective, randomized trials before any broader preventive claims are adopted.

For patients, that means tadalafil remains a medication for its approved indications unless a physician recommends it for another reason. The current evidence suggests a signal worth studying, and some clinicians see enough potential to keep the debate moving, but the scientific standard for routine heart-protection use has not yet been met.

High blood pressure remains one of the most common chronic conditions in the United States, and cardiologists have spent years trying to explain why some cases stay elevated even after standard treatment. New March 2026 findings narrowed that question to a specific subgroup: patients with resistant hypertension, whose blood pressure remains high despite taking multiple medications. Researchers now say excess cortisol may be another hidden cause in a substantial share of those cases.

Researchers tied resistant hypertension to excess cortisol in a large U.S. study

Corcept Therapeutics presented late-breaking data from its MOMENTUM trial at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Session on March 28, 2026, reporting that 27.3% of 1,086 screened patients with resistant hypertension had hypercortisolism, according to the company and a concurrent Mount Sinai summary of the findings. Resistant hypertension was defined using American Heart Association criteria, meaning blood pressure remained uncontrolled despite the use of three or more medications.

That scale matters because MOMENTUM was described by Corcept and study investigators as the first large, U.S.-based observational multicenter study focused on endogenous hypercortisolism in resistant hypertension. The result translates to 297 patients with excess cortisol in the screened population, a rate researchers said was higher than many clinicians had expected in this setting.

Investigators said hypercortisolism, sometimes associated with Cushing syndrome, can be difficult to recognize because patients may not show the classic physical signs that typically prompt endocrine testing. The study’s message was not that cortisol explains all hypertension, but that it may account for a meaningful portion of difficult-to-control cases that otherwise look routine in cardiology practice.

What the findings mean in the U.S., and what is still not known locally

The confirmed impact of the study is national rather than state-specific. MOMENTUM enrolled patients across multiple U.S. centers, and the public materials tied to the research identify participating institutions in states including Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. However, researchers have not released a full public site-by-site enrollment breakdown, so it is not yet possible to say how many patients came from any one state or metro area.

That leaves important local questions unanswered. The study materials do not provide city-level prevalence figures, nor do they identify whether any specific state had a higher or lower share of resistant hypertension patients with hypercortisolism. They also do not show how many community clinics versus large academic centers contributed patients.

For patients and physicians, the immediate takeaway is more practical than geographic. The data suggest that some people being treated repeatedly for “essential” or unexplained resistant hypertension may actually have an identifiable hormone disorder. Mount Sinai said the findings support broader recognition that excess cortisol could be contributing to blood pressure that does not respond as expected to standard therapy.

Why researchers say this is important for treatment and next steps

The broader medical context helps explain why the findings drew attention. The American Heart Association said in its July 17, 2025 science advisory that about 15% to 20% of patients with hypertension have treatment-resistant disease, highlighting the need for new approaches. That advisory focused on the gut microbiome as an emerging factor in blood pressure regulation, showing that the field has increasingly moved beyond older one-cause explanations.

MOMENTUM points to a different pathway: hormone imbalance. Excess cortisol can affect blood pressure through several mechanisms, including fluid balance, vascular tone, and metabolic stress, which is why endocrinologists have long linked Cushing syndrome to hypertension. What is new here is the apparent frequency of elevated cortisol in a large resistant-hypertension population that was screened systematically rather than identified only after obvious symptoms appeared.

What this means for patients is still being defined. The March 2026 presentation does not establish that every patient with resistant hypertension should receive the same workup, and it does not prove that treating hypercortisolism will normalize blood pressure in every case. It does, however, give clinicians a stronger factual basis to consider endocrine screening in hard-to-control cases, while research continues on which patients benefit most from that approach.

A liver disease once widely discussed as fatty liver is now drawing broader national attention as obesity, diabetes, and metabolic risk factors remain common in the United States. The condition at the center of that attention is metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, or MASLD, a largely symptom-free illness in its early stages that can progress to scarring, liver failure, or cancer. Its rising profile sharpened on March 14, 2024, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first drug specifically for adults with more advanced inflammatory disease known as MASH.

The disease now affecting millions

MASLD is the updated name for what many patients and doctors previously called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Federal health materials describe it as a buildup of fat in the liver linked to metabolic dysfunction rather than heavy alcohol use. Because many people have no clear symptoms at first, it is often described by clinicians as a silent disease.

The “1 in 3 Americans” framing reflects the broad burden of disease in adults. NIDDK describes fatty liver disease as one of the most common and growing chronic liver diseases, while American Liver Foundation materials say about one in three U.S. adults are believed to have MASLD and about 20% of those patients may have the more serious inflammatory form, MASH. FDA materials issued with the first MASH drug approval stated that about 6% of U.S. adults, or roughly 14.9 million people, have MASH.

That March 14, 2024 approval covered Rezdiffra, the brand name for resmetirom, for adults with noncirrhotic MASH and moderate to advanced liver scarring, the FDA announced. The agency said the drug was approved for use alongside diet and exercise, marking the first federal approval of a treatment aimed directly at this stage of the disease. The action did not apply to all people with MASLD, but it signaled a shift from awareness alone to active treatment for a defined high-risk group.

What the U.S. impact looks like

The scope of MASLD is national, but the burden is closely tied to other common chronic conditions seen in every state. CDC data show obesity remains widespread among U.S. adults, and federal diabetes data show diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes are far more common among adults with overweight or obesity than among adults at lower weight ranges. Those patterns matter because diabetes, obesity, abnormal cholesterol, and related metabolic conditions are among the main risk factors tied to MASLD and MASH.

What is confirmed is that millions of Americans likely have liver fat disease and many do not know it. What is not yet known is exactly how many people in each state have been diagnosed, because broad prevalence estimates and confirmed case counts are not the same thing. There is also no single national patient registry that publicly lists state-by-state MASLD totals in real time.

Screening is becoming more structured in primary care and diabetes care. AASLD guidance identifies the FIB-4 blood-test calculation as a useful first step to help identify patients at higher likelihood of advanced fibrosis, and the American Diabetes Association’s 2026 standards say FIB-4 is the most cost-effective initial screening strategy for at-risk MASH in primary care and diabetes settings. That means more patients may be flagged for follow-up imaging or specialist referral even if they feel well.

Why the disease is getting more attention now

The main reason MASLD is gaining visibility is the overlap with the nation’s broader metabolic health trends. According to CDC obesity data and federal diabetes statistics, large numbers of adults are living with conditions that raise MASLD risk. Liver specialists have also emphasized that the disease can advance quietly for years, which has contributed to underdiagnosis until scarring or abnormal lab work appears.

Another reason is that medical guidance and terminology have changed. AASLD and related liver experts have adopted MASLD and MASH terminology in place of older NAFLD and NASH labels, and the updated language is increasingly appearing in clinical guidance, hospital materials, and public education. That shift is intended to align the disease name more closely with its metabolic drivers and standardize screening discussions across specialties.

For patients, the practical takeaway is narrower than the headline but still significant. The FDA-approved treatment is for adults with noncirrhotic MASH and moderate to advanced fibrosis, not for every person with liver fat, and diagnosis still depends on clinical evaluation, blood work, and often noninvasive testing, according to the FDA and AASLD guidance. Even so, the combination of broader screening recommendations, updated disease names, and the first approved therapy means this once-overlooked condition is likely to remain a larger part of routine U.S. medical care.

Fast food still dominates American dining, but not every giant is holding its ground. Behind the familiar signs and value deals, several major chains are losing visits, shuttering stores, or struggling to keep customers loyal.

That does not always mean collapse. It does mean the brands on this list are facing real pressure in a market where consumers have become more price-sensitive, less forgiving, and quicker to switch.

The chains showing the clearest signs of trouble

Subway remains one of the biggest restaurant chains in the country, yet its U.S. footprint keeps sliding. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that the chain closed 631 U.S. locations in 2024, leaving it with about 19,500 domestic restaurants, the first time it has fallen below 20,000 in roughly two decades. For a brand once defined by ubiquity, that is a major symbolic and operational setback.

Burger King is also still huge, but its domestic count has been moving in the wrong direction. QSR’s 2025 data shows the chain ended 2024 with 6,701 U.S. restaurants, down 77 from the prior year, after an even steeper decline in 2023. The company’s expensive “Reclaim the Flame” turnaround and remodel push suggest management knows the brand cannot rely on name recognition alone.

Pizza Hut and KFC, both under Yum Brands, have been wrestling with weaker traffic in the U.S. QSR reported that KFC’s year-over-year visits fell sharply early in 2024, including a double-digit drop in March, while Pizza Hut has also dealt with soft same-store sales and sluggish demand. In practical terms, both brands are fighting to stay relevant with customers trading down, cooking at home more often, or choosing faster-growing rivals.

Why America is pulling back from some old favorites

The biggest problem is not just competition. It is value perception. Across the industry, years of menu price increases changed how customers think about fast food, especially lower-income diners who once treated it as a dependable budget option. According to Revenue Management Solutions and Black Box reporting cited by QSR, quick-service traffic was down in key stretches of 2024 and 2025 even when sales held up, meaning price, not guest growth, often did the heavy lifting.

Wendy’s offers a clear example of that squeeze. QSR reported that its U.S. same-store sales fell 3.6% in Q2 2025, with July trends down even more sharply. Management pointed to weak consumer spending and overly complex promotions, a reminder that flashy limited-time offers do not always solve a basic affordability problem.

Jack in the Box has posted even more alarming numbers. In its official fiscal 2025 results, the company said same-store sales fell 7.4% in the fourth quarter and 4.2% for the full year. That kind of sustained decline usually signals more than a bad quarter. It suggests a brand that has lost momentum with core customers and has not yet found a convincing recovery formula.

Not every struggling chain is doomed, but the pressure is real

McDonald’s belongs on this conversation, though with an asterisk. It suffered a U.S. comparable-sales dip in late 2024 after the E. coli outbreak tied to slivered onions on Quarter Pounders, and its first quarter of 2025 was also soft. But unlike several peers, McDonald’s regained momentum by year-end 2025, showing that scale, operational discipline, and strong value messaging can still reverse a stumble.

That contrast is what makes the rest of the list more revealing. The chains losing America fastest are not necessarily disappearing tomorrow, but they are the ones with shrinking store counts, negative traffic, or falling same-store sales at a time when stronger brands are adapting faster. Consumers now expect speed, consistency, digital convenience, and real value all at once.

So which seven chains are losing ground most visibly? Subway, Burger King, Pizza Hut, KFC, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, and, more cautiously, McDonald’s. If your favorite is on that list, it may not be finished. But it is almost certainly under more pressure than the drive-thru line suggests.