Combined Cardio and Strength Workouts Cut Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, Hypertension and Some Cancers, New Study Finds

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. How the study was conducted and who was included
4. The headline results: magnitude and pattern of risk reduction
5. Why strength training adds measurable protection beyond aerobic activity
6. Types of muscle‑strengthening activities and realistic ways to meet the guideline
7. Practical program examples by level
8. Barriers to adoption and how to overcome them
9. Policy and systems implications: why public health messaging must change
10. Real‑world programs and examples that work
11. Clinical practice: how clinicians should change exercise counseling
12. Interpreting the evidence: strengths, caveats and next steps for research
13. Translating evidence into everyday routines: a four‑week starter plan
14. Safety considerations and special populations
15. What this means for employers, insurers and communities
16. Case profile: translating evidence into a midlife routine
17. How much time does strength training really take?
18. Cost‑effective interventions and scalability
19. Addressing common myths about strength training
20. What clinicians, employers and individuals should do now
21. Limitations of the current evidence and unanswered questions
22. The broader public health calculus
23. FAQ

Key Highlights

• A nine-year cohort study of more than 8,000 adults found meeting both aerobic and muscle‑strengthening exercise guidelines was associated with a 50% lower risk of type 2 diabetes, a 24% lower risk of hypertension and a 23% lower risk of cancer compared with meeting neither guideline.
• Only about one-quarter of adults meet recommended levels for both types of activity; public health strategies have emphasized aerobic exercise but should explicitly promote strength training as a core preventive measure.
• Practical, scalable approaches—short resistance sessions, bodyweight routines, resistance bands, and workplace or community programs—can help bridge the gap between recommendations and real-world practice.

Introduction

Researchers have long documented the benefits of physical activity for cardiovascular fitness, weight control and mood. New longitudinal evidence from the University of Queensland strengthens the case that combining aerobic exercise with regular muscle‑strengthening work reduces the risk of several major chronic conditions over time. Tracking more than 8,000 Brisbane residents aged 40–64 for nearly a decade, the HABITAT cohort study shows a clear association: people who consistently met both aerobic and strength recommendations were significantly less likely to develop type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and certain cancers than those who met neither.

These findings demand attention from clinicians, employers and public health planners because current participation in recommended strength training is low. The research offers specific, actionable insights about how exercise prescriptions and community interventions should change if the goal is preventing chronic disease at scale. The following sections explain how the study was performed, what the results mean biologically, why uptake of strength training lags, and how individuals and systems can translate the evidence into practice.

How the study was conducted and who was included

The investigation comes from the HABITAT cohort, a long-running population study based in Brisbane, Australia. Researchers followed adults aged 40 to 64 between 2007 and 2016 and analyzed the relationship between two types of physical activity—moderate-to-vigorous aerobic exercise and muscle‑strengthening activity—and subsequent development of chronic conditions.

Participants self‑reported their physical activity patterns across survey waves. The team classified individuals according to whether they met contemporary public health recommendations: at least 150 minutes per week of moderate aerobic activity (or equivalent) and muscle‑strengthening exercises for all major muscle groups on two or more days per week. Over the nine-year follow-up, investigators tracked new diagnoses of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and several cancers, adjusting for demographic and lifestyle variables.

Several elements strengthen the study. The sample size—more than 8,000 adults—provided statistical power to detect clinically meaningful differences. The longitudinal design evaluates incident disease rather than cross‑sectional associations, which better supports a temporal link between activity patterns and later health. Nonetheless, the study remains observational; the associations are strong but not definitive proof of causation.

The headline results: magnitude and pattern of risk reduction

The most striking outcomes emerged among participants who consistently met both aerobic and strength guidelines:

• A 50% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with those who met neither guideline.
• A 24% lower risk of incident hypertension.
• A 23% reduction in cancer incidence.

Half of participants met the aerobic recommendation, but only about 24 percent met both aerobic and muscle‑strengthening targets. Roughly 30 percent met neither recommendation. These proportions mirror broader surveillance data: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures indicate only about 24.2 percent of adults aged 18 and older meet both activity goals. Lower adoption of strength training emerges as the primary shortfall.

The size of the diabetes risk reduction is especially notable. A 50 percent lower incidence of type 2 diabetes among people who pair aerobic activity with muscle strengthening suggests cumulative and potentially synergistic benefits. Hypertension and cancer risk reductions were smaller but still meaningful at a population level.

Why strength training adds measurable protection beyond aerobic activity

Aerobic exercise delivers well-known cardiovascular and metabolic benefits: improved cardiorespiratory fitness, calorie expenditure and some insulin sensitivity gains. Muscle‑strengthening activity contributes through several complementary pathways that explain why combining both modalities matters.

• Improved body composition: Resistance training increases or preserves lean muscle mass and raises resting metabolic rate. Greater muscle mass enhances glucose uptake and disposal, which directly reduces insulin resistance—a key driver of type 2 diabetes.
• Enhanced insulin sensitivity: Muscle contractions during resistance exercise stimulate glucose transporter proteins (GLUT4) and improve skeletal muscle glucose metabolism. These effects persist for hours to days after a session and cumulatively improve long‑term glycemic control.
• Blood pressure modulation: Resistance training reduces arterial stiffness and can improve vascular function. Strength programs that include moderate loads and proper progression reduce resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Combining strength with aerobic work targets blood pressure through different physiological mechanisms.
• Reduced central adiposity and inflammation: Strength training helps limit the visceral fat accumulation most closely linked to metabolic syndrome, inflammation and certain cancers. Lower systemic inflammation reduces the milieu that promotes tumor development and progression.
• Hormonal and immune effects: Resistance exercise modulates anabolic hormones, myokine release and immune surveillance. Some myokines exert anti‑inflammatory effects, and exercise enhances immune cell function—factors plausibly linked to lower cancer risk.

Clinical trials and meta‑analyses have repeatedly found that resistance training lowers HbA1c, reduces fasting glucose, and enhances insulin sensitivity—often in additive fashion when combined with aerobic training. The HABITAT findings align with this mechanistic evidence and offer population‑level confirmation that those combined physiological effects translate into fewer new chronic disease diagnoses over years.

Types of muscle‑strengthening activities and realistic ways to meet the guideline

Muscle‑strengthening activities include weightlifting, resistance bands, bodyweight movements and functional exercises. Guidelines specify working all major muscle groups—legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders and arms—on two or more days per week. Practical options:

• Free weights: Dumbbells, kettlebells and barbells enable scalable loading through progressive increases. Exercises such as squats, deadlifts, lunges, presses and rows hit multiple groups.
• Machines: Resistance machines can provide controlled movement patterns and are often preferred by beginners or people rehabilitating injuries.
• Bodyweight exercises: Push‑ups, squats, lunges, planks and step‑ups require no equipment and can be modified for all fitness levels.
• Resistance bands: Lightweight, portable and inexpensive, bands provide progressive resistance and are particularly useful for older adults or people training at home.
• Functional and circuit training: Combining multi‑joint strength moves into short circuits produces strength and endurance benefits and can be time efficient.

Meeting the two‑day minimum can look like this for busy adults: two full‑body strength sessions of 30–40 minutes each week plus three to five moderate aerobic sessions totaling 150 minutes (for example, 30 minutes on five days). Alternatively, splitting strength into three shorter sessions of 20 minutes also satisfies the guideline while offering frequent stimulus.

Practical program examples by level

Beginner (no equipment)

• Strength (2 days/week): 2 sets of 8–12 reps each: chair squats, wall push‑ups (or knee push‑ups), glute bridges, standing rows with a towel looped around a pole, dead bugs for core.
• Aerobic (150 min/week): Brisk walking accumulated across 30-minute sessions five days a week or three 50-minute walks.

Intermediate (with dumbbells or bands)

• Strength (2–3 days/week): 3 sets of 8–12 reps: goblet squats, Romanian deadlifts, bent‑over rows, overhead press, split lunges, planks. Add progressive overload each 1–2 weeks.
• Aerobic: 150 minutes of moderate activity, or interchange with 75 minutes of vigorous (e.g., running, cycling, interval training).

Older adults or people with mobility limitations

• Strength (2 days/week): Seated or supported exercises: sit‑to‑stand, heel raises, seated rows with band, seated chest press with band, step‑ups onto low step. Include balance work (tandem stance, single‑leg stance).
• Aerobic: Accumulate 150 minutes via brisk walking, water aerobics or stationary cycling. Break into shorter bouts if necessary.

Athlete or fitness‑minded adult seeking optimization

• Strength (3–4 days/week): Split routines emphasizing hypertrophy and strength phases; include compound lifts and accessory work. Volume and intensity tailored to goals.
• Aerobic: Maintain base of 150 minutes or more, incorporate interval sessions and sport‑specific conditioning.

These examples prioritize usability. Strength sessions need not exceed 30–45 minutes to achieve meaningful adaptations, especially when load and progression are applied. For many people, a twice‑weekly, full‑body routine plus regular walks meets the evidence‑based threshold while fitting into busy schedules.

Barriers to adoption and how to overcome them

Barriers to consistent strength training are practical, cultural and informational.

• Time constraints: Many adults report lack of time as a reason for inactivity. Short, high‑quality sessions—20–30 minutes of resistance training twice a week—require minimal time investment and produce measurable benefits. Combining strength with functional tasks (e.g., carrying groceries, stair climbing) increases everyday strength without a formal gym visit.
• Perception and knowledge gaps: Some people believe strength training is only for bodybuilders or that it’s unsafe for older adults. Education campaigns must normalize strength training across age and fitness spectrums. Demonstrations, supervised introductory sessions, and community classes teach safe technique and progression.
• Access and cost: Gym memberships can be a barrier. Bodyweight workouts and resistance bands are low‑cost alternatives. Employers and insurers can subsidize community fitness programs or lend equipment to employees and members.
• Fear of injury: Proper coaching reduces injury risk. Beginning with light loads and learning technique, using machines or bands when appropriate, and gradually increasing intensity mitigate risk. Primary care providers can refer patients with chronic conditions to exercise professionals.
• Cultural emphasis on cardio: Longstanding public health messaging has favored aerobic activity. Messaging that combines strength with cardio, along with visible campaigns and practical resources, shifts norms.

Successful interventions address these barriers directly. Examples include workplace “lunch‑break strength” sessions, community centers offering free or low‑cost resistance classes, telehealth strength coaching, and structured programs for older adults such as gym partnerships through senior plans.

Policy and systems implications: why public health messaging must change

Public health recommendations already include both aerobic and muscle‑strengthening guidance, but implementation and messaging have often prioritized aerobic activity. The HABITAT findings clarify why balanced messaging is essential: population‑level reductions in diabetes, hypertension and some cancers are greater when both modalities are adopted.

Policy actions that could increase uptake:

• Integrate explicit strength training modules into primary care preventive services. Clinical encounters offer an opportunity to prescribe exercise with specificity: frequency, intensity, type and progression.
• Fund community strength programs and provide subsidies or vouchers for equipment. Target programs to high‑risk groups—those with prediabetes, hypertension or limited access to fitness facilities.
• Include resistance training content in national public health campaigns and digital resources. Offer short video libraries demonstrating progressive modifications.
• Encourage employers to provide on‑site or virtual strength sessions and permit flexible scheduling to enable brief exercise breaks.
• Make exercise professionals part of chronic disease management teams. Reimburse supervised exercise sessions for people with cardiometabolic risk.
• Support school‑based strength and conditioning education so adults entering midlife already possess skills for safe resistance training.

At the health systems level, tracking patient physical activity as a “vital sign,” with specific attention to strength training frequency, would help clinicians identify and intervene with patients not meeting recommendations.

Real‑world programs and examples that work

Community and organizational programs show how to scale strength training accessably.

• Senior programs such as SilverSneakers (United States) provide gym access and group classes targeted at older adults. They deliver both social support and supervised instruction, improving adherence.
• Workplace initiatives that schedule short, instructor‑led strength sessions at convenient times increase participation and reduce sedentary time. Simple onsite equipment—bands and adjustable dumbbells—suffices.
• Digital platforms offering structured, progressive resistance programs can reach people who prefer home training. Programs that include short videos, clear progressions, and accountability features (tracking and coaching) boost adherence.
• Clinical referral programs where primary care refers patients to exercise physiologists or accredited trainers for tailored plans, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions, produce better outcomes than generic advice.

These programs illustrate how different delivery modes—group classes, workplace sessions, telehealth, clinic referrals—can be tailored to community needs and resource availability.

Clinical practice: how clinicians should change exercise counseling

Clinicians commonly advise patients to be more active, but specificity is critical if the goal is disease prevention. Practical points for clinicians:

• Ask about both aerobic minutes and strength training frequency; record them as part of routine vitals.
• Prescribe concrete targets: 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week plus resistance work for all major muscle groups two or more days per week.
• Offer simple starter plans and refer to local resources—community classes, accredited exercise professionals, online programs with reputable backing.
• Address safety upfront for patients with comorbidities. Obtain clearance where needed and start with low loads and higher repetitions or machine‑based sessions.
• Emphasize that a modest time investment yields significant long‑term benefits and that both modalities act through different mechanisms.
• For patients with elevated cardiometabolic risk, consider co‑prescription of supervised exercise, especially in the early stages of training.

This approach treats exercise as a clinical intervention with dosage and progression, not just generic advice.

Interpreting the evidence: strengths, caveats and next steps for research

The HABITAT analysis offers compelling population‑level associations but must be interpreted with care.

Strengths:

• Large sample and long follow‑up allowed measurement of incident disease.
• The analysis separated aerobic and strength training behaviors, clarifying additive associations.
• The findings align with mechanistic and clinical trial evidence showing metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of resistance exercise.

Caveats:

• Self‑reported activity can misclassify true behavior. Participants may overestimate or underestimate frequency and intensity.
• Observational design leaves potential for residual confounding. People who engage in both exercise types may also have healthier diets, better access to care or other lifestyle advantages that contribute to lower disease risk.
• Generalizability may be limited. The cohort was urban Australian adults aged 40–64; results may differ in other populations or age groups.
• The study does not establish precise dose‑response curves for strength training volume, intensity or modality.

Research priorities:

• Randomized controlled trials that test combined aerobic and resistance interventions with disease endpoints or validated biomarkers would strengthen causal inferences.
• Dose‑response studies to define optimal frequency, intensity and progression for chronic disease prevention.
• Implementation research to determine which delivery models best increase adherence to strength training across different socio‑economic groups.
• Mechanistic studies exploring how myokines, immune changes and adiposity reductions mediate cancer risk reductions.

Translating evidence into everyday routines: a four‑week starter plan

A structured, gradual approach helps people adopt combined training without overload.

Week 1

• Strength: Two full‑body sessions (20–25 minutes). Exercises: bodyweight squats 2×10, knee push‑ups 2×8, seated band rows 2×12, glute bridges 2×12, plank 2×20–30s.
• Aerobic: Brisk walking 30 minutes, five days (accumulate in bouts if necessary).

Week 2

• Strength: Increase to 3 sets on primary movements or add light dumbbells/bands. Include one unilateral exercise (split squat or step‑up).
• Aerobic: Two brisk 30–40 minute walks or one 20‑minute interval walk (alternating 1 minute faster with 2 minutes easy).

Week 3

• Strength: Add load where possible (dumbbells or stronger band), progress reps to 8–12 with 2–3 sets. Include overhead press and deadlift‑pattern (hinge) with light weight.
• Aerobic: Add one longer session (45 minutes) or two 25‑minute moderate sessions.

Week 4

• Strength: Maintain 2–3 sessions, each 30–40 minutes. Focus on controlled technique and gradual overload.
• Aerobic: Target 150 minutes across the week. Consider a higher‑intensity session if fitness allows.

After week 4, continue progressive overload for strength and vary aerobic types: cycling, swimming or jogging. Track progress with simple markers—repetition load, perceived exertion, and ability to maintain brisk pace.

Safety considerations and special populations

Adults with chronic conditions should receive tailored guidance. Key points:

• Check medical clearance for individuals with unstable cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension, recent cardiac events or severe musculoskeletal conditions.
• Start conservatively: higher repetitions (12–15) with lower loads help teach movement while reducing risk.
• Supervision from accredited exercise professionals for the initial months improves technique and reduces injury risk.
• Older adults should prioritize balance work along with strength to reduce fall risk.
• Pregnant people should follow pregnancy‑specific exercise guidance and consult their providers, modifying intensity and positions as needed.
• People with diabetes should monitor glucose around exercise sessions; resistance training can lower blood glucose, and adjustments to medication may be necessary.

These precautions ensure benefits are realized safely.

What this means for employers, insurers and communities

Employers: Offer brief, accessible strength sessions at the workplace; provide access to bands and small equipment; allow flexible scheduling that enables exercise breaks. Programs improve employee health and productivity.

Insurers and health systems: Cover supervised exercise programs for people with cardiometabolic risk, support community partnerships and reimburse exercise professionals when part of chronic disease prevention or management plans.

Communities: Invest in public spaces and programs that support strength training access—open‑air fitness stations, community center classes, and partnerships with local gyms to offer low‑cost options.

A systems approach reduces barriers and capitalizes on the demonstrated reductions in chronic disease risk when aerobic and resistance training are combined.

Case profile: translating evidence into a midlife routine

Consider Sarah, 52, desk worker with a family history of type 2 diabetes and rising fasting glucose levels. Previously she walked occasionally but did no resistance work. Her clinician recorded both aerobic and strength activity during an appointment, explained the new evidence showing 50 percent lower diabetes risk with combined training, and referred her to a six‑week group program at the local community center.

Sarah began with two supervised resistance sessions per week using bands and light dumbbells and continued brisk walking for 30 minutes on most days. After three months she lowered her fasting glucose, reduced waist circumference and reported improved energy. Her program demonstrates how specific counseling, community resources and short, structured sessions can convert evidence into measurable health gains.

How much time does strength training really take?

The evidence does not require hours in the gym. Two sessions per week of 20–45 minutes each can provide substantial benefits. Shorter sessions that focus on multi‑joint movements (squats, lunges, presses, rows) yield efficient results. The key elements are progressive overload, frequency, and covering major muscle groups. For many adults, combined with 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week, this regimen is both feasible and effective.

Cost‑effective interventions and scalability

Rapid scaling requires low‑cost, high‑reach strategies:

• Home‑based programs paired with digital coaching reduce facility costs.
• Community health worker–led classes can be delivered in community halls with minimal equipment.
• Worksite programs capitalize on existing infrastructure and minimize time barriers.
• Subsidized band and home equipment distribution to low‑income households removes an early cost barrier.

Economic modeling supports investment: preventing or delaying onset of diabetes and hypertension reduces long‑term healthcare costs and preserves workforce productivity. Prevention strategies that increase adherence to both aerobic and resistance training yield outsized returns compared with interventions that only target aerobic activity.

Addressing common myths about strength training

Myth: Strength training makes women bulky. Fact: Typical resistance training aimed at health produces leaner body composition and increased strength without the extreme hypertrophy associated with bodybuilding. Hormonal differences mean most women build functional muscle without large increases in size.

Myth: Strength training is dangerous for older adults. Fact: When appropriately prescribed and supervised, resistance training improves strength, bone density and balance while lowering fall risk. It is one of the most effective interventions for healthy aging.

Myth: You need a gym to get benefits. Fact: Bodyweight movements and resistance bands can deliver meaningful strength adaptations and are accessible in home or community settings.

Myth: Cardio alone is enough. Fact: Cardio confers many benefits, but muscle‑strengthening activity targets body composition, glucose metabolism and functional capacity in ways cardio does not. The combined approach produces additive benefits for chronic disease prevention.

What clinicians, employers and individuals should do now

Clinicians: Start recording strength training frequency in routine histories and prescribe specific, attainable plans. Refer to accredited professionals when appropriate.

Employers: Pilot short strength sessions at worksites and provide equipment or subsidize memberships. Track participation and health outcomes where feasible.

Individuals: Begin with two weekly strength sessions, choose sustainable aerobic activities totaling at least 150 minutes per week, and adopt a gradual progression. Use bodyweight or band programs if gym access is limited. Consult a healthcare professional when comorbidities exist.

These practical steps move the conversation from guidelines to measurable action.

Limitations of the current evidence and unanswered questions

The HABITAT study advances understanding but leaves several questions:

• How does the dose and intensity of strength training map precisely to disease risk reduction? Are there diminishing returns beyond the guideline minimum?
• Which cancers show the strongest risk reductions from combined activity, and through which biological mechanisms?
• How do sociodemographic factors influence the ability to adopt combined training, and which implementation models best reduce disparities?
• Can targeted interventions in primary care reliably shift population behavior and reduce disease incidence at scale?

Future randomized and implementation studies should address these gaps.

The broader public health calculus

Preventing chronic disease requires addressing multiple risk factors, and physical activity is one of the most powerful modifiable behaviors. The HABITAT findings show that adding strength training to aerobic routines is not optional for optimal prevention; it is central. When scaled across populations, modest increases in adherence to combined exercise guidelines could translate into substantially fewer cases of diabetes and hypertension and reductions in certain cancers.

Translating this evidence into action requires coordinated efforts across clinical systems, workplaces, community organizations and public campaigns. The current low rates of strength training uptake represent a clear target for cost‑effective intervention with high potential returns for population health.

FAQ

Q: What exactly are the official exercise recommendations cited in the study? A: The commonly used guidelines specify at least 150 minutes per week of moderate‑intensity aerobic activity (or 75 minutes of vigorous activity, or an equivalent combination), plus muscle‑strengthening activities that work all major muscle groups on two or more days per week. Australian guidance recommends moderate‑to‑vigorous physical activity for 30 minutes or more on most days, along with strength activities two or more days weekly.

Q: How much does strength training reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes? A: In the HABITAT cohort, people who consistently met both aerobic and muscle‑strengthening guidelines had a 50 percent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with those who met neither guideline. This association reflects long‑term patterns across the nine‑year study period.

Q: Do I need a gym membership to get the strength benefits? A: No. Bodyweight exercises, resistance bands and household items can provide effective resistance training. Two weekly sessions of 20–45 minutes that progressively challenge the major muscle groups are sufficient to achieve many of the health benefits.

Q: How soon will I see health benefits from starting strength training? A: Improvements in strength and insulin sensitivity can appear within weeks. Observable changes in body composition and cardiovascular risk markers typically occur over months. Population‑level reductions in disease incidence are measured over years, which is why sustained adherence matters.

Q: Is strength training safe for older adults or those with chronic conditions? A: Yes, when appropriately prescribed and progressed. Older adults benefit from strength and balance training that reduces fall risk and preserves functional independence. People with chronic diseases should obtain medical clearance if their condition is unstable and consider supervised programs initially.

Q: Does strength training reduce cancer risk for all cancers? A: The HABITAT study found an overall 23 percent lower cancer incidence among those meeting both activity guidelines compared with meeting neither. Evidence on exercise and cancer risk varies by cancer type—strongest for colon and breast cancer—so combined exercise likely contributes to lowering risk for several but not necessarily all cancers. Mechanisms include reduced adiposity, lower inflammation and improved immune function.

Q: Why is strength training uptake so low, and how can public health address that? A: Barriers include lack of time, perceptions about who strength training is for, limited access to facilities, and prior public health emphasis on aerobic activity. Solutions include targeted education, low‑cost home programs, workplace initiatives, clinician‑led prescriptions, and subsidies for community programs to improve access and normalize strength training across populations.

Q: Should clinicians prescribe both aerobic and strength training uniformly? A: Yes, clinicians should assess both types of activity in patient histories and offer specific prescriptions and referrals to accredited exercise professionals when indicated. Tailoring for comorbidities, functional capacity and safety remains essential.

Q: Are the study’s results definitive proof that combined training prevents these diseases? A: The study is observational and shows strong associations that align with mechanistic and clinical trial data. While it cannot prove causation decisively, the totality of evidence—including randomized trials showing metabolic benefits from resistance training—supports combined training as an effective preventive strategy.

Q: Where can people find trustworthy strength training resources? A: Seek programs from accredited organizations, community centers, licensed exercise physiologists or certified strength and conditioning professionals. Many public health agencies provide beginner guides and videos. For individuals with medical conditions, a clinical referral to an exercise professional is advisable.

Adopting both aerobic and muscle‑strengthening activities is a practical, evidence‑based strategy to reduce the burden of chronic disease. The HABITAT findings quantify the benefits at the population level and sharpen the message for clinicians, policymakers and individuals: strength training is not optional when the goal is preventing diabetes, hypertension and some cancers—it's essential.