Consumer News: When to update your income with your credit card or bank

Study shows whole food diet promotes healthy aging

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Cutting back on ultra-processed foods helped older adults lose weight, improve cholesterol and insulin sensitivity, and reduce inflammationregardless of whether their diet emphasized animal or plant protein.

• Researchers wanted to know whether lowering ultra-processed food intake, while still following U.S. Dietary Guidelines, could improve cardiometabolic health in aging adults.

• Both lowultra-processed omnivorous and vegetarian diets produced similar health benefits, suggesting flexibility in how older adults can eat for better health.

As the U.S. population grows older, rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease continue to rise, placing pressure on both individuals and the health care system.

A new study published in Clinical Nutrition suggests that one practical change reducing ultra-processed foods could significantly improve cardiometabolic health in older adults, without requiring strict calorie counting or adherence to a single dietary ideology.

The research builds on concerns that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) industrially manufactured products often high in refined starches, sugars, and additives may worsen age-related metabolic vulnerability. While previous studies have linked UPFs to poor health outcomes, few controlled trials have tested whether cutting them back can deliver measurable benefits in older adults while still aligning with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA).

About the study

To address that gap, researchers analyzed secondary outcomes from the Protein-Distinct Macronutrient-Equivalent Diet 2 (PRODMED2) trial. The study enrolled 36 community-dwelling older adults and compared their habitual diets about half of daily calories coming from ultra-processed foods with two structured, low-UPF eating patterns. One diet featured minimally processed pork as the main protein source, representing an omnivorous approach, while the other used lentils to reflect a lacto-ovo vegetarian pattern.

Each participant followed both low-UPF diets for eight weeks, separated by a two-week washout period. Importantly, the diets were not calorie-restricted; participants were encouraged to eat until satisfied. Researchers measured dietary intake, body composition, blood lipids, insulin-related markers, inflammation, and hormones involved in appetite and energy regulation before and after each diet. Some measures were repeated about a year later to see whether changes lasted.

The results

The results were striking. Simply moving away from a high-UPF baseline dietwithout intentional calorie cuttingled participants to consume 300 to 400 fewer calories per day on average.

That spontaneous reduction translated into meaningful weight loss of about eightto 10 pounds over each eight-week period, along with significant losses in fat mass.

Both dietary patterns delivered comparable metabolic improvements. Measures of insulin resistance, including HOMA-IR, insulin, and C-peptide, improved significantly, as did total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and markers of inflammation such as C-reactive protein.

The researchers found no significant differences between the animal-based and plant-based diets, suggesting that food processing level mattered more than protein source.

Participants ate less without trying

Hormonal changes provided clues about how these benefits might occur. Levels of leptin, a hormone associated with fat mass and appetite regulation, declined, while fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) a hormone involved in nutrient sensing and energy balance increased during both low-UPF diet phases. These shifts may help explain why participants naturally ate less and lost weight without being told to restrict calories.

However, the study also highlighted how difficult it can be to sustain dietary changes. At the roughly one-year follow-up, ultra-processed foods once again made up nearly 44% of daily energy intake. As UPF exposure rose, body weight, fat mass, and cardiometabolic markers drifted back toward baseline levels.

Taken together, the findings suggest that lowultra-processed eating patterns are both feasible and effective for older adults, whether they include animal products or rely on plant-based proteins. By aligning with existing dietary guidelines and focusing on minimally processed foods, such diets may offer a realistic strategy to support healthy aging.

For policymakers and clinicians alike, the message is clear: reducing ultra-processed foods could be a powerful, flexible tool to improve metabolic health and extend health span in an aging population.

Passengers should not assume the airline will automatically refund their fare

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Millions of airline passengers were stranded over the weekend as a powerful winter storm snarled air travel across large swaths of the country.

• Flight cancellations and long delays raised fresh questions about what airlines owe travelers when weather disrupts schedules.

• Consumer advocates say many passengers dont realize they still have important rights, even when storms are to blame.

A major winter storm that swept across the U.S. this weekend forced airlines to cancel thousands of flights and delay many more, leaving travelers stuck in airports, sleeping in terminals, or scrambling to rebook plans. While airlines often point to severe weather as an unavoidable act of God, passenger advocates say travelers still have clear rights and options when flights are canceled or significantly delayed.

Under U.S. Department of Transportation rules, passengers are entitled to a full refund if their flight is canceled and they choose not to travel, even if the cancellation is caused by weather. That refund must be issued to the original form of payment and cannot be limited to airline vouchers or credits, unless the passenger agrees to accept one.

Its not just weather or lost luggage consumers are worried about; their trust in the travel system is eroding, said Matt Layton, LegalShields senior vice president of consumer analytics. New confusion regarding passenger compensation exposed how fragile the travel ecosystem can be. This shift in confidence is driving real behavior changes.

What usually happens

For travelers who still want to fly, airlines generally rebook passengers on the next available flight at no additional cost. However, rebooking policies vary widely, especially during widespread disruptions when seats are scarce. Some airlines may place passengers on partner carriers, while others restrict rebooking to their own flights.

What airlines typically do not have to provide during weather-related disruptions is compensation for hotel stays, meals, or ground transportation. Unlike the European Union, which mandates cash compensation for many delays, U.S. airlines are not required to pay passengers when weather is the cause. A recent LegalShield survey found thats a source of confusion.

Weve spent our hard-earned money for the airline to get us to our family and friends, and many people believe that if that doesnt happen, the airline will automatically pay us back, said Wayne Hassay, a LegalShield provider lawyer with Maguire Schneider Hassay, LLP in Ohio. That is simply not true.

While federal guidelines address issues such as overbooking, extended tarmac delays, and some controllable events, Hassay said most additional compensation is governed by individual airline policies even if passengers ultimately reach their destination.

Costly confusion

The consequences of that confusion can be costly. LegalShields research found that 63% of travelers lost money due to travel disruptions, and one in four lost more than $500.

More than half said they wasted significant time dealing with delays, customer service problems, appeals, and claims. At the same time, 25% admitted they are unfamiliar with their travel rights, and 55% said they lack confidence in asserting those rights when something goes wrong.

Consumer experts recommend that travelers affected by the storm keep all documentation, including boarding passes, delay notifications, and receipts for unexpected expenses. While airlines may not be obligated to reimburse those costs, some will consider goodwill refunds if passengers submit a complaint.

Credit card travel protections can also play a role. Many premium credit cards include trip delay or cancellation insurance that covers meals, hotels, and other expenses when severe weather disrupts travel.

With winter far from over, advocates say the key takeaway is preparation and persistence. Know your rights, ask questions at the airport, and dont assume the airlines first answer is the final one,experts advise. Even in bad weather, passengers are not powerless.

Tariffs, inventory shortages, and shifting consumer habits are reshaping how shoppers spend on the retail giants platform.

• Tariffs are starting to drive up prices on Amazon, according to CEO Andy Jassy.

• Shoppers are already shifting toward cheaper brands and bargain hunting.

• Amazon says its working to keep costs down, but consumers may feel the pinch in the coming months.

Amazons CEO has delivered a candid message to shoppers: dont expect prices to stay as low as theyve been.

In a recent interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said that the effects of U.S. tariff policy particularly tariffs imposed last year under the Trump administration are finally showing up in the prices you see on the site.

Whats changed?

In the interview with CNBC, Jassy said that Amazon and many of the millions of third-party sellers who list goods on its marketplace worked to plan ahead in preparation of the impact of the tariffs. He explained that theystockpiled products ahead of the tariff increases in 2025, which served as a buffer, and allowed merchants to sell items without having to raise prices for shoppers.

However, those supplies have largely run out, and new inventory now carries the full tariff burden. This means thatsellers are facing a tough choice: Do they absorb the added cost in the hopes of driving demand? Do they pass it off to shoppers? A mix of both?

"We have so many itemswe have hundreds of millions of itemsand we two million sellers, many of whom are willing to pursue different strategies in how they price," Jassy said in the interview. "Amazon consumers, overall, have fared well, but well have to see what happens in 2026."

Higher prices on the horizon?

Because the pre-tariff planning strategies have run out, Jassy said it's not unlikely for consumers to start seeing price hikes on items across Amazon's marketplace.

"Were trying to work with our distribution partners andselling partners to try to keep prices as low as possible for consumers," he said in the interview. "That is our focus and it has alwaysbeen our focus, but especially in times with uncertain economiesor changes in tradeour priority is to try to figure out how to keep prices as low as possible."

Jassy explained that because of the low profit margin associated with retail, there aren't many ways for sellers to absorb the added costs associated with tariffs, andultimately, there aren't "endless options."

Is this affecting consumer behavior?

The short answer: yes and now.

Jassy said that consumers are "resilient," as they continue to shop. However, their choices when shopping have been different.

"I think that wherever they can, [consumers] are trying to trade downin price," Jassy said in the interview. They're looking for bargains wherever they can find [them]."

One of the biggest changes Jassy has seen:hesitancy aroundhigher-price discretionaryitems."

What this means for you

Heres what consumers should know as these shifts unfold:

• Expect higher prices on some items. With tariffs increasingly reflected in costs, especially on imported goods like electronics and apparel, its realistic to see price tags increase on things you buy regularly.

• Look for deals and generic options. If full-price name brands become less attractive, opting for no-name or budget alternatives can stretch your budget further.

• Dont panic over every item but watch trends. Amazon is trying to hold prices down where possible, and not all products will jump in cost. But overall retail pricing pressure through 2026 is something many shoppers will feel.

The lawsuit alleges that the mortgage company pressured buyers into higher-cost loans

• Homebuyers file class-action lawsuit against Rocket Mortgage alleging illegal steering practices

• Plaintiffs say Rockets referral network pushed buyers into costly loans and inflated home prices

• Case claims violations of federal consumer protections and could impact borrowers going back to 2019

A new class-action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Mortgage and related companies.

The suit alleges that the mortgage company engaged in illegal practices that steered homebuyers into loans that werent in their best interests and ultimately cost them more money. This consumer-focused legal challenge, brought by plaintiffs from across the country, takes aim at practices that critics say inflated home prices and limited borrowers options.

Everyday families rely on the laws governing our nations real estate market for fairness and transparency, and we believe Rocket has failed to play by the rules, Steve W. Berman, managing partner and co-founder of the consumer-protection law firm Hagens Berman, said in a news release.

We believe at least hundreds of thousands of consumers have been duped by Rockets tricks, and judging by its year-over-year revenue, its scheme has worked.

Details of the suit

The lawsuit, filed on January 26, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, centers on Rockets referral network. The suit is examining the ways that real estate agents were funneled leads and then allegedly expected to push clients toward Rocket Mortgages financing even when other lenders might offer better terms.

According to the complaint, Rocket Homes operated a widespread referral system (until it acquired Redfin in 2025) that required participating agents to pay a hefty percentage fee to Rocket. In exchange, those agents were encouraged plaintiffs say pressured to steer buyers into Rockets mortgage products instead of shopping around.

The plaintiffs argue this practice violated federal consumer protection laws, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which prohibits kickbacks or other incentives that interfere with a homebuyers ability to make an informed decision. They claim Rockets network effectively limited competition, resulting in borrowers receiving loans with higher rates and fewer cost-saving opportunities.

The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, from damages to court-ordered changes in how Rocket and its affiliates operate.

Consumer advocates and attorneys say this case is part of a broader trend of scrutiny on real estate and mortgage industry referral networks, following other major lawsuits alleging inflated costs and lack of transparency.

What this means for homebuyers

Heres what consumers should know and consider:

• Understand all your loan options. Dont just go with the first mortgage offer you get compare rates, terms, fees and the total cost of borrowing from different lenders before signing anything.

• Ask hard questions. If an agent or lender is steering you toward a particular product, ask why and whether youd financially benefit from exploring alternatives.

• Know your rights. Federal laws like RESPA exist to protect borrowers from hidden incentives that could steer your decisions and lawsuits like this aim to enforce those protections.

If you bought a home and used Rocket Mortgage or Quicken Loans to finance at any time since Jan. 1, 2019, find out more about your rights here.