Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on

This is the latest study raising health concerns about energy drinks, which include popular brands Red Bull and Monster. (See review article Energy Beverages: Content and Safety and from Time What’s In Your Energy Drink? ). And remember, they are not a "real food" when you look at the ingredients (e.g., caffeine, taurine and glucuronolactone, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, colors). From Live Science:

Energy Drinks Raise Blood Pressure, Study Finds

Energy drinks might give you some pep — but they might also be priming you for heart problems, a new study finds. Researchers found that energy drinks can raise blood pressure to potentially unhealthy levels. The effect was far more prominent in young adults who did not consume caffeine regularly, according to the study, presented March 14 at an American College of Cardiology meeting in San Diego.

In this study, the research team — led by Dr. Anna Svatikova, a cardiovascular-diseases fellow at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota — gave a can of a commercially available energy drink to 25 healthy volunteers, whose ages ranged from 19 to 40. On a different day, the participants drank the same amount of a placebo drink. The researchers measured the participants' heart rate and blood pressure before and after the drinks.

The participants experienced a more marked rise in blood pressure after consuming the energy drink than after drinking the placebo, according to the findings. The participants' average systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) increased by 3 percent more after they drank an energy drink, compared with after they drank the placebo drink. [5 Health Problems Linked to Energy Drinks]

The effect was most dramatic in people who did not typically consume more than a small cup of coffee or other caffeinated drink daily. In this so-called "caffeine-naive" group, the blood pressure increase was twice as high as the increase seen in the people who drank at least the equivalent of a cup of coffee on a daily basis, the researchers said in a statement...Scientists do not know whether it is the caffeine, taurine or other ingredients found in energy drinks — or a combination of ingredients — that can adversely affect the heart.

In a separate study, presented last year at an American Heart Association meeting by Maj. Emily Fletcher of the David Grant Air Force Medical Center, healthy volunteers experienced a greater increase in blood pressure after they consumed an energy drink compared to after they drank a coffee drink that had an equal amount of caffeine. This result, Fletcher said, suggests that ingredients in the energy drink other than caffeine were conspiring to raise blood pressure.

Published on

There are a number of very good health reasons to cut back or totally eliminate soda from your diet. The following articles and earlier posts discuss some of the ways both diet and regular soda are linked to health problems. Note in the second article that there's currently no federal limit for a byproduct of some types of caramel color called 4-MEI (a carcinogen) in food or beverages. California's Proposition 65 Law (aimed at reducing consumers' exposure to toxic chemicals) requires a  health-warning label on sodas with too high levels of 4-MEI resulted in manufacturers producing soda with lower levels of that chemical in the state. But sodas out of California may have higher levels! From Science Daily:

Diet soda linked to increases in belly fat in older adults

Increasing diet soda intake is directly linked to greater abdominal obesity in adults 65 years of age and older. Findings raise concerns about the safety of chronic diet soda consumption, which may increase belly fat and contribute to greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Metabolic syndrome--a combination of risk factors that may lead to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--is one of the results of the obesity epidemic.

The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA) enrolled 749 Mexican- and European-Americans who were aged 65 and older at the start of the study (1992-96). Diet soda intake, waist circumference, height, and weight were measured at study onset, and at three follow-ups in 2000-01, 2001-03, and 2003-04, for a total of 9.4 follow-up years. At the first follow-up there were 474 (79.1%) surviving participants; there were 413 (73.4%) at the second follow-up and 375 (71.0%) at the third follow-up.

Findings indicate that the increase in waist circumference among diet soda drinkers, per follow-up interval, was almost triple that among non-users: 2.11 cm versus 0.77 cm, respectively. After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, interval waist circumference increases were 0.77 cm for non-users, 1.76 cm for occasional users, and 3.04 cm for daily users. This translates to waist circumference increases of 0.80 inches for non-users, 1.83 inches for occasional users, and 3.16 inches for daily users over the total 9.4-year SALSA follow-up period.

From Medical Xpress:

Popular soda ingredient poses cancer risk to consumers, new study suggests

Public health researchers have analyzed soda consumption data in order to characterize people's exposure to a potentially carcinogenic byproduct of some types of caramel color. Caramel color is a common ingredient in colas and other dark soft drinks. The results show that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of six typically have at least one can of soda per day, possibly more, potentially exposing them to 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a possible human carcinogen formed during the manufacture of some kinds of caramel color.

"Soft drink consumers are being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk from an ingredient that is being added to these beverages simply for aesthetic purposes," says Keeve Nachman, PhD, senior author of the study and director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the CLF and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. ."

In 2013 and early 2014, Consumer Reports partnered with the CLF to analyze 4-MEI concentrations of 110 soft drink samples purchased from retail stores in California and the New York metropolitan area...While the 2014 study of the 110 samples of soda brands was not large enough to recommend one brand over another or draw conclusions about specific brands, results indicated that levels of 4-MEI could vary substantially across samples, even for the same type of beverage. 

Researchers also found sharply contrasting levels of 4-MEI in some soft drinks purchased in the New York metropolitan area, versus California. "Our study also found that some of the soft drink products sold in California that we sampled had lower levels of 4-MEI than the samples we looked at of the same beverages sold outside the state, particularly in our earlier rounds of testing. It appears that regulations such as California's Proposition 65 may be effective at reducing exposure to 4-MEI from soft drinks, and that beverages can be manufactured in ways that produce less 4-MEI," suggests Nachman. ."

From Medical Daily: Bye-Bye Sugary Drinks: This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda

Published on

I was recently asked my thoughts about a nutritionist recommending Benecol spreads, which I actually had never heard of before. After researching Benecol, I looked with horror at all the non-real food ingredients in the various products (for example, Benecol light spread, with 39% vegetable oil, included partially hydrogenated soybean oil, plant stanol esters, various emulsifiers, potassium sorbate, artificial flavor, etc).  I was dismayed because to me it didn't seem like a "real food" - where were the "real" whole food ingredients? For example,consider emulsifiers which recent research says disrupts the "gut microbiome" (the community of microbes living in the gut) and causes inflammation. Which we all know is not good. And partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats) are again a big health no-no. And on and on.

And recently the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an organization that represents some 75,000 registered dietitians and nutritionists, gave its first endorsement (with a "Kids Eat Right" seal of approval) to Kraft American cheese single slices. Huh? Processed cheese (with whey protein concentrate, emulsifiers, sodium citrate, etc.) got an approval seal and not real cheese? What is going on? The answer may lie with the fact that many nutritionists are accepting cash for endorsing certain foods, especially those promoted by big business companies. The latest to be endorsed are cans of Coca Cola soda! From the Tampa Bay Times:

 Coca-Cola paid nutritionists to tout Coke as heart healthy snack

If a column in honor of heart health suggests a can of Coke as a snack, you might want to read the fine print.The world's biggest beverage maker, which struggles with declining soda consumption in the U.S., is working with fitness and nutrition experts who suggest its cola as a healthy treat. In February, for instance, several wrote online pieces for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or small soda as a snack idea.

The mentions — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — show the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.

Ben Sheidler, a Coca-Cola spokesman, compared the February posts to product placement deals a company might have with TV shows. "We have a network of dietitians we work with," said Sheidler, who declined to say how much the company pays experts. "Every big brand works with bloggers or has paid talent."

Other companies including Kellogg and General Mills have used strategies like providing continuing education classes for dietitians, funding studies that burnish the nutritional images of their products and offering newsletters for health experts. PepsiCo Inc. has also worked with dietitians who suggest its Frito-Lay and Tostito chips in local TV segments on healthy eating. Others use nutrition experts in sponsored content; the American Pistachio Growers has quoted a dietitian for the New England Patriots in a piece on healthy snacks and recipes and Nestle has quoted its own executive in a post about infant nutrition."

Most of the pieces suggesting mini-Cokes say in the bios that the author is a "consultant" for food companies, including Coca-Cola. Some add that the ideas expressed are their own. One column is marked at the bottom as a "sponsored article," which is an ad designed to look like a regular story. It ran on more than 1,000 sites, including those of major news outlets around the country. The other posts were not marked as sponsored content, but follow a similar format.

Kelly McBride, who teaches media ethics at The Poynter Institute, which owns the Tampa Bay Times, said the phrasing of the disclosure that the author is a "consultant" for food companies, including Coca-Cola, doesn't make it clear the author was specifically paid by Coke for the column."This is an example of opaque sponsored content," McBride said.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a professional group for dietitians, says in its code of ethics that practitioners promote and endorse products "only in a manner that is not false and misleading." A spokesman for the academy did not respond when asked if the posts on mini-Cokes meet those guidelines. Meanwhile, a group called Dietitians for Professional Integrity has called for sharper lines to be drawn between dietitians and companies. Andy Bellatti, one of its founders, said companies court dietitians because they help validate corporate messages.

Published on

Two studies that found a link with air pollution and health effects.The first found a narrowing of the carotid arteries (that bring blood to brain). This narrowing (stenosis) occurs prior to strokes. While this could be explained by other factors (for example, by especially poor diets or cigarette smoking), the link between high air pollution and heart attacks and strokes has been noted since the 1950s. From Medical Xpress:

Pollution levels linked to stroke-related narrowing of arteries

Air pollution has been linked to a dangerous narrowing of neck arteries that occurs prior to strokes, according to researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center. The scientists analyzed medical test records for more than 300,000 people living in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut. They found that people living in zip codes with the highest average levels of fine-particulate-matter pollution were significantly more likely to show signs of narrowing (stenosis) in their internal carotid arteries, compared to those living in zip codes with the lowest pollution levels.

Fine particulate matter pollutants, also called "PM 2.5 pollutants," are particulates with diameters less than 2.5 millionths of a meter. They are mostly by-products of combustion engines and burning wood. "We spend a lot of time thinking about traditional risk factors for stroke such as high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes and smoking—but our data underscore the possibility that everyday air pollution may also pose a significant stroke risk," said senior investigator Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, an assistant professor in NYU Langone Medical Center in the Department of Medicine, Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology.

Medical researchers have noticed since the 1950s that episodes of high air pollution can bring temporary jumps in local heart attack and stroke cases. More recent studies have linked heart attack and stroke risks to long-term pollution exposures as well, including PM 2.5 exposures.

The two internal carotid arteries are situated on either side of the neck and provide most of the brain's blood supply. Strokes often result when accumulated plaque breaks off from a narrowed section of an internal carotid artery and blocks smaller vessels in the brain.

In the study, the carotid narrowing data came from vascular ultrasound tests performed on 307,444 tri-state area residents during 2003-2008 by Life Line Screening, a leading community-based health screening company focused on evaluating risk factors for vascular disease...The researchers' analysis showed that subjects in the top fourth of tri-state zip codes, ranked by average PM 2.5 levels, were about 24 percent more likely than those in the bottom quarter to have shown signs of stenosis—defined as a narrowing by at least half—in either internal carotid artery.

"Our study was a population study, so it can't establish cause and effect, but it certainly suggests the hypothesis that lowering pollution levels would reduce the incidence of carotid artery stenosis and stroke," says Dr. Newman. Scientists aren't yet sure how air pollution contributes to vascular disease. Studies have indicated that it may do so in part by causing adverse chemical changes to cholesterol in the blood, by promoting inflammation, and by making blood platelets more likely to form clots."

It has long been known that diesel exhaust has negative health effects. From Science Daily:

Researchers uncover a mechanism linking inhaled diesel pollution and respiratory distress

Researchers have, for the first time, shown how exhaust pollution from diesel engines is able to affect nerves within the lung...Diesel exhaust is a significant component of urban air pollution, containing a complicated mixture of gases and airborne particles. "Studies have shown that exposure to these diesel particles is associated with harmful health effects," says Mr. Robinson. "These particles are very small -- down to 20 nanometres in diameter -- and are therefore not only invisible to the naked eye, but can penetrate deep into the lungs.

Published on

For years there has been discussion about curcumin's anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, and anti-cancer effects, but more research is needed (some trials are going on now). Curcumin is a chemical compound found in turmeric. Turmeric is a member of the ginger family. It is used as a spice and is a common ingredient in Indian cooking, but also used in Middle Eastern and South Asian recipes.From Medical Xpress;

Curcumin proved effective at combating cancer

WA scientists have helped re-affirm that curcumin, a chemical compound found in turmeric, is a safe and promising treatment for most cancers and other inflammation-driven diseases.The international review considered past clinical trials using curcumin to treat cancer patients and concluded curcumin was a safe and effective molecule to treat cancer.

A/Prof Sethi says curcumin is exceptionally effective for multiple myeloma patients and those suffering from the particularly lethal pancreatic cancer, for which there are no drugs. However, curcumin was not found to be as effective in breast cancer patients being treated with the chemotherapeutic agent cyclophosphamide. According to the research, curcumin can counteract the effect of cyclophosphamide.

A/Prof Sethi says curcumin is possibly the only drug that can be given at high doses—up to 12g—without any toxicity.... A/Prof Sethi says the only known side effect of the agent is blood thinning, and therefore advises against taking curcumin if undergoing surgery.

He recommends people use turmeric more often in everyday cooking. A/Prof Sethi says it would be ideal to combine curcumin with other drugs or natural compounds, like piperine, an alkaloid found in pepper to increase its bioavailabilty..

A/Prof Sethi says there is a lack of data to explain the underlying mechanism of its effect, however, it is known for its anti-inflammatory effects. "It has been shown that most chronic diseases, including cancer, are caused by inflammation and can be treated by anti-inflammatory agents."He says more work needs to be done to improve curcumin's viability, as body tissues quickly absorb it. 

Published on

A lengthy review of homeopathy studies found that homeopathy is worthless, not effective, don't bother with it. This total lack of effectiveness also applies to those homeopathic products sold for sinusitis. Don't bother with them. If you think homeopathy has worked for you - it's probably the placebo effect, wishful thinking, or just the natural course of healing. From Smithsonian:

1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

Perhaps you remember when scientists debunked homeopathy in 2002. Or 2010. Or 2014. But now a major Australian study analyzing over 1,800 papers has shown that homeopathy, the alternative treatment that relies on super-diluted substances and the principle of “like cures like” is completely ineffective.

 

After assessing more than 1,800 studies on homeopathy, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council was only able to find 225 that were rigorous enough to analyze. And a systematic review of these studies revealed “no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions.”

The Australian study, which is the first position statement relying on such an extensive review of medical literature, strikes the latest blow at a 200-year-old alternative treatment developed by a German physician with “no interest in detailed pathology, and none in conventional diagnosis and treatment.” The Washington Post reports that the study’s authors are concerned that people who continue to choose homeopathic remedies over proven medicine face real health risks—including the nearly 4 million Americans who use homeopathic “medicines.”

News of the Australian study comes on the heels of newly released National Health Interview Survey data showing a “small but significant” increase in the use of homeopathy during 2012. And recently, a Canadian homeopathic college came under fire for taking an anti-vaccination stance and promoting homeopathic “nosodes” as an alternative to vaccines.

Published on

This review study suggests that the effect from loneliness and social isolation on mortality is equivalent to obesity, and that past studies put it into the same category as being an alcoholic, or smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Bottom line: Friendships and having a social network are important to health! Note that the study also found: "...loneliness and social isolation better predict premature death among populations younger than 65 years." From Medical Xpress:

Prescription for living longer: Spend less time alone

Ask people what it takes to live a long life, and they'll say things like exercise, take Omega-3s, and see your doctor regularly. Now research from Brigham Young University shows that loneliness and social isolation are just as much a threat to longevity as obesity. Loneliness and social isolation can look very different. For example, someone may be surrounded by many people but still feel alone. Other people may isolate themselves because they prefer to be alone. The effect on longevity, however, is much the same for those two scenarios.

The association between loneliness and risk for mortality among young populations is actually greater than among older populations. Although older people are more likely to be lonely and face a higher mortality risk, loneliness and social isolation better predict premature death among populations younger than 65 years.

The study analyzed data from a variety of health studies. Altogether, the sample included more than 3 million participants from studies that included data for loneliness, social isolation, and living alone. Controlling for variables such as socioeconomic status, age, gender, and pre-existing health conditions, they found that the effect goes both ways. The lack of social connections presents an added risk, and the existence of relationships provides a positive health effect. 

Previous research from Holt-Lunstad and Smith puts the heightened risk of mortality from loneliness in the same category as smoking 15 cigarettes a day and being an alcoholic. This current study suggests that not only is the risk for mortality in the same category as these well-known risk factors, it also surpasses health risks associated with obesity.

Published on

Are there differences between male and female gut microbiomes? (NOTE: gut microbiome is the community of microbes living in the gut.) I always thought YES, based on that there seem to be so many biological differences between males and females. But according to this blog entry from uBiome (a microbiome sequencing service which has analyzed thousands of gut microbiomes - the microbes living in the gut ) there aren't. They only looked at gut microbiomes (by analyzing fecal samples), and not at other body sites in this comparison. Other past studies have found  that other body sites have bacteria differences. Even the comments after the post were interesting. From the uBiome Blog:

A Surprising Comparison of Male vs. Female Microbiomes

I must admit, I was curious. So I went over to the desk of our brilliant Lead Data Scientist, Dr. Siavosh Rezvan-Behbahani, to find out. Could you look at all of uBiome’s gut samples, I asked, and see what the difference in microbiome composition is between men and women? And the corollary, is it possible to predict from microbiomial data whether the person giving the sample was male or female? With human DNA, of course you can determine gender based on the chromosome signature XX vs. XY. But does the microbiome have a gender signature too?

Siavosh dove in. He spent many hours analyzing, plotting numbers, running different machine learning classifier algorithms. He looked at healthy male and female samples in part of our dataset, all the way down to genus level. And here’s what he found, which blew my mind.

It turns out that in our dataset, there is no statistically significant difference between male microbiomes and female microbiomes. And, given a random sample, we would not be able to determine if it came from a man or a woman.

This result is fascinating to me, because it suggests that maybe men and women aren’t that different in some ways. We all have two eyes, and belly buttons, and similar proportions of bacteria swimming around inside our intestines.

(Of course there’s the standard disclaimer that this is just what we observe in our gut dataset, and may not be representative of the entire human population. It’s also possible that there is a difference but it’s much more subtle than we expect. In any case, this result is encouraging me to think up other questions to ask!)

Published on

Can you have too high levels of vitamin D? The researchers themselves say that the results show there is a J shaped curve linking vitamin D levels in the blood and mortality - both too high and too low levels are linked to higher levels of mortality. From Science Daily:

High levels of vitamin D is suspected of increasing mortality rates

The level of vitamin D in our blood should neither be too high nor to low. Scientists have now shown that there is a connection between high levels of vitamin D and cardiovascular deaths.

In terms of public health, a lack of vitamin D has long been a focal point. Several studies have shown that too low levels can prove detrimental to our health. However, new research from the University of Copenhagen reveals, for the first time, that also too high levels of vitamin D in our blood is connected to an increased risk of dying from a stroke or a coronary.

"We have studied the level of vitamin D in 247,574 Danes, and so far, it constitutes the world's largest basis for this type of study. We have also analysed their mortality rate over a seven-year period after taking the initial blood sample, and in that time 16,645 patients had died. Furthermore, we have looked at the connection between their deaths and their levels of vitamin D," Professor at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Peter Schwarz explains.

The conclusion is clear: the study confirms that there is indeed a correlation between mortality rates and too low levels of vitamin D, but the new thing is that the level of vitamin D can also be too high.

"If your vitamin D level is below 50 or over 100 nanomol per litre, there is an greater connection to deaths. We have looked at what caused the death of patients, and when numbers are above 100, it appears that there is an increased risk of dying from a stroke or a coronary. In other words, levels of vitamin D should not be too low, but neither should they be too high. Levels should be somewhere in between 50 and 100 nanomol per litre, and our study indicates that 70 is the most preferable level," Peter Schwartz states.

Published on

This interesting study raises the possibility that eating certain foods or probiotics  (beneficial bacteria) may prevent diabetes. Note that Akkermansia is a bacteria with one species Akkermansia muciniphila . In Wikipedia:"Researchers have discovered that Akkermansia muciniphila may be able to be used to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes...The bacterium is naturally present in the human digestive tract at 3-5%, but has been seen to fall with obesity." Regarding Prevotella, in Wikipedia: "Studies also indicate that long-term diet is strongly associated with the gut microbiome composition—those who eat plenty of protein and animal fats typical of Western diet have predominantly Bacteroides bacteria, while for those who consume more carbohydrates, especially fiber, the Prevotella species dominate." From Science Daily:

Gut bacteria may contribute to diabetes in black males

African American men at elevated risk for developing type 2 diabetes may have fewer beneficial and more harmful intestinal bacteria, according to new research.

"The 'signature' of the gut microbiota -- the relative abundance of various bacteria and other microbes in the digestive system -- could be another useful tool in assessing a person's risk for developing diabetes," said Ciubotaru. Ciubotaru and her colleagues, including principal investigator Dr. Elena Barengolts,... found that a specific microbiota is associated with stable, normal blood glucose levels, while a different profile is associated with glucose levels that indicate pre-diabetes.

"The study provides additional reasons for physicians to recommend foods, such as prebiotics, which improve the growth and activity of helpful gut bacteria," said Barengolts. The gut microbiota helps digest food; fights infections; and plays an important role in keeping the immune system healthy. It is greatly influenced by genetics, diet and other environmental factors. Previous research has implicated an unhealthy or unbalanced microbiota as a contributing factor to metabolic disorders, including obesity and diabetes. The species that make up an individual's gut microbiota, as well as their abundance, can be identified by stool sample analysis.

The researchers determined the gut microbiotas of 116 African-American male veterans, age 45 to 75, participating in the D Vitamin Intervention in VA, or DIVA study. The aim of the DIVA study, which has 173 total participants and is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, is to determine if vitamin D supplementation can prevent diabetes in men with risk factors for developing the disease.

Participants were divided into four groups based on changes in their blood sugar levels as determined at the start and end of the one-year study. The groups included men whose glucose levels remained normal (non-pre-diabetic); those with stable levels indicative of pre-diabetes; those whose levels indicated a worsening of glucose control; and those whose levels improved. All the men provided stool samples for analysis of their gut microbiota.

Men whose blood sugar levels stayed normal over the year had more gut bacteria that are considered beneficial for metabolic health, whereas those who stayed pre-diabetic had fewer beneficial bacteria and more harmful bacteria. In addition, the group whose levels improved had more abundant Akkermansia--healthy bacteria--than the group that maintained normal blood sugar control throughout the year.

The study suggests that differences in the gut microbiota already exist in pre-diabetes, Barengolts said. Although the study found connections between composition of the gut microbiota and blood sugar control, Barengolts said further research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate whether certain intestinal bacteria cause type 2 diabetes. However, based on other research her group has conducted and studies in animals, she speculated that the foods we eat affect our diabetes risk through our gut microbiota. If the mix of organisms in the intestinal tract is indeed responsible for the development of type 2 diabetes, she said, it may be possible to lower one's risk by changing the gut bacteria.

More details about that same study. From Medpage Today:

Prediabetes Patients Have Fewer Gut Bugs

They were put into one of four groups: those with a stable glucose tolerance, those with stable impaired fasting glucose or stable impaired glucose tolerance, those with worsened glucose tolerance, and those with improved glucose tolerance. There were significant differences in bacterial composition between the first and second groups (P=0.03) at the phylum level. Bacteroidetes was higher and Firmicutes was lower with worse glycemic control in the second group. 

Proteobacteria decreased over the period in groups 2 and 4 compared with group 1 (P=0.04 for both). At the family and genus levels, in group 2 versus group 1 there was less Prevotella, and a higher Bacteroides/Prevotella ratio in the second group at 5.6 to 2.7 (P=0.05). There was also less Enterobacteriaceae (P=0.03), and more Ruminococcae (P=0.01) and Veillonellaceae (P=0.02).

"We speculate that lower abundance of Prevotella may be associated with worsening glycemia, and, conversely, higher abundance of Akkermansia might be associated with improving glycemia, thus corroborating suggestions from previous studies," the researchers said.