Skip to content

Category: nutrition

1

Published on 1 Comment on Vegan Diet May Be Best For Weight Loss

I think many will say: Oh no! Totally vegan is best for weight loss?? From Science Daily:

Vegan diet best for weight loss even with carbohydrate consumption, study finds

People shed more weight on an entirely plant based diet, even if carbohydrates are also included, a study has concluded. Other benefits of eating a vegan diet include decreased levels of saturated and unsaturated fat, lower BMIs, and improved macro nutrients.

The study, conducted by the university's Arnold School of Public Health and published in The International Journal of Applied and Basic Nutritional Sciences, compared the amount of weight lost by those on vegan diets to those on a mostly plant-based diet, and those eating an omnivorous diet with a mix of animal products and plant based foods. At the end of six months, individuals on the vegan diet lost more weight than the other two groups by an average of 4.3%, or 16.5 pounds.

The study followed participants who were randomly assigned to one of five diets on the dietary spectrum: vegan which excludes all animal products, semi-vegetarian with occasional meat intake; pesco-vegetarian which excludes all meat except seafood; vegetarian which excludes all meat and seafood but includes animal products, and omnivorous, which excludes no foods.

Participants followed their assigned dietary restrictions for six months, with all groups except the omnivorous participating in weekly group meetings. Those who stuck to the vegan diet showed the greatest weight loss at the two and six month marks.The lead author on this study, Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy notes that the diet consumed by vegan participants was high in carbohydrates that rate low on the glycemic index. 

Published on

Take note: research has linked a lack of microbial diversity in human guts to various diseases. A solution: Eat more plants! From Science Daily:

Compared with apes, people's gut bacteria lack diversity, study finds

The microbes living in people's guts are much less diverse than those in humans' closest relatives, the African apes, an apparently long evolutionary trend that appears to be speeding up in more modern societies, with possible implications for human health, according to a new study.

Based on an analysis of how humans and three lineages of ape diverged from common ancestors, researchers determined that within the lineage that gave rise to modern humans, microbial diversity changed slowly and steadily for millions of years, but that rate of change has accelerated lately in humans from some parts of the world.

People in nonindustrialized societies have gut microbiomes that are 60 percent different from those of chimpanzees. Meanwhile, those living in the U.S. have gut microbiomes that are 70 percent different from those of chimps.

 "On the other hand, in apparently only hundreds of years -- and possibly a lot fewer -- people in the United States lost a great deal of diversity in the bacteria living in their gut."

That rapid change might translate into negative health effects for Americans. Previous research has shown that compared with several populations, people living in the U.S. have the lowest diversity of gut microbes. Still other research has linked a lack of microbial diversity in human guts to various diseases such as asthma, colon cancer and autoimmune diseases.

One possible explanation for humans evolving to have less diversity in their gut microbiomes is that they shifted to a diet with more meat and fewer plants. Plants require complex communities of microbes to break them down, which is not as true for meat.

As for why Americans have experienced much more rapid changes in microbial diversity compared with people in less industrialized societies, some experts have suggested more time spent indoors, increased use of antibacterial soaps and cleaners, widespread use of antibiotics and high numbers of births by Cesarean section all may play a role. Antibiotics and antimicrobial cleaners can kill good bacteria along with the bad, and C-section deliveries prevent babies from receiving certain bacteria from the mother typically conferred during vaginal births.

Published on

Red meat,bacteria, and atherosclerosis.From Medical Xpress:

Why does red meat increase the risk for cardiovascular disease? Blame our gut bacteria

New research provides details on how gut bacteria turn a nutrient found in red meat into metabolites that increase the risk of developing heart disease. Publishing in the November 4th issue of the journal Cell Metabolism, the findings may lead to new strategies for safeguarding individuals' cardiovascular health.

Previous research led by Dr. Stanley Hazen, of Lerner Research Institute and the Miller Family Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, revealed a pathway by which red meat can promote atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. Essentially, bacteria in the gut convert L-carnitine, a nutrient abundant in red meat, into a compound called trimethylamine, which in turn changes to a metabolite named trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), which promotes atherosclerosis. Now Dr. Hazen and his team extend their earlier research and identify another metabolite, called gamma-butyrobetaine, that is generated to an even greater extent by gut bacteria after L-carnitine is ingested, and it too contributes to atherosclerosis.

The discovery that metabolism of L-carnitine involves two different gut microbial pathways, as well as different types of bacteria, suggests new targets for preventing atherosclerosis—for example, by inhibiting various bacterial enzymes or shifting gut bacterial composition with probiotics and other treatments.

Published on

An amazing and unforgettable story of a man researching the gut microbes that are increasingly lost in developed Westernized populations. And do go read the original story (see link).From Popular Science:

Scientist Gives Himself Fecal Transplant To Try A Hunter-Gatherer's Microbiome

Why a field researcher from America has exposed his colon to the gut microbiome of a tribesman from Tanzania.

It's not often we encounter a story that begins with a line like this: “AS THE SUN set over Lake Eyasi in Tanzania, nearly thirty minutes had passed since I had inserted a turkey baster into my bum and injected the feces of a Hadza man – a member of one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer tribes in the world – into the nether regions of my distal colon.”

The guy behind this essay, Jeff Leach, is part of a multi-national scientific research team that by his account has been living with the Hadza, hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, for over a year. They have collected hundreds of samples from humans, animals, and the environment in order to observe how the microbial communities in and around the Hadza change with the dramatic seasonal weather shifts in East Africa: six months of near-steady rain followed by six dry months.

The question driving the research is “what a normal or healthy microbiome might have looked like before the niceties and medications of late whacked the crap out of our gut bugs in the so-called modern world,” Leach writes.

The Hadza are contemporary people, Leach writes, not an undiscovered stone-age civilization. But they're excellent subjects for this research because they still live on plant and animal foods that humans have hunted and gathered for millennia, and their use of western medications is extremely limited.

The health impacts of what lives (or doesn't) in our guts are getting increased attention in Western dietary and medical circles -- and eating foods containing "probiotics" just scratches the surface. Recent research suggests that use of antibiotics may be fundamentally altering our gut biomes for the worse, increasing rates of allergies, asthma and weight gain.

As for fecal transplants, they're no longer career killers in polite medical conversation. Swapping poop from healthy to sick persons is now an up-and-up treatment for curing chronic gastrointestinal disease. The launch of the OpenBiome fecal transplant bank in the U.S. earlier this year seems to signal that the technique is going mainstream.

As for Jeff Leach, he describes his primary scientific motivation for self-administering a fecal transplant as testing the hypothesis "of microbial extinction, something I believe we all suffer from in the western world and may be at the root of what’s making us sick." The biggest change Leach and his girlfriend have noticed since the transplant is that he's passing a lot less gas. 

Read the rest of his very readable, informative and down-to-earth essay: (Re)Becoming Human: what happened the day I replaced 99% of the genes in my body with that [sic] of a hunter-gatherer.

Published on

Chocolate lovers are rejoicing! From the NY Times:

To Improve a Memory, Consider Chocolate

Science edged closer on Sunday to showing that an antioxidant in chocolate appears to improve some memory skills that people lose with age. In a small study in the journal Nature Neuroscience, healthy people, ages 50 to 69, who drank a mixture high in antioxidants called cocoa flavanols for three months performed better on a memory test than people who drank a low-flavanol mixture.

On average, the improvement of high-flavanol drinkers meant they performed like people two to three decades younger on the study’s memory task, said Dr. Scott A. Small,a neurologist at Columbia University Medical Center and the study’s senior author. They performed about 25 percent better than the low-flavanol group.

The findings support recent research linking flavanols, especially epicatechin, to improved blood circulation, heart health and memory in mice, snails and humans. But experts said the new study, although involving only 37 participants and partly funded by Mars Inc.,the chocolate company, goes further and was a well-controlled, randomized trial led by experienced researchers.

Besides improvements on the memory test — a pattern recognition test involving the kind of skill used in remembering where you parked the car or recalling the face of someone you just met — researchers found increased function in an area of the brain’s hippocampus called the dentate gyrus, which has been linked to this type of memory.

To consume the high-flavanol group’s daily dose of epicatechin, 138 milligrams, would take eating at least 300 grams of dark chocolate a day — about seven average-sized bars. Or possibly about 100 grams of baking chocolate or unsweetened cocoa powder, but concentrations vary widely depending on the processing. Milk chocolate has most epicatechin processed out of it.

More extensive research is planned. As for why flavanols would help memory, one theory is that they improve brain blood flow; another, favored by Dr. Small, is that they cause dendrites, message-receiving branches of neurons, to grow.

Published on

The following medical article (actually an interview with Prof. Cedric F Garland, Department of Family & Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine) is strongly in favor of Americans getting their Vitamin D levels tested, and taking vitamin D3 (if needed) to raise serum levels of vitamin D's metabolite 25(OH)D to at least 30 ng/mL and preferably more.

It is suggested that taking 1000 IU of vitamin D3 daily would achieve these levels in most people. From Medscape:

Vitamin D and Mortality Risk: Should Clinical Practice Change?

Traditionally associated with skeletal disease including osteoporosis and fractures, low levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), the metabolite usually measured as a mark of vitamin D status, more recently have been linked to a wide range of nonskeletal diseases, including some cancers and autoimmune, cardiometabolic, and neurologic diseases. A number of studies also have reported an inverse association between 25(OH)D concentration and all-cause mortality.

To explore this association more, Medscape reached out to Dr. Cedric Garland, a well-known expert on vitamin D. Dr. Garland is a professor in the Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, and a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology. He has a Doctor of Public Health degree from University of California San Diego and studied epidemiology at Johns Hopkins. His research has focused on vitamin D status in health and the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased risk for disease, including some common cancers (breast cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, and melanoma) and diabetes. He is active in seeking to reduce the risk for cancer and diabetes by improving vitamin D status among the US population.

To examine the relation between serum 25(OH)D and mortality, Dr. Garland and colleagues at the University of California San Diego and others in the United States pooled data from 32 studies published between 1966 and 2013.[6] They found an overall relative risk of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-1.8; P <.001) comparing the lowest (0-9 ng/mL) with the highest (>30 ng/mL) category of 25(OH)D for all-cause mortality. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations ≤30 ng/mL were associated with higher all-cause mortality than concentrations >30 ng/mL (P <.01).

The investigators noted that these findings confirmed observations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that 25(OH)D levels of <20 ng/mL are too low for safety,[8] but they suggested a cut-off point of >30 ng/mL rather than >20 ng/mL for all-cause mortality reduction. This level "could be achieved in most individuals by intake of 1000 IU per day of vitamin D3," the investigators said, noting that this is described as a safe dose in almost all adults by both the IOM[8] and Endocrine Society[9] clinical guidelines on dietary intake of vitamin D.

In particular, a randomized clinical trial by Lappe et al[12] had demonstrated a reduced risk for all cancers with vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women.... Only one third of the US population is below 20 ng/mL,[15] but two thirds of the population is below 30 ng/mL.[16]

We decided to look at what would happen if we put together all the existing studies that have looked at the survival of "ordinary" people; that is, mostly people in general practices who did not, for the most part, have illnesses. Studies that only included people who were already ill were not eligible for inclusion in our analysis. We found 88 relevant studies, of which 32 presented their data by quartiles of intake, allowing us to see a dose response

The incidence of colon cancer is very high in countries like Iceland and Sweden, and other countries nearer the North Pole, and in countries like New Zealand, which is closer to the South Pole, and intermediate in countries at intermediate latitudes such as the United States, which is, on average, 38º north of the Equator. By the time you get down within the tropics, which is 23º from the Equator, it begins to decrease, and within 5º of the Equator there are vanishingly low incidence rates of colon cancer. In the past, some scientists theorized that the low incidence rates near the equator were due to intake of a high-fiber diet, but now my group believes -- and many others are leaning more in this direction -- that it is the high UVB irradiance and high circulating 25(OH)D year-around nearer the equator rather than a high-fiber diet that best explains the inverse association with solar UVB irradiance

Raising the serum 25(OH)D from 30 to 40 ng/mL reduces the incidence of breast, bowel, and lung cancer by 80%, as reported by Lappe and colleagues in their clinical trial.[12]On the other hand, if you lump all cancers together, in both sexes, and include countries where there is a whole lot of cigarette smoking, then you may obscure the effect of the vitamin D. Vitamin D is not able to overcome the effect of heavy smoking, and the CHANCES analysis[7] included data from people in countries like the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania, where there is a huge amount of smoking. Although the effects are still there, they are weakened.

Studies such as our meta-analysis have provided us an opportunity to not just be locked into the present but to predict mortality on the basis of vitamin D levels in the present. I had expected our results to be convincing, but we were shocked at the persistence of the belief that very low levels of vitamin D, such as approximately 20 ng/mL, are safe. They are not safe with regard to breast and colon cancer, several other cancers, diabetes in youth and adulthood, fractures, and other complications of 25(OH)D <30 ng/mL. Even higher levels, such as 40-60 ng/mL, would be even safer, according to a letter of consensus of expert vitamin D scientists and physicians.

In addition, 2 ongoing trials, the CAPS study[23] (aiming to replicate the findings of Lappe et al[12]) and the VITAL study,[22] are both using a vitamin D3 dose of 2000 international units (IU)/day. I think that if I were to design a trial, knowing what we know today, I would use 4000-5000 IU/day. It seems as though each time we do a clinical trial, by the time the trial is completed, we know that the doses were too small to elicit an effect.

I am also concerned that there may be not enough calcium to see an effect. In CAPS, the women are being given 1500 mg of calcium, which was done in the original randomized controlled trial in which 80% of the cancers in postmenopausal women were prevented. I would have stayed with this design and dose for the VITAL trial. We know that it helps because in their original trial, Lappe and colleagues[12]examined the effects of vitamin D alone vs vitamin D plus calcium, and the effects were stronger when the calcium was included.

Testing should be universal. And ideally it should be done in March when the vitamin D is at its lowest levels. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of serious diseases worldwide annually, beginning with postmenopausal breast cancer and including colon cancer and types 1 and 2 diabetes. Skipping this test would be equivalent to not measuring blood pressure, serum lipids, or weight at an annual exam.

No one should run a serum 25(OH)D less than 30 ng/mL. This means that two thirds of the US population needs supplementation. You may have noticed that President Obama was recently tested for his vitamin D, and it was 22.9 ng/mL.[35] His physicians wisely decided to treat him, and he is now taking vitamin D.

Published on

An assortment of vitamin and health articles from the past year. (Note: Some other major Vitamin D study results were posted earlier this year, as well as today - search Vitamin D). Whether one should take vitamins is still being debated, with the most support being for supplementation with Vitamin D (specifically D3).The first summary is from pubmed.gov:

Taking vitamin D with the largest meal improves absorptioncally D3) and results in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Many patients treated for vitamin D deficiency fail to achieve an adequate serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] despite high doses of ergo- or cholecalciferol. The objective of this study was to determine whether administration of vitamin D supplement with the largest meal of the day would improve absorption and increase serum levels of 25(OH)D.... it is concluded that taking vitamin D with the largest meal improves absorption and results in about a 50% increase in serum levels of 25(OH)D levels achieved. Similar increases were observed in a wide range of vitamin D doses taken for a variety of medical conditions.

 The following are all from Science Daily:

Long-term daily multivitamin supplement use decreases cataract risk in men, study finds

Long-term daily multivitamin supplement use may lower cataract risk in men, according to a study of nearly 15,000 male physicians. Half took a common daily multivitamin, as well as vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene supplements. The other half took a placebo. The researchers followed the participants to identify how many participants in each group developed new cases of two common eye diseases: cataract and age-related macular degeneration. Results showed a 9 percent decrease in risk for those that took the supplements.

Taking B vitamins won't prevent Alzheimer's disease, researchers conclude

Taking B vitamins doesn't slow mental decline as we age, nor is it likely to prevent Alzheimer's disease, conclude researchers who have assembled all the best clinical trial data involving 22,000 people to offer a final answer on this debate. When looking at measures of global cognitive function -- or scores for specific mental processes such as memory, speed or executive function -- there was no difference between those on B vitamins and those receiving placebo to a high degree of accuracy.

Children who drink non-cow's milk are twice as likely to have low vitamin D

Children who drink non-cow's milk such as rice, almond, soy or goat's milk, have lower levels of vitamin D in their blood than those who drink cow's milk, according to a new study. In North America, every 100 millilitres of cow's milk is required to be fortified with 40 units of vitamin D. Adding vitamin D to non-cow's milk, however, is voluntary.

Vitamin E intake critical during 'the first 1,000 days'

Amid conflicting reports about the need for vitamin E and how much is enough, a new analysis published today suggests that adequate levels of this essential micronutrient are especially critical for the very young, the elderly, and women who are or may become pregnant... "It's important all of your life, but the most compelling evidence about vitamin E is about a 1000-day window that begins at conception," Traber said. "Vitamin E is critical to neurologic and brain development that can only happen during that period. It's not something you can make up for later." Some of the best dietary sources of vitamin E -- nuts, seeds, spinach, wheat germ and sunflower oil -- don't generally make the highlight list of an average American diet. 

Vitamin D deficiency linked to higher risk of cardiovascular, cancer death

Analysis of pooled data showed a strong association between low vitamin D levels and risk of death in general death from cardiovascular diseases, death in from cancer, at least in older people with a history of cancer. "Going into our study, the effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of death was not clear," said the lead investigator. "Our analysis confirms the protective nature of this substance especially in elderly patients."

High-dose vitamin D for ICU patients who are vitamin D deficient does not improve outcomes

Administration of high-dose vitamin D3 compared with placebo did not reduce hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital mortality, or the risk of death at 6 months among patients with vitamin D deficiency who were critically ill, according to a study.

Published on

What do these substances do to our health? And our gut microbiome (microbial community)? Pay attention to the ingredient list on food labels. And consider buying more organic foods (which ban routine use of antibiotics and hormones,etc.). From Medical Daily:

Foods To Avoid? 10 Things In Americans' Favorite Foods That Are Banned In Other Countries

In a country so consumed with counting calories, the gluten-free fad, and fast food, the ingredients section on the back of packages are widely overlooked and riddled with internationally banned foods... Americans Still Eat These 10 Foods & Ingredients Banned Around The World:

 1. Farm-Raised Salmon Banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Russia...Farmed salmon don’t have a lot of room to swim, don’t follow their natural migration patterns, and have an unnatural diet of grains, which is why they’re fattier than wild salmon and contain 50 percent less omega-3 fats and protein. They’re grown with a mix of antibiotics, vitamins, drugs, and chemicals and don’t have wild salmon’s natural color, so they’re fed a synthetic astaxanthin to achieve the pinkish-red shade.

2. Ractopamine-Tainted Meat Banned in Russia, Mainland China, Taiwan, and 160 countries across Europe.... Ractopamine, also known as Paylean and Optaflexx, is a drug fed to livestock to reduce the fat content and enhance muscle, making the meat more profitable per animal. It was originally used to treat asthma and is found in 45 percent of pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys. 

3. Genetically-Engineered Papaya   Banned in the European Union... 4. Flame Retardant in Drinks Banned in Japan and 18 European countries. In 1977, the FDA itself approved brominated vegetable oil (BVO), a patented flame retardant used in sodas and sports drinks in the U.S. Recently Coca-Cola and PepsiCo announced they’re working on removing the controversial BVO from their drinks as a result of petitions.

5. Processed Foods with Artificial Food Colors and Dyes  Banned Norway and Austria. If it’s not banned in a country outside of the U.S., it requires a warning label. Red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, and blue 2 weave their way into the American ingredients list of a wide variety of foods. They’re the most commonly used dyes in the U.S., found in mac-and-cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O, and children’s cereals. 

6. Arsenic-Laced Chicken  Banned in the European Union..  Since the 1940s, farmers have been feeding livestock arsenic to fight off disease; however, they now use it to make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker and fresher....7. Bread with Potassium Bromate  Banned in the European Union, Canada, and China... 8. Olestra/Olean  Banned in the United Kingdom and Canada. Procter & Gamble created this cholesterol-free fat substitute for their fat-free snacks....  9. Preservatives BHA and BHT  Banned in Japan and the European Union. It’s found in anything from meat, to butter, beer, and breakfast cereals.

10. Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH  Banned in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, and the European Union. In order to increase a cow’s milk production, scientists invented a rBGH, a synthetic version that mimics a natural hormone produced in their pituitary glands, known as bovine somatotropin. When rBGH came onto the market, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse it in 1999, and eventually U.S. milk was internationally banned from being imported into their countries. In the U.S., approximately one in six dairy cows are injected with growth hormones on a regular basis, causing pus and antibiotic contamination and 16 other adverse health effects.  

Published on

To celebrate National Nut Day, two articles about health benefits of nuts. From Medical Daily:

National Nut Day 2014: Peanuts, Tree Nuts, And How Each Helps Your Health

“For people who already eat plenty of meat and dairy products…nuts and ‘nutty’ legumes, like Brazil nuts, cashews, peanuts and walnuts, are a good nutritional alternative to meat,” Dr. Donal Murphy-Bokern, independent agri-environmental scientist and author of several studies on food system impacts, said in a statement. Heeding this advice means people can reap the benefits that come with eating nuts — Protein! Fiber! Omega-3 fatty acids! 

Nuts fall into two categories: peanuts (which are really legumes) and tree nuts. The latter includes Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios, walnuts and America’s beloved almonds. ...” And existing research generalizes that eating nuts does everything from reduce risk for a slew of diseases, maintains weight, boosts gastrointestinal and bone health, even adds years to a person’s life.

As previously mentioned, nuts are pretty much equal in terms of calories. There are, however, some nuts that have more heart-healthy nutrients and fats than others. See: pistachios. This particular tree nut is high in healthy fats called monounsaturated fats (MUFA). MUFAs are often associated with belly fat.

One study published in the journal Nutrition found that when middle-aged adults at risk for heart disease and diabetes incorporated more pistachios into their diet, they weighed less and lessened their cholesterol and blood sugar levels after just six months. And a separate study from UCLA found people who regularly ate pistachios lost an average of 10 to 12 pounds. Almonds and cashews are additional nuts high in MUFAs. 

The Harvard School of Public Health reported, “several of the largest cohort studies, including the Adventist Study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Physicians’ Health Study have shown a consistent 30 percent to 50 percent lower risk of myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, or cardiovascular disease associated with eating nuts several times a week.”

Though almonds tend to be associated most with heart health, it’s actually walnuts that take the number one spot. ...Health reported a 2006 Spanish study, which “suggested that walnuts were as effective as olive oil at reducing inflammation and oxidation in the arteries after eating a fatty meal.”

Folate, as defined by Harvard Medical School, is “the naturally occurring form of the vitamin that is in foods or in the blood.” It’s also the vitamin that staves off brain atrophy, or the progressive loss of brain cells over time... A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found folate may ward off depression, too. And which nut is super rich in folate? Unsalted peanuts...peanuts are also high in vitamin E and niacin, both of which boost brain health. Hazelnuts and almonds are known to have concentrated amounts of E, too, so either nut is bound to help your noggin.

Study done in mice, but shows benefits of walnuts to brain. From Science Daily:

Fight against Alzheimer's disease: New research on walnuts

A new animal study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease indicates that a diet including walnuts may have a beneficial effect in reducing the risk, delaying the onset, slowing the progression of, or preventing Alzheimer's disease. Research led by Abha Chauhan, PhD, head of the Developmental Neuroscience Laboratory at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities (IBR), found significant improvement in learning skills, memory, reducing anxiety, and motor development in mice fed a walnut-enriched diet.

The researchers suggest that the high antioxidant content of walnuts (3.7 mmol/ounce) may have been a contributing factor in protecting the mouse brain from the degeneration typically seen in Alzheimer's disease. Oxidative stress and inflammation are prominent features in this disease, which affects more than five million Americans.

Walnuts have other nutritional benefits as they contain numerous vitamins and minerals and are the only nut that contains a significant source of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) (2.5 grams per ounce), an omega-3 fatty acid with heart and brain-health benefits. The researchers also suggest that ALA may have played a role in improving the behavioral symptoms seen in the study.

Published on

Another reason to eat vegetables, whole grains, seeds, fish, and nuts - they provide magnesium. From Medical Xpress:

Magnesium cuts diabetes risk

Getting enough magnesium in the diet may reduce the risk of diabetes, especially for those who already show signs of heading that way. A Tufts study led by Adela Hruby, N10, MPH10, N13, found that healthy people with the highest magnesium intake were 37 percent less likely to develop high blood sugar or excess circulating insulin, common precursors to diabetes.

Among people who already had those conditions, those who consumed the most magnesium were 32 percent less likely to develop diabetes than those consuming the least. The second association held true even when researchers accounted for other healthful factors, such as fiber, that often go along with magnesium-rich foods.The study, published in Diabetes Care, followed 2,582 participants in the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort for seven years. The study subjects had an average age of 54.

Only half of Americans get the recommended daily amount of magnesium in their diet, which is 400 to 420 milligrams for adult men and 310 to 320 milligrams for adult women. You can find it in whole grains, vegetables, fish, nuts and seeds and dark chocolate.