Author: Staff Reporter

Female college students are more likely to depend on alcohol to improve mental well-being, say researchers, adding that the young women appear to be more affected by high alcohol use than men, which may lead to less interest in academics.

“Cognitive aptitudes of young women appear to be more affected than for men with high alcohol use,” said study lead author Lina Begdache, Assistant Professor at Binghamton University in the US.

“These behaviours are regulated by the limbic system of the brain. However, the cognitive functions for high alcohol use among the young men and women were different,” Begdache added.

For the findings, published in the journal Trends in Neuroscience and Education, researchers sought to compare neurobehaviours and academic effort among college students with low alcohol use with those of high alcohol consumption and build conceptual models that represent the integration of the different variables.

They sent an anonymous survey to assess college students’ alcohol use and frequency along with questions on sleep, academic performance and attitude toward learning. They compared gender responses and found that both young men and women exhibit common behavioural responses to high alcohol use such as abuse of other substances and risk-taking.

The findings showed that young women reported generally less interest in the academic work and performance than young men. The latter reported more risky behaviours, such as being arrested, from excessive drinking.

The study also found that young women are more likely to depend on alcohol to improve mental well-being, which is also concerning, as they may self-medicate through drinking. In both genders, the researchers reported an increase in impulsive behaviours, which are under the control of the limbic system (the oldest part of the brain, evolutionary speaking).

Another reason for the difference seen is the differential metabolism of alcohol. Women metabolise alcohol at a slower rate, therefore, they are more likely to feel the effect of alcohol. Consequently, their brain is more likely to accumulate a toxic metabolite, acetaldehyde, which may be altering brain chemistry further to add to the differential behaviours identified in this study.

“Academic performance and risky behaviours among college students may be linked to their drinking habits, so more education and awareness should be shared with college students,” said Begdache.

“These findings are also explained by the fact that women tend to have higher connectivity between cortices, while men have a large cortical volume in the areas on the limbic system that support impulsivity,” Begdache added. (IANS)

Right now is stressful. We’re trying to stay healthy, reevaluating values and questioning what we’ll define as normal going forward. We all need breaks to heal our minds and bodies from time-to-time and to renew motivation. But sometimes our house or streets are too full of distractions to help. Although needed, many of us can’t take the time or money out for therapy.

Try forest therapy, meditative practice of walking through the woods using all your senses.

“Unlike a hike or guided nature walk aimed at identifying trees or birds, forest therapy relies on trained guides, who set a deliberately slow pace and invite people to experience the pleasures of nature through all of their senses. It encourages people to be present in the body, enjoying the sensation of being alive and deriving profound benefits from the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the natural world,” said Dr. Susan Abookire MPH, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

The practice of forest therapy is shockingly healthy for your body. Sounds silly? It was touted in Japan in the 1980s to help people relax from a culture of stress and overwork. It might help you. There are many benefits to getting into some greenery.

Getting in nature relieves stress. One of the first effects is that forest bathing or forest therapy relieves cortisol, a stress hormone. A research review showed, “In all but two included studies, cortisol levels were significantly lower after intervention in forest groups if compared with control/comparison groups.”

Forest bathing may also boost immunity. The essential oils trees put off, called phytoncides,  have antimicrobial properties. Dr. Abookire said, “One Japanese study showed a rise in number and activity of immune cells called natural killer cells, which fight viruses and cancer, among people who spent three days and two nights in a forest versus people who took an urban trip. This benefit lasted for more than a month after the forest trip!”

Looking at nature shortens the time it takes to heal. Looking out a window can boost healing. In one study from decades ago, patients that had a window to look out of, and patients with gallbladder surgery left the hospital quicker.

Green spaces or even pictures help focus. If you’re stuck inside, just looking at photographs of nature or touching tree bark can get you back in tune with senses. And doing so improves focus.

Sitting: Get into the greenest space you can, take a deep breath supporting the spine and close your eyes. Take in the sounds. If you’re stuck in a city, put up posters of natures and put on earbuds. Bilateral sound, in both ears, helps you feel and connect sound to your mind.

Walking: Go very slow for ten minutes or so, touching, feeling and seeing all you can. “Be present in nature, and discover what nature has to present you,” said Jane Burress, a forest therapy guide.

If you do live near nature, check out the Association of Nature and Forest Therapy to find a guide to walk you through the practice. Take some time to breathe this week, and notice the green leaves of the trees, even the stray weed or two. You’ll feel chiller for it.

People who eat more sweets are at higher risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer… but that may not actually be sugar’s fault. BBC Future investigates the latest findings.

Given the current situation, many of us are more interested than ever in how food can (and can’t) support our health. To help you sort out fact from fiction, BBC Future is bringing back some of our most popular nutrition stories.

Our colleagues at BBC Good Food are also focusing on practical solutions for ingredient swaps, nutritious storecupboard recipes and all aspects of cooking and eating during lockdown.

It’s hard to imagine now, but there was a time when humans only had access to sugar for a few months a year when fruit was in season. Some 80,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers ate fruit sporadically and infrequently, since they were competing with birds.

Now, our sugar hits come all year round, often with less nutritional value and far more easily – by simply opening a soft drink or cereal box. It doesn’t take an expert to see that our modern sugar intake is less healthy than it was in our foraging days. Today, sugar has become public health enemy number one: governments are taxing it, schools and hospitals are removing it from vending machines and experts are advising that we remove it completely from our diets. It has even been blamed for possibly increasing the risk of contracting infections because it allegedly suppresses the immune system, although in reality the impact it has on our ability to fight off diseases is a great deal more complicated than that.

And so far, scientists have had a difficult time proving how it affects our health, independent of a diet too high in calories. A review of research conducted over the last five years summarised that a diet of more than 150g of fructose per day reduces insulin sensitivity – and therefore increases the risk of developing health problems like high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. But the researchers also concluded that this occurs most often when high sugar intake is combined with excess calories, and that the effects on health are “more likely” due to sugar intake increasing the chance of excess calories, not the impact of sugar alone.

Meanwhile, there is also a growing argument that demonising a single food is dangerous – and causes confusion that risks us cutting out vital foods.

Sugar, otherwise known as “added sugar”, includes table sugar, sweeteners, honey and fruit juices, and is extracted, refined and added to food and drink to improve taste.

But both complex and simple carbohydrates are made up of sugar molecules, which are broken down by digestion into glucose and used by every cell in the body to generate energy and fuel the brain. Complex carbohydrates include wholegrains and vegetables. Simple carbohydrates are more easily digested and quickly release sugar into the bloodstream. They include sugars found naturally in the foods we eat, such as fructose, lactose, sucrose and glucose and others, like high fructose corn syrup, which are manmade.

You might also like:
• Are artificial sweeteners really bad for us?
• We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume
• The world’s most nutritious foods

Before the 16th Century only the rich could afford sugar. But it became more available with colonial trade.

Then, in the 1960s, the development of large-scale conversion of glucose into fructose led to the creation of high fructose corn syrup, a concentrate of glucose and fructose.

This potent combination, above any other single type of sugar, is the one many public health advocates consider the most lethal – and it is the one that many people think of when they think of “sugar”.

Sugar rush

Consumption of high fructose corn syrup in the US increased tenfold between 1970 and 1990, more than any other food group. Researchers have pointed out that this mirrors the increase in obesity across the country.

Meanwhile, sugary drinks, which usually use high fructose corn syrup, have been central to research examining the effects of sugar on our health. One meta-analysis of 88 studies found a link between sugary drinks consumption and body weight. In other words, people don’t fully compensate for getting energy from soft drinks by consuming less of other foods – possibly because these drinks increase hunger or decrease satiety.

But the researchers concluded that while the intake of soft drinks and added sugars has increased alongside obesity in the US, the data only represents broad correlations.

And not everyone agrees that high fructose corn syrup is the driving factor in the obesity crisis. Some experts point out that consumption of the sugar has been declining for the past 10 years in countries including the US, even while obesity levels have been rising. There also are epidemics of obesity and diabetes in areas where there is little or no high fructose corn syrup available, such as Australia and Europe.

High fructose corn syrup isn’t the only kind of sugar seen as problematic. Added sugar, particularly fructose, is blamed for a variety of problems.

For one, it’s said to cause heart disease. When liver cells break down fructose, one of the end products is triglyceride – a form of fat – which can build up in liver cells over time. When it is released into the bloodstream, it can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls.

One 15-year study seemed to back this up: it found that people who consumed 25% or more of their daily calories as added sugar were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease than those who consumed less than 10%. Type 2 diabetes also is attributed to added sugar intake. Two large studies in the 1990s found that women who consumed more than one soft drink or fruit juice per day were twice as likely to develop diabetes as those who rarely did so.

Sweet nothings?

But again, it’s unclear if that means sugar actually causes heart disease or diabetes. Luc Tappy, professor of physiology at the University of Lausanne, is one of many scientists who argue that the main cause of diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure is excess calorie intake, and that sugar is simply one component of this.

“More energy intake than energy expenditure will, in the long term, lead to fat deposition, insulin resistance and a fatty liver, whatever the diet composition,” he says. “In people with a high energy output and a matched energy intake, even a high fructose/sugar diet will be well tolerated.”

Overall, evidence that added sugar directly causes type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity or cancer is thin

Tappy points out that athletes, for example, often have higher sugar consumption but lower rates of cardiovascular disease: high fructose intake can be metabolised during exercise to increase performance.

Overall, evidence that added sugar directly causes type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity or cancer is thin. Yes, higher intakes are associated with these conditions. But clinical trials have yet to establish that it causes them.

Sugar also has been associated with addiction… but this finding, too, may not be what it seems. A review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 2017 cited findings that mice can experience sugar withdrawal and argued that sugar produces similar effects to cocaine, such as craving. But the paper was widely accused of misinterpreting the evidence. One key criticism was that the animals were restricted to having sugar for two hours a day: if you allow them to have it whenever they want it, which reflects how we consume it, they don’t show addiction-like behaviours.

Still, studies have demonstrated other ways in which sugar affects our brains. Matthew Pase, research fellow at Swinburne’s Centre for Human Psychopharmacology in Australia, examined the association between self-reported sugary beverage consumption and markers of brain health determined by MRI scans. Those who drank soft drinks and fruit juices more frequently displayed smaller average brain volumes and poorer memory function. Consuming two sugary drinks per day aged the brain two years compared to those who didn’t drink any at all. But Pase explains that since he only measured fruit juice intake, he can’t be sure that sugar alone is what affects brain health.

“People who drink more fruit juice or soft drinks may share other dietary or lifestyle habits that relate to brain health. For example, they may also exercise less,” Pase says.

One recent study found that consuming sugar can make older people more motivated to perform difficult tasks

One recent study found that sugar may even help improve memory and performance in older adults. Researchers gave participants a drink containing a small amount of glucose and asked them to perform various memory tasks. Other participants were given a drink containing artificial sweetener as a control. They measured the participants’ levels of engagement, their memory score, and their own perception of how much effort they’d applied.

The results suggested that consuming sugar can make older people more motivated to perform difficult tasks at full capacity – without them feeling as if they tried harder. Increased blood sugar levels also made them feel happier during the task.

Younger adults showed increased energy after consuming the glucose drink, but it didn’t affect their mood or memory.

Teaspoon of sugar

While current guidelines advise that added sugars shouldn’t make up more than 5% of our daily calorie intake, dietitian Renee McGregor says it’s important to understand that a healthy, balanced diet is different for everyone.

“I work with athletes who need to take on more sugar when doing a hard session because it’s easily digestible. But they worry they’re going over the guidelines,” she says.

For most of us non-athletes, it’s true that added sugar isn’t crucial for a healthy diet. But some experts warn we shouldn’t single it out as toxic.

McGregor, whose clients include those with orthorexia, a fixation with eating healthily, says that it isn’t healthy to label foods as “good” or “bad”. And turning sugar into a taboo may only make it more tempting. “As soon as you say you can’t have something, you want it,” she says. “That’s why I never say anything is off-limits. I’ll say a food has no nutritional value. But sometimes foods have other values.”

Associate professor at James Madison University Alan Levinovitz studies the relationship between religion and science. He says there’s a simple reason we look at sugar as evil: throughout history, we’ve demonised the things we find hardest to resist (think of sexual pleasure in the Victorian times).

Today, we do this with sugar to gain control over cravings.

Sugar is intensely pleasurable, so we have to see it as a cardinal sin – Alan Levinovitz

“Sugar is intensely pleasurable, so we have to see it as a cardinal sin. When we see things in simple good and evil binaries, it becomes unthinkable that this evil thing can exist in moderation. This is happening with sugar,” he says.

He argues that that seeing food in such extremes can make us anxious about what we’re eating – and add a moral judgment onto something as necessary, and as everyday, as deciding what to eat.

Taking sugar out of our diets can even be counterproductive: it can mean replacing it with something potentially more calorific, such as if you substitute a fat for a sugar in a recipe.

And amid the rising debate around sugar, we risk confusing those foods and drinks with added sugar that lack other essential nutrients, like soft drinks, with healthy foods that have sugars, like fruit.

One person who struggled with this distinction is 28-year-old Tina Grundin of Sweden, who says she used to think all sugars were unhealthy. She pursued a high-protein, high-fat vegan diet, which she says led to an undiagnosed eating disorder.

“When I started throwing up after eating, I knew I couldn’t go on much longer. I’d grown up fearing sugar in all forms,” she says. “Then I realised there was a difference between added sugar and sugar as a carbohydrate and I adopted a high-fructose, high-starch diet with natural sugars found in fruit, vegetables, starches and legumes.

“From the first day, it was like the fog lifted and I could see clearly. I finally gave my cells fuel, found in glucose, from carbohydrates, from sugars.”

While there’s disagreement around how different types of sugars affect our health, the irony is we might be better off thinking about it less.

“We’ve really overcomplicated nutrition because, fundamentally, what everyone is searching for is a need to feel complete, to feel perfect and successful,” says McGregor. “But that doesn’t exist.”

Newswise — UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — If life feels more stressful now than it did a few decades ago, you’re not alone. Even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe, a new study found that life may be more stressful now than it was in the 1990s.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

“On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past,” said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State. “That’s around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year.”

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans’ lives has been changing over time.

“Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days,” Almeida said. “And so we wanted to actually collect that data and run the analyses to test some of those ideas.”

For the study, the researchers used data collected from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012. Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours. For example, arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

“We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them,” Almeida said. “For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010.”

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

“We thought that with the economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults,” Almeida said. “But we didn’t see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life. And maybe that’s because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it’s this generational squeeze that’s making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life.”

Almeida said that while there used to be a stereotype about people experiencing a midlife crisis because of a fear of death and getting older, he suspects the study findings — recently published in the journal American Psychologist — suggest midlife distress may be due to different reasons.

“It may have to do with people at mid-life being responsible for a lot of people,” Almeida said. “They’re responsible for their children, oftentimes they’re responsible for their parents, and they may also be responsible for employees at work. And with that responsibility comes more daily stress, and maybe that’s happening more so now than in the past.”

Additionally, Almeida said the added stress could partially be due to life “speeding up” due to technological advances. This could be particularly true during stressful times like the coronavirus pandemic, when tuning out the news can seem impossible.

“With people always on their smartphones, they have access to constant news and information that could be overwhelming,” Almeida said.

###

Susan T. Charles, University of California, Irvine; Jacqueline Mogle, Penn State; Johanna Drewelies, Humboldt University Berlin; Carolyn M. Aldwin, Oregon State University; Avron Spiro III, Boston University Schools of Public Health and Medicine and Department of Veteran’s Affairs; and Denis Gerstorf, Humboldt University Berlin and Penn State, also participated in this work.

This research is part of the Midlife in the United State Study and supported by the National Institute on Aging and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Study shows low intake of flavonoid-rich foods linked with higher Alzheimer’s risk over 20 years
Older adults who consumed small amounts of flavonoid-rich foods, such as berries, apples and tea, were two to four times more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias over 20 years compared with people whose intake was higher, according to a new study led by scientists at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (USDA HNRCA) at Tufts University.

The epidemiological study of 2,800 people aged 50 and older examined the long-term relationship between eating foods containing flavonoids and risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). While many studies have looked at associations between nutrition and dementias over short periods of time, the study published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at exposure over 20 years.

Flavonoids are natural substances found in plants, including fruits and vegetables such as pears, apples, berries, onions, and plant-based beverages like tea and wine. Flavonoids are associated with various health benefits, including reduced inflammation. Dark chocolate is another source of flavonoids.

The research team determined that low intake of three flavonoid types was linked to higher risk of dementia when compared to the highest intake. Specifically:

Low intake of flavonols (apples, pears and tea) was associated with twice the risk of developing ADRD.
Low intake of anthocyanins (blueberries, strawberries, and red wine) was associated with a four-fold risk of developing ADRD.
Low intake of flavonoid polymers (apples, pears, and tea) was associated with twice the risk of developing ADRD.
The results were similar for AD.

“Our study gives us a picture of how diet over time might be related to a person’s cognitive decline, as we were able to look at flavonoid intake over many years prior to participants’ dementia diagnoses,” said Paul Jacques, senior author and nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA HNRCA. “With no effective drugs currently available for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, preventing disease through a healthy diet is an important consideration.”

The researchers analyzed six types of flavonoids and compared long-term intake levels with the number of AD and ADRD diagnoses later in life. They found that low intake (15th percentile or lower) of three flavonoid types was linked to higher risk of dementia when compared to the highest intake (greater than 60th percentile). Examples of the levels studied included:
Low intake (15th percentile or lower) was equal to no berries (anthocyanins) per month, roughly one-and-a-half apples per month (flavonols), and no tea (flavonoid polymers).

High intake (60th percentile or higher) was equal to roughly 7.5 cups of blueberries or strawberries (anthocyanins) per month, 8 apples and pears per month (flavonols), and 19 cups of tea per month (flavonoid polymers).

“Tea, specifically green tea, and berries are good sources of flavonoids,” said first author Esra Shishtar, who at the time of the study was a doctoral student at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in the Nutritional Epidemiology Program at the USDA HNRCA. “When we look at the study results, we see that the people who may benefit the most from consuming more flavonoids are people at the lowest levels of intake, and it doesn’t take much to improve levels. A cup of tea a day or some berries two or three times a week would be adequate,” she said.

Jacques also said 50, the approximate age at which data was first analyzed for participants, is not too late to make positive dietary changes. “The risk of dementia really starts to increase over age 70, and the take home message is, when you are approaching 50 or just beyond, you should start thinking about a healthier diet if you haven’t already,” he said.

Methodology

To measure long-term flavonoid intake, the research team used dietary questionnaires, filled out at medical exams approximately every four years by participants in the Framingham Heart Study, a largely Caucasian group of people who have been studied over several generations for risk factors of heart disease.

To increase the likelihood that dietary information was accurate, the researchers excluded questionnaires from the years leading up to the dementia diagnosis, based on the assumption that, as cognitive status declined, dietary behavior may have changed, and food questionnaires were more likely to be inaccurate.

The participants were from the Offspring Cohort (children of the original participants), and the data came from exams 5 through 9. At the start of the study, the participants were free of AD and ADRD, with a valid food frequency questionnaire at baseline. Flavonoid intakes were updated at each exam to represent cumulative average intake across the five exam cycles. Researchers categorized flavonoids into six types and created four intake levels based on percentiles: less than or equal to the 15th percentile, 15th-30th percentile, 30th-60th percentile, and greater than 60th percentile. They then compared flavonoid intake types and levels with new diagnoses of AD and ADRD.

There are some limitations to the study, including the use of self-reported food data from food frequency questionnaires, which are subject to errors in recall. The findings are generalizable to middle-aged or older adults of European descent. Factors such as education level, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index and overall quality of the participants’ diets may have influenced the results, but researchers accounted for those factors in the statistical analysis. Due to its observational design, the study does not reflect a causal relationship between flavonoid intake and the development of AD and ADRD.

Authors and funding

Additional authors on the study are Gail T. Rogers at the USDA HNRCA, Jeffrey B. Blumberg at the Friedman School at Tufts, and Rhoda Au at The Framingham Heart Study, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston University School of Public Health.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, awards from National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging (R01AG008122, R56AG062109, R01AG016495), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS017940), and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (Framingham Heart Study) as well as the Embassy of the State of Kuwait.

Citation

Shishtar, E., Rogers, G.T., Blumberg, J.B., Au R., and Jacques, P.F. (2020). Long-term dietary flavonoid intake and risk of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa079
###

About the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University

For four decades, the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University has studied the relationship between good nutrition and good health in aging populations. Tufts research scientists work with federal agencies to establish the Dietary Guidelines, the Dietary Reference Intakes, and other significant public policies.