Just 2 oz. of this snack a day helps fight health issue that can lead to heart disease, dementia and diabetes
Here's something to go nuts over.
Eating just a handful of this healthy snack a day could stave off a scary syndrome that affects a whopping one in three Americans, according to a new study in the journal Nutrition Research.
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions that includes at least three of the following: high blood pressure, high blood sugar, elevated triglycerides, poor HDL cholesterol and excessive belly fat.
People who have metabolic syndrome are at heightened risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and heart disease — and recent studies have even linked the collection of conditions to dementia and poor cognitive health.
'Evidence suggests that people with metabolic syndrome are three times as likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke and twice as likely to die from coronary heart disease compared to people without this condition,' lead study author Emily Ho, director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, said in a statement.
'Poor diet and inactivity contribute to the development of metabolic syndrome, and gut health and chronic inflammation may also play roles.'
Luckily, the study found that consuming 2 daily ounces of almonds — roughly 45 nuts — translated to significant drops in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and waist circumference.
In a 12-week clinical trial, researchers analyzed the data of two groups of people 35 to 60 years old with metabolic syndrome.
One group ate 320 calories worth of almonds every day, while the other group had 320 calories worth of crackers.
As expected, bloodwork showed that the almond group had much higher levels of vitamin E — an antioxidant that calms inflammation and supports heart, nerve and muscle health.
The almond group also saw reductions in gut inflammation, which is important because a balanced microbiome is crucial for overall and long-term health.
There are many reasons why almonds could benefit gut health, said study co-author Laura Beaver, a research associate in the Oregon State College of Health.
'In addition to vitamin E, almonds have polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, fiber, polyphenols, biotin, copper, potassium and magnesium,' she said.
'A full assessment of the nutritional impact of almonds is ongoing, but the changes in cholesterol levels we saw suggest that a metabolic shift occurred in people who snacked on almonds daily.'
The findings align with previous studies touting the health benefits of this popular nut.
A 2023 study found that eating a handful of nuts a day can slash the risk of heart disease by as much as 25%.
Some research has shown that almonds can help fight wrinkles, not least of all because only 1 ounce of almonds provides about 50% of the daily recommended intake for vitamin E.
And a study out of Spain suggests eating 30 grams of nuts every day can help lower the risk of depression in adults.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
13 hours ago
- New York Post
What is Graves' disease? All about ‘The Boys' star Erin Moriarty's diagnosis
Erin Moriarty is getting candid about her health — and urging fans to listen to their bodies. The Boys star, 30, revealed on Instagram Thursday that she was diagnosed with Graves' disease last month after initially chalking up her symptoms to 'stress and fatigue.' 'Within 24 hours of beginning treatment, I felt the light coming back on. It's been increasing ever since,' she wrote. 'If yours is dimming, even slightly, go get checked.' 6 Erin Moriarty was diagnosed with Graves' disease in May. Deadline via Getty Images The autoimmune disorder affects about 1 in 100 Americans and can cause everything from anxiety and weight loss to bulging eyes and heart issues. Here's everything you need to know, including how to spot it and what to do next. What is Graves' disease? It's chronic autoimmune disorder that hijacks your thyroid gland, sending it into overdrive and flooding your body with more hormones than it needs, according to the National Institutes of Health. Thyroid hormones control how your body burns energy, impacting nearly every organ. When there's too much of them, it turbo-charges your metabolism and can trigger a wide range of symptoms. 6 The thyroid is a small, butterfly-shaped gland located in the front of your neck. Science RF – What are the symptoms of Graves' Disease? Early signs often include heat intolerance, increased appetite, difficulty sleeping, fatigue and nervousness, anxiety or irritability, according to the Mayo Clinic. As the disease progresses, you might experience unintentional weight loss, heart palpitations, trembling hands, frequent bowel movements and shortness of breath. Graves' can also disrupt menstrual cycles, cause erectile dysfunction and reduce libido. 6 Moriarty first assumed her symptoms were caused by stress and fatigue. Erin Moriarty / Instagram Around 1 in 3 people with Graves' have eye problems known as Graves' ophthalmopathy, which can cause: Bulging or puffy eyes Blurred or double vision Gritty, irritated eyes Eye pain or pressure Sensitivity to light In rare cases, patients can develop thickened, darkened skin — usually on the shins or tops of the feet — that looks and feels like orange peel. This comes from a buildup of protein in the skin. It's often mild and painless. What causes Graves' disease? Scientists aren't completely sure. Graves' disease strikes when your immune system goes rogue, overproducing an antibody that prompts your thyroid to flood your body with too many hormones, according to the Cleveland Clinic. 6 Excess thyroid hormones can lead to increased heart rate, irregular rhythms and heart failure. JustLife – Experts say genetics play a major role, with one study estimating that genes account for 79% of the risk. The rest likely comes from environmental triggers like stress, hormonal changes or infections. Who's at risk for Graves' disease? Graves' disease is relatively common, affecting about 1% of people in the US. But it disproportionately affects women, who are five times more likely to get it than men, according to Yale Medicine. Your risk increases if you have a family history of Graves' or other autoimmune conditions like vitiligo, type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis. Low levels of selenium and vitamin D, along with smoking, may also increase your chances. 6 Smoking is a significant risk factor for Graves' disease. Quitting can help improve patient outcomes. Adobe Stock How is Graves' disease treated? In the US, treatment usually starts with medications like methimazole or propylthiouracil, which work to reduce the production of thyroid hormones, according to ColumbiaDoctors. Most patients start feeling better soon after, but it takes 12 to 18 months to see if the disease goes into remission — meaning the thyroid calms down and antibody levels drop. Up to half of patients achieve remission, but it's not a guaranteed cure. Graves' can flare up again later. 6 Graves' disease is often associated with weight loss despite increased appetite. Prostock-studio – 'For some people, Graves' disease has a clear beginning and end. For others, it's a chronic condition that can be controlled but not cured,' said Dr. Hyesoo Lowe, medical director of the Columbia Thyroid Center. If a patient doesn't go into remission, doctors may recommend radioiodine therapy, which gradually destroys overactive thyroid cells, or surgery to remove the gland entirely. While this can cause hypothyroidism, or too little thyroid hormone, replacement pills are available to keep things balanced. What happens if you don't treat Graves' disease? Ignoring the autoimmune disorder can lead to serious complications. It can cause atrial fibrillation, a dangerous irregular heartbeat that increases the risk of heart failure and stroke. It also weakens bones, raising the chance of fractures. There's a higher risk of thyroid cancer, too. In rare cases, untreated Graves' can trigger a life-threatening thyroid storm — a sudden surge of thyroid hormones. Pregnant women with untreated Graves' risk preeclampsia, miscarriage, premature labor and low birth weight for their babies.
Politico
19 hours ago
- Politico
‘A Total Sham': Michelle Obama's Nutrition Adviser Lets Loose on MAHA
Before there was MAHA, there was Michelle. Anyone following the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again movement can't help but recall former First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to improve Americans' diets — and the vitriol she faced in response. Now, many of the same Republicans who skewered Michelle Obama as a 'nanny state' warrior have embraced the MAHA movement. To explore this head-spinning turn, I called up Sam Kass, the former White House chef under President Barack Obama and a food policy adviser who led the first lady's 'Let's Move' initiative. Kass said he was happy to find common ground with Kennedy and his MAHA brigade where possible. But he argued Kennedy's HHS has done little to actually improve the health of the public so far, and was instead mostly taking steps that would do real damage, including by undermining the use of vaccines. Kass also warned potentially MAHA-curious food advocates against legitimizing the Trump administration by offering support for Kennedy. 'Those who are lending their voice for the things that they support are going to ultimately help enable outcomes that are going to be quite devastating for this country and for our kids,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. At the same time, Kass is not surprised with MAHA's growing popularity. In the 10-plus years since Kass left the White House, the issues of diet-related chronic disease haven't abated and Americans are more anxious about their health than ever. Wellness is a trillion-dollar industry, and MAHA influencers have filled the gap left by Democrats. 'The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue,' he said. 'We're getting what we deserve here in some ways.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. How do you square the earlier conservative criticism of the 'Let's Move' initiative with the rise of MAHA? Are you surprised by the seeming contradiction? I think most of that is because Republicans are fearful of President Trump. And therefore, if he is putting somebody in a position of great power and backing him, there's a huge part of the party that's going to go along with whatever that may be. I don't think this is actually about the Republican Party taking this up. This is actually about a Democrat, traditionally, who had built up a pretty strong following on these issues, and decided to join forces with President Trump. It's not like any of these ideas are coming from the GOP platform. This is an RFK-led effort that they're now supporting. So are they hypocrites for that? Certainly. But I welcome Republican support on trying to genuinely improve the health of the nation. Frankly, if we had had that for the last 20 years, I think that cultural retention would be far better. The reality, though, is what they're actually doing I don't think is going to have any positive impact, or very little. Even what they're saying is problematic on some levels, but what they're doing is a far cry from anything that's going to create the health outcomes this country needs. When you say that, do you mean banning soda from SNAP or the food dyes issue? Are there specific things that come to mind? It's a long list. There's the critique that MAHA brings at the highest level, that chronic disease has exploded in our country. Nobody can refute that, and what we're eating is a big driver of poor health outcomes on many different levels. That is absolutely true. What we grow, how we're growing it, and what's being made out of it is quite literally killing people. That is something that First Lady Michelle Obama said way back when. I've been saying it for a couple of decades. After that, everything falls apart in my mind. We can start with food dyes as the biggest announcement they made thus far. I'm all for getting food dyes out of food. There's just not a basis of evidence that most of the ones that are being used are actually the drivers of many of these health conditions. It was reported that they were banning food dyes. Sadly, what they did was a total sham. It was a farce of an event. There was no policy at all that was announced. There was no guidance, there was no regulatory proposal, there wasn't even a request for information. There was absolutely nothing put forward to revoke the approvals of these dyes. And the reason I believe is that to revoke an approval, you have to show that it's harming the public health. That's what we did for trans fats. Trans fats had been approved for consumption. There was plenty of evidence to show that that food was really driving death and disease in the country, and we banned it through a regulatory mechanism. I could not fathom making an announcement like that without actually having a real policy to put in place. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry about what they did. Also, you see a bunch of the influencers holding up bags of Fruit Loops and saying, 'In Europe or Canada, these have no [synthetic] food dyes and ours do.' But the fact of the matter is Fruit Loops aren't good for you either way. Part of the danger of RFK is he keeps talking about gold standard science and rebooting our public policy and science. The reality is he's doing the exact opposite. He's going to fast food restaurants, touting them on national television as the head of Health and Human Services, [saying that] a cheeseburger and french fries is good for you now because it's cooked in beef fat which is just the most insane thing on literally every single level. It has absolutely no basis in science. We're focusing on issues that are absolutely not going to make an iota of difference in public health. It's absolutely shocking. They have a platform that is fear-based on certain issues, like these food dyes or seed oils, which are absolutely not addressing the core of what we're eating and the core of what's really harming our health. The problem is the fries and the cheeseburger. It's not the oil that it's fried in. It's actually quite scary to me to see what's playing out. Why do you think the politics of food have changed in the years since you were in the White House, and why do you think MAHA ideas have such appeal? I don't exactly know for sure. In the age of social media, the thing that gets the algorithms the most activity is more extreme views. I think people are very vulnerable to very compelling, very scientifically sounding narratives that [MAHA influencers] all have, based on one study here or another study there, that can weave a narrative of fear. It's not like food dyes are good, I'm happy to see them go. But you get people scared of what they're eating to the point where people stop eating vegetables because they're worried about the pesticides, which is just not good for their health. This fear is definitely taking hold. I think it's because the mediums on which this information travels are exacerbating that fear. You already mentioned the food dye announcement and why that was concerning to you. What are some of the other actions that you think aren't necessarily achieving the stated goals? If you step back and start to look at what actions have actually been taken, what you're actually seeing is a full-on assault on science throughout HHS. You're seeing a complete gutting of NIH, which funds much of the research needed to understand what in hyper-processed foods is undermining people's health and how to actually identify those correlations so you can regulate it very aggressively. You're seeing the complete gutting or elimination of departments within CDC and FDA that oversee the safety of our food. Food toxicologists have been fired. There's a department in CDC that's in charge of assessing chronic health and environmental exposures to toxins. Those offices have been eliminated. The idea that somehow you're going to be more aggressively regulating based on the best science, while you're absolutely wholesale cutting scientific research and gutting the people who are in charge of overseeing the very industry that you're trying to clamp down on is a joke. Then look at the 'big, beautiful bill' that is being supported by this administration, and it's catastrophic to the public health of the United States of America. Eight million people are going to lose access to health care. Three million plus are going to lose SNAP assistance. Then we can get into USDA and EPA. Everybody's got to remember that the number one threat to the public health of the United States of America is climate change. If we continue on this path of pulling back every regulatory effort that's been made to try to transition our society to a much more sustainable, lower-carbon world, that's also preparing itself to deal with the volatility that's coming from the climate, we're not going to have food to eat. This idea that you're going to have big announcements about food dyes and Fruit Loops, while you completely roll back every effort to prepare our agricultural system and our food system to deal with climate change, you're gaslighting the American public. Have you spoken to the former first lady about MAHA at all? Not in any kind of depth. Have you ever been in touch with Kennedy? Have you ever talked to him about these issues? He's very close to a number of people I'm good friends with, but no, I have not. You noted Kennedy used to be a Democrat. His issues — his opposition to pesticides, his support for healthy nutrition, with all the caveats that we just discussed — these were Democratic issues. Now, this MAHA coalition helped Trump win the White House. Why do you think Democrats have ceded this terrain? The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue. These are kitchen table issues. Our very well-being, our ability to eat food that's not harming ourselves and our kids, is fundamental to life on planet Earth and what it means to have a vibrant society. The fact that Democrats, much to my chagrin, definitely not because of lack of trying, have not taken this issue up with great effort over the last 15 years is shameful. We're getting what we deserve here in some ways. I'm deeply critical of Democrats, with some exceptions. Sen. Cory Booker has been amazing on these issues. [Former Sen.] Jon Tester is also great. But it was never part of the platform, and it absolutely always should have been. If there's some common ground to be found with Republicans, then great. We could get a lot done. But we can't just turn over the keys to this issue to people who are not serious. When you worked in the Obama White House, you pushed better nutrition labeling, active living, bans on unhealthy foods in school meals and trans fat. The recent MAHA report pointed the finger at similar programs for chronic illness. Is that a place where you and MAHA advocates are on the same page, and how do you balance that with the concerns you've raised? There's no clean answer to that. We largely, not entirely, share the same critique when it comes to food. Vaccines are another thing which are important to also talk about. People are trying to pick the issue that they like and can get around and pretend like the rest isn't happening. It would be great if we got food dyes out, but it would pale in comparison to if he continues down the path to undermine vaccines as the foundation of public health and people start dying, like they are, with measles. That is not even close to a trade. For all of my food friends who read this, or everybody in policy who are like, 'Oh yeah, I can work with him on this issue, but I'm going to turn a blind eye to that,' that doesn't work. That's going to lead to devastating outcomes. On the report, I share the general critique of the problem. I spent my life saying those things and working on these issues. That's the easy part. What matters is what you do about it. How do you actually change what people are eating, and what is it going to take to really put the country on a different trajectory when it comes to health? So far, I've seen absolutely no indication that the issues that they're focused on are going to have any meaningful or measurable impact on public health. Frankly, there's many other things that I think are going to be extremely detrimental. We will see. We're only a few months in. I could, depending on what happens, have a different perspective in six months or 12 months. RFK has blamed the food industry for Americans' poor health. He's argued that government institutions are overwrought with corporate influence. Do you think he's right? And what do you think about RFK's approach to trying to curb corporate influence? I'm all for curbing corporate influence. I had some big fights with industry. I won some of them, and sometimes I got my ass kicked. It's the nature of Washington when you're threatening the basic interests of an industry. What's stunning to me is that the food industry so far has been silent. They haven't done anything to fight back, which says to me that they're not feeling threatened yet. I think they're waiting to see what's going to happen. I'm sure they're doing some stuff in the background, but this is nothing like what we were dealing with. I agree that we should put the public's best interest first, not succumb to industry influence. I think the way that RFK talks about it is a real overstatement down a very dark conspiracy theory. The idea that JAMA and the American Medical Association and the New England Journal are just like corporate journals that just put corporate, completely distorted research out for the sake of making profits, it's just not serious. He starts to discredit the very institutions, like HHS, that you actually need to do the work to rein in industry. The way that industry does make inroads is that they fund a lot of research. If you want to reduce industry influence, you should dramatically increase [government] investment in funding of scientific research on agriculture and climate change, on food and nutrition. One of the biggest fights in the Obama era was over stricter nutrition standards for school lunches. The administration won some of those battles, but quite a few children still have obesity, according to the latest data. Is there anything you wish the Obama administration had done differently? Are there things policymakers should be doing differently? School nutrition is just one part of a young person's diet. You're not going to solve kids' health issues just through school nutrition, but obviously it's a huge lever to pull. If we really want to make progress, you have to look much more holistically at the food environment that people are living in. This is generational work. It's going to take literally decades of work to shift, not just the policies, but our culture, our businesses, to change how people are eating. I think the one thing we missed would have been a much stricter restriction on sugar across the board. We had it for drinks,, but we didn't [apply it across the board], and that was a miss. We should have pushed harder on sugar. I think the policy was a really important start. It can always be improved and strengthened. Both the first Trump administration and this one are looking to roll back some of that. The thing that we have to not forget — and this is true for schools, and certainly true for SNAP and WIC — is the biggest problem is not enough money for these programs. I started doing a lot of work on finding ways to restrict sugary drinks as an example from the SNAP program. But if you want to do that and actually get the health outcomes you need, you need to also increase the total dollar amount that people have so they can purchase healthier food. Part of the reason why people are drinking these things is they're the cheapest available drink. Coke is cheaper than water sometimes. RFK recently called sugar 'poison.' Do you agree with that? One of their tactics to obfuscate truth in science is dosage, right? The amount that we're consuming matters. If you had a birthday cake on your birthday and you have a cookie — my kids eat a cookie, they're not dying, they're not being poisoned to death. They're fine. I think the problem is the amount of sugar we're consuming and the sizes of the portions we have. It's the cumulative amount of sugar. It's probably technically not exactly the right word, poison. But I don't take issue with that. I think the levels of sugar consumption for young people are deeply alarming and are absolutely going to drive preventable death and disease for millions and millions of people. It already is and will continue to do so. It is a very serious problem. But what do you do? I can't wait to see the policy proposals here. It's a tough problem to solve. It is not a problem that can be solved overnight, and it's going to take a very comprehensive effort to really shift the amount of sugar we're consuming, but it should be the goal of this administration. They should work very hard at it in a very serious and science-based way. Thus far, I have not seen that.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eat your beans — 1 cup a day cuts inflammation and bad cholesterol, scientists say
Beans of all kinds are nutritional powerhouses of fiber, protein, and antioxidant polyphenols. A new study found specific types of beans like chickpeas helped participants lower cholesterol levels. Eating a cup of beans per day could help lower inflammation, and they're cheap and easy to cook with. A daily dose of beans can cut cholesterol, lower inflammation, and may help fend off chronic illnesses like heart disease, new research suggests. A group of researchers from the Illinois Institute of Technology looked at 72 adults with prediabetes for three months, long enough to see changes in health metrics like blood sugar control. The participants were divided into three groups. One group was instructed to add a cup of black beans per day to their normal routine. Another group added a daily cup of chick peas. The third, the control group, ate white rice instead of beans. By the end of the 12-week study, participants who ate chickpeas reduced their cholesterol levels around 10%, from high — an average of 200.4 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) — to normal — 185.8 mg/dL. Participants who ate black beans saw a significant drop in their inflammation levels. The study, presented at the American Society for Nutrition's annual conference June 3, focused on people with prediabetes — a condition that affects more than a third of Americans. Many don't get diagnosed until it becomes advanced and is harder to manage. Diet strategies like adding beans could be a way to intervene before people develop diabetes or other health issues, Indika Edirisinghe, principal investigator in the study and professor Illinois Institute of Technology, told Business Insider. "The small change is helpful. Just 10% is like saving your life, saving your money. This is not rocket science." Beans are rich in fiber, a type of carbohydrate that helps support healthy digestion and metabolism. It also feeds beneficial bacteria in our gut known as the microbiome, which are linked to everything from good mental health to healthy aging. Beans also offer a range of polyphenols, plant-based compounds that help reduce inflammation and oxidative stress which contribute to disease. While a wealth of previous research has linked eating beans to longevity and heart health, many past studies weren't rigorous enough to show beans cause the benefits. This study used direct measurements of change like blood tests. They also uniquely assessed the health effects of different types of beans separately, instead of looking at legumes more generally. Having one group eat chickpeas and another eat black beans allowed researchers to look for potential benefits of different nutrients, Morganne Smith, a doctoral candidate at Illinois Institute of Technology who presented the study at the conference, told Business Insider. Don't be intimidated about adding beans to your daily diet. There are lots of ways to get creative without much time, prep work, or expensive ingredients. Smith said she's already a bean enthusiast, but her family has been enjoying them even more often recently with simple bean recipes. "I try to look for easy ways. Nothing too fancy," she said. To get started: Mix up a bean salad with chopped onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, and any leftover veggies you have on hand. Blend beans into a soup to create a thicker texture and add nutrients. Snack on hummus or other bean-based dips. Opt for chickpea pasta instead of wheat-based paste for more protein and fiber. Try beans for breakfast! Edirisinghe starts the day with chickpeas sauteed in coconut, olive oil, lemon juice, and a dash of salt and pepper. You can also experiment with different seasonings to create more variety in your bean regimen. Turmeric, for instance, can add earthiness and bright color, as well as a boost of anti-inflammatory benefits. Beans are also a healthy eating staple because they're both affordable and easy to find, said Smith. "On top of the health benefits, I'm excited about the idea that people will think 'That's really easy to just continue incorporating in my diet realistically,'" she said. Read the original article on Business Insider
