A New Study Reveals There's A Specific Diet Linked To A Significantly Lower Dementia Risk
A new study suggests that a specific diet could lower your dementia risk.
Researchers analyzing data from nearly 93,000 American adults found that those who closely followed the MIND diet had a 9 percent lower risk of developing dementia.
The MIND diet stands for Mediterranean–DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay.
If you've been paying attention to health and wellness headlines over the past few years, you'll already know that your diet impacts everything from gut health to energy levels, but new research suggests it may even influence your dementia risk.
That's the major takeaway from the study, which was presented at the American Society for Nutrition's annual meeting. The study pinpoints a specific eating plan—the MIND diet—as having a meaningful impact on dementia risk.
Of course, following a specific diet won't automatically wipe away any risk of developing dementia, but neurologists say these new findings are worth paying attention to. Here's why that is, and what they make of the results.
Meet the experts: Clifford Segil, DO, is a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA; Amit Sachdev, MD, MS, is the medical director in the Department of Neurology at Michigan State University
For the study, researchers analyzed data from nearly 93,000 American adults who participated in the Multiethnic Cohort Study, a long-term study that started in the '90s. At the start of the study, the participants were between 45 and 75 years old. During the study period, more than 21,000 developed Alzheimer's disease or related dementias.
The researchers discovered that study participants who closely followed the MIND diet had a 9 percent lower risk of developing dementia. There was a difference in race, too: People who were African American, Latino, or White had a 13 percent lower risk.
But the researchers also discovered that people who followed the MIND diet more closely over 10 years, even if they weren't super consistent at the start of the study, had a 25 percent lower risk of dementia compared to those who stopped adhering as much to the eating plan over time.
The MIND diet stands for Mediterranean–DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. It's an iteration of the Mediterranean diet that is focused on eating plant-based foods with the goal of preventing dementia, according to the National Institute on Aging (NIA).
The MIND diet encourages people to focus on eating green leafy vegetables, berries, whole grains, beans, and nuts. It also encourages followers to have olive oil and one or more weekly servings of fish, while limiting red meat, sweets, cheese, butter and margarine, and fast and fried food, per the NIA.
The study didn't find that following a MIND diet caused a drop in dementia risk—it just found a link between people who followed the diet and lower risk. But neurologists say there could be something behind this link.
'The MIND diet is generally a balanced diet that manages portion control and offers a diversity of food choices,' says Amit Sachdev, MD, MS, medical director in the Department of Neurology at Michigan State University. 'This approach offers benefits for improving cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health. By improving blood flow to the brain, overall brain health can be improved.'
Clifford Segil, DO, a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, agrees. 'Eating healthy prevents cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease which, in turn, prevents heart attacks and strokes,' he says.
That question is still under investigation, Dr. Segil says. 'Many diets have been proposed to decrease your risk of getting Alzheimer's dementia as we age and it still remains challenging to see any diet is 'neuro-protective' against getting Alzheimer's dementia,' he adds.
Still, Dr. Segil suggests that it may be best to avoid diets that are high in fats and sugars, and limit simple carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. (All of these food factors have been linked to bodily inflammation, which is associated with dementia risk.) 'Eating a balanced diet of proteins, vegetables, and vitamins, and drinking water are healthy choices which can make you more healthy—and maybe your brain more healthy,' he says.
You Might Also Like
Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream
These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
34 minutes ago
US women waiting longer to have children, CDC data shows
The age of motherhood in America is steadily climbing, with new mothers waiting longer to have their first child, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. The average age for all U.S. mothers giving birth reached nearly 30 years (29.6) in 2023, marking a significant increase from 28.7 in 2016. First-time mothers are now typically 27.5 years old, up from 26.6 in 2016. This upward trend isn't new – it's part of a decades-long shift in American family planning. Since 1970, when the average first-time mother was just 21.4 years old, the age has steadily increased, with the most dramatic rises occurring after 2009. The report reveals large demographic and geographic differences in maternal age. Women in large metropolitan areas tend to have their first child at 28.5 years, while those in the most rural areas start families nearly four years earlier, at 24.8 years. The trend toward later motherhood spans across all racial and ethnic groups, though significant disparities exist. Asian women had the highest average age for first-time births at 31.5 years in 2023, showing the largest increase of 1.4 years since 2016. White women averaged 28.3 years at first birth in 2023, up from 27.4 in 2016. Black and Hispanic women had similar average ages for first-time births at 25.9 and 25.7 years, respectively, in 2023, both showing roughly a one-year increase from 2016. The shift toward later parenthood is particularly evident in certain age groups. Between 2016 and 2023, first births among women 35 and older increased by 25%, while births among those less than 25 years old dropped by 26%. The rate remained stable for women between 25 and 29 years old. Dr. Andrei Rebarber, director of Maternal-Fetal Medicine at Mount Sinai West, has observed this trend firsthand in New York City. "There probably are multiple factors that have affected this statistic," Rebarber said in a statement to ABC News. "Pregnant people are choosing when to have their children often based on financial stability, timing of stable relationships, various personal goals, and career aspirations." Rebarber, who also serves as president of Maternal Fetal Medicine Associates, PLLC, and Carnegie Imaging for Women, PLLC, points to technological advances as another key factor. "Advances in reproductive technologies allow patients to have greater control over their reproduction timing and are under less pressure to reproduce at earlier maternal ages," he notes.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Reacts to Donald Trump's 'Unprecedented' Medicaid Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed concern for the privacy of immigrants in his state, following reports that the Trump administration has shared Medicaid data with immigration officials. An internal memo and emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. "We deeply value the privacy of all Californians," Newsom's office told Newsweek in a statement. "This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans' privacy rights in propaganda." Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department for Health and Human Services for comment via email and contact form Friday afternoon. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. More Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Why It Matters Reports of increased data sharing between federal agencies for the purpose of immigration enforcement have caused concerns for several weeks. The Trump administration has said the data is vital in finding illegal immigrants who should be deported. What To Know The dataset included the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. Newsom's office said it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some states' Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with "unsatisfactory immigration status." In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's February 19 executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that complying would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. "Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS," Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is allowed only for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a "longstanding policy," wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees Medicaid. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of "the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today," according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. "DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid," said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added, needed to guard against the "legal risk" they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'Concerning' Development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District of Columbia, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll—with full benefits—in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants "opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hard-working Americans to foot the bill." All of the states—California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado—have Democratic governors. As a result of his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year that he would freeze enrollment in the program. Illinois will shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. What People Are Saying U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told AP that the data sharing was legal: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." California Governor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security—which is itself legally dubious—will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. "Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians' privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety." What Happens Next Republicans in Congress are continuing to look to limit undocumented immigrants from accessing federal programs while continuing to scrutinize whether sanctuary jurisdictions allow them to receive benefits. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Kennedy is on an anti-vaxx mission to reshape federal guidelines
On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote in the Wall Street Journal that 'Vaccines have become a divisive issue in American politics,' and 'The U.S. faces a crisis of public trust.' 'Whether toward health agencies, pharmaceutical companies or vaccines themselves, public confidence is waning,' Kennedy warned. What was his solution? He abruptly fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the committee that has assured vaccine safety in the U.S. without political interference since 1964. Predictably, he is now repopulating the panel with like-minded individuals who will probably make recommendations that diverge from the mainstream medical and public health community and align with his longstanding anti-vaccine vision. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices typically includes infectious disease, immunology, medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in children and adults. These members adhere to strict conflict of interest guidelines, and the meetings are open to the public. The panel reviews data related to both new and established vaccines using a detailed, evidence-based methodology in making recommendations. This process ensures that decisions are based on data and facts and are free of political or financial interests. Kennedy's move marks a landmark victory for the modern and evolving anti-vaccine movement, which now has a front seat in the Trump administration. Today's anti-vaccine movement began percolating in 1998 with a faulty scientific report linking the measles vaccine to autism. Despite the retraction of the report and numerous scientific studies showing no support for the vaccine-autism link, this notion has gained traction and now permeates American politics, undermining basic pediatric healthcare. Over the past five years, largely due to the politics surrounding COVID-19, anti-vaccine sentiment has combusted. It is staggering to reflect on its recently growing scope. With thousands of weekly deaths and mass societal disruption from COVID-19, our nation clamored for a vaccine as a pathway to normalization. The Trump administration launched Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, with an initial investment of $18 billion to develop solutions. The nation breathed a sigh of relief when COVID-19 vaccines became available in December 2020, as our pathway out of the pandemic was before us. These feelings were reminiscent of the jubilation following Jonas Salk's development of the polio vaccine 70 years ago, which put an end to a paralytic illness that affected about 16,000 children each year in the U.S. Although some politicians may overlook this fact, both Republican and Democratic leaders lined up to promote and extol the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccination when it became available. Our nation was politically unified over the first half of the year after the vaccines became available, and we watched death rates fall. However, in April 2021, shortly after the Biden administration actively promoted COVID-19 vaccines, many Republican governors backed off from their promotion. Instead, several supported the notion that it was better to get immunity by infection rather than vaccination. Some also endorsed the practice of contracting COVID-19, followed by the use of monoclonal antibodies, rather than getting vaccinated, a strategy that was significantly more expensive and riskier. With fewer Republicans taking the vaccine, by the summer of 2021, the most significant risk factor for death from COVID-19 was not necessarily age or underlying medical condition, but whether you were a Republican or Democrat, leading to the notion of 'Red COVID.' This was 'the moment the anti-vaccine movement had been waiting for,' as it hitched itself to Republican politicians, leading to a significant spillover effect onto other vaccines. Anti-vaccine politicians, including Kennedy, received millions of dollars in campaign contributions, making routine childhood vaccinations a political issue rather than a health issue. We are now in a situation where the politicization of COVID-19 vaccines and the false attack on other vaccines now dominate news, leaving the public confused and healthcare providers frustrated. Mixed messaging from the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the tepid federal response to the measles outbreak currently affecting several states, reveals an inconsistent approach that does little to reassure citizens. Sadly, this messaging occurs when parents are questioning vaccinating their children more than ever before, and vaccination rates are declining. Now he says the justification for firing the vaccine panel's members is a lack of public confidence in federal vaccine guidance. Thus, we are in a situation where the fabricated narrative of anti-vaccine proponents with loud political bullhorns is being used to destroy a foundational scientific group that has kept us safe from vaccine-preventable diseases for decades. If new federal recommendations are implemented, it will prompt the medical and public health communities to issue their own guidelines, which may not be the same. Two weeks ago, following Kennedy's recommendation that healthy children and pregnant women should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, this scenario played out as the CDC and prominent medical organizations issued differing guidance. This contributes to public uncertainty and will hurt children and their families, as growing numbers of unvaccinated children will needlessly be harmed, hospitalized or die from vaccine-preventable illnesses. However, that is not all that the medical and public health communities need to fear. We now regularly see the Trump administration retaliate against those who do not align with the administration's policies in law firms, universities or state governments. We can also anticipate that funding will fall for longstanding federal vaccination programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services will remove certain vaccines from mandatory insurance payment, limiting their uptake. Thus, a growing number of children will be harmed, hospitalized, and die from vaccine-preventable illnesses. As the medical community lines up to condemn the recent firings and begins to release vaccine recommendations in opposition to Health and Human Services, it needs to prepare itself to answer the question: What happens when we, and the way we practice medicine, become the next target of the Trump administration? Scott Rivkees, MD, is a pediatrician and professor of practice at Brown University. He is the former state surgeon general and secretary of Health of Florida. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
