Low-calorie diets linked to surprising mental health effect, new research shows
Embarking on a low-calorie diet could potentially lead to negative mental health, researchers in Toronto, Canada, have revealed.
A new study, published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health, investigated how the adoption of restrictive diets could instigate depressive symptoms.
Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, researchers analyzed nearly 29,000 adults who reported their dietary habits and also completed a mental health questionnaire.
Nearly 8% of these adults reported depressive symptoms.
Compared to those who did not follow a specific diet, those who stuck to a calorie-restrictive diet — including overweight individuals — saw an increase in depressive symptom severity, the study found.
People who followed a nutrient-restricted diet saw a larger increase in symptoms, while men who followed any diet reportedly showed "higher somatic symptom scores" compared to non-dieters.
The researchers concluded that there are "potential implications of widely followed diets on depressive symptoms, and a need for tailored dietary recommendations based on BMI and sex."
Judith S. Beck, PhD, president of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy in Pennsylvania, reacted to these findings in an interview with Fox News Digital.
The expert, who was not involved in the research, noted that it only showed an association between low-calorie diets and depression.
"This is an important distinction, [because] correlation does not equal causation, and having a few depressive symptoms does not mean you have the condition of depression," she said.
Beck noted that depression and negative emotions can also be caused by multiple cognitive, emotional or behavioral factors that are "more directly associated with depressive symptoms."
Certified holistic nutritionist Robin DeCicco in New York City commented that most Americans would benefit from losing weight, as 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This can be done by reducing the intake of sugary drinks and processed foods, and learning how to incorporate more whole foods like lean protein, vegetables, fruits and nuts, recommended DeCicco, who also was not involved in the study.
The nutritionist also warned against following fad diets.
"It's not sustainable or healthy to follow these trends because, most often, they are not educating the public on the type of nutrients you need to function mentally and physically, which is why it doesn't surprise me that people can experience depressive and cognitive-affective symptoms when losing weight."
The quality of calories "matters dramatically," DeCicco noted.
"While weight loss is about calories in and calories out, it's also about the type of calories and what we need for fuel, protection against disease, and mental and physical satisfaction," she said.
"Food has the power to help us or harm us, and if we're not eating certain foods known to promote mental well-being, we will definitely suffer from cognitive impairment and unstable mood."
As an example, cutting out fats because they're high in calories — like salmon, avocado, olive oil and nuts — also cuts out nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, which can reduce inflammation, prevent disease and improve cognition, mood and brain health, DeCicco noted.
"If someone wants to lose weight but also has a health history of cognitive decline or is diagnosed with depression, it is even more important to emphasize the food groups mentioned above," DeCicco added.
Beck echoed the importance of eating in a "very healthy way," while also recommending that people consider cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).
For more Health articles, visit foxnews.com/health
"CBT helps people learn the cognitive (thinking) and behavioral skills they need to eat as healthily as possible given their circumstances, and to change their thinking so they can make long-term changes in their eating and improve their overall health," she said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the study researchers for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 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
2 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
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The cost of staying alive could become a lot more expensive for millions of Americans because of Trump drug tariffs
Americans would likely pay more for necessary everyday prescription drugs, such as insulin, painkillers, chemotherapy, or antibiotics, if President Donald Trump were to enact tariffs on pharmaceuticals, experts warn. In an effort to incentivize drug manufacturers to bring production back to the United States, Trump has proposed tariffing pharmaceuticals made overseas – which account for an overwhelming majority of everyday medicine used in the U.S. 'We're going to be doing that,' Trump said of pharmaceutical tariffs in April. 'That's going to be like we have on cars. You know we have a 25 percent tariff on cars, we have a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and that's what the [pharmaceutical] category fits right now.' 'The higher the tariff, the faster they come,' Trump said. But experts say that's not necessarily true and there would be tangible consequences to such action, from higher brand-name drug prices to generic drug shortages. 'If tariffs were applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases — on prices that we already pay way in excess of other countries,' Dr. Mariana Socal, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said. The U.S. imports a majority of its branded prescription drugs – or medications that are patented with a brand name such as Viagra, Wegovy, or Zoloft – from high-income countries. Dr. Jeromie Ballreich, an associated research professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said much of the manufacturing comes from Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland because they have favorable tax policies for companies. As a result, adding a tariff would only make it more expensive for pharmacies and insurance companies to keep them in supply. 'We would expect pharma to pass the costs onto the insurers and we would expect insurers to pass the cost onto the individual patients,' Ballreich said. 'So, if there is a 50 percent tariff on your insulin product because it's coming from Ireland, patients in Mississippi who get insulin – they will either be faced with a higher cost when they go up to the pharmacy to fill their insulin or they're going to face a higher indirect cost because the premiums of the insurance plan are going to go up,' he said. Ballreich said a tariff on countries that produce high quantities of branded drugs would put 'pressure' on public insurers like Medicare or Medicaid and private insurers. However, branded drugs only account for roughly 10 to 15 percent of prescriptions. A majority of Americans, up to 90 percent, use generic drugs, often manufactured in India and China, because they're cheaper. Making branded drugs less accessible through tariffs would only increase reliance on generic drugs, which could exacerbate shortages that already impact millions of Americans. '[Shortages] can have very significant implications in day-to-day clinical practice,' Socal said. 'For example, if you are administering chemotherapy for an oncology patient, that may have significant consequences even for the prognosis of that case moving forward.' In 2024, the U.S. experienced a shortage of more than 300 drugs – 70 percent of which were generic prescriptions. Socal said that when patients are not able to access a more affordable version of their prescription, it means they may put their health at risk by skipping a dosage, taking a lower dosage, or not filling their prescription at all. Otherwise, they're forced to turn to the more expensive branded version. 'Those more expensive drugs are not always the best,' Socal said. 'Very frequently, and we saw this with chemotherapy shortages, the available drugs are second-line drugs.' The president has indicated that any negative impact from tariffs may be temporary and worth it to bring manufacturing and jobs back. 'We're doing it because we want to make our own drugs,' Trump said. But Ballreich and Socal are more skeptical. 'Tariffs are a very blunt instrument to incentivize domestic U.S. manufacturing of the branded drugs we use,' Ballreich said. Given pharmaceutical companies have moved outside of the U.S. for tax purposes, Ballreich says tax policy may be a better way to incentivize them, especially since many of those drugs are more difficult to manufacture. 'It's not just a very simple chemical plant; these tend to be very complex,' he said. Socal suggested a better strategy would be to understand where drugs are being manufactured and which ones would make more sense to bring to the U.S. — since even those manufactured locally often rely on certain imported ingredients and materials. 'Having tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming from abroad can actually also hurt our domestic manufacturers,' he says. While the president has not officially implemented any tariff policy on pharmaceuticals yet, he said, in April, that the plan would take effect in the 'not too distant future.'
