Consider the almond.

Almonds and other nuts are often touted as healthy snacks, because they can help you maintain a healthy weight and are linked to a lower risk of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

But almonds are grown in drought-stricken California, and the amount of water required to produce them has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. So if you're an environmentally minded eater who also wants to embrace a healthy diet, are almonds a responsibly green snack?

Relatively speaking, yes, says ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota.

In a vast new analysis published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Tilman and his co-authors looked at the health and environmental impacts of 15 different food groups, including nuts, fruits, vegetables, red meat, dairy, eggs, fish, olive oil, legumes and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The foods were ranked relative to one another based on how they influence the risk of disease and the toll they take on the planet in terms of water and land use, greenhouse gas emissions and how they impact pollution of water and soil.

Most of the time, the researchers found that foods that promote good health also tended to be better for the planet and vice versa. While nuts require lots of water to produce, Tilman says, water was just one factor that affected their environmental ranking.

"If water is going to be used to irrigate crops, it would seem better for it to be used to grow healthy crops," he says. Producing a serving of nuts has about five times the negative effects on the environment compared with producing a serving of vegetables, according to the study.

That may sound like a lot, until you compare that to red meat; both processed and unprocessed, it's "uniformly bad," Tilman says. Producing a serving of processed red meat, the researchers found, has about 40 times the negative environmental impact of producing a serving of vegetables and eating an extra daily serving raises the relative risk of overall mortality by 40 percent.

"That doesn't mean you're going to die with a 40 percent chance in a given year," Tilman notes. "It just means whatever your chance was of dying that year for your age, [the relative risk is] about 40 percent larger."

However, just because a food is bad for us doesn't always mean it's bad for the planet. Sugary beverages, for instance, have been linked to an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, but the study found their environmental impact isn't much more than that of growing vegetables. On the flip side, fish consumption is associated with a lower risk of several diseases, but it's not as great for the planet as a plant-based diet.

That said, Tilman notes that how a fish is caught or grown matters a lot. Fish caught by trawlers in the open ocean have a much higher environmental impact because these boats use "lots of diesel fuel for not a lot of fish," he says in an email. "Fish such as tuna and salmon caught on lines or with seine nets near the surface, and aquaculture fish such as salmon, steelhead, catfish and tilapia grown in ponds, lochs, fjords and ocean cages have moderate greenhouse gas emissions per serving that are about 6 times those of the typical plant-based foods."

To reach their conclusions on diet and health, the researchers looked at 19 previous meta-analyses that followed millions of people over time, mostly in Western nations. They used that data to calculate how eating an extra serving of a given food each day affected the relative risk of colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes, as well as overall mortality. Data on the environmental impact of food was derived from life cycle analyses, which looked at the land, equipment and other resources required to grow or raise a food.

"This is a useful study because it aims to compare, using similar and consistent methods, how different foods influence the joint health of humans and the planet," says Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University.

Despite recent controversy over the science on red meat and health, these findings are in line with the overall body of evidence that suggests that cutting back on processed red meat is a healthy choice, he says. And if you do eat red meat, he says, how the cattle was raised matters.

Jessica Fanzo, a professor of global food and agriculture policy at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in the current research, says that the big takeaway message for consumers is this. "If you want to care about the environment and your own health, eating less red and processed meat is key." And, she says, if you substitute something like fish, "think a little bit more about how those are sourced and how they're raised."

Continue reading here:
Is A Diet That's Healthy For Us Also Better For The Planet? Most Of The Time, Yes - NPR

Theres not a universal diet that is going to work for everyone. Try as many fad diets as you can from Keto to vitamin IV drips these diets, often covered by the media as the next secret to weight loss and healthier living, dont always work.

In fact, these diets have actually harmed half of Americans whove tried them, according to new research.

Fifty percent of Americans who had a diet go wrong said it was due to a vitamin or supplement that harmed them more than they benefit from them. A study commissioned by Advanced Orthomolecular Research with OnePoll found that only a third (32%) of 2,000 responses said a trend diet often helps them achieve their goal.

The survey looked at nutrition trends Americans and trying and researchers wanted to see how theyre finding these so-called diets.

More than half of the respondents found their trend diet by swiping on social media, according to the survey.

Fifty-one percent of participants said they were likely to find out about a new nutrition trend through Twitter, Instagram, and other social media outlets. Surprisingly, that number was the same for people who took dietary advice from their doctor or health care professional.

However, the most popular way for Americans to find their next diet was on the internet (53%.)

Nutritional trends are like a flavor of the month, some pop-up out of nowhere only to disappear and become less popular once something else is being dubbed the next weight-loss solution.

Respondents said the most popular nutrition trends were drinking celery juice (79%), clean eating (78%), and weight-loss team (78%).

Gummy vitamins and weight-loss supplements were also popular responses by participants. Personalized vitamins and CBD products were also tried, too.

Top nutrition trends tried by respondents

1. Drinking celery juice: 79%2. Clean eating: 78%3. Weight-loss tea: 78%4. Gummy vitamins: 76%5. Weight-loss supplements: 76%6. Personalized vitamins: 75%7. CBD products: 75%8. Vitamin IV drips: 70%9. Blood-type diet: 69%10. Personalized/DNA-based nutrition: 68%

Read this article:
This is where the majority of Americans find their next diet idea - Ladders

BANGOR, Maine Diets...diets..diets! We hear about them all the time and might have even tried some ourselves in the quest to lose weight and stay fit but experts say just because something is working for you, doesn't mean it will work for your pet.

"You need to see something that actually makes you feel good about what you are doing... good about what you are eating," said Jackie Conn, the manager of Weight Watchers Maine.

Pet owners sometimes think buying grain-free products or giving your furry friend a vegan or vegetarian products or raw foods will help them but actually this trend can cause health problems for many pets.

"There are so many ways that people are choosing for themselves to eat, and often times trying to choose something unique for their pet," said Dr. David Cloutier, veterinarian and owner of theVeazie Veterinary Clinic.

Many give leftovers including meat and chicken scraps to pets but Cloutier says theses can cause harm in the long run and cause animals to gain weight.

"That becomes the go-to for everyone, I am going to give them meat scraps, I am going to give them chicken, I am giving them an egg. People always tend to think protein. We see a lot of dogs that are overweight. We are constantly battling overweight dogs," says Cloutier.

Cloutier says dogs should NOT regularly be fed the things you typically eat. Fruits and vegetables are fine, with the exception of grapes and raisins.

Cats, on the other hand, are meat-eaters. The smartest move for them is to buy a nutritionally complete cat food.

In just the last few months Cloutier has seen five cases of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in dogs. He thinks it may well have been an issue of diet, especially owners that only give grain-free products to their dogs.

NCM

"All of those owners were unaware that this was a potential risk and most of them, actually all of them, unfortunately, were led to believe that they were feeding their dog a more healthy diet," said Cloutier.

Cloutier says it is important that pet owners stick to the standard diet for cats and dogs.

Here is the original post:
Pet diet trends can have negative health consequences according to experts - NewsCenterMaine.com WCSH-WLBZ

If youre like me, you cant help but snack every now and then (or always!).

If youre also like me, you also dont buy them so that you arent tempted to ruin your diet. The good news? Just because you find yourself munching, however, doesnt mean it has to ruin your diet.

Eating snacks is actually a good thing. When you snack throughout the day, youre actually curbing your hunger to prevent overeating and overindulging when you actually do sit down to eat your meal. If snacking is done right, there can also be some nutritional benefits. Though, you may not always want to pick up some grapes or nuts when youre in the mood for a fix.

For those who have a sweet tooth every now and then, and need to step outside of traditional clean eating, here are a few great on-the-go snack options.

My:Mo Mochi Cashew Cream Frozen Dessert

Munk Pack

RSP Nutrition Protein Brownie

Simply Delish Pudding

Truth Bar

Oats Overnight

SmartSweets

ICONIC Protein

Smartfood Smart50

Raw Generation

Beanfields

Love Good Fats

Original post:
12 Healthy Snacks To Keep Your Diet On Track - Essence

Our overall health is linked to the gut and diet is the most powerful tool for shaping your gut microbiota, states Liping Zhao, who we interviewed at the 8th Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, in Miami.

In his lab, at the Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology at Rutgers University in New Jersey (USA), Professor Zhao and his team design pioneering dietary interventions, applying genomic tools to understand the impact of food on gut microbiota and how that can be used to improve human metabolic health. As part of their work, they have discovered how a high fiber diet can change the gut microbiome and thus benefit patients with type 2 diabetes.

According to Zhao, our gut works like a fermenter. Bacteria live in our gut and take nutrients from our diet every day. Any non-digestible or undigested dietary components will escape digestion through absorption and then become available to gut bacteria. That is why diet is so powerful, because it feeds nutrients to our gut microbiota.

Of all the dietary components, fiber is crucial. But, as Professor Zhao points out, it is not just any fiber; rather, its the fiber that is part of your traditional diet. In other words, the diet with which we have co-evolved for thousands of years.

If you are born in a Mediterranean country, better to keep your Mediterranean diet, he says. Over generations, your family has been eating a traditional local diet, so the bacteria you take from your parents, and particularly from your mother, have been feeding on that same diet. Thats why our bacteria are most likely using the same nutrients.

The reason behind Professor Zhaos assertion is that he has found there is a core group of bacteria that act like the foundation guild of gut health. And if we provide enough nutrients for this core group of bacteriaand avoid letting pathogenic bacteria growthey will protect us and keep us healthy.

That is also why Zhao advises that if you move to a different country, for instance, youd better watch out. If the new diet doesnt have the necessary fiber to support your original foundation guild, this could cause a change in the core bacteria that provide the basis of gut health, leaving room for the gradual proliferation of pathogenic bacteria. And even remaining in the same country but enjoying everyday foods from other parts of the world can cause similar effects.

Moreover, it is not just what you eat, but also how you cook it. The way pasta and risotto are cooked al dente in the Mediterranean diet means the starch is less digestible and becomes a dietary fiber that promotes beneficial bacteria. As a result, explains Professor Zhao, The way you cook will decide whether the nutrients are available to you or to your gut bacteria.

More:
Why the fiber in your traditional diet could be the most beneficial for your gut microbiota - Gut Microbiota for Health

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The PREVIEW project is a multinational diabetes prevention project for which I was fortunate to be one of the principal investigators. It is funded by the European Union and includes six European countries plus Australia and New Zealand.

We recruited 2300 people with proven prediabetes. The trial is different from many other diabetes prevention studies in that it had an initial weight-loss period on a low-calorie diet over 8 weeks. Participants had to lose 8% of their body weight in order to qualify for the next phase.

The successful participants, which were the vast majority, were then put into a diet and physical activity program for the next 3 years. The diet alternatives were high protein with a low glycemic index, or moderate protein with a moderate glycemic index. The physical activity interventions had the same total amount of activity but either at higher intensity for a shorter duration or at lower intensity for a longer duration.

Participants were introduced to the diet and activity program by dieticians and exercise therapists who had been trained centrally within the consortium to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapybased and motivational interviewingbased advice, teaching them about diet, diet composition, and types of physical activity.

Participants had frequent meetings with these specialists to start with, but they became less and less frequent over the 3-year period such that, in the final year, they didn't see them at all. They saw them at 24 months and then at the very end, at 36 months.

As you would expect with a program like this, the dropout rate was high. Overall, we had a little over 50% of participants drop out, so we ended up with 950 people at 3 years.

Based upon their initial risk, we had predicted that 21% would develop type 2 diabetes at 3 years. The expectation was that participants on the moderate-protein diet with activity would drop the rate of type 2 diabetes to approximately 15%, and those on the high-protein diet would drop it even further, to about 10%. It was very exciting, then, that only 4% developed type 2 diabetes, but it was disappointing that there was no difference between the diets.

We think that's partly because the initial weight loss was a real determinant of success. Participants maintained at least some of that weight loss over 3 years with good dietary and physical activity advice. It actually didn't matter about the diet composition because both diets were healthy. The diet that was higher in protein and lower in glycemic index was deemed to be healthier, but it wasn't sufficiently better than the moderate-protein diet to make a difference.

The challenge now is what to do going forward. Clearly, 3 years is good, but it's not a lifetime. Somehow, we need to develop systems to help these people manage their problems, keep their weight off, continue to be physically active, and minimize the chance of transitioning from their prediabetic condition to type 2 diabetes.

Interestingly, among the participants who finished, 18% no longer had prediabetes; they had glucose levels in the healthy range. Certainly, they need to maintain that state. The other participants who still have prediabetes need some sort of help in the future to remain in the prediabetic condition or to move toward normal, healthy glucose levels.

Ian MacDonald, PhD, is a professor of metabolic physiology at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom.His research is concerned with the functional consequences of metabolic and nutritional disturbances in health and disease, with specific interests in obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and exercise.He has published over 350 peer-reviewed original research papers, as well as reviews, book chapters, and invited contributions.

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

More here:
'No Difference Between the Diets' in Reversing Prediabetes - Medscape