How Much Does A Vegan Diet Affect Biological Aging?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Slow Your Aging, One Meal At A Time
This one’s a straightforward one today, and the ““life hack” can be summed up:
Enjoy a vegan diet to enjoy younger biological age.
First, what is biological age?
Biological age is not one number, but a collection of numbers, as per different biomarkers of aging, including:
- Visual markers of aging (e.g. wrinkles, graying hair)
- Performative markers of aging (e.g. mobility tests)
- Internal functional markers of aging (e.g. tests for cognitive decline, eyesight, hearing, etc)
- Cellular markers of aging (e.g. telomere length)
We wrote more about this here:
Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?
A vegan diet may well impact multiple of those categories of aging, but today we’re highlighting a study (hot off the press; published only a few days ago!) that looks at its effect on that last category: cellular markers of aging.
There’s an interesting paradox here, because this category is:
- the most easily ignorable; because we all feel it if our knees are giving out or our skin is losing elasticity, but who notices if telomeres’ T/S ratio changed by 0.0407? ← the researchers, that’s who, as this difference is very significant
- the most far-reaching in its impact, because cellular aging in turn has an effect on all the other markers of aging
Second, how much difference does it make, and how do we know?
The study was an eight-week interventional identical twin study. This means several things, to start with:
- Eight weeks is a rather short period of time to accumulate cellular aging, let alone for an intervention to accumulate a significant difference in cellular aging—but it did. So, just imagine what difference it might make in a year or ten!
- Doing an interventional study with identical twin pairs already controlled for a lot of factors, that are usually confounding variables in population / cohort / longitudinal / observational studies.
Factors that weren’t controlled for by default by using identical twins, were controlled for in the experiment design. For example, twin pairs were rejected if one or more twin in a given pair already had medical conditions that could affect the outcome:
❝Inclusion criteria involved participants aged ≥18, part of a willing twin pair, with BMI <40, and LDL-C <190 mg/dL. Exclusions included uncontrolled hypertension, metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, heart/renal/liver disease, pregnancy, lactation, and medication use affecting body weight or energy.
Eligibility was determined via online screening, followed by an orientation meeting and in-person clinic visit. Randomization occurred only after completing baseline visits, dietary recalls, and questionnaires for both twins❞
~ Dr. Varun Dwaraka et al. ← there’s a lot of “et al.” to this one; the paper had 16 collaborating authors!
As to the difference it made over the course of the 8 weeks…
❝Various measures of epigenetic age acceleration (PC GrimAge, PC PhenoAge, DunedinPACE) were assessed, along with system-specific effects (Inflammation, Heart, Hormone, Liver, and Metabolic).
Distinct responses were observed, with the vegan cohort exhibiting significant decreases in overall epigenetic age acceleration, aligning with anti-aging effects of plant-based diets. Diet-specific shifts were noted in the analysis of methylation surrogates, demonstrating the influence of diet on complex trait prediction through DNA methylation markers.❞
~ Ibid.
You can read the whole paper here (it goes into a lot more detail than we have room to here, and also gives infographics, charts, numbers, the works):
Were they just eating more healthily, though?
Well, arguably yes, as the results show, but to be clear:
The omnivorous diet compared to the vegan diet in this study was also controlled; both groups were given a healthy meal plan for their respective diet. So this wasn’t a case of “any omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”, but rather “healthy omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”.
Again, the paper itself has the full details—a short version is that it involved a healthy meal kit delivery service, followed by ongoing dietician involvement in an equal and carefully-controlled fashion.
So, aside from that one group had an omnivorous meal plan and the other vegan, both groups received the same level of “healthy eating” support, guidance, and oversight.
But isn’t [insert your preferred animal product here] healthy?
Quite possibly! For general health, general scientific consensus is that eating at least mostly plants is best, red meat is bad, poultry is neutral in moderation, fish is good in moderation, dairy is good in moderation if fermented, eggs are good in moderation if not fried.
This study looked at the various biomarkers of aging that we listed, and not every possible aspect of health—there’s more science yet to be done, and the researchers themselves are calling for it.
It also bears mentioning that for some (relatively few, but not insignificantly few) people, extant health conditions may make a vegan diet unhealthy or otherwise untenable. Do speak with your own doctor and/or dietician if unsure.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
We would hypothesize, by the way, that the anti-aging benefits of a vegan diet are probably proportional to abstention from animal products—meaning that even if you simply have some “vegan days”, while still consuming animal products other days, you’ll still get benefit for the days you abstained. That’s just our hypothesis though.
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Sesame Seeds vs Poppy Seeds – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing sesame seeds to poppy seeds, we picked the poppy seeds.
Why?
It’s close, and they’re both very respectable seeds!
In terms of macros, their protein content is the same, while poppy seeds have a little less fat and more carbs, as well as slightly more fiber. A moderate win for poppy seeds on this one.
About that fat… The lipid profiles here see poppy seeds with (as a percentage of total fat, so notwithstanding that poppy seeds have a little less fat overall) more polyunsaturated fat and less saturated fat. Another win for poppy seeds in this case.
In the category of vitamins, poppy seeds contain a lot more vitamins B5 & E while sesame seeds contain notably more vitamins B3, B6 and choline. Marginal win for sesame this time.
When it comes to minerals, poppy seeds contain rather more calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese, while sesame seeds contain more copper, iron, and selenium. Marginal win for poppies here.
Note: it is reasonable to wonder about poppy seeds’ (especially unwashed poppy seeds’) opiate content. Indeed, they do contain opiates, and levels do vary, but to give you an idea: you’d need to eat, on average, 1kg (2.2lbs) of poppy seeds to get the same opiate content as a 30mg codeine tablet.
All in all, adding up the wins in each section, this one’s a moderate win for poppy seeds, but of course, enjoy both in moderation!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Chia Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Hemp Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Do we really need to burp babies? Here’s what the research says
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Parents are often advised to burp their babies after feeding them. Some people think burping after feeding is important to reduce or prevent discomfort crying, or to reduce how much a baby regurgitates milk after a feed.
It is true babies, like adults, swallow air when they eat. Burping releases this air from the top part of our digestive tracts. So when a baby cries after a feed, many assume it’s because the child needs to “be burped”. However, this is not necessarily true.
Why do babies cry or ‘spit up’ after a feed?
Babies cry for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with “trapped air”.
They cry when they are hungry, cold, hot, scared, tired, lonely, overwhelmed, needing adult help to calm, in discomfort or pain, or for no identifiable reason. In fact, we have a name for crying with no known cause; it’s called “colic”.
“Spitting up” – where a baby gently regurgitates a bit of milk after a feed – is common because the muscle at the top of a newborn baby’s stomach is not fully mature. This means what goes down can all too easily go back up.
Spitting up frequently happens when a baby’s stomach is very full, there is pressure on their tummy or they are picked up after lying down.
Spitting up after feeding decreases as babies get older. Three-quarters of babies one month old spit up after feeding at least once a day. Only half of babies still spit up at five months and almost all (96%) stop by their first birthdays.
There’s not much research out there on ‘burping’ babies. antoniodiaz/Shutterstock Does burping help reduce crying or spitting up?
Despite parents being advised to burp their babies, there’s not much research evidence on the topic.
One study conducted in India encouraged caregivers of 35 newborns to burp their babies, while caregivers of 36 newborns were not given any information about burping.
For the next three months, mothers and caregivers recorded whether their baby would spit up after feeding and whether they showed signs of intense crying.
This study found burping did not reduce crying and actually increased spitting up.
When should I be concerned about spitting up or crying?
Most crying and spitting up is normal. However, these behaviours are not:
- refusing to feed
- vomiting so much milk weight gain is slow
- coughing or wheezing distress while feeding
- bloody vomit.
If your baby has any of these symptoms, see a doctor or child health nurse.
If your baby seems unbothered by vomiting and does not have any other symptoms it is a laundry problem rather than something that needs medical attention.
It is also normal for babies to cry and fuss quite a lot; two hours a day, for about the first six weeks is the average.
This has usually reduced to about one hour a day by the time they are three months of age.
Crying more than this doesn’t necessarily mean there is something wrong. The intense, inconsolable crying of colic is experienced by up to one-quarter of young babies but goes away with time on its own .
If your baby is crying more than average or if you are worried there might be something wrong, you should see your doctor or child health nurse.
If your baby likes being ‘burped’, then it’s OK to do it. But don’t stress if you skip it. Miljan Zivkovic/Shutterstock Not everyone burps their baby
Burping babies seems to be traditional practice in some parts of the world and not in others.
For example, research in Indonesia found most breastfeeding mothers rarely or never burped their babies after feeding.
One factor that may influence whether a culture encourages burping babies may be related to another aspect of infant care: how much babies are carried.
Carrying a baby in a sling or baby carrier can reduce the amount of time babies cry.
Babies who are carried upright on their mother or another caregiver’s front undoubtedly find comfort in that closeness and movement.
Babies in slings are also being held firmly and upright, which would help any swallowed air to rise up and escape via a burp if needed.
Using slings can make caring for a baby easier. Studies (including randomised controlled trials) have also shown women have lower rates of post-natal depression and breastfeed for longer when they use a baby sling.
It is important baby carriers and slings are used safely, so make sure you’re up to date on the latest advice on how to do it.
So, should I burp my baby?
The bottom line is: it’s up to you.
Gently burping a baby is not harmful. If you feel burping is helpful to your baby, then keep doing what you’re doing.
If trying to burp your baby after every feed is stressing you or your baby out, then you don’t have to keep doing it.
Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University and Nina Jane Chad, Research Fellow, University of Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
I can’t afford olive oil. What else can I use?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
If you buy your olive oil in bulk, you’ve likely been in for a shock in recent weeks. Major supermarkets have been selling olive oil for up to A$65 for a four-litre tin, and up to $26 for a 750 millilitre bottle.
We’ve been hearing about the health benefits of olive oil for years. And many of us are adding it to salads, or baking and frying with it.
But during a cost-of-living crisis, these high prices can put olive oil out of reach.
Let’s take a look at why olive oil is in demand, why it’s so expensive right now, and what to do until prices come down.
Joyisjoyful/Shutterstock Remind me, why is olive oil so good for you?
Including olive oil in your diet can reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and improve heart health through more favourable blood pressure, inflammation and cholesterol levels.
This is largely because olive oil is high in monounsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols (antioxidants).
Some researchers have suggested you can get these benefits from consuming up to 20 grams a day. That’s equivalent to about five teaspoons of olive oil.
Why is olive oil so expensive right now?
A European heatwave and drought have limited Spanish and Italian producers’ ability to supply olive oil to international markets, including Australia.
This has been coupled with an unusually cold and short growing season for Australian olive oil suppliers.
The lower-than-usual production and supply of olive oil, together with heightened demand from shoppers, means prices have gone up.
We’ve seen unfavourable growing conditions in Europe and Australia. KaMay/Shutterstock How can I make my olive oil go further?
Many households buy olive oil in large quantities because it is cheaper per litre. So, if you have some still in stock, you can make it go further by:
- storing it correctly – make sure the lid is on tightly and it’s kept in a cool, dark place, such as a pantry or cabinet. If stored this way, olive oil can typically last 12–18 months
- using a spray – sprays distribute oil more evenly than pourers, using less olive oil overall. You could buy a spray bottle to fill from a large tin, as needed
- straining or freezing it – if you have leftover olive oil after frying, strain it and reuse it for other fried dishes. You could also freeze this used oil in an airtight container, then thaw and fry with it later, without affecting the oil’s taste and other characteristics. But for dressings, only use fresh oil.
I’ve run out of olive oil. What else can I use?
Here are some healthy and cheaper alternatives to olive oil:
- canola oil is a good alternative for frying. It’s relatively low in saturated fat so is generally considered healthy. Like olive oil, it is high in healthy monounsaturated fats. Cost? Up to $6 for a 750mL bottle (home brand is about half the price)
- sunflower oil is a great alternative to use on salads or for frying. It has a mild flavour that does not overwhelm other ingredients. Some studies suggest using sunflower oil may help reduce your risk of heart disease by lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol and raising HDL (good) cholesterol. Cost? Up to $6.50 for a 750mL bottle (again, home brand is about half the price)
- sesame oil has a nutty flavour. It’s good for Asian dressings, and frying. Light sesame oil is typically used as a neutral cooking oil, while the toasted type is used to flavour sauces. Sesame oil is high in antioxidants and has some anti-inflammatory properties. Sesame oil is generally sold in smaller bottles than canola or sunflower oil. Cost? Up to $5 for a 150mL bottle.
There are plenty of alternative oils you can use in salads or for frying. narai chal/Shutterstock How can I use less oil, generally?
Using less oil in your cooking could keep your meals healthy. Here are some alternatives and cooking techniques:
- use alternatives for baking – unless you are making an olive oil cake, if your recipe calls for a large quantity of oil, try using an alternative such as apple sauce, Greek yoghurt or mashed banana
- use non-stick cookware – using high-quality, non-stick pots and pans reduces the need for oil when cooking, or means you don’t need oil at all
- steam instead – steam vegetables, fish and poultry to retain nutrients and moisture without adding oil
- bake or roast – potatoes, vegetables or chicken can be baked or roasted rather than fried. You can still achieve crispy textures without needing excessive oil
- grill – the natural fats in meat and vegetables can help keep ingredients moist, without using oil
- use stock – instead of sautéing vegetables in oil, try using vegetable broth or stock to add flavour
- try vinegar or citrus – use vinegar or citrus juice (such as lemon or lime) to add flavour to salads, marinades and sauces without relying on oil
- use natural moisture – use the natural moisture in ingredients such as tomatoes, onions and mushrooms to cook dishes without adding extra oil. They release moisture as they cook, helping to prevent sticking.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Cherries vs Cranberries – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing cherries to cranberries, we picked the cherries.
Why?
In terms of macros, cherries have a little more protein (but it’s not much) while cranberries have a little more fiber. Despite this, cherries have the lower glycemic index—about half that of cranberries.
In the category of vitamins, cherries have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B9, and a little more choline, while cranberries have more of vitamins B5, B6, C, E, and K. A modest win for cherries here.
When it comes to minerals, things are more divided: cherries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while cranberries have more manganese. An easy win for cherries here.
This all adds up to a total win for cherries, but both of these fruits are great and both have their own beneficial properties (see our main features below!)
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Cherries’ Very Healthy Wealth Of Benefits!
- Health Benefits Of Cranberries (But: You’d Better Watch Out)
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Aspirin vs Cancer Metastasis
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Aspirin is a bit of a mixed bag.
In the category of things in its favor, it’s a modest analgesic with few side effects from occasional use, so it’s a good option if you have a headache, for example.
Unless you’re already on blood thinners or having a bleeding disorder, in which case, aspirin is not the thing to reach for.
About aspirin and heart disease
This is actually a complicated one, and we covered it at length in a dedicated main feature. If you want a one-line summary, it’s “chronic low-dose aspirin use can lower overall CVD risk, but does not reduce CVD mortality or all-cause mortality, and you may pay for it with gastrointestinal bleeding, and increased risk of ulcers“.
For a more nuanced explanation, see: Aspirin, CVD Risk, & Potential Counter-Risks
On the other hand, if you are having a heart attack and are waiting for the ambulance that you already called, and have aspirin to hand that you don’t have to go looking for, then it can be good to take a dose then.
For more on that, see: How To Survive A Heart Attack When You’re Alone
There are more problems
In the case of chronic use of low-dose aspirin, not only does it increase the risks of bleeding, especially gastrointestinal bleeding, and ulcers, but also it increases the risk of anemia. Given that anemia also gives the symptom “dizziness”, this is also a significant threat for increasing the incidence of falls in the older population, too, which can of course lead to serious complications and ultimately death.
For the science about this, see: Low-Dose Aspirin & Anemia
Now, about aspirin and cancer metastasis
This one’s a point in aspirin’s favor.
Cancer is, in and of itself, obviously a big problem. In terms of when it’s most likely to kill someone, that is usually when the cancer becomes metastatic, that is to say, it has spread.
So, while preventing cancer and, failing that, killing cancer are very important goals, there is a third axis to cancer care, which is preventing metastasis in someone who has cancer.
And that’s what aspirin does. How, you ask?
Scientists found this one out by accident!
They were doing genetic research in mice, to find genes that had an effect on metastasis. In the process, they found a certain gene that instructs the creation of a certain protein, and mice that lacked that gene (and thus its associated protein) had less metastasis.
The protein in question suppresses T-cells, which are programmed to recognize and kill metastatic cancer cells (amongst having other great jobs; they are an important part of the immune system in general, and one that declines with aging; most people in their 60s or older are producing very few T-cells).
About that, see: Focusing On Health In Our Sixties
Tracing the cell signaling, the researchers found that the protein is activated when T-cells are exposed to thromboxane A2 (or TXA2 to its friends).
And TXA2? That’s produced by platelets, and aspirin works by inhibiting TXA2 production, effectively making platelets (and thus the blood as a whole) less sticky.
So, that’s quite a few steps in the process, but ultimately:
- Aspirin inhibits TXA2 production
- Lower TXA2 levels mean ARHGEF1 (that’s the protein) isn’t activated
- ARHGEF1 not being activated means T-cells are free to do their thing
- T-cells are now free to kill metastatic cancer cells
You can read the paper here:
Aspirin prevents metastasis by limiting platelet TXA2 suppression of T cell immunity
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science (Without Being Itself Rooted in Scientific Method)
Yesterday, we asked you for your opinions on ayurveda, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses. Of those who responded…
- A little over 41% said “I don’t know what ayurveda is without looking it up”
- A little over 37% said “It is a fine branch of health science with millennia of evidence”
- A little over 16% said “It gets some things right, but not by actual science”
- A little over 4% said “It is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience”
So, what does the science say?
Ayurveda is scientific: True or False?
False, simply. Let’s just rip the band-aid off in this case. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily without merit, though!
Let’s put it this way:
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because scientific method has discerned that caffeine has vasoconstrictive and adenosine-blocking effects while also promoting dopaminergic activity, then your consumption of coffee is evidence-based and scientific. Great!
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because somebody told you that that somebody told them that it energizes you by balancing the elements fire (the heat of the coffee), air (the little bubbles on top), earth (the coffee grinds), water (the water), and ether (steam), then that is neither evidence-based nor scientific, but it will still work exactly the same.
Ayurveda is a little like that. It’s an ancient traditional Indian medicine, based on a combination of anecdotal evidence and supposition.
- The anecdotal evidence from ayurveda has often resulted in herbal remedies that, in modern scientific trials, have been found to have merit.
- Ayurvedic meditative practices also have a large overlap with modern mindfulness practices, and have also been found to have merit
- Ayurveda also promotes the practice of yoga, which is indeed a very healthful activity
- The supposition from ayurveda is based largely in those five elements we mentioned above, as well as a “balancing of humors” comparable to medieval European medicine, and from a scientific perspective, is simply a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
Note: while ayurveda is commonly described as a science by its practitioners in the modern age, it did not originally claim to be scientific, but rather, wisdom handed down directly by the god Dhanvantari.
Ayurveda gets some things right: True or False?
True! Indeed, we covered some before in 10almonds; you may remember:
Bacopa Monnieri: A Well-Evidenced Cognitive Enhancer
(Bacopa monnieri is also known by its name in ayurveda, brahmi)
There are many other herbs that have made their way from ayurveda into modern science, but the above is a stand-out example. Others include:
- Ashwagandha: The Root of All Even-Mindedness?
- Boswellia serrata (Frankincense) Against Pain and Depression/Anxiety
Yoga and meditation are also great, and not only that, but great by science, for example:
- NCCIH | Yoga for Health: Clinical Guidelines, Scientific Literature, Info for Patients
- The Neuroscience of Mindfulness: How Mindfulness Alters the Brain and Facilitates Emotion Regulation
Ayurveda is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience: True or False?
Also True! We covered why it’s a pseudoscience above, but that doesn’t make it potentially dangerous, per se (you’ll remember our coffee example).
What does, however, make it potentially dangerous (dose-dependent) is its use of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic:
Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
Some final thoughts…
Want to learn more about the sometimes beneficial, sometimes uneasy relationship between ayurveda and modern science?
A lot of scholarly articles trying to bridge (or further separate) the two were very biased one way or the other.
Instead, here’s one that’s reasonably optimistic with regard to ayurveda’s potential for good, while being realistic about how it currently stands:
Development of Ayurveda—Tradition to trend
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: