50 years of experience distilled down to one hour!

A man spends 50 years teaching at MIT.

He knows his time is running out.

So he records one last lecture — everything he knows, distilled into a single hour.

He died 5 months later.

This is that lecture.

An inflammation expert says non-alcoholic wine is just as good for your heart as the real thing

 It’s no secret that drinking the odd glass of red wine can have positive health benefits, but did you know that a non-alcoholic equivalent could also do the same good?
Non-alcoholic red wine could help lower cholesterol just as effectively as the regular stuff, according to an expert in cardiovascular diseases.
Ioannis Zabetakis, associate professor in food chemistry at the University of Limerick in the Republic of Ireland, says both regular and non-alcoholic red wine contain polar lipids—molecules that contain fatty acid chains—that can help reduce inflammation, a key factor in cardiovascular diseases.
[the rest of the article is here]

======
Our relevant article is here
Bioactive lipids derived from red wine, beers, and their dealcoholized variants inhibit platelet-activating factor (PAF) induced platelet activation in vitro

Anticoagulant Effect and Platelet Bioactivities of a Novel Cephalopod Byproduct Oil

 off the press

Anticoagulant Effect and Platelet Bioactivities of a Novel Cephalopod Byproduct Oil

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of a novel marine byproduct oil extracted from the cephalopod Nototodarus sloani (Arrow squid) on human platelets and red blood cells (RBCs). The oil was produced using enzyme-assisted extraction under varying pH conditions without further refining. The level of oxidation of the different oils was determined. Hemocompatibility and oxidative effects were evaluated after 24 h of incubation at physiological and fever-like conditions. Hemolysis levels varied with extraction conditions and with the amount of oil in contact with the cells. Oils extracted using 0.5% Alcalase® and 1% ProtamexTM ® at pH 5.9 demonstrated superior hemocompatibility. Intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels presented a dose-dependent increase, with higher levels observed in oils extracted at a higher pH. Although there was no direct correlation between hemolysis rate, ROS levels and oxidation, the less oxidized oils presented lower ROS formation and better hemocompatibility. Additionally, the oils exhibited a strong anticoagulant effect and low IC50 values against TRAP-6-induced platelet aggregation. These findings highlight the potential of Nototodarus sloani as a source of bioactive compounds, providing initial evidence of potential cardiovascular benefits and resource valorization, underlining the importance of extraction conditions in determining the biological properties of marine byproduct oils.

Keywords: 

anticoagulant effect; hemocompatibility; Nototodarus sloani; marine oils; oil extraction methods; platelets; byproducts valorization

Four foods that can help improve your cholesterol and boost heart health

Diet can play a key role in preventing heart disease. Marian Weyo/ Shutterstock

Ioannis Zabetakis, University of Limerick

Cholesterol has long been seen as a key culprit in cardiovascular disease. While it’s true that cholesterol does play a role, not all cholesterol is bad for us.

There are two main types of cholesterol.

The first type is low-density lipoprotein or LDL cholesterol. This is often referred to as the “bad” cholesterol because it causes fat to collect in the arteries as plaques. This makes it harder for blood to pump throughout the body, leading to greater risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The second type is high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol — often referred to as “good” cholesterol.

HDL cholesterol has two key roles in the body. It removes excess bad cholesterol from the tissues and arteries and returns it to the liver so it can be removed from the body. HDL cholesterol also protects the artery walls so there’s less risk of a blockage forming.

Boosting HDL

The ratio of LDL to HDL in a person’s body is related to their cardiovascular disease risk. If you have a higher ratio of HDL to LDL, your cardiovascular disease risk will be lower. But if you have a lower ratio of HDL to LDL, you’ll have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Fortunately, it’s possible to shift this ratio and increase HDL cholesterol levels. This can be achieved by exercising, quitting smoking and managing your weight, for example.

Certain foods can also improve HDL ratios.

The main way that diet helps boost HDL ratios is by reducing inflammation. Inflammation is a key problem in cardiovascular disease.

Inflammation makes it possible for blood platelets to stick together in our arteries at a much higher rate. This makes it difficult for the HDL cholesterol to do its job, which increases risk of blood clots forming and raises likelihood of heart disease.

HDL helps prevent bad cholesterol from building up. NPW-STUDIO/ Shutterstock

By eating anti-inflammatory foods, it makes it easier for HDL cholesterol to do its job of sweeping away excess LDL cholesterol. Here are four examples you can include in your diet:

1. Fruits and vegetables

Research shows that people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables have higher HDL cholesterol levels and a better total cholesterol ratio. They also have lower blood pressure and healthier blood sugar levels, all of which can be supportive to heart health.

Fruits and vegetables exert their positive effects by trapping free radicals.

Free radicals are highly reactive, unstable molecules that can cause damage to cells and trigger inflammation in the body. By preventing inflammation, this makes it possible for HDL cholesterol to continue doing its job of removing bad cholesterol and protecting the arteries.

2. Oily fish and olive oil

Oily fish (such as salmon, sardines and tuna) and olive oil are rich in a type of fat called “polar lipids”.

These lipids are able to reach the bloodstream more quickly compared to other types of fat, allowing them to reduce inflammation and prevent the aggregation of platelets more effectively.

Cell and animal studies have shown that a diet rich in the polar lipids from oily fish is effective in preventing blood clots from forming. This effect can help cholesterol ratios stay balanced, meaning cardiovascular disease risk is lower.

3. Fermented dairy

Fermented dairy products, such as yoghurt, kefir and cheese, can all have a positive effect on HDL levels.

During fermentation, the lipids are broken down into smaller compounds that have a greater anti-inflammatory effect than milk. They can also be metabolised faster by the body.

Fermented dairy products are also rich in polar lipids, which means that they can considerably reduce cardiovascular risk.

Research found that for every 20g of fermented dairy products people consumed each day, there was a modest reduction in cardiovascular disease risk.

4. Red wine

Finally, red wine is completely misunderstood. According to the latest research, moderate consumption of red wine (the equivalent of one to two small glasses per day) is linked with better HDL ratios.

Wine reduces inflammation when consumed in small quantities because it contains polar lipids. However, if wine intake is high, the negative, pro-inflammatory effect of alcohol outstrips the positive effect of the lipids.

This is why it’s important only to drink small amounts and in moderation – otherwise, alcohol can have many negative effects on the body. Indeed, the World Health Organization has said there is no safe level of alcohol consumption as the negatives, such as increased cancer risk even from light drinking, outweigh any positives.

Non-alcoholic wines also contain polar lipids. Research suggests that polar lipid extracts from non-alcoholic beverages have comparable benefits on preventing the formation of blood clots as their alcoholic counterparts.

Inflammation is a key factor in heart disease. By eating foods that reduce inflammation in the body, it’s possible to look after your heart health and lower cardiovascular disease by improving the ratio of HDL to LDL in the body.

Ioannis Zabetakis, Associate Professor, Food Chemistry, University of Limerick

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How Ireland got hooked on ultra-processed foods – and the only viable solution

 From Irish Times

Francis Finucane

Norah Campbell

There has been a lot of discussion about the public health impact of ultra-processed foods in recent times. First Chris Van Tulleken’s bestseller Ultra-Processed People, and more recently the pre-eminent medical journal The Lancet published three papers on why UPFs are harmful to human health. It summarised the results of more than 100 studies that showed associations between ultra-processed food and an increased risk of 12 chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression and dementia. It also zeroed in on what we can do to reduce the harm: not more consumer education, but rather to clamp down on the “corporate political activity” of the food industry which blocks the development of policies to limit the production and mass normalisation of UPFs.

Dramatic changes in how we produce food have been driven by an understandable preoccupation with food security and the avoidance of famine after the second World War. Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for inventing a strain of wheat with a shorter stem that made it easier to grow and harvest. It saved a billion people from starvation. This and numerous other developments in food production and processing have been good for humanity. Nobody is saying that extending shelf life and reducing cost and scarcity by freezing, tinning or pasteurising foods is bad. Nobody who is worried about chocolate breakfast cereals for six-year-olds has a problem with pickling gherkins. That’s because processing is not the same as ultra-processing.

Three things put the “ultra” in ultra-processing. Firstly, when bulk commodities such as maize, wheat, sugar cane and fat are extracted from their whole sources and chemically modified by processes such as industrial heating, fractionation and extrusion, the resulting product has a substantially degraded food matrix. So, if you eat an orange, you are getting a lot of things from that whole – the cell structure, the fibre, the pith that’s full of bioactive compounds. That “matrix” is lost in an orange cordial, even if it is fortified with zinc and Vitamin C.

Second, the bulk is enhanced with flavours (usually to disguise the unpleasant taste from the first process) and texturised to improve the feeling in your mouth with bulking, gelling or foaming agents. You know you’re eating UPF when that crunchy, moreish feeling turns quite suddenly to a gluey string.

The biggest criticisms of the science of ultra-processed food are that there’s no food that is “good” or “bad” – moderation and balance are what count. That is 100 per cent correct, and it misses the point entirely. The point is that the nutritional science model and the business model exist together. You cannot separate them. So a UPF firm and its scientists of course say to eat in moderation, that balance is important, that fortified food is good for you and so on. But its business model is laser-focused on making sure we eat more of that food, year-on-year.

This drive to grow displaces less processed food, and that is the entire point. In 2018 it was estimated that UPF food accounted for 45.9 per cent of all food we ate in Ireland.

Critics will often revert to the age-old advice of “energy-in-energy-out”; one of the many problems with this advice is that UPFs affect the entire body; the strongest evidence in UPF research is the link between UPF and anxiety and depression. Eating this food is not making us happy.

[ New study claims ultra-processed food increases risk of health issues, including obesity and depressionOpens in new window ]

We ourselves recently researched the business model of supermarket baked goods over a 30-year time span. Why did we choose baked goods? They are a key “boundary food” in the global debate on UPFs – sliced bread is an affordable staple in most of our diets. Supermarket bread is certainly not the worst UPF. The point is that most supermarkets producing bread also produce cakes and tarts, doughnuts and muffins, savoury pies and Viennoiserie (croissants, pastries and brioche), categories that have grown the most in Ireland’s UPF consumption. It’s a key strategy known as “led by bread” where bread acts as an initial draw and casts a halo over the category.

The reality of baked-goods production is far from the imagined connotation of a traditional homely kitchen. We found that the lurch to ultra-processing by producers of ultra-processed baked goods has been driven by a growth imperative and a need to return a greater profit for investors than the previous year, every year. It is no wonder that the raw materials must get cheaper, the products must get even more hyperpalatable, and the lifestyle claims must get more sophisticated.

As Kevin Hall discovered, the problem is in the processing, as much as in the ingredients. In the old days we characterised problem foods as those with “high fat salt sugar” or “nutrients of concern”, and countries all over the world sought to cajole producers to reformulate: please pretty, please decrease the salt, sugar and saturated fat in your foods, but at your own pace of course.

Ironically this led to more processing to square the circle of making food salty without salt, or sweet without sugar. The problem is there is no such thing as a healthy reformulated food. With reformulation, “bad” ingredients are just replaced with more intensive processing and new types of ingredients, rather than with whole or minimally processed foods. We’ve seen the pitfalls of reformulation in the past: trans-fats, now known to be harmful, were intended to be a healthier replacement for saturated fats in the 1960s. That didn’t go well.

[ Bread, cereals and yoghurts: 11 foods you might not realise are ultra-processedOpens in new window ]

Reformulation will be about as effective as low-tar cigarettes or guns with fewer bullets – an inadequate public health strategy that suits commercial interests and distracts legislators and the public from more decisive, effective public action.

This is the part where it is necessary to say what consumers should do. Of course the answer is to eat less processed food, but doing that is not a lifestyle hack. It will require shifting subsidies to make organic fruit and veg cheaper, widening the sugar tax to encompass other food, giving citizens time to prepare, cook and eat food.

Consumers cannot shift subsidies, tax and so on. For this to happen, we have to think of ourselves less as consumers gazing at labels and working out lifestyle hacks from Instagram, and more as citizens who ask the politicians who come to our door what their proposals are to make cheap, healthy food a dedicated part of our daily lives.

• Francis Finucane is an honorary full professor in medicine at the University of Galway.
• Norah Campbell is an associate professor in Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin.

the Body’s Natural “Off Switch” for Inflammation

 

A human study reveals how naturally occurring fat-derived molecules help switch off inflammation.

Researchers at University College London (UCL) have identified an important biological process that helps the body bring inflammation to an end, a finding that may eventually support new treatments for chronic illnesses that affect millions of people worldwide.

[you can read more on this, here]

[the full research paper is here]

Is processed food bad for you?

 

The short answer is no. Some processed foods are harmful, some are not, but processing is often essential

by Eileen Gibney

Irish Times, 25 Nov

 = = = = = = =

Discussions about food processing and health made headlines following the publication of a series of papers on processed food in the Lancet last week. The authors called for immediate reduction of “ultra-processed” food production, marketing and consumption. Some of what they say makes sense, but not everyone agrees with their simplistic approach to a complex question.

Food processing is defined as any action that changes a food or raw material used to produce food. It includes actions such as chopping or heating, or complex processes such as pasteurisation or extruding. We can’t eat most raw materials until they have been processed (ever tried eating raw wheat in the field?).

“Ultra-processed foods”, meanwhile, are described as commercially-prepared packaged foods, containing ingredients you wouldn’t have at home such as colours or emulsifiers. They are produced to be tasty, palatable, convenient and profitable. To put it simply, bread made at home or by a local artisan bakery is considered processed, but packaged sliced bread from a supermarket is considered ultra-processed.

Processes such as chopping and cooking are necessary to make foods edible. More complex processes also offer benefits: fermentation preserves foods; milling breaks grains down into flour; pasteurisation of milk ensures it is safe for consumption.

But these techniques are not the ones attracting lots of negative attention on social media and elsewhere. Criticisms focus on foods with added ingredients. For example, typical snacks and sweet treats in our diet are high in added sugar, fat and salt – nutrients we are recommended to avoid. So, for these foods, there is no argument. Limit your consumption.

But the key thing to understand about processed or ultra-processed foods is that not all components added to food should concern us. Fortification, for example, is a process whereby vitamins and minerals are added to foods such as milks or breakfast cereals, and are an important source of nutrients such as folic acid and vitamin D. Adding compounds such as sweeteners, emulsifiers or stabilisers means a food is considered “ultra-processed”.

Some may not want these in their foods, but they are added to make food safe, reduce added sugar or calories or to look, feel and taste appealing – so again they offer a benefit. These compounds are rigorously assessed and present at levels well below any potential risk. Their use is assessed by the European Food Safety Authority and regulated by food safety agencies and their addition is indicated on food packaging.

For several years, evidence that links consumption of ultra-processed foods to the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension has been building. According to this analysis, as consumption of these ultra-processed foods increases, so does the risk of disease. That much is not under dispute. However, this is where the two camps of this debate divide.

When scientists reanalysed data, splitting ultra-processed foods into food groups, they found breads, breakfast cereals and plant-based foods had neutral or positive effects on health, while processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages were associated with increased risk of disease

Those who want ultra-processed foods removed from our shelves say the health impacts are due to processing techniques that disrupt food structure and chemically modify food to produce long-lasting, highly palatable products. They argue that these foods displace nutrient-rich whole foods, and the commercialisation of our food is leading to a power imbalance between manufacturers and consumers. Those “against” the anti-ultra-processed foods argue that any link between consumption of processed foods and health has little to do with the degree of processing and is more likely to be caused by known nutrients of concern (salt, sugar, fat) and other features, such as food texture. They argue the debate should not be about removal of processing, but addressing the quality of such foods to ensure everyone has access to affordable, healthy and safe food.

I sit in this second camp for many reasons, but let me articulate a few. A term such as “ultra-processed food” puts foods such as breakfast cereals and sugar-sweetened beverages into the same group. While both are ultra-processed, they are clearly not the same. They have different nutritional composition: one high in fibre and fortified, the other high in sugar; one a staple food, the other a treat; one a food and one a drink. All these are important differences, so why consider them the same? When scientists reanalysed data, splitting ultra-processed foods into food groups, they found breads, breakfast cereals and plant-based foods had neutral or positive effects on health, while processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages were associated with increased risk of disease. So, we can’t consider all processed foods the same. Crucially, these findings align to existing dietary guidelines.

This leads to a second important point. How would we use the concept of food processing in public-health advice? Can we advise people to remove all processed foods from their diet? The answer is no. Existing dietary guidelines – the food pyramid – provide adequate advice. Eat fruit and vegetables, choose wholegrain foods, avoid processed meats, avoid high fat, sugar, salty foods. Should we make this more complex and include advice about processing? I would say no.

Avoiding processed foods is a luxury requiring cost, time and know-how that only some can afford. Importantly, demands to remove or reduce food processing are also likely to make food production and consumption less sustainable, at a time when we need to consider how we support a growing global population with smarter food production and processing. Rather than demonise processed foods we should work together to make foods on our shelves as healthy as possible, including through proven reformulation programmes targeting nutrients such as sugar, fat and salt.

Is food processing bad for you? No, but some processed foods are, and some not – likely due to nutrient content, not whether they were made in a factory. It’s about balance: eat more of what is good for you and minimise what is not. What strikes me in this debate is we can’t look at food with such simplicity to say food processing is good or bad. I wish I had a simple answer, but it’s not a simple question.

 = = = = = = = =

Eileen Gibney is professor of nutrition at University College Dublin, and director of the UCD Institute of Food and Health. She recently oversaw the completion and publication of a book her father Mike Gibney was writing before his death, In Defence of Bread, about ultra-processed foods and the problematic science that underpins the public-health advice related to them.