It seems like the correct conclusion to draw is that weight loss benefits brain function regardless of the diet. If they didn't have the control group also lose weight, it would be possible to chalk up improved brain function to the foods instead of the weight loss.
I would think weight loss is a side-benefits of both diets as they are more nutritious, anti-inflammatory, and fiber-rich that most other dietary patterns. You're more likely to lose weight with a better diet, as it better replenishes your hormones, organs, muscles, etc which are all needed for fulfilling physical activities (even minor ones like walking with a friend).
This is what I've been saying! The key is less about the diet, but more about not overeating. That's it... just... not overeating. Stop eating to the point of feeling stuffed- even with healthy foods. Eat slowly, mindfully, and put less on the plate than you think will stuff you. Stop eating when satiated, don't keep eating till you feel stuffed! That's the big secret. Though it may be difficult for some to have that kind of self control.
Should have had two isocaloric groups on each diet. The way I see it is that losing weight is a detox of sorts. There are toxins in all kinds of foods and that's why we have entire organs dedicated to removing those toxins. I expect losing weight kicks that prices into overdrive. I imagine toxins don't help brain function. Hypocaloric diets likely have similar effects to intermittent fasting in that sense.
Perhaps a better way to see if the Mind diet works for the mind would involve a similar trial in which neither group loses weight and both groups have a healthy weight.
The weight loss in this case cancelled out so don't need another study to show (lack of) differences between these groups unless there was some other problem with the study.
@@cyberfunk3793 You don't need to be a genius to know there WAS SOME problem with the study. Like I mention in my comment, people in rural India do not eat junk food and they are one of the people with the lowest levels of Alzheimer's. Their NON STUDY is more believable.
But you also want the control group to do something so that they don't know if they are in the control or intervention groups. If you know you are picked to be the "unlucky" one, that could lead you to change your behavior in all kinds of ways
Having done clinical studies of diet intervention before, there may be a subtle effect due simply to participation in which participants aim to please the PI. The best way to do this type of study is by a randomized crossover design to tease out study bias due to participation. Nutrition studies like this usually display a subtle study effect and require large numbers of subjects, as is the case here.
Again thank you so much for. your content. It is so hard finding someone who is truly trying to be objective and not tribal on these topics. Can't thank you enough!
Does simply losing weight improve cognitive function? Based on this, it seems that could be so. Maybe they were trying to see if the MIND diet provided additional cognitive benefits more so than just losing weight?
It's not that surprising, weight loss has been shown again and again to have health benefits independent of the diet. Pretty much any health benefits a diet claims can be achieved by weight loss alone.
Dr. Peter Attia calls the western diet problem "over-nourishment". That is THE problem needing remedying period. Yes, some foods are healthier than others, but the biggest problem is too many calories.
@@pikapi6993 Why would you need another study to show the same thing? If both groups here lost about the same weight, then there you have those groups compared as the weight loss obvoiusly cancels out as an factor.
@@tilfliegel And without much expertise it's easy enough to see why that could be: less weight = probably less sleep problems due to snoring etc. and better sleep means better brain function. Less weight, might also mean better circulation that probably isn't too bad for the brain.
I have never been fully compliant with the MIND Diet, but I took many of the guidelines to heart when the original study was published. I added regular servings of berries, nuts, leafy greens and salmon to my diet, and I have followed the literature ever since. One issue that I have had is that I don't know how much stock to put into these cognitive tests. There is obviously value in having improvements in memory or the ability to think clearly, but it is not clear to me if immediate term improvement in cognitive ability translates into reduction in the risk of dementia.
The first thing that I thought about this trial was, "what if people were not only losing weight in the control group, but also altering their dietary pattern to make it healthier?". How do we know what they were eating before the study?
Yup most people try to eat healthier in order to feel full on a diet. If you usually eat a diet of twinkies and cupcakes, simply cutting them just makes you hungry. So they will eat more veggies
I can imagine that if both groups are set to lose weight and be mindful of their eating maybe subconsciously also incorporated more movement for example. Or more water to make themselves feel fuller. Both things could contribute to better cognition. However, I see this as a big plus, if the MIND diet is not necessarily better then you can also be healthy on a standard diet which is cheaper and more readily available.
I don't think the MIND diet would be better for weight loss. It's relatively high in fat compared to some diets, and the macronutrient density isn't that different from a standard American diet. As somebody that's tried various kinds of diets, I can tell you eating substantial amounts of olive oil and nuts isn't a good recipe for weight loss. I've had the best luck on a low-fat weight loss diet, 1980's style (rice cakes, whole raw vegetables, etc.), and there's some evidence that leads to slightly more weight loss.
Maybe in terms of cognitive decline, but I think Mediterian/Dash lifestyle still outperforms the standard diet in other benefits. Also, previous studies that proved the benefits of the Dash diet in regard to cognitive decline had a much longer duration.
There is a hypothesis that exercise has more of an impact on cognitive function than simply sitting and doing crossword puzzles or playing chess. The variable among these groups might very well be the level of exercise. Whereas diet has more of an impact than exercise on *weight loss,* exercise might yet be proven to reduce cognitive decline way beyond diet.
i think we would need specifics about what the two groups REALLY ate during the trial. how good was adherence in the MIND group, what specific foods were eaten by each group. maybe the control group, because they knew they were part of a trial in which they were trying to lose weight, ate better and/or improved other lifestyle factors?
There is some info in the study indicating that the MIND dieters were not eating as much leafy greens as the study progressed. Also, they strangely gave olive oil and nuts to the mind dieters and gift cards to the control group every month. None of this is mentioned in this video.
I find this channel so helpful in teaching me how to understand current studies in nutrition; and I have an undergraduate degree in statistics! Thank you so much. ♥️
Thanks, as always, for including the study link. Looks like the improvement in cognition was greater in the MIND diet group, but didn't rise to the level o statistical significance. I don't subscribe to the journal, so it would be interesting if someone who does subscribe can comment on possible confounding factors, like any difference in the amount of exercise. So no reason not to eat your berries and greens if you enjoy them!
I can understand why they had the control group lose weight, since they probably expected a weight reduction to occur spontaneously in the other group.
I think what they probably were trying to test for is that the types of food don't matter its the weight loss that does. Another experiment would be to test people who don't need to loose weight and put them on the mind diet, but keep their calories the same, whilst the control groups continues eating as they always have.
Agree it is weird study design. The abstract even says "All the participants received counseling regarding adherence to their assigned diet plus support to promote weight loss." It is hard to imagine a dietician not suggesting increased consumption of fruit and veg as part of a weight loss diet in seniors. Indeed would it be ethical? Not read full text though.
@@robert111k Yes. Just as a medical professional who did not give CPR to someone who collapsed in the street would be acting unethically. If a medical professional (in this case a dietician) does not give the standard treatment advice they would be unethical and would probably get sued.
Great summary of the study outlining where it stands given everything else we know. 3 years may not be enough to fully dismiss the DASH diet given it's potential as a prophylactic measure for at-risk individuals (older, family history etc...) It may just be that in 3 years the weight loss was the most influential factor, not the DASH diet. This doesn't mean that the DASH diet doesn't work, just that weight loss in the short term is more influential in cognitive function than the contents of one's diet. I am interested to see the effects given a longer time frame possibly in an older population.
It would be interesting to know if the control group changed their dietiary habits. If physical activity was increased, which is likely, that might also have contributed to the cognitive benefits. Maybe they did adjust for these things and the timeframe simply wasn't long enough. Or maybe, the benefits of diet is simply less important when weight and physical activity is the same. Hard to imagine that what you're consuming doesn't matter for health and brain health over a lifetime though.
I guess it could show that weight loss just completely dominates over any other effects, I suppose it adds more evidence against the 'health at any size' notion and that weight loss is intrinsically beneficial regardless of what diet is used to achive it.
I think the model of Personal Fat Threshold (see NIH, elsewhere) fits and explains greatly so many of these studies. Basically the idea we each have a wall of sorts as to how much fat we can store safely, leading to visceral, etc. and amplifying metabolic disorder related conditions. Comments appreciated, or please debunk 😊
When you think about it is hardly a surprise. Because there was never a selective force to send healthy and unhealthy eaters on different paths/fates. People just died too young and food was scarce. Scarcity of food was definitely a driver that selected different groups of people and sent them to different paths/fates. Greedy eaters who survived and non-greedy who didn't. That's why we are all greedy eaters today.
Thanks Gil. It's puzzling to me why people, who basically didn't change their diet lost weight? My thinking is that something in the "control" group changed, you're right, we need more studies and evidence.
@@pragooutube Lots of variables, did they monitor the reduction? Did they tell them what to reduce? How did they know they decreased their intake 250 calories? What calories did the MIND group reduce? Other problems, it's not really a control group anymore, why did they reduce calories at all - two groups a MIND group and a control group that didn't change their habits or one group ate MIND the other group ate what they wanted. After x amount of time the two groups switched. This feels like someone looking for a specific outcome and contouring things to get it.
I think a huge cudos to the journal and the research team is in order for publishing a "null" or "negative" study given how publication bias and p-hacking is so commonplace.
It makes sense to me that they had both groups on the same calorie restriction (that or no calorie restriction). Having just one group reduce calories would have been a confounding factor of the study. Was the benefit from the particular diet or calorie restriction? Makes me skeptical of other studies that don’t keep calories the same.
But same amount of calories on two different diets says nothing about the metabolic outcome of this food. Do we really still believe that cutting calories matters? Comparing 2000 calories on low carb or DASH to 2000 calories on typical western diet makes no sense because of whole different hormonal responses. It adds no real value to the study.
Strive for objectivity and scientific approach in your videos made me to fall in love with your channel. Do you have a patreon page or something where I could support you further?
Love you! I feel that people are driving themselves crazy with all the diets out there. Information now days is just being interrupted to fit one’s narrative. I appreciate your no bs videos with the right approach to keeping most followers sane! Thanks😊
Listen to many Drs on TH-cam mainly concerning Heart Disease and Diabetes which as you know mainly leads back to diet research. I listen to them but leave you to the last, your the last piece of the puzzle for me to make my mind up what is best. Keep up the good work, you ain’t about show and impact videos just great unbiased reviews:👍
Many thanks for putting the new information in a science context 🌹 it is great to have people like you who work for a better understanding of scientific work and with that, a good counterbalance 🍀
This simply highlights how caloric restriction overshadowed the study, masking any minor benefits of the MIND diet. It reaffirms the well-established concept: for overweight individuals, the quantity we eat outweighs the specifics of what we consume.
A better design would be to eliminate the weight component and focus only if the diet itself will show benefits with regards to warding off AD. That means studying only subjects that don't have weight issues.
Thank you for all of your research on various studies of diet and health. Your information is so helpful and non-biased. I was wondering if you could do research on diets that could effect those people with hemochromatosis. I cannot seem to find any useful studies that have been done for this condition.
Asking the control group to lower 250 calories a day immediately makes them more attentive to their food quantity and quality. Perhaps the easiest way to cut 250 calories is to cut the things least like a Mediterranean diet, i.e., cutting sugar, sugary pop, deserts, chips, deep-fried foods, other snacks. So a simple 250 calorie restriction may tend to lead a material portion of the control group towards a more Mediterranean-like diet.
I thought he did say 250 calories, but in a comment he said they decreased caloric intake by 25%. That’s a huge difference. The abstract just says mild caloric decrease, and the full journal article is behind a paywall. But your point about how the SAD group reduced calories seems valid either way.
Why don't you understand having them lose weight? They are testing for effects from the food not the energy balance. If they wouldn't have done this the Mind diet people almost surely would have lost weight and the control group would not have. Obviously energy balance is important. In fact it certainly trumps any other factor that effects metabolic health and probably effects many other heath problems.
they specifically targeted caloric restriction in both groups in addition to the MIND intervention. that's what surprised me. maybe it was preemptive bc they expected the MIND group to lose weight anyway, as you suggested. The design struck me as unusual and their methods didn't provide an explanation... anyway, the future will tell :)
It was only 3 years though. For significant cognitive improvement/decline to occur in that time scale in people with no known dementia, etc. is asking a bit much.
I'm wondering what the 'improved' brain functions are supposed to be. Since stated so generally I can imagine just being as part of an experiment 'improves' you brain function in a certain way, since during the experiment you are made to regularly do tasks that you otherwise wouldn't. Tracking what you do, being more engaged in your eating and cooking since you are more conscious due to being in an experiment, you start learning something on the side because that made you curious etc. :D In other words, just being in these novel conditions in some sense can improve brain function. Anything new and engaging tends to be good for the brain. And did they take that into account and how would one quantify it, no idea.
Simply losing weight can improve many health markers outside of any specific diet. Having them eat maintenance calories without losing weight would be more telling.
Gil, Love the content as always. Can you elaborate on why you thought having the control group lose weight, but just via calorie cutting was not ideal? Ignoring the term ‘control’, I thought the design focussed on whether losing weight via MIND vs non-MIND calorie reduction was better for cognitive improvement. If they had left control group alone completely (e.g. don’t lose weight) then the result would be “hey, MIND worked!”, when more likely it was the weight loss. So I’m missing why that was a negative on the study design. It certainly needs to be taken into account on the big picture of all evidence, but I thought it was a good puzzle piece..
I feel the same way. I guess it's kind of wrong to call it a "control" group in a technical sense when they are also receiving an intervention, so maybe the trial should have had three groups, a true control, a calorie reduction only group, and a calorie reduction + MIND group, but regardless, I think it's a good idea to try to tease out whether weight loss alone accounts for the improvements or if MIND provides additional benefits.
I agree 100% . The point is that losing weight seems to be more important than with what diet you do it... They could also let people lose weight on junk food and have another group keep their weight using the mind diet. My guess would be the group that lost weight would have much more improvement than the mind group....
they intentionally aimed for weight loss in both groups (cutting ~25% of calories). the diet was tested as an add-on. maybe it's true they anticipated weight loss in the intervention group and wanted to get in front of it so they shot for intentional weight loss in both groups. a risky move imo but ofc hindsight is 20/20 another way to design it is to try and avoid weight loss. eucaloric diet groups. but that has caveats too.
Thanks@@NutritionMadeSimple . Not a scientist here. So if one had a hypothesis that the MIND diet was better than say a Low Fat diet at preventing dementia, what would be the best approach in a single study? Is it first best to test MIND vs "No Change at all" group, then another study to test low fat versus "no change at all", and THEN do MIND vs Low Fat? Just trying to get some intuition on that...
@@dpwright32 you could do the head to head trial right away to compare 2 diets. if you can have 3 arms you can have a 3rd group be a "control|" with no intervention. that adds a bit more info but is often not done bc it increases trial size by 50%
It's actually incredibly important they made the control group lose weight because that's removing a confounding factor that clearly would have muddied the results if it wasn't controlled for. I suppose how they lost the weight in important, maybe they did intermittent fasting instead of caloric restriction, and it's widely known that IF has mental benefits. Or maybe they were only given two weeks to lose the weight and they eat healthy, it would prove that short term diet changes have more profound change than long term ones.
Maybe they ate a lot of veg, more fish and chicken instead of beef, less fast food..all things people do in order to lose weight. But that means they are already close to the mind diet
With any diet intervention trial in which participants are randomly assigned to a diet, the first question is did they adhere to the diet that they were assigned to follow. I’d they didn’t follow the diet then it’s hard to make solid conclusions. What was the adherence for this study?
"From baseline to year 3, improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group and 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group (mean difference, 0.035 standardized units; 95% confidence interval, −0.022 to 0.092; P=0.23). " So, it looks like the MIND diet works slightly better but the study doesn't have enough statistical power/duration/diet difference to detect this effect with confidence. If the control group cut most of the junk food and switched to a more healthy dietary pattern (less calorie-dense food) to lose weight, such a diet can have a very similar influence.
There is one thing I do not get - the food questionaires or notorious food tracking in most studies. Is it really so difficult to train and maybe incentivise people to use a tool like Cronometer where you can easily track your food to the detail on a daily basis? Even if people „eyeball“ portions or forget (but you could configurate a text reminder on the phone) some entries it would be so much more accurate than these spot checks they usually do with the participants.
APOE types should be taken into consideration. There is some evidence that APOE2 might benefit on higher saturated fat intake, while quite opposite seems to be true for APOE4 (without parasites).
I hypothesize that the act of participating in a study was beneficial to cognitive function as much as the reduction in calories was. Meaning and purpose seem to be significantly important to the only species capable of experiencing meaning and purpose.
In the second study, where Mediterranian diet showed improvement - did they controlled for weight loss? On the first glance I didn't see. My first thought was that in this new study they were intentionally putting both groups through weight loss to exclude it as a factor. And the implication from the resulsts are that it is the weight loss specifically that was responsible for the change. Of course, it would have been nice if they had a third group on normal diet that wasn't trying to lose weight.
The control group consumed fewer calories and were instructed on healthy eating habits. If you're watching your calories and learning about healthy eating, you're probably going to pay attention to the caloric density of what you eat and therefore eat healthier. I question how different the diet was between these two groups.
So it was just the weight loss that brought the cognitive improvement? Shouldn't they try to maintain their weight while having the other group on MIND and the other regular to actually see if MIND works?
Likely weight loss and/or calorie deficit benefits cognitive function greatly, more so than the specific amounts of dofferent foods and cooking methods. It doesn't mean that the other factors do not effect cognitive health, just that they likely have a smaller impact. But one important question then is which constellation of food makes it easy to stay on a calorie deficit without compromising longterm health, like cardiovascular health. With the research I've encountered so far, my guess is the combination of foods in the Mind diet makes it easier to stay on a calorie deficit compared to the standard american diet...
Its possible that the control diet, instructed to induce weight loss by -250kcal, also ate healthier as before, instead of sticking to their usual diet. this would improve the parameters they have tested, and the better the results of the control group, the lower the likelyhood that there would be a statistically significant difference to the experimental group. It is likely that the participants in the mind diet would consume fewer calories in any case because of the higher satiety factor. This means, if the control diet did not also introduce a kcal deficit, that we would compare apples to oranges. We would not know if the benefit is due to weight loss or due to the diet itself. So this id, I assume, why they chose to add a kcal deficit to the control group, while a kcal deficit in the intervention diet was likely anyways, even if they would not have introduced it. The question I have is how much the intervention group followed the mind diet rules, how good the two groups were balanced in terms of preconditions, risk factors, etc, or if there is any other potential cause for this result.
Love your channel!! 1. can you do a video on osteoporosis? 2. can you do a video on nutrition for PMS? My mom taught me to take calcium for it and it really helps. what does science say about it. (i am convinced it is not placebo because one time I took vitamin C by mistake because of the capital C and the pain didn't go away). 3. can you make a video about special nutritional needs for menopause or peri menopause?
A wonderful takeaway from these studies is that regardless if the Mind diet failed, we can still improve cognitive function. If you look at the totality of the evidence, life style and diet has a profound effect on our risk factors and that is something to celebrate.
Dr,. you are my go-to channel for objectivity, please consider as a future topic the problems of "skinny diabetics," overlooked on most any discussion of either type of diabetes. Getting enough calories without excessive carbs and replacing lost muscle mass after surgeries is a challenge for an active person who walks, swims, cycles, or does gym work, esp when doctors recommend liquid supplements that contain synthetic sweeteners (post-surgery) and hospitals serve food to patients that a thoughtful diabetic would not eat.
Perhaps diets (any of em) are more or less just fuel, and the other factors combined matters a lot more than we thought (genetics, level of exercise, quality of sleep, alcohol consumption, supplementation/micronutrients inefficiency, quality of life/happiness). There are perhaps too many other factors that dilute the affect of the diet alone.
Seems on a first hearing about this that the reason for having both groups lose weight might be really simple and good design - they wanted to ensure that weight loss was not a factor. In other words, is there something specific to the MIND diet? Their conclusion is that there doesn't appear to be
I think the design of the study was spot on. Comparing against SAD wouldn't add new information because we already know SAD is sad. So MIND is better than SAD? It would be ho-hum. With this design, we get to tease out what's important: what you eat vs losing weight. It seems losing weight is what really matters and I think that actually adds to our body of knowledge. Is that the last word? Probably not, but it's informative.
Perhaps, but you theoretically can't lose weight forever. Eventually you reach a point where you're healthy/happy. So it would still be useful to determine if one diet is better than another at maintenance in healthy people.
The benefit of this outcome is that it basically compared 3 groups: 1) People that do nothing and do not lose weight 2) People that lose weight and eat healthy 3) People that lose weight and continue eating unhealthy. With a study without weight loss component we would not see the effect of that intervention at all, so if the study isn't problematic otherwise (like faked data or other error) it seems to show diet isn't a major issue for brain function but is clearly overshadowed by the effect of weight so people that want to help their brain should first definitely lose any extra weight they might have before worrying about exact diet.
I would really like to know what the “control diet” was. I imagine they had to switch out some unhealthy foods and in practice their diet might not have been all that dissimilar to the MIND diet group. Also, how much weight was actually lost by the two groups. That can be a decent indicator of adherence.
I think one of the missing pieces of the puzzle is Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs). These are associated with a number of aging related diseases, including Alzheimer's Disease. We need to reduce both the AGEs from diet, and prevent their formation in the body using supplements and possibly drugs. When we diet, we eat less AGEs because we eat less of everything. Though, diets higher in meat than people were eating would likely raise AGEs. I suspect people who are used to eating AGEs, will likely cook food in failure ways, similar to how they cooked meat, ways that generate more AGEs. AGEs are created in the Maillard browning reaction, creating a taste many people like. It is also made during high speed blending, and during fermentation. We can make less AGEs in our food by cooking with water, and steam. The microwave can be useful as well. We can make soups from scratch, putting in uncooked meat during soup cooking rather than meat previously cooked in some method where lots of AGEs were made. Similarly, stews, and chilies. Chili and other foods cooked with tomato products or other acidic foods help to further reduce the generation of AGEs during preparation. Another strategy is to keep carbohydrates separate from protein and fat until a last step where it is added post cooking and blending. The biggest source for most people is stabilized foods. That is, almost everything that is not fresh. The foods in the stores have been cooked at very high temperatures for a short time: most breakfast cereals, chips, crackers, pretzels, puffs, and cookies have been cooked very rapidly at very high temperatures.
Calorie reduction improves metabolism and that affects everything. We have known this for a long time, but people who were keen on making money, name for themselves etc sold us low fat diet, keto diet, canivore diet, Intermittent Fasting and other nonsense diets.
I think that the focus on averages instead of individual response ie: how a particular body processes the nutrients and components of food is where things are getting blocked in these studies. If someone has a particular way their body absorbs and allocates the food, and that is failing to process the material correctly, no diet no matter how specific it is to basic human health is going to show benefits. Likewise, using the Mediterranean diet so touted as being the healthiest in the world, perhaps there is something else that is leading to health of people in those regions in additions to the diet. Maybe, it's the difference in lifestyles. Family structure. Positive social norms. Something that the western society is lacking, or how stressful our way of life is here. Yes, we are fortunate as far as basic needs, but the way we must obtain them is still erosive to the psyche. The fact that we have such stressful lifestyle structures, yet we are told we do not, or it is minimized, that can lead to stresses that harm the entire body. In other words, you can't be forced to live a stressful lifestyle to exist, be told you do not live a stressful lifestyle, and expect the body to just cooperate. It will manifest itself in the health.
Haven't read the study, but sounds like they just wanted the nutrient content itself to be the test and didn't want weight loss to be a confounder, so they controlled for that. Because if they didn't, you wouldn't know if any significant positive result was due to the nutrition content of this diet specifically, or to weight loss, or both. But if both groups lose the same weight and there is a difference it points to the nutritional content alone. And since there was no difference here, then it points toward weight loss itself, not so much the nutritional content. What they did sounds reasonable to me.
this would mean that people can stick to regular unhealthy diet, and just aim at losing weight rather than changing their diets. there has been numerous anecdotes about people cutting down on McDonald's meals without completely stopping it and aimed at just losing weights, and showed improvement even in lipid profiles. It could be Losing weight that sounds just right. Also, people who eat healthy diet may also seem to exercise more given that they are more conscious about their health, and exercise had been proven multiple times that it mitigate any side effects you would gain from diet. it could be weight loss and exercise more than just the type of diets. that's what I sometimes assume though. science is crazy.
A really interesting result! Thanks for posting this experiment! This study only highlights the "possible" influence of a diet on the cognitive ability to think, compared to another method, just to lose weight, which is generally obviously suitable for this. Or was there another reason that positive results were also achieved in the control group? But which one could that be? The ignorance of taking part in such a study? Ultimately, these different eating habits are also about general health, right?
Could they be having both groups lose weight so that they could control weight loss as a variable. Had only the mind diet group lost weight you wouldn’t know if the cognitive benefits were due to the diet or if you could get the same benefits eating another diet that allows you to lose weight.
Thanks for your videos. Can you maybe do videos about arachadonic acid, and how much we should have in our blood for optimal health. I heard that some peole can not concert enough arachadonic acid (AA) from linoleic acid (LA), especially western genotype. And it is only found in animal foods, as far as I could find. Also, when DHA is supplemented, there might be less conversion from LA to AA. Would be great if you could talk about it. Niko Rittenau made many videos about it, and now I wish to know how to test this, and if I should supplement with AA (because I don't eat animal products). I am supplementing EPA and DHA.
Gil: it obvious to me the design is made to asscess if being overweight is the biggest factor involved in cognitive decline. I think the study is more significant than we give it credit.
Hmmm, doesn't it suggest that lowering the weight helps your brain as both groups lost some weight and both had cognitive improvements? I also suspect that control group lost weight because they were controlled so they tend to eat a little less/better then they were eating before as they knew they are being controlled so they wanted to look better :).
It is interesting, one would have thought that a diet full of vitamins minerals and healthy fiber would have significant congnitive benefits over a standard diet full of junk food, even if the participants lose weight...
I have learnt that it is important to eat less and only when you are hungry and eat healthy. the religious type following of a certain diet is not really necessary except staying away from obviously unhealthy foods like Trans fats etc.
i think these cognitive deline or AD starts very early in life and there's not much to be done to reverse the damage. Prevention is probably the key. I think we are too focus on the cure and not much has been done about the prevention
Isn't having both groups lose weight good? Otherwise you wouldn't know if the benefits were just because of the fact the lost weight, now you can potentially draw that conclusion.
It seems like the correct conclusion to draw is that weight loss benefits brain function regardless of the diet. If they didn't have the control group also lose weight, it would be possible to chalk up improved brain function to the foods instead of the weight loss.
I would think weight loss is a side-benefits of both diets as they are more nutritious, anti-inflammatory, and fiber-rich that most other dietary patterns. You're more likely to lose weight with a better diet, as it better replenishes your hormones, organs, muscles, etc which are all needed for fulfilling physical activities (even minor ones like walking with a friend).
This is what I've been saying! The key is less about the diet, but more about not overeating. That's it... just... not overeating. Stop eating to the point of feeling stuffed- even with healthy foods. Eat slowly, mindfully, and put less on the plate than you think will stuff you. Stop eating when satiated, don't keep eating till you feel stuffed! That's the big secret. Though it may be difficult for some to have that kind of self control.
What about when the brain is getting more ketones ..? 🤔
Seems most of our modern sickness comes down to over eating. Focusing on UPF now seems the most useful intervention.
Should have had two isocaloric groups on each diet. The way I see it is that losing weight is a detox of sorts. There are toxins in all kinds of foods and that's why we have entire organs dedicated to removing those toxins. I expect losing weight kicks that prices into overdrive. I imagine toxins don't help brain function. Hypocaloric diets likely have similar effects to intermittent fasting in that sense.
Perhaps a better way to see if the Mind diet works for the mind would involve a similar trial in which neither group loses weight and both groups have a healthy weight.
The weight loss in this case cancelled out so don't need another study to show (lack of) differences between these groups unless there was some other problem with the study.
@@cyberfunk3793 You don't need to be a genius to know there WAS SOME problem with the study. Like I mention in my comment, people in rural India do not eat junk food and they are one of the people with the lowest levels of Alzheimer's. Their NON STUDY is more believable.
But you also want the control group to do something so that they don't know if they are in the control or intervention groups. If you know you are picked to be the "unlucky" one, that could lead you to change your behavior in all kinds of ways
Having done clinical studies of diet intervention before, there may be a subtle effect due simply to participation in which participants aim to please the PI. The best way to do this type of study is by a randomized crossover design to tease out study bias due to participation. Nutrition studies like this usually display a subtle study effect and require large numbers of subjects, as is the case here.
Again thank you so much for. your content. It is so hard finding someone who is truly trying to be objective and not tribal on these topics. Can't thank you enough!
Does simply losing weight improve cognitive function? Based on this, it seems that could be so. Maybe they were trying to see if the MIND diet provided additional cognitive benefits more so than just losing weight?
It's not that surprising, weight loss has been shown again and again to have health benefits independent of the diet. Pretty much any health benefits a diet claims can be achieved by weight loss alone.
Dr. Peter Attia calls the western diet problem "over-nourishment". That is THE problem needing remedying period. Yes, some foods are healthier than others, but the biggest problem is too many calories.
Yeah, I would like to see a trial without any focus on weight loss. Just the two diets compared with other
@@pikapi6993 Why would you need another study to show the same thing? If both groups here lost about the same weight, then there you have those groups compared as the weight loss obvoiusly cancels out as an factor.
@@tilfliegel And without much expertise it's easy enough to see why that could be: less weight = probably less sleep problems due to snoring etc. and better sleep means better brain function. Less weight, might also mean better circulation that probably isn't too bad for the brain.
I have never been fully compliant with the MIND Diet, but I took many of the guidelines to heart when the original study was published. I added regular servings of berries, nuts, leafy greens and salmon to my diet, and I have followed the literature ever since. One issue that I have had is that I don't know how much stock to put into these cognitive tests. There is obviously value in having improvements in memory or the ability to think clearly, but it is not clear to me if immediate term improvement in cognitive ability translates into reduction in the risk of dementia.
The first thing that I thought about this trial was, "what if people were not only losing weight in the control group, but also altering their dietary pattern to make it healthier?". How do we know what they were eating before the study?
Yup most people try to eat healthier in order to feel full on a diet. If you usually eat a diet of twinkies and cupcakes, simply cutting them just makes you hungry. So they will eat more veggies
I can imagine that if both groups are set to lose weight and be mindful of their eating maybe subconsciously also incorporated more movement for example. Or more water to make themselves feel fuller. Both things could contribute to better cognition. However, I see this as a big plus, if the MIND diet is not necessarily better then you can also be healthy on a standard diet which is cheaper and more readily available.
I don't think the MIND diet would be better for weight loss. It's relatively high in fat compared to some diets, and the macronutrient density isn't that different from a standard American diet.
As somebody that's tried various kinds of diets, I can tell you eating substantial amounts of olive oil and nuts isn't a good recipe for weight loss. I've had the best luck on a low-fat weight loss diet, 1980's style (rice cakes, whole raw vegetables, etc.), and there's some evidence that leads to slightly more weight loss.
Maybe in terms of cognitive decline, but I think Mediterian/Dash lifestyle still outperforms the standard diet in other benefits. Also, previous studies that proved the benefits of the Dash diet in regard to cognitive decline had a much longer duration.
@@sunce0072 you're probably right! if you go for optimising health a MIND diet I is overall better. However, I like pragmatism :)
There is a hypothesis that exercise has more of an impact on cognitive function than simply sitting and doing crossword puzzles or playing chess.
The variable among these groups might very well be the level of exercise. Whereas diet has more of an impact than exercise on *weight loss,* exercise might yet be proven to reduce cognitive decline way beyond diet.
i think we would need specifics about what the two groups REALLY ate during the trial. how good was adherence in the MIND group, what specific foods were eaten by each group. maybe the control group, because they knew they were part of a trial in which they were trying to lose weight, ate better and/or improved other lifestyle factors?
There is some info in the study indicating that the MIND dieters were not eating as much leafy greens as the study progressed. Also, they strangely gave olive oil and nuts to the mind dieters and gift cards to the control group every month. None of this is mentioned in this video.
I find this channel so helpful in teaching me how to understand current studies in nutrition; and I have an undergraduate degree in statistics! Thank you so much. ♥️
I feel like the Sherzai couple discussed this more thoroughly. It’s definitely and interesting study design that is important to discuss in detail.
Thanks, as always, for including the study link. Looks like the improvement in cognition was greater in the MIND diet group, but didn't rise to the level o statistical significance. I don't subscribe to the journal, so it would be interesting if someone who does subscribe can comment on possible confounding factors, like any difference in the amount of exercise.
So no reason not to eat your berries and greens if you enjoy them!
I can understand why they had the control group lose weight, since they probably expected a weight reduction to occur spontaneously in the other group.
As part of the trial design, both groups were counseled to eat 250 fewer calories per day.
I think what they probably were trying to test for is that the types of food don't matter its the weight loss that does. Another experiment would be to test people who don't need to loose weight and put them on the mind diet, but keep their calories the same, whilst the control groups continues eating as they always have.
The control group should, like the mind group, maintain current body weight.
Agree it is weird study design. The abstract even says "All the participants received counseling regarding adherence to their assigned diet plus support to promote weight loss." It is hard to imagine a dietician not suggesting increased consumption of fruit and veg as part of a weight loss diet in seniors. Indeed would it be ethical? Not read full text though.
Do you really think that not suggesting increased consumption of fruit and veg is against the Ethics?
@@robert111k Yes. Just as a medical professional who did not give CPR to someone who collapsed in the street would be acting unethically. If a medical professional (in this case a dietician) does not give the standard treatment advice they would be unethical and would probably get sued.
@@RogerHyam, dietary intake is not medical treatment and dietitians don't prescribe anything.
Great summary of the study outlining where it stands given everything else we know. 3 years may not be enough to fully dismiss the DASH diet given it's potential as a prophylactic measure for at-risk individuals (older, family history etc...)
It may just be that in 3 years the weight loss was the most influential factor, not the DASH diet. This doesn't mean that the DASH diet doesn't work, just that weight loss in the short term is more influential in cognitive function than the contents of one's diet. I am interested to see the effects given a longer time frame possibly in an older population.
It would be interesting to know if the control group changed their dietiary habits. If physical activity was increased, which is likely, that might also have contributed to the cognitive benefits. Maybe they did adjust for these things and the timeframe simply wasn't long enough. Or maybe, the benefits of diet is simply less important when weight and physical activity is the same. Hard to imagine that what you're consuming doesn't matter for health and brain health over a lifetime though.
I guess it could show that weight loss just completely dominates over any other effects, I suppose it adds more evidence against the 'health at any size' notion and that weight loss is intrinsically beneficial regardless of what diet is used to achive it.
I think the model of Personal Fat Threshold (see NIH, elsewhere) fits and explains greatly so many of these studies. Basically the idea we each have a wall of sorts as to how much fat we can store safely, leading to visceral, etc. and amplifying metabolic disorder related conditions. Comments appreciated, or please debunk 😊
Please upload a Video on Choline.🙏
Are Vegetarians deficient in Choline?
When you think about it is hardly a surprise. Because there was never a selective force to send healthy and unhealthy eaters on different paths/fates. People just died too young and food was scarce. Scarcity of food was definitely a driver that selected different groups of people and sent them to different paths/fates. Greedy eaters who survived and non-greedy who didn't. That's why we are all greedy eaters today.
Thanks Gil.
It's puzzling to me why people, who basically didn't change their diet lost weight? My thinking is that something in the "control" group changed, you're right, we need more studies and evidence.
They were instructed to reduce the same amount of calories. Both groups were told to eat 250 less calories each day.
@@pragooutube Lots of variables, did they monitor the reduction? Did they tell them what to reduce? How did they know they decreased their intake 250 calories? What calories did the MIND group reduce? Other problems, it's not really a control group anymore, why did they reduce calories at all - two groups a MIND group and a control group that didn't change their habits or one group ate MIND the other group ate what they wanted. After x amount of time the two groups switched. This feels like someone looking for a specific outcome and contouring things to get it.
I think a huge cudos to the journal and the research team is in order for publishing a "null" or "negative" study given how publication bias and p-hacking is so commonplace.
It makes sense to me that they had both groups on the same calorie restriction (that or no calorie restriction). Having just one group reduce calories would have been a confounding factor of the study. Was the benefit from the particular diet or calorie restriction? Makes me skeptical of other studies that don’t keep calories the same.
But same amount of calories on two different diets says nothing about the metabolic outcome of this food. Do we really still believe that cutting calories matters? Comparing 2000 calories on low carb or DASH to 2000 calories on typical western diet makes no sense because of whole different hormonal responses. It adds no real value to the study.
@@Godfryd23go where the science leads you....
Always look forward to your videos, thank you so much!
Strive for objectivity and scientific approach in your videos made me to fall in love with your channel. Do you have a patreon page or something where I could support you further?
no patreon. pay it forward :)
Love you! I feel that people are driving themselves crazy with all the diets out there. Information now days is just being interrupted to fit one’s narrative. I appreciate your no bs videos with the right approach to keeping most followers sane! Thanks😊
Listen to many Drs on TH-cam mainly concerning Heart Disease and Diabetes which as you know mainly leads back to diet research. I listen to them but leave you to the last, your the last piece of the puzzle for me to make my mind up what is best. Keep up the good work, you ain’t about show and impact videos just great unbiased reviews:👍
Gil, if they didn't match the groups for calories and weight loss, wouldn't those be confounding variables?
Many thanks for putting the new information in a science context 🌹 it is great to have people like you who work for a better understanding of scientific work and with that, a good counterbalance 🍀
This simply highlights how caloric restriction overshadowed the study, masking any minor benefits of the MIND diet. It reaffirms the well-established concept: for overweight individuals, the quantity we eat outweighs the specifics of what we consume.
It could but people also adopt more healthier diets (more veg, less 'junk', etc) in order to not feel so hungry while losing weight
A better design would be to eliminate the weight component and focus only if the diet itself will show benefits with regards to warding off AD. That means studying only subjects that don't have weight issues.
Or studying subjects that are overweight, but told not to lose weight.
This is good science. Even a long term trial that concludes an inconclusive or a negative conclusion is also good science!
Thank you for all of your research on various studies of diet and health. Your information is so helpful and non-biased. I was wondering if you could do research on diets that could effect those people with hemochromatosis. I cannot seem to find any useful studies that have been done for this condition.
Asking the control group to lower 250 calories a day immediately makes them more attentive to their food quantity and quality. Perhaps the easiest way to cut 250 calories is to cut the things least like a Mediterranean diet, i.e., cutting sugar, sugary pop, deserts, chips, deep-fried foods, other snacks. So a simple 250 calorie restriction may tend to lead a material portion of the control group towards a more Mediterranean-like diet.
I thought he did say 250 calories, but in a comment he said they decreased caloric intake by 25%. That’s a huge difference. The abstract just says mild caloric decrease, and the full journal article is behind a paywall. But your point about how the SAD group reduced calories seems valid either way.
Why don't you understand having them lose weight? They are testing for effects from the food not the energy balance. If they wouldn't have done this the Mind diet people almost surely would have lost weight and the control group would not have. Obviously energy balance is important. In fact it certainly trumps any other factor that effects metabolic health and probably effects many other heath problems.
they specifically targeted caloric restriction in both groups in addition to the MIND intervention. that's what surprised me. maybe it was preemptive bc they expected the MIND group to lose weight anyway, as you suggested. The design struck me as unusual and their methods didn't provide an explanation... anyway, the future will tell :)
The best we can do to protect cognitive health is to remain metabolically healthy and physically active, although there are no guarantees
It was only 3 years though. For significant cognitive improvement/decline to occur in that time scale in people with no known dementia, etc. is asking a bit much.
I'm wondering what the 'improved' brain functions are supposed to be. Since stated so generally I can imagine just being as part of an experiment 'improves' you brain function in a certain way, since during the experiment you are made to regularly do tasks that you otherwise wouldn't. Tracking what you do, being more engaged in your eating and cooking since you are more conscious due to being in an experiment, you start learning something on the side because that made you curious etc. :D
In other words, just being in these novel conditions in some sense can improve brain function. Anything new and engaging tends to be good for the brain. And did they take that into account and how would one quantify it, no idea.
They found cognitive improvement in both groups, so clearly it is possible to get that in 3 years.
Simply losing weight can improve many health markers outside of any specific diet. Having them eat maintenance calories without losing weight would be more telling.
Gil, Love the content as always. Can you elaborate on why you thought having the control group lose weight, but just via calorie cutting was not ideal? Ignoring the term ‘control’, I thought the design focussed on whether losing weight via MIND vs non-MIND calorie reduction was better for cognitive improvement. If they had left control group alone completely (e.g. don’t lose weight) then the result would be “hey, MIND worked!”, when more likely it was the weight loss. So I’m missing why that was a negative on the study design. It certainly needs to be taken into account on the big picture of all evidence, but I thought it was a good puzzle piece..
I feel the same way. I guess it's kind of wrong to call it a "control" group in a technical sense when they are also receiving an intervention, so maybe the trial should have had three groups, a true control, a calorie reduction only group, and a calorie reduction + MIND group, but regardless, I think it's a good idea to try to tease out whether weight loss alone accounts for the improvements or if MIND provides additional benefits.
I agree 100% . The point is that losing weight seems to be more important than with what diet you do it... They could also let people lose weight on junk food and have another group keep their weight using the mind diet. My guess would be the group that lost weight would have much more improvement than the mind group....
they intentionally aimed for weight loss in both groups (cutting ~25% of calories). the diet was tested as an add-on. maybe it's true they anticipated weight loss in the intervention group and wanted to get in front of it so they shot for intentional weight loss in both groups. a risky move imo but ofc hindsight is 20/20
another way to design it is to try and avoid weight loss. eucaloric diet groups. but that has caveats too.
Thanks@@NutritionMadeSimple . Not a scientist here. So if one had a hypothesis that the MIND diet was better than say a Low Fat diet at preventing dementia, what would be the best approach in a single study? Is it first best to test MIND vs "No Change at all" group, then another study to test low fat versus "no change at all", and THEN do MIND vs Low Fat? Just trying to get some intuition on that...
@@dpwright32 you could do the head to head trial right away to compare 2 diets. if you can have 3 arms you can have a 3rd group be a "control|" with no intervention. that adds a bit more info but is often not done bc it increases trial size by 50%
It's actually incredibly important they made the control group lose weight because that's removing a confounding factor that clearly would have muddied the results if it wasn't controlled for. I suppose how they lost the weight in important, maybe they did intermittent fasting instead of caloric restriction, and it's widely known that IF has mental benefits. Or maybe they were only given two weeks to lose the weight and they eat healthy, it would prove that short term diet changes have more profound change than long term ones.
Maybe they ate a lot of veg, more fish and chicken instead of beef, less fast food..all things people do in order to lose weight. But that means they are already close to the mind diet
I wonder what the change in cognition was for those who did not lose weight or gained weight? Was the data stratified?
With any diet intervention trial in which participants are randomly assigned to a diet, the first question is did they adhere to the diet that they were assigned to follow. I’d they didn’t follow the diet then it’s hard to make solid conclusions. What was the adherence for this study?
"From baseline to year 3, improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group and 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group (mean difference, 0.035 standardized units; 95% confidence interval, −0.022 to 0.092; P=0.23). "
So, it looks like the MIND diet works slightly better but the study doesn't have enough statistical power/duration/diet difference to detect this effect with confidence. If the control group cut most of the junk food and switched to a more healthy dietary pattern (less calorie-dense food) to lose weight, such a diet can have a very similar influence.
There is one thing I do not get - the food questionaires or notorious food tracking in most studies. Is it really so difficult to train and maybe incentivise people to use a tool like Cronometer where you can easily track your food to the detail on a daily basis? Even if people „eyeball“ portions or forget (but you could configurate a text reminder on the phone) some entries it would be so much more accurate than these spot checks they usually do with the participants.
APOE types should be taken into consideration.
There is some evidence that APOE2 might benefit on higher saturated fat intake, while quite opposite seems to be true for APOE4 (without parasites).
This entire study seems based on the idea that people with AD/dementia have 5kg/11lbs to lose. That seems questionable.
these participants were particularly overweight and had an unhealthy diet at baseline, but yeah not all AD patients are
It would have been interesting to have seen 5:30 other markers for each group.
I wonder how well they adhered to the diet.
With so much quackery out there, this is a very important video.
Excellent as always. Thank you and best wishes from the UK.
I hypothesize that the act of participating in a study was beneficial to cognitive function as much as the reduction in calories was. Meaning and purpose seem to be significantly important to the only species capable of experiencing meaning and purpose.
I wondered this too.
In the second study, where Mediterranian diet showed improvement - did they controlled for weight loss? On the first glance I didn't see.
My first thought was that in this new study they were intentionally putting both groups through weight loss to exclude it as a factor. And the implication from the resulsts are that it is the weight loss specifically that was responsible for the change. Of course, it would have been nice if they had a third group on normal diet that wasn't trying to lose weight.
Thank you very much...
The control group consumed fewer calories and were instructed on healthy eating habits. If you're watching your calories and learning about healthy eating, you're probably going to pay attention to the caloric density of what you eat and therefore eat healthier. I question how different the diet was between these two groups.
So it was just the weight loss that brought the cognitive improvement? Shouldn't they try to maintain their weight while having the other group on MIND and the other regular to actually see if MIND works?
Likely weight loss and/or calorie deficit benefits cognitive function greatly, more so than the specific amounts of dofferent foods and cooking methods. It doesn't mean that the other factors do not effect cognitive health, just that they likely have a smaller impact. But one important question then is which constellation of food makes it easy to stay on a calorie deficit without compromising longterm health, like cardiovascular health. With the research I've encountered so far, my guess is the combination of foods in the Mind diet makes it easier to stay on a calorie deficit compared to the standard american diet...
Its possible that the control diet, instructed to induce weight loss by -250kcal, also ate healthier as before, instead of sticking to their usual diet. this would improve the parameters they have tested, and the better the results of the control group, the lower the likelyhood that there would be a statistically significant difference to the experimental group.
It is likely that the participants in the mind diet would consume fewer calories in any case because of the higher satiety factor. This means, if the control diet did not also introduce a kcal deficit, that we would compare apples to oranges. We would not know if the benefit is due to weight loss or due to the diet itself. So this id, I assume, why they chose to add a kcal deficit to the control group, while a kcal deficit in the intervention diet was likely anyways, even if they would not have introduced it. The question I have is how much the intervention group followed the mind diet rules, how good the two groups were balanced in terms of preconditions, risk factors, etc, or if there is any other potential cause for this result.
Love your channel!!
1. can you do a video on osteoporosis?
2. can you do a video on nutrition for PMS? My mom taught me to take calcium for it and it really helps. what does science say about it. (i am convinced it is not placebo because one time I took vitamin C by mistake because of the capital C and the pain didn't go away).
3. can you make a video about special nutritional needs for menopause or peri menopause?
A wonderful takeaway from these studies is that regardless if the Mind diet failed, we can still improve cognitive function. If you look at the totality of the evidence, life style and diet has a profound effect on our risk factors and that is something to celebrate.
Dr,. you are my go-to channel for objectivity, please consider as a future topic the problems of "skinny diabetics," overlooked on most any discussion of either type of diabetes. Getting enough calories without excessive carbs and replacing lost muscle mass after surgeries is a challenge for an active person who walks, swims, cycles, or does gym work, esp when doctors recommend liquid supplements that contain synthetic sweeteners (post-surgery) and hospitals serve food to patients that a thoughtful diabetic would not eat.
See my main comment about Personal Fat Threshold theory, which helps explain the 15% TOFI T2D population
How was the compliance in the MIND group?
Do we know what each group eat or do we only know what they were told to eat?
Looking forward to the results of Dr. Ornish’s randomized trial that is going on right now.
Perhaps diets (any of em) are more or less just fuel, and the other factors combined matters a lot more than we thought (genetics, level of exercise, quality of sleep, alcohol consumption, supplementation/micronutrients inefficiency, quality of life/happiness). There are perhaps too many other factors that dilute the affect of the diet alone.
Seems on a first hearing about this that the reason for having both groups lose weight might be really simple and good design - they wanted to ensure that weight loss was not a factor. In other words, is there something specific to the MIND diet? Their conclusion is that there doesn't appear to be
I think the design of the study was spot on. Comparing against SAD wouldn't add new information because we already know SAD is sad. So MIND is better than SAD? It would be ho-hum. With this design, we get to tease out what's important: what you eat vs losing weight. It seems losing weight is what really matters and I think that actually adds to our body of knowledge. Is that the last word? Probably not, but it's informative.
Perhaps, but you theoretically can't lose weight forever. Eventually you reach a point where you're healthy/happy. So it would still be useful to determine if one diet is better than another at maintenance in healthy people.
The benefit of this outcome is that it basically compared 3 groups: 1) People that do nothing and do not lose weight 2) People that lose weight and eat healthy 3) People that lose weight and continue eating unhealthy.
With a study without weight loss component we would not see the effect of that intervention at all, so if the study isn't problematic otherwise (like faked data or other error) it seems to show diet isn't a major issue for brain function but is clearly overshadowed by the effect of weight so people that want to help their brain should first definitely lose any extra weight they might have before worrying about exact diet.
I would really like to know what the “control diet” was. I imagine they had to switch out some unhealthy foods and in practice their diet might not have been all that dissimilar to the MIND diet group. Also, how much weight was actually lost by the two groups. That can be a decent indicator of adherence.
I think one of the missing pieces of the puzzle is Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs). These are associated with a number of aging related diseases, including Alzheimer's Disease. We need to reduce both the AGEs from diet, and prevent their formation in the body using supplements and possibly drugs.
When we diet, we eat less AGEs because we eat less of everything. Though, diets higher in meat than people were eating would likely raise AGEs.
I suspect people who are used to eating AGEs, will likely cook food in failure ways, similar to how they cooked meat, ways that generate more AGEs. AGEs are created in the Maillard browning reaction, creating a taste many people like. It is also made during high speed blending, and during fermentation.
We can make less AGEs in our food by cooking with water, and steam. The microwave can be useful as well. We can make soups from scratch, putting in uncooked meat during soup cooking rather than meat previously cooked in some method where lots of AGEs were made. Similarly, stews, and chilies. Chili and other foods cooked with tomato products or other acidic foods help to further reduce the generation of AGEs during preparation. Another strategy is to keep carbohydrates separate from protein and fat until a last step where it is added post cooking and blending.
The biggest source for most people is stabilized foods. That is, almost everything that is not fresh. The foods in the stores have been cooked at very high temperatures for a short time: most breakfast cereals, chips, crackers, pretzels, puffs, and cookies have been cooked very rapidly at very high temperatures.
Calorie reduction improves metabolism and that affects everything. We have known this for a long time, but people who were keen on making money, name for themselves etc sold us low fat diet, keto diet, canivore diet, Intermittent Fasting and other nonsense diets.
I didn't read the previous comment, but how about the Hawthorne Effect?
I think that the focus on averages instead of individual response ie: how a particular body processes the nutrients and components of food is where things are getting blocked in these studies. If someone has a particular way their body absorbs and allocates the food, and that is failing to process the material correctly, no diet no matter how specific it is to basic human health is going to show benefits. Likewise, using the Mediterranean diet so touted as being the healthiest in the world, perhaps there is something else that is leading to health of people in those regions in additions to the diet. Maybe, it's the difference in lifestyles. Family structure. Positive social norms. Something that the western society is lacking, or how stressful our way of life is here. Yes, we are fortunate as far as basic needs, but the way we must obtain them is still erosive to the psyche. The fact that we have such stressful lifestyle structures, yet we are told we do not, or it is minimized, that can lead to stresses that harm the entire body. In other words, you can't be forced to live a stressful lifestyle to exist, be told you do not live a stressful lifestyle, and expect the body to just cooperate. It will manifest itself in the health.
As always, an oasis of sanity in a vast wasteland of bullsh*t. Thank you!
it seems like cutting calories works wonders in general
Wondering if you could look at Berberine sometime
Haven't read the study, but sounds like they just wanted the nutrient content itself to be the test and didn't want weight loss to be a confounder, so they controlled for that. Because if they didn't, you wouldn't know if any significant positive result was due to the nutrition content of this diet specifically, or to weight loss, or both. But if both groups lose the same weight and there is a difference it points to the nutritional content alone. And since there was no difference here, then it points toward weight loss itself, not so much the nutritional content. What they did sounds reasonable to me.
this would mean that people can stick to regular unhealthy diet, and just aim at losing weight rather than changing their diets. there has been numerous anecdotes about people cutting down on McDonald's meals without completely stopping it and aimed at just losing weights, and showed improvement even in lipid profiles. It could be Losing weight that sounds just right. Also, people who eat healthy diet may also seem to exercise more given that they are more conscious about their health, and exercise had been proven multiple times that it mitigate any side effects you would gain from diet. it could be weight loss and exercise more than just the type of diets. that's what I sometimes assume though. science is crazy.
Were there any difference in homocysteine and omega-3 index between the groups?
A really interesting result! Thanks for posting this experiment! This study only highlights the "possible" influence of a diet on the cognitive ability to think, compared to another method, just to lose weight, which is generally obviously suitable for this. Or was there another reason that positive results were also achieved in the control group? But which one could that be? The ignorance of taking part in such a study? Ultimately, these different eating habits are also about general health, right?
Perhaps the real reason is that weight loss is why both groups showed an improvement?
Ceiling effect ?
I suppose this outcome could also be due to Type 1 error?
Could they be having both groups lose weight so that they could control weight loss as a variable.
Had only the mind diet group lost weight you wouldn’t know if the cognitive benefits were due to the diet or if you could get the same benefits eating another diet that allows you to lose weight.
Thanks for your videos. Can you maybe do videos about arachadonic acid, and how much we should have in our blood for optimal health. I heard that some peole can not concert enough arachadonic acid (AA) from linoleic acid (LA), especially western genotype. And it is only found in animal foods, as far as I could find. Also, when DHA is supplemented, there might be less conversion from LA to AA. Would be great if you could talk about it. Niko Rittenau made many videos about it, and now I wish to know how to test this, and if I should supplement with AA (because I don't eat animal products). I am supplementing EPA and DHA.
Could you make a video on Oats, it seems that seems to be a discussion right now.
we have one in the pipeline :)
Food for thought...indeed.
It would have helped to summarize what the MIND diet is.
Gil: it obvious to me the design is made to asscess if being overweight is the biggest factor involved in cognitive decline.
I think the study is more significant than we give it credit.
Sausage, Bacon, Nitrite, Nitrates, and carcinogeny. Is cured meat in general harmful?
How long was the duration of the studie? Effect on health on the long run may be different
3 yrs
Hmmm, doesn't it suggest that lowering the weight helps your brain as both groups lost some weight and both had cognitive improvements? I also suspect that control group lost weight because they were controlled so they tend to eat a little less/better then they were eating before as they knew they are being controlled so they wanted to look better :).
It is interesting, one would have thought that a diet full of vitamins minerals and healthy fiber would have significant congnitive benefits over a standard diet full of junk food, even if the participants lose weight...
Thanks.
Pretty sure dementia is related to not flossing and brain infections from your tooth root rot.
Maybe the mind diet excels in other areas such as cardiovascular health and therefore is still worth implementing.
Diet is pretty simple - eat as many single ingredient foods as possible and cook/prepare yourself
I have learnt that it is important to eat less and only when you are hungry and eat healthy. the religious type following of a certain diet is not really necessary except staying away from obviously unhealthy foods like Trans fats etc.
i think these cognitive deline or AD starts very early in life and there's not much to be done to reverse the damage. Prevention is probably the key. I think we are too focus on the cure and not much has been done about the prevention
Isn't having both groups lose weight good? Otherwise you wouldn't know if the benefits were just because of the fact the lost weight, now you can potentially draw that conclusion.