Women who consume lower amounts of ultra-processed foods have higher odds of conceiving

Women who consume lower amounts of ultra-processed foods have higher odds of conceiving, according to new research from McMaster University. The link persists even after accounting for age, weight, lifestyle and other health factors.

 

The study analyzed data from over 2,500 women who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a U.S. survey that combines interviews, 24-hour dietary recalls and laboratory tests to capture detailed information on diet, demographics, health status and biomarkers.

 

Researchers found distinct differences in eating patterns of women who reported infertility, defined as a lack of conception after one year of trying, and those who did not.

 

Women reporting infertility consumed more ultra-processed foods, making up about 31 per cent of their daily intake, and scored lower on adherence to the Mediterranean diet, a healthy eating pattern rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains and healthy fats.

 

The findings suggest that what we eat – and the degree to which it is processed – may influence reproductive health in a manner well beyond calories or weight.

 

“Most of what we hear about ultra-processed foods focuses on calories and obesity. But our findings suggest something potentially more complex – there seems to be another mechanism at play which may reflect pathways beyond calories or weight, including chemical exposures that have been hypothesized in prior literature,” explains Anthea Christoforou, assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology and senior author of the paper.

 

Even if nutrient intake looks fine, eating more ultra-processed foods means more exposure to additives and chemicals that go beyond calories, she adds. 

 

“Ultra-processed foods often carry chemicals like phthalates, BPA and acrylamides, which can leach from packaging or even from the plastic machinery used during processing. These compounds are known to disrupt hormones, and that may be part of why we’re seeing a link,” says Angelina Baric, a co-author and graduate student in the Department of Kinesiology.   

 

The Mediterranean diet showed a positive association with fertility, but this benefit disappeared once obesity was factored in, suggesting its effect may come from helping maintain a healthy weight and metabolism.

 

The findings, published today in Nutrition and Health, underscore the need for dietary guidance targeting women of reproductive age. While the effect may look modest on an individual level, in fully adjusted models higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with a roughly 60 per cent lower odds of fertility. Because this was a cross-sectional study, the findings reflect associations rather than cause and effect. Still, associations of this size could have meaningful implications at a population level, given how commonly ultra-processed foods are consumed.

 

“Very few studies have asked a fundamentally female-specific question: how does what women eat influence their reproductive health? Fertility is a huge outcome, and this is the first time anyone has examined these dietary patterns and infertility at this scale,” says Christoforou.

 

“It suggests diet may be an important and measurable factor associated with women’s ability to conceive. It’s one thing to say ultra-processed foods contribute to weight gain or cardiometabolic disease. But if they’re also affecting hormone pathways, that’s a much bigger issue — and it’s something people aren’t as aware of,” she says.

 

This latest study builds on previous research from the team, which linked ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes.

 

“Processing affects foods in ways that aren’t reflected in nutrients alone – from chemical exposures during manufacturing to ingredients that displace whole, protective foods,” says Baric.

 

“It’s not about perfection – it’s about noticing how food is processed, choosing more foods in their natural states and picking ingredients you recognize. Even that simple shift can lower exposure to things we still don’t fully understand.”

---

 

Are psychedelics better than antidepressants? New study says no

 

Psychedelic-assisted therapy may be no more effective than traditional antidepressants when patients know what drugs they are actually taking, according to a first-of-its kind analysis that compared how well each type of drug worked for major depression.

Psychedelic-assisted therapy has resisted placebo-controlled testing methods — the gold standard in clinical trial design. Due to their powerful subjective effects, nearly everyone in the trial knows whether they received a psychedelic or the placebo even if they are not told.

But in trials of antidepressants, participants may not figure out whether they have received the drug or a placebo, which makes it hard to compare them with psychedelics.

To get around this problem, researchers from UC San Francisco, UCLA, and Imperial College, London tried a different approach. They compared the results from psychedelic therapy trials to the results from so-called open-label trials of traditional antidepressants, in which the participants all knew they were getting an antidepressant. That way, both treatments benefitted equally from the positive effect of patients knowing that they were being given a drug instead of a placebo. 

The findings both surprised and disappointed them: there was virtually no difference.

“Unblinding is the defining methodological problem of psychedelic trials. What I wanted to show is that even if you compare psychedelics to open-label antidepressants, psychedelics are still much better,” said Balázs Szigeti, PhD, a clinical data scientist at UCSF’s Translational Psychedelic Research Program, who led the study. “Unfortunately, what we got is the opposite result — that they are the same, which is very surprising given the enthusiasm around psychedelics and mental health.” 

Szigeti is the co-first author of the paper with Zachary J. Williams, MD, PhD, of UCLA; Hannah Barnett, MSc, of Imperial College, London is also an author. The study appeared March 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.

A sobering view

The hype around the use of psychedelics like psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” and LSD, to treat such conditions as depression and addiction has grown in recent years as an increasing number of studies have shown promising results, particularly for people who haven’t responded to traditional antidepressants.

The new findings don’t mean that psychedelic therapy does not work — just that it does not work better than traditional antidepressants. Patients improved substantially from both types of treatments, reducing depression scores by about 12 points on a standard scale.

Part of what has made psychedelics seem impressive in trials than antidepressants is how much more those who received the psilocybin or LSD improved than those who did not get it.

But the researchers concluded that this was the result of the lack of blinding in psychedelic trials: those who got the drug improved more because they knew they had gotten it, while those who received a placebo did worse because they knew they did not. Whereas in trials of traditional antidepressants, the difference between the groups was much smaller, making it seem like the drugs weren’t that effective.

When this ‘knowing the treatment’ factor leveled out, the seeming advantage of psychedelics disappeared. 

“Psychedelics may still be a valuable treatment option,” Szigeti said. “But if we want to understand their true benefits, we have to compare them fairly — and when we do that, the advantage over standard antidepressants is much smaller than many people, including myself, expected.”

Ultra-processed foods linked with serious heart problems

 

Consuming more daily servings of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiac events, with Black Americans seeing amplified risk

Peer-Reviewed Publication

American College of Cardiology

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

People who consumed over nine servings of ultra-processed foods per day on average were 67% more likely to suffer a major cardiac event than people consuming about one serving of such foods per day, in a study being presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session (ACC.26). Ultra-processed foods include many packaged and convenience foods, such as chips, crackers, frozen meals, processed meats, sugary drinks, breakfast cereals and breads.

With each additional daily serving, the risk of adverse events such as heart attacks, strokes and death from coronary heart disease or stroke increases by more than 5%, according to the findings. The association between ultra-processed food intake and adverse events was more pronounced among Black Americans compared with other racial groups.

“Ultra-processed foods are associated with an increased risk for heart disease, and while many of these products may seem like convenient on-the-go meal or snack options, our findings suggest they should be consumed in moderation,” said Amier Haidar, MD, a cardiology fellow at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and the study’s lead author.

The research is among the first large studies to examine ultra-processed food consumption and heart disease risk in a racially diverse population of U.S. adults. The findings align with those of previous studies, most of which have been conducted in Europe, and offer additional context for the more diverse U.S. population.

The study is based on data from 6,814 U.S. adults without known heart disease who enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) between ages 45-84 years. Using food questionnaires, researchers assessed each participant’s daily intake of ultra-processed foods based on the NOVA classification system, which categorizes foods into four groupings ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed (e.g., corn on the cob) through ultra-processed (e.g., corn chips), with more lightly processed items falling in the middle (e.g., corn starch and canned corn). 

Participants in the highest quintile for ultra-processed food intake consumed 9.3 servings of such foods per day on average, while participants in the lowest quintile averaged 1.1 servings per day. Compared with the lowest quintile, participants in the highest quintile were 67% more likely to die from coronary heart disease or stroke or to experience a non-fatal heart attack, stroke or resuscitated cardiac arrest.

“We controlled for a lot of factors in this study,” Haidar said. “Regardless of the amount of calories you consumed per day, regardless of the overall quality of your diet, and after controlling for common risk factors like diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity, the risk associated with higher ultra-processed food intake was still about the same.”

Haidar said these findings suggest that ultra-processed foods may contribute to cardiovascular risk through mechanisms beyond excess calories or poor overall diet quality, and that paying attention to how foods are processed alongside their nutrient content may be important for heart health.

Overall, each additional daily serving of ultra-processed foods was associated with a 5.1% increased risk of adverse cardiac events. However, this association was amplified among Black Americans, who saw a 6.1% increase in risk with each additional serving compared with a 3.2% increase per serving among non-Black individuals. Researchers said that minority-targeted food marketing and neighborhood environmental factors that make it harder to access less-processed foods have likely contributed to inequities in ultra-processed food consumption and associated health impacts among different racial groups.

There were several limitations to the study. Since the MESA study was not designed specifically to collect data on ultra-processed food intake, researchers said that the dietary questionnaire data relied on self-reporting by participants and assessed processed food intake by number of servings rather than individual food items.

The study also did not focus on the biological mechanisms involved, but previous research suggests that the high energy density, added sugars and fats, and effects on satiety and metabolism from ultra-processed foods drives weight gain, inflammation and the buildup of visceral fat tissue, all of which can contribute to heart disease.

Heidar said one way to reduce risk is to pay attention to the types of foods being consumed and to the food labels. Nutrition labels provide important information about the amount of added sugar, salt, fat and carbohydrates in each serving. These are often higher in ultra-processed foods compared with less-processed foods like plain oatmeal, nuts, beans and fresh or frozen produce.

The ACC published a 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance report in JACC endorsing a standardized front-of-package labeling system to help make sure that healthier choices are more visible, accessible and achievable for all consumers.

This study was published simultaneously in JACC Advances.

Closing your eyes might not help you hear better

 Most people will close their eyes when trying to concentrate on a faint sound. Many of us have been told that keeping our eyes closed helps us hear better — that it frees up our brains’ processing abilities and increases our auditory sensitivity. However, that strategy may sometimes backfire, particularly in environments with a lot of loud background noise.

In JASA, published on behalf of the Acoustical Society of America by AIP Publishing, researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University tested whether a person closing their eyes can really hear better in noisy environments.

To test this, volunteers listened to a collection of sounds through headphones amid background noise. Then, the volunteers adjusted the volume of the sounds until they could barely make them out over the background noise.

This test was conducted first with eyes closed, then with eyes open but looking at only a blank screen, then looking at a still picture corresponding to the sound, and finally, looking at a video matching up with the sound they were trying to hear.

“We found that, contrary to popular belief, closing one’s eyes actually impairs the ability to detect these sounds,” said author Yu Huang. “Conversely, seeing a dynamic video corresponding to the sound significantly improves hearing sensitivity.”

To find an explanation for this result, the researchers attached electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the participants to monitor their brain activity. They determined that closing the eyes puts a participant’s brain in a state of neural criticality, which more aggressively filters noises and quiet sounds, including the target sounds those participants were trying to detect.

“In a noisy soundscape, the brain needs to actively separate the signal from the background,” said Huang. “We found that the internal focus promoted by eye closure actually works against you in this context, leading to over-filtering, whereas visual engagement helps anchor the auditory system to the external world.”

The authors emphasize that this result is unique to noisy environments. With a calmer background, the conventional strategy of keeping their eyes closed likely does help people detect faint sounds. But because so much of our lives are spent surrounded by noise, it might be better to face the world with eyes wide open.

The researchers plan to continue their work exploring the relationship between vision and hearing.

“Specifically, we want to test incongruent pairings — for example, what happens if you hear a drum but see a bird?” said Huang. “Does the visual boost come from simply having the eyes open and processing more visual information, or does the brain require the visual and audio information to match perfectly? Understanding this distinction will help us separate the general effects of attention from the specific benefits of multisensory integration.”

###

Want to handle stress better? Start with breakfast, sleep, and exercise

 Do you ever feel mentally stuck, like you can’t cope when a stressful situation hits? A healthy breakfast, exercise, and a good night’s sleep might be just what you need to build psychological flexibility, and new research from Binghamton University shows why that matters.

What is psychological flexibility? Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to changing situations in a balanced and constructive way. Instead of getting mentally “stuck” when stress hits, psychologically flexible people can step back, process their emotions, and respond constructively.

“You might know someone who stays cool under pressure,” said Lina Begdache, an associate professor of health and wellness studies and lead author of the study. “The kind of person who misses a flight and, instead of panicking, calmly adapts to the situation. This person may still feel stressed, but they’re better able to manage it through psychological flexibility.”

Lina Begdache, associate professor of health and wellness studies at Decker College of Nursing and Health Sciences, studies the interaction between food and mood. Image Credit: Jonathan Cohen.

“People may say that these are resilient people, but they also have what’s called psychological flexibility. They’re able to change the way they think about the situation and then use brain resources to handle the stress.”

Begdache and her colleagues – former Assistant Professor of Physical Therapy Binghamton Jason Cherry and former student Alexander J. Talkachov – conducted an anonymous survey of approximately 400 college students asking questions on diet, sleeping habits, exercise frequency, and more. They found that consistent healthy habits, such as regular exercise and eating breakfast, enhance psychological flexibility, which in turn strengthens mental resilience and helps individuals cope with stress.

Key findings from the study include:

• Eating breakfast five or more times a week is associated with increased resilience through psychological flexibility processes
• People who sleep less than six hours tend to have less resilience and less psychological flexibility
• Exercise, even 20 minutes or more, is associated with psychological flexibility and resilience
• Taking fish oil multiple times a week can help with psychological flexibility

In contrast, low psychological flexibility, or rigidity in thinking and behavior, is associated with poor habits such as fast-food consumption and insufficient sleep.

Begdache said that psychological flexibility allows a person to “step back” and use their brain’s resources to better understand and process their emotions. And people can have more flexibility if they follow certain improvements in their diet and lifestyle.

“When we’re under stress, we feel like we fuse with the stress. We live the stress. But psychological flexibility is like stepping back and thinking, ‘I feel this because of that. What can I do?’ Identifying your emotions sometimes helps you find the solution for these emotions,” said Begdache.

Begdache’s earlier research found that high-quality diets boost resilience while poor diets reduce it. This study adds a critical piece: psychological flexibility is the pathway through which diet and lifestyle shape resilience.

“The new finding here is that diet and lifestyle don’t just make you resilient by themselves. They help you build the psychological flexibility, which, in turn, makes you a resilient person.”

The paper, “Dietary and lifestyle factors and resilience: the role of psychological flexibility as a mediator,” (opens in a new window)was published in the Journal of American College Health.

Extra belly weight, not BMI, was a stronger predictor of heart failure risk, inflammation

 Research Highlights:

• Excess fat stored around the waist (belly weight or visceral fat), indicated by measuring waist size, was more strongly associated with heart failure risk than body mass index (BMI).
• Systemic inflammation played a key role in the relationship between extra weight stored around the waist, or central obesity, and heart failure. About one-quarter to one-third of the link between abdominal fat and heart failure appeared to be explained by inflammation.
• The mediating role of inflammation in the association between central obesity and heart failure suggests that reducing inflammation levels may be a potential treatment strategy to reduce the risk of heart failure in these individuals.
• Note: The study featured in this news release is a research abstract. Abstracts presented at the American Heart Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, and the findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Embargoed until 4:00 p.m. ET/3:00 p.m. CT, Tuesday, March 17, 2026

BOSTON, March 17, 2026 — New research suggests that measures of excess weight around the waist (central obesity or visceral fat) may increase the risk of heart failure primarily due to inflammation, according to findings presented at the American Heart Association’s EPI|Lifestyle Scientific Sessions 2026. The meeting is in Boston, March 17-20, and offers the latest epidemiological science on prevention, lifestyle and cardiometabolic health.

In this study, researchers found that measurements of higher levels of visceral fat were more strongly linked to heart failure risk than overall body weight, and higher waist measurements identified higher risk even when body mass index (BMI) appeared normal. The study found that inflammation may help explain why belly fat is especially harmful to heart health, suggesting that where fat is stored in the body may matter more than weight. These findings point to opportunities to identify people at higher risk of heart failure using waist measurements rather than relying only on BMI.

“This research helps us understand why some people develop heart failure despite having a body weight that seems healthy,” said Szu-Han Chen, lead author of the study and a medical student at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan. “By monitoring waist size and inflammation, clinicians may be able to identify people with higher risk earlier and focus on prevention strategies that could reduce the chance of heart failure before symptoms begin.”

According to a 2025 scientific statement from the American Heart Association focused on risk-based primary prevention of heart failure, systemic inflammation, or inflammation found throughout the body, is a common risk factor for heart disease because it can disrupt the immune system, damage blood vessels and lead to the build up of scar tissue in the heart. The Association has also highlighted evidence that higher levels of inflammation in the body are linked to an increased risk of heart disease, even in adults with normal cholesterol levels.

The study found:

• 112 adults developed heart failure during the median follow-up period of 6.9 years;
• elevated measurements of excess weight around the waist were associated with increased heart failure risk, while high BMI was not;
• higher waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio were each associated with increased heart failure risk;
• over the follow-up period of almost 7 years, participants with higher inflammation levels, as measured by blood tests, were more likely to experience heart failure; and
• inflammation accounted for about one-quarter to one-third of the link between measures of fat stored around the waist and heart failure risk.

“This study highlights the importance of integrating measures of central adiposity such as waist circumference into routine preventive care. Understanding upstream drivers of heart failure risk including central adiposity is key to recognizing and modifying risk,“ said Sadiya S. Khan, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, volunteer chair of the American Heart Association’s 2025 Scientific Statement: Risk-Based Primary Prevention of Heart Failure. “This study builds on prior research that highlights the importance of excess or dysfunctional adiposity in the development of heart failure, which informed the inclusion of body mass index into the PREVENT-HF risk equations to estimate risk of heart failure. However, future research should identify if central adiposity has greater predictive utility beyond strength of association.” Khan, who was not involved in the study, is also Magerstadt Professor of Cardiovascular Epidemiology and an associate professor of cardiology and preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.

The researchers noted that they did not have access to participants’ heart failure subtypes, therefore, the findings are about all types of heart failure together. Future research should examine how visceral fat and inflammation relate to different types of heart failure and whether reducing inflammation can help prevent or reduce the risk of heart failure.

Study details, background and design:  

• Analysis included health data for 1,998 African American adults in three counties in urban and rural Jackson, Mississippi, enrolled in the Jackson Heart Study. Participants did not have heart failure at the time of enrollment in the Jackson Heart Study, 2000-2004.
• Participants were ages 35-84 years old at enrollment, with an average age of 58 years; 36% were women, and they were followed for a median of 6.9 years, through December 31, 2016.
• Researchers assessed participants’ body fat using measures including weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio.
• Blood samples were tested to measure high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a commonly used marker of inflammation in the body.
• This study was conducted under the guidance of Professor Hao-Min Cheng at Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

The American Heart Association recently launched the Systemic Inflammation Data Challenge to encourage collaboration and deepen understanding of how inflammation contributes to heart disease and related conditions including heart failure.

Co-authors, disclosures and funding sources are listed in the abstract.

Statements and conclusions of studies that are presented at the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association’s scientific meetings are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. Abstracts presented at the Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, rather, they are curated by independent review panels and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting. The findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The Association receives more than 85% of its revenue from sources other than corporations. These sources include contributions from individuals, foundations and estates, as well as investment earnings and revenue from the sale of our educational materials. Corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations to the Association. The Association has strict policies to prevent any donations from influencing its science content and policy positions. Overall financial information is available here.

Additional Resources:

• Multimedia is available on the right column of the release link.
• After March 17, view abstract 72 in the EPI|Lifestyle Scientific Sessions 2026 Online Program Planner
• American Heart Association Scientific Statement news release: More resources and collaboration needed to support prevention and treatment of obesity (Jan. 2026)
• American Heart Association news release: Data challenge explores inflammation’s hidden role in heart disease (June 2025)
• American Heart Association Scientific Statement: Risk-Based Primary Prevention of Heart Failure (April 2025)
• American Heart Association news release: Measure of body roundness may help to predict risk of cardiovascular disease (Sept. 2024)
• American Heart Association health information: Simple ways to reduce inflammation and protect your heart
• American Heart Association health information: What is Heart Failure?
• For more news from the meeting, follow us on X @HeartNews, #EPILifestyle26.

Mediterranean-blood pressure lowering diet (MIND) may slow structural brain ageing

 

The combined Mediterranean and blood pressure lowering diet (MIND) may slow the structural changes related to brain ageing, finds research published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 

 

This diet is associated with less tissue loss over time, especially grey matter—the brain’s information processing hub, with a key role in memory, learning, and decision-making—and less ventricular enlargement, which reflects brain atrophy, where tissue loss is accompanied by the enlargement of cerebrospinal fluid-filled spaces.

 

The Mediterranean–Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Diet Intervention for

Neurodegenerative Delay diet, or MIND for short, has previously been linked to better cognitive health, note the researchers. 

 

The diet recommends the regular consumption of particular food groups: green leafy vegetables; other vegetables; berries; nuts; whole grains; fish; beans; olive oil; and poultry, plus a moderate intake of wine. And it recommends limiting intake of butter/margarine, cheese, red meat, pastries/sweets, and fried fast foods.

 

But it’s not clear what effect this diet may have on age-related structural changes in the brain which are associated with neurodegenerative disease, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, explain the researchers.

 

To explore this further, they focused on 1647 middle aged and older adults (average age 60 at the start of the study) from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort (FOS). All of them had regular health check ups every 4–8 years, with MRI brain scan assessments every 2–6 years from 1999 onwards.

 

They also completed at least 1 food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at their check-ups between 1991–5, 1995–8, and/or 1998–2001 to assess dietary intake. And they had at least 2 brain MRI scan assessments between 1999 and 2019 with no evidence of a stroke or dementia by the time of their first MRI scan.

 

Their average MIND diet score was just under 7 out of a possible 15, where 15 indicates the highest level of adherence. Those in the top third of adherence were more likely to be women and college educated, and less likely to be current smokers or living with obesity.  

 

And fewer of them had health issues likely to affect brain health, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. 

 

During an average monitoring period of 12 years, reductions in total brain, grey matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, alongside increased cerebrospinal fluid, ventricular volumes, and white matter hyperintensities—bright spots indicative of tissue damage—were evident on the MRI scans of all the participants.

 

But higher MIND diet scores were associated with slower grey matter shrinkage/loss. Each 3 point increase was associated with slower (0.279 cm³/year) loss, equivalent to 20% less age-related decline and 2.5 years of delayed brain ageing.

 

Similarly, each 3-point increase in MIND diet score was associated with slower expansion of total ventricular volume by −0.071 cm³/year, equivalent to 8% less tissue loss and 1 year of delayed brain ageing.

 

The primary dietary contributors to the observed beneficial associations included berries, which were associated with slower increases in ventricular volumes, and poultry, also associated with slower increases in ventricular volumes and a slower decline in grey matter. 

 

On the other hand, higher intake of sweets was associated with faster ventricular expansion and hippocampal atrophy, while fried fast foods were also linked to a greater decline in hippocampal volume. 

 

“MIND-recommended foods rich in antioxidants, such as berries,and high-quality

protein sources like poultry may reduce oxidative stress and mitigate neuronal damage,” suggest the researchers.  “Conversely, fried fast foods, often high in unhealthy fats, trans fats, and advanced glycation end-products, may contribute to inflammation and vascular damage,” they add.

 

Unexpectedly, higher whole grain intake was associated with unfavourable structural changes, including faster declines in grey matter and hippocampal volume, and faster ventricular expansion, while higher cheese intake was associated with slower reductions in grey matter and hippocampal volume and less ventricular enlargement and fewer bright spots.

 

The associations found were consistent across a series of further analyses and stronger in older participants, suggesting that this diet may be more beneficial in those at higher risk of faster brain ageing, or who exhibit larger variation in the rate of brain atrophy, say the researchers.

 

Stronger associations were also observed for those who were more physically active and who weren’t overweight or obese, suggesting that combined lifestyle strategies might help to lower the risk of neurodegenerative disease, they add.

 

This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, and the researchers acknowledge that food frequency questionnaires are subject to recall bias. And the researchers weren’t able to exclude mild cognitive impairment at the time of the first MRI scan, changes in dietary habits over time, or genetic risk factors.

 

As the participants were predominantly White, the findings might not apply to other ethnicities, they point out.

 

Nevertheless, they conclude: “These findings reinforce the potential of the MIND diet as a brain-healthy dietary pattern and support its role in strategies aimed at slowing  neurodegeneration in ageing populations.”