Canola oil may worsen memory, learning ability, says study

Agencies
December 8, 2017

Washington, Dec 8: Canola oil - one of the most widely consumed vegetable oils in the world - may be harmful for the brain, according to a study which found that it can worsen memory and learning ability.

The study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, also linked the consumption of canola oil to weight gain in mice.

"Canola oil is appealing because it is less expensive than other vegetable oils, and it is advertised as being healthy," said Domenico Pratico, professor at Temple University in the US.

"Very few studies, however, have examined that claim, especially in terms of the brain," said Pratico.

Curious about how canola oil affects brain function, researchers focused their work on memory impairment and the formation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in an Alzheimer's disease mouse model.

Amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau, which is responsible for the formation of tau neurofibrillary tangles, contribute to neuronal dysfunction and degeneration and memory loss in Alzheimer's disease.

The animal model was designed to recapitulate Alzheimer's in humans, progressing from an asymptomatic phase in early life to full-blown disease in aged animals.

Researchers had previously used the same mouse model in an investigation of olive oil, and found that Alzheimer mice fed a diet enriched with extra-virgin olive oil had reduced levels of amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau and experienced memory improvement.

For their latest work, they wanted to determine whether canola oil is similarly beneficial for the brain.

The researchers divided the mice into two groups at six months of age, before the animals developed signs of Alzheimer's disease.

One group was fed a normal diet, while the other was fed a diet supplemented with the equivalent of about two tablespoons of canola oil daily.

The researchers then assessed the animals at 12 months. One of the first differences observed was in body weight - animals on the canola oil-enriched diet weighed significantly more than mice on the regular diet.

Maze tests to assess working memory, short-term memory, and learning ability uncovered additional differences.

Most significantly, mice that had consumed canola oil over a period of six months suffered impairments in working memory.

The findings suggest that long-term consumption of canola oil is not beneficial to brain health.

"Even though canola oil is a vegetable oil, we need to be careful before we say that it is healthy," Pratico said.

"Based on the evidence from this study, canola oil should not be thought of as being equivalent to oils with proven health benefits," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 11,2020

Panaji, May 11: Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, most of the people are more concerned about the health of their near and dear ones than their own well-being, says a study conducted by a leading business school in Goa.

People are now more conscious about any bodily changes, and even mild cold, cough and sneezing, it says.

The study, on public's reaction towards COVID-19 outbreak by gauging their psychological response in terms of anxiety and their coping behaviour, was conducted by the Goa Institute of Management's Dr Divya Singhal and Prof Padhmanabhan Vijayaraghavan.

It took into account inputs from 231 respondents residing in various parts of the country.

"Nearly 82.25 per cent of the respondents were more worried about the health of their loved ones than their own well-being," Singhal said.

"Majority of the respondents have become conscious of any bodily changes, sensations, a mild cold, cough, sneezing and experience concern, and attribute those changes to the symptoms of COVID-19," she said.

Besides, more than 50 per cent of the respondents said their social media usage has gone up as well as their time spent on watching movies and shows through online medium, the official said.

The respondents agreed that their technology usage to connect with friends and relatives has gone up, she said.

The study also indicated that a large group of respondents found it "depressing" to read forwarded messages on the deadly disease.

"An overwhelming majority of the respondentsagreed that they discourage unverified forwarded messages about COVID-19 on social media," says the study.

It also found that 41 per centof the respondents were not doing any physical activity, like yoga, during the lockown period, while another 19 per cent were not sure about engaging themselves in physical activities.

Besides, 57 per cent of the respondents were not engaged in any mind-calming practices like meditation, and 18 per cent were not sure about taking up meditative practices, the study said.

The respondents included 145 men and 86 women, aged 18 and above, with nearly 60 per cent of them residing in non- metro cities and rest from metros.

About 47.62 per cent of the respondents were employed in private or government sectors, and the remaining included students, retired persons and homemakers.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 10,2020

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 7,2020

The World Health Organization (WHO) is reviewing a report that suggested its advice on the novel coronavirus needs updating after some scientists told the New York Times there was evidence the virus could be spread by tiny particles in the air.

The WHO says the Covid-19 disease spreads primarily through small droplets, which are expelled from the nose and mouth when an infected person breaths them out in coughs, sneezes, speech or laughter and quickly sink to the ground.

In an open letter to the Geneva-based agency, 239 scientists in 32 countries outlined the evidence they say shows that smaller exhaled particles can infect people who inhale them, the newspaper said on Saturday.

Because those smaller particles can linger in the air longer, the scientists - who plan to publish their findings in a scientific journal this week - are urging WHO to update its guidance, the Times said.

"We are aware of the article and are reviewing its contents with our technical experts," WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an email reply on Monday to a Reuters request for comment.

The extent to which the coronavirus can be spread by the so-called airborne or aerosol route - as opposed to by larger droplets in coughs and sneezes - remains disputed.

Any change in the WHO's assessment of the risk of transmission could affect its current advice on keeping one-metre physical distancing. Governments, which also rely on the agency for guidance policy, may also have to adjust public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus.

"Especially in the last couple of months, we have been stating several times that we consider airborne transmission as possible but certainly not supported by solid or even clear evidence," Benedetta Allegranzi, the WHO's technical lead for infection prevention and control, was quoted as saying in the New York Times.

WHO guidance to health workers, dated June 29, says that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and on surfaces.

But airborne transmission via smaller particles is possible in some circumstances, such as when performing intubation and aerosol-generating procedures, it says.

Medical workers performing such procedures should wear heavy-duty N95 respiratory masks and other protective equipment in an adequately ventilated room, the WHO says.

Officials at South Korea's Centers for Disease Control said on Monday they were continuing to discuss various issues about Covid-19, including the possible airborne transmission. They said more investigations and evidence were needed.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.