This common nut can lower your risk of heart disease, dementia and diabetes

A handful of almonds each day could significantly reduce a condition that has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, and dementia, according to a new study in the journal Nutrition Research.
Around one in three Americans are affected by metabolic syndrome, and evidence shows they are 'three times as likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke and twice as likely to die from coronary heart disease compared to people without this condition,' lead study author Emily Ho, director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, said in a statement released in the report.
'Poor diet and inactivity contribute to the development of metabolic syndrome, and gut health and chronic inflammation may also play roles,' she added.
But swapping processed snacks for a handful of almonds – about 45 nuts – in your daily diet could help curb some of the most serious chronic health risks facing Americans today.
In a 12-week clinical trial, researchers studied adults aged 35 to 60 who had been diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.
One group consumed 320 calories of almonds daily while the other group ate the same number of calories from crackers.
Those who ate almonds experienced significant health improvements, including reductions in total cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, and waist circumference.
Blood tests also showed increased levels of vitamin E, an antioxidant known to reduce inflammation and support heart, nerve, and muscle function.
Participants in the almond group also saw lower levels of gut inflammation — a promising sign, as maintaining a healthy gut microbiome is increasingly recognized as vital to long-term health.
'In addition to vitamin E, almonds have polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, fiber, polyphenols, biotin, copper, potassium and magnesium,' said study co-author Laura Beaver, a research associate in the Oregon State College of Health. 'The changes in cholesterol levels we observed suggest a meaningful metabolic shift in those who consumed almonds daily.'
The findings align with previous research highlighting the health benefits of almonds.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Wire

an hour ago

• Business Wire

New Study from Marathon Health Reveals Advanced Primary Care Yields Immediate ROI and Curbs Acute Care Use

INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Marathon Health, a leading provider of advanced primary care (APC) for employers and unions across the United States, has released a new large-scale claims study showing that APC — starting in year 1 of an employer's investment — significantly reduces health care costs, as employees engage in more preventive care and less acute/specialty care. The findings arrive at a critical moment: The 2025 Milliman Medical Index reports health care costs for a family of four have reached $35,119 in the typical employer-sponsored health plan, up 188% over the 20 years of the study. This far outpaces wage growth and inflation, putting increasing pressure on employee and plan sponsor budgets. 'Advanced primary care is a 21st-century approach rooted in decades of evidence,' says Dr. Nirav Vakharia, chief health officer at Marathon Health and a practicing primary care physician. 'For more than 50 years, research has shown that strong primary care leads to better clinical outcomes, less unnecessary utilization, and lower costs. What sets advanced primary care apart is that it doesn't reinvent the fundamentals — it delivers them with greater consistency through timely access, continuity between patients and providers, and whole-person care. That's how we create a health care system that truly works for working Americans.' Part of Marathon Health's ongoing and rigorous assessment of return on investment (ROI), the study examined over 3 million medical claim records across two cohorts — 89,000 members among 29 sponsors over five years; 224,000 members among 60 sponsors — via a methodology independently assessed by Milliman. Key findings under the most conservative of assumptions, including around engagement rates, show: Marathon Health's APC model pays for itself in the first year and delivers 3.7x ROI by year 5 Engaged members utilize more preventive care and less downstream acute care, and have: 21% lower claims costs 82% higher primary care utilization 15% fewer emergency room visits 41% fewer inpatient admissions The results reinforce APC's power to reduce unnecessary or avoidable high-cost care by encouraging prevention and early intervention — and employers have taken note. Advanced primary care adoption is rapidly accelerating: 76% of purchasers are currently offering APC or are considering adoption within the next 1-3 years, according to the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions. Marathon Health will be hosting a public webinar on the study and its implications on June 26, 2025. Register here: To access the full study, visit About Marathon Health Marathon Health is a leading advanced primary care provider, partnering with employer and union plan sponsors to improve health for millions of Americans. With nationwide onsite, nearsite, and network health centers, and virtual primary care, Marathon delivers a value-based model that enhances the health care experience for members and providers, while driving meaningful cost savings for plan sponsors. Learn more at

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

A judge just took Trump to task for his attack on science

In some quarters, science has a bad name. Some children, from their first exposure to courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, are intimidated by their quantitative focus or turned off by what they mistakenly see as its sterility. On college campuses, humanists feel under siege due to the growing popularity of scientific fields among their students. They reject the view of some scholars that because 'science follows the methodology of rational dialogue,' it 'transcends culture.' But, as the Trump administration proceeds to take down the existing infrastructure of scientific research in the U.S., all Americans need to rally to its defense. That is because scientific literacy and research are essential to the well-being of all of us and to the country itself. The administration claims that it does not want to limit or end scientific research, just rid it of the taint of politics. On May 23, President Trump issued an executive order alleging that 'Actions taken by the prior Administration … politicized science, for example, by encouraging agencies to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations into all aspects of science planning, execution, and communication.' The president promised to restore what he called a 'gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful.' But on June 16, Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts exposed that promise as just a pretext for carrying out a war on science. He said that cuts to the National Institutes of Health grants mandated by the president and others in the federal government were blatantly discriminatory and rooted in prejudice. Judge Young ordered the government to restore most of those grants. This is not the first time in American history that the scientific enterprise has been used as a political football. Indeed, as a 2017 article in Scientific American notes, 'The reality is that engaging in scientific research is a social activity and an inherently political one.' Scientific projects, like World War II's Manhattan Project, which led to the atomic bomb, and the massive investment in science after Russia launched the first satellite into space, have been fueled by political goals. Moreover, the work of scientists on subjects like global warming can easily get caught up in partisan contests. Critics worry that the scientific enterprise will be tainted by the political agendas of those who supply funding and help drum up public support for the work scientists do. Those worries reached a fever pitch following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Science skepticism spiked as resentment grew over such polices as universal masking and school closures. Although polls show that trust in science has rebounded, a substantial portion of the population remains doubtful that scientific research is sound and helpful in making public policy decisions. Enter the Trump administration. As The Atlantic's Adam Serwer observes, 'The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself, a war against culture, history, and science.' But it has done so by using a skillful kind of double-speak. The president's executive order puts the administration on the side of 'restoring a gold standard for science,' and guarantees that scientific research is 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful.' At the same time, Trump has cut science funding to 'its lowest level in decades.' The administration has taken a meat ax to research budgets everywhere, including the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to say nothing about what it has done to research funding at universities like Columbia and Harvard. This brings us back to Judge Young's ruling. He found that the administration's efforts to terminate NIH grants 'on topics such as health equity, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy and maternal health in minority communities' had nothing to do with the president's supposed commitment to 'restoring the gold standard for science.' Instead, Young said they were motivated by prejudice and a political agenda of 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' Young took note of 'the administration's very public efforts to eliminate any trace of diversity and equity initiatives from the federal government, as well as its attacks on transgender people.' He did not mince words. From the bench, he told the government's lawyers that 'over the course of his career he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this,'' and that he 'felt duty bound to state his conclusion about the government's intent. 'I would be blind not to call it out.'' Americans should not be blind to why the Trump administration is targeting science and what its consequences will be for all of us. As Serwer puts it, the president and his allies believe that the kind of 'truth-seeking' that goes on in scientific laboratories all over the country 'imperils their hold on power.' But whatever its motivation, the president's assault on science will leave us sicker, less prosperous, and more vulnerable to the ravages of nature. It will leave this country weaker and will undermine its position in the world. Put simply, America loses when science loses. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Americans say they care about getting enough protein and avoiding food dyes. Their eating habits say otherwise.

Americans are fed a lot of information about what counts as healthy food. We wanted to know if these nutritional values are really as important to Americans as the headlines suggest, so, with the help of YouGov, we polled more than 1,500 U.S. adults in April 2025. The results: Most people agree that protein is important, and food dyes should be banned. And yet, a much smaller share of Americans are checking food labels for these ingredients. So what gives? We spoke to experts about whether Americans really value the nutritional concerns that make headlines, and what you can do to better align your ideals with your dietary habits. We asked Americans about whether they consider nutritional information when they choose what to eat and, if so, what factors they prioritize (meaning: calories, sodium, etc.). Then we zoomed in on two nutritional topics that have gotten a lot of buzz lately: protein and red dyes. Protein has been having a moment, partly because it's what some experts have dubbed 'the last macronutrient standing' amid the bad raps of fats and carbs. Its connection to muscle building and weight loss — especially in conjunction with GLP-1 medications like Ozempic — has been a further boon to protein. Americans seem to have taken note. A large majority (85%) of respondents to the Yahoo News/YouGov poll said that protein is very or somewhat important to them when choosing what to eat. Yet among the two-thirds of respondents who said they check nutritional labels, only 13% said that protein is the factor they pay most attention to when choosing what to eat. And only about a quarter of respondents said they're eating more protein now than they were a year ago. We found the same pattern when it comes to food dyes. More than two-thirds (65%) of respondents to our poll said they approve of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s move to ban many artificial colorings. But only 37% of respondents said they actively avoid food dyes, and just 27% said they always or usually check food labels for the ingredients (another 24% said they sometimes check). If we're so aware of what we should be including or avoiding in our food, but don't necessarily act on it, are we just too lazy to make healthy choices? Not exactly. For example, 66% of the respondents to our survey make the effort to check nutritional information. But the most commonly considered factor was calorie content (16%), which isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether a food is healthy, according to recent research. While it might seem fairly easy to check foods for their content of other nutrients, calculating out how much we need of each of these (protein, vitamins, etc.) gets complicated, fast. 'There's a lot of evidence that people don't take actions that are in their best interests based on their knowledge,' says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, director of Tufts University's Food Is Medicine Institute. 'People have an aspirational image of what they would like to do, and then [there's] what they do in real life.' This phenomenon is known as the intention-action gap. 'And for nutrition, it's doubly or triply complicated by the beliefs and intentions and knowledge also being a huge source of confusion for people,' says Mozaffarian. Picture yourself at the grocery store or in the drive-through line. What's on your checklist? Protein? Food dyes? Calories? Whole grains? And how much is enough, or too much, and what even qualifies as a whole grain anyway? Does a Whopper meal count as paleo? 'That confusion dramatically increases the gap between aspirations and actions,' says Mozaffarian. It also takes time — a lot of it. 'Our lives are all busy, and just because we would like to do something doesn't mean we will actually get around to doing it,' Teresa Fung, an adjunct professor of nutrition at Simmons University and Harvard University, tells Yahoo Life. And with new diet trends and hyped ingredients and priorities cropping up all the time, it can be hard to stay focused on the things that really matter for your personal diet. Fung is glad that people are aware of issues like food additives, 'but hopefully it's not at the expense of other things,' she says. 'If it's just for a few months that I'm paying attention to [any one food issue] and then a year from now I'm not,' that's not helpful, she adds. However, some public health experts, including Mozzaffarian, believe that certain foods 'just shouldn't be on the shelf,' he says. Specifically, he notes that poor quality diets and ultra-processed foods are linked to health conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome (a collection of related health problems common among overweight and obese people). 'It's not an information problem, it's a product problem,' Mozzaffarian says. Until food is better regulated, nutrition labels are still key to making healthy choices, says Mozaffarian. Grocery shopping and cooking at home go a long way to help you take control of your health, instead of eating packaged, restaurant or fast foods. And, perhaps counterintuitively, 'if you want to eat healthier, buy more products without labels,' Mozaffarian says, meaning whole foods like fruits, vegetables and eggs. When it comes to protein, most people actually don't need to stress too much about whether they're eating enough of it. 'The typical American diet already has enough protein, so if people are already doing it, they don't really need to take the additional action' of checking labels for protein content, she says. Fung also suspects that, like most single-nutrient eating trends, the protein obsession will fade. 'It happens all the time: There are always new discoveries, and people focus on them until they're no longer new, then we wait for the next shiny new thing,' she says. That's another strategy: If the food rules you're trying to follow are super trendy, they probably aren't that sustainable, or essential, Fung adds. However, in some cases, there's a grain of truth to nutritional trends, and some exceptions are worth making. For example, perimenopausal and menopausal women really do need to up their protein intake. And the majority of Americans don't eat enough fiber, so the ongoing fibermaxxing trend actually is dietitian-approved. Fung and Mozaffarian acknowledge that, even if you aren't trying to keep up with the latest food fad, it takes a lot of time and energy to eat the way you aspire. 'It's like another job you have to do after you come home from your job,' says Fung. She says that if you can afford it, buying precut vegetables that are bagged and washed can save time and make it just a little easier to cook at home. She also advises making one or two simple changes at a time if you're trying to improve your diet. 'Pick two things you want to change, and they have to be things that are changeable within your resources and that you can change for the long haul,' says Fung. 'Healthy dietary habits are never extreme.' She adds: 'Health is a long-term project.'