Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

I received an e-mailed press release from The Peanut Institute: Peanuts and Peanut Butter Support Women’s Health.

When it comes to health, women face unique challenges that call for unique nutrition. In fact, research has found that women face a higher risk of dying from heart disease than men,¹ and may be at risk for other conditions such as hypertension,² certain cancers,³ and even Alzheimer’s disease.⁴  To help women protect their health, The Peanut Institute is sharing information on the benefits that regular consumption of peanuts and peanut butter delivers to females at every stage of life.

Here are excerpts from those stages.

• Birth to 24 Months:  A child’s first two years are referred to as “B24” and are a critical time in the growth and development of the brain and body. The most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans highlights peanuts as “an important source of iron, zinc, protein, choline and long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids.”²
• For youngsters and teens: On the subject of protein, at 7 grams per ounce, peanuts have more protein than any other nut.^6. That’s especially important for girls who work out since protein helps muscles grow, recover and stay healthy.⁷ Plus, peanuts are satisfying and an easy, on-the-go snack that can be stowed in a backpack, locker or car.
• For adults and seniors: The Journal of the American Heart Association found that following a plant-based diet with nuts, legumes, fruits and veggies can lower the risk of dying prematurely from multiple causes, including cardiovascular disease, one of the leading causes of death worldwide.⁸ In addition, phytosterols, like those found in peanuts, may inhibit the growth of cancers that affect millions of women, including lung, stomach, ovarian, colon and breast cancers.^9-12

I did not look to see whether the references were funded by the peanut industry, but there is plenty of precedent.  See, for example,

• Industry-funded study of the week: Peanuts
• Annals of industry-funded research: Peanuts this time
• Industry-funded request of the week: prove peanuts healthy

But there’s more.  A reader, Monica Baer, sent me another press release from the Peanut Institute: New Gut Microbiome Research Points to Positive Impact on Memory and Mood from Peanut Consumption

Research from the University of Barcelona on the gut microbiota has found that daily consumption of peanuts and peanut butter can produce compounds in the gut that help improve memory and reduce stress response, including anxiety and depression, in healthy young adults. Findings from the ARISTOTLE study were published online in the Journal of Functional Foods this September and shared by The Peanut Institute. 

I did look up this one: Isabella Parilli-Moser, Ricardo López-Solís, Inés Domínguez-López, Anna Vallverdú-Queralt, Sara Hurtado-Barroso, Rosa M Lamuela-Raventós, Consumption of peanut products enhances the production of microbial phenolic metabolites related with memory and stress response: Results from the ARISTOTLE trial, Journal of Functional Foods, Volume 108, 2023, 105746, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2023.105746.

Funding: This work was supported by funding from the Peanut Institute.

I like peanuts.  They are legumes and real foods.  But to attribute overall health and memory function to eating peanuts seems a bit far-fetched.  That’s why the Peanut Institute is funding research: to convince you peanuts are a superfood.  There is, of course, no such thing.  Superfood is a marketing term.  Should you eat peanuts?  Sure.  Why not?

Usually, I post something about research conflicts of intereest on Mondays, but am doing that today instead.

Three readers sent news about this study to me, so for that alone it’s worth sharing.

First, the press release:

Associations between mango eaters and moms-to-be: better diets and improved nutrient intakes: New NHANES analysis reveals meals including mangos associated with higher healthy eating index and better nutrition for healthy pregnancies.

Any time you see a headline like this, your first question should be: Who paid for this?

The study: Mango Consumption Was Associated with Higher Nutrient Intake and Diet Quality in Women of Childbearing Age and Older Adults.  Kristin Fulgoni and Victor L. Fulgoni III. Nutrients 2024, 16(2), 303; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020303.

Conclusion: “This study suggests incorporating mango into the diet could increase select nutrient intake as well as diet quality in specific life stages of adult Americans.”

Funding: “This research was funded by the National Mango Board.”  [Bingo!]

Conflicts of interest: V.L.F.III and K.F. are employees of Nutrition Impact, LLC, a food and nutrition consulting firm which analyses NHANES data for numerous food and beverage companies and related entities. Nutrition Impact has a contract with the National Mango Board.

Comment: The National Mango Board contracted with the authors to produce this analysis. Its results are predictable.  Guess what: eating fruit increases intake of the nutrients contained in that fruit.  Eating fruit increases the quality of the diet.  I could have told them that.

I do love mangos, although they taste much better—like eating perfume—in their countries of origin.  I’m allergic to their skins and pits, however, and have to eat them carefully.  The Mango Board must think research results like this will increase sales.

Here’s how the Mango Board advertises this fruit:

Mangos pack a nutritional punch.

• Each serving of mango is fat free, sodium free and cholesterol free.
• Mangos contain over 20 different vitamins and minerals, helping to make them a superfood.

I learned about this one from this article:  Prune consumption may prevent bone loss for postmenopausal women.  Dietary supplementation with prunes can have a broad range of effects on immune, inflammatory and oxidative stress markers in postmenopausal women, according to a recent study…. Read more

When I see a headline like this, my first question is , as always, who would pay for something like this?

I went right to the study:  De Souza MJ, Strock NCA, Williams NI, Lee H, Koltun KJ, Rogers C, Ferruzzi MG, Nakatsu CH, Weaver C. Prunes preserve hip bone mineral density in a 12-month randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women: the Prune Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Oct 6;116(4):897-910. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac189.

Conclusion: “The results of this investigation provide compelling evidence of the long-term efficacy of daily prune consumption.”

Funding: We thank the California Prune Board (Award Number: 180215) for the funding and prunes and the participants in this study.

Author disclosures: CW and CR are members of the Nutritional Advisory Panel for the California Prune Board. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Comment: Bingo on this one.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all you had to do to prevent bone loss was to eat 5 prunes a day?   Go for it!

The study: Mixed nut consumption improves brain insulin sensitivity: a randomized, single-blinded, controlled, crossover trial in older adults with overweight or obesity.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.010

Objective: “This study aimed to investigate longer-term effects of mixed nuts on brain insulin sensitivity in older individuals with overweight/obesity.”

Methods: “In a randomized, single-blinded, controlled, crossover trial, twenty-eight healthy adults (mean±SD; 65±3 years; BMI: 27.9±2.3 kg/m²) received either daily 60 g mixed nuts (15 g of walnuts, pistachio, cashew, and hazelnuts) or no nuts (control) for 16 weeks, separated by an 8-week washout period.”

Results: “Compared with control, mixed nut consumption improved regional brain insulin action in five clusters located in the left…and right occipital lobe.

Conclusions: “Longer-term mixed nut consumption affected insulin action in brain regions involved in the modulation of metabolic and cognitive processes in older adults with overweight/obesity.”

Funding: “This study was supported by a grant obtained from the International Nuts and Dried Fruit Council (INC). The INC had no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Comment: Does this study have any clinical significance?  Body weight and composition did not change. I’m all for nut-eating—love them—but for this reason?  Hardly.  Despite what this study implies, nuts have calories and they most definitely count.

As I pretty much demonstrate every Monday, industry-funded studies almost invariably produce results favoring the sponsor’s interests.

But here we have a rare exception to the rule:

• The study: Effect of cocoa extract supplementation on cognitive function: results from the clinic subcohort of the COSMOS trial.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,Volume 119, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 39-48.
• Objective: “To test whether daily supplementation with CE, compared with placebo, produces better cognitive change over 2 y.”
• Conclusions: “Among 573 older adults who underwent repeat in-person, detailed neuropsychological assessments over 2 y, daily CE supplementation, compared with placebo, showed no overall benefits for global or domain-specific cognitive function. Possible cognitive benefits of CE among those with poorer diet quality warrant further study.”
• Funding: The Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars dedicated to nutrition research and products, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon) provided support through the partial provision of study pills and packaging.

Comment: Why anyone would think that cocoa extract would have any efffect at all on cognitive function is beyond me, but I, in sharp contrast to Mars, am not trying to sell cocoa extract or convince anyone that M&Ms are a health food.  But, as seems invariably the case, the investigators did give Mars a small break in favorably finding “possible” cognitive benefits of cocoa extract for people eating terrible diets.  My prediction: further studies will not find benefits of cocoa extract—or M&Ms—on cognitive function even though eating M&Ms can be lots of fun.

Jim Krieger, of Healthy Food America forwarded this request for research proposals (RFP) from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Senior Director of Human Nutrition Research.,

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease… As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a preproposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project. Pre-proposals must meet the submission deadline and follow the guidelines in the RFP to be considered. Principal Investigators may submit more than one pre-proposal. Please share this RFP with interested colleagues

PRE-PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY Wednesday April 3, 2024 at 11:59pm MT.

Submit a Pre-Proposal here to join our RFP email list and get information about new research funding opportunities.

Comment: This is how industry funded research begins.  The RFP is not open-ended; it is not asking you to find out whether beef has benefits.  If you want this funding, you had best come up with a research plan highly likely to demonstrate the benefits of beef in nourishing and optimizing health—otherwise, it won’t be funded. This is the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff at work.

Here’s your chance!

I’ve posted several studies sponsored by the blueberry industry , most recently on their effects on menopausal symptoms.  Blueberry trade associations, as I discuss in my book Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat, led the way in promoting research suggesting this fruit is a “superfood.”

If only.

They are still at it, apparently, but sponsorship does not always guarantee the desired outcome.  Here is a rare exception to the rule that industry-sponsored studies almost invariably give results favorable to the sponsor’s marketing interest.  Let’s give credit where it is due.

• The study:  Chronic and postprandial effect of blueberries on cognitive function, alertness, and mood in participants with metabolic syndrome – results from a six-month, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  Available online 6 February 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.006
• Methods: “A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted, assessing the primary effect of consuming freeze-dried blueberry powder, compared against an isocaloric placebo, on cardiometabolic health >6 mo and a 24 h postprandial period (at baseline).”
• Results: “Postprandial self-rated calmness significantly improved after 1 cup of blueberries (P = 0.01; q = 0.04; with an 11.6% improvement compared with baseline between 0 and 24 h for the 1 cup group), but all other mood, sleep, and cognitive function parameters were unaffected after postprandial and 6-mo blueberries.”
• Conclusion: “Although self-rated calmness improved postprandially, and significant cognition-metabolite associations were identified, our data did not support strong cognitive, mood, alertness, or sleep quality improvements in MetS participants after blueberry intervention.”
• Conflict of interest: “AC reports financial support provided by the US Highbush Blueberry Council (USHBC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, UK). AC and EBR both act as advisors and consultants to the United States Highbush Blueberry Council grant committee. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.”
• Funding: “This work was supported by the United States Highbush Blueberry Council with oversight from the USDA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (United Kingdom). The funders of this research had no involvement in this publication and have placed no restrictions on the publication of these data.”

Comment: In this instance, the last statement could well be correct (it isn’t always, alas).  I like blueberries but they are not a superfood.  There is no such thing as a superfood.  If you want to eat healthfully, by all means eat fruit—and enjoy the ones you like best.

I learned about this one from a commentary from Yoni Freedhoff, MD: Kimchi: Not Magically Protective Against Weight Gain.

• The study: Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study.  BMJ Open.  2024 Jan 30;14(2):e076650.  doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076650.
• Participants: “This study analysed 115 726 participants aged 40-69 years enrolled in the Health Examinees study in Korea.”
• Results: “In men, total kimchi consumption of 1-3 servings/day was related to a lower prevalence of obesity (OR: 0.875 in 1-2 servings/day and OR: 0.893 in 2-3 servings/day) compared with total kimchi consumption of <1 serving/day. Also, men with the highest baechu kimchi (cabbage kimchi) consumption had 10% lower odds of obesity and abdominal obesity. Participants who consumed kkakdugi (radish kimchi) ≥median were inversely associated with 8% in men and 11% in women with lower odds of abdominal obesity compared with non-consumers, respectively.”
• Conclusions:  “This large cross-sectional study described the association between kimchi consumption and obesity. In conclusion, total kimchi consumption of 1–3 servings/day was shown to be reversely associated with obesity in men. Regarding the type of kimchi, baechu kimchi was associated with a lower prevalence of obesity in men, and kkakdugi was associated with a lower prevalence of abdominal obesity in both men and women. However, since all results showed a ‘J-shaped’ association, excessive consumption suggests the potential for an increase in obesity prevalence. As kimchi is one of the major sources of sodium intake, a moderate amount of kimchi should be recommended for the health benefits of its other components. In addition, further investigation and prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between kimchi consumption and obesity.”
• Competing interests: “HJ and SS have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study. Y-RY and SWH are members of the staff at the World Institute of Kimchi.”
• Funding: “This research was supported by grants from the World Institute of Kimchi (KE2201-1) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea.”

Dr. Freedhoff ‘s analysis of the data:

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

Comment: Why anyone would expect kimchi (spicy fermented vegetables such as cabbage) to affect obesity one way or the other is beyond me, but the World Institute of Kimchi must want more people to eat it.  Does anyone need an excuse to eat kimchi?  It’s great on its own without needing this kind of claim.  This study is about marketing, not science.